You can not fault MS for selling such an agreement. It is there's to sell, and it is up to you weather to buy it or not. You can commision (or hire) techs to custom build systems for you with no OS, and possibly (with a good buying negotiator) get then really cheap.
Absolutely, you have a choice as to whether to sign up for the EA agreement or not. And like I said, it's usually cheaper just to pay for the other machines as well...but that doesn't mean that I like to do it anyway.
As far as getting machines custom built for a business. It's hard to find a company willing to go that route. They often standardize across the entire company and need contacts and warranty service and the like. They need spare parts to be just about the same. Heck, i've struggled in these companies to purchase even test lab boxes from NewEgg for something rather than getting a standard issue Dell regardless of whether it meets my needs better or is cheaper.
WHHHAAAA,, mommy, they are too big, I don't like it, we need to knock them down using the gov't.
Yeah, said like that's it's pretty silly. But there could be quite a bit more going on behind the scenes that we as consumers just aren't aware of.
Please try to prove the statement I've highlighted in bold. How do you figure that these companies are "required" to use only Windows?
I didn't say they were required, I said it's like they are almost required to do it.
Dell, at least at one point, was selling Ubuntu on netbooks.
Yes, and they have sold Linux on a few select desktops. But they are hard to find and often cost more than a Windows version of the same computer. It doesn't make sense that it would cost more...if you can negate the OEM cost of Windows on the machine.
The major OEMs use Windows because that's all there is significant demand for (Apple wouldn't let them use Mac OS anyway). Every OEM could offer Linux as an option on all their computers tomorrow, and the market share would barely shift. They don't offer it because there's very little demand for it.
Like I said, I use and like Windows. I realize there is far more demand for it. That's fine with me... But I do feel that some business practices certainly do give the appearance of having a monopoly or trying to shut out competition in the marketspace.
I'm a firm believer that MS stands on it's own and that is what most consumers want. I think they could really dial in the heavy handed practices and still be on top by a massive amount. While I don't have personal experiences of shady practices...I think a few minutes on Google researching things over the past few years would show that MS can and does really play hard ball And they have the lawyers and money to tie up litigation forever. I just don't think these measures are required.
At the end of the day, I know there are choices. MS is not the only OS that I have on my computers.
