Slashdot Mirror
Paying Twice For Windows
limako writes: "According to this C/Net News article, it turns out that Microsoft's recent contracts with businesses obligated the businesses to buy an additional copy of Windows 2000 even if the machine came with a licensed copy already installed. Now that is getting you both coming and going." Or, as David St. Hubbins said about Tapster, "There's a fine line between exploitation and opportunism."
It's sad to say that I agree with you 1000%. Too bad John Q. Public will take years to realize what's really going on...
God knows *I* would. She so creamy. . .
At where I used to work, we had around 80 OEM licenses and 3 retail copies...So everytime I submitted a free web-incident (which seems to work better that telephone), I just used the key for the retail version. Worked like a charm, even with office 97...
Glad I'm moving to unix !
Steven V.
AIX guru in training
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
it doesnt concern all of us enlightened ones who use a real OS :)
You said:
"just letting you know that Malaysia might
not be so happy being considered a third
world country
Do you mean Malaysia now considers itself as a FOURTH world country?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
The difference between RedHat and MS, is that you can go ahead and buy the distro without having to pay the service charge, whereas MS seems to be assimilating the service into the code.
It is a different model, because you can no longer just use the software, even if it remains static (as opposed to Red Hat)
yours,
yours,
kbs
Correct me if I am wrong
Arent we supposed to get refunds on software that we dont use? For example if I get a Dell computer with Windows 2000 on it and if I have to get another license to install my customised windows image on this machine, then since I am not using the Win2k which came pre-installed.... that means I should return the unused Win2k CD and license back to MS for a full refund?
Like we will ever get refunds from Microsoft anyways
First, you buy it. Second, you use it.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
You get 50 starts of any office app and then it stops working. When you call them you end up arguing with a typical drone that doesn't comprehend the idea that you might have to reformat and reinstall their OS every few months.
I'm sure this won't cause a revenue increase for MS, but will cause legitimate users to look at other products simply to avoid the hassles...
I can tell you why, from personal experience.
The last couple of summers I worked at a helpdesk where I had to help deal with all sort of licensing issues and I asked this very question of my boss (aka head of IT there). His answer basicly came down to that thier parent company had deals in place from the way-back-when of Win3x and earlier that were done with arimes of lawers and the such. The problem then became that M$ reserved the rights to change the contracts when software got updated and the rights to extend these contracts whenever they felt like it.
So all and all, mostly it's the companies involved own damn fault.
In some of the senerios that are stated, one license is never usedand should be "returnable" since you never agreed to using it(or is that inferred by the fact that you've bought the hardward??). Maybe if Big Company A buy 10,000 HP PCs from HP, then there should be away to squeeze money from HP or from Microsoft, shouldn't there be? If it goes through HP they may see that tightly bundling their hardware with an OS that has a silly "feature" in their licensing agreements isn't such a great idea.
I recently bought a Dell Inspiron. You're right about the initial installation. The stock config had a system tray that filled up about 1/3 of the screen, and this had the super xga 15" monster screen. Not only that, but they installed some software that was supposed to tell me when my computer was going to crash, before it crashed. In addition they installed a Macromedia introduction program to help me get started.
So what happened?
The macromedia startup crashed before I ever saw the true desktop. I restarted and made it through on my 3rd try. About 3 hours after that, the crash detection software started crashing my computer. Inside of 24 hours the computer was too unstable to use. I had to run windows, so at that point, I reformatted and reinstalled and the system became the most stable windows system I've ever owned.
The moral is that no matter what, preinstalled software should just be summarily deleted.
For what it'd cost the company to hire even trained monkeys to perform the tasks you propose, most companies will end up spending the same as if they'd just took their lumps from MS and the OEMs. The company's screwed either way.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I own a Compaq PC which I recently repartitioned to dual-boot, without the benefit of Partion Magic, etc. Before I wiped and reinstalled Win98, I found out the AC97 sound codec, the video codec, and the modem.
A lot of the Winmodems used in Compaqs are Lucent, and there is a single unified driver on their site that you can download.
Similar things go for the video (most low end Compaqs seem to use SiS, which has OEM drivers available on their website tucked away in a corner), and the sound (most use ESS, which also have drives on their own website).
Granted, finding out what exact chip an "ESS Solo-1 PCI Audiodrive" is using is a royal pain in the ass, and I only found out because I happened to boot an OpenBSD floppy image first, which miraculously detected all my hardware down to a T.
That said, a slightly tech-saavy user shouldn't have major problems with recent Compaqs -- at least now that they don't store the bios in some weird track somewhere on the hard-drive anymore...
>I predict MS revenue beating analysts expectations once this forces all these small businesses to buy a legit copy for each workstation.
When the demand is sufficent a crack will be written, probably in the form of bypassing the need for this generated number by patching the program.
Already loads of software makers (Quark, for example) put sniffers into their products to see if anyone else on the network is using the same copy of the product or hardware dongles (also Quark at some point). They have all been cracked at some point or another.
I'm sure there are people out there looking forward to the challenge of cracking Office 2K SP 1.
just my blog and pix
But seriously, why do customers have to put up with this kind of crap at all? Doesn't it seem like Microsoft should have such a bad rep by now that folks would go in armed to the teeth with support from other small fish and some good business lawyers?
if that method of reasoning were correct, bill gates would have been drawn and quartered when microsoft released windows 3.1!!!
seriously, the public is stupid, bill gates is smart, and he realizes how easy it is to prey on the weaknesses of others. like any good businessman, bill is simply engaging in a very high-end type of scam: it's what free trade is all about, you "fucking communist" (as one delightful coward put it).
i, for one, think that what we need is a public figure to stand up and lead a revolution against bill gates. preferably someone pretty stupid, like britney spears or the BS boys or something like that so all the other stupid people could relate to them. then, we could have them convince the stupid people of the world to all begin using better OS's, thereby increasing the surplus intelligence! woohoo!
grizzo: totally insecure, but very convenient.
Gartner found that Microsoft makes exceptions for its largest customers, those with more than 10,000 desktops, and cried foul that the company would compel others to pay twice for Windows.
I read this as an AND condition, you first have to have more than 10,000 desktops, AND you have to complain to M$FT. Sound like there might be some large customers out there who might be renegotiating their contracts.
Actually, there are enough good office tools for other OSes that that's no longer the limiting factor.
Visio, on the other hand is pretty indispensible, is now owned by MS itself, and has nothing even remotely like competition. I mentioned this in postings several years ago, but it's still a huge hole in the Linux app space - we really need to plug this one.
That and a decent browser are the *only* things keeping Win98 alive for me. (And yes, I torture myself with Netscape, it's weak, but it's far faster and more stable under 9x than Linux - sigh...)
We are getting *much* closer to being able to do everything on Linux, though: I installed Mandrake yesterday and it's the first OS other than Win98 to correctly work with my hardware (which is pretty normal) out of the box. Even sound - I'm amazed, as I had come to regard sound support in Linux as a chimerical legend, since it has never worked on any of my three sound-capable computers, regardless of distro or painful manual incantations, modules, or alternative sound subsystems like ALSA. My Red Hat's off to the Mandrake folks - I have a new favorite distro.
Now if GNOME just weren't such an inexcusable pig...
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
These types of agreements are not only legal, they are common. (Agreements in which only one party can change the agreement at will.) Credit card agreements come to mind, some leases, etc.
Of course when they change the agreement you reserve the right to get out of it, but the point is that it is detrimental to you if you do. If you cancel your credit card, you instantly owe your full balance. If you cut off Microsoft, you have no computer business.
But there is a good chance that (a) the liscense is non-transferable, (b) nobody wants that license because nobody knows what the fair price of the MS OS is (go ask MS what it is - I'll bet they will be very shifty about this) (b) Two plane tickets still gets two people onboard.
VxWorks: The cow jumped over the moon.
Start Running Better Polls
Paying for the software doesn't change it's status because you're not buying it. You're paying for the privilege (hence the "license" agreement...) of using it. That's what the EULA says in much fewer words- use of this software means you agree that it's not yours and that it's ours and you will do what we say you can do with it.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The issue here is not the media the OS comes on, but the little liscense keys you enter when you install the software.
An OEM copy has different liscense keys than a select copy (which typically has the same key).
Since the OS they buy from Gateway is supported by Gateway, they want Gateway to handle any technical support. If a user calls up MS tech support and gives them a select liscense key for the OS, then MS is stuck supporting it themselves (depsite having sold the actual liscense to Gateway at a greatly reduced discount in order to offload technical support to them).
Additionally, if a company get's raided by the SPA or whatever, they'll look at the liscense key on each machine. If that key doesn't match up with the number of select liscenses, then the company get's heavily fined, despite having OEM liscenses (which no machine will end up having in the inventory).
What it boils down to is tracking. They want a machine to have it's correct liscense so that it can be identified.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
MS has been getting some really bad publicity, and the people are starting to get angry at them. As people hit the liscensing problems and have to deal with MS tech support I have a feeling that there will be a huge backlash on MS.
It would be smart of MS to try and bury this before more people encounter it. The long they wait the more the public will turn against them. MS is fighting an OS war from two sides. Their power users are moving to Linux and their beginers are moving to Apple. Moves like this one, that are obviously just greedy, will only cause more people to switch over to other solutions. If they were smart they would concentrate on keeping the market share that they have instead of trying to scam a buck off of their users.
Oh well, I shed no tears when MS loses market share. If they want to shoot themselves in the foot they are more that welcome to in my book.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
While that is true (to some small extent with the big-ass OEMs), you still will have a hugely difficult time getting a system from a large OEM without Windows installed.
Take Dell for example. We ordered sixteen workstations well after their pathetic "Linux Initiative" was under way and were told that we had to purchase Windows NT for each system no matter what we wanted to run on it. The reason was that, according to Dell, "Linux only supports SCSI hard drives and if you do not want to pay for SCSI, then we have to install Windows NT in order to test the hardware before sending it out to you."
Whether this line of bullshit (other than the blatant lie that Linux only supports SCSI) is prompted by MS to force a Windows install ("We have to test the hardware" is a common chant among OEMs, it happens at Gateway and Micron too), or it is seriously something they believe cannot be accomplished by popping in a hard drive for test purposes then popping in a formatted hard drive for the customer (formatted to test that it is a working hard drive) I do not know. I do know that at Gateway (when I still worked there) they absolutely refused to believe you could do the old pop in, pop out routine unless you knew the right people when you ordered. Because, "We have to test the hardware!"
While they say you can order without software, this usually means that you will not get a hard drive installed. Somehow they feel that having a hard drive in the system will prompt you to 'pirate' a copy of Windows instead of installing 'legal' software. I went through this rigamaroll with management at Gateway, and they just couldn't fathom installing something other than Windows. This was a couple of years ago though.
Bite my yammer.
--
you must amputate to email me
--
you must amputate to email me
i read all replies to my comments
I work for a large SV company that is still Win95 based (yech!). It is an enormous project to move this company to W2k, so the rollout has been really slow, and I imagine this company is not the only one in this position. It seems to me that perhaps the slowness in shipments can be explained, and when companies start to migrate they will pick up. Not that i'm a particular fan of MS, but honestly W2K is a hell of a lot better than using W95 on a daily basis! :)
just my blog and pix
you already have to reboot a win box every time you run n apps in succession. unless SP1 fixes some REAL MAJOR assed stuff, I bet no one will want to upgrade.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well, it seems to me that Microsoft is doing what's actually a relatively shrewd business model shift. Instead of charging for 'code' or 'software', they're charging for it as a 'service'. Think about services: you pay for them as you use them. The longer you use a service, the more you pay. Now, there are contracts which enable you to save money, but only if you commit to a longer period of time. This seems to be what Microsoft is moving toward. It seems consistent to the .Net philosophy, anyway, and is a sneaky way to keep people paying for software as they use it. In any case, it's a necessity as people see less and less of a need to upgrade.
