Slashdot Log In
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
from the yer-bringing-me-down-man dept.
UPDATES
1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
He seems to beleive that "they just make the better product, so people buy it. That's why they are so big. Not because they're an evil company"
Re:Monopoly (Score:4, Funny)
On the other hand, some would say it was the worst one.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
It's called "maintaining a revenue stream". Microsoft has no choice but to continually enhance their product, competition or no, or else people will no longer buy upgrades every few years. No new revenue == pissed off shareholders.
Of course, when they can't come up with any good ideas, they just break compatibility. Try using ANY Office document made with a new version on an older version. I'm sorry, but there's no technical reason at all why an Excel spreadsheet made under XP can't be opened in Office97. Just leave whatever miniscule new features that exist from being used. However, they don't do this. And as all new PCs come with OfficeXP, when you replace some of your office machines, guess what? You have to then go and upgrade ALL of your Office versions, at several hundred dollars a pop. For what benefit? I haven't seen any signifigant improvement in the Office suite since at least 4.2. I still word process the same way, and do spreadsheets the same way.
Fact of the matter is, Microsoft uses their monopoly position to force you to buy new software every few years, unless you're in the unlikely position of being able to keep every single one of your old machines doing what you want them to do, forever. And for the most part, it has nothing to do with adding new features.
Re:Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, but what they should do is save in the oldest format that covers all the features you actually used in the document. So when you save "nothing special" you get Office 95, and when you save something supper spiffy you get the newest. You also automagically get all the backwards compatability that can be given for what you used.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
> established. How much sense does that make?
Well, suppose you are a monopoly - and near-as-dammit 100% of computers have your
software installed.
How do you stay in business when 100% of your customer base already owns
what you are selling them?
1) You add features - make it easier to use - so people will pay to upgrade.
2) You ban people from using the software they own on their next computer
by writing things like WinXP that physically prevent that.
3) You stop people from installing the software they already own on their
next computer by preventing people like Dell from selling computers
without another copy of the OS on them.
Microsoft are doing all three of those things...Duh.
Windoze version N *does* have competition - but that competition is
Windoze version N-1 and that's not helping the monopoly situation.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
BeOS was a very user freindly OS, but thanks to practices such as these ones, it never got into any OEM products(though the OEMS wanted them, but Microsoft sent their lawyers around to fix that)
Re:Free OS? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? What makes an operating system different from any other item of software - or any other product that requires development effort?
I run Linux on my server on my home network, not because it was free (as in beer), but because it meets my requirements for a server operating system. I would be prepared to pay for it - say $250 - if that was teh business model for that software. The fact that Linux is free is a bonus - but not its main selling point for me.
So what is wrong with a company charging money for people to purchase their software? If the software represents good value for money, and meets a market need, then so be it.
Now, when a company that has significant market dominance uses that market position to force consumers to buy their products, then that is a different matter.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree...and actually, so do the courts. Legally, a corporation has all the rights of a regular (read: human) person. Besides that, a corporation is a legal/economic system or method. That method can be evil just as a method for reducing populations in concentration camps.
Corporations enjoy all the legal privaledges of citizens, with few of the legal consequences. As we have seen time and time again, corporate abuses are many in the name of profit. Corporate officers can be fired for promoting a cause, no matter how moral, that can't be justified as profitable.
What would you call an entity who has no morals, can influence all three brances of governement, only cares about making as much money as possible, and more often than not, doesn't even pay taxes to support the public that gave said entity the right to exist?
I call that "evil".
- JoeShmoe
.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are quite similar. Corporations don't have full rights, and neither does a regular person.
what happened to: Their right of free association (anti-trust laws).
Personal equivalent: anti-gang laws ("you will be arrested if we see you hanging out with your gang buddies")
Their free speech rights (no tobacco advertizing).
Personal equivalent: hate-speech laws ("you will be arrested if we hear you use the 'N-word' on campus, because it hurts people's feelings")
What about the numerous regulations that are created that amount to a public takings (fifth amendment).
