[fractallyte]

'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system.

Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusing an EULA and getting a refund for the unused OS.

Many people think this argument applies to Apple, too. But that's a mistake: Apple computers are not marketed as 'PCs'; and their computing system, from hardware to OS, is Apple throughout.

Microsoft works with PC manufacturers to pull off this anti-competitive hoodwink on an ignorant computing public. If it were tested properly in court, the whole corrupt practice would be torn to pieces.

[scholia]

Historically correct (IBM offered three different operating systems) but it stopped being true a long time ago. PCs are sold as integrated systems, and they are designed and manufactured to run Windows.

You can claim it's an "anti-competitive hoodwink" but Microsoft just spent a decade with the US Justice Department's foot on its neck, specifically to prevent any anti-competitive hoodwinking.

There's also nothing to prevent PC manufacturers shipping whatever they like. Many if not most now sell Android tablets, some sell Chromebooks, the server suppliers support Linux, and so on. Some sell Linux on PCs, including Dell and Asus.

The idea that the market failure of Linux is down to some sort of evil conspiracy might make you feel better but it doesn't square with the facts.

[fractallyte]

I'm drawing attention to the fact that tying an OS to (what should be) generic hardware is anti-competitive, and in many countries, illegal. If it the hardware is OS-specific, it shouldn't be marketed as a 'PC'.

Furthermore, the fact is that if I want a particular laptop PC, Windows is bundled in almost every instance, and I have to jump through hoops to force the manufacturer to take it back.

It's not a conspiracy. But it is illegal.

[scholia]

Your understanding is wrong: there is no generic hardware. Nowadays, companies design laptops and qualify parts specifically to build Windows laptops. They follow design demands and specifications laid down by Microsoft and Intel, which is why they are all doing UEFI and many did netbooks and Ultrabooks.

Also, these are integrated packages so the idea that the OEM should take Windows back is illogical and nonsensical. It is a delusion that bears no relation to reality.

If you want a comforting thought, price is largely a function of volume, so you are getting massive benefits by riding on the back of the economies of scale created specifically by and for Windows. You are gaining far more in real cash savings than the trivial amount that you pay the OEM for its version of Windows.

In the long term, however, you should try to see this for what it is: a very pragmatic business. It's not religion.

[FireBeyond]

You appear to be entirely unaware that Microsoft has spent the best part of a decade responding and working with a Justice Department who was acting on behalf of frustrated or outraged consumers and competitors who believed exactly that. They came to a partial agreement with your position, whilst dismissing other claims entirely.

[fractallyte]

Conversely, in 2010 I had to resort to issuing a court summons to Samsung (UK) before they finally relented and gave me a refund on the unwanted Windows OS that was bundled with my laptop.

It was annoying. Reading the headline, it appears that a similar annoyance is continuing even now.

[scholia]

They'd have been better off taking it back and charging you a restocking fee, and if the court actually considered the issue, it got it wrong. I'd be interested to know whether you said you didn't want Windows in the first place, or whether you were, in effect, a deceptive customer.

Either way, dealing with unprofitable customers is a losing strategy for any business.