Frankly, this is an awful development for consumers, but it's a rather smart business practice if they can PR and market it successfully.
Of course, this issue wouldn't be the same if there were some sort of "minimum quality requirement" for the software. It's about time consumers got some rights.
yours,
yours,
kbs
Contracts can require you to give people money for no particular reason.
Don't like the contract, don't sign it.
-josh
No, but you would have to call MS and explain what you have done, and convince them you to give you a new code #.
In a way, I am hoping that this will accelerate adoption on some other office suite, like KDE's or Star Office. I know a bunch of businesses that will simply do without rather than buy a bunch of copies of MS Office (at the current prices, anyway).
Some additional details are available at Woody's Office Watch which I recommend subscribing to. It's a pretty timely resource for a lot of things, including ways to deal with Outlook related viruses (I know, I know - "the best way to deal with Outlook viruses is to use Eudora, etc. - spare me) and other handy tools.
M$: "We're #2!"
I'm impressed that MS would try to pull this while their case is waiting for an appeal. They must either be:
a) So full of themselves, they can't fit their swollen heads through a door, or...
b) Desperate enough to sell some copies of Win2k that they'll sink as low as they have to.
But seriously, why do customers have to put up with this kind of crap at all? Doesn't it seem like Microsoft should have such a bad rep by now that folks would go in armed to the teeth with support from other small fish and some good business lawyers?
More and more companies are going to see these practices and start encoraging vendors port there software to other platforms. This behavior will screw them in the end.
mod this up! Funny!
I accidently left my computer booted in linux and logged on to a gnome session and left the room.
My wife, sister-in-law, and father-in-law (all of whom are Mac people and not very computer literate), all used the computer successfully and didn't notice any difference.
If you have someone set up a linux machine for you (as you would in any office situation), it is just as easy to use for a non-computer-literate person as Windows. It is very good for the "I just want to get my work done" scenario.
Press Release: M$ to drop Windows 2000, but will continue to sell licenses
According to inside sources, the corner stone of M$'s long-term strategy involves shifting from shipping software to selling licenses. The first step was recently taken when the company started charging for two licenses of Windows 2000 for each installed copy of the OS.
In the words of Bill Him$elf, "there's no future in selling software. Already at the present time, there are costless alternatives to our products, which unfortunately for us, are also better quality than ours. The picture is very different for licenses: all companies (including ours) keep hordes of idle lawyers on payroll, who are always looking for license or trademark infringements in order to get an opportunity to mimic their favourite actor in TV law soaps. So we predict that the market for licenses will grow very rapidly."
Displaying the acclaimed vision in IT related matters (e.g., M$ early strategy for the Internet) of its notorious founder, this change in strategy is being welcome by M$ investors excited about the future value of their holdings. "We were already making a lot of money by convincing everybody that they had to pay a lot of $$$ for our inferior products; now we'll get them to pay for no product at all! There's no better way to reduce operation costs."
Most M$ coders also seem to believe this is a turn for the best. "We haven't been using any of our own products for years now, so it's getting more and more difficult to work on software we hardly know at all. Also, we've pretty much used up all the bugs we can think of to keep releasing partially working versions of our products. The board keeps pressuring us to introduce some more bugs in the code, but it's getting difficult to be creative in this area."
M$ is expected to stop shipping their products early in 2002.
--
--
sig is gone.
So, lets say a "small" buisness wants to get 100 computers for their whatever..
;)
They can:
1) look for an OEM that will sell a nekkid computer. (hahahaha.. good luck)
2) after buying the PCs, ghost the first one and use that as your base image. I did that all the time at my former job. We meticously kept every OEM license manual and card. Then we set up one computer exactly as we wanted it, ghosted it, and then used that ghost image to image the other computers.. no second license, no bullshit.
People need to think before they buy two of something they don't even need one of
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
no, but for all the money you could be saving, why not hire some kids to do it. Course it would take a bit more time, perhaps...
"First it was not shipping manuals with software (hey, you pay $1000, how dare you expect a printed manual?)"
;). Nowadays you're lucky if you get a page telling you whats wrong with the software (that nice yellow 'eratta' sheet).
;).
How true, how true... I have a copy of MSVC++ (one of the last ones to come on 24 floppies) and the box weighs in at a nice 30lbs.. Now THATS documentation for ya!
Question; if we printed up all the _worthwhile_ documentation for Linux, FreeBSD, whatever, and compared it to the _worthwhile_ documentaion for all of Microsofts stuff, which one would weigh more? We should start with the Microsoft documentation because if we do the HOWTO stuff, we might run out of paper
I'm sick of the word e-tailing... let the next person to mention e-tailing be shot.. uh... no.. the NEXT person.. not me... no.. arguh!
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
They should recreate this and put it up as a TV commercial. Go through the whole ordeal of an MS agent trying to explain to some one why he has to buy 2 copies.
Then put the slogan at the bottom..."Just another one of the millions of reasons why your computer should be running Linux..."
Or "Linux, connecting the world, one MS crash at a time..."
"Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality." -Jules de Gautier
If I go to CompUSA to get a x86 box, it will come with 'Doze preloaded whether I want it or not.
/. as much as I do, you will notice the story about Apple pursuing employees over breaking their NDA and spreading rumors. As you know, an NDA stands for Non Disclosure Agreement. There's the word agreement in there. If you read the comments related to the Apple story, you will see people yelling that an Agreement (an NDA in that case) is a contract. Now you are telling me the opposite ... I chose to believe that you are wrong.
:-)
Ever heard of Windows Refund Day? You don't have to get Windows. By the way, the topic is on companies using ghost to image their computers. I don't know many companies who buy their PC's at CompUSA.
The EULA says very clearly that if you don't agree with it (the EULA), you can get a refund. -> Windows Refund Day and all the like
whether I agree to a license or not
Like I just told you, this statement is flat out wrong.
There's no contract between me and Microsoft.
Of course there is one. An agreement is a contract. If you read
I don't see anything in the Copyright laws that says I have to buy a second copy of something that I already have.
There is none. Your sentence shows that you didn't read or fully understood the article. Microsoft is talking about 2 different products. That's a fact! Wheter or not you think that they are different, this is were the discussion starts.
I am trying to focus your arguments on the topic. I am glad that you replied to my comment, it's getting interesting
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
> the second that money changes hands, it's no longer
> their software - it's now my software
Not really. You haven't bought the software, you've just licensed it. And Microsoft and other software vendors are pushing legislation through Congress that would make the terms of the license agreement enforceable, no matter how arbitrary they are, no matter how underhandedly they get you to agree to them.
Where have you been?
--
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
Has the legal status of software licenses even been decided in court? If not, this here sounds like a hell of a good test case to me.
I work for a global company with a MOLP, and we do buy systems preinstalled with Win9x/NT, and have to purchase an additional license as per our agreement.
:)
Who cares? When we get systems with the License agreement and CD-Key, we give them away to employees, or to our after-hours clients, or to friends and family members.
Needless to say, our friends/clients are extremely happy with this arrangement.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
In my experience computer illiterate people have no problems using Linux. They know how to work an office suite, a web browser, and an email program, and all of that is entirely possible under Linux. Sure, they can't install Linux, but that's why companys have IT people. Computer illiterates couldn't install NT and get it working on your average corporate network either.
Plus, with Linux you don't have to worry about viruses destroying the whole machines, or even viruses spreading much at all. Plus you can customize almost everything on your client install. No more service packs that fix some things and break others - your IT department is in the driver's seat. And that will ultimately let everyone get more work done.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
And of course, you all remember when Microsoft was REQUIRING companies to sell Windows (or atleast purchase) for *each* PC sold.
So, let me get this straight. They required it be sold, and, they double dip corporate clients.
nice.
This is another example of why Microsoft is in blatant violation of U.S. anti-trust laws. It is absurd that a corporation that has been accused (and rightly so) of intimidating the competition and stiffing the consumer would force people to purchase another license after already recieving money from bundled software.
My last computer came bundled with a lot of extraneous software. I still use Windows (in addition to Linux) for specialized software that only works in Windows. However, of the software that came bundled, not one application (or the OS) that I currently use is original to the system. However, if I ever felt the need to upgrade Windows, I certainly wouldn't pay twice for the same OS.
"The future belongs to those who can look at a challenge and see an opportunity."
Hey, at least Microsoft gives us options. You can now either:
Hehe, listen to what Microsoft can asy to its adversaries: "So you don't support the Freedom to Innovate(TM)?"1. Watch your new OS asphyxiate on its own bad code.
or
2. Explain to the CFO why so much money has been spent computers recently.
See? They're not heartless.
Which option will you choose today?
Plan 9: Horse.
Ah, shut your stinky pie hole.
I agree with your last statement 100%. Personally: If you have to hide as an AC to make a statement, then (a) it obviously is a flame, or (b) you have no self respect or integrity for your opinions and deserve everything you get in life. (I purposefully leave off my email address b/c I'd probably get boned if my company saw what I was saying... which I guess by my logic is another kind of cowardice, but I'm ok w/that b/c I really like my job
Occasionally I surf at -1, and I've never seen anything that looks like biased political censorship. Anyone with a different opinion, please feel free to supply a comment # if you feel otherwise.
I think the
---
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Sure, I won't debate that. But the OEM is licensing you the first copy, not big bro^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft.. Take it up with them.
:)
IIRC, you *can* sell your license if you include everything you got with it and all the upgrades... does that include the PC?
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Yes, but you can't buy both tickets in your name and take your wife along with you on the plane.
Mmmm.. Donuts
There are any number of folks out there who will be happy to burn you a CD of your favorite Linux distro upon request.
---Joe Merlino gnupg public key ID: 1E91EBAF
A few weeks ago, the German Bundesgerichtshof ruled exactly this. As soon as the vendor gets the money, the stuff is out of control. OEMs can now legally sell their OEM CDs without hardware attached to them :)
Source: German c't Newsticker
an architecture firm, to be specific. sure, i'm running novell and bsd where it counts (on the servers), but we have no choice but to run windoze on the desktops.
why? one word: autocad. the firm's been using autocad since it first got computers, and we're not going to change anytime soon. if at all. the license costs ($3500-$4000 for acad, depending on flavor) are the least factor - retraining is the killer. we make 90% of our money doing one thing only: billing people out by the hour. every hour we spend training someone on a new product is an hour of billable time lost, and the cost to train the entire office on new cad software is more than we bill in 2 months (i know, we're run the numbers). this could take a whole profitable year and turn it into a big loser, nevermind all the other issues (pissing off clients, employees, consultants).
that's assuming, of course, that there were a professional-quality CAD program available for linux, which there isn't.
my point is simply, you're right; some people have literally no choice but to run windoze on the desktop. an operating system is only a tool, and you must use the best tool for the job.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
First it was the record companies, shutting down MyMP3 because they claim that you've licensed the atoms, not the bits, and that making a copy of somebody else's CD is not the same as making a copy of the one you own.
And now Microsoft is playing the same game. Amazing.
When the demand is sufficent a crack will be written, probably in the form of bypassing the need for this generated number by patching the program.
The crack is also going to have to patch the code that decides your Office files have been 'damaged' and wants to fix them.
fuck office... i'm talking games.
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
Why is this marked as a troll?
I find it more humorous than the Haiku in message 13.
