What OS do most non-USA computers come with nowadays?

On 1/30/2017 8:08 AM, Mayayana wrote:
"VanguardLH" wrote

| If you don't follow the lemmings that buy pre-builts and instead build
| your own, you can put any OS on it (well, any OS that supports the
| hardware you used).
|
| If I'm building a Linux box, my hardware requirements are lower. If I'm
| building a Windows box, my hardware requirements are higher hence the
| box is more expensive.

I wouldn't entirely disagree, but... hardware is
so powerful these days that there's no need to
get more powerful stuff for anything other than
obsessive gaming. I just built a Win7 box for
about $650, including a 6-3.5 MHz-core AMD
CPU, an SSD and a regular hard disk. The graphics,
audio and network are all on the board, for $55.
The total included the overpriced Windows disk,
which would have been the only savings with Linux.
With a $100 CPU and a $55 board, there's not
much that can be trimmed from that cost. Yet
it's crazy powerful.


Here are good examples of opposing needs requiring very different levels
of hardware. Mayayana's needs are simple compared to some (who are not
gamers, by the way). The audio cards in my DAW cost more than your
entire system, and I couldn't do my work with less. The graphics card
and calibration hardware in my DGW cost more than your entire system,
and again I couldn't do my work with less.

The good thing about Windows is that the OS can run the requisite
software for either end of the spectrum, and I fully understand why such
an OS is a bargain at the price. Unlike under loonix, I can spend my
time working rather than working around the shortcomings, so the
effective cost of the OS over its lifetime is effectively zero.

--
best regards,

Neil

VanguardLH replied:

The OP never mentioned if he only wanted to discuss desktops used by end
users or would include all OS deployments, like those for web servers
and other enterprise-level operations

My mistake.
I was only thinking home computers bought from box stores.

I do realize very much that rack servers are a different thing altogether.

VanguardLH replied:

I tend to do the opposite: see what apps, including games, that I want
to play and then see on what platform they run. Games are too short-
lived to waste an entire computer on just that criteria. While I might
build a gaming platform, that is to play the games that I want that are
available now but that same computer is used as a platform for other
apps that require that platform.

When I buy a car, it meets my criteria for how I will use a car. I
don't buy a semi and then try to use it for everything, like driving to
and from work and to go grocery shopping.

My philosophy would be to enable dual boot.
When you need games (which I never play), you'd go Windows.
When you are just doing stuff, I'd go Linux.
When you need MS Office, I'd go Windows.

In the middle I'd have a common SSD (speed) or HDD (size) partition for
mutual data.

VanguardLH replied:

If I'm building a Linux box, my hardware requirements are lower. If I'm
building a Windows box, my hardware requirements are higher hence the
box is more expensive. If I'm building a gaming box, it's a Windows box
(due to the dearth of Linux video games) but it doesn't have to be a
Win10 box. Just whatever the games demand. Typically I look at what I
want the OS to run and then choose the OS, not ass backwards and choose
the OS to then see what it will run.

I understood your gaming considerations above (since most games are on
Windows and they require more CPU and separate GPU cards and hotter power
supplies) but I didn't understand the CPU motherboard requirement between
just Microsoft Windows versus Linux.

Why would Linux boxes have lower requirements than Windows boxes when
you're building your own desktop?

PAS replied:

I don't think I would agree that the cost of a Windows license is
absurd. People pay hundreds of dollars for licenses for software like
Photoshop and others. Is $120 an absurd price for the OS that you need
to run all of the other software on? I don't think so. The cost of MS
Office, that's another story

How much extra are we paying for a PC with Windows on it?
Does anyone know?

I suspect it's not the $120 retail price, but what is the price to the OEM
manufacturer of the pc?

Mayayana replied:

But MS have always made
their profits by monopoly. And they have a worldwide
monopoly on the only true productivity operating
system. So I don't see why they'd do things
differently in Europe than in the US.

It seems from the answers, that in Europe, the MS monopoly on new X86/X64
computers is the same as it is in the USA.