Those are very often applied to people as well ("we found cocaine in your car, so we are taking your car and auctioning it off for our own profit. Oh, and your house, too.")
How can a person be convicted of being a monopoly?
Okay, you got me there.... I can't think of any examples of that happening. But I don't see anything stopping a person from being convicted of monopolization, in the unlikely scenario that a person was able to somehow gain a stranglehold over a market and was seen as harming consumers.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Unless the corporation in question is Shell Nigeria. [essentialaction.org]
Re:Monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
If I added up all the long head-banging-against-the-wall-tedious hours I've spent screwing with Windows trying to make it "just work" for somebody else (I gave it up long ago) I think that managing device drivers would account for at least 90% of them.
Nothing else in computing -- not transitioning my Linux system to XFS without backups, nor trying to make the nVidia OpenGL drivers work with X, nor Windows viruses, nor even mysterious non-deterministic segfaults in C have caused me more brain damage.
Sorry. Can you tell I hold a grudge?
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Tell that to the DR-DOS people. When MS-DOS was lagging behind and DR-DOS was picking up steam, Microsoft issued a beta version of Windows 3.x which was coded to randomly lock up when run on DR-DOS. And what do you know? Corporate IT managers soon started to realize that running Win3.x on DR-DOS was a bad idea. (This episode was later settled out of court with undisclosed payments by Microsoft.)
Tell that to WordPerfect, who had to sue to to get Microsoft to reveal secret APIs in Windows which made Microsoft Word run faster than WordPerfect. Though WordPerfect prevailed, the damage was done -- for a good period of time MS Word was faster due to this API chicanery, which obviously hurt WordPerfect's market share.
One can make a very strong case that Microsoft's monopoly was gained/created with illegal tactics, but, of course, the pro-corporate Republocrats/Demopublicans in Washington decided not to purse that anti-trust angle.
How soon we forget. Time to read your history...
Fine with me (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:Fine with me (Score:4, Funny)
Duuude! You're so not getting a dell!
Re:Dude, you're getting a Mac (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, I shouldn't poke fun. They sell Lindows PC's, Mandrake PC's, and just plain no-OS machines. It's kind of neat, and kind of scares me that they're offering something better than Dell and Gateway in those respects.
Re:Dude, you're getting a Mac (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm. I guess that Microtel OS-less box I bought from WalMart really had a super-secret invisible Windows XP partition... There are alternatives and they do not all come from Apple.
Re:Sounds like fraud to me? (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people believed in that promise and it gave MS the largest ISV community on the planet. And it was all built on a lie, one that MS now claims it never made.
What completely blows me away is that all the anti-MS people can't get their act together enough to document it and bring a class-action lawsuit based on it.
Re:Con-men, Microsoft and pathetic liars (Score:5, Interesting)
As for fraud, you do need the deception or lie (and it only needs to deceive) but you also need the transaction where they get your money.
Lying to consumers about the price of IE is one example. You can lie and claim the billion dollar development project has no affect upon the price of the product, but the law says otherwise. Economics say otherwise. Corporations simply do not spend billions in R&D for a product they do not think they will get a return on. They just do not do that. Looking at the price of the OS before and after IE is bundled is not the test. As a matter of law, each item in the box is attributed to have received some of that money. And, even Microsoft claimed to stockholders that some money they get is allocated to IE. Of course, they tell stockholders one thing (the returns) but lie to the public (free product). But, when as a matter of law it is not free (as was in fact decided by Judge Jackson and not overturned by the appellate court) then saying it is free is fraudulent. And, perhaps actionable fraud.
The consumer class action suits against Microsoft are not over yet either. It will be interesting to see if some of that action is based upon fraud. Most likely it is but I have not read the complaints. There is about 100 of them. So, I am sure more than one made a claim for fraud in addition to the antitrust violations.
