Hi, as any tryed the Linux system from www.Walmart.com or the computers that they sell with out any OS. So Dell may not want our money try someone else.
>From: "Bryan J. Smith"
>Subject: Re: Dell Linux blog -- People weren't buying them because the
>Date: 08 Feb 2004 11:42:27 -0600
>On Sun, 2004-02-08 at 10:24, Robert G. (Doc) Savage wrote:
> > Bryan,
> > I enjoy reading SFK as much as anyone, but I wouldn't buy or sell stock
> > based solely on his gossip column. Nor would I put much faith on what
> > one third party (Intel) claims about another (Microsoft).
>Agreed, but it _does_ mean that _other_ people were running into the
>same issues, and the gossip _did_ exist.
> > A "Good Explaintion"? If you really want the unvarnished truth, read
> > Dell's annual reports and SEC filings. They dropped Linux PCs because
> > not enough people were buying them.
>Exactomundo! Machiavelism at its finest!
>Why? Because _no_one_ in their right mind would buy them!
>You couldn't get a configuration that was acceptable, PERIOD!
>Dell sold Linux configurations that were *GUARANTEED*NOT*TO*SELL*!
>Even our Dell sales reps agreed. They said that everyone was
>complaining, that he had lots of interest, but people need more memory
>so they just bought the pre-installed Windows version of the model.
>Remember, *WHY* Dell started selling Linux as a standard install.
>Because Intel and the semiconductor industry _needed_ a tier-1 OEM with
>Linux as a standard offering. There *WAS* "critical mass" of people who
>wanted them. But engineers want Max Memory, Max Speed.
>128MB was not even what we bought 3 years earlier!
>So, my question is *STILL* -- Why oh Why did Dell sell such a
>configuration??? A configuration that was *GUARANTEED* not to sell.
>I worked with several engineers at a small semiconductor start-up who
>came over from Intel. They confided that it was Intel that wanted Dell
>to start selling Linux, and since they were the bigger provider of R&D
>than Microsoft to Dell (the only OEM that they are), _they_ got Dell to
>And then that's when Microsoft came up with the "OS certification
>requirements" on models. And that's _why_ they were available with a
>*MINIMAL* configuration and *NO* higher memory/CPU options. That is
>what I was told. Before then, it didn't make sense.
>So yes, Dell stopped selling a product that did not sell. And why did
>it not sell? Because the configurations were ultra-low-end, on models
>that *CLEARLY* supported far more CPU and memory, were sold *EXACTLY*
>that way but only for Windows, and the _primary_consumer_ of these
>products were engineers who wanted high-end systems!
>Now, will somebody at Dell *PLEASE* explain this non-sense other than
>what I have heard?
>Bryan J. Smith, E.I. -- Engineer, Technologist, School Teacher
>To unsubscribe, send email to email@example.com with
>"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.