Dell loves Ubuntu.

[duragezic]

Probably due to more support required.

Even linux in 2008 isn't as easy to use as windows. Someone who knows windows well and sees that option at Dell thinks "oh sweet, I'm gonna get linux and be a hacker! neeeaaaahhh" only to get it and not have a clue and bug Dell with every problem. It's just not as easy to use. I like to talk a lot of crap to a friend who loves linux, just to give him a hard time, and even he will admit something like "linux users spend way more time just getting things to work than windows users".

I'd like to think spyware/malware on the average users Vista pc is far less than XP do to updates that many don't bother with, good built-in protection, and most importantly no admin account as default.

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: duragezic
Probably due to more support required.

Even linux in 2008 isn't as easy to use as windows. Someone who knows windows well and sees that option at Dell thinks "oh sweet, I'm gonna get linux and be a hacker! neeeaaaahhh" only to get it and not have a clue and bug Dell with every problem. It's just not as easy to use. I like to talk a lot of crap to a friend who loves linux, just to give him a hard time, and even he will admit something like "linux users spend way more time just getting things to work than windows users".

I'd like to think spyware/malware on the average users Vista pc is far less than XP do to updates that many don't bother with, good built-in protection, and most importantly no admin account as default.

Vista is an awesome OS, and you are right about getting things to work. I've tried Linux on and off for years and went back to Windows every time.
As for hypothetical user that will go "neeeaaaahhh", he should install Linux on his old PC

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: Crucial
I would attribute it to the lack of 3rd party bloatware thats not installed on the ubuntu system. Dell makes money having all that crap preinstalled and is partly why they can sell them so cheaply. I'm assuming the ubunto versions don't come with all that and therefore they aren't getting paid for the additions. I don't know if I agree with the supply and demand argument for this since they aren't making a different laptop for the ubuntu versions. it's just a different HD image.

Bingo :thumbsup: thats what I just was going to write.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: duragezic
Probably due to more support required.

It's been mentioned several times why the Ubuntu machine costs more:

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
You can thank all the subsidies Dell doesn't get for the Ubuntu machine.

Originally posted by: Crucial
I would attribute it to the lack of 3rd party bloatware thats not installed on the ubuntu system. Dell makes money having all that crap preinstalled and is partly why they can sell them so cheaply. I'm assuming the ubunto versions don't come with all that and therefore they aren't getting paid for the additions.

Originally posted by: zhwu
Dell is getting paid to load all the trial software on their PC. I don't think these software will work on Linux. Therefore the higher price for Ubuntu.
(Does Symantec or AOL even make software for Linux?)

I also noticed several "ads" for other software/hardware/services while configuring the Vista machine that isn't present for the Ubuntu machine. Dell most likely also has to pay Microsoft a small fee for every Ubuntu machine they sell.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

It's no more Vista than any other Microsoft OS.

 

[TwiceOver]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

It's no more Vista than any other Microsoft OS.

Since time is money this is not necessarily true. I spent three hours the other day trying to find a program under Ubuntu that would edit MPeg files (.tivo). Yeah that went well. Ended up giving up.

Under Windows I would have just installed Video ReDo and called it a day.

Also, as an Ubuntu user, I find the lack of a good financial program really sucks. There isn't even a close equivalent to MS Money or Quickbooks. And thus I have a VM with Win2K and MS Money installed. Well, and hopefully Video ReDo if it handles the VM ok.

 

[Narse]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

It's no more Vista than any other Microsoft OS.

Since time is money this is not necessarily true. I spent three hours the other day trying to find a program under Ubuntu that would edit MPeg files (.tivo). Yeah that went well. Ended up giving up.

Under Windows I would have just installed Video ReDo and called it a day.

Also, as an Ubuntu user, I find the lack of a good financial program really sucks. There isn't even a close equivalent to MS Money or Quickbooks. And thus I have a VM with Win2K and MS Money installed. Well, and hopefully Video ReDo if it handles the VM ok.

Also no iTunes (wife has to have it) I spent about 30min getting a good IM client installed. My wireless card was not seen, had to compile a differant driver to get it to work, Would not install with a 8800GT in the system, had to borrow a 7000 series.


