Slashdot Mirror
Gateway Testifies To Microsoft's OEM Treatment
unconfused1 writes "Gateway testified yesterday about the incredible power that Microsoft wields over OEMs concerning Windows being shipped on every PC. It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized, and can have their license revoked."
The article basically says that no pc company could consider breaking the agrement and not getting the $10 per copy discount. As far as i understood Microsoft cuts them off the discount if they are EVEN offering non MS solutions, not just dual boot situations scary
I'm not surprised, it's what a monopoly would do!
months ago I decided to boycott companies that did this. Infotel Distributing was my main distributor for quite a while (before I knew about price watch). After I found out about their 'MS on all machines' issue, I just stopped buying from them all togather.
Can all fish swim?
This looks like it could be good news for Be Inc.'s upcoming trial with Microsoft.
I installed windows 95,98,2000, and XP and deleted all of them, just to build up resistance.
I would love to see what Dell has to say about the OEM agreements with MS. After all they did support Linux for a little while. Now that seems to have gone by the waist-side. I also wonder what the reprecussions of Gateway speaking out against MS.
Microsoft is allowed to have that kind of penalty imposed; all these OEMs needed to do was get together and contest various parts of the licence agreement.
I agree that they needed windows because of the demand, but that doesn't mean they take anything Microsoft demands without a whimper.
In the words of Blake, "Do not go gentle into that good night... Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
Fight for what you believe in, or you deserve it.
I've always known this was true, but now we have a REAL company vouching it..but how does MS do it? Do they send goons in and say "if you don't install Windows we will break your legs?" I mean, how is this different from racketeering? The Mafia does that in major cities with Waste Management. You can only use THEIR company, or they break your legs or set your building on fire. WHich is very similar to how tings work in Eastern-bloc countries.
If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
talking about this like its new news? It's like every three months people forget and have to report it again. This has been constantly reported since at least since 1997.
This is why I think there's some kind of mind control going on in the windows OS environment that keeps people from remembering this story. Thats why only alternate OS (Mac Linux etc) users really remember it month to month. Oh well, I guess it gives C-Net something to publish.
Witness the rebirth of ENRON!
tcd004
And exactly what punishment for an OEM who testifies to this?
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
I, for one, am shocked to hear that Microsoft might have used monopolistic uncompetitive tactics in maintaining their hold on the desktop market!
With the rage rage stuff, not Blake. It's a poem about his father.
If you think back to how much MS had to push to get themselves pre-installed onto machines back in the 1980s where they were still fighting tooth and nail against competitive offerings.
Now that Windows is effectively regarded as as much of necessary part of the computer as the motherboard, the shoe's on the other foot regarding their relationship with OEMs.
Reminds me of the lyric from a song by the Police
"Provided by the management for your protection."
...will dismiss testimony out declaring it ``hearsay''.
(My but I'm pessimistic today...)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
If you're willing to be Microsoft's bitch, don't act
surprised if Microsoft treats you like its bitch.
This was news way back in 1997, it ain't news anymore.... just reaffirming of history.
Testimony like this and Michael Tiemann's puts lie to the MSFT propaganda about how consumers made them the multi-billion dollar owner of 90% of the market.
It's pretty plain that consumers have *never* been offered a choice. No "market" for PC OSes ever existed.
This may be a different way of looking at it but I see it as an "endorsement." If Gateway uses Windows, customers see it as an endorsement. If Gateway also uses other competing products, then that endorsement loses its meaning. If you saw a Britney Pepsi commercial followed by a Britney Coke commerical, would either endorsement be effective? So wouldn't it be in Pepsi's best interest to see that she only endorses Pepsi?
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
"Uh, your honor? We'd like to delete this testimony since it makes us look guilty. We're really not guilty, so you shouldn't allow anyone to intimate otherwise."
They're pretty dumb if they thought they were going to get away with that. Once has to wonder what will happen to Gateway now... I think MS will take the cow boxes to the slaughterhouse while they still can.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
When I loaded the story to read it, it had a Gateway ad in the middle of the story. Go figure.
More seriously, this is an example as to why virtually all PC-only vendors are screwed in the long run (and why I won't buy Dell stock, no matter how well they do). Everybody in the PC industry builds commodity hardware, running an OS they don't control, and tries to compete based on marketing and lowest-cost production. Thanks to things like Microsoft's OEM contracts, there's just no room to go anywhere else. Dell's success is strictly based on execution and volume - they bring nothing else to the table, really. Same with Gateway, and all the other commodity vendors.
So if the MS monopoly is ever broken, it'll be at the hands of companies that have an investment in their own technology, and their own R&D. Perhaps companies that have access to non-Wintel technology (Compaq/HP, though they killed Alpha, IBM, Apple) will be able to take a stab at it. Right now, though, nobody but Microsoft really matters in the desktop supply chain.
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Microsoft Who? Don't know who you are talking about.
Linux=OpenSource=Freedom
"Anonymous Coward testified yesterday about the incredible power that Editors wield over discussions concerning Slashdot Policy being talked about in any story. It seems that if an slashdotter does not fall in line the editors and their opinions that they are severely penalized, and can have their account blacklisted."
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
Man, I've heard of business angels, but this is more like the work of Business Devils. You have to give creds to the guy at MS who came up with this "market development fund" and then made the OEMs agree on it... I'm impressed!
I thought disclosure of MS's agreement concerning OEM os'es were corporate secret (blabla fines and revocation of contract). How can Gateway testify if they are bound by NDA's associated to the OEM contract?
Hell, maybe Gateway is realizing how much a pit Microsoft is when it comes to money. Or maybe it's MS's new contracting agreements ( if no upgrade within 1 year after new product comes out, owe full price).
It seems that MS is loosing its edge when it comes to controlling corporate powers. For the longest time, MS has made a standard (maybe not the best, but better than 10 types of hardware on 20 OS'es). We just have outgrown them.
Why should Microsoft be forced to lose money and/or bend its business practices because someone wants to use another product than theirs. Is it illegal to say "If you dont use my product exclusively I will not give you as much of a price cut/media props/other benefit."
If Microsoft wants OEM's to use its products exclusively, more power to them. They're not forcing Gateway to use them, and it's not Microsoft's fault that they have a large part of the market share and are a well-known OS. People demand the Windows OS, and people reject it, Gateway and Microsoft can't help that. If Gateway loses customers because they choose to not go with a Microsoft OS or they have to raise prices because Microsoft won't cut them as good of a deal because they aren't using MS exclusively, then tough sh*t. Just because they whine and cry doesn't mean they should get special treatment.
I'm not Pro-MS (although I know it sounds like it) or Anti-MS, but it just seems to me that if you make a good product and people like to use it, that you should be able to market it in any way you see fit to maximize your profits, because that's the point anyway isn't it? Supply and demand, supply and demand.
Everything I say is a lie.
Except that. And that. And that. And that.
The basic message is that MS can't do Jack Shit to OEMs, except of course to force them to pay the proper price for Windows licences, and not receive
any bonuses.
This would make the OEMs less able to compete, price-wise with their fellow scum-sucking OEMs.
Well, boo hoo, why should I care what happens to these unscrupulous box-shifters?
