Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft vs. "Naked PCs"
alecto writes: "The Naked PC page directed at independent computer shops compares selling PC's without an operating system with "selling a house without a roof." It also implies that the dealer knows "full well" the buyer's just going to install an infringing copy of Windows -- and that they should "politely decline" to sell a machine without an OS. The just-below-the-surface message is that dealers could be liable for infringement if a customer buys a "naked" machine from them and subsequently installs an infringing copy of Windows. (Nowhere in the text is the possibility that the customer might want to install a legal, free operating system mentioned.)" It's very much a salesmen type help piece, but it's a pretty funny read. The most amusing comment is that they say "tell them that you're best equipped to install the OS." I'm kinda curious, who keeps the default install? I mean, even if it's Windows, I always had to reinstall just to make it functional anyway. Maybe that's changed, but I still hear that solution in a context that makes it sound like conventional wisdom.
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right? Since Linux runs better on less hardware, it goes on the older systems.
You'd think Microsoft would like your pc naked, just makes it easier for them to rape you.
The interesting thing to think about here is the mindframe Microsoft seems to be exibiting.
I mean, damn, exactly how anti-competative do you have to be to think that every PC will end up with your product on it???
This isn't even smart megalomania, and that's the sad part...
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I sometimes upgrade my system, without buying a new copy of windoze. That's legal, right? Since Linux runs better on less hardware, it goes on the older systems.
Let's say, for instance, that back in 1999 you bought that super cool, multimedia-ready "GeeWhiz 2000" PC with a Celeron 400 processor and it came with an OEM edition of Windows 98 on it. Lucky you, for that OEM install cdrom of Windows was not one of those deliberately crippled "system restore ONLY" types, but just happened to be a real install cdrom with a real setup.exe program that only wants you to type in that 8-mile long product ID key to run.
Now that the year 2000 has come and almost gone, that little old Celery 400 just doesn't jazz your 'nads any more, but will make a fine Linux box so you go to the local computer flea market and buy a whole shopping cart full of enough parts to build your own uber-fast hotrod AMD Gigahertz Thunderbird gaming rocketship dream machine. You get home and assemble all the stuff and justify your next couple of actions(since the "network is the computer", according to Scott McNealy... and all your collective hardware is your "system" (as in singular) because you network it all together with a cheezy little 5-port 10/100 hub). You install your favorite Linux distro onto the old machine (maybe all its innards in a new case) and are not surprised at all to find that it runs beautifully great at 400MHz, even with only a 66MHz FSB. You then pop that oem Windows 98 cdrom into your new assemblage of "upgrade parts" and proceed to commit software piracy.
That's right, that oem copy of Win98 is legally valid only for the original pile of parts that it was purchased with. Even if you kept the same old "GeeWhiz 2000" case, with its serial number, because you installed a new "system" into it, it is now in the eyes of MS, the SPA, and whatever other gestapo,... a different "computer", and hence illegal upon which to install that oem copy of Windows that came with the original PC.
This kills me. I just purchased a Compaq Presario Laptop for use at the office. I shelled out the extra $100 to upgrade from Windows ME to Win2000. My plan was to install Linux, then VMWare with Win2000 under VMWare for the MS-only stuff I might encounter in the office (like that damn MS Visual Source Safe, as if CVS doens't kick VSS's ass any day of the week, but I digress...). It turns out that the copy of Windows 2000 you get is only a Restore CD, not an installable copy. It does an fdisk and reformat before reimaging your system back to "a known good state". Since VMWare fakes out a BIOS, the restore CD won't install, since you are not installing "on the original machine". So I wasted $100 trying to be legal. I have turned to a semi-legal copy, and am soothing my morals by telling myself that I really do own a copy of Windows 2000 (I even have the much touted "Certificate of Authenticity"). I would have been better off buying the machine Naked and then buying a shrinkwrap copy of the MS software I needed.
I recently bought a Compaq 5100 series machine that, of course, came with a legal copy of Microsoft Windows 98. I wiped the disk and installed Linux on it; it didn't work too well due to poor driver support, so I installed BeOS too. That was a little better, but not much.
Then I decided I'd really be better off selling the machine, since it performed poorly with both Linux and BeOS - I had an interested buyer, even - so I booted the recovery CD to reinstall Windows.
