Dell refutes high Linux netbook return rates, but not customer ignorance
By Tim Stevens 
posted August 13th 2009 11:08AM
posted August 13th 2009 11:08AM
Microsoft is quite confident of its leadership status on the Netbook front, boasting earlier this year of 96 percent attach rate for Windows and making other, more recent claims of return rates on Linux netbooks that are "like four or five times higher" than their Windows equivalents. Dell's Senior Product Marketing Manager Todd Finch is refuting that last claim, saying "we don't see a significant difference between the return rate for Windows versus the rate for Linux." He does, however, continue to say that many people who return Linux netbooks simply bought the cheapest option they could find, expecting Windows and shipping the things back after being greeted by something other than a familiar UI upon startup. The panel at OpenSource World also tackled the topic of how to spur greater interest in Linux, and crushed the dreams of many attendees who believe in the Field of Dreams approach: get Linux machines into retailers and demand will come. The demand has to come first, says Finch, and given the general non-existence of open source marketing, that's going to take something of a Kevin Costner-scale miracle.
Are you seriously that stupid, even Windows doesn't "just work."
There's endless driver, antivirus etc issues that stop Windows "just working."
Most of the time, especially for netbooks, devices are set up automatically in Linux. There are practically no viruses for it.
Neither of them completely "just work" but for the average consumer, Linux "just works" far better than Windows, but they're used to Windows. For the netbook market, it's not the "just work" factor since something like Ubuntu does simply work, but it's the marketing for Windows stopping people using it.
@jon btw.
T D,
From macroman
"The machine shipped to me, I updated it using Ubuntu's updater, added user IDs and in less than 2 hours had it set."
Example of NOT "just working".
What if his mother had ordered it, rather than him getting it for her?
What are the chances she would have kept it?
I installed Win 7 on a netbook that didn't even have vista drivers, booted it and it "just worked".
I plugged in a 6 year old USB printer, it "just worked", didn't even have to download drivers.
If you can't get Windows to work without much hassle, maybe I'm not the stupid one?
What are you talking about? I have a 200GB HDD and 2GB of RAM on my HP MINI and no problems at all (Win XP of course).
Loocas:
From looking at HP's website, there is no HP Mini with 2GB that comes with Vista. Maybe you got one with an XP Home downgrade? (meaning you actually still paid for Vista)
Ubuntu was my first shot at linux on my DELL mini9 and I couldn't be happier.
Everything DOES "just work".
No pre-packaged "trial-software", freeware junk and trying to figure out where to download decent software. 99% of whatever I need is free on Ubuntu and easily downloaded. Most of the time this software is fast and unbloated compared to the windows alternative.
Nothing like a monoculture forced on us by a monopoly. Maybe if MS hadn't driven out all possible competitors in the 90's we'd have viable Windows alternatives today.
But hey, what fun is a monopoly if you can't abuse it (to the detriment of consumers everywhere!)
o no not monopoly again i have an idea tell the people at Linux make a product for the average consumer instead of tech nerds then you have a winner until then stop your whining.
@nicknack, the only reason Linux is not used more is because of certain programs that do not run on it. Windows is only "usable" because that is what people first used.
@nickwhatshit
Hey that came out funny. Anyway, Linux is not a company. Please stop being stupid and speaking of things you know nothing about.
Linux users need to stop believing that people think the way they do, and are FORCED into Windows. They're not forced, they just don't CARE to learn an operating system. If someone introduced a new car that would require you to re-learn how to drive, no one would buy it. That doesn't mean people were FORCED into buying the old type of car, just that people don't have the time or desire to learn how to drive a different way.
People don't CARE what OS is on their machine. They want to know how to use it and know that it works with what everyone else is using. Linux is not that OS. If they want Linux, they can buy it. Maybe some Linux company should try true advertising to consumers with an all out expensive marketing blitz. Hey, it worked for Apple didn't it? Oh, right. Linux users expect people to waste their time reading hundreds of pages of documentation to figure out that something they want to do requires a recompilation of the kernel, and then compiling something else, and then modprobing.... only to find out that the Sims still won't run.
true but that didn't stop apple from being successful they made a great OS to stand against windows unlike Linux. stop blaming Microsoft for this weak OS not taking off its sucks IMO.