Look at the facts: extended warranties of doom, badly-configured machines with the wrong drivers installed, corners cut to keep the price down (Tom's did a thing on OEMs recently, pointing out that they like to push the main specs like Pentium 4 1.8!!!! And then not mention the crappy $15 video card etc., which is true), help-lines that don't even when you get through to them, incompetence on all levels....
Plus, just think- these OEMs aren't doing anything to earn their money- just employing people very little money to assemble pcs, man help-lines etc.
I know I am going to get modded down as -1 flamebait for this because The Common Man moderates, but seriously, to paraphrase Monty Python: "What have the OEMs ever done for us?"
graspee
Gateway can assert that Microsoft pressured them, but if there's really a market for Linux desktops then other companies would be offering them and making sales.
So why did VA stop selling Linux systems? Alleged Microsoft pressure on mainstream vendors not to sell Linux should only have made things better for VA, assuming there really was a market for Linux desktops. But the fact is that there is no serious market for Linux desktops.
While we're at it, I simply don't believe that IBM could be subject to such pressure, and yet they too have pretty much abandoned the Linux desktop and notebook business. You used to be able to find Thinkpads for sale on IBM's site with Linux on them, but not anymore. Does anyone seriously believe IBM talked them out of this? Isn't the Occam's Razor answer that they weren't selling?
My name is Anthony Fama, you made me put windows on every machine we sold, prepare to die!
I am going to re-invent the wheel, and this time I will make it round!
For those who have not read it, I would suggest reading Sony's comments regarding Microsoft's licencing of Windows. This is from Sony's submitted commments to the Microsoft Antitrust case. If you think being an OEM and having to include Windows on every PC is bad, imagine being an OEM and knowing that it is possible that "Microsoft [could] use its monopoly power to force its OEM licensees to give up intellectual property rights."
slashdot!=valid HTML
I still think that the fastest way to begin switching the masses to Linux would be for the Game manufacurers to release games for Linux first.
How many times have you seen the latest, hottest most awesome game ever and then notice that the MS version is available but the Mac and Linux version is 2 to 3 months away(or not available at all)?
Now how many people out there actually wait for that linux version vs. loading it onto your windows partition.
Now imagine that Duke Nukem forever or Diablo 4 were coming out. But wait, only the linux version is available just now (shipping with a trimed down distro of course) but don't worry the MS version will be along in a couple off months.
If you were a game geek would you wait?
..which just shows that the human brain is ill-adapted for thinking and was probably designed for cooling the blood-T P
You sure that's where it's gone?
I'm currently looking for a new PC and have found that no major manufacturer (Dell, IBM, Compaq, HP) will sell a PC without WindowsXP. I knew Dell *was* installing Red Hat, but apparently only for business systems. You would think that at least IBM, who are backing Linux, would offer a PC without Windows, but no. I'd be happy if the settlement gave the manufacturers the freedom to provide PCs with OSs other than MS or even without an OS. I don't feel like paying for MS software that I'll never use.
"Just because you have a collection of porn of a particular girl does not make her your girlfriend", KingJoshi.
It's kind of scary when you read about things like this and you realize the extent to which Microsoft has woven themselves into this entire industry. And beyond that, the extent to which they'll use that power to keep themselves on top. Instead of just making a superior product and marketing it, they use strongarm tactics such as these to cripple anyone who annoys them. Even hardware vendors aren't safe, as Microsoft begins to grow paranoid about its marketshare, especially in places where they can't fool people into believing their products are good a choice, such as the embedded market. As they realize missed opportunities elsewhere, they'll start tightening their grip on current ventures just to let everyone know who's still in control. I think Microsoft's greed will ultimately be detrimental to the very control they're trying to exert, as companies in that grip will realize that the benefits no longer outweight the costs of being choked, and will find ways to break free.
--
Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
I got a big Gateway ad about the Gateway 500SE, 'Broadens your horizon' it said. Combined with the article i thought it would 'broaden my horizon' by loading a nice linux distro by default, but nope. The minimum possible amount of software was WinXP home AND MS Works.
Now that makes me wander, Gateway testified agains MS without the fear of loosing there OEM deal, but on the other end they still follow the rules of MS. The same is true for some of the other parties that testified in the case.
I would think that now is the time to do the things they want. It will be very hard for MS to act agains it with all those eyes on this case. Why don't they dare to try out what happens when they start selling OS-less or linux PC now?
damned, gateway did something I like!
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
That Gabe works at microsoft...
Sorry- didn't realise that "plain old text" eat angle brackets. See it *was* funny originally...
"If you saw a Britney Pepsi commercial followed by a Britney Coke commerical..."
A Britney Coke commercial:
Britneeeeee: *SNNNNNIIIIFFFFF!* Ah!
*pause, drumbeat drumbeat drumbeat*
"Hit me baby, one more time!"
graspee
You know, Microsoft doing this sort of thing is certainly VeryBad(tm), but it's nobody's fault but Gateway, Dell, and all the others that it happened.
You really have to think about how things came to be this bad. Way back in the old 3.x days, if MS would have tried to pull something like this in the licensing, the OEM's would have told them to take a flying leap and installed OS2. So of course they gave the OEM's licenses dirt cheap, and probably a whole bunch of other things to get them to install Windows by default.
Ever heard of looking a gift horse in the mouth? Did these OEM's think Microsoft was doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not, they didn't think about it at all. All they saw was the bottom line.
Fast forward 5 years when the entire country is hooked up to Windows for life support, in part, I might add, to the OEM's willingness to throw Windows out there with every computer simply because they were getting a hell of a deal. Now they can't tell MS to take a flying leap, so of course MS is there to "restructure" the licensing deals. But is this MS's fault, or is it the fault of the OEM's for being greedy, and getting burned by it. Depends on your philosophy on life I guess: Is it the drug dealer's fault for selling crack, or is it the addicts fault for trying it?
It hurts when I pee.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
According to the article, The new terms would affect contracts written after Dec. 16 for the top 20 PC makers. and Fama concluded that the new uniform pricing mechanism benefits those companies selling the highest volumes, such as Dell Computer. and "Dell may not want to be a witness, but Dell is affected in similar ways to Gateway because of uniform licensing."
Maybe Dell has already spoken. Reference this recent slashdot article:
More on Dell Dropping Linux Support
If they had the balls, they would reject this ultimatum policy entirely and compete and be successful without Microsoft or Windows. There are other OSes out there, lots of them. Or if none of them are sufficient, they could team with a software manufacturer to create or port one for exclusive distribution. Or they could just sell their hardware without a bundled OS.
The real problem is that these OEMs are on one hand complaining about Microsoft's power in the marketplace, but on the other hand (the one with the wallet), they are helping further entrench Windows in the marketplace by complying with Microsoft's abusive licensing restrictions, just so that they won't have to take a short-term risk. Nobody seems willing to take risks anymore, but everyone seems willing to run to the government when Microsoft chooses to shift its bulk around in ways they dislike.
I can't really feel any sympathy for Gateway, or any other OEM with issues with MS' license. They've had every opportunity to try and work it out privately with MS, or barring that, to drop MS entirely, but they won't because they rely on MS (or believe that they do) to sell machines. So that's a decision they've made on their own. Gateway's market share is close to 10% - Apple has made do with less than that without Microsoft, so why can't Gateway break away from the herd (pun intended) and wield that market share and customer base they've been nurturing, if they're so dissatisfied?