That's pretty much all that I was asking about.
Personally, I would prefer to save the money (whatever it costs the OEM)
for Windows 10, and choose my own operating system.

That way I could choose an old WinXP or a Win7 or a Linux that I already
have, and save the money, since they all do the same thing (essentially)
nowadays anyway.

For most of the past, only MS Office and
Windows made a profit. Everything else lost
money. Both are monopoly products, which
enables them to charge absurd prices for those
products.

I have to agree with you that Office is a monopoly that has never been
shaken even though plenty of free office like software abounds.

Even the powerful Google hasn't been able to shake office off the
monopolistic pedestal. I use a very old version of Office simply because I
have the original installation discs even though I could use a modern free
version of any of many replacement office suites simply because everyone
else uses office documents.

So I do it for sheer compatibility, and yet, I know they all "say" they're
compatible, and for simple documents, they are compatible, but not for
complex documents (which you'll eventually run into).

Their real product was and is monopoly.
(Yes, there's Libre Office and Linux, but the
business world uses almost exclusively Windows
and MS Office. And MS works hard to make it
very difficult for them to switch.)

On this you are very true. They sell monopoly.
They sell 'interactivity with other business documents.
They sell even that everyone knows their menus, so that's a productivity
and training boost for companies.

They do have clever marketing indeed.

Allegedly the MS cloud products are now turning
a good profit, but I don't know the details. I wonder
if anyone outside of MS *really* knows the details.

Their stock is doing quite well this week.

They also make something over $1 billion/year by
threatening Android phone makers with patent
lawsuits.

Really? Android?
I thought that was Apple, Samsung, LG, Qualcomm, etc. that fought that
legal patent stuff on Android.


Nearly all of them pay protection
money to Microsoft, even though, last I heard,
MS hadn't even said which patents they claimed
were being infringed. So Microsoft is making
more on Linux than on most of their own products!

http://www.businessinsider.com/micro...alties-2013-11

So.... Windows is primarily a monopoly product
but MS has been branching out and showing
themselves to be very resourceful. How will that
affect the Windows monopoly? That's hard to say.
Is there any reason that they might not find it
sensible at some point to drop Windows and just
run services over Linux kiosk devices? Maybe they
will do that, if it works out for them.

I had predicted ten years or so ago that Linux would kill Microsoft.
HINT: Don't follow any of my predictions!

I mean, Linux does everything that Windows does, except Microsoft Office
(essentially). And a few games.

Otherwise, they're the same thing just like iOS and Android do the same
things.

HINT: I also predicted the demise of iOS when Android 4.x came out.

Suggestion: Don't follow any of my predictions.

Bill Gates famously
tried to talk Warren Buffet into buying MS stock
with the argument that MS can't lose because they
get a "Windows tax" on every computer sold. Some
people may remember that back around 2000 MS
was actually threatening white box builders, claiming
that selling a box without an OS was tantamount
to software theft because anyone buying an empty
computer must surely be putting an illegal OS on it.

Interesting. Because I want just that. I want a PC that has no OS on it.
Some day I am going to build my own, but I generally use laptops but
if/when I need a desktop, I would love to build my own.

a. I'd buy a glass-door-sided case with a bunch of fan holes
b. I'd buy a power supply of lots of wattage & multiple fans
c. I'd pop a medium-end Intel or AMD motherboard in there
d. And I'd add a medium-end Intel or AMD CPU with integral graphics
e. I'd probably not put a separate graphics card (I don't play games)
f. But I'd fill the motherboard with medium-speed RAM (price sensitive)
g. I'd slide a smallish (cheaper) SSD in there for fast booting
h. I'd then put a largish (slower) HDD for storage reasons
i. I'd probably add a blueray/dvd/cd optical drive
j. And as many fast USB/graphics/ethernet ports as makes sense
k. And then I'd put a cheap medium size display monitor on top
l. I'd slap on cheap speakers, wireless keyboard & wireless mouse
m. And then I'd pop in an Ubuntu/Kubuntu CDROM (but not Unity)
n. For Windows & office, I'd dual-boot to WinXP & and older Office

I think we have to install the Windows first and use GRUB second to get the
Linux to be the primary boot partition, so I might reverse steps m and n
above out of necessity.

