> Anyone research this?
> 
> It appears the 'windows' PC's come with monitors and are about 200 more
> than the non-windows PC's (which dont have monitors) so the net savings is
> limited to the end consumer.
> 
> Now we all know you can get a 17" monitor for under $100 bucks which means
> you save about $100 for not having an O/S, but most folks probably think a
> 17" monitor costs like $150-200.  But more than any thing its a convience
> thing.
> 
> I'm estatic that this is a good step but it could go further.  I am still
> remembering that Red Hat Linux on my Latitude would have cost me $100 more
> than Windows 98 on same machine.  Go Figure!

I think this was because Dell still had to pay Microsoft the license fee for the
machine even though it didn't have Windows on it.