Other monopolies (Verizon, the local water company, etc) aren't allowed to cut off good-faith customers. Your power company can't say, "You have to buy our skateboard and milk, they're bundled with our power!" Your local telephone company can't say, "We'll double the price of your phone service unless you stop using any competitors products!"
Microsoft is a monopoly just like the others, and to most businesses, Windows is as essential as power or telephone service. Microsoft should not be allowed to withhold Windows from them or vary the price based on how much they subjugate themselves.
(Volume licenses are okay, though)
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Market development funds are common practice in the IT industry...
Perhaps Gateway has concluded that they can't compete with Dell, and their plan is to be driven out of business by Microsoft, then sue for $20 billion to distribute to the stockholders?
sPh
... that the testimony clearly says that although M$ OEM contracts were draconian before the settlement, they used the settlement to make them EVEN WORSE, if thats possible.
GOD, if nothing else, then this should clearly say to the judge that the settlement is not effective. On the contrary. It gives Microsoft easy way out of too benevolent contracts.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
billg: "Buy him out, Boys!"
[thugs trash Homer's house]
billg: "I didn't get to be the richest guy in the world by writing a bunch of checks!"
Carthago delenda est!
Am I one of the few people who don't seem to think there's anything with Microsoft saying, "hey, if you only sell machines with Windows on them, we'll give you a $10 discount on the licenses"? The angle, I think, that one needs to look at this should be: "hey, if you ship only Windows machines, we'll reward you with a discount", not "we're charging you more because you're not shipping solely our products". You see this sort of thing all the time in endorsement contracts. And, after all, if the OEMs actually saw a practical advantage to shipping something like Linux on desktops instead of Microsoft OSes ... like those side offer lines (business, professional lines, whatever) from Dell, etc., they're not obligated to stick with Microsoft.
Free choice, right?
And it's economically advantageous for smaller OEMs to stick with solely Microsoft offerings, given their options, unless you're so small as to be catering to the niche group of Linux users, in which case you often wouldn't need to bundle an OS anyway!
There is a reason why MS tries to get at least 5 companies to push technology such as their WebPad. It's basically called divide and conquer in that it's easier for each OEM to gain market share by competing against each other than to gang up and change the rules. Think of it as a modified prisoner's dilemma with prisoners not allowed to communication and kept in separate cells so they can't revolt. That is the reason why OEM licenses are considered trade secrets by MS. Since each OEM doesn't know the special volume discounts (which are significant given the low margins of box pushing) of the others, they attempt to bargin a better deal which as OPEC has shown leads to similar concessions by the others.
It will be interesting to see how Intel attempts to wriggle more negotiating space with the alternatives of Linux, HP Unix coming on-line.
LL
What is funny is that Microsoft doesn't consider themselves a monopoly. They think they have to fight, tooth and nail, to barely hang on to that 90% market share. That's why they think what they did is right
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I realize this goes against the grain of many elite slashdot Linux HAXXORS, but maybe you could try checking the facts first?
Dell still offers Linux!
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
It seems to me that Gateway may have just signed its death warrant. It is already in financial trouble: their recent Gateway Store idea looks like a bust, they are getting taken to the cleaners by Steven from Dell and the "current economic downturn", and their stock is in the toilet. Now, they just turned on one of the the only companies who could bail them out and keep them afloat, while at the same time making an enemy of the only supplier they have that is irreplaceable. No wonder the other OEMs don't want to testify.
Yes.. that IS how "markets" work.. until there is no "market". Market is defined by competition, by choices. Let me give you an example from "current events".
Arthur Anderson Accounting was a very successful large company that did accounting, one of the "big 5" accounting firms. It has come to light that Arthur Anderson Accounting destoried documents, and did other "bad" things(read: enron). What was their customers reaction? They LEFT Arthur Anderson, and went to companies that are more respectable. Hence the system worked.
Now lets turn it around and say that Arthur Anderson Accounting was the ONLY accounting firm that could handle these big companies contracts. Well, then after they destoried docuemnts, and did other "bad" things(read: enron), the companies would have to stay with them, they would have to suck it up and deal with it. They would even possibly defend Arthur Anderson Accounting because they are so terribly dependant.
Now, imagine how angry a DEPENDANT company would have to be to risk going against the company they are dependant on. Imagine how much of a painful and scary business decision that must of have been. Companies who are dependant on M$ are going against them in open-court. The action to generate this type of reaction from successful companies (I believe) would have to go beyond just rude or "heavy-handed", they have to be down right predatory.
Just my 2 cents, if you don't like it, use the reply button.
This is no surprise, Microsoft has had a black list for years. I know, my business was blacklisted for selling OS/2, and I became unable to buy Windows (at OEM pricing) to sell with the PC's I was building. You may not think this is a big deal, but when your markup is only around 10%, it really hurts your competiveness. They deserve whatever they get from this trial.
I've always known this was true, but now we have a REAL company vouching it..but how does MS do it? Do they send goons in and say "if you don't install Windows we will break your legs?" I mean, how is this different from racketeering? The Mafia does that in major cities with Waste Management. You can only use THEIR company, or they break your legs or set your building on fire. WHich is very similar to how tings work in Eastern-bloc countries.
I don't know where you are from but in the United States exclusive contracts are a typical occurence in the business environment. The only thing that makes MSFT's an issue is that after a company has achieved a certain amount of market share it may be unfair for them to have exclusive deals with other vendors because it may effectively shut down the competition.
AFor instance a common example of such exclusive deals is schools, stadia, fast food places and restuarants that only serve soft drinks from a particular vendor (e.g. only Pepsi or Coke products).
However it is up to the courts to decide whether there was anything inappropriate about these OEM deals and if so to come up with a decision. Likening it to racketeering on the other hand is a gross exagerration and implies that you think that MSFT forces its competitors to accede to its demands through violent means. If you know this for a fact I'm sure the courts would love to hear your testimony.
Look around you. Some establishments will only sell Pepsi while others only sell Coke.
Let the consumers pick their os, not the pc conglomarets who are in bed with mickeysoft.
This article is a good example of the unintended cosequences of most regulation and litigation.
In this case, MS used the courts decision that they can have only one license for all PC makers as a means for imposing stricter licensing terms on all manufacturers in a down cycle.Each time there is a new set of regulations, MS finds a clever way to twist the rulings to their favor. Notice how MS is contributes to a development fund, then using the development fund for leverage. This gets around rebate and discount restrictions. Having a fund gives them more leverage than a rebate.
The judge's last ruling mandated that all PC makers have the same license...which eliminated the ability of different manufacturers to strike the clauses they rejected. MS used that to force restrictive clauses down the PC makers collective throats.
This happens in just about all government litigation and regulation. What happens is the strongest players are able to bend the rules to their favor, and force the smaller players into compliance or chapter 11.
You will see the same pattern in almost all industries. Companies will used the laws past against their excesses as a club against competitors.
Thank you for using our eSales Advisor live chat service. For your convenience and reference, we have attached a transcript of your chat session below
Topic: Customizing A New Notebook
Me: Can I have Windows XP removed before shipping?
Carson: hi. welcome to gateway country. my name is carson, your esales advisor. may i please have your phone number in case this chat disconnects?
Me: xxx-xxx-xxxx
Carson: thanks. let me check
Carson: which laptop do you want to purchase? and which operating system do you want?
