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."

Comments

Re:Increasing Revenue Stream

[Muzzarelli]

Australia and New Zealand were test for the new licensing system for Office 2000. What you guys are going to be getting in with O2K sp1 we have had since O2K was initially released. As far as I know, no other MS products handled this way here.

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...

Re:The Audacity

[H3lldr0p]

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.

The Audacity

[baka_boy]

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?

Please read ...

[dudle]

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.

It's worse than that

[Greyfox]

Microsoft doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. They don't think they've ever done anything wrong. They think they've meerly been competitive and innovative. And innovatively competitive. At various times in the past, burning, looting and pillaging was meerly competitive, too.

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.

Re:It's worse than that

[TheFrood]

Microsoft doesn't think they're doing anything wrong. They don't think they've ever done anything wrong. They think they've meerly been competitive and innovative. And innovatively competitive. At various times in the past, burning, looting and pillaging was meerly competitive, too.

That's hilarious, but I think it really is true. Microsoft folks have spent day upon day repeating their party line: "We're not doing anything wrong. We're just being competitive." Anyone who keeps repeating something like that will sooner or later become convinced that it's true. Even if they didn't believe it at first, they'll eventually start agreeing with their own propoganda. It happened to the officials of the former Soviet Union, and it's apparently happened to the people at Microsoft. I think that's why Microsoft has bungled the antitrust case so badly; they really are convinced that they've done nothing wrong, even in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, because they've brainwashed themselves with their own press releases.

TheFrood

Haiku?

[Tower]

Legal fees are high
The stock price has been dropping
Sell them two copies!

--

Airline Tickets?

[(void*)]

The problem is one of interpretation, [Microsoft's] Bernard-Hason contends. The analogy most appropriate to understanding licenses is buying an air ticket, he said.

"If you have a really low-cost discount ticket, it will get you from point A to point B, but the usage rights of that ticket would be somewhat restrictive. It may be non-transferable," he said.

At the other end are first-class tickets, "where you have as much flexibility as you want," he said. "In those analogous terms, I would characterize an OEM (PC maker) license as a discount ticket and an Enterprise Agreement (volume licensing plan) along the lines of a first-class ticket."

The last time I checked, having both the low cost ticket and the high-price ticket would still get two people on that plane!

Increasing Revenue Stream

[Mark A. Rhowe]

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.

Re:Increasing Revenue Stream

[Mark A. Rhowe]

Interestingly, this (the Registration Wizard) only applies if you purchase "MS Office 2000 SP1", not if you simply apply SP1 to Office 2000 -

Well, a good reason to switch to Linux

[Dungeon Dweller]

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.

Re:Operating Systems In Terms Of Cows.

[Reality Master 101]

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.

--

Operating Systems In Terms Of Cows.

[istartedi]

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.

Re:Operating Systems In Terms Of Cows.

[istartedi]

D#%$ it. I knew I forgot something.

I was gonna say: MacOS. All you have to do is tap the nose and it gives precisely one gallong of milk. There isn't any way to get different ammounts because that's not part of The Vision.

Number of copies sold

[josu]

Another interesting thing about this is it will make it seems as if more people are running Windows 2000 than actually are.

This won't last

[dsplat]

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.

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.

Newest Microsoft program source

[wowbagger]

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....

So... Windows has a negative value.

[TheDullBlade]

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.

Don't be so sure

[FreeUser]

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.

Microsoft is defying their own licensing agreement

[CaptainSuperBoy]

Microsoft has long worked under the assumption that the physical medium is separate from the license. Isn't this how we run into problems such as OEMs that ship computers without Windows CDs? The idea of the select program has been that companies receive a set of CDs without any client licenses. Companies buy client access licenses as needed, with the knowledge that licenses come with no media or docs.

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.

--

Statistics and Lies

[Dark Paladin]

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!

Motivations for M$

[golob]

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?

Error in cost analysis

[dillon_rinker]

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.

Well I paid twice for Linux!

[Denor]

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!

Re:Umm..

[nomadic]

This news isn't slashdot worthy, IMO. (a bunch of idiots misreading the license agreement, sha...)

I thought that was what slashdot was for...
--

Re:My question

[HeUnique]

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.