THE RECOVERY CD DID NOT CONTAIN A COPY OF WINDOWS. Instead, it contained references to a partition on my hard drive in which Windows was supposed to be hiding. Without this partition, no install.
Technical support had to send me a real Windows CD, which I haven't gotten around to installing yet (my sale fell through, since the buyer needed the machine right away). To be fair, the CD arrived promptly, even though they told me it would take two weeks. But that didn't erase the truly wretched experience.
Now, our friends at Microsoft might say that it serves me right for installing an alien operating system of evil on my system. At the same time, though, even if I was the world's biggest Windows fan, I would feel profoundly uneasy about this; what if the hard drive breaks down, for instance? What if I'd really like the gigabyte or so of space they're wasting on my hard drive back?
No, friends, this policy is profoundly consumer hostile. The "naked operating system page" is profoundly dishonest since it appears to be offering products that Microsoft is not actually selling.
Shameful.
D
----
Have all computers have linux installed by default!
Ok, this would be quite a good idea I guess.It's free,
Can't argue with thatfast
At most tasks, yes.stable.........
This isn't really 100% true (Perhaps with the exception of Slackware). From my experiences, the default Linux filesystem is extermely finicky and anything other than a careful shutdown ( ctrl-alt-del or "shutdown" or "reboot" ) will end up in a serious FS problem, which at least will require a fsck -f to fix and at worst will trash the filesystem completely.The dependencies under Linux aren't great which makes installing anything a pure nightmare. Of course, this doesn't neccessarily mean it's unstable, but it's not an ideal working enviroment. Once, however, your programs have been installed under Slackware, you have a mostly stable system that rules.
However, the first problem I mentioned, FreeBSD doesn't seem to have a problem with. And the second is quite adequately dealt with due to the uniformity of the BSD systems and the ports collection. You'll find that compiling something under FreeBSD or any BSD is better than Linux (works at least 60% of the time as compared to about 30% for various GNU/Linux distributionsEverything is but a number spoken by itself.
Gateway isn't more receptive now. While they sell a 'network appliance' that runs on Linux, they are still very, very, EXTREMELY unfreindly towards any mention of running Linux on a PC or server.
While I was still working there they had been talking about allowing servers to be sold with Linux, but any time I talk to a salesperson I am told that servers are only sold with Win2K or NT 4. When I ask if it is possible to purchase without an OS (so I can install Linux myself) I am flat out told that they will not support pirating of Windows products. They will not even admit that it is possible to install anything other than Windows on a server. And don't even get me started on what their phone techs said when I told them I was running Linux on a gateway laptop. You would have thought I just told them I was fscking their mothers!
"Until you install Windows on your computer, we cannot help you with your problem."
Well, it's a little hard to do that when you can't get any video display (turned out to be a loose connection to the LCD).
Bite my yammer.
it appears that the oem copy of win98 is 'only for distribution with a pc'. what is a pc, then? apparently its either a drive or a motherboard. so folks are selling broken/old motherboards and/or drives just to meet the 'license' requirement and to keep M$ from requesting (yeah, right) that ebay cancel their ad.
anyone else feel that M$ has NO BUSINESS telling ebay what to cancel and what not to? if I was forced to buy a PC with the OEM version of win98 installed and I immediately overwrite it with linux and never use the shrinkwrapped win98 cd or license key, aren't I within my 'first sale' rights to resell that unused/unregistered copy?
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
3. Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software. They also have a manual for everyday troubleshooting, and a Certificate of Authenticity that proves the software is legal. In short, protect your customer and your good name. Sell your PCs fully equipped with legally licensed operating systems preinstalled. Otherwise, who knows what you're leaving your customers--and yourself--open to?
Didn't MS stop shipping system with CDs for the very same reason?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
From Microsoft's page:
Okay, now hold up a minute here. I recall a whole bunch of articles just a few months ago about how Microsoft was No Longer allowing major OEM's to ship Windows CD-ROMs[*] anymore. This was, as I recall, to help stop piracy.
First OEM's are no longer allowed to ship Windows CD's, and now this is one of the benefits customers get when they buy a computer with a pre-installed Microsoft Operating System?
Someone help me out here, I'm feeling confused. It doesn't quite make sense, there, does it? Is that not something of a contradiction? Perhaps I'm just not able to completely understand Microsoft's double talk, but this misinformation annoys me.