Its all about MARKETING MARKETING MARKETING. You can't get people to use something they don't know about. Why spend the time to RELEARN how to do something, that they can do just as easily in Windows?
Fun fact:
The average computer user sees their computer as an APPLIANCE. Not a toy, or a hobby. An APPLIANCE. Imagine if someone tried talking you into running different coolant in your fridge because the company that makes the coolant in it TOTALLY has a monopoly on coolant.
So because Microsoft have a monopoly... this means that no one else can be bothered to make a decent OS?
@Ian
They are forced. What viable alternatives are there to Windows. They either go Windows, or they have to buy into the Apple ecosystem which is a much steeper investment than most are willing to make (and to be sure, Apple likes it that way.)
I'm aware that most people don't want to learn a different way. However people will do so if they have to (see Vista, Windows 7, Office 2007) and the problem there stems from Windows' legacy and Microsoft's control. They managed to sideline OpenGL, driving most developers to DirectX and, thus, Windows platforms.
Apple is secure in their niche by playing the role of a hardware manufacturer with a unique value-add that they put time and money into. Ubuntu is about as close to an OS X-like-Linux as things get, but because it can't support the windows legacy it gets waylaid. But we'll have fun the next time a giant worm rolls through and causes billions in losses.
@nickwhatshit
Apple has ALWAYS been niche, it's the only way they've been able to protect themselves from MS. MS worked hard to keep competitors out of the market place, and they did so via means that were very illegal.
But the "people at Linux" are all tech nerds. To them, an OS for tech nerds, generally available free, is quite beneficial; an OS for the masses (AKA brain-dead sheep) does them no good, unless it's to fleece the masses of their money. Most of them aren't in business that way, so they can't, and if they were, they'd run up against the MS monopoly.
A few companies do market Linux OSes, but typically make their money from support contracts. They sell to businesses, but almost no consumers are going to pay for a support contract; so these aren't designed for consumers either.
The _only_ way another consumer-oriented OS can show up is if the makers stand to benefit from it; that, in turn, means it must be made by a company in direct competition with MS. And yes, Microsoft's monopoly in the consumer OS for commodity hardware market makes this unlikely to happen.
@microlith:
Yeah, sure. I must have missed it, but when exactly did someone forbid the Linux developer community to create a viable alternative to Windows and Mac OS X? The Linux community likes to claim the superiority of their OS at any given time. But the ugly truth is: as a desktop alternative to Windows and Mac OS X, it sucks! And that isn't Microsoft's fault or Apple's fault. You know, one Shuttleworth isn't enough.
No it will take a google miracle. When we will have single linux distro that is user friendly we will see things differently. The problem with linux distros are as follows:
1. They are way to many distros, that look and feel differntly
2. The programs for particular distro are not true cross platform with other distros
3. There is no user friendliness (forgive me if in order to add a program to the start up menue I need to edit plist, rather then drog and drop) this is not user friendliness...
So yeh Google might be a Mesiah for Linux, that will bring Linux out of the "Geek Bondage" into the Consumer realm
Moblin is still very buggy but if you want a OS to literally surf the web and do your emails (and don't plan to install anything, play around etc etc) on a cheapo netbook, I'm not sure it can be beat.
Turns out normal people don't like Linux? WHO KNEW!
+1
i had to return my MIE Linux HP Mini
to get the SSD replaced.
OK... a few things about Dell & Linux.
I purchased a Dell 15n a month ago for $390+S&H. The base model was $299, but I stepped it up a bit here and there.
Dell's first flaw: The 15n was nearly impossible to find. The order page was -not- accessible or findable from the main Dell website. The only way to get there was to find the right link through Google.