If anything they should both be marked as trolls.
This is not an attempt to create a troll, it's just me being the devil's advocate.
I read the article. I read the EULA. I know Microsoft's practices when it comes to licensing and believe me, it's not that bad.
When you use that type of software, you agree to the EULA (End User License Agreement). It's very clear that an OEM license is different from retail. What Microsoft is doing is legitimate. I would even go further as to tell Microsoft : Go baby go!
The more people realize what's behind the EULA, the more they will consider, research, understand and use GPL software.
It's funny how news on Slashdot come and go. Yesterday we had this excelent piece about RMS. Read it! The more you know about commercial practices like the ones MS is doing, the more you want to get your freedom back.
BTW, look at how Oracle licenses its software and you will see what a real PAIN this is. MS is piece of cake next to this.
Be positive guys. MS is just trying to make money out of people who don't know about alternatives. You don't want them to tell you about alternatives do you?
my 2 cents.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
I agree. I think this case shows just how patently absurd it is when companies or a legal system treat identical streams of bits differently. Bit for bit, the two different copies of Windows mentioned in the Gartner piece are the same if I read it correctly.
That's why the Microsoft rep is so desperate to put the spin on the story, even if he grudgingly agrees with the facts. Hitherto quite happy customers might suddenly realise they've been asked to bend over and grease up over a techicality about a stream of bits which can be duplicated at zero cost. Mmmm - something wrong here...
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Paying twice for Windows isn't anything new either. Back in the OS/2 days, you were paying for a license of Windows with every copy of OS/2, whether you already had Windows or not. IBM eventually came out with OS/2 for Windows, which didn't include WinOS/2 and used your local copy of Windows. Brilliant move. Windows 3.11 broke OS/2 for Windows, of course, due to one DLL being changed in a non-compatabile way... Later on, VxDs broke OS/2 well and truly. More innovations from Microsoft.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Well... that's one part of it. But, in one way or another, I (if I'm buying, say, a new computer from Dell) am buying software from Dell. Or from the company they bought it from. Either way, neither company should have the right to dictate my terms of usage (nor Dell's, for that matter). Especially, in terms of First Sale, whether or not (and to whom) I can resell the software that I have purchased.
As far as I understand it, this is basically why we have copyright laws: that once a product is sold, the selling company has no rights in regard to what I (as a consumer) can do with the product they sold me. If they could dictate whatever they wanted, such laws would be unnecessary as any work of intellectual property would be sold with a licensing agreement requiring no copying/etc.
In this way of thinking, I suppose most software licenses would be invalid. Yet, even if this is not the case, OEM licenses specifically address First Sale in that they limit further sale explicitly. It can not, according to the licenses, be sold without the specific hardware with which it was purchased.
I suppose the argument is that software is not sold, that rather licenses to use software are sold... I'm curious as to whether that legally holds up, as it seems a rather precarious argument.
Jose M. Weeks
VMWare = Virtual Machine != emulator
Their new trick is that you have to agree to the EULA before you can even use the damn machines in most cases (unless the machine comes bare or with a Linux install option). Worse, even if you buy a bare machine or a Linux machine, in most cases, you're still paying for that license- and now you've got nothing to send back to MS or to disagree with to get a refund!
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Actually, your wrong about the prhase "buying".
;-)
The whole thing about Licensing that really makes me mad is this. When you go to a store and buy a computer or software box, you BUY THE RIGHTS TO USE it. If you read those license agreements that we all skip over and say "ok, just shut up and get on with the install", this is what it really says.
We "The company" hearby give you rights to loan our "software".
You never own it, or anything, you merely get the rights to use it. Go read the microsoft agreement. In in, 3/4ths the way through it says,
Microsoft has the right at any time for any reason to suspend your usage of SOFTWARE.
That is right. They could come out and sa, "Everyone in the world is no longer allowed to use our software, and if you do, we will sue you." And guess what, they can and will Easily win in court. When you installed the software or opened a box, you agree to the license that says they have the right to do this.
Solution? USE LINUX! and you're safe.
(If you were a store, would you like to tell people. "You can lease this software until you die for only $4000.00 per copy of w2k advanced server; or until we tell you you can't. *and they could come out the next day after you use it and say "sorry, you can't use our software because I don't like you, and I'll sue you for damages of $2 million.* And they CAN. Stores tell you, "You bought it." BURN THE STORES!
--Brandon
You've got me thinking. What is your reasoning here? Is it that the OEMs have no restrictions on what they can do because MS has already sold them the software?
If it affects a company, it affects that comany'e bottom line. And that means that the company will compensate for it in a number of ways. For instance, by reducing benefits packages for employees.
Still don't care, then?
I *invented* pants!
I'll say only this... if the administrator of these systems chose to use it, all power to him (especially when they require more money for another licensed copy). If the admin had no choice in the matter, then maybe it is time he/she considered a new job. :-)
Yes, we said "Balls to that" too :)
Rich
Here's the deal:
Microsoft is saying your case # 4 is not legitimate and that you would need to purcahse a seperate license for those last 10 machines. I don't think it's right, but they claim that the 10 machines you bought with W2K already on them (supposedly with legal licenses) does not entitle you to run your Select licensed 'ghost' image onto the system until you also purchase a Select license for each machine you do that with. So, while you do already own a license, in Microsoft's opinion, it isn't a legal one because they changed the rules.
In the article they said it's like purchasing a steerage ticket for an airplane. That ticket allows you to have a steerage seat, but it doesn't allow you to use a first class seat. In Microsoft's opinion, if you chose to install from your Select images, you will need to purchase the Select license. Even though the software is exactly the same, MS's rules say it is a different scenario that you haven't paid for the right to have.
Of course, what MS manages to somehow avoid telling you is that even if you buy the first class ticket and sit in the first class seat, they are also forcing you to purchase a steerage ticket so that you can be rest assured that you have purchased the 'correct' seat for you. So if you decide halfway through the flight that you would rather switch to the other seat, you already have it reserved for you.
So, whichever license you own legally, it doesn't entitle you to install using the other version (even though in reality it is exactly the same software and only in Microsoft's mind do the two licenses constitute two completely different products).
In other words: In typical Microsoft fashion, they have managed to make it seem that the world appears completely different to them than to any other person alive on the planet. And unless we agree that only their vision is correct, we are fsckers, and shall pay the price for it.
Bite my yammer.
Easy. Go to the web; buy a case, mobo, AMD CPU, a hard drive or two, some RAM, a video card, floppy, CD, mouse, keyboard, and a monitor. Put them all together.
Install Linux.
Simple.
--
If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
Just do it, remove all copies and go to StarOffice (side note: new StarOffice motto should be "sucks slightly less, and you get the source!"). The more that do it the sooner we can all get weaned from Office (which is imho the only reason to run windows anyway)
WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?
I am quite civilized, and I should be brought a beer immediately. -- Bruce Sterling
I once went to Gateway Country for fun, and tried to drive the worker there crazy by asking such things as if I could get a computer built (the advertizments say thier computers are custom built) without an OS, or a CD-ROM, or a video card, or something else along those lines, and he just stared at me, not knowing what to answer. He asked one of his supperiors, who then informed me that the computers are customizable given a certain set of options, and not having an OS was not one of those options. All the more reason to build computers yourself, although that's a little more difficult for large buisnesses and programs funded by grants, etc.
Sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Ok, you can't use it on a different computer. But can you use it on the same computer if you replace the hard drive, CPU, motherboard, video card, case and memory?
I know. I said not all. But it's folks like that asshole that give not only AC's, but all of /. a bad name.
----------
"Rock over London... Rock on Chicago..." -Wesley Willis
This is a great way to show larger sales and proving w2k is a success...
9 times out of ten, you will still be paying for Windows twice, as OEMs don't usually deduct the price of the Windows software that they don't load
What happened to that movement where people were reading the Windows Licensing Agreement and taking the "if you don't agree with this, send the software back for a refund" literally? I thought I had heard that lots of Linux users were actually doing that with the Windows software that came with their new machines.
Just say, well it was a PDC, its not anymore.. and you say to format and reinstall.. :-)
/*
Not trolling, but you gotta love (er thats the word) that you have to reinstall to change somthing like its Domain Controller status.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
So why can't they install NT, test hardware, wipe the disk, and send it out the door?
Oh wait, I know: laziness, hubris, and fear of Microsoft. How could I have forgotten?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
-Daniel
Of course, the typical "small" business doesn't buy machines 100 at a time, they buy two or three at a time, depending on what's on sale at Office Depot. Of course, these busineses don't have "Select" contracts either.
But to address the parent post - Microsoft has been trying this "pay twice" trick since the Windows 3.1 days, and it's only partially successful.
Big business isn't in the habit of getting ripped off by a supplier. They know what the licence contract says. But, they also know that they end up double-paying for a certain percentage of machines. Even though the Windows 98 Upgrade Project was declared a success, there's probably still machines out there running 95 or even 3.1. On the other side, departments may have already bought NT or 2000 for one reason or another, or aren't going through corporate purchasing for whatever reason.
It's easier just to pay MS for the site licence, get the discount and the tech support than to try to audit each damn machine. You are double paying for a few machines, and single paying for others that won't be upgraded, but at least you are legal.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Legal fees are high
The stock price has been dropping
Sell them two copies!
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I think one thing that should be clarified (both on MS part and the consumer's part) is this:
Are they buying a license to use a specified version of software, standardized ie: Windows 2000, windows 2000 pro, etc, or are they purchasing an individual copy of a particular instance of each software, each with it's own license.
If the copy from the company images is the same version of windows as the one that came with the HP, what's the difference?
What I'm saying is, it should work like this:
When you buy your HP, you are also buying a license to a single copy of windows 2000. For convenience, we are providing you with this pre-installed, as well as providing a rescue media disk.
In other words, the license should be separate from the instance of software, so to speak.
I know I may lose karma or whatever for being the devils advocate here, but I never really cared much about karma anyhow.. (I've got like.. umm.. 17 last I checked).
anyway, the article and everyone else here seems to forget that Microsoft is not actually billing customers twice. Yes, in a derived way they are, but at the same time they are not. Huh? Well, Microsoft SELLS licences to OEMs so that they can sell computers with windows (they happen to have had issues with not licencing to those who wouldn't comply, but thats another story). Microsoft also sells product directly to consumers (buisnesses looking for an OS, whatever).
Should they NOT charge for this 'select' thing? Uh.. oh yeah.. you have a legitamite copy, so lets send you a new copy free with a different version. We may not like it, but it is _fair_ buisness practice to ask money for product. Microsoft is licencing them a 'select' version for a site license purpose. If they already BOUGHT a license from an OEM vendor, thats their own stupidity (or ignorance, or whatever).
If you don't want to pay twice, you don't _have_ to. And here's why;
if you buy 2,000 PCs and all come pre-loaded with 2000, office, IIS, and the rest of the gang, you could legitamitly make your own image and install them all with that CD... its done ALL the time... You have 20,000 licenses and 20,000 computers.. humm.. the math works.
Some moron went out and decided that they would rather buy a site-license from Microsoft without realizing that they already had enough licenses for all their PC's. Duh. Me stupid buisness man. Me no understand fucking english. Me buy another copy of what we already have. You think Microsoft WON'T jump the gun and sell something to someone who wants to buy? DUH.
Think before you license, and for gods sake RTFL(or in terms of Windows, RTFEULA)!
--
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
"MS has been getting some really bad publicity, and the people are starting to get angry at them [...] I have a feeling that there will be a huge backlash on MS."
;).
Dude.. where have you been for the past 10 years?
