Slashdot Mirror
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
UPDATES
1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
Interestingly enough, I was trying to explain this same concept to my father no longer then an hour ago. I'll have to show him this note.
He seems to beleive that "they just make the better product, so people buy it. That's why they are so big. Not because they're an evil company"
01101001 01100001 01101101 01101110 01101111 01110100 01100001 01101100 01100001 01110111 01111001 01100101 01110010
The second the computer hardware industry gets over it's undying need to profit and destroy its competitors, it can finally do something about Microsoft. If they were all to tell MS at the same time "Hey, guess what, we're going to dictate the terms of what OS goes on our machines now", then MS would be up a creek without a paddle. Unfortunately, the likelihood of this happening is slim to nil, the second a large comp manufacturer did this, the others would go the other way and run to MS saying