I think this is a good read.

This really peaked my interests if it isn't appropriate
please delete it moderators.This Scruffy guy is pretty
cool.:wave:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=139627

That's quite interesting - thanks!

(Until now I thought of Scruffy as the janitor in Futurama... )

Very interesting but if he knew he was not going to use Windows on the notebook don't ya think he may have wanted to pose that question before making the final purchase. I know I would have. I do, however, see his point that he should not pay for something he is not going to use.

On the opposite note, I do see Acer's point as the laptop was sold with Windows being a part of it and he should have understood that. Nothing is stopping him from using an alternative OS, but if he ever wants to put windows on the machine he has that option. Also like Acer says the OS is preActivated and even if does not accept the license agreement there is nothing stopping him from obtaining a ACer Restore CD set and putting Windows back on. The first analogy the comes to mind is you can't go back to your car manufacturer and return the Goodyear tires the car came with because you prefer Bridgestone. That may not be the best analogy, but it is the first thing that came to my head. Sorry its a Monday.

Lastly I think OEMs should offer a more variety when it comes to OS and software choices, but they have to weigh the cost benefits and the small percentage of users that prefer Linux or other alternative OS's may not be cost effective to the company.

Scruffy's thread is pretty funny. However, complaining about getting Windows is only bitching because the system met the published specs. Come on, its not as if he bought the machine, booted it and then exclaimed, "Holy guacamole, Batman! This computer has Windows on it!"

I'd bet that if Acer offered multiple operating systems as options, the support costs passed along to the consumer would exceed the actual cost of a pre-installed Windows.