Me: I was considering the Solo 1400se. I'd prefer either Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.2
Carson: i see. we cannot send a laptop w/o an operating system.
Me: Why is that?
Carson: licensing agreement.
Me: With who?
Carson: microsoft
Me: What are my options then - I take it Linux is not an option?
Carson: correct. we can load xp, win2000, or 98.
Carson: ok. you're welcome. thank you. bye.
Carson: | eSales Advisor | 1-800-846-2036 x55238
carson.kotay@gateway.com | 11410671:6051783
I knew the answer, but I wanted to see it in writing from a rep.
I don't have a solution, but I certainly admire the problem.
If Gateway takes a hit from Microsoft, and your looking for a new OEM computer, support Gateway. It took a lot of guts for them to testify.
Hopefully, they won't be the only customer to do so.
it's expensive stuff...
good high-grade charliepuff
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
They actually had a Simpsons episode about how Microsoft does business.
I don't know if I'm off base for this comment, but it's pretty much common knowlege that Gateway is in financial trouble right now. Could it be that somebody up top decided "If we're going down in flames, we might as well do it for a good cause!" Think about it... if they oppose Microsoft in court and stand up for themselves, then they can just cry that they angered the giant and paid the price for it.
Just my $.02
If Microsoft tries to pull anything on Gateway now it will be OBVIOUS that it's a retaliation for their testimony. Even if that retaliation itself has no legal ramifications, the political reprocussions would probably be disasterous for Microsoft.
A large chunk of people out there still don't even know that Microsoft practices sketchy business. Something like that would probably put them in a light more like that of bigger, older companies (the bells, the standard oils, etc).
Hats off to Gateway for having the guts to stand up and be counted.
to pull it off: pcs w/o operating systems installed.
There's a HUGE difference between Microsoft and Verizon.
One is a monopoly that was granted by government fiat. A natural consequence of that is that the government has the authority to regulate it and impose restrictions. Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Microsofts "monopoly", on the other hand was built without government assistance.
You have no way to obtain phone, power or water without the utility (government regulations see to that). You can always obtain an OS without Microsoft.
Also, Microsoft was not cutting off the supply to Gateway. It was not "raising" the prices either. Gateway could always buy Windows at the full retail price at the time of retail availability. There is a cap on the price which is the retail price - a price at which several million people buy the product.
Are you trying to say that because Microsoft has this "monopoly" that it owes the government nothing for, it should be required to offer a discount to Gateway just because it asks for it?
Mmmm.. Donuts
Let me play devil's advocate for a second here. Please don't flame me for thinking out loud, just point out the errors in my logic.
These companies are bitching because they basically don't get a $10 discount on Windows if they offer other OS solutions. So, basically, MS is giving these companies a discount if they 'partner' with them to promote Windows. Don't *all* companies do something like this??? Does this differ from the 'bulk discount' manufacturer deals we see everywhere by *that* much? Instead of discounting in quantities bought, they're discounting in percentages installed - that's the only difference.
So, companies that offer Linux et al are outraged because they have to pay $10 more for Windows than if they were exclusively MS. What does that tell you? Could it be telling us that these companies really should stick to just Windows if that's all they anticipate selling? After all, they wouldn't have to pay the $10 more for all the non-Windows systems they sell! In fact, they would save money on all those systems by not having to pay MS a dime.
Which brings to mind this:
Do you *really* want a manufacturer's installation of Linux on your box??? Is there ONE SINGLE Linux user that wouldn't much prefer to FDISK and install it clean? Do you *want* your Linux to come with an AOL icon integrated into the desktop???
Come on guys! We've seen how HP, Compaq, and company can totally trash up an OS as simple as *Windows* with all their shareware and free previews (not to mention that sometimes they just plain screw up and have the wrong drivers in the build). Just *imagine* how f'd up the Linux builds would be! I get tired of seeing manufacturer logos on BIOS screens; I sure as hell don't want them all over the kernel too.
If enough companies sold systems with Linux, FreeBSD, or whatever already loaded on them, Microsoft would be *forced* to drop the $10 extra crap - in order to sell more Windows! Buy your next computer from a manufacturer with a backbone, if you *must* have a badly mangled pre-loaded OS on it.
And that ends my rant boys and girls. Tip your waitress. I'll be here all week.
-J
You can take a look at this one too.
Wal-Mart.com
compared this to a franchise situation? Of course Microsoft is going to throw their weight around...
Consider the OEM to be a McDonald's franchise owner. McDonald's, for the franchise fee, is giving them advertising, a well known name, customer base, etc. and rightly expects them to use the standard McDonald's menu. Different locations have their own special items (comparable to other preloaded software) but if they deviate too much, their franchise rights (OEM license) could be could be revoked. Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to do the same thing?
...Why couldn't an OEM hide behind a subsidiary or spinoff marque that they could use to sell hardware without the M$ tax.
Suppose that, OK, Gateway computers HAVE to have Windows, because Gateway must follow the Way of Gates. But what's to stop Gateway from spinning off a tiny company called "Freeway, a subsidiary of Gateway" or whatever, and have *that* company sell all the non-M$ OSes they want? So M$ strips Freeway of any license to bundle M$ software. Freeway thumbs its nose and says, "So what?" Meanwhile, Gateway mocks sympathy for M$ and says, "You know, I really do wish we could better control those rogues down at Freeway. But our organization just doesn't have that level of control over our subsidiaries."
Why couldn't this work?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
>Do you *really* want a manufacturer's installation of Linux on your box??? Is there ONE SINGLE Linux user that wouldn't much prefer to FDISK and install it clean?
Yes. There is.
Prime example:
My Father recently had to buy a new PC. Being several states away from him, I couldn't go with him. He did take my recommendations with him, which included "Absolutely, definitely, no XP."
You see, his Fiancee does work on the computer, and is a financial planner. Due to the huge list of privacy concerns, passport tie-ins, and licensing restrictions, I didnt feel it was appropriate to keep customer data on a PC running XP.
Upon his triumphant return with a PC with XP installed, he asked for help, which I refused.
I am not, nor will I ever become familiar with XP, and it is really a bad idea to store customer data on it.
What does this have to do with Linux pre-installed?
Well, glad you asked.
If he had had the option of using the linux partition instead, he could have. He has a video camera that sync's with the machine, a web-based email system, and a few other non-windows-requiring activities.
For those, I could happily ssh in and help him with whatever he needed fixed.
I could even access the windows partition, to read certain files!
Alas, since MS strong-arms every manufacturer to not install older software, nor alternative software, there is no option for my Father.
None.
1 Microsoft Way. Not just an address..
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Quoting the CNet article referenced in that link...
The move was not unexpected. Dell executives have suggested that the operating system has more potential for workstations and servers. The desktop decision was largely a financial one, influenced by the slow PC market, said Dell spokesman David Graves.
[...]
Analysts seemed unsurprised by the move. "Linux has held a very small portion of the market" for desktop PCs, said Dan Kusnetzky, vice president of systems software research at IDC.
Until someone from Dell testifies that "we dropped Linux support because Microsoft pressured us to do so and not because it simply wasn't selling" don't go putting words in other peoples' mouths.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
Slow Down Cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:
Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
In it's quest for "innovation" M$ has killed these OSes: Amiga Atari/Lynx OS/2 BeOS DOS Such a shame...