;)
"If they were smart they would concentrate on keeping the market share that they have instead of trying to scam a buck off of their users. "
The other "big brother" (a/k/a the government) has told them not to increase their 99.999% marketshare.. so now they have to find new ways of scamming customers
"If they want to shoot themselves in the foot they are more that welcome to in my book. "
They already have quite the holy foot.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
That "and" isn't the sort of "and" you thought it was. In that sentence, the "those with more than 10,000 desktops" is actually a modifier of "largest customers" and can technically be taken out of the sentence without changing the meaning. Which means that Gartner cried foul, not the companies receiving exceptions. (You can also tell if you just analyze the sentence closely but keep in the modifying phrase, but it's easier to see it this way) If the "and" had been a "that" or a "who" instead, then it would mean what you thought it meant.
I know that that's a nitpick of your post, and I'm not trying to criticize you. If it were anything but a news story, I would agree that it could be taken either way. But any news writer who doesn't know enough about sentence structure to see the change in meaning should be fired or sent back to school.
So my question remains, how can they get away with making exceptions for only larger customers?
I realize that 20,000 != 2,000, so don't spot me on a simple typo :)
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
I don't use Windows, so it doesn't affect me. And how my company gets the software, either through double purchase or single purchase, doesn't directly affect me either.
If companies want to waste money using Windows, so what?
Like someone here said, if you don't like the contract, don't sign on the dotted line.
Je ne parle pas francais.
This is all fine and dandy for joe average at home, or small business....
but how is this supposed to work when you have
a) 1000 workstations with office installed, and
b) a network not attached to the internet? Do I have to actually phone in to MS and repeat hex license codes for all 1000 users when I upgrade? I don't bloody think that'll happen..
For varying interpretations of "lots". Only a couple dozen actually bothered to get off their fat ass to go down to Microsoft's complex or whatever, IIRC.
In a related note, I know of many small businesses that purchase one copy of MS Office and install it on every computer in the place. This practice will end with the Office 2000 Service Pack 1, because after so many days, you are required to contact MS to obtain a license code, which is based on the number MS Office 2000 SP1 generates from an algorithm in calculated, in part, from your computer's unique configuration.
I predict MS revenue beating analysts expectations once this forces all these small businesses to buy a legit copy for each workstation.
M$: "We're #2!"
Your company would have to pay employees to install the, and probably take valuable time as well. Still its better than giving MS the extra cash. Microsoft loves to bend you over.
Well, technically, M$ is right, if dickheaded in this. Technically, you're getting an OEM copy with the machine, that is tied to the machine, and you have X number of licenses under your site license for Windows. These licenses technically have nothing to do with the license of the copy that comes with the machine. Also, technically the numbers in the licenses make a difference, and all of that crap. Perhaps you could make a type of image, or install script that installs all of the software, and puts in the right numbers, or does it with the right disks and such. Still, the user has paid for the software, and has A license, to an identical product, so don't you think that some slack should be cut?
Also, you can't really blame the worker or anything, since technically, they are just working off of an SOP. One that was set up to protect the company and the consumer both (though that is questionable with Microsoft). Though it might look on the surface the M$ is looking to rip you off, they are just protecting their licenses, and this is a contingency that their SOP and license does not address. I doubt that this is on purpose (well, half doubt).
On the bright side, there is free software.
Eh...
They could come out and sa, "Everyone in the world is no longer allowed to use our software, and if you do, we will sue you." And guess what, they can and will Easily win in court
I have to disagree... I don't think this particular concept has ever been challenged in court, and I'm sure it wouldn't hold up. Just because you clicked on 'Agree', that doesn't make the contract 100% legal.
Of course, I may just not be cynical enough....
---- I made the Kessel Run in under 11 parsecs.
The facts are correct but the tone is wrong. See, if you focus on facts then you are getting the tone wrong. What you need to do is focus on the spin.
The previous comment was a public service announcement by the Coalition of Satisfied Micro$oft Users. Thank you.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
I am shocked and appalled by the number of times you successfully used the word "like" in that paragraph and by the blasphemous post of www.britneyspears.com on our poor defenseless slashdot site. PLEASE reply, I am dying to speak with you.:) And who in their right mind could possibly say that m$ seems like a nice company? I don't think I ever heard a human being utter such a sentence. Of course we are all entitled to our own opinion so don't take it the wrong way. I am just shocked.
Speak on my brother! You speak for all who have an ounce of intelligence and logic left in corporate America...
It doesn't exist.
Sure, they can't install Linux,
Let's see them install Windows, even. Windows is, in my experience, harder.
---
END OF LINE
5000 Employees = ~1700 new computers per year = You are a large enough customer that any vendor will ship you PCs in any configuration you like, including a custom image or even bare.
Some companies might be paying twice. The ones with half a brain aren't.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
That's the SID, which is used within the NT domain model to provide discrete security contexts for local and domain security. So if you ghost two machines, a local account might be able to access resources on the other machine with the same account, but different password.
But the recent crop of ghosting tools know about this (I'm pretty sure) and can generate a unique one. If it's not in the actual ghosting util, there's a standalone util to change the SID on a machine.
Yes, you read it wrong. Microsoft does not actually disagree with the facts of the Gartner analyst who started this whole story, they just disagree with the "tone". (Last paragraph of the article.) In other words, they want to put a spin on it.
The undisputed fact is (4th paragraph of article), if you buy a bunch of PCs with Windows 2000 on them, and you are in the Microsoft Select program, and you use Ghost or something to wipe the hard drives and install a complete new image of the same OS, the apps, the utilities, and everything else, you are screwed.
All big companies do this. But Microsoft says, "No, the Windows 2000 that you bought with the computer is not the same as the Windows 2000 you are putting onto it with Ghost."
So you have to pay for it again. And you can't get free support anymore from the computer manufacturer, you have to pay Microsoft $375 per incident.
The only way to avoid this would be to purchase the computers without anything on the hard drives. Good luck! Linux, BSD, and BeOS users already know how hard that is!
I predict Microsoft will change this soon, otherwise they will take a big hit next time somebody does a comprehensive study of the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of Windows 2000 vs. Linux. I would expect that Linux will become competitive in such studies sometime next year.
Imagine a company with 5000 PC-using employees, and a few dozen support staff. (Same as Gartner's scenario in the article.) The money Microsoft wants out of them for software they already bought is about $600,000 dollars.
Now, that much money could hire a couple of Linux experts for a year, plus pay for several days of concentrated classroom instruction for the rest of the tech staff to get up to speed on Linux.
Actually rolling out Linux would still cost quite a bit, but once all the staff is trained and you have a couple of experts on board, you can probably make the jump without too much pain and disruption. I would bet that the transition to Linux would easily pay for itself in a couple of years, with lower software costs, lower hardware costs, better software reliability, and better security.
I predict this will begin to happen more and more next year.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Microsoft: We're going to fuck you up the ass, and then you're going to pay us for it. Twice!
Company: Oh boy! Does that include the service packs?
God, I wish I was M$!
But a question: who actually pays for MS licenses? At my school we have burned hundreds of copies of Windows 98 (and more recently, Windows 2000) on the machines - and have only paid the license for one client of Windows 98 and 2000 each. Steal a few serial numbers off of Deja.com and bingo - instant 50 clients.
And one person on CNet made the argument decisively clear: buy one boxed copy of Linux and download StarOffice. Simple.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I didn't know that two copies of an operating system were required for a computer.
I better download an extra copy of Debian.134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
From a legal standpoint, there is nothing wrong with this. Microsoft makes an agreement with a company to liscense a copy of Windows 2k along with another piece of software. However, regardless of if this is legal or not, it is likely to hinder Microsoft in court. Personally, I say, you deal with the devil, you're going to get burned.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
c) In dire need to pay all their bumbling lawyers and legal fees without cutting into regular profits. Hey, the Judge said they were untrustworthy - I wouldn't put it past them...
Linux
Doesn't give any milk because the Milk application is "still being worked on". But they promise to have a clone of WinMilk Real Soon Now. But at least it has transparent skin and you can watch the organs do their thing.
OS/2
Gave lots of milk, but incompatible with everyone's digestion.
MacOS
Gives milk colored water, but the advocates try and convince you that it's really better that way.
BeOS
A cow that simultaneously whirls its ears, tap dances, plays Beethoven's ninth symphony when it passes gas, and fans you with its tail to distract you from the fact that it doesn't have a Milk app either.
NT
A cow that can give you options for 10 flavors of milk, but might fall over dead any minute.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Linux
This is the sacred cow of Slashdot. You dare not criticize it.
*BSD
Gives 500 gallons of milk a day. Nobody notices.
Windows 95/98/2k:
It's a cash cow.
Solaris
Used to be a cash cow, now it just gives milk like a regular cow.
BeOS
Pervasive multithreading allows it to swat flies with its tail, chew cud and whistle tunes while giving chocalate, strawberry, whole and lowfat milk from each of the four teats. Nobody is impressed.
Windows NT
This is not a cow. It's bull.
GNU HURD
Might be a herd of cows, but so far all we hear is thundering in the distance.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The point you bring up, stated differently, is that this situation *only* arises if you are part of MS Select scheme... this does *not* necessarily apply to everyone.
If I were to buy 10 HP vectras, I am not required to go out and buy 10 more NT licenses simply because I want to ghost it.
If I am part of MS Select, which involves support and other things for every machine in the organization, and across many MS products, not just windows, then there is a reason for this.
You can't use your ghost image and expect the license that came with your computer to cover that image. I'm not saying it is right, or I even agree with it, but it does make sense. If you are one of those companies who buys software from Microsoft, then just return what came with your computer. All you need is the receipt of your computer and the unopened package. Then buy your new copy of Windows. Of course, there are better solutions
I love how that feel that what they are doing is right. Ridiculous.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
After two hours of question-and-answer and file copy, "Windows was unable to locate the correct driver for a simple componant of your system. Try going through the installation process again, but next time try praying to Our Savior Gates. Don't even think of changing your configuration, as it resides in an obfuscated section of the registry, and you won't be able to modify it without booting to a GUI, which in turn can't be done because of the conflict. (I hope you love irony, because I'm secretly laughing at you.) If any of this fails to resolve your conflict, try calling microsoft and working your way through the maze of options in our automated calling service. And please keep in mind, this isn't stupidity, it's innovation!" Fun for the whole family!
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Compaqs have been a pain in the ass for years. They have a horrible reputation for changing video, sound, and network chips in the middle of a product's model life. This makes them almost impossible to support with a disk image. Top that off with the fact that they like to pretend they still make "Compaq" Sound and Ethernet controllers, when in fact it's the same clone junk you find elsewhere.
On the other hand, you should have been able find drivers on their website.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Another interesting point from the article: The "solution" recommended was simply purchasing a PC without a copy of windows.
In other words, pay MS, not the OEM, for your copy of windows. I imagine MS gets a much bigger cut that way. The other alternative offered by the article was to use the OEM copy for your imaging process -- but didn't Microsoft recently forbid OEMs to ship the Windows CD with a new computer?
Another interesting thing about this is it will make it seems as if more people are running Windows 2000 than actually are.
Why do idiots have to post off-topic lameness?
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Only a couple dozen actually bothered to get off their fat ass to go down to Microsoft's complex or whatever
I thought it was the computer makers who were paying the refund. If I had to do direct battle with The Evil From Redmond for just 50 bucks or so, I'd probably forget it too.
