Having the corporate image pre-installed on the PCs was great, and only an option with volume licensing. So there is value somewhere, but not for the 100 seat company, they are almost always better buying with OEM installed.
The real reason MS pushes for no no-OS option is they know so many OEM licenses exist that someone retiring a computer could buy one with no OS, then move the OEM onto it, and at least appear compliant at a glance. Move the sticker or swap the case, not a huge deal for a 100 seat place with 3-person IT, generally 2 help desk to do the grunt work, and one "manager" to hire the consultants to do the real work. The help desk guys sit bored, and can spend all day swapping hardware to avoid a license cost.
Volume sucks. It's good if you have an unlimited budget and prefer ease of license management. But "unlimited budget" doesn't describe anywhere I've ever worked.
From "impossible" to "done" in a few hours, once I sent a letter to the regulatory bodies. They won't do the job they are required by law to do, unless threatened with legal action. And, sadly, that was my best experience with ATT, as the problem was fixed, even if it took them 6 months to fix their DSL service, and required I send letters to the national and state governments.
Gauge the person, then accept what they say or don't. Demanding cites like everything is a Slashdot thread makes *you* the idiot. What, are you to dumb or too lazy to look it up yourself?
Please, cite the relevant law I'll be accused of violating and any existing precedents of prosecutions (successful or not). I'll wait.
Blonde is "race". If you discriminate against "fair haired" people, that will be considered under race. There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.
I don't see why it matters so much to you. What does it matter who you blame for the shutdown? It was a good thing, not a bad thing.
There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either.
Yes, there are. If you discriminate consistently against blonds, then you will be open to legal action. You are using a strict definition of "race", and the application of the laws doesn't work that way.
How about folks, whose name begins with "Mi*"? There is not a law anywhere in the world (!) explicitly protecting us — how do you sleep at night knowing of this ongoing travesty?
Has there ever been a documented case of someone discriminating against a Mi based on name? No? Then why do you think you deserve special laws?
Oh, well, if we start counting omissions, we can get really far.
I've seen some that explicitly list LGBT (as a non protected class). That's not an omission, but a license to discriminate. Is that any different?
[LBGT] are perfectly equal already — there are no laws singling them out in any way.
Nope, there are hundreds, if not thousands of laws that single them out, whether by name or omission. There are piles of laws on housing and other things that state you can't discriminate on race, gender, age, family status, religion, and/or other factors, but very few of them extend anti-discrimination laws to LBGT. This is singling them out as one of the non-protected classes is singling them out.
There is no connection between the old AT&T and the company called AT&T today.
SBC was spun off ATT, then grew larger, and bought it back. They are now, and have always been the same company, they just had a trial separation for a few years.