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Gateway - the company long committed to the philosophy that quality control is for other people and as long as it turns on the first time that's good enough. And now they bitch and moan that getting treated like a beef patty by their own supplier is unfair.
Lemme tell you what - you two deserve each other. MS/Holstein - a dysfunctional marriage made in hell.
It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized
In another remarkable turn of events, bears have been seen defecating in the woods!
Yes, it would be in Pepsi's best interest to see that Britney only endorses Pepsi, but that is moot, because Pepsi and Coke are both large companies that are in relatively equal competition with each other.
Windows is a monopoly, and as such, can cause severe damage to CPU distributors by charging extra if they want for whatever reason. The key idea here is that the CPU distributors need windows on their machines to survive as a company. They have no other alternative whereas britney can always go to a different soft drink company, and not go out of business (and yes I mean business, there's no art to the crap she puts out)
This clearly violates the concent decree Microsoft agreed to in 1994 in order to get the DoJ to end its monopoly investiagtion back then.
Now how many people out there actually wait for that linux version vs. loading it onto your windows partition.
Is windows security realy that bad?
glad i dont have it.
Let's say it more specifically: Microsoft has a monopoly in desktop operating systems, therefore it is illegal for Microsoft to make exclusive deals with OEMs. There, that's better.
However it is up to the courts to decide whether there was anything inappropriate about these OEM deals and if so to come up with a decision.
The courts *have* decided: it's illegal. Read the ruling. Or does your employer screen your internet access? ;-)
Likening it to racketeering on the other hand is a gross exagerration and implies that you think that MSFT forces
Yeah, and if I tell you that you should do business with me or else, you know, accidents happen, I'm not really forcing you, am I?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Maybe laptop and desktop prices will drop, and we will finally be able to buy them without an OS installed or Linux installed. I considered buying a laptop from Dell, but I won't simply because Windows is installed. MS must be severely punished for such acts. Also for all there previous actions too. Justice!
Question everything.
problem solved, no more MS windows PC. I mean who would actually PAY for Windows?
;-)
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
Really... how did they sell millions of computers? They've made their own ass-load of money by including windows(tm) on their pcs. I hate MS as much as the next guy (IHMSAMATNG), but really, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
I wonder how many calls it would take?
Call Gateway Sales
Home or Home Office 800.846.4208
Para Información sobre
"Oficina en Casa" 888.299.7512
Any Size Business 800.846.5211
Education 800.211.4952
State/Local Government 800.211.4952
Federal Government 800.216.2940
International Sales 605.232.2191
Remanufactured PCs 800.846.3614
Add-On Sales 800.846.2080
"The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
With my current box, I went the Mom & Pop route. I told them the parts I wanted. They asked me if I wanted Windows 98 or 2000? I told them I didn't want an OS (I was installing FreeBSD).
They then told me that they couldn't install the hard drive if I wanted a computer without a MS OS. I said that that was OK. It's a simple matter to screw in a hard drive, after all.
When I picked up the box, everything was assembled anyway.
It was the customers (the lack thereof) that caused Dell to dump Linux.
I'm going to buy a Dell laptop. On their website you can customize the laptop fairly much, including operating system and office package.
.. write to all consumer-rights organizations and consumer TV programs. I think it's worth the effort, don't you?
But, suprise suprise, on the menus you can just choose between Microsoft products, and 'none at all' is not an option.
So I phoned their sales department. 'Why can't I deselect Windows and Office?', I asked. The drone at the other end told me that virtually everyone wanted Windows on their laptops, so it wasn't there. So I told him that I was not one of those 'virtually everyone', and didn't want it.
'No can do', he told me. They apparantly had a deal with Microsoft, which required them to ship -all- computers with Windows.
I didn't quite believe it. I live in Norway, and I've always believed that our laws is more consumer-friendly than what's the situation in the US.
So I asked him if it really was legal. He didn't know, but the one thing he _could_ tell me was that without that agreement, the boxes 'virtually everyone' bought (including Windows, that is), would be so expensive that they wouldn't be able to compete other laptop-makers.
So, there I am, with no other option than buying Windows and Office lisences I won't be using anyway.
But then one thing occured to me. Nobody can _force_ me to accept the EULA that comes with Microsoft's products. So if I buy my laptop with Windows and Office, and refuse to accept the EULA, I should be able to return the software to Microsoft and get my money back. That's how it _should_ be, at least.
Can somebody confirm that the EULA gives you this possibility? Have anyone tried this? Any success?
I will certainly try my best to kick up a fuss if I can't
--
Tore
Slow Down Cowboy!
&&W&W
Slashdot requires you to wait 2 minutes between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
If this error seems to be incorrect, please provide the following in your report to SourceForge.net:
Browser type
User ID/Nickname or AC
What steps caused this error
Whether or not you know your ISP to be using a proxy or some sort of service that gives you an IP that others are using simultaneously.
How many posts to this form you successfully submitted during the day
* Please choose 'formkeys' for the category!
Thank you.
[Jim Desler, Microsoft spokesman] said. "All of the government parties, including the non-settling states, took the position that Microsoft should have uniform terms among OEMs."
Clearly the intent of imposing uniform terms was to mandate less restrictive contracts with OEMs. You gotta love it when Microsoft imposes the most restrictive contract terms with their OEMs and then blames it on the courts. That's chutzpah!
// TODO: fix sig
It would be great if the OEM licensing agreement:
- didn't require or reward OEMs for installing Windows on every machine;
- for those machines that include Windows, it was line-itemed on the invoice to indicate the actual cost or pass-through price for each customer;
- licensing could be handled on an organizational level, not a per machine level;
Talking about breaking MS up or other proposed remedies still skirts around MS' primary advantage: their monopoly power to get Windows onto every box. Considering that this is MS' most important strategic focus, why not just look to weaken this advantage a little? Having multi-MS selling the same thing is beyond stupid and indicates how bizarre the legal minds have become in addressing the problem.Is MS so damned slippery that their strategies, KNOWN TO EVERYONE IN THIS GIGANTIC INDUSTRY, evade every possible imagined and reasonable resolution? It seems reasonable to imagine that as powerful a competitor as MS is, they're that powerful a legal adversary, but a good start would be hitting them where THEY think it's most important.
First, $10 discount? My arse. Go look at the prices of MS products in stores, or even online OEM's 'bundled' with the purchase of any other piece of hardware.
$10? Again, my arse. MS offers a lot bigger discounts to OEM's than that.
Second, I'm not worried. The 'big name' vendors are slowly collapsing under their own weight, and there's talk of buyouts and mergings and such.
What happens when they all eventually merge into one brand?
They gain the power to stand up to Microsoft.
No one I know would take a Sorny or a Panaphonics (Simpsons reference, think generic) over, say, a Dell.
Hell, many people don't even like 'generic' supermarket brand food. And computers are a bit more of an investment than a $.99 bag of chips.
The endorsement factor is valid only because Gateway sells Microsoft and no other OS's. If the grocery store sold only Pepsi and no Coke, that would appear to me (the consumer) that they endorse Pepsi and not Coke. There could be a completely differnent reason (for example, Pepsi's contract with the grocery store forbids them from selling Coke), but as a consumer, I do not know this.
It works the same way with operating systems. Many consumers will look at Gateway selling only Microsoft operating systems and believe Gateway made a decision not to sell any other operating systems. This gives Microsoft a competitive (although stronghanded) advantage.
n/t
First, there's licensing restrictions - which obviously should be changed since they are anti-competitive.
