|
|
|
|
|
by Turing_Machine
3249 days ago
|
|
I'm already regretting getting into an argument with a zealot, but to be blunt: you are simply incorrect. People (especially the kind of people who installed alternative operating systems) could, and did, assemble their own machines without paying any "Windows tax". At all. Yes, some manufacturers cut a bulk deal to bundle Windows with complete systems. No, that didn't make it impossible (or even particularly difficult) to avoid the so-called "Windows tax". BeOS didn't even run on Intel hardware at first, btw.
When I used BeOS (and I have used it, hands-on... have you?) it only ran on PPC machines. The port to Intel happened after the Return of Jobs and the decision to use NeXTSTEP (which became OS X) for new Macs. That's what killed BeOS, not the "Windows tax". The port to Intel was a late desperation move. I'm tagging out now. I have better things to do than rehash a war that was over 25 years ago. |
|
OMG...are you intentionally trying to be obtuse? This isn't exactly controversial stuff I'm talking about. There was a lawsuit and Be is very much on the record about Microsoft's tactics.
The lawsuit: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/02/20/be_inc_sues_microso...
Gassée's email: http://techrights.org/2008/08/19/oem-tactics-beos/
> ...assemble their own machines...
Do you even understand what OEM means? It has nothing to do with user-assembled machines. Yes, the minority of people who built their own systems could avoid the Windows tax. If you want to talk about a rounding error, that's basically the definition. We're talking the full systems that had Windows pre-installed. In order to not violate their OEM licenses with Microsoft, the only way those vendors could ship BoOS pre-installed was to dual boot with windows and give users absolutely no indication that BeOS was installed.
Get your facts straight before you start calling people names.