There is too much invested, by Microsoft, industry gurus, and corporate IS departments, in the theory that the total cost of ownership of Windows is lower than the alternatives. This shoots a pretty big hole in that theory. I foresee Microsoft offering some new licensing program that eliminates this cost. And they will tout it as part of their longstanding support of the best interests of their customers. The bottom line, of course, is that Microsoft is in business to make money. This is really bad PR with their best markets.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
i always post with this nick, jackass
SlashDoS Me Baby!
Unless I'm reading it wrong all the article is saying is that some business are reading the license agreement wrong.
Microsoft is not insisting that people pay twice for the OS.
Its just that Open License stuff microsoft sells, some people are misunderstanding it, thats all.
This news isn't slashdot worthy, IMO. (a bunch of idiots misreading the license agreement, sha...)
Actually Windows ME still runs on DOS, still has command.com etc., still has an MS-DOS prompt available. The difference is that they've turned off the "Restart in MS-DOS mode" option. I've seen a WinME beta, and this is exactly how it is. So basically, it's the same crappy system, but you have less freedom (to innovate).
Kind of like the farce where "win95 got rid of dos" that we heard back in 95.
Where the hell do you think you're going today?
--
Here at work, we support a couple hundred machines, and the first thing we do when they come from the factory is to wipe them and rebuild them. If you read this article, it states that doing this will prevent you from getting tech support.
What are these people smoking?
We have never had any problems getting tech support on any of our systems. If a big pc company tried to do something that stupid, they'd lose a tremendous volume of corporate business.
This, like, just doesn't seem right, I mean like, once you pay for something, like a cd or like a concert, like, there's no reason to pay twice for it. Microsoft seems like a nice company, that Paul Allen is a real cutie pie! So you slashdotters should leave them alone, they're only making the best operating system in the world for you and me! Plus they give to chartities, like the Britney Spears Foundation (see my site).
Oops...I did it again tour info, bio, and more!
If companys are so f****** stupid to sign such a deal then they have to deal tih it.
Oooh.. Poor OEM.
OEM's will do *ANYTHING* to shave a few bucks off their liscensing. If MS says "Hey, we'll give you and extra $2 discount if you agree not to sell as many machines as you can with Windows, the OEM is right there to jump on it.
The OEM *HAS* the option to decline that $2 discount and give you, their customer more freedom. But instead, they choose to screw you. It's the OEM, not Microsoft "force feeding" them.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Ah, Autosummarize. I hope you paid for the licence for that (twice)
I'd like to see prolonged Netscape uptime on linux :)
About the only rights left to MS after they've sold somone a copy of Windows is the right to exclusive distribution. That is, you can' buy a copy of Windows and then sell copies of that copy (but you can sell your copy). The same thing applies to books and all other copyrighted works. You buy a book and you can read it, burn it, rip out the pages and make paper animals out of them or you can use it to prop up a rickety old chair. The publisher can't take your copy, they can't bar you from reselling it and they have no grounds to sue you over what they might deem "innapropriate uses".
Software companies seem to think they have a right to special protections so they use EULAs (and spend millions in lawyers) and try to circumvent fair use, but I doubt any court would see what is obviously a copyright issue as a contractural one. UCITA would change that, which is why it is such a huge concern. But UCITA is a state law and isn't even in effect anywhere because of all the heat it's getting from consumer groups.
Wasn't that a big sticking point in the trial? I seem to recall something about the CEO from Compaq on the stand testifying that MS had forced them to buy a copy of Windows for every computer they shipped, regardless of what OS was on it.
If that were true, MS wouldn't even be able to appeal at the moment; they'd be in clear violation of the Consent Decree.
SImon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I screwed the pooch, mea culpa. Here's a better one. I'm sorry about this lengthy intro paragraph, but it doesn't seem to want to let me submit this again - which is both stupid and annoying. There's no contract between me and Microsoft. Of course there is one. An agreement is a contract. If you read /. as much as I do, you will notice the story about Apple pursuing employees over breaking their NDA and spreading rumors. As you know, an NDA stands for Non Disclosure Agreement. There's the word agreement in there. If you read the comments related to the Apple story, you will see people yelling that an Agreement (an NDA in that case) is a contract. Now you are telling me the opposite ... I chose to believe that you are wrong.
I belive you are missing something vital here - there IS REALLY no contract between you and Microsoft, when you purchase a COMPUTER. The contract is between you, and the person/company that sells you the computer. As such, you are NOT bound by any agreement that company has with Microsoft. When I build a system for someone, I bundle M$'s OS into the cost. I have no problem selling someone a system with NO OS loaded, and let them scramble for themselves. I have yet to have a request for a Linux system, but if I did, I'd build it - and still charge them for the OS, but not as basly as M$ does - basically, I'd buy them a box'd set so they'd get support - from someone ELSE, not me on the OS related issues. If I go and BUY a system at CompUSA, and it doesn't list the OS seperate, you had better belive that I'm going to bitch. I have my OS already, and I don't want, and will not pay for, another crappy M$ product.
This is one of the main reasons I build all my own systems now.
Postscript: they stayed with SCO, I left last year, 3 months later they became an all-Linux shop.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
There is definitley a point I am trying to make here though.......
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
Ghost (and I imagine other disk duplication programs) now have the ability to generate unique ID numbers, thus allowing for safe disk duplication in a NT environment.
file:
You have to remember, just because a company puts something in a EULA, doesn't make it legal. I could put an EULA on my software that said that you must give me your first born if you used it. If I ever tried to collect, however, the courts would strike me down.
The MS EULAs and the GPL are a bit different. The MS EULAs could potentially be struck down because they seek to LIMIT your right if you refuse to agree with them. That is something that, historically, the courts don't tend to allow. The GPL specifically GRANTS you new rights when you accept it, (if you accept all of it) so it would have a much better chance of being upheld. Basically with MS's EULA they are saying when you pay for this, you must agree to these terms, like it or not. I doubt that will fly with a court. The GPL is different because it says that you will have these ADDITIONAL rights, so long as you accept the agreement.
Basically you can use and even modify a GPL program and not release the source code so long as you don't release the binaries. All the GPL makes you do is release the source for free if you release the binaries. IF you don't plan on releasing your program, you don't ahve to accept the GPL and don't have to release your source.
Isn't there a slogan in economics stating that any PR is good PR? So the more people bitch and whine about Microsoft, the more they will buy. Remember, I'm not talking about sensible people that will go hunt for alternatives. So all this talk about Microsoft may not be as bad for the company as it seems. Eventually they will probably start "playing the good guy" again, and everyone will rejoice and "forgive" them". It's all a game playing on human emotional needs (need for hate-outlet and forgiving/forgiveness, read "1984" by George Orwell). Just for the sake of earning big bucks, or maybe their leaders have some "religious-alike" convictions they are really saving the world.
:)
On another note, why are people so reluctant to pay Microsoft? Don't they know that the more they pay, the better software Microsoft will produce? At least that _should_ be true if Microsoft REALLY is The Answer to all software problems. However, the resulting lack of competition is a HUGE argument against Microsoft as it is now.
- Steeltoe
Moderators: Don't mod arguments down because you disagree, mod arguments down because they are obvious trolls, flamebait, abusive or incoherent. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm raising an argument here. Mod up if you believe an argument is worth discussing. Thank you
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I know the previous poster wasn't making this claim, but the same people who make the claim about Linux GUI ease of use for non-savvy users are often the same ones touting Apple's mastery of the easy-to-use-paradigm and how awful the Windows GUI is.
I guess I'm not too clear on how a Linux GUI can be so easy for the unwashed masses but Windows somehow completely misses the boat as a user interface (I'll buy the OS argument for the time being). Particularly when the Mac UI is held up as the model for all, and last time I checked most X environments still had four or five mouse button combinations, totally inflexible display modes (ie, no jumping color depth in the same server), inconsistant menu commands, and every other violation of the human interface guidelines.
They would, but it's not worth the trouble for a small fry order of 16 machines. Come back with a bigger PO, and they'll ship them as you like it.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
IIRC MS has considered collecting annual license fees for their O/S's. The annual fee was fairly common for Mini and Mainframe operating systems, and probably still is in some corners. (HP/UX, VMS, etc.) Yet, MS catered not to the Information shop, but initially to the home user, while growing business market share.
Perhaps this is a twist on the common Shareware terms and conditions (personal use free, business users must pay $$$)
Seems like still a bit of an identity crisis for Windows, which attempts to be all things to all users. Compliance with this may be the little push more businesses need to consider alternatives (i.e. Linux), it's certainly fuel to the fire for Linux distributors. Everytime their competition gets more pricey, the better they look and their margins can open a bit as well.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm unclear about Microsoft is handling one issue, client access licenses.
GartnerGroup has energetically represented companies against Microsoft pricing practices. Last February they revealed a similar sneaky MS tactic, to charge for a client access license with Windows 2000, even though one already had bought the OS for the server and client. See the CNET.com article on that issue.
So again there is confusion about what Microsoft is doing. If you buy a preinstalled Windows2000 PC and you remove the OS and install the Select version, do you need to pay a second time for the client access license?
I believe you do, because the client access license varies depending on volume, and would not be for the same version of the server OS.
But I may be wrong. I'd appreciate it if GartnerGroup could clarify this issue too.
It's likely we have not seen the end of these strange practices by the monopolist. I hope the Supreme Court takes the DOJ case soon and we can move to a stable situation for businesses.
But again Microsoft is its own worst enemy. I hope they convince many companies now is the time to move to Linux. Why move to ME when Whistler will quickly replace it? What will Microsoft do when DOS is finally gone from the OS, tell people to use WINE?
Too bad it's a lame joke. A site that Stileproject links to, Something Awful, was "h4x0r3d" by a JeffK on April 1st. The only problem is that Jeff K was made up by the creator of Something Awful. Take this with the same grain of salt that you used with the Josef scandal earlier this year. Or the time when Stile hung himself. That's right, Stile likes to make fun of you dumbasses.
Look, you want to get support from the appropriate source. Select agreement customers install lots of stuff that doesn't come preinstalled, so the manufacturer shouldn't have to support it. Microsoft's take is that if they have to support it, you have to buy it from them. That's totally fair. You should just buy boxes that don't come with windows if you're a select customer. It's not like MS forces OEMs to sell you boxes with windows preinstalled.
Get a grip people.
--Shoeboy
Kind of like slashdot... when they post the same story twice with banner ads at the top... :)
Just kidding Taco, we love you!
Since it obviously gets you that long-awaited 64-bit OS from MS.
I know Microsoft has a small variety of licensing programs - Select, Open... and obviously Retail. I wonder if there is any resource somewhere that tells the allowances that each licensing program makes.
I believe Open Licensing allows for license numbers to be duplicate, just so that there are sufficent licenses in the pool for the installed base. That's what we use here and we use Ghost to quickly set up machines (30 minutes vs. 2 or more hours for a new machine is huge).
We have been installing Windows NT4 workstation on all the machines and will continue to until either windows 2000 gets fully compatible with NT4/9x software (notably PageMaker 6.5, AutoCAD 2000), or the software gets compatible with 2000. Annoying as hell, when we've been buying licenses of Windows 2000 with each new machine.
--onyx--
Here we go:
- Is there really ANY difference between the select license they purchase and the license I got with my new Dell last month?
- If there is then what are those differences?
- Does it really matter HONESTLY, other than money, if I have 50 select licenses and only have 40 computers (planned on an upgrade), buy 10 new computers with OS's on them (we'll say Win98) and I then wipe their drives and use my drive image to put Win2K on them (thus using up the last 10 select licenses I bought)
- or is it like this.... I buy 40 Select licenses and use them on 40 computers, purchase 10 new PC's with Win2K on them. Wipe their drives and then use my images to install the Select licensed version on them? (image created from Select licensed version of Win2K)
If the case is the third one above I wouldn't see any problems other than the fact that I purchased Win98 on the PC when I should have purchased Win2K and created case fourIn case four I can't see where MS get's off ranting and raving about anything. We paid for our license and probably ended up paying more through the OEM for the license then we would have if we had purchase a select license for each.
