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: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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.