Are 'naked PCs' good for businesses?
Summary
Topics
On Monday. European think tank the Globalisation Institute made a submission to the EC proposing that all PCs and laptops should be sold without an OS in order to foster competition and bring down prices, saying the current practice "imposes an extra cost on virtually every EU business."
Three-quarters of silicon.com's 12-strong CIO Jury IT director panel have now backed that call for naked PCs, although the argument is far from straightforward.
Carl Whitehead, IT director at Betbrokers, said naked PCs without an OS would probably increase choice and reduce costs for about a third of buyers.
He said: "The rule should be that wherever a PC or laptop is sold with an installed OS, it must always also be available without an OS but with any utilities the manufacturer feels like including. This will help to limit the monopoly marketing power of the big players, who have an interest in reducing choice and flexibility."
Rob Neil, head of ICT and customer service at Ashford Borough Council, agreed but warned computers without an OS can work out more expensive.
He said: "Remember that the staff cost of installing an OS on new equipment is significant."
Other IT chiefs also backed the argument for optional, not compulsory, naked PCs. Nicholas Bellenberg, IT director at publisher Hachette Filipacchi UK, said: "Currently we purchase some PCs that predominantly run Linux but Windows is kept as a boot option - but how much is it used? We also run a few Macs now that use Parallels to provide a Windows OS - and of course this means purchasing Windows XP as a stand-alone option, which seems disproportionately expensive. Clarifying the real cost of the parts of a PC purchase would be a good thing."
Graham Yellowley, director of technology services at investment bank Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International, added: "While Windows is the predominant operating system in use it is not the only one and there should be a choice made available for purchasers allowing for either no operating system, or an operating system capable of executing on the PC."
But not everyone is in favor of a Windows-less PC option. Stuart Aitken, CIO at the Medical Research Council, said: "Do we really want the burden of building every machine, getting all the drivers etc? In any event you can get a PC with a different OS if you want to."
Ben Booth, global CTO at research and polling company Ipsos, said: "Of course we should continue to push for better pricing from Microsoft but those of us old enough to have been around before the 'Windows monopoly' remember the high costs and lock-in caused by incompatible proprietary systems. Having a standard OS avoids this."
Today's CIO Jury was...
Stuart Aitken, CIO, Medical Research Council
Rob Neil, head of ICT and customer service, Ashford Borough Council
Bill Ashworth, IT director, Countrywide Surveyors
Nicholas Bellenberg, IT director, Hachette Filipacchi UK
Ben Booth, global CTO at research and polling company Ipsos
Chris Broad, head of IM&T, UK Atomic Energy Authority
Steve Gediking, head of IT and facilities, Independent Police Complaints Commission
Paul Haley, IT director, University of Aberdeen
Peter Ryder, head of ICT, Preston City Council
Richard Storey, head of IT, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Carl Whitehead, IT director, Betbrokers
Graham Yellowley, director of technology services, Mitsubishi UFJ Securities International
Talkback Most Recent of 89 Talkback(s)
-
dell sells somewhat naked PC's.....
I can get FreeDOS on any machine i want.
JoeMama_z28th Sep 2007 -
Indeed,,,
And if you want to install a different OS you will format the drive anyhow. Seems to meet all the requirements...
No_Ax_to_Grind28th Sep 2007 -
In Europe?
The "Think Tank" report was European, and Dell does not sell Linux or FreeDOS machines in Europe, so how is your comment relevant?
Zogg28th Sep 2007 -
What???
Dell sells Linux machines everywhere. Not sure what your talking about.No_Ax_to_Grind29th Sep 2007 -
It doesn't matter
"He said: "Remember that the staff cost of installing an OS on new equipment is significant."" - How is that important since most businesses image the pc anyway and so the cost is the same. But I do believe that I should be able to buy a pc without an OS on it.
jfp28th Sep 2007 -
RE: Are 'naked PCs' good for businesses?
Yeah, I agree. We have a site license for Windows and always image the pc as soon as we get it. Having the computer come with the OS is more of a pain because we end up having to keep track of which ones have the OEM license and which ones have a site license.
I would prefer that when I buy a pc for personal use that it come with a disk with the OS and seperate disks with any utilities anyway. All that crap that comes pre-installed is annoying. This way, I install the OS myself and it's a lot cleaner.
ewasserman28th Sep 2007 -
Misleading article, they're not backing the GI on an outright ban on bundli
Misleading article, the CIO jury is not backing the GI on an outright ban on bundling OSes. They backed a reasonable compromise that I completely agree with. Users should be able to buy a naked OR bundled OS PC from any PC maker. The European GI wants no choice and they want all PCs sold without an OS regardless of the user's choice.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=778
georgeou28th Sep 2007 -
I'm okay with that
Provided the pricing reflects the actual cost differential of the installed OS.