Maybe I am not seeing this quite right, but those are the only ways I can see this happening. Any input?
Yhcrana
The voices in my head don't like you
For a commercial business with no legally enforced monopoly, there is no means by which they can "exploit" people. It's good business for them to tke as high profits as people are prepared to pay - if they overreach the product's worth they merely create opportunities for competitors. And yes there are competitors. Mac is resurgent, and Linux is munching into their market from the server end downwards (take a look at Helix Gnome if you don't think the desktop will be next).
Because "the market" is made of uncoerced individuals freely choosing to trade or not, there simply isn't any way to turn trade into theft.
pity!
duh! all you have to do is not buy windows when you buy the machines. All of the major manufacturers will sell you machines without windows on them. then just buy the liscenses for the ghost images and be happy. This makes perfect sense to me. it's like going and buying a car with blue floor mats, then deciding you don't like them, so you go to the dealer to get green ones and they want to charge you for them again! the nerve!
---
In a certain headquarters of The Salvation Army, we got a 50 user (luser?) license for Office 200 Professional. Installed it from the original CD, only for the 50 activations registration requirement to kick in. (First software I've seen to *require* registration for simple use... talk about Big Brother!) When we called about the dilemna, we were just short of being called thieves! It went something like this:
"Hi, we've installed the Office 2000 Professional on the first few of our machines and get this registration requirement."
"Well, let's get the product key from ya..."
We read off a key from the Enigma device...
"Oh, it's no wonder. You're violating licensing!"
"No we're not, we bought another 50 user lisence." Insistance and paperwork persues to demonstrate the veracity of our right to the product we bought.
"Hmmm. Let me send you another CD with a new product key code. That should get you past it."
It'd be nice to get an apology for their false accusation. I wonder how many they persuade to crumble into the double purchase. This "guilty until proven innocent" approach must be a PR nightmare, not that Microsoft seems to worry about PR anymore. Still, it says to me that they continue a "cold warfare" to deprive the customer of money, short of violence but not short of threatening litigation.
c:\> deltree -y \windows
:)
heh
followed shortly afterwards by the obligatory "Fuck, shoulda loaded a smartdrv!"
:)
smash (deleted windows many many times
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
It is also possible that they rely on a niche product (real estate listing software, legal assistance software, etc.) for which no Linux analog exists.
But could they not use Wine to let them run those programs under Linux? If so, I would think that a cheaper and more appealing alternative...
Insert mind here.
Ummm, just an observance...
How many upgrades has linux gone through since 95? Linux is on an even bigger upgrade path, I call it version/patch of the day. I don't think a single week has gone by without some patch/upgrade coming out. Of course that's quite a bit cheaper upgrade, then from NT3-W2k
Downtime, I'll mumble an agreement with that statement, and I'd even be more willing to state that out loud, once a journaled file system gets put into a standard distribution and is "officially" blessed.
Whatever happened to the right of a consumer to create a single archival backup of software that he/she has purchased??
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
I've managed to aquire a fragment of the source for the latest Microsoft program. However, I am a Linux and embedded programmer, so can anybody here help me decipher it?
winGunHandle pGun = WinGetGunHandle(WIN_DESERTEAGLE_50);
winClipHandle pClip = WinGetClipHandle(TEN_ROUND_CLIP);
winFootHandle pFoot = winGetAppendageHandle(WIN_LEFT_FOOT);
winLockClip(pGun,pClip);
winCycleAction(pGun);
winSafety(pGun,WIN_FIRE);
winAimGun(pGun,pFoot);
while (winClipcount(pClip) > 0)
winSqueezeTrigger(pGun);
I think this has something to do with the new pricing/licensing system, but I'm not sure....
www.eFax.com are spammers
Instead, corporate buyers who have their own ready-made Windows installations should insist on not having Windows preloaded by the manufacturer and receiving a discount on the machine. It's the bundling and tying that's so obnoxious, not the site licensing.
The whole ActiveDirectory thing is enormously complex and there's very few people with real world experience with it. (And most of them are in Microsoft Consulting!)
People even managed to fuck up the old NT domain thing, which shipped for 13 years and had lots of people that understood how to do it right.
So, the fact that your company is doing any sort of W2K conversion effort shows that you are far, far ahead of the average American business.
When I hear the word 'innovation', I reach for my pistol.
In some places, people had to pay for 3 copies: One from the pc manufacturer, one with applicatons (mostly office stuff) bundled, and for the developers, another one with development tools (the Visual Studio etc) bundled. It's because they have different license contracts for different types of users.
And since those idiots marketing and sales people keep on sending email in M$Word format (why the hell you need to send a 200K document if you just want to email 10 lines of text?), developers claim they have to use the office suite as well.
And so they ended up paying for 3 copies of that ... what do you call it again?
Damn it! They're trying to beat us at our own game. Now they can say "Free Software, bah!! Our software has negative cost!"
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
this only applies to the crap you buy at stores... Deskpros and Proliant's are great systems with every driver available (and proliants are linux compatable out of the box!)
No, if your company bought consumer level Compaqs, fire your IS person on the spot.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Let's see:
computer + windows = $1000
computer = $1030
So... solve for windows:
windows = $1000 - computer
substitute the known quantity:
windows = $1000 - $1030
and reduce:
windows = -$30
There you have it folks: a mathematical proof that Windows has a negative value!
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
You will get IE with that Mac, which will lead to all the stupid sex and violence you could ever want. Ha Ha, MS got you again.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Until the general public realizes that there are alternative operating systems out there, they will continue to take stuff like this in the rear (and even smile while it's happening). If people don't realize that other OS's are not "scary" and just for "techies" and "geeks" the all powerful Microsoft will continue to rule the world!!!
You might want to review some elementary market segmentation ideas while Bill eats your lunch.
"Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer." - Linux Advocac
True, but in that case you would need only one license per machine, not two.
VMWare is an excellent tool for transitioning. The goal is of course to become totally windows free (which we have more or less achieved where I work). Some companies do not have that luxery.
Someone mentioned autocad, and cited retraining costs as the limiting factor. I suspect the libraries of autocad data that have been generated over the years is a much more limiting factor, but be that as it may, one application is holding them back on an aging, legacy system afflicted with rising costs and decreasing reliability. Such a firm could move much of their core business to Linux while retaining the one or two applications which keep them locked into an inferior platform by using VMWare (or Plex86 once it is ready).
What advantages does this have?
Even if you're stuck using VMWare indefinitely, you're still ahead to pay the $300 / box up front along with the windows license and move to Linux, thereby gaining control of your own upgrade cycles and costs (at a somewhat larger initial cost) than you are remaining with the status quo.
I mean, two licenses per machine? What is going to come out of Redmond next?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
No One Forced Them To Sign The Contracts
Actually, given Microsoft's defacto monopoly on the desktop, they may well have been coerced into signing such a contract. If so, this is a clear case of further abuse of their monopoly, and excellent fodder for the DOJ come appeals time.
Put more clearly, many businesses are locked in to the windows platform for various reasons. The cost of switching to Linux or FreeBSD and porting their apps may be something their budget won't allow, unless amortized over several years. It is also possible that they rely on a niche product (real estate listing software, legal assistance software, etc.) for which no Linux analog exists.
They take the lessor of all evils, pay Microsoft their inflated vig, and stay within budget for another year.
Yes, anyone can plainly see that, over the span of two or three years, they would be far ahead to switch to Linux and use VMWare to run what windows apps they cannot live without, but few managers are permitted to think in such long range terms.
If they're stupid enought to do business that way, they deserve to get reamed.
That much is true - if this doesn't wake upper management up, nothing will.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If you had read the next sentence, you would have seen me make that very point. Thanks for reiterating.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
"the html looks like it was done by someone with no clue. ie. a script kiddie. broken font tags, broken javascript and hrefs."
So you are saying he used Frontpage to make his page then?
Lars -
It looks like it is the official site... but the best part is that Netscape gives me an error box reading "A plugin for mime type text/plain was not found." That's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen surfing the web. Anybody know how to make cat work as a Netscape plugin?
And you know what the worst part is? I can't share the joke with my friends, because I don't think I could explain why I was looking at britneyspears.com...
It's obvious this guy spams his site, dont get caught, he's a Troll! He post the same thing over and over everywhere with different user names
I can't believe that Microssoft continues to pull such crazy bullshit in the face of the suit that they have already lost... When they try to get it overturned upon appeal, it's going to be really hard to convince the judge they've gotten better, which is really their only arguement. Bullshit like this is going to eat MS alive.
It'll make up for all those people that never pay for Windows once ;-).
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
So what's the problem, then? Each PC ships with its own client license, which should entitle companies to use whatever copy of Win2k they feel like using, whether it's the pre-installed version, a ghost image, or a manual re-installation. There are plenty of good arguments for using Ghost and there is no reason to buy an additional license for separate versions of Windows. If MS is insisting that people do that, they should refund your money for the first license that you bought, or they should quit strong-arming OEMs into bundling Windows whether you need it or not. This is like the Toshiba windows refund issue.
I work at a university that participates in the Select program.. we've always operated under the assumption that we can use the select CDs on any machine that is licensed to run the software. If MS is saying otherwise, they'll have some pretty angry customers.
One other thing: There's an inaccuracy in the article: "Wiping off the software on the computer also voids any obligation on the part of the PC manufacturer to provide technical support." Not true. OEMs won't give you good software support anyway, and if the problem is hardware, then it's really none of their business what software you're running.
--
Slightly offtopic, but interesting:
Gore: Linux, Apache (PHP)
Nader: BSD/OS, Apache (PHP)
Bush: Windows 2000, IIS (!!!)
Buchanan: Linux, Apache (Frontpage, PHP)
(according to netcraft)
I think both Bush and Nader's are sort of indicative of the candidates.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
EULA ammounts to prior restraint. It aint a liscence, it's a sale. I can tell you where I put the average shrink wrap agreement with this cheer:
Around the bowl and down the hole, go MS go!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
but you already pay twice when you buy it once
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
When I worked on a migration project for the city of Charlotte NC (mid 1999) we had to purchase a copy of window NT 4.0 for every workstation, even though every new computer we bought had it already packaged in. But it was a Gov project so we had plenty of money to burn. Then again we had about 4 Microsoft employees on site every day for 6 months. There was also a strict policy of ALL software had to be migrated to a Microsoft system, no matter what the cost or result. Example: we had to replace a SUN box that was our firewall with MS proxy. It was a very ugly place to work.
(I intern at a nameless company and have done internal support on multiple hundreds of HPs here this summer)
HPs generally come with special adapters of some sort for any drive bay... They make larger than average drive bays... You have to pay extra for those adapters... (Adding CD-Roms to old HP Vectra VE's was a pain without adapters... had to rig up my own half-assed adapter)
Most HPs come without screws... They are usually fairly easy to open.
HPs are proprietery when they can be... They make proprietery hard drives or devices that use specialized ide or scsi adapters, sometimes (I've only seen this in a few models)
Those are just my observervations on the mid-priced HPs.... I've found that if you pay top dollar for the boxes, you get more standardized parts, bays, cables, etc.
knowledge is power... power corrupts.... school is corrupting me.
