Slashdot Mirror
Why Are Licenses To Microsoft Still Mandatory?
Space Cow asks: "I am in the market for a laptop computer and priced some machines at Dell. You have no choice during customization (unless you choose the more expensive Linux machine) to avoid purchasing a Microsoft OS and a Microsoft Productivity suite. I spoke with a Dell sales rep and he said that they can easily remove the Microsoft software, but the price doesn't change! What? I have to pay for 2 MS licenses even if I don't want their software! I thought this was changing due to the case against Microsoft and other recent events (Refund Day, etc). Any ideas of how to get Dell to lower the price for a no software machine? If I buy the machine with MS software, am I eligible for a rebate?" It seems that even when they are being watched, Microsoft is still trying its best to cram its software down our throats. Microsoft long ago removed the rebate clause from their EULA so now it appears that the only way to get Linux installed on Dell machines is to pay them more for the privilege. Would someone please explain to me the logic behind that?
The second reason comes down to support costs. Yes, you might be able to get Linux, FreeBSD etc on a system, but Joe Shmoe sure as hell can't. At least not without some tech support. When he can't get his winmodem working under FreeBSD he's likely to demand a replacement. Having Windows on the computer allows the tech staff to test something under known standards.
Save the flames please. The cost to train an entire phone support staff on another OS is astronomical. I believe IBM spent several million dollars to get their staff ready for W2K. And they had the advantage of being familiar with NT 4. There is no carryover like that from a Windows OS to something like Linux. You have to know it well enough to walk someone else through troubleshooting it.
It is not uncommon to have people who have decided to load another OS onto their system to call tech support and lie about what OS is installed. It is usually glaringly obvious when this happens. This creates difficult situations, as you must deny someone support who just spent thousands of dollars on a computer. If you do go ahead and help them you will have created a precedent that could be legally binding to help out other people with that OS.
It's not about making money for MS, they are going to get theirs regardless. It's about support costs. The average computer maker will lose money if a customer has to call tech support 3 times in the life of the computer. This is why Compaq decided to start charging for tech support years ago. Like it or not, Linux is not ready for the mainstream of America (something I think is liked by most of the open source community to be perfectly honest).
As for charging more for a computer with a free OS, remember it's the support costs that your paying for. After all you can install Linux or whatnot on your own and not get the support costs. Most IT depts budget more over the lifetime of a desktop computer to support it than they do it for purchasing it. This is where the real expenses and profits are to be made. If I understand correctly Dell farms their Linux support out to Red Hat. That means those support calls are more than they would for an internal solution.
Hope this answers your question
... fact.
M$ charges licensees per CPu shipped, whether they ship with Windows or not. Their clain is that this is to prevent piracy. Most of the industry however feels this is to make it unworkable for their licensees to ship alternate OSs as a reasonable option.
If/when the cout case is final and over, assumign M$ doesn't pull a suprise victory out of the hat, they will ahve to stop this. Til the, yo uand I over-pay because our industry is dominated by a monopoly. (Maybe you should see if there's a class action suit you can join, although M$ has pretty sucessfully defended themselves from consumer suits so far by using a precedent that says basicly that, if there is a middle man, you can only sue the middleman.)
-
Dell pays per CPU sold
Somehow, I can't even read this without screaming.-
No, Microsoft has not yet been force to make concessions. All of the ramifications of the trial have been put on hold until the appeals are done.
Is everything on hold? I haven't been paying close attention since the verdict, but I thought that only the split was held up. I just thought that the other measures didn't come into force until 90 days after they were announced.G
- A full MS licence almost worth the paper it isn't printed on (not only does it restrict their liability to the cost of the software, which the vendor will later claim was "free", but recent Win98 packs I have seen don't even *have* the licence terms on them; it is the click licence or nothing)
- a "restricted" version of the licence that binds that copy of Win98 to that one OEM installed machine; you can't use the licence to upgrade an existing machine someplace else on your network
- no functional install media - just a "disk image" which will totally destroy your installed software and settings, restoring the machine to a factory-fresh configuration.
So welcome to the brave old world of M$oft marketing - you not only pay for software you don't want or need, but you pay for software you can't legally use, and probably have to hang onto anyhow for warranty reasons....OTOH, I bought my machine with MS DOS 6.22, which was no cheaper, but came with real install disks and can be used to bootstrap Linux quite well.
--
-=DaveHowe=-
If you don't like how they sell their machines, simply don't buy from them. There are several other places to buy laptops.