Also I'd avoid anything with Nvidia graphics on it, if I could, simply
because Nvidia is hell on Linux somethings (kernal shims of the Nvidia
binary and all that stuff that Nvidia unnecessarily forces upon the users).

How's that for a future plan should I ever want a desktop over a laptop?
1. It would be Linux primarily (since that does almost everything)
2. It would be Windows when necessary (because that's the standard)

The Windows would be the cheapest (hopefully free) Windows I can get as
would the Office be the same (probably an older version that I already have
the original installation discs for).

They were claiming that while they were also making
big money selling Windows disks at retail! The
intention was just to prevent people using Linux
without paying off MS. And later the cost of PCs
dropped, so that white box builders went out of
business, anyway.

I have older Windows original installation discs because you used to get
them from the manufacturer and some work with anything (while others
don't). Likewise with older Office disks, but nowadays, I think, office is
a download so all you need is the serial number which will work with three
machines (I think).

It's harder and harder to get a "free" Windows or Office installation disc
nowadays. Dunno what's different other than they don't give them to you
anymore when you buy a new PC (and they haven't for a long time, which is
why mine are all older versions dating back to when they did).

Mayayana replied:

She addressed that in the original post, though it
wasn't entirely clear. She was really asking whether
all Windows computers have Win10.

I was kind of hoping that, in the non-Microsoft world, that the X86/X64 PCs
came with "nothing".

That would (a) save a hundred bucks (or whatever Windows costs the
manufacturer) and (b) allow me to put on whatever I wanted.

Once Windows is on there, I tend to use what was on there (out of sheer
convenience) so, it would be Windows 10 in the USA (which, of course, is
Microsoft's plan all along).

It's amazing how two simple marketing decisions rule the world:
1. Apple gives stuff away for free to educational institutions, and,
2. Windows pretty much must do something similar for OEM PC manufacturers

I would like it if PCs came with no operating system and you just loaded
whatever you wanted from there.

Ken Springer replied:

In the usa, in a big box store, it's Windows or Windows.

Not technically true. :-)

Best Buy has a Mac section, and sells Chromebooks, which is based on Linux.

Microcenter stores, at least the one in Denver, Colorado, USA, has a Mac
section.

Just an FYI.

Yes. I know. I didn't have the legal words to caveat out the fact that
there are Apple devices (which, of course, come with another OS) and there
are Google devices (which come with a different OS).

But if it's a "PC", it really "can" come with one of three realistic OSs:
1. Windows (usually the latest at the time of manufacture)
2. Nothing (this is what I'd prefer, personally)
3. Linux (of which there are many, but Ubuntu would likely be #1)

I wish X86/X64 PCs came with nothing, personally.
That would drop the cost by (I don't know) maybe 100 bucks (I don't know
what the cost of the operating system is when done this way though).

And, for the thirty-cent price of a Ubuntu Linux ISO dvd disc, I could save
that hundred bucks (or whatever) and load the Linux on there.

At this point, Linux does everything that Windows does, within reason, in
that the only thing that won't work native on Linux that you really need is
Microsoft Office. (Yes, I'm completely aware of all the office
alternatives, but you have to interact with the rest of the world also, who
uses Microsoft Office. And, yes, I'm completely aware of Windows emulation
such as Wine and Windows VMs such as VMware although I've never used them
myself).

So, I would just like to save my hundred bucks and install Linux off a
thirty-cent disc, and I'd have a perfectly good operating system, without
all that Windows 10 touchscreen crapware just making a mess of things.

PS: I probably should not have said the above in this ng, so, please don't
respond viscously. I apologize in advance for my hatred of the Windows 10
menus.

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10.
Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

The only problem I have with each release of Windows is that I seem to know
something extremely simple that Microsoft never seems to comprehend.

I think Microsoft "tries" to solve the main problem which is that the
average Mom-and-Pop-and-their-average-kids can't "find" anything when they
need to find things.