Well at the consumer and small business level there is not only fear of being left out of file formats but also being left out in the cold support wise. Many OEM vendors ship thier comps of course with some flavor of Windows (very few offer linux as an option, or even no op sys at all). If the user decides to upgrade or even switch operating systems then when they have a hardware issue they may find that thier OEM vendor now will not support them because it is no longer an out of the box or MS OS. This generally is not a problem for larger corps with internal IT departments (who if staffed well are Root lovers and play with saudering irons on pcb boards for fun). In the case of mom and pop flower store with 2 compters to handle thier invoicing and inventory they dont have the technical expertise or resourses to handle things when they go wrong and thus rely on OEM vendor support. In which case these mom and pops are forced to follow whatever crazy thing Microsoft has them OEM put on thier system and don't you dare ever change it. True the anti trust case is supposed to address such issues. But what do you do with a call center full of 500 techs that only know MS apps. The vendors will still only support what they are given and the users are afriad to change what they are given becasue they need the support. Nice little cycle hmm. Jim His brain is gone
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
Has anyone noticed the number of "so what" comments Miscrotof stories are getting nowadays? Back in the old days, when Mircofost baiting was fun, before they had all their sins officially exposed, people felt like saying something. Now it would seem lots of people, myself included, are at last giving them the disdain they deserve. As for companies getting shafted, all I can say is serves them right. You jump into a pool of piranhas when no one told you about piranhas and it's really bad luck; you jump into the same pool when piranhas are the talk of the town...
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
"Gartner found that Microsoft makes exceptions for its largest customers, those with more than 10,000 desktops, and cried foul that the company would compel others to pay twice for Windows."
There's nothing really new here. It's the same old story....
the rich get richer, and the poorer just keep getting poorer.
If Microsoft cheated monies from rich-bad-mofo-companies and then give the money to the poor, then Microsoft can be regarded as the modern day "robin hood".
But the thing is, Microsoft is itself a rich-bad'mofo-company, and it is cheating monies from little mom-and-pop companies which don't have the money to have in-house attorneys to oversee every-single legal-documents they sign.
And in third world countries, Microsoft is cheating the people of those countries by pressuring many third world government to sign contracts with them so to "legitimize" the use of M$ products in their government computers.
In Malaysia, for instance, for every single government computer purchase, 250 dollars must be paid to Microsoft, no matter if the computer comes with M$ windows or not, and no matter if the M$ windows has been already paid for (included in the purchase price of the computer). The Malaysian government, just like many other government of the Third World Countries, are afraid of the US company's power in impose "injunctions" and stuffs like that that will resulted in the US congressional action that may include trade sanctions and all other stuffs.
You see, nobody in the Third World COuntries wants to be accused by Microsoft as a "pirate" because if you still want to trade with Uncle Sam, you must prove to Uncle Sam that you are NOT a "pirate", and to do that, you have to sign an agreement with Microsoft, saying that you will pay a certain amount of money on ALL computer purchases.
That is what Microsoft is doing in many Third World Countries, and the case of Malaysia that I have just pointed out above is just one of the many.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
They must have had a bad quarter...Making everyone buy everything twice...
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
After reading the article (you did read the article before replying, didn't you?), I've come to the conclusion that MS isn't interested in money anymore.
Like the RIAA, they're after power. Power to decide where and when "their" software gets installed on your machine. Whether it be their .Net program (where all of your applications are "upgraded" for a fee over the Internet), or their OEM system ("This version of Windows 2000 is OEM only - if your format the hard drive and put on the retail version without buying a copy of the retail version for this specific computer, you're in violation!").
Either way, their trying to control the method of how and when their software is used. The only thing they forget is that the second that money changes hands, it's no longer their software - it's now my software, and I can do whatever the hell I please as long as I don't put it on more machines than I have licenses for. I don't give a crap if it's the OEM version or upgrade or retail - if I legally own a copy, I'm putting it on whatever damn machine I want.
This is the reason I'm trying to convince my workplace to shift to Linux and be done with MS. I don't want to play games about who or what owns who; I just want to get my work done.
John "Dark Paladin" Hummel
We don't just like games, we love them!
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Once you get outside of the PC world, hasn't licensed software always come with draconian license agreements? I mean REALLY draconian -- hardware keys, processor-serial-number restrictions, total-number-of-logged-in-users (which even Netware enforces), maximum processor restrictions, and on and on.
I remember a friend who worked at a business that produced AS/400 software for small banks. Their licensing required the licensee to load a license file onto the computer on a monthly basis. Failure to do so would cause the software to stop functioning completely.
Periodically the licensees would do this wrong, fail to do it, or some other fsckup would occur resulting in total panic by the bank as their business ground to a halt; the systems all had 24/7 dialup access for the software company who could execute magic override application to fix it until someone could fly out and "fix" the "problem."
The point is that they were a real successful software company IN SPITE OF the huge hassles and risks involved with that kind of "license compliance system". The PC has never had this kind restriction (some apps need a hardware key, and some Mac apps will do an NBP lookup for their own serial number on the network), but given that such systems have worked in the past and given an industry constantly on the lookout for revenue streams I don't think we've seen the last of it.
Didn't it come out not too long ago that shipments for Win2K were below expectations? This is a very clever way of making it *seem* like more people are using 2000 than actually are. The motivation here might be less to increase revenue, but rather simply to pad the usage stats for Windows 2000, as the large customers affected by this are likely to get a discount from M$ to placate them. In fact, this move makes much more sense from a PR point of view (2x million copies of windows shipped sounds better than 1x million), especially in light of the inroads linux has made.
Another interesting point from the article: The "solution" recommended was simply purchasing a PC without a copy of windows. I thought it was virtually impossible to buy a PC without a copy of windows pre-included. Wasn't this one of the charges in the DOJ case? Wasn't this what came up in refund day?
According to the story, companies with more than 10,000 computers were okay; it was only the smaller companies that M$ decided to get nitpicky with. What I didn't see anywhere in the story was an explanation for why they could legally make such exceptions but require others to stick to the agreement. Anybody know the legality of special exceptions in such cases?
This one has been on my mind a while, and I guess this is near enough the topic to bring it up:
Are OEM licenses even legal? Don't they violate First Sale?
Jose M. Weeks
Towards the end of the article, they mention that buying systems from OEMs with an imge preloaded costs an extra $30 or so per machine - and rightly so, from the OEM's point ov view; it costs them to change their production line so that your image is loaded instead of their image. The article suggests that a cheap solution is to have no software loaded. This is not always an option, nor is it necessarily cheaper. The extra $30 cost is for having a nonstandard image loaded on the PC.
Note, however, that "no software" is also a nonstandard image, and some OEMs charge extra for or refuse to do it (the number that do has shrunk since Norton Ghost et al became popular). Furthermore, if you ask to have no software loaded, and then load your own custom image, 9 times out of ten, you will still be paying for Windows twice, as OEMs don't usually deduct the price of the Windows software that they don't load. The OEM are charged by MS for every PC they sell within a model line (thank you, consent decree of 1994!), so if the model you buy normally has Windows loaded, the OEM will pay MS for a copy of Windows whether they install it on a particular machine or not. Thus the OEM sees no economic benefit to not loading Windows, and they pass their costs on to you.
I rather liked this quote: "Almost all of what they have in their statement is correct, except for a few little things," he said. "But I would take issue with the tone of the letter and the title that 'Microsoft uses the license compliance confusion to drive new revenue.'" It's all correct, but the tone is wrong. Hmmm... The facts are right, but the spin is wrong. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
ShoutingMan.com
I am one of those people, and in my position as E-business Architect, people actually listen to the argument that Linux is a way out.
Now, Star Office is providing a way out. I now have a really strong argument against Office2K, BackOffice, etc.
As a result, we are implementing a Linux-based inter/intranet using PostgreSQL 7 for the database backend. We're evaluating alternatives for email also.
I don't need any Linux billboards or TV ads - I just need MS to keep doing what they've been doing. Remember, Hitler took a piece at a time also (through most of the 1930's. Then came D-Day, and he had it forcibly taken away from him. See any analogies?
-Mark
Am I the only person here who thinks Compaq is the Hardware equivalent of Microsoft? Compaq produces some of the most non-standard hardware configurations, and not only that, they pack the computer with weird "Compaq Control Centers" and things like this. I spent maybe a year trying to use a Compaq LTE/Lite 20 laptop, which didn't have custom hard disk settings and it was hell to get into setup (there had to be an error). I've also dealt with a Compaq Presario Pentium 100, which HAD no ROM setup program, and depended on one that ran from DOS. Both machines are now thankfully gone. These were machines separated by three or four generations of PCs and they have the same problems, and the same amount of different non-standard designs. It's clear that Compaq is trying to make people depend on them for systems, and I don't like it. Gateway doesn't do that. IBM does it much less. Sony does it more, but their memory stick etc. have an actual purpose, to allow all of their devices to work well together. So what is Compaq's problem? I think that they have the Microsoft syndrome, expansionism. They swallowed up DEC, and half of all laptops I see on the street are compaqs. I just think that they're an all-around BAD COMPANY.
Gartner laid out a typical scenario: A corporation purchases 5,000 PCs from Hewlett-Packard with Windows 2000 installed. But the company puts its own custom software on the systems using Select media provided by Microsoft. By Microsoft's interpretation, the customer would be required to pay an extra $117 to $157 per computer--or $585,000 to $758,000 total--for the right to install the Windows 2000 it had already paid HP for.
If a company is planning to buy this many computers to begin with, they most likely have an IT department for support, so why don't they create an image from one of the newly arrived computers and ghost it to all of the other machines (which in this example will be identical anyway), which saves the expence of the computer company pre-installing extra applications, stops Microsoft from leeching money that they aren't entitled to from the company in question, and put the 5,000 licenses they just paid for to good use (Because, and please correct me if I'm wrong, this is legal as long as you have paid for a licensed copy of Windows for each computer).
As a side note, if more assistance was given to the Open Windows project, it could be completed sooner, and companies wouldn't have to pay for any copies of Windows....
Windows - The only virus with a built in OS...
As the Contracts Administrator for my company, it is my job to read through contracts for just this type of thing. If I didn't find and point out the fact that MS (or anyone) is double charging us, I would expect to get canned pretty quickly.
On the flip side, the fun part of writing contracts is putting in everything you can think of, just to see if anyone catches it.
On the serious side, any company that writes a contract is going to weigh it in their favor. You don't expect people to agree, but if they do, you don't expect to ever utilize the clause(s), but they are there just in case.
"Microsoft can make infinite copies of Windows"
:)
(yeah, I know you can do it with any software
But it sounded kind of cool (scary more like) when the article said it like that...
Not too long ago, to legally use office, you had to buy a license for every machine in your office/school/home/whatever, regardless of whether it would be, or even was able to run office. For instance, a school's computer lab, with 20 dell pc's and 20 macs, and 10 linux boxes (just to make sure you know this is hypothetical :) would have to pay for 50 licenses from microsoft to legally use office.
Happily, microsoft responded to their angry customers and changed the license agreement a bit. if enough people are pissed off about this, they might respond. or maybe not.
chris
From the article I gathered that companies were confused and frustrated by the licensing agreement -- which should be straight forward and easy to understand. Even MS supporters would have to acknowledge that it makes MS look like weasals. It also makes them look desparate and unsteady like a ship that has sprung a major leak.
Observe the verbal acrobatics engaged in by the MS spin machine:"The first important point is that we are absolutely not trying to overcharge customers," said Noury Bernard-Hason, Microsoft's group product manager for Windows. "It's unfortunate that the analyst who wrote the memo chose to take that view. That's certainly not what we're doing."
Like rats off of a sinking ship they will jump, just give it time.