Secondly, some of us (ok, maybe just me) are members of things like Neilsen Home Shoppers (you know, the guys who measure what you buy) or other programs - we need to ensure that every time we buy something it has Linux. Or, if not, that we BUY (not d/l for free) Linux as an add-on.
If it's not measured, it doesn't exist - that's how they think.
Third, if you own shares in one of the OEMs - send an investor relations email to the board, politely asking why they are not maximizing your shareholder return by offering a Linux version. Tell them to setup a shell corp if they have to, which buys the box and then sells it to the mother corp (Win OS) and another corp (Linux/BSD/etc).
If you are a shareholder, file a shareholder resolution. No, I am not kidding. Do this now. And then expense showing up at the annual meeting to push this. Keep it short and sweet.
This is war. Take no prisoners. Refuse to accept the ground rules imposed by the enemy - impose your own rules, choose your own ground. Fight them where your weapons are strongest, not the lawyer/contract arena they excel at.
But don't play their game - play yours.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
The hardware industry has been fighting for survival. Even the big names have been taking hits. Was VA Linux in a better situation?
VA Linux put out nice enough systems. But they were expensive. And you hardly had to buy VA Linux hardware to run Linux. One of the places I saw VA Linux boxes also included Sun and Compaq hardware. They ran Solaris, Windows, and Linux. And Linux was found on more than the VA machines.
Is there a market for Linux? Yes. But it is not a market one can corner. And offering Linux does not provide a shield against the tough times the industry in general has been facing.
Yeah I tried to order a box with No OS!
I said I didn't need one because it was going to
be a Linux box, well they couldn't ship a box without an OS... So, I built one!
An additional OS in a dual-boot configuration would allow a computer maker to advertise that they offer customers more than all the other computers, which are all "Wintel" boxes, and are all the same. It would "differentiate" that computer from all the others.
This would be an obvious marketing advantage. Yet not a single computer manufacturer does this.
You can not buy a computer that has Windows and another OS installed.
This is proof that Microsot is using its monopoly power to stop competition.
Innovation through intimidation
Or, you do business with us exclusively or don't do business with us at all
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
The article you are quoting is related to the original slashdot story of August 2nd and not the follow up story on March 19th, which is what I linked to.
To respond to your quote, though, aren't most business decisions financial ones? While the decision may have been influenced by the slow PC market, I am also of the opinion that was not the only factor involved. Of course, without being privy to inside correspondence/discussions, this can only be speculation on my part.
It seems that if an OEM does not ship Windows on every PC they ship that they are severely penalized, and can have their license revoked."
If the OEMs negotiated contracts giving a discount if Windows is shipped on every PC, then it is the OEMs who are breaking the contract by not shipping every PC with Windows. If they don't like this situation, then they need to negotiate a new contract that gives them a slightly less discount for shipping slightly fewer Windows PCs.
If you're a Gateway, HP or Dell, Microsoft may have you by the balls, but you STILL have Microsoft by the short and curlies. The marketplace may demand that you ship with Windows, but you don't have to ship consumer models with MSOffice, you don't have to ship server models with IIS or Exchange, you don't have to ship MS mice with every PC, etc.
If all else fails, sue Microsoft under the terms of the US Commercial Code for selling you non merchantable goods.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Errors like this are pardon parcel with learning english from talking and hearing and not by reading. I mean, nobody expects a slashdot post to win the pullet surprise or anything, but he could of spent a moment proofreading his post. For all intensive purposes he has made himself look like a real moron.
The Sherman Antitrust Act applies to Microsoft customers just as much as it does (perhaps moreso, under the Bu$h anminstration) to Microsoft itself. And the Sherman Act prohibits unlawful exercise of Monopsony power (collusive exercise of market power among purchasers) just as much as it prohibits unlawful conduct by Monoploies and Oligopolies (individual sellers or collusive cartels).
So the purchasing cartel you propose is potentially problematic.
This is not to say that Microsoft necessarily wins if it files an antitrust suit against Dell/Gateway/Compaq, et al., in the event of such a collusive project -- but how would you like to be one of the companies on the receiving end of such a suit by the "injured" Microsoft?
Section one of the Sherman Act states:
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Simply put, Gateway. Compaq, Dell, and others are prohibited from knowingly colluding to dictate prices and terms to suppliers. I cannot answer definitively as to whether the "get together" you propose violates the Sherman Act, but I can say that Microsoft will not be tosed out of court on its ear if it were to sue to prohibit the course of action you propose.
Eric C. Grimm
CyberBrief, PLC
320 South Main Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7341
I used to work for a company that outsourced tech support for gateway in 1997, and when that company decided to put its 'helpdesk' out of commission, I ran a linux box with ircd on it so the techs could use that as a community helpdesk. Gateway regularly did portscans on all its systems on its internal network, and when i came across the one with ircd, it contacted the company I worked for, had that box, and the one other box that ran Linux shut down, I was fired, as well as one other person, because we were not using a Microsoft licensed product for the project. It sounds really strange, but what happened, is Gateway contacted the company, said there was a "breach of contract," and told them to either fire us, or they were losing their account. So, since it was much easier to let two people go than 3/4 of the floor, they fired us, they told us why, and put "improper use of internet mail and news" as the official reason on our termination papers, to avoid any possibility of backlash in the future. How would that look to go to have to answer to the Better Busines Bureau, or wherever, with "we fired them because they were using something other than a Microsoft product." The company has sparc with solaris, but it is owned by Gateway, and is used for the telecom monitoring.
.
Easy solution just by an Apple :)
....as opposed to the ridiculous IE integration issue. I think MS was well within their rights to integrate IE into their system, even if it did hurt competitors, and it can be argued that Windows users benefit from the decision.
However, I see no benefit from the exclusivity shit that they pull, and I think it will be much harder for MS to defend, both in the court of law and in the public eye.
All of these attempts to rip IE from the OS make the government look infantile, and give the impression that they're just bullying MS for being successful. Concentrate on the exclusivity threats, and the case will look much better.
A sentence you'll never see on an Internet discussion board: "You know what? You're right."
Baby, baby c'mon, baby c'mon, baby c'mon, right muthafuckin' now!
Walmart isn't the OEM in this case.
Software licenses are used to take away user's freedom to use that software. One such license that places restrictions on users' use of software is the GPL. If someone sells software, they should retain no more rights over that software than an author retains over a book he sells. That is, the only right reserved to the copyright holder should be the right to copy and distribute the work. You don't see the author of a physics textbook making students sign away their rights to apply the knowlege contained therein! If you buy a piece of software, and decide not to accept the license agreement do they give you your money back? NO! htey assume you've burned the CD, and tell you that you're screwed. If I buy something it's bloody well mine, and I any license agreements I click 'YES I agree' to are not binding since I took delivery of the product before being given a chance to read the license agreement.
Who would not ignore a notice mailed from a car dealer that they may not drive their Ford on Wednesdays anymore. You already bought the car! If they wanted to make provisos they had their chance before the frikken sale.
Eat at Joe's.
And Dell still sells Linux systems (http://www.dell.com/us/en/esg/topics/linux_003_pr oducts.htm). Why does Microsoft tolerate this situation?
