OEMs Flee to No OS. Even M$ Flees “8”

“Due to Windows 8 havomg failed to boost consumer demand as expected and notebook prices are seeing difficulties to drop further, some first-tier notebook vendors have decided to increase their supplies for models without an OS to push their shipment performances.”
see First-tier vendors to supply more notebook models with no OS.
Wintel_Crumbling
There goes the Wintel monopoly. It’s foundation is crumbling. Wintel has only one leg upon which to stand now, that restrictive EULA. Fortunately, that’s easy to get around. JUST DON’T BUY THEIR DAMNED OS!

I recommend Debian GNU/Linux. It will work for you and not for M$.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to OEMs Flee to No OS. Even M$ Flees “8”

  1. With the failure of “8” OEMs who do not implement UEFI may find a healthy niche for years to come. They should have “non-UEFI” etc. in their ads to let Google find them. I guess “-UEFI” might work, too.

  2. ram says:

    There a quite a number of OEM’s who have NOT sided with Microsoft in the UEFI lockdown. Little companies, that you may have not heard of, like Intel 😉 Or, how about, Shuttle?

    Of course, there are many ‘smaller’ companies that also supply Linux machines only. Google can supply plenty of examples.

    Or just visit your local, ‘white box’ Chinese computer store. Or how about ‘gamers’ running multiprocessor Linux server boards in giant cases (two chips, 16 cores, 32 threads)? Now that is what I call ‘enthusist’!

  3. oiaohm says:

    bw documentation exists proving “… Recommends Windows” is paid for came out in Anti-trust investigations of Microsoft.

    Endorsement is advertisement. Its a idiot arguement to attempt to say its not.

    This does not fall under false advertising because its not a lie. Cash for comment comes under Deceptive Advertising.

    Deceptive advertising where you pretend to be giving an Endorsement but you were paid todo the Endorsement so the person seeing the Endorsement can think that you were giving it as a independent third party.

    The Australian laws don’t say you cannot give Endorsements. Just you have to be-careful that its truly your point view and not something you have been paid to say. Basically if you have been paid for an Endorsement you are advertising and you have to declare that you were paid for it here in Australia.

    Undeclared Advertising and False Advertising are two different things bw. Both can fall under Deceptive Advertising. To be Deceptive you don’t have to lie.

    Its like the 2 Dollars and over sale. This is not False Advertising if the cheapest item in the store is 2 dollars. But this is Deceptive Advertising because people could presume that lots are items are 2 dollars when you only have 1 item that is 2 dollars.

    bw Deceptive Advertising is where what the person believes by reading it is not the reality.

    Like Dell Recommends Windows. They are free to believe that Dell has not been paid for that and that is a true independent option to Microsoft.

    Now it will not look as good if on the sites it reads Microsoft Recommend Windows or Dell Recommends Windows(Paid for by Microsoft). That is how it would have to be written on an Australian site since it known as paid for.

    bw the deception is not the line its the fact they have not mentioned they have been paid for it.

    Undeclared advertising is a very particular problem. Where the person reading it does not see that what they are reading is paid for advertising.

    You will see that people will attempt to argue that Endorsements don’t fall into advertising.

    Everyone is free to Advertise anything as long as they don’t be Deceptive. Deceptive include lieing what is false advertising most common, trickery what is the 2 dollar and over example and omission where you fail to say something that the party reading should know. To be correct used car salesman are masters of the art of omission and they do get into trouble over it all the time and hit for Deceptive Advertising and Sales.

    Undeclared advertising is a form of omission offence under Deceptive Advertising.

    Basically bw go and read about Deceptive Advertising offences.

  4. bw says:

    “so at some point that undeclared advertising on-line is going to stop or CEOs are going to be sitting in jail for allow it to be done”

    The “… Recommends Windows” is an endorsement, not an advertising claim. It is self-evident on its face. Also, false advertising would be a civil complaint and the offending company would be fined. There would never be any jail time for such a thing. Learn the law. Remember high school civics?

  5. oiaohm says:

    Ted that is not on Australian hosting Australian government cannot touch them yet.

    Dell, hp and Lenovo is not an Australian company or using Australian hosting so they get away with it at this time.

    There are some proposed law on book to allow subsidiary of multi-nationals to be sued for such offences but this will not be required in the USA case.

    The FTC in the USA will come into alignment with Australia as required by the Free Trade Agreement between USA and Australia.

    http://diannej.com/blog/2012/05/new-ftc-rules-on-writing-reviews-affiliations-and-sponsored-posts/ Yes this was aligning with existing Australian rules. In fact this law might be just vague enough to sue Dell, Hp and Lenovo over that comment on there website. As its still a comment not an marked advertisement.

    Ted so at some point that undeclared advertising on-line is going to stop or CEOs are going to be sitting in jail for allow it to be done.

