Re-thinking the Windows Refund

Just came across this LXer article and I think there's a fairly large oversight in there.  From the article:
Consider Microsoft Windows in a similar light. It has the lion's share of the desktop market. It has a huge selection of applications that people can choose from. Yet, because of its historical instability, insecurity, and because it's practically impossible to fix without re-installing the whole OS, for which the vendor no longer includes any media, it has lost tremendous value. Indeed, one needs to deduct about 10% from the value just for the Windows Registry alone. I won't mention Internet Explorer. In fact, Windows has lost so much value, that computer manufacturers can actually dump Windows PCs on the marketplace cheaper than they can offer computers without any OS.
The contention is that Windows is actually decreasing the value of a computer.  While I'm as pro-Linux as almost anyone, that thinking is a bit extreme.  Maybe this is a common misconception though, so let me explain what is actually going on here.  Companies like AOL pay companies like Dell to have their software preinstalled.  So many companies pay in fact, that for the large manufacturers the money they bring in on these deals actually exceeds the cost of a Windows license for them.  In essence, you're getting a subsidized version of Windows as someone is paying for it, it's just not you. Now, don't take this to mean I don't think the current OEM situation is criminal, it's just a bit too ideological to think that just because we see the flaws in Windows that it will devalue a piece of hardware to the general public.
--jeremy
Linux, OEM, LXer, Microsoft, MSFT, Windows, Open Source