The problem with the API claim is with the money aspect. When Microsoft claims that no APIs are hiddle and developers are duped, technically they are not buying the product. Rather they are developing and helping to support it. They have been conned just the same. But, for actionable fraud some money or property has to flow from the mark to the deceiving liar. And, I do not think the mark has to actually believe the lie and in fact rely upon it. I think in many jurisdictions it is enough that the claim is false and the false claim was made for the purpose of getting the money or property. Some "marks" may very well not believe a statement but go along anyway suffering as the result (out of their money).
The FTC could be more instrumental here. Just as with PassPort, if claims are false, they should be held accountable. But, then as with PassPort, sometimes the "criminal" just agrees to stop while keeping tbe benefit of the false statements to date.
That is why it is very important that the illegal gains made by Microsoft in the browser market be turned back. Antitrust law is supposed to be capable of undoing illegal gains. But, if IE is not placed into open source by the remedy or IE's share of the market is not restricted or returned to 20% or so, the antitrust laws failed. And, anyone looking at that will just assume they are of no value. That is what Gates said and thinks. And, that is why that idiot violates federal law so much.
In the end, Gates may decide it was not worth it. But, if the AOL judgement is less that 10 billion or so, Gates will be conviced that illegal means are good business.
What do they mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's just a legal word-game (Score:5, Insightful)
Bascially, the contract with MS says that they can't get the OEM price unless they sell the model in question with only MS products. So, they have to create another "model" which they ship without an OS. The obfuscation in the letter is designed to avoid outright saying that they're using the word of the contract against MS, so that MS can't say in court that Dell violated the contract in spirit (I'm not sure how defensible that would be, but if I were Dell, I'd avoid it too).
Re:I see this two ways.... (Score:4, Informative)
You know.... (Score:3, Insightful)
All it's going to take is a young Attorney with the lack of political awareness to tell the Emperor that he has no clothes.
So let's toast to the young an Naive. Personally, in a world where M$ can do this, I think drunk is a preferred state.
Going Boldy where I surely don't belong,
JoeLinux
Eagles may soar, but weasels never get sucked into jet plane engines.
Re:Well... (Two problems) (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Microsoft is pushing that having a computer with an OS other that installed on it is illegal (especially when they are donated to schools.)
2. More imporantly, Microsoft gets paid for every computer that sells with their OS. If you buy with theirs and remove it, you just gave MS your money for no reason.
It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft is using the greed of the industry against itself. Without hardware to run it on, software is useless, and Microsoft is useless. They are in a far more precarious position then they let on...Maybe it's time to give them a little scare
Re:It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhh... yea, thats the whole point of running a business, you know? to make money? Espeically publicly traded ones...
Ironically, cooperation *not* to buy microsoft product could be viewed as illegal cooperation between companies. Funny that! I'll bet the'd be punished in 6 months with hefty fines, too.
I'm not bitter. Really. -_^
Re:It's a shame... (Score:4, Troll)
Puh-leeeeeez. That's what corporations do. It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit. Period, end of sentence. Offering health insurance? Stock options? Good pay? Those are all tools to maximize worker productivity. Understand, this is neither a good nor a bad thing in the moral/ethical sense. In the world of business, there is no right and wrong in the moral sense, only "right" as in following the law and making money. Look at it this way, if Dell did the "right" thing by standing up to MSFT and lost money or went out of business, is it morally correct that this action hurts Dell's stockholders and employees? Gordon Gecko may have been a loathsome character, but his "Greed is Good" speech is closer to the truth (in the ethical sphere of corporate reality) than many would like to admit.
If you don't like the way business is run, then don't get a job at one. Start your own, give it the college try, and hope that you can look yourself in the mirror after ten years has turned you into that which you railed against as a young turk.
Re:It's a shame... (Score:5, Insightful)
No. In the world of business we've had people saying "there is no right and wrong". They've been saying it loudly. They've been saying it monotonously. They've been saying it for, oh, about forty years in strength.