Dells second flaw: The day after I made my order I got a call from Dell. "You know this doesn't have Windows, right? Are you sure you don't want Windows?"
The machine shipped to me, I updated it using Ubuntu's updater, added user IDs and in less than 2 hours had it set. I gave it to my mother. My 63 year old mother who has never owned a Windows machine is using it quite well. In under a day she was up and running on Ubuntu linux, using Gmail and watching shows on Hulu.
So, since I had a hit, I was going to buy and set up 15n machines for a bunch of my non computer literate relatives. A few of them have Windows machines but I'm sick of spending 2-3 days per machine rebuilding the things at least once every two years. So, I was putting together who wanted one and was getting ready to order SIX to TEN of them. I went back to the saved link to the order page for the 15n and...
Dells 3rd flaw: They raised the price on the $390 15n configuration to $540. Nearly as much as if they had Vista on them. So... back to the hunt for cheap/good hardware that I don't have to pay for an OS I'm not going to use on them.
There are way too many distro's out there. For the someone starting out this can be confusing, There should only be two worldwide distro's one for KDE and one for Gnome and programmers should put all their efforts into these instead.
There also seems to be a grow number of disputes between groups who develop for Linux just like the Debian / Ubuntu dispute, This will make consumers, Business and hardware vendors nervous to invest in and use Linux if they don't stop and sort it out.
Maybe this is just my take but various Linux web sites don't seem to be able speak in plain english for the some who want's to use the OS for the first time or if they have a problem. I think the Linux comunity needs to look towards the MS / Apple online tech support sites to get an idea as to how to help people if they want to really get more people to move to Linux.
For the average user, right now there are two main distros: Ubuntu and Kubuntu. The forum and help available is "layman" enough for most people. They generally provide simple cut and paste commands that people can use (just like in the most helpful Windows forums with cut and paste commands.) If you need more in depth support than that (or what Dell offers) you are not the average consumer.
Ubuntu contributes and accepts code from Debian, but the typical user doesn't need to know about any of that. If they get into a situation where they do, they can be informed of such a thing, but it doesn't need to be information given up front.
It's not as difficult as people are making it out to be. If you bought your computer from Lenovo, it'd be SUSE, but the same applies. All the programs and tools you need are in their repositories and you should have no need (as an average user) to go outside that realm. If you are... again, you are not average.
"He does, however, continue to say that many people who return Linux netbooks simply bought the cheapest option they could find, expecting Windows and shipping the things back after being greeted by something other than a familiar UI upon startup."
I take issue with dell's math.
Assuming returns due to HW problems are equal between XP and Linux, and they have many people returning the machines because it's running something other than Windows.
What problems are causing people to send enough XP machines back to even out the numbers?
Linux users are generally more tech savvy than their windows counterparts. My bet is lots of windows machines are getting sent in for no good reason at all.
@microlith:
How can you say they are forced, and yet in the same sentence, provide an alternative? They're FORCED to use Windows... unless they don't want to. Then they can buy a Mac, or buy a Linux machine, or install Linux on their existing machines. Linux is a viable alternative... its just an alternative that most people don't want.
There ARE alternatives. They are just less desirable to the majority of computer users.
I dare you to install Linux on your work PC... Also, OEMs force you to buy Windows in 99% of the cases. You have no choice. The methods for getting your money back when you deny the Windows terms are not widely published or well known.
I don't get all the Linux fear-mongering. I've been using Ubuntu for a few months now without any real problems and think it's great. Lightning fast compared to Windows and the learning curve isn't that steep at all.
There are a a few reasons I can think of.
Software developers obviously want to scare you away from using an OS they don't develop for.
People who are Microsoft Certified or support Microsoft software don't want something else taking off because that's lost money for them or something they need to learn on top of Windows in order to support it
And there are some that think if Linux takes off, their choice in OS software will dwindle..
