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.

However, consumers flocked in droves to paying extra (or having weaker configurations) for XP relative to Linux, so it's dangerous to assume that people will pick the cheaper (and possibly better) option when given the chance to pick a name brand they're comfortable with.

The real question: will Win 7 become a name brand consumers will flock to?

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?

It's not just Microsoft, and it's not just bad coding — when you add features to software, you add resource consumption. It's really that simple.

The ever-increasing base performance of hardware enables developers to add new features to software, which, in turn, feeds demand for better hardware.

Of course, even counting all that, Microsoft's software tends to run heavier than Linux and other open source software, but the principle is basically the same.

Yes, most users would be baffled by a laptop or PC with no OS but what is wrong with offering a choice? For an extra payment Windows, Linux, BSD or whatever you want can be supplied/installed or you could just buy the hardware on it's own. I've seen this happen in smaller independent PC shops so what is stopping PC World and the like doing the same?

I'm UK based and would like to know what offerings are available in other countries as here it's pretty much Windows or nothing.

Chris