BTW, why are Linux laptops so expensive?
I'm assuming it's a general business problem: they sell much less laptops than Dell etc., so they have to charge more to make up for employee / running costs.
Maybe I’m not understanding something - aren’t all laptops Linux laptops?
How is that so?
By Linux laptops, I mean laptops that come with Linux(or DOS) pre-installed. This should reduce the cost of the laptop as Windows license fees is not required. But the Linux pre-installed laptops cost more than the Windows laptops!
And MSFT charges manufacturers "per machine made", whether or not Windows is installed. It's all part of the Windows lock-in setup for manufacturers. "Follow our orders or we'll charge you a lot more for Windows, and you won't be able to be competitive in the marketplace. That means your sales and your business will suffer."
This stuff is all documented over the years since the early 1990s. You can find it if you wish to look for it.
What is boils down to, though, is that without the subsidies from the 'add-on' software companies, and the payment of the Windows tax anyway, that a 'Linux' laptop will cost you more than exactly the same machine delivered as a 'Windows' laptop.
Which is why probably 99.9% of Linux users buy a 'Windows' laptop, immediately wipe the hard drive, and install the Linux distro of their choice on it.
Having said all that, there is a good reason for buying a 'Linux' laptop in that the hardware installed is a good match for the Linux distro that is installed. That saves a bit of mucking around to find the best distro match for the hardware that was installed in your 'Windows' laptop.
Of course, some laptop manufacturers will allow you to choose the hardware that comes with your 'Windows' laptop. That way you can get a lower "Windows price" and also get a good match of hardware for your own favorite distro. Win-win.
I didn't know that! This should be illegal. Because it is the consumer who ultimately pays for this. It is like going in to a car show room with the intent of buying car X, but have to pay for both car X and car Y because the dealer had some contract with manufacturer of car Y! How is this acceptable in computer industry?
This was quite a few years back, so I may not be entirely correct with my numbers. But it should still be findable if you look with Google.
At one time the one-off cost for Windows was something like $140 a copy. But if you, the manufacturer, made an exclusive deal with Microsoft you could buy the Windows licenses in bulk for about $40 each. But to do that, you had to do a 'per unit made' deal.
Because it was so much cheaper to agree to the deal, it was worthwhile for most manufacturers. Also, they only had one item to produce, just a "Windows machine" instead of several different types (a "Windows machine" AND a "Linux machine" AND "something else"*).
Because the margins on commodity computers are so fine, the difference of nearly $100 in the cost of Windows made all the difference between making a profit and making a loss on the computers they sold. (Imagine the tiny profit on a $400 computer. Not much. Now add $100 to your costs. You haven't got any hope of making a profit if you're paying $140 instead of $40 for the Windows license.)
* "something else". At one time there quite a few OS contenders for the mainstream computer market. There was IBM's OS/2 (which was originally a 'joint venture' with MSFT. Except MSFT reneged on the deal), there were a few other minor players too (GEM, SCO UNIX**, etc). But they got swamped by the high costs of joining the market-place due to MSFT under-cutting them with the exclusive Windows deals.
** SCO UNIX is an interesting case. It was originally called SCO Xenix. SCO had bought Microsoft's UNIX ("Xenix") which was a UNIX V7 clone.