Apple gets around that by using a "finder" search mechanism (such as
sliverlight and Microsoft tries to get around it with that doggy thing in
WinXP and the Cortana thing in Win10 and the menu abomination in Windows 8
& Windows 10).

But I think the right approach is so simple that I shouldn't even have to
explain it.

I think the right approach is to never use any of the default menus or
default folders. I have nothing against them other than it's just too hard
to keep them clean and organized since every software installed makes a
mess of the default folders and menus.

So, the simple trick is just to not use them.
Make your own.

You don't need many folder, really. Just a few, all of which can be below a
single "mystuff" hierarchy. The rule to follow is that anything you want to
save, you put in your mystuff hierarchy. That's it. It doesn't get simpler
than that.

Same with the menus. You create a "mymenu" outside of the normal menu (but
it can be right next to it). And when you install stuff, you let that stuff
pop a shortcut on the desktop (most of them will do that for you). Then,
you just move that shortcut on the desktop into the hierarchy of your
mymenu, which should likely be at least two levels deep, but it can be as
flat or hierarchical as you want it to be.

There are %program files% folders you can play with also, but, I rarely
care where programs go, but you can put them where you want also for most
programs (although some are so dumb as to not ask, or even dumber, like
iTunes, where they ask, but they still put half their stuff in %program
files%).

In the olden days, I used to change the location for the %default%
locations, but, I found that some apps had the location hard coded to
C:\program files\ while others uses the %program dir% and other variables,
so, I just gave up and called it "C:\myapps" and all was well and organized
ever since.

Likewise with the three types of "temp" folders (usertemp, systemp, etc.).
I used to organize them under c:\temp\{user,sys,etc.) (I forget them all),
but nowadays, I give up on organizing the temporary directories and just
create a C:\temp for my own personal use, allowing the OS to deal with the
other default temp directories.

I found that by consciously storing things in non-default locations, and by
never consciously using the default locations for menus, installations,
temporary files, and data, then I know where EVERYTHING I need lies.

Everything.

My summary is that this little secret is completely unknown to Microsoft.
So they add huge layers of crapware on top of Windows with each release to
solve a problem that can be solved instantly simply by never using the
default locations for anything.

Neil replied:

Here are good examples of opposing needs requiring very different levels
of hardware. Mayayana's needs are simple compared to some (who are not
gamers, by the way). The audio cards in my DAW cost more than your
entire system, and I couldn't do my work with less. The graphics card
and calibration hardware in my DGW cost more than your entire system,
and again I couldn't do my work with less.

The good thing about Windows is that the OS can run the requisite
software for either end of the spectrum, and I fully understand why such
an OS is a bargain at the price. Unlike under loonix, I can spend my
time working rather than working around the shortcomings, so the
effective cost of the OS over its lifetime is effectively zero.

Even though I like the price of Linux, I have to agree with you that the
effective cost of the operating system in the end is zero given that it
lasts the life of the hardware.

The perfect system, I would think, is dual boot, with a common partition in
the middle. For me, for what I do (which is only basic web browsing, email,
and a few minor apps), Linux and Windows do all that easily.

I'd keep a dual boot, booting to Linux most of the time (for sheer speed)
and then just using Windows when I had an app that only worked on Windows
such as Microsoft Office).

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10. Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

My experience too, except for Vista which I did not like.

I'd say Vista was one of the biggest improvements.

I mostly do web browsing, email, and Microsoft Office on Windows.
Pretty much, that's it.

For *that*, none are better, and, in fact, the newer ones are worse in that
I have to figure out why they made something so simple (such as finding my
data) so complex, by default.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:26:04 +0000 (UTC), Ann Dunham
wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10. Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

My experience too, except for Vista which I did not like.

I'd say Vista was one of the biggest improvements.

I mostly do web browsing, email, and Microsoft Office on Windows.
Pretty much, that's it.

For *that*, none are better, and, in fact, the newer ones are worse in that
I have to figure out why they made something so simple (such as finding my
data) so complex, by default.