But they're wrong. Just saying something doesn't make it so. Simply denying the existence of something doesn't in fact make it cease to exist. And failing to recognize the ethics of a situations doesn't mean there aren't any. We'e beginning to see the fallout in the corporate world when the basic principles of ethics and fair play are systemically violated...
Let's see what happens... (Score:4, Insightful)
But as far as ethics in business go, there is only one ethic: make money. The system is set up to encourage a company to find the shortest path to greatest profitability, and that's the way it will likely always be. Is this bad? Depends on what you want companies to accomplish. If you want them to achieve economic growth, increasing efficiency, etc, then they are ideally groomed to do this (as our economy has demonstrated over the past decades). But don't expect any higher moral sense to come out of a company unless there is a profit motive behind it. It can happen, but the system isn't designed to encourage it.
Re:It's a shame... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey buddy, are you sure about this?
I mean...I'm only using Windows because it came free with my computer. Just WHAT IF all computer makers out there sold their PCs as is, with no fluff and preloaded software and OS?
What if JoeConsumer (no relation) walked into a store and saw the retail price for XP? What if it was sitting there right next to Lindows which was 1/3 the price? What if the screenshots looks the same, the feature list looked the same, and hey look, the Lindows one comes with free Office-type software! It's $599 for the Microsoft version!
Granted, a large portion of people want to play games, and well they might need a Microsoft OS, or not, it depends on the game. Granted, a large portion of the people know how to use Windows and want to keep it.
But who is to say that if consumers didn't just automatically get the Microsoft OS for "free" when they bought a computer...they wouldn't want to try something a little more reasonable?
- JoeShmoe
.
Not quite. It's about margins... (Score:5, Insightful)
If everybody stood up to Microsoft, then Microsoft couild say, "okay, fine, then none of you get discounts". Now, they aren't going to stop selling Microsoft products are they? So now their prices just went up by probably $50-100/unit. Suddenly some consumers who might have bought those low-end systems think the price is too high and stop buying. Microsoft isn't hurt by this in the short run because they'd be moving nearly the same volume but at higher prices. Then they make it known that when these hardware manufacturers get their act together they are more than happy to reinstate the terms from before.
What are you going to do as a hardware manufacturer? Sue them? HAHAHAHA, yeah we saw how well that worked didn't we?
If the hardware manufacturers are smart, they will slowly work to undermine Microsoft. Providing better support for Linux installation even if Microsoft rules are saying they have to sell with Microsoft pre-installed. Selecting hardware to go in their systems that actually works well with Linux, etc. Long term, their collective dependance on Microsoft is going to hurt the big manufacturers, while small players, will slowly take pieces out of their market share because they aren't hooked on MS.
Why this won't work. (Score:5, Insightful)
MS could crush Dell in a week if it nescaped them. They would dump $200.00 PCs on the market for a year and Dell would die.
Right now Dell is scared shitless because they don't know how to diversify and can't stop the inevitable entry of MS into the PC business.
This stinks, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
The only machines I can get from them OS-free are servers, which works out in my situation since we use Windows on the desktop and Windows or Linux on the servers. I don't think this represents a major change for Dell, but it could spark enough interest to affect the outcome of the antitrust settlement.
That shouldn't matter. (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is a company that understands their users, right? If I choose to simply boot out of a linux installation CD and NEVER access the windows partition or use any of those programs, they'll give me my money back. Right?
Right?
Dude, You're Stuck With a Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
Then again, maybe Dell was looking for a way to stop selling OS-less PCs without incurring the wrath of Linux-zealots, and chose to blame MS. I would not be suprised....
Read the statement again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dude, You're Stuck With a Dell (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes today, the general consumer mob is sold on Windows, however the intent of this contract is not for today, it is for the future, and it is designed to help a monopoly stay a monopoly.
