[rakoo]

So what you're saying is, if my computer never had Windows installed on it, I'm not supposed to be able to install it ?

As a linux user, I expect the leading commercial products to be at least on par with what a relatively standard linux distribution gives you. But no, apparently a vanilla ISO of the OS is not enough, you need more.

[sudioStudio64]

I didn't say that and that wasn't what we were talking about.

The guy in the post said that he didn't want to install the crappy Lenovo software from the restore partition. If he had he could have saved the drivers and then re-installed.

If I wiped the machine and didn't have drivers on hand I would expect something not to work...with any OS.

You are clearly a Linux "advocate" and you don't really care about this except to the extent that you can denigrate Windows to make your "side" seem superior.

I don't use computers that way. I try to learn how things actually work. When they don't work like how I would assume they work, I make a note for next time, and move on. I don't see the failings of some nameless developer somewhere in the bowels of a company or an open source project as indicative of , or representative of, some larger plot or plan that impinges my freedoms, rights, or prerogative. It's just another thing in a sea of things to remember about working with imperfect man-made tools to perform other tasks that I'm actually interested in. The software that manages my disk access and video card doesn't convey a sense of righteousness to me and I don't identify myself by or through it.

[rakoo]

My point is:

- In order to (re-)install Windows you need your drivers

- If you have a previous install, then you need to copy the drivers and keep them

- If you don't, you're screwed and it's your fault

I don't think it is normal for a consumer OS to require this step, especially since Linux which is not a consumer-oriented OS does it. I'm not saying it's some part of a plan to impeach freedom/my rights/whatever, actually I just think it's completely in line with the expectation that consumers will not install their OS, only OEMs will, and no extra effort is made for those who want to tweak their computer; it is expected that computers are sold with Windows and that people don't change that. Fair enough, it's totally aligned with their strategy.

Now I'm not saying you don't need any external drivers in Linux (looking at you, NVidia), but in my experience (same for many people, including the guy from the post) you can get to work with a bare ISO. I'd expect every commercial OS to be at least as good as that.

> You are clearly a Linux "advocate" and you don't really care about this except to the extent that you can denigrate Windows to make your "side" seem superior.

Can we grow up ? For everything I'm personally interested in, yes, Linux clearly is better. But for the wider world, no one can seriously believe Linux is able to replace Windows, and for a good reason. It is not superior nor is it inferior (and clearly the ease with which you can install it is irrelevant compared to how you actually use it)

In short: don't look for a "Us vs Them" when there is none. I'm pointing what I think is a weakness in Windows, that doesn't make it weak or inferior.

[sudioStudio64]

> I'd expect every commercial OS to be at least as good...

You can expect whatever you want. That doesn't make it likely or even reasonable. That's kind of my point. You say that it's not set up for people that tweak their computer...I build systems and don't have that problem because I learned how it actually works and don't really get hung up on how I wish it worked.