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."
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.
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?
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
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
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?
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 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?
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$: "We're #2!"
Well, technically, M$ 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...
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
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!
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"?
Another interesting thing about this is it will make it seems as if more people are running Windows 2000 than actually are.
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.
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
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?
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--
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.
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.
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
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.
--
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 !
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
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?
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 $30 cost is for having a nonstandard image loaded on the PC.
Note, however, that "no software" is also a nonstandard image, and some OEMs charge extra for or refuse to do it (the number that do has shrunk since Norton Ghost et al became popular). Furthermore, if you ask to have no software loaded, and then load your own custom image, 9 times out of ten, you will still be paying for Windows twice, as OEMs don't usually deduct the price of the Windows software that they don't load. The OEM are charged by MS for every PC they sell within a model line (thank you, consent decree of 1994!), so if the model you buy normally has Windows loaded, the OEM will pay MS for a copy of Windows whether they install it on a particular machine or not. Thus the OEM sees no economic benefit to not loading Windows, and they pass their costs on to you.
I think its really time that the community organized some kind of ad campaign to let the public know where we stand on such a thing. Now is the time to do it to before the presidential elections. The republican are all geared up reverse the break-up decision. Why? Because the public doesn't care. But if public opinion were against M$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
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
This news isn't slashdot worthy, IMO. (a bunch of idiots misreading the license agreement, sha...)
I thought that was what slashdot was for...
--
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."
[
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
I'll try to answer:
Questions 1 & 2: Yes, there is a different. If you look at your License agreement - you'll see that the copy of Windows you got (I'm talking about cases where you buy machines from Compaq, Dell, gateway - that big sellers) cannot be used on another machines, EVEN if the other machine is identical (I don't have the EULA so I cannot say which paragraph is it)
The "Select" license and the windows you're getting with it is the usual Windows you can buy on stores. Its just doesn't have the OEM part registration (it got another registration way).
3. Honestly - if you buy those 50 licenses and install 40 now - You can install the other 10 when you'll buy those 10 PC's, so - your question (4) can be applied.. Even if it's your own ISO image with Windows configured by you.
I would further advice you to negotiate with your seller and ask him to sell you those PC's BLANK (that way you'll save some money). I was a system administrator and I installed thousands of Windows machines and I can tell you that the Windows that comes with your machine pre-installed - is the most unstable configuration you'll ever get. They're installing lots of shitty stuff there (they're own ISP stuff, utilities which you'll never needs and other tweaks that only god knows why people need them).
note: In case you buy Compaq PC's (or Notebook) - you'll have a problem to install Windows from scratch on this machine cause they don't give the drivers to download and they got this special way to install them from your Windows emergency recover CD - so be careful.
Before someone will sue me here - everything is according to my experience and my understanding.
Hetz (Heunique)