[*] InfoWorld Article 1, Article 2, Slashdot Editorial
--
Toph
Topher
stores that ask to see your bags or hold them etc are attempting what amounts to illegal search and seizure
*sigh* When are people going to learn? The Bill of Rights and similar documents restrict what the government can do, not private entities like people and corporations. Ever notice how the Bill of Rights uses the phrase "Congress shall make no law" a lot? That's right, it prevents Congress from passing laws. It does not say one damn thing about what I'm allowed to do to you.
If I'm a store owner, I can make it a condition that, in order to enter my store -- which is my own property -- you have to submit yourself to search. You are in no way obligated to submit yourself to said search, but I am also in no way obligated to serve you. It's my store; I can tell you to get out if I want.
(Now, you could make the case that, since you never signed a contract, I cannot hold you to the agreement, but you would have to bring it before a court of law claiming damages or something. Hardly worth the effort. Just go to another store.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The thing is, those who want a 'naked' PC plan on isntalling their own choice of operating system. Why ask for a naked PC? Since then they aren't relying on the dealer/oem to install one they don't want and certainly don't want to pay for.
In the current consumer market it may make sense to use WinMe or Win2000 as the default -- for those who *want* Windows. If someone doesn't want Windows, why make them pay for it? Thus the request for a 'naked' PC. Won't/Can't sell a 'naked' PC? Fine, put any free OS (Linux, BSD, even FreeDOS, etc.) on it and it isn't naked.. and the customer can keep the OS or wipe it and not be out the "Windows tax." Microsoft should be free to make money -- providing they make it *honestly*. If a customer wants Windows, sell it to him or her. If not, don't go mugging him and forcing him to pay for Windows anyway. 'tain't ethical.
It's a matter of not screwing the customer. I don't agree that *all* machines should run Linux. For many, that'd be a problem. But do let the customer have a choice. What happened to "the customer is always right"? A seller may *advise* a customer -- but should not dictate.
Think the customer is wrong? Suggest, but don't dictate. The customer is free to be wrong. And some value that freedom more than being forced to be someone else's version of "right."
I don't subscribe to RMS's GNUtopian vision.
I couldn't resist making a slight change to their text. Read on:
SELL YOUR CUSTOMER A SOLUTION, NOT A PROBLEM?
Your customers depend on you. Trouble is, if you act on your customers' willingness to buy Windows PCs--knowing full well they are at risk of acquiring free operating systems elsewhere--you expose them to legal risks, viruses, and frustrating technical troubles. Hardly the stuff of great business relationships, particularly when they come back to you for help. And even if your customer manages to acquire and install free operating systems elsewhere, it still costs them far more time and money than they bargained for. No matter how you look at them, Windows PCs are bad for your customers. Which means they are also bad for you.
Hmm....sounds good to me. :-)
cya
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
My last machine was purchased from a small local shop. I went in with my little list, and they looked over it. When he got to "No OS - and I won't buy here if there is a charge for the OS anyway" he looked at me and said "Linux user, huh. Want to use our T1 to burn an ISO?" and offered some nominal charge (talkin Cheapbytes cost, here). I was puzzled - does this happen often? The answer is yes, with the qualifier that its due to his close proximity to a college, and lots of people want Linux boxes to run small servers on, do CS homework, etc. He also showed me the huge pile of Windows CDs that he apparently can't move, legally, because of the way the licensing agreements work, when people buy "naked" machines.
But anyway, isn't it odd that they say a PC without an OS is like a house without a roof, but they charge for it? What I mean is, when I build a house, the roof is built into the cost (like the Windows "tax"). But they also sell roofs stand-alone at Best Buy, and make builders buy N roofs at a time, even if they aren't slated to build N houses. Doesn't make sense to me: the guy in the above bit doesn't want to deal with all this stuff. He wants to sell computers. That's all he cares about. Since you go to him to get things custom-built, he lets you put your own roof on, since its your house.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
My suggestion to anyone with one of those crummy OEM copies of Win is to try the this technique when you go to reinstall Win from the recovery disk. I mean, how many different ways are there to screw the customer that don't require something really fancy? I'll bet dollars to donuts that other Win95/98 PC manufacturers use this technique (that a pre-existing, correctly named partition must be on the hard drive) to appease Sauron and his Nazguls.
Of course, one day we will have to eliminate Windows from Linux PCs altogether.
Unfortunately, that day isn't here yet. Its coming soon, though.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)