    The FTC laws on the matter will become more and more identical to the Australian laws on the Matter. The free trade agreement with Australia goes both ways. We require the USA to change some of their laws if we would change some of ours.

  6. Cheap. That site may not be an Australian site. Dell.com.au changes to dell.com/au as soon as you get to that recommendation…

    When I attempt traceroute both FQDNs disappear into the USA.

  7. Ted says:

    Notzed – ““Lenovo recommends Windows.”, apparently.”

    Oiaohm – “notzed of course they do. Microsoft pays them to print that. In Australia this would be illegal due to laws around cash for comment.”

    Illegal? Really? From three Australian websites…

    http://www.dell.com/au/p?~ck=mn
    “Dell recommends Windows”

    http://h20386.www2.hp.com/AustraliaStore/images/AUOLS_R2/products.html#/u=1,0,0
    “HP recommends Windows”

    http://shopap.lenovo.com/au/en/products/laptops/
    “Lenovo recommends Windows”

  8. eug says:

    I personally don´t use/like ubuntu.
    I´m using Mint.
    But this article is interesting…

    http://www.datamation.com/open-source/dispelling-fud-about-ubuntu-1.html

  9. dougman says:

    Balrog, ignores the facts regarding M$ and monopoly power.

    http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm

    Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market.

    DOJ, mentions “monopoly” twenty-nine times.

    Further reading information:

    http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.txt.html

    http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/press_releases/1998/1764.htm

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/what-happened-to-the-microsoft-monopoly/

  10. ram says:

    That is good news, especially with respect to those problematic notebooks. I look forward to my wholesaler offering them.

  11. oiaohm says:

    notzed of course they do. Microsoft pays them to print that. In Australia this would be illegal due to laws around cash for comment.

    http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux-laptop-lctp.html

    notzed the provider was providing Ubuntu. Lenovo will not pay Ubuntu to certify. In fact they will not pay anyone to certify. Best you can get is 1 free laptop of each model to certify with from Lenovo. But they will want it back in 6 months unless you can make ground for on going development need then they will talk payment plan.

    Basically no such thing as free lunch from Lenovo. Last Lenovo certified Ubuntu is the last one that Ubuntu did for free.

    notzed specialist Ubuntu seller got reported as a everything Linux problem. When its a Ubuntu particular problem with there certification process.

  12. notzed says:

    Well they’re not selling any laptops here like that, and wasn’t there some specialist linux laptop reseller somewhere that just gave up because they couldn’t get any?

    You can’t even get an AMD lenovo laptop here ffs, it’s wintel 100%.

    “Lenovo recommends Windows.”, apparently.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Der Balrog now something is wrong. Microsoft in the past have been able to make OEM vendors not provide OS Less. OS Less still equals a drop in income for Microsoft.

    This is the problem Microsoft has. Linux is not effected by these things.

    Der Balrog OS Less is kinda mandated to install other OS’s simply. Windows 8 install requirements demand UEFI on and locked. OS Less state you can let end users take control of the UEFI straight off the bat.

    Long run there is nothing that says this is beneficial. Microsoft under Gates said let china pirate today we will catch up with them in future. Its 10 years latter and Microsoft has been unable to shutdown OS Less for more than a few years.

    There comes a point where Microsoft and Others will have to accept the fact software copyright infringement in some countries is not stoppable. Not like this bothers Redhat you want there support you have to call Redhat and you have to have paid redhat.

    Linux models are not effected by software copyright infringement problems as much. Even so Linux is having issues with some hardware vendors in china and infringement on GPL. Some insane using no longer supported GPL code bases thinking no one will notice. Yes using ecos that redhat killed in 2009 redhat still notices.

  14. oe says:

    Haven’t had ANY interest installing Windows since 2005…Linux flavours have all become too good, Ubuntu, Andriod, ChromeOS. In fact I’d avoid anything made for Windows now as it’ll have the UEFI poison pill on it. Obstinately put in for security, this was a nakedly obvious attempt to extend and extinguish the FOSS OS option.

  15. Der Balrog says:

    Typical Pogson logic. What will end up being installed on these notebooks? Windows, most likely pirated. That’s the way it is in China. So, yeah, this is indeed beneficial in the long run — for Microsoft.

    But this post of yours is interesting mainly for one reason: you officially have declared the Windows “monopoly” (or what you think is, no, was a “monopoly”) dead. The Digitimes article also states it clearly:

    Shipments of notebook models without the Windows operating system have always existed […].

    There never was a “monopoly” to begin with.

    So I hope we won’t hear you parroting the same old drivel — that Windows is an imaginary “monopoly” — in the future.

  16. I’m ok with Chrome OS because it seems reasonable to hand Google a little money to help us fight M$. In the long run, though, we may find that Chrome OS ends up being a “gateway” operating system that leads people along the path to freedom.

Leave a Reply