Essentially what this is doing is squashing out any future innovator that may want to create a different operating system to run on a system that would run on the same system that Windows runs on. This takes away all competition in the future because it is never given the chance to have a foothold.
A lot of people think that this is not practical (I am not one of those), no one is going to innovate something like that, but then again, look at Apple. Here is an everyday example of a company that's already got a superior OS ready to go. Other than Apple itself, there is really not a whole lot stopping them from releaseing OS X on other platforms.
With strong arming like this going on, Apple has nowhere to go in the OEM Intel hardware business because Microsoft has already stomped out their chances of getting a contract with one of these companies. What it comes down to is an operating system doesn't just have to be superior to windows in order to take a market hold, it all ready has to have the overwhelming support of the people that are already using the hardware that the vendor is selling or the vendor logically will never accept this new contract.
As it was sarchastically stated in the story, this, hands down, is one of the most basic definitions of a monopoly, or of how a monopoly stays a monopoly. It is sad and a perversion of the legal system that this company hasn't been brought down hard yet.
This is what essentially killed Be (Score:4, Interesting)
Scott Hacker has a great column on this called He Who Controls the Bootloader [byte.com]
Re:BE did file the lawsuit. (Score:4, Informative)
But, all the law suits have not finished yet.
Actually, only the Bristol and Caldera suits have finished. And, I am not sure about Bristol. Caldera got $150 million. Bristol got 1 million in punitive damages assigned by the judge. And, in that case, Microsoft lawyers had to be enjoined from lying about the decision in the case.
Of course, lawyers always try to spin the decision to make them look less incapable. But, it is rare for a judge to issue an injunction to shut the damn lying lawyers up. For Microsoft, it is necessary.
Just today Microsoft began to lie again about its monopoly status.
When will the idiots learn?
SUN thinks a billion in damages is close to a cake walk. They might be right. And, I think AOL (Netscape) could get 10 billion or more in damages.
To be honest, Microsoft is so corrupt and dishonest they may never reform. But, paying out 10 big ones will wake up a few stockholders who just assume that lying is the way to make the most money.
the judge will not know (Score:5, Informative)
The reason is that all testimony has already been taken.
It is just like the stupid decision by the appellate court that Microsoft did not try to monopolize the browser market. That was clearly incorrect but the court is strapped with the evidence in the case as of the testimony. And as of years earlier, Microsoft only acheived about a 50% market share. And, with those facts before the appellate court, you are likely to get such an opinion.
However, when the AOL case gets to the jury, facts will be completely different. Then 90-95% will be evidence. Very different indeed.
That is a basic problem with the legal system and it is why Microsoft lawyers can lie in public the way they do. Microsoft lawyers lie to the press and to the public based upon old facts that are clearly no longer relevant. But, to the ignorant, it is a sale.
Funny, however, that Microsoft again starts to lie about having a monopoly.
But, they are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway. They have proven that numerous times.
Remember the idiot under oath who told the judge that SUNs JVM was not included with XP because of the GPL?
And, remember the idiot that told the judge that Microsoft will withdraw from the market if it does not like the judgment?
And, remember the three stouges that each claimed they thought removing icons had something to do with commingled code.
Microsoft's lies are not even credable and yet they spit them out to defraud consumers. And, the judges as it turns out.
Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
a) There has been some legal development in what's left of the legal arguement that we don't know about, but is distinctly in Microsoft's favor, and has made them more bold
b) Dell might have decided that the "No OS" clause doesn't restrict them from selling Linux boxes, and along with other vendors allowed Microsoft to set these terms to get cheaper licenses. What Microsoft defines as "No OS" isn't clear, but Linux certainly isn't "No OS", at least here in the real world.
c) Microsoft is becoming increasingly worried that the legal proceedings are not going well, and wants to get this new contract into effect before the judge forbids such moves
d) Or the most likely of all - Microsoft is ignoring all legal and consumer issues and is being openly anticompetitive in order to milk the cash cow some more. Maybe they believe that if they act like the consumer doesn't and shouldn't give a rip about it, it will be true.
