Just out of curiosity, what's the rationale for MS & Lenovo to do this, why to risk PR? The number of people wanting to install Linux is marginal and they are already "on the wrong side".
Also, an agreement to lock out Linux might not be legal from an antitrust perspective, whereas an agreement to restrict usage to the current version of the OS is much less critical.
This seems to be the most reasonable theory in the entire discussion.
Data looks like the new business model of Windows.
Some organizations (including, I think, London police) are still rolling out Windows 8.1 with full Microsoft support.
Windows 7/8/8.1 are all supported for 10 years under Microsoft's standard published software lifecycle.
I've successfully switched both parents to Linux and non tech at our company run completely on Linux.
It's a real threat, especially with MS failing to innovate.
Today in 2016, Linux is the superior platform for both user-friendliness and stability. It is easier to use and install on a wider variety of hardware. The old belief that Windows is "easier" is deprecated, and it is time to change the conversation to reflect that truth.
Linux does not exceed windows at user friendliness.
Stability completely depends on your hardware, distro, and use case.
It has made great strides, and windows is regressing, but it's not done yet.
In Linux, if you're missing something it's a simple matter of "apt-get install something" and it almost always works. The rate of failure for Windows updates and installing proper drivers and software in windows is much higher.
And Linux is far more likely to work out of the box on most hardware. Windows installs never have more drivers available than what ships on the CD/DVD. With Linux Net Installs, as long as your Ethernet is supported, and it probably is supported, the rest of the system will be up-to-date.
I have recently installed Windows 7, Windows 10, and Linux, I've used each for a number of months. Linux was the easiest and friendliest. I've been using Windows for years so I'm not a newbie, it's a terrible operating system.
This was an unrestricted claim that ignored a massive amount of Microsoft innovation. I pointed out that you were wrong and now you're quibbling about another of your personal opinions. Why make the same mistake twice?
Seems to me that the whole Microsoft Windows ecosystem -- across Azure, PCs, games consoles, smartphones, and iOS and Android devices -- shows far more innovation than Linux.
If you want to provide a list of Linux innovation to compare with my incomplete list above, I'd be interested to see it.
Be even better if you could address the whole market, without restricting it to your personal peccadilloes.
You're quoting somebody else there, friend. I jumped on this particular subthread because I wanted to point out that your list of innovations boils down to "Microsoft improved the user interface for touch devices."
> your personal peccadilloes
Peccadilloes? I do not think that means what you think it means.
Sorry. My apologies!
> I jumped on this particular subthread because I wanted to point out that your list of innovations boils down to "Microsoft improved the user interface for touch devices."
No, it doesn't. I use most of them on a desktop PC that doesn't include touch. Also, cloud and cross-platform capabilities go beyond touch.
> Peccadilloes? I do not think that means what you think it means.
I know what it means. And in the UK, it's not specifically sexual in connotation. However, I did spell it wrong ;-)
So people have suggested in the past that Microsoft might ask for favours in return, basically telling OEMs that if they do not comply they might loose cheap OEM versions or even all access to OEM version of Windows, which would make their products unfit for competition.
Other people have suggested that this would be illegal, that Microsoft would never do something as anti-competitive like that, and that Microsoft just gives away nicely priced OEM versions of Windows to manufacturers because they are really nice guys and want disseminate their products even if they don't earn much from them.
The Comes trial is a good start http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070220083801...
This left Linux with no cost advantage on parts, or a negative cost advantage, if you added more crapware.
The much higher costs of shipping Linux then killed off the Linux netbooks.
The higher costs included extra testing and parts qualification, extra shipping and advertising costs, and, in particular, massively increased support costs. (One Linux user support call wiped out the profit margin on multiple sales.)
So the only real outcome from this would at first glance appear to be to antagonise people who won't consider their product either way and cause bad PR.
The question is if there's any other/better rationale.