When we asked if we could install OSR2 with an OSR1 license, the support person replied "no, you need to buy a copy of OSR2." When we asked if we could buy some copies of OSR2 the tech then replied "You can't buy a copy of OSR2. Goodbye."
Its amazing how MS can twist their licensing around so much that they can always charge you when they audit you. Even when you try to be legal you lose.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
I think its really time that the community organized some kind of ad campaign to let the public know where we stand on such a thing. Now is the time to do it to before the presidential elections. The republican are all geared up reverse the break-up decision. Why? Because the public doesn't care. But if public opinion were against M$oft then they would back down very quickly because they would be sure to lose votes over it.
Personally I would donate to such a cause. Penguins on every billboard in America
If we want to win the "OS Holy War" we have to beat Microsoft at their own game and that is marketing. No matter how many lawsuits there are some portion of Microsoft will be around pulling these same types of tricks until people realize there is something better.
Never knock on Death's door:
The Anti-Blog
Since you are not using the OEM copy in that case could you get it refunded?
There are two main arguments by microsoft (according to the article):
- that even if two copies of the software are identical technically, a license assigned to one cannot be used for the other
- you must pay for the license to a product even if you don't use that product and you erase it completely.
first of all, how can they assign a license to a software and make it so that that license can only be used with that copy of the software when there's not even physical media involved (the software comes pre-loaded) and no way to differentiate it? this is technically impossible (prove me i wiped it out and insatalled it from a different media)
then there's the issue of having to pay for a license you just don't use...i don't think i need to elaborate.
the only way this would work in my head is if they accepted to give a refund for the copy of the software you're not using (wasn't this done before with pre-loaded ms s/w?)...
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
I believe the device driver that it installs for "motherboard resources" is one of several that is determined by a PRNG that runs during setup... of course, the last time I let 98 install itself (hit 'typical' just to see what would happen) I can't use IE. Won't work. Type in a URL from a 'My Computer' window - *poof*. Gone. No blue screens, no freezes, just nothing aside from the local drive and net 'hood. Can't use Windows Update, either, since it won't run with Netscape, and IE can't make it that far...
mutate... hmmm, sounds like that degrading ink in those 1-time-pad CDs....
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I stayed up all night downloading Debian, and my computer crashed at the end. I had to spend the next day downloading it again!
Those Debian bastards made me pay twice for their free product -- I had no money to begin with, and I had to spend twice that much just to get an OS! It's an outrage!
-Denor
Yep, I and a few other investors are going to be setting up another distributed file-sharing scheme [...]
2 12&cid=15
streetlawer, you are still a troll.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/08/01/1225
I suspect that many (most?) people out there, given a choice between "enough money to do X" and "the power to order someone to do X-1", will choose power. Seeing people follow one's orders appeals to a deeper part of the brain than seeing a large number in one's bank statement....
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Interesting...
That kind of destroys the whole concept of the Remote Installation Service that they have implemented in Windows 2000.
I think your mistaken.
Of course that's quite a bit cheaper upgrade, then from NT3-W2k
Uh, that was kinda the point. You don't have to *pay* to upgrade Linux. Repeatedly.
--
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
I didn't pay for any of my copies of windows...but come to think of it...I didn't pay for the computers I built either...only $$ I have given MS was the $20 for the IntelliMouse Explorer I bought.
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
You read the MS spin. Ignore that part.
The reality is that every large company in the world has a "standard image" that they use to set up a given machine. So the first thing they do is wipe all the software off the machine and install the image.
Now, obviously all of the installed software has to be licensed. However, note that each new machine already comes with Windows (usually NT). So the typical practice is to NOT purchase a license to the copy of Windows used in the *image*, since a license already exists for the *machine*. Microsoft, now, is claiming that you have to buy *two* licenses for each machine if you want to do things this way. This is almost a classic monopolist revenue grab manuever.
Thank you for your time.
Microsoft can go fuck themselves.
"Chatty Bitch should get on IRC if he wants to talk."
Should we be surprised that Bush (not-quite-the-antichrist) runs Microsoft/IIS?
ChozSun [e-mail]
ChozSun
ChozSun.com
From Microsoft's standpoint it makes perfect sense. Manufacturers buy a copy of Win2K at some bulk discout rate so MS can keep it's hold on the market. If you then choose to delete that cheap copy and replace it with an off the shelf copy, you're suddenly getting an off the shelf version at the cheaper price. Whether or not it's the same software doesn't matter at this point. You're in a sense "stealing" software from Microsoft. Of course if Microsoft really was going to market this correctly, they need to refund you the purchase price of the pre-installed OS. If Microsoft denies a refund, then they're really in deep. I'm assuming Microsoft isn't volunteering a refund, I'd like to hear what happenes if someone asks Microsoft. Does Microsoft have yet ANOTHER court case on their hands?
I grep, therefore I am
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Finally businesses are running into the reality that non-Windows using PC owners have faced all along. Until now, the Windows tax was irrelevant if you wanted Windows. But this is going to create a huge incentive for manufacturers to ship bare sytems and is a much better weapon against the MS tax than Windows Refund Day, even with Eric Raymond in a stupid costume.
If I were ready to buy 5000 HPs for my corporate net, and I wanted them all set up according to my corporate networking "standard" software configuration, I would:
Order 5000 Complete Systems from HP, minus hard drive and software,
Order 5000 hard drives from whatever vendor, that matches the ones that HP puts in,
Have my IT Department plug the new drives in.
If you buy 5000 machines at a time, you can dictate a LOT. "Please leave the empty drive bay panel off, and the case covers unscrewed, and an extra drive power plug handy."
[
They're not "trying to overcharge" customers, they simply ARE overcharging customers. Do, or do not. There is no try.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
As pointed out by the article, the simple solution is to not get a Windows license when you first buy the computer, and then you're only paying for the Select License.
The irony is that, of course, MS really doesn't want anyone to unbundle Windows from an OEM PC.
It seems they really do want it both ways.
ShoutingMan.com
I think the point MS is making is that it comes down to who's doing the support. When you buy a computer with a OEM copy of windows, the company you bought the computer from is responsible for the support. But when you buy it through this select license, MS is responsible for the support.
So I can see where MS is coming from here. But I think if they're going to be doing this, they need to allow vendors to sell computers without the OS.
It seems that microsoft is double charging bussinesses that choose to reinstall the computer withe thier own origanil harddrive contents.it seems to me that this is a practice that will have to be stopped. just live with the origanl contents an install or uninstall software as nessecary. Only problem is that this would take more time. Bussneses should just buy site licences fro everything on the image. Now my dad owns a small busssness (less then 10 employees) and usualy just buys one copy of software and puts it on all the computers, and i'm sure lots of other bussiness do this.
Well, you'd only have to pay for it once, at least. The article said something about getting PCs from OEMs without Windows preinstalled sometimes being more expensive than paying the Microsoft tax. Most Slashdotters can build a box themselves, but for a business with hundreds of computers, that's just really not an option.
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I really want to know how I can send the Gartner guys a keg of beer.
He hit the nail right on the head. Gartner is read by clueless management *mostly*. I find it humoristic at best, but they do appeal to the non-technical-decision making-budget carrying-person. This is a Good Thing(tm).
Now, it's not just some NYT story, or some C-Net story. This thing is from the Oh-So-Holy Gartner Group. These guys have "credibility" with management. And as I usually do not agree with their biased view, I'd like to reward them for going against the evil-empire with some factual info. for once.
Cheers to Gartner !
Marriage is considered capital punishment for the theft of a goat in some third world countries...
The store shelf version is 4 times more expensive than the preinstalled or bulk rate versions.
Even buying twice they get a discount of half price.
They arn't being screwed as bad as people paying full price.
It stinks but it's not a big issue...
[And the employees steal the extra copys for home use... I wish people would stop doing that kind of stuff.. it's the whole reason Microsoft charges outragous prices in the first place]
I don't actually exist.
>Once you get outside of the PC world, hasn't licensed software always come with draconian license agreements?
Hehe.. It dose seem that way some times..
However.. no...
People got paranoid over software piracy.
The first shrinkwrap liccenses were nothing more that spelling out the law.
A few software liccenses were even kinda cool.. granting a few rights preveously not allowed.
Then came the warnings. Stupid stuff to make people affrade of copying disks for any reason.
Then came the liccesnes that ranged from silly to stupid to outragous...
It simply go worse... and we just allowed it becouse it didn't seem to matter.
Now they can dictate what software you must buy...
This is silly
I don't actually exist.
Oh, my god. A cute troll! Can I keep him? Huh, mommy? Can I? Please? I'll take care of him and feed him and walk him...
Awww.... You said the same thing about that hairless cat last week too... You're SO unfair!
--M.
(sorry. couldn't resist any longer. been wanting to do that since yesterday...)
My off-the-wall opinions are just that: mine. (Replace uppercase with correct symbols to get real email addy.)
We shall now send out the obsolete Unix salesmen to call you about "upgrades"
:)
Only $4,000 for an unlimited user version... cheap...
Come on... we'll even throw in a stuffed Mascot doll.. not OUR mascot not TUX.. gezz..
Taco dose need some sort of controll on that
I don't actually exist.
For God so loved the world he gave his only OS so that he who believes in Him shall not crash but have eternal uptime.
Ignorence is blis.
Yes, that's how audits have gone in the past, but that's not how they want to do them in the future. In the future, they'll install a program on the server, and have each workstation inventory itself. These liscenses will then be compared automatically against the liscenses assigned to the company.
Thus, if you have 1000 OEM keys, you need 1000 OEM liscenses. If you have 1000 Select keys, you need 1000 Select liscenses.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
I know adobe tells you different, but here we run pagemaker 6.5 on win2k workstation, and no weird errors or malfunctioning.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I think that as StarOffice gets more publicity, and now that it is owned by a company that virtually everyone knows about, more IT managers will think of that kind of solution (at least I hope).
I have a feeling that this will turn out like the Office 97 fiasco. The first copies sold could only save as an Office 97 file, this caused a large enough outcry to cause MS to add the ability to save as older documents. As the IT managers start hitting the liscensing problem they will first complain, and if that doesn't help, switch to another solution.
MS is going to need to wisen up or lose out on the market.
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
There is one place to lay blame for not getting CD's. The OEM you buy from. Each OEM can choose to ship CD's if they want to, however, that increases their cost, and thus their profit.
Don't believe me? Go to any small shop you find and see if their custom machines come with CD's. They all do. Why? Because they're not big enough to subscribe to the volume liscensing plans that OEM's get with MS, which allows them to not ship CD's.
Small OEM's *MUST* sell machines with original CD's. They aren't allowed to do it any other way.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
Since you can not view the Windows license agreement until you've bought the computer, what happens if you don't agree to it? Can you return Windows, or are you stuck with a product you can't use?
This is how Micro$oft can claim that they have the most popular OS..... Maby we should force people to buy Linux, FreeBSD and all opensource OS's twice or maby three times.
Or better yet..... Why not ship 3, 4, or 5 copies for every order placed?
Taking over the world would take a lot less time.BwahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
And I don't get the airline analogy used in the article. If I buy a first class ticket, I don't have to buy a coach ticket as well. To make the analogy correct, I'd first buy a coach seat, proceed to forget that I ever bought that ticket and then buy a first class seat - no upgrades allowed.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
...the first thing I do if I were to install MS Office at home for personal use, the first thing I would do after installing it is download the crack so I NEVER have to do that again.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout
and that's why you use Linux, because you care!
...Sometimes emotion is bad for the typing.
Vermifax
Vermifax
Logout