Just don't buy Dell (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, before we go off on a big spree about how Microsoft is bad and all that, let's keep in mind that Dell could have fought the licensing in court if they really wanted to. They could have used the precedent of Microsoft as a monopoly to tell them to fsck off. Microsoft could have tried to "punish" them, and Dell could have beat them down even further. There is/was a perfect chance to fight against the monopoly, but Dell just turned over and gave up.
Yes we're all QUITE aware of how evil M$ is. I could rant about that for days, but here on Slashdot it's preaching to the choir. What I see here is a company (Dell) basically enabling that evil to thrive. Wanna boycott something? Boycott Dell and make them realize they should have fought back.
Fact-checking, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if this is legit, is it really that big of a deal? Most Linux users know enough to ignore the "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" dude, and build their own systems anyway.
Probably does not include servers. (Score:3, Informative)
I didn't receive the e-mail, but the snippet above does not mention servers and they are usually handled differently.
Just so people know how this works... (Score:4, Insightful)
Dell has done a pretty good job with their letter blaming MS...but MS would be ignoring basic business practices if it didn't offer and option like this. I'm sure Dell is happy with the deal and laughing all the way to the bank.
Scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Gedanken Experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
Barnes and Noble: "Our contract with HarperCollins stipulates we can no longer sell blank journals or college ruled notebooks. Customers will have the following options:
1. Purchase a book published by HarperCollins.
2. Purchase a book published by another publisher.
HarperCollins demanded this because we all know people don't use blank paper to write their own stories or notes, but to pirate their intellectual property.
FYI-This affects all our competitors as well."
EULA refund.. or not. (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm not some fanatical Linux Zealot on the fringes of society. I'm a programmer, system administrator, IT manager, whatever you want to call it. I use Linux and other free OSs, and I really hate being treated like some psycho zealot on the fringe when I try to avoid doubly (and sometimes triply) licensing microsoft software for Clients' PCs. ("You want what? We don't do that? Whats a EULA?" HP, Compaq, Gateway and now Dell. its all the same.) I mean, honestly, where is my FTC? Where is my consumer protection? It goes beyond frustrating.
Wendell
reminds me of a line from the Empire Strikes Back (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't they agree to not do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it "no OS" or "no Microsoft OS"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The funny part is, that MS want's us to sell PCs with operating system and customers wants to get PCs without a preinstalled OS.
My firm is solving this thing by just adding a SuSE-Live-Eval CD to any PC that is delivered with an empty hard disk. So the customer is fine since he doesn't have to pay extra "MS taxes" and MS can't complain since we are shipping every PC with an operating system.
This is Dell we're talkin about here. (Score:4, Insightful)
I just slapped together a dual p4 xeon2.0ghz system for 2500. It has a gig of rambus, 80 gighd, DVD burner and a gforce4ti4200 something a rather.
Dell only offered Xeons in the p3 flavor, similiar setup for around 800 dollars more.
I used to be a sysadmin, I know all the service benefits dell gives (pre-imaged systems, 24hr on-site part replacement, ect) but I think if you compare the cost a network being admin'ed by dell with a sysadmin who just "makes calls to dell" all day to the cost of a network being admin'd by a sysadmin who maintains an inventory of spare parts, uses ghost or NT2k Remote installation services, and buys his/her parts from a local screwdriver shop I really do think you would see a huge difference.
Parts don't really break that often, windows does. Especially outlook. Is there really a savings to pay for that dell "protection money"?
If you're currently a sysadmin in charge of some large corporate network, speak with your dollars, not with your slashdot. Try and talk your company into standardizing on a single platform. Here let me spec out a good standard...