Those are just a few, IMHO
I put ubuntu on a netbook for my daughter. Now i have to put Windows back on it. Many of the kids sites use shockwave,
"I put ubuntu on a netbook for my daughter. Now i have to put Windows back on it. Many of the kids sites use shockwave, :"
Umm... Whether you're using Firefox on Windows or Linux or even using IE - you still have to install a plugin to use shockwave.
If installing a plugin on Firefox was too hard... how did you ever make it through a Windows install?
"why would anybody want an OS where the common user needs to compile stuff and have problems with hardware compatibility? :D"
Huh? The only thing I've ever had to compile under Linux was VMware's Server product - I installed it so I could have a windows installation inside my Linux installation. I've since removed the VM machines since I found out about WINE. Not the beverage, but the interpretive layer (Wine is not an emulator) that lets you run Windows programs under Linux.
Shockwave? You mean Flash Player? Ubuntu comes with Flash installed (or easily installed) last time I checked.
lol, nobody wants to use linux except the greatest masochist fanatics
why would anybody want an OS where the common user needs to compile stuff and have problems with hardware compatibility? :D
it just does not make sense.
1998 called. It wants it's FUD back.
Windows even with a vendor driver disk can't be depended on to "just work" all the time.
Don't pretend that Windows is some overly-idealized notion of a Mac.
To Jon from Macroman
"Example of NOT "just working". "
Actually, it did Just work right out of the box. It even shipped with licensed DVD playback software -and- recovery media.
It came with Ubuntu 8.10 long term release installed. It worked fine right out of the box and auto-configured a userID etc...
I -wanted- to bring it up to Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty). I didn't have to.
The two hours I used in configuration included setting up a wireless network in her house.
Compared to the last Windows Vista machine I purchased a year ago that required 4 DAYS to make a clean install without bloatware/adware/spyware and to get all of the drivers right - the Ubuntu machine was a walk in the park. Tack on the $40 a year that I won't have to spend on anti-virus and anti-spyware, and the 2-3 days of patching and recovery every 18 mos that a Windows machine requires, and ubuntu becomes a real bargain.
Also, I was able to easily set her up with a non-administrator account so she -can't- blow it up. Long term stability and ease of use is, in my humble opinion, much higher with Ubuntu than it has ever been with Windows.
I also have my 7 year old twins using Ubuntu on a pair of older workstations as well as my wife's HP dv2000 laptop and my Lenovo T61p. All without flaws. All stable. Installation, maintenance and usability are all much better than I've had with XP or Vista.
I'm not an ubuntu geek either. I've only been using it for less than a year. I got started on it when I got a deal on an old pair of Compaq workstations for $80 each that I was going to set up for the kids - but no OS. So, rather than paying more for an OS license than I did for the machines, I gave ubuntu a shot. It was easy. Real easy. 6 months later I started converting the rest of my machines over and haven't looked back.
If you doubt it, download an Ubuntu live CD and check it out. Unless you're wanting to configure obtuse and obsolete hardware or do something really funky that you wouldn't be able to do in Windows anyway, you're not likely to even need to use the command line.
It really is a prime time OS. It runs windows programs (via WINE) on my Lenovo T61p more than twice as fast as Vista Ultimate did. It boots in under a quarter of the time.
The Dell 15n I got for my mother boots in under a minute. She was fully computer illiterate and was able to catch onto the interface naturally. I was pleasantly surprised.
I've done Windows for more than 20 years - all the way back to Windows 286. I have the scars to prove it. Don't be fooled by the Windows fanboys. Give Linux a try - the purists will bash Ubuntu, but it's an easy place to start. So far I haven't found anything I was able to do from Windows that I can't do in Linux. I've found lots of things that I can do in Linux that I couldn't do in Windows - and I've only been using Ubuntu for less than a year.