As soon as they click the close-box on the window! Then they will come back in the next "anti-M$," selling-PC's-without-OS's thread and scream about how Windows OEM-liscenses are not only okay now, but that they were never used to protect the monopoly.
Mafiasoft doesn't have to break legs. They just have to whisper to a handful of Wall St. analysts that "company X is no longer getting our best price on Windoze", and company X suddenly can't get anybody to buy their stock.
Since capital markets today vastly more involve stocks than banks, most capital-intensive businesses (like hardware makers) are easily manipulated by whoever yanks the analysts' chains.
Get Warped! Upgrade to OS/2 Warp 4.52.
100% XP-Free.... You Know You Want It.
Does anyone only sell Linux PCs? If there were such an OEM, they'd have the market cornered 'cause none of the big-boy OEMs would be allowed by microsoft to compete with them. And not selling Windoze, they'd not be subject to bullying by micro$oft themselves.
Eat at Joe's.
One possible solution to the problem - let Microsoft "innovate" anything they want into the operating system, but prohibit them selling the OS to OEMs for a period of ten years. Just cut the relationship entirely - it's the ultimate leveling of the field, and removes all leverage that Microsoft has on the OEMs.
OEMs would be free to sell machines with other operating systems, or none at all. Consumers would be required to buy Windows separately and install it themselves should they prefer that to whatever non-Microsoft OS the OEM preinstalled. This would also halt the other trend that MS and the OEMs are promoting - a lack of recovery disks.
I think you'd see the following happen: Apple would immediately release an Intel version of OSX, since the business suddenly becomes interesting to them. RedHat, Mandrake, Lindows, and other as-yet unformed companies could raise the capital to make consumer friendly versions of their offerings.
If you really want to get Draconian, use Microsoft's own arguments against them. They claimed that Netscape still had full access to the market via Internet downloads - so force them to offer Windows exclusively in the same manner.
Not meant to be flamebait, just anecdotal evidence from my attempts to order a Dell and an IBM machine with RedHat pre-loaded:
- Microsoft charges OEMs for a license for each PC shipped - not each PC with Windows, but each and every one they ship. This keeps piracy down, according to MS, by removing the incentive to ship "naked PCs".
- Now, to install and test RedHat on a machine, and to offer some support for it (sound card, monitor, etc) costs extra money.
Add 1+2 and you see why it costs more for a PC with Linux on it. For our Dell server, the grant ate the extra 50 bucks, and I ordered with RedHat (6.1, in those days?) just to make a statement that we wanted it. For my Thinkpad, it wasn't worth it. In both cases, MS got their money.Of course, this is only my understanding, I could be wrong...
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
I have an idea.. If you don't want Windows preinstalled on your machine, build your own. You can usually build a better quality machine for cheaper yourself anyhow...
If people quit buying machines from the OEMs, do you think that might help?
Virtually all the local small shops up here in Vancouver BC advertise their desktop computers without any OS at all. If you want an OS its extra. They easily beat the Dells and Gateways on price, but of course support means bringing the computer into their shop if anything goes wrong.
Aren't there similiar small shops in most major cities? Why would anyone knowledgeable buy a desktop PC through one of the big shops?
dell.ca - P4, DDR 128Mb ram, 20Gb drive Gforce II mx, MANDATORY winxp + works, 19" monitor, nic, dvd, 3 year dell warranty
$2200 (CDN - worth about $.65 USD)
local clone shop
AMD 1.8 K266A MO, DDR ram 256Mb, Gforce 3, nic, optical mouse, 2x60Gb drive, no monitor, soundblaster 5.1, 5 speakers, NO OS, 52x CD drive, manufactures warranty on the hardware
$1500 (CDN)
Dell pluses - warranty, monitor.
Dell minuses - no option to not get software, minimal RAM, smallish drive, real sound card is upgrade, no speakers
clone pluses - more ram, choice of OS and software, better video card, larger drive, very flexible configuration, price
clone minuses - minimal warranty
The clone shops all advertise various package deals in the local computer paper, but you call them, ask for what you want and a few days later you come and pick it up. You can often save $500 or more dollars compared to a similiar deal with one of the larger outfits.
The local clone shops are a particullary good deal if you want to upgrade an existing PC and just copy all your old software to the new PC.
I tried to by a desktop-type system from Dell without an MS OS, and the salesman said that it was impossible. I found another much smaller company that was willing to do it and ordered my two computers from that company instead.
I think Dell might offer linux on some of their models, but not the ones they position as desktop boxes.
MM
--
By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
Or you will be modded down. We are happy shiny people. la la la la la.
Your point, that a company that sold mainstream Linux PCs would have a wide-open market to themselves, is absolutely valid. Why is there no such company? Because it's been tried and it doesn't work. There's no market for such a company. To assume that Dell and Gateway don't sell them because of pressure by Microsoft ignores a far more obvious answer.
at WalMart
I will miss their cute little cow commercials!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
They are protecting you against the harm that they will otherwise do you, so it is a protection racket.
OTOH, as MS sets the "official price" of Windows so high, they can claim that they are providing favored vendors with a price break. And if you sell a non-MS OS on your hardware, you obviously aren't a favored vendor, so you can pay full price (possibly less a volume discount, but still a lot higher than your competition). It's possible to stay in business this way, as Pogo, and a few other small vendors prove. But it sure isn't easy. And one always hears of stories that one of those businesses got to be too successful, and then experienced a "shippment problem". True or not, this has got to make it "exciting" to be in that line of work.
And you need to write off most potential customers, because your costs for MS software will be, O, at a guess 5 times the cost that your competition pays. You don't qualify for the discount.
This may be legal. IANAL. I don't feel that it should be legal, but it may be. Lots of things are legal that I don't feel should be (and conversely).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If you want to read the best example and case of this, go to Be's website and read about their lawsuit againts M$. The official complaint is availible in PDF format and though a little long in the legaleese, reads like a story book.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
They were just sitting like little gentlemen together having laughs and sharing logic only a week ago in the Silcon Valley Summit III.
Boys will be Boys.
Down with the moderators!! Bring down the Slashdot oppressor! Viva la revolution!!
However I have a bigger issue with IE for Mac. I suspect it leaks memory like a sieve: IE is one of the apps I use most on that machine and after 3 days the memory (I have 384Megs) starts to fill up. IE is the only app I have continousely open, so it can only be that!
I wanted to switch to Opera (and register), but it relies on it's own proxy configuration instead of the one in the "System Preferences", which really sucks because I use that Mac during the day on the office network (which has a proxy) and during the evening on my own network which is a NAT.
Is IE deliberatly "broken"? I don't know, but I know that it's not a great product.
I even have a IE5.5 horror story on NT4, but that would bring me even more Offtopic, so I'll skip it.
I might not have known who they were or what their Web sites were if they weren't included in the story.
What about Apple? They're an OEM that doesn't ship Windows? From that point of view aren't the PC makers really being a bunch of cry-babies. After all, how much money would they be worth if Windows never existed, and how much would it cost them to support the 15 or so OSs that would be around if Windows hadn't dominated? "At Dell, we'll ship CP/M if that's what the user wants." Thank God Gates screwed everyone because the idiot-savants who write code would never be able to make an OS for the masses, and Apple would still be on 5.x since they never had to improve anything till Windows came along, and on the PC side we'd probably still be using amber screens and arguing whether DOS or CP/M is the superior OS. Great code is generally produced by super geniuses who have a hard time buttoning their shirts. Again, Thank God the autistic freak Gates screwed us all so we could now be having these multi-billion dollar arguments!