Nvidia video (single unified driver = less driver headaches)
Creative sound (the standard by which all follow)
3com networking
Other than the motherboards changing over the next few years you won't really need to do a lot of work to maintain these machines over the next few years. Be smart, implement home directories and tell everyone to put whatever they want backed up in there. That way you can wipe their machines without hassle.
well, thats my 0.02. Wish I had caught the article sooner.
'No OS' still an option for servers. (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a link to one of their server config menus. [dell.com]
On the menu is Win2k, Netware and no OS. So MS doesn't have the strength to do this on servers as they do on desktops. That would be my conclusion, as they'll only do whatever they can for their own profit - consumers be damned.
Railroading (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't help but think about how MicroSoft is a monopoly-in-restraint-of-trade as bad as the American railroad ones of the 19th century.
In the 19th century, railroad monopolies charged people fees for shipping on competing lines. The goal was that you only do business with one rail line. Microsoft's response to BeOS is much like this one. Microsoft, like the monopolistic rail lines, coerced its customers, the OEMs, not do business with a competitor. However, instead of charging imaginary fees as punishment, MS uses sealed OEM licenses to forbid them from installing dual boot OSes.
However, I see why MicroSoft uses such tactics. If people got computers with Windows and BeOS dual boot or Windows and Mandrake Linux, people would actually realize that there's no reason to use only Windows.
BTW, although not monopolistic or evil, MS's frequent changes to the Word format is like the railroad lines' stubbornness against choosing a standard gauge.
On a personal not, this seems like it could have almost affected my situation. I recently bought a computer online from a NE Ohio computer company [micropro.com] without an OS. I was planning on running GNU/Linux until I began studying at OSU, where I could get a legal copy of WinXP from a Microsoft club for $5. Of course, recent /. stories on EULA changes made me decide to use Win2k instead, and I bought a Like New copy through half.com. Unfortunately, Windows refuses to run because I have an "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE". I feel like using an illegal copy Windows if I can't get it to work.
Site License (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I don't have to buy Dell, but there are good reasons. For one, they are just down the street.
MS Ease of Use??? (Score:3, Interesting)
I had an interesting experience just this morning. I have been a firm believer in a few things:
- Proprietary UNIX operating environments like Solaris and AIX are, in all aspects, the best platform for back office services
... i.e. data warehousing, CRM, etc.
- Linux based operating environments are the best platform for front tier platforms like web servers, app servers, file & print, etc. (especially using SAMBA, RH puts Win2K to shame!)
- Windows, especially Win2K (XP isn't worth the $$$ to upgrade) is the best choice for the typical office user and home user.
But, I've been wanting to try out Linux on a PC and see how much it's improved at the consumer level. So, I installed RedHat 7.3 on my IBM T20 laptop. I've had this laptop for nearly 2 years. I have a CD I built with all necessary Windows 2000 drivers on it. The machine came with Win98 and I didn't feel like getting IBM's Win2K, so I just used a generic Win2K installation that I own. I had to download about 20 IBM specific drivers and install them before the laptop worked "right". It functioned, but not well.So, I downloaded RH 7.3 iso's from NASA [nasa.gov] (blazing download speeds, over 1.7 Mbps) and burned the install CD's. I then popped CD #1 in my laptop and rebooted. In less than 1 hour my laptop was a functional dual-boot machine. I let RedHat make all the install decisions, rather than customizing like I would do on a server. I allowed GRUB to be my boot loader. It boots both Win2K and RH beautifully, no issues. RH runs great AND I didn't have to download one single driver to get my system to work with Linux. Win2K doesn't include support for my 2 year old network card, so I have to have that driver downloaded before attempting a Win2K install on this laptop, no such problem with RH.
I'm a believer now. RH 7.3 is definitely ready for the average end user's PC. The installation is no more difficult than Windows, if you set it to boot to graphical logon mode life is easy. And once in Gnome (or KDE) all the tools that a typical end user might want are there. With about the same amount of effort that it takes to install Office XP that same user can download, install and use Open Office (that took me about 30 minutes).
Best of all, I didn't have to use knowledge gained in 10 years of implementing and administering UNIX servers. It was pretty damn easy. To get the same easy installation with Win2K on a laptop I need to get the OEM version of Win2K appropriate to my laptop OR I can just get the generic RH distro. No issues, no worries, no compatibility problems.
Bottom line, MS OS is no longer superior in the consumer market based on what I just saw, and the Linux price is hard to beat. For the user who doesn't want to deal with creating their own CD's they can pick up the boxed set of RH for a low price down at Best Buy. Within an hour they can have a functioning system that is equal to Windows. The only thing keeping it from going mainstream is games. Come on game developers. Get those games running on Linux and MS is in big trouble.
The first step to a 'trusted platform' ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, so maybe Dell will make a few machines ('n-series') that don't run Windows - but they're now a completely different machine. The previous court order stating that Microsoft cannot charge for every machine sold (regardless of OS) has now been circumvented.
That's enough of a step backwards to behaviour already found to be illegal on it's own, but this seems to be the first step towards making manufacturers have to distinguish "Microsoft ready' machines from OS agnostic machines.
A few more steps like this, differentiating Microsoft machines from the others, and it's a sure bet that the commodity hardware - 'Microsoft OS ready' machines - are going to be the much vaunted 'Trusted platform' - complete with a bios that will REFUSE to boot anything except a Microsoft OS.
Yes, I'm paranoid about Microsoft's intentions. but I suspect that I'm not being paranoid enough.
Here's what I would do (Score:3, Interesting)
Fact - The competition is also doing the same thing.
Fact - You are locked out. You cannot buy a machine without paying financial tribute to Microsoft.
In any other field/industry (telecom anyone?), this would instantly lead to class action suits.
So how would you go about "generating" a class action suit?
Here's the how-to:
Pre-requisites:
First, get yourself a class-action compatible lawyer. Don't worry about costs - you will incur none. Any law firm worth its salt will recognise the publicity value of this action.
Coordinate with people across the country, and make sure that they have a legal representative with them when you do the following:
Action:
1. On a pre-decided day (post Sep 1 - if that date applies to Dell, it will probably apply to all others aswell), have many individuals attempt to buy a PC without an OS from Dell, IBM, HP/Compaq, etc. Make sure that these are *individuals*, not *groups* - groups make bad class-action initiators, groups of individuals have the under-dog advantage, and besides, groups may put the "target" on alert (witness the anti-Microsoft tax day that effectively achieved *nothing*).
2. Make sure *everything* is documented (in writing whereever possible, witnessed by a legal rep if on the phone or in a shop).
3. Collate the unsuccessful experiences of *all* these inidividuals, cataloging experience with each computer company to show:
a. Policy within the company in question
b. The big picture - that this is an industry-wide phenomenon.
At all times, keep in mind that the computer companies are as much victims as you are - keep that in mind.
That's it. Let the lawyers take it from there. This is the stuff their wet dreams are made up of. Just make sure that thelaw firm gets plenty of publicity to:
a. Encourage them to keep going
b. Discourage them from backing out (either because they turn chicken or because the seniorpartners mysteriously start driving fancy cars).
Remember this - like the cases against the tobacco industry, there is valid evidence there that what is happening is not good for citizens of your country. It will be a long battle, but with enough evidence out there, vote-dependant Government officials will begin to see the light, especially when they start losing elections. With that danger, they will clamour to bring this matter to justice, i.e. into court.
And once in court facing the *people* (instead of purchasable commodities like senators), there is very little chance of victory for Microsoft (or anyone else who tries stunts like this).
No -- Re:Wasn't this one of the bigger issues? (Score:4, Insightful)
They didn't even get a slap on the wrist for this behavior.
Read the court's findings of fact [usdoj.gov]. The court decided this behavior was an "anti-piracy" measure--not the anti-competition measure it really was.