Just last week I took and old celeron 2.02 i had lying around and downloaded the 9.04 ubuntu and kubuntu distributions. I've never played around with linux before, have four PC's up and running in the house atm with vista or xp on them, but i read an article about a bunch of educational packages that are available for it. I have two younger children 2 and 6 years old and they love to sit on my lap and move the mouse and hit the keyboard while i am at the computer. (they love to hit the windows key when i am in a game)
I had heard the horror stories about linux on these kinds of boards and was pleasantly surprised that both installed with less interaction than windows installs on the same computer require. I tried both because i had no idea about the KDE / Gnome thing but i found that ubuntu and the gnome version was much easier to work with and more polished, while the KDE seemed more like one of those custom theme shells you add to windows to make xp seem like vista. Hard to explain but it just gave me that cheap impression. installing programs was as easy as on windows if you were to use the control panel application to install new applications for windows or change what you have installed in office etc. downloading from the web with firefox and installing was just as easy as doing so on windows. getting out to the internet was actually much faster on ubuntu than it is in windows. And very surprising to me, hardware detection and driver support was better on the ubuntu install than the windows install.
Being the geek that i am i spent the first day trying things out, i installed ubuntu and kubuntu, didn't like kubuntu so I wanted to remove it. Couldn't figure out how to remove it and leave unbuntu untouched, so i just reinstalled because it does it so fast. Downloaded and installed ubuntu server for shits and giggles, (terrible installer on that one, but then its not made for consumers). scrapped all that with a reinstall of ubuntu. was really amazed at how fast it installed and the fact i could just click firefox and go out on the internet with just one pop up to ask for the wireless key. I decided to put XP back on it, ran the install and it took forever, when i was finally at the desktop i couldn't get my d-link wireless adapter to work at all without going to another comp and downloading the driver. chalked that up to ubuntu being newer. Tried the xp to see how they felt compared to each other on that old celeron and xp just felt like a dog. Tried vista 32 ( i run 64 bit on my amd systems, but i had bought the home premium upgrade and sent away for the 64 disk so i had the 32 disk) figured i could install it just to see and not activate it before taking it back off. It installed ok, but again the d-link adapter didnn't work and i found that annoying because its an older g adapter. both xp and vista recongnized the intel ethernet though so i routed a cable over to it and plugged in this time. it was still more difficult to get out on the internet even wired. wiped everything and installed ubuntu again and just clicked on firefox and was on the internet instantly now that i had the ethernet cable hooked up. My wife sat down at the computer and surfed the web a bit with firefox and said she didn't even know anything was different about it. I installed a bunch of software, the office stuff and everything in the educational section of the application library, i also changed the apps to all apps not just ubuntu managed ones in the list. seemed very intuitive to me. I think anyone that could install or use windows could do it with ubuntu even easier.
now the down side to the ubuntu, file management and extra hard drives etc. you shouldn't have to go install an application to manage partitions or disks, nor learn commands in terminal to do so. you shouldn't have to do so to share a folder or disk either. that should be part of the normal administration menu in graphical format. I had to go through hoops to get my second drive to be usable, including researching it on the web, where i happened to find it was a very commonly asked question why the mount link was grey in the drive properties. To be a consumer OS everything about it should be point and clickable these days. The command line should not ever be required for anything as simple as adding an internal drive, partitioning it and formating it, and you shouldn't have to go and add an app for it either. There may be 50,000 applications for the OS but on install there should be one default of all those system type apps that the community agrees on to be the normal install, then people can go adjust it to their personal preference later. everything that you would ever need for something common like that should just be there at the end of the install and that included a UI for sharing with samba, partitioning, can't remember now but i had to go get several apps while i was playing around that should have been there already. If the community were to fix that and come up with a standard way of doing an install, and a standard desktop so you don't have to look for the KDE or gnome icon in the app manager to see if you can install something it might get widely excepted. but it just presents too many choices that a user has to make right now that someone new to computers or new to linux even won't have any idea about.
There are another problem:
people started buying NETbooks as cheap laptops. they want to use it just like they use their home pcs - misleading the purpose of a NETbook.
but to be honest, I never really believed that the concept of a NETbook would survive for long and it would turn out into awful cheap laptops.
