When he makes that price line-up read:
Win-XP, FreeBSD, Linux, Win-Starter, …
Let us know.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the marketplace. Clearly Microsoft is hoping that customers will vote for 7 with their feet, so manufacturers will all end up licensing the new version anyway.

But it's a step in the right direction that they're not forcing anyone to make the switch.

Manufacturers and retailers are afraid of systems with no OS, because most users have no idea what to do with them when they get home. That increases the return rate, which probably increases the cost of the system more than just slapping XP on there would.

A model like that can work for sellers that know their target market will be technically savvy, but not for the mass market.

The only clear solution is to increase positive brand awareness of Linux (or perhaps Ubuntu in particular) enough that customers feel comfortable that they know what to do when they take those systems home and run them.

Any financial wizards reading along?
Ones with great look-up skills?

I have always wondered how much MScorp has invested in
semi-conductor manufacturers.
I.E: Is it in their own interest to make computer owners
buy the newest silicon/memory?
Are they driving the hardware churn for their own benefit?

June 2009 – sorry for the typo.

Linux was the default when Netbooks first hit the market. The return rate was alarmingly high as people just assume a computer comes with Windows regardless of what it says on the box. Lowest common denominator.

< they support it just by releasing new products.

This is just what I've thought all along. Economic facts and data aside, it seemed obvious for most of the last 20 years that software and MS in particular, getting ever more ponderous, forced people to clamber for ever faster and more powerful hardware just to keep things operating, not to mention one-upping the Joneses.

Software and hardware development seemed to be feeding off each other, with software especially seeming to drag hardware along. On the plus side, this obviously played a big role in the amazing fast development of new hardware technology and standards. And I guess we've recently seen the negative side come home to roost, with bloated and, I suspect old programmers might say, inelegantly written software.

Check HP's order page for the HP-5101 – -
You can get either FreeDos or Nothing at all.
Of course, that is a “Business” machine, and a
“Business” is expected to have an IT department.

Word is that Starter Edition will cost OEM's $45-$55, and Home Premium $85. Now we hear XP will be less that $15. Does anyone really believe SE is more than three times better than XP?

And what about Windows CE for ARM, it is a much worse os than even XP and so what is it going to sell for, $5? And would you say that CE is better than a good Linux distribution?

Most netbooks are mass marketed. Mass marketers hate extra SKUs, because they cause stock problems and confuse the customer over which to pick. The exceptions are (1) pure preference, like making an item available in multiple colors, and (2) price tiering: give people an option between cheaper-and-worse and pricier-and-better.

An OS isn't a pure preference case like picking a color, because it has a real impact on how you use your computer. And it isn't a price tiering case, because the differences between OSes are confusing and nebulous to consumers, unlike the difference between a 160 GB HDD and a 320 GB HDD, which is clear cut.

The third exception, of course, is brand diversity — I can buy Tide, or Cheer, or All (detergent brands in the US), or some other discount brand based on what I like. This is where Linux could potentially fit in. The reason it doesn't right now, is that people see the brands as HP, Dell, Toshiba, Apple, etc. People buy OS X because they're really buying an Apple computer, and they know who Apple is and trust them. Adding a second layer of choice — manufacturer, then OS — is confusing, so retailers don't like it.

Another analogy: consider if you were buying a car, let's say a Honda Civic. If the Civic comes with two engines and one is better and pricier than the other, no problem, right? You either get the cheaper one or the better one. But suppose they have two different engines that are the same price. They're pretty similar, but one has a little better torque and better gas mileage, while the other one has better horsepower and is known to be somewhat more reliable. That's confusing as hell, isn't it? Which do you pick? In fact, it's so confusing that many people might end up buying a Toyota instead, just to avoid making that choice. That's why no car manufacturer in their right mind will give you that choice. Forcing most people to choose between OSes directly gives them that kind of choice, because they don't understand the differences and they don't understand which is clearly better.

The flipside to mass marketers is that in indie shops — your example — this is a great idea, and more shops should do this. Indies can afford to educate the consumer and to sell things tailored to niche enthusiast markets (i.e. people who actually understand computers). Dell is another great use case — their whole business model has traditionally been about empowering customers to make decisions about their custom-built systems, so choice of operating system feels right at home, and they supposedly do pretty well with Linux systems.