It's not right for a PC manufacturer to tip the ice toward Windows by cutting themselves a higher mark up for what they don't install on boxes. Yet that's what MSFT leans on them to do, so it doesn't surprise me this article comes out on their influencer mailing list. You're on that list, aren't you, George?
In a fair competitive environment, I believe Windows will lose big. One could argue effectively they're losing even with all their monopoly advantages. If every box ships naked, Windows market share will take a giant step down the crapper and you know that's true.
You can only hold on so long protecting your market share by pressuring OEM's, proprietary file formats and intense lobbying. Instead of providing value, Microsoft specializes in providing pressure.
Microsoft wounded themselves when they shifted their focus to finding new sources of revenue instead of building value-oriented quality software.
Chad_z30th Sep 2007 -
So why stop there? Add CPU's and memory to the list, too
Volume licensing allows the PC manufacture to sell windows at around 40 bucks a copy to the consumer, in the end. If they have to purchase it later, it's another 200.00 bucks (how that helps the consumer, I'm not sure. Me, I would rather have the extra 160.00 in my pocket).
But then, the manufactures get volume pricing on evey part of the PC: there's no way in the world you or I can get a CPU close to the price that Dell or HP can, so why not force them to sell the system without a CPU, to give other manufactures a chance.
This is not a remedy to force MS to lose market share, but the entire US PC industry, instead. The leaders are HP, Compaq, Dell. They get a volume cost due to the shear number of copies they purchase that the samller local vendors can't match. Sellng without an OS now keeps the basic cost of the PC in line with local vendors.
John Zern30th Sep 2007 -
They are already on the list. DUH!
I can order a pc form Dell or HP with either AMD or Intel cpu's. I can specify what kind and how memory I want. I can buy cpu's and memory separate from these places, and still get the the discount because of their purchasing power.
If the price of windows was listed separately, it would quickly drop from $200. Everybody would be selling $40 windows.
So get off your protectionist high horse and face some reality. MS produces crap software at exorbitant prices because they can use their monopoly power to force out the competition. A level playing field would make them have to work for their monopoly.
Calson1st Oct 2007 -
Remarkable silly argument
First of all, we do get to choose between machines with AMD and Intel CPU's, and in some markets, the VIA C3 and AMD GEODE chips. However, the important point is that consumers that choose to do so can buy an operating system for far, far less than $40 by not choosing Windows at all. How you conclude that the US computer industry would somehow lose sales by allowing their customers to buy a machine without an OS is beyond me. If you logic is
1) Most computer buyers want a computer with Windows
2) Some computer buyers want a computer with no OS
3) Therefore, if no OS option is allowed people will buy fewer computers.
This is just silly.
rweiler@...1st Oct 2007 -
I vote for ...
All PCs sold 'naked'. Let people pay the real cost of MS Windows - I've been subsidizing them for over 15 years now. Look at it this way - most people will continue to use WinDos, so it's fantastic business for Microsoft.
zoroaster1st Oct 2007 -
Out fishing
for more hits to your 'blog, eh George?
thungurknifur2nd Oct 2007 -
Not as extreme as GI's initiative, a reasonable approach ...
George Ou is right on the mark on this. The GI recommendation is rather extreme and a bit punitive. There ARE people who DO want a Windows PC. The GI recommendation would punish them just as it attempts to punish the monopolist. End users should have a choice of Windows installed, Linux installed or no installed OS. Thus it would make more sense to REQUIRE OEMs to offer (at least some) systems loaded with Linux as well as all models available optionally as naked PCs. This would not only make things easier for the consumer. It would also encourage OEMs to be more proactive in making sure they offer hardware that is supported by Linux drivers. To force everyone to buy a naked PC and then have to load the OS themselves would likely create a huge mess with driver support since the OEMs would then be free to duck responsibility in that realm. Just imagine! I could very well end up being hardware hell for everybody as the OEM could dump responsibility on the component vendor and the component vendor back on the ORM leaving the end user up a creek.
George Mitchell28th Sep 2007 -
I'm not sure if it's fair to require a Linux option
I'm not sure if it's fair to require a Linux option. Not every PC maker wants to support Linux. We certainly wouldn't require a vendor to offer a BSD or Solaris version of their desktop PC. I think the most we can do is mandate a no-OS option in addition to whatever the hardware maker wants to bundle.georgeou28th Sep 2007
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
