Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Guide to Accepting Donated PCs
An anonymous reader links us to Microsoft's Guide to Accepting Donated Computers
for Your School, which contains humorous statements such as
"If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC. "
It's just an amusing little read that basically amounts to keeping the license
with the PC. Also neglects to mention the Naked PC discussed in this slashdot story.
i give up...
/. you have disappointed me.
yes, microsoft is forcing all school children to use windows. they are evil evil sadistic people. you can NOT donate a PC unless it has windows on it.
sigh.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Disclaimer: this is not a rant against the original poster to whom I'm replying. It's a rant against every idiotic /. user who needs to learn how to read and understand. Next time, read the article and use your alleged brains.
/. reader (or maybe they are, but hey, we can go into MS-bash mode -- who needs to worry about trivial things like facts?).
C -without-paying-the-MS-tax if you like (I do), but for crying out loud get the story straight. Pretty please.
- You may refuse any (software) licenses donated since you have not accepted them.
This isn't the point. Apparently the simple rules aren't stated explicitly enough for the typical
The point is...
I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It's a package deal. This Is Significant And Important (TM). I donate the PC to a school. The Windows license must accompany it.
* They don't have to use the software; they just have to keep it attached to the PC somehow. They can stick it in a library and run any OS they like on the PC. However, they have the license, and so that brings us to...
* I no longer have the license to that pre-installed version, and so can't keep the media and install the OS on another brand spanking new PC I buy to replace my old PC that I've just donated.
The second point is the crux. I got the pre-installed OS as a part of the PC package, therefore I can't split it up when I donate the hardware. Ergo, I have to legally acquire a new OS for my next machine, whether it be a legitimate copy of XP from Dick Smith's CompUSA or a downloaded Linux ISO. Moan about the whole I-want-to-be-able-to-buy-a-Hewlett-Dell-Gateway-P
Making guidelines that make sure people know that they have to buy the latest and greatest OS from Microsoft in addition to that donated PC that came with Windows 95 is just another indication that something bad is going on in Redmond. Think about it.
1. Product activation prevents people from installing office and Windows XP on multiple computers in the same household.
2. Microsoft is now telling chartitables that if they want the latest OS they need to buy it, cause it probably did not come with the PC that was donated.
3. Microsoft is forcing users to upgrade to Office XP, by taking away the upgrade price if they don't upgrade by a certain time.
This all does not bode well.
Something else that is interesting. Did you know that Microsoft does not pay ANY dividends to it's shareholders? What this means is that they don't have to put their money where their mouth is. They can claim they made 11 billion dollars last quarter and don't need to send out divident checks to back that claim up.
All this evidence together makes you really think those boys in Redmond are COOKING THE BOOKS bigtime, and they're hurting real bad.
I expect at this time next year to see Bill Gates sitting in front of Congress pleading the fifth.
Here comes Enron all over gain.....
Someone once said, "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." Or if someone didn't say it, he should have.
Please, folks. This is not some nefarious Redmondian plot. It's simply a case of some middle-management MS trog going live with a website without running it by the legal department first. Had the MS legal eagles clapped eyes on this concoction before it debuted, there's no way that statement about "owning" licensed software ever would have seen the light of day.
This is just some Redmond lackey trying to explain the OEM OS license in public-speak and horribly mangling it in the process. This mysterious much-maligned Microsoft minion is not malicious, just misinformed.
Before we all get our undies in a bundle, I suggest everyone calm down, count to ten, wait a couple of days and then check the site again. I all but guarantee it will either be gone, or at least substantially reworded to conform much closer to legal realities.