Those are the reasons the Gen Pop will not be switching to linux anytime soon.

 

[50cent1228]

great

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: Deeko

haha...that is absurd. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I'm not even going to post a rebuttal, because it's not worth it. I have Ubuntu, and I have no beef with it, but still...get a grip on reality dude.

The point is that it will actually cost the average user lots of time, if not money. Time is valuable, and not just financially. Read my post above, and remember that you're posting on a tech forum where virtually everyone has at least a rudimentary knowledge of computer security. I think you need to get a grip on reality: The average user does not know how to maintain or secure a computer. AT is the minority.

If you want to play that game....

You fail to realize that ubuntu/linux is not that much more secure than Vista, it is not virus or malware proof. No one of note uses those platforms, so the hackers writing those things target a different platform. I can assure you, if the average userbase migrated to Ubuntu, all of those things would come with them. We learned that day 1 of my network/security class (if it wasn't already common sense).

You also seem to think that people know how to use Ubuntu. Yes, it is very easy compared to older forms of Linux, and yes it is (as you pointed out) very simple to the AT tech-friendly population....but do you really think some dope off the street is going to sit down at a Ubuntu machine and know how to use it as well as they can their Windows box? That is probably the most absurd thing I've heard in weeks.

Monetarily, there aren't additional costs for the Windows machine. Factoring your time as having value, there will be a CONSIDERABLE amount of time learning how to use the Linux system for the average user, and the more of them that come on board, the more "bad", time-consuming things will follow them.

Very simple logic. I'm sorry if I insulted precious Linux and said it was feasible to "break". I also apologize to myself because I said I wouldn't respond to such an absurd allegation.

I'm well aware that linux can be broken. However, it's well established the OSS community (especially in the case of large well known products like Ubuntu) are much faster at releasing patches than corporations (MS).

As for whether the average user could figure out linux, I'd say yes, as practically everything they could want comes preinstalled and the rest is obtainable without even searching the internet (via a very simple GUI frontend). It'd take some effort for "the average dope" but it's far from complex for basic uses, and it's far less time consuming and less complex than fixing a broken windows machine (generally speaking).

Hell, no iTunes Linux would probably be reason enough for 50% of casual PC users to pass on Ubuntu.

I agree that Ubuntu works well for a lot of people out of the box, but as soon as you want to do something different (for example, tethering a USB phone and set up an EVDO dialup connection, I never had much luck getting this to work in Linux) good luck unless you're very familiar with the OS.

Crucial that's a good point about the 3rd party software, I never thought about that.

Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

How is that any different than Windows?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott
Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

How is that any different than Windows?

I've yet to encounter a printer that simply won't function under windows. Sometimes the scanner and other extras won't function without the manufacturer's drivers, but the printer itself generally works out of the box.

 

[LongCoolMother]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN

Originally posted by: duragezic
Probably due to more support required.

Even linux in 2008 isn't as easy to use as windows. Someone who knows windows well and sees that option at Dell thinks "oh sweet, I'm gonna get linux and be a hacker! neeeaaaahhh" only to get it and not have a clue and bug Dell with every problem. It's just not as easy to use. I like to talk a lot of crap to a friend who loves linux, just to give him a hard time, and even he will admit something like "linux users spend way more time just getting things to work than windows users".

I'd like to think spyware/malware on the average users Vista pc is far less than XP do to updates that many don't bother with, good built-in protection, and most importantly no admin account as default.

Vista is an awesome OS, and you are right about getting things to work. I've tried Linux on and off for years and went back to Windows every time.
As for hypothetical user that will go "neeeaaaahhh", he should install Linux on his old PC

I too have tried Linux many times in the past few years and always went back to Windows XP. I tried Ubuntu recently and still went back to Windows after several weeks. I'm using Windows Vista now, and I would have to say I do find that it's not perfect, and slower than XP on my machine. Still, I really tried to like Ubuntu.

 

[SampSon]

More labor costs involved.

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott
Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

How is that any different than Windows?

I've yet to encounter a printer that simply won't function under windows. Sometimes the scanner and other extras won't function without the manufacturer's drivers, but the printer itself generally works out of the box.