Not really my experience. My take is that they are different and it
is simply a matter of getting used to each system.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:13:20 -0000, Ann Dunham wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10.
Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

The only problem I have with each release of Windows is that I seem to know
something extremely simple that Microsoft never seems to comprehend.

I think Microsoft "tries" to solve the main problem which is that the
average Mom-and-Pop-and-their-average-kids can't "find" anything when they
need to find things.

Apple gets around that by using a "finder" search mechanism (such as
sliverlight and Microsoft tries to get around it with that doggy thing in
WinXP and the Cortana thing in Win10 and the menu abomination in Windows 8
& Windows 10).

But I think the right approach is so simple that I shouldn't even have to
explain it.

I think the right approach is to never use any of the default menus or
default folders. I have nothing against them other than it's just too hard
to keep them clean and organized since every software installed makes a
mess of the default folders and menus.

So, the simple trick is just to not use them.
Make your own.

You don't need many folder, really. Just a few, all of which can be below a
single "mystuff" hierarchy. The rule to follow is that anything you want to
save, you put in your mystuff hierarchy. That's it. It doesn't get simpler
than that.

Same with the menus. You create a "mymenu" outside of the normal menu (but
it can be right next to it). And when you install stuff, you let that stuff
pop a shortcut on the desktop (most of them will do that for you). Then,
you just move that shortcut on the desktop into the hierarchy of your
mymenu, which should likely be at least two levels deep, but it can be as
flat or hierarchical as you want it to be.

There are %program files% folders you can play with also, but, I rarely
care where programs go, but you can put them where you want also for most
programs (although some are so dumb as to not ask, or even dumber, like
iTunes, where they ask, but they still put half their stuff in %program
files%).

In the olden days, I used to change the location for the %default%
locations, but, I found that some apps had the location hard coded to
C:\program files\ while others uses the %program dir% and other variables,
so, I just gave up and called it "C:\myapps" and all was well and organized
ever since.

Likewise with the three types of "temp" folders (usertemp, systemp, etc.).
I used to organize them under c:\temp\{user,sys,etc.) (I forget them all),
but nowadays, I give up on organizing the temporary directories and just
create a C:\temp for my own personal use, allowing the OS to deal with the
other default temp directories.

I found that by consciously storing things in non-default locations, and by
never consciously using the default locations for menus, installations,
temporary files, and data, then I know where EVERYTHING I need lies.

Everything.

My summary is that this little secret is completely unknown to Microsoft.
So they add huge layers of crapware on top of Windows with each release to
solve a problem that can be solved instantly simply by never using the
default locations for anything.

Why do you have a problem just putting your document in documents? You're behaving like a new secretary who is shown which filing cabinet everything goes in, then decides to rearrange the way it's always been done.

--
When you're having a really bad day and it seems like people are trying to **** you off, remember it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to extend your middle finger.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:26:04 -0000, Ann Dunham wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10. Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

My experience too, except for Vista which I did not like.

I'd say Vista was one of the biggest improvements.

I mostly do web browsing, email, and Microsoft Office on Windows.
Pretty much, that's it.

For *that*, none are better, and, in fact, the newer ones are worse in that
I have to figure out why they made something so simple (such as finding my
data) so complex, by default.

In what way has finding your data ever been complicated? Try using a tablet, then you'll never find it!

--
FART stands for FAst Repetitive Ticks, and herrings use them to communicate.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:06:42 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 20:26:04 -0000, Ann Dunham wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword replied:

I have no problem using Windows 10. Every Windows I've used has been better than the last.

My experience too, except for Vista which I did not like.

I'd say Vista was one of the biggest improvements.

I mostly do web browsing, email, and Microsoft Office on Windows.
Pretty much, that's it.

For *that*, none are better, and, in fact, the newer ones are worse in that
I have to figure out why they made something so simple (such as finding my
data) so complex, by default.

In what way has finding your data ever been complicated? Try using a tablet, then you'll never find it!

By that I think I mean Android tablets - whatever Tesco HUDL uses, my neighbour's one completely eludes me where any files are, what programs are running, etc, etc.

--
Two crows together is an attempted murder.