This is just proof that the settlement isn't enough. MS should not be allowed to use predjudicial behavior in any manner. MS is a PUBLIC company. So, yes, they have the obligation to obey PUBLIC rules. It would be different if MS was a private company owned by one person; but its not.
You can't refuse to sell black people food at publicly owned restaurants.
Why should MS be allowed to PENALIZE companies for selling other OS'? Or for not selling ridiculously high quantities of MS products.
This is just a method by which MS can unfairly maintain its monopoly, put itself ABOVE capitalistic competition.
I don't see why people defend MS so much. Whatever you think of their products, whatever you think of whether or not they got to their present position by merit or fraud...they're still a monopoly. Monopolies are inherently not good. They are everything capitalism opposes.
Even if MS were to play perfectly fair -- no crooked deals, no blackballing, no spurious lawsuit threats -- it still wouldn't be good enough. They would still hinder competition and deny consumers choice, if only by default.. Because they're so large, its impossible competing against them effectively; they can outspend you a million to one. Because they own so much of the desktop industry, few hardware or software developers offer software/driver versions for non-MS products.
Let me put it to you this way. Lets just assume Gates was a saint, freakin' mother teresa, a Stallman on wheels. That still doesn't mean we should tolerate his current power. No matter how good the man, you wouldn't want to have a person be dictator of the United States, would you?
Its the same thing with MS.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I believe Vancouver extended their arms to Microsoft about a year and a half ago when the case was starting and said that the company could move up there and they would be more than glad to have them. Microsoft would be a huge economic boost to them...so I guess they were just 'looking at the bottom line' as everyone here has been quick to blame Microsoft for doing.
The big difference between Coke and Microsoft is that Coke isn't a monopoly.
Coke is selling products in an industry with competition. MS is not. Coke cannot put a grocery store out of business, whereas MS could squash Dell like a bug if they cut off the "Windows air supply."
Microsoft is a monopoly, pure and simple. Locking their competitors out of the marketplace is CLEARLY using their monopoly leverage to maintain said monopoly. I'm not sure how anybody could see it any other way (short of being paid off like George W. and Company...)
Who did what now?
Later in the news, scientists discover water is wet, gravity makes things fall, oh, and shit happens. BillyG sucks root at 11 !
Did they feel that if they actually produced anything quality with Amiga products that there would be some back-lash by Micro$oft???
MDK 8.2 is cool... Someone email me better info on how to install my tnt2... cuz what i'm hittin on google i'm gonna slap someone..
I know it's not a popular view,expect for /. :). BUT M$ broke the law ! Flamers tell me I'm wrong. Hmmm, I thought it was quiet out there. So, they broke the law, not a rule, not a guideline, but the crimial law of the US of A. No problems so far. So, the convicted party now wants to says that it wasn't an IMPORTANT law. Just one of those nusicences that comapanies have to deal with. So, we really didn't do anything bad, so why not just says uncle. Anyone sense an issue with this ? You broke the law, not a rule, not a guideline, the law, the thing that Congress & those other august individuals think should be the way the US of A operates. Still no flames I hope so far ?
So, a convicted CRIMINAL is now arguing about how they should be sentanced ? Hands up those of you who think that if we replaced M$ with 'black drug dealer' that the sentance would be 15 to life ?
I'm Scottish so i'm sorry if I'm missing something, but in Scotland if you break the law you DON'T get to arguee what your sentance will be, if the judge advocate says nine months, don't expect to see home for nine months.
Why does M$ get to decide on the punisment that is laid upon it ? Rapist, muggers, murders, peodo's DON'T get to chinwag with the judge about whats 'right' as a punisment for a crime. The judge TELLS them what the punishment is.
Why isn't this the case in the US ? Or didn't M$ break the law like the Supreme Court said ? Or does the 'Supreme' court really mean the 'Pointless waste of time' court ? Just a thought.
BTW perhaps 1776 was a bad idea afterall
M$ BROKE the LAW. The US legal system said so ! Why do CONVICTED bad guys get to decide what their sentence will be ? PLEASE, think what would happen if 'M$' was replaced with 'drug dealer'. Do 'drug dealers' get to bargin with the court about their sentence ? BTW if the answer is yes your country has a MAJOR fscking problem to deal with. Just a thought, what do you mean DMCA ? ....
yeh when it comes time for me to play quake
i usualy roll a die to decide my eye candy.
odds: TTYquake (the best imho)
even: Xquake
and in the chance it lands on 1, i play the origional linux quake.
oh and a 6 is GLquake.
the only fact is that everything is an opinion
Gateway is down to about 7% of the PC market, and dropping rapidly (source: Gartner Group report in ComputerUser's hardcopy mag) and I gather is going deeper in the hole every quarter; consensus is that in a year or so, Gateway will no longer exist.
:)
That being the case, I have to wonder if this is in fact a last-ditch attempt to lighten the yoke of M$'s decidedly skewed OEM pricing.
Not that Gateway's move was a bad thing by any means, but I just don't see it as being purely in the interest of promoting the action against M$. Methinks it may be more along the lines of "reduce what you're charging us for OEM Windows licenses, and we'll agree to drop our testimony."
Of course, I may be just another paranoid conspiracy theorist.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Any "fascists" who resist "social harmony adjustment", must be in league with the terrorists. Such criminals will be "deleted" upon conformation of thought crimes .
That is all.
I thought the OS was the intermediary between the hardware and the software until M$ proved me wrong by giving the OS the ability to surf the web and let software/programs have complete control of the hardware.
A simple text editor is more important to an OS than a browser ... THAT should have been integrated into the shell with limitless capacity and hex-dump support so that I can view any file without worrying about file associations.
The truly insidious thing about having to buy Windows no matter what is that it leads to false marketshare data that says hardly anybody ever owns anything but Windows, which leads other companies to support nothing but Windows.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
". . . MS had to push. . . "
."
Wrong. MS got a fairly exclusive contract with IBM because Gates' mom served on a United Way board with some IBM execs.
". . . to get themselves pre-installed. . . "
Wrong. MSDOS was not *themselves*. It was the sweetheart deal that IBM gave Mary Gates' little boy. MS didn't have an OS, all they had was BASIC. The MSDOS they sold to IBM was QDOS that they had bought.
". . . still fighting tooth and nail against competitive offerings. .
Wrong. There was no fighting. IBM pushed MSDOS down the customers' throats. Competitive offerings had no chance. Remember this was in the days before there were clones, even.
". . . the shoe's on the other foot regarding their relationship with OEMs."
Wrong. The shoe was never on the other, other foot. MS always had the upper hand.
". . . your servant is your master"
Wrong. You took the wrong snippet. The only time MS has been a servant is in their service to SATAN. Try the preceding lines instead:
"Mephistopheles is not your name/But I know what you're up to all the same."
Since MOST seem to want a CHEAP x86 - there's no other choise other than to build-y-own (x86).
The other (not so cheap) choise for Linux is (non-MAC) PPC!
and that ties in with the fact that AmigaOS is not dead - pre-release Eyetech A1 PPC boards run Linux!! http://www.eyetech.co.uk/
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"