It happens with every new MS OS. It's called "planned obsolescence". Here's one overreaction. (language nsfw)

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott
Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

How is that any different than Windows?

I've yet to encounter a printer that simply won't function under windows. Sometimes the scanner and other extras won't function without the manufacturer's drivers, but the printer itself generally works out of the box.

It happens with every new MS OS. It's called "planned obsolescence". Here's one overreaction. (language nsfw)

Ah. I was thinking XP instinctively.

Yeah, I can see it with Vista.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: irishScott
Hmm... Good point. Printers could also be a bitch... Some work, some don't, but those that don't REALLY don't work in my experience (ie: require a lot of technical knowledge to make functional)

How is that any different than Windows?

I've yet to encounter a printer that simply won't function under windows. Sometimes the scanner and other extras won't function without the manufacturer's drivers, but the printer itself generally works out of the box.

It happens with every new MS OS. It's called "planned obsolescence". Here's one overreaction. (language nsfw)

I wonder if the guy tried the XP driver before he killed his printer.

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: Anubis
i must fail b/c i click on the links and the vista system is over 100 pounds more then the linux one

therin lies your problem, you're looking at the weight, not the price.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: TwiceOver

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

It's no more Vista than any other Microsoft OS.

Since time is money this is not necessarily true. I spent three hours the other day trying to find a program under Ubuntu that would edit MPeg files (.tivo). Yeah that went well. Ended up giving up.

Under Windows I would have just installed Video ReDo and called it a day.

Also, as an Ubuntu user, I find the lack of a good financial program really sucks. There isn't even a close equivalent to MS Money or Quickbooks. And thus I have a VM with Win2K and MS Money installed. Well, and hopefully Video ReDo if it handles the VM ok.

One of the primary reasons why I do not use any OS but Windows is due to vast difference in the quality software that is available. Most software is written with Windows in mind and tends to work better on it for that reason. Yes, there are exceptions and substitutes but there simply are not enough to convince me to make the switch even if switching means a more stable and secure OS.

 

[PricklyPete]

They're probably pre-charging for all the tech calls they'll get from people who shouldn't have ordered it on their system to begin with.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: TwiceOver

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser

Originally posted by: Narse

Originally posted by: AnonymouseUser
The Vista machine will cost the consumer more in the long run.

How so???


The Vista bashing is getting so old.

It's no more Vista than any other Microsoft OS.

Since time is money this is not necessarily true. I spent three hours the other day trying to find a program under Ubuntu that would edit MPeg files (.tivo). Yeah that went well. Ended up giving up.

Under Windows I would have just installed Video ReDo and called it a day.

Also, as an Ubuntu user, I find the lack of a good financial program really sucks. There isn't even a close equivalent to MS Money or Quickbooks. And thus I have a VM with Win2K and MS Money installed. Well, and hopefully Video ReDo if it handles the VM ok.

One of the primary reasons why I do not use any OS but Windows is due to vast difference in the quality software that is available. Most software is written with Windows in mind and tends to work better on it for that reason. Yes, there are exceptions and substitutes but there simply are not enough to convince me to make the switch even if switching means a more stable and secure OS.

Honestly, I find virtualization a good fix for the windows apps I need. Speed is basically native, and virtualbox integrates quite well into the ubuntu desktop.
Now games on the other hand...

 

[MegaVovaN]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Now games on the other hand...

Exactly. I have a new gaming computer and can't even install current distro of Ubuntu (8800GT not supported yet AFAIK).

Linux needs commercial games (new games written for it + flawless support of previous games) and more drivers, then I'll switch to it.
Dual-booting to Windows to game kills the purpose. I can just stay in Windows instead.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: MegaVovaN

Originally posted by: Fox5
Now games on the other hand...

Exactly. I have a new gaming computer and can't even install current distro of Ubuntu (8800GT not supported yet AFAIK).

Linux needs commercial games (new games written for it + flawless support of previous games) and more drivers, then I'll switch to it.
Dual-booting to Windows to game kills the purpose. I can just stay in Windows instead.

Ya, I am going to stick with the OS which makes my life the easiest and happiest with what I primarily use it for. I think most people share that opinion in general about their choice in OS.