Linux can be pretty cool. I tried that Open Solaris and that wasn't that bad either. ZFS is kind of interesting.
Anyway, the thing with Linux is the whole shared library thing. And the rapid pace of development. It's too much of a moving target to be effective long-term for people using it. Basically, you'd want to be able to install it and not upgrade "it".
Actually, Linux isn't the problem. GNU is. Linux is probably just fine, although the licensing is problematic, so you'll always have at least some driver issues.
In any case, to make the whole thing work, you'd basically want to install one kernel version and keep it there. Drivers installed once, that should be fine too (it's a netbook). If it works, it works. Let it be.
But the shared libraries comes in, and you can't upgrade your Firefox. You can't upgrade your Open Office. Not to mention there's simply lots of software not available. This not really GNU's fault, but shared libraries might have something to do with it.
You need to be able to go to a software vendor's site (Firefox's website, Open Office's website, for instance), download something like an .exe or a .dmg (a .deb or .rpm is not good enough) -- something that doesn't require any additional libraries.
It's really three or more layers that are needed -- Linux for the kernel and drivers, X for the graphics, but in between those two some kind of userland that can be left as is for the duration, perhaps of the life of the netbook, plus or minus essentially security updates, etc (but how would that break things, and what would be required there).
Basically, for Linux to succeed, a user should never have to deal with dependencies, or pull in a bunch of libraries, or compile things, or anything like that. A user should be able to go to a software vendor's site, download the latest Beta of Opera or Chromium or what-not, clink an install wizard or drag and drop to an applications folder or area, and then just fire it up. The chances of this happening on Linux are slim to none. So, therefore, Linux isn't going to make it in the consumer world. Servers, that's another story, but as far as competing with Windows and OS X, forget about it. It can't until it does this. And even then, licensing in the kernel might affect driver issues (at least on DIY builds, not netbooks).
But for netbooks, the Linux kernel is probably great. Whatever drivers you have installed, they're there for the life of the machine. As far as GNU, and packaging systems, and upgrades, it just isn't going to work past the initial sale. A consumer is basically being lied to if they are being told that an OS that uses shared libraries is anything remotely resembling Windows with its exe's or OS X with its dmg's.
Do whatever it takes to get people to install it -- but hey, if you're the one having to stand up and take some sort of real liability for getting people to do that, you should probably just be honest and say that it's not like Windows or OS X at all -- it's actually kind of a pain.
Not that it's a bad experience, Linux is very nice and configurable, you can get it looking real nice and running real smooth -- but it's (actually, this is GNU, not Linux) a shared libraries system -- which makes it a royal pain. That's just not going to work for most people. Why not just be honest about it? Yeah, it's fun to use and get going, but you'd better have some time to waste and be prepared to reinstall whenever you do something, even something as simple as installing an application.
A little bit of honesty might be appropriate here. As long as you're happy with the apps that are on it when you get it, and don't plan on installing/upgrading your Firefox, Open Office, whatever, your experience is probably going to be better than Windows.
Upgrading Firefox shouldn't break your system, and shouldn't require perhaps hundreds of megabytes of downloads of hundreds of packages. This just isn't going to work, but of course, the whole "no fitness for any purpose, no responsibility if your computer doesn't work", all that stuff gets interpreted so that people can promise a pie in the sky that they'd otherwise get sued for in any other parallel universe.
The changes could be made, but it's doubtful they'll happen unless it's something like Android which just basically runs a modified Linux kernel and has its own other layers.
Linux kernel is fine. GNU is basically broken for consumer desktops and won't work for consumer desktops (unless the average consumer has someone else administering it for them (maybe like the Kindle -- deleting and installing things remotely), in which case it's actually nicer than Windows).
Hello! Our selection committee compiled an exclusive list of theTop AOL
Blogs, and yours was included in the Top 100! Check it out at http://thedailyreviewer.com/top/AOL
You can claim your Top 100 Blogs Award Badge at http://thedailyreviewer.com/pages/badges