Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS 1159
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.
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.
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
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.
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. -_^
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.
Why do I not believe you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, let's just say I'll believe this story once it's verified by a third party.
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.
Re:BE did file the lawsuit. (Score:2, Insightful)
The damage they have done to the computer industry is many times greater than the damage caused by WCOM losing 6 billion dollars.
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).
What would happen if Dell said No!? (Score:2, Insightful)
If Dell agreed to this it is because they didn't believe the fight was worth it. They have made a lot of statements to the fact that they aren't making any money off Linux sales so it makes sense that they would choose to do this.
If the Linux community wants the big PC vendors to start supporting Linux and making agreements that don't harm the Linux community they need to start making it apparent to Dell. The next time your company is looking to upgrade its desktops contact Dell and request a quote for their standard business desktop with Linux preinstalled. When they point out that only certain systems are available inform them that you know for fact that Redhat/Mandrake/Debian/Etc. installs perfectly on the Optiplex you want and that you will be taking your business to another PC vendor that supports MS. If Dell wants your business they will meet your needs, and their policies towards restrictive Microsoft licenses will change.
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.
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.
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.
Scenario (Score:3, 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."
Read the statement again... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:I see this two ways.... (Score:2, Insightful)
There's a bit more to it that that. What this means is that Dell can no longer offer a Model installed with Windows and a non microsoft OS. If Model A comes with OEM windows, Model A cannot be offered as Model A with any other OS. If Dell wish to offer Model A with, say, RedHat Linux, they'll have to brand it as another Model.
This kills dual bootable options and forces suppliers to offer confusing product lines. Imagine the extra money this will take up in Advertising and Admin costs. At the end of the day, some OEMs will find it cheaper to sell only Windows offerings.
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not, but they certainly built their market share purely on bad business practices. (OK, originally they gained market share because people pirated the hell out of their BASIC interpreters..)
All of the features you mention really didn't exist until long AFTER Microsoft had their monopoly firmly in place.. or have we forgotten 95 already? Hell, by the time 3.1 was out, 'Windows' was pretty much synonymous with 'computer' for a lot of people. And you can't tell me that drivers or video modes were anything approaching easy back then
Re:Dude, you're getting a Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Standard practice for M$ (Score:2, Insightful)
When I told this to the PC supplier's rep, he became very, very agitated -- to the point that he seemed so rude I nearly told him to leave. He said we couldn't move the OS from one system to another, and (furthermore) they wouldn't sell PCs without a version of Windows on them.
I checked this on a sys admin mailing list I subscribe to. He was right: MS sued a company for supplying OS-less PCs, and could have bankrupted them with the court judgement (UKP100,000 fine). That's why the rep became so agitated: he didn't want the same fate for his company.
I don't know which aspects of the law come into play here, or which part of the EULA fine-print, but at the moment I'm looking for ways to increase the use of Linux and may be able to persuade some of our users to use it. In the end, this might work in favour of alternative operating systems: contrary to what M$ seem to believe, many of their customers do not have unlimited funds and will seek alternatives.
Actually no.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
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:Monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Hm. Adding useful features to please the user *after* a monopoly is already established. How much sense does that make?
"Your honor, the basis of our complaint is that MS used dirty tricks to get everyone to buy their stuff, and now the underhanded bastards are working to maintain market share by pleasing their customers! C'mon, make 'em stop!"
The only bad business practices MS used to establish their monopoly were the artificial incompatibility with PC-DOS, and the way they dumped OS/2 like a poisoned turd in favor of the win32 API (both detailed at this page [tux.org]).
But, IBM was still shipping OS/2; were the enhanced features of windows 95 perhaps offered to compete with the only genuine alternative at the time?
Re:Monopoly (Score:0, Insightful)
He's right on two counts.
A) If by "better product" he means the product that best meets the consumers' wants, then he is correct. Microsoft may be using unethical business practices now to keep their monopoly, but they obtained that monopoly through pure consumer choice. I remember when you could buy a new computer with DR-DOS. But people chose MSDOS. I remember preinstalled GeoWorks, but people chose Window 3.1. Even today you can walk into Fry's or CompUSA and see Redhat sitting on the shelf next to Windows XP, and see people voluntarily choosing Windows XP. And of course, don't forget the Macintosh!
B) Microsoft is not an evil company. No company is evil. Only people can be evil. The entire concept of morality is so alien to corporations that you can't even call them amoral. Calling a company "evil" is just an anthropomorphism to justify hatred.
I don't like Microsoft. I dislike many of their business practices. I dislike their products. I don't like their current state of monopoly. But that's no reason for me to revise history and rewrite the truth.
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.
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.
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: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
.
Re:Monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Assuming power down first? Windows doesn't care either.
Its windows, yet it sucks in many areas, but give credit where credit is do, Windows (or DOS for that matter) has never had problems with whatever drives you want to shove in there.
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.
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Acting with conscious disregard for human life and wellbeing is an evil act. Companies, governments and other groups of people can certainly do that. They are anthropormphic, because they are composed of humans.
Of course, Microsoft is not exactly the sweatshop king of the buisness world; as I don't know of any case where Microsoft has traded off human lives for profits, calling them evil is probably excessive.
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like McDonald's sells the most burgers in the world because their burgers are so much better than anywhere else.
Re:Monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
BeOS didn't take off because the software wasn't there. Unless you were writing your own interactive graphics utilities, there was no reason to use it.
Re:Dude, you're getting a ... Pepsi (Score:3, Insightful)
Restaurants typically sell only one soft-drink vendor line, such as Pepsi vs. Coke, in order to get the best pricing/terms on the deal. In part it's the volume that does this (if they sold both, each would sell at half the level, and they wouldn't get the biggest price break), and the salesman push to get an exclusive deal (he gets more commission).
That doesn't hold for all establishments though. My local 7-11 has fountains for both Pepsi and Coke products (though nicely segregated). I guess for them the increased business and "goodwill" from having both sets of products outweighs the cost-savings of signing to an exclusive deal.
Perhaps something for PC suppliers to take note of.
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.
Do you mean (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument is beyond the pale of retarded. BeOS had enough default software to let a non-power user enjoy it and find it usable. Especially since they wouldn't have to endure another BSOD ever again.
And after a few non-power users have BeOS, you'd find that alot of ISV's would start porting to it, which would be bad for, you guessed it...
Micro$oft.
Re:Dude, you're getting a Mac (Score:1, Insightful)
MS and Apple are not getting along very nicely anymore, not as good as in recent years, this makes most Mac-users very happy.
Re:First ? ;p (Score:1, Insightful)
I like windows because there are better games.
I like mac because there are better audio/art applications.
i have 3 computers.
BIOTCH
Re:Scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Bridgestone == Firestone. Bridgestone is a subdivision of Firestone, a subsidiary started years ago to be an OEM for Ford.
2. Try this one: Dell Computers contracts with UPS to deliver their boxen. Dell gets special pricing from UPS if they agree to only ship UPS. Same idea. Perfectly legal--matter of fact, that was their deal for a while. They only changed (and gave up some of their special pricing) after the UPS strike; they realized that putting all of their eggs in one basket like that was a risky move. But until that strike, they (quite legally) contracted with UPS, and only UPS, to deliver their machines, and they got a special deal for it.
Re:Just so people know how this works... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Dell signs an agreement with UPS to only ship UPS for a big discount this isn't the same thing because express shipping is a competitive market. Dell presumably before signing such an agreement would ask FedEx to make an offer. Dell shipping only UPS is not going to put FedEx out of business. If FedEx loses too many customers to UPS from this sort of deal they are going to start undercutting UPS.
The situation in the PC industry is nowhere near the same. There is one OS vendor with over 80% of the market. A majority of PCs sold are made by just 3 or 4 vendors (Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba). So for Microsoft to have an exclusive contract with all of the major vendors means Be, Apple, RedHat or whoever don't stand a chance of taking market share from 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.
Re:Just one big problem with your argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course that's not a crime.
However it is a crime for Microsoft to bully OEMs into not offering Linux as a choice.
Especially when customers are willing to pay for Linux to use in jobs where the open-source community has done a better job done Microsoft.
And that's why the post was moderated as a troll. The truth can be a troll in the wrong context. Pointing out that Linux isn't the be-all and end-all isn't a revelation, and it isn't disputed by any sensible person, but it's also a troll in the context of this story.
Re:Dude, you're getting a Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Before the announcement, Apple was in a major downward spiral. Microsoft got a lot of shares really cheap.
After the announcement, Apple got back on it's feet. Microsoft sold it's Apple stock a while ago for a very nice profit. Not long after, Apple's stock began to slump again (granted, with the rest of the industry).
Anyway, no Microsoft no longer has any share of Apple. Even when they did they were non-voting shares.
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.
Not true of first release (was Re:Monopoly) (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not true of the first version, WordPerfect 8, which was a pure X implementation, the tip product of a long line of excellent Unix software made by WordPerfect Corporation. It is still the best version they released for Linux -- light and very powerful.
But Corel was unable to maintain that type of non-windows software themselves, and having fired every last WordPerfect developer who produced the Unix code (as well as the Windows code), they switched to the doomed Wine strategy, even though the windows code didn't have much that was missing from the Unix code. They never significantly enhanced either base since they acquired them.
Re:But I don't want the OEM license (Score:2, Insightful)
BeOS vs Linux (Score:1, Insightful)
Despite such practices Linux is upcoing, at least in Wal*Mart. Microsoft is not the only reason of its own monopoly. Companies like Dell help a lot. Even potential competitors. AOL for a while kept Netscape killed and delivered AOL clients with IE. IBM only recently started to support Linux. Sun released JDK for Windows in much better quality than for Linux. Apple for awhile ignored Linux.
Re:This is Dell we're talkin about here. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just show him a Mac? (Score:2, Insightful)
There are some people out there I've talked to who think that Macs are still stuck in the world of System 7 or (at best) OS8, that Macs are "too slow" (when the most the person ever does is use MS Office or play a CD), that any Mac version of an app is going to be worse and won't read Windows-created files. Some of this - not all - seems to stem from the FUD created by Microsoft: don't question your choice of Windows, or you'll be left stranded!
Linux is also subject to this too, though for different reasons. "It's too difficult to use" is partially true but often exaggerated. Many people also don't know about apps like OpenOffice or WINE. Even some of the tech-savvy don't use it because they're afraid that they'll be cut off from the rest of the world, or will have no resources to help them if they have problems.
For reference, I mainly use Windows (XP, even) at home, so don't think I'm a platform evangelist. Quite a few people are comfortable with Windows and really don't have a need to switch - I'm just saying that the majority of people, the types who buy a Windows PC instinctively, often assume that other choices are inferior based on their preconceptions (often without even bothering to confirm or deny those preconceptions). The appeal to popularity is a common argument... but would you use AOL as your ISP simply because it has the highest percentage of users? I hope not.
Re:Just so people know how this works... (Score:2, Insightful)
Aside from that, you're right. HP and Compaq divided don't hold much to the volume Dell moves, but together they have the power to crush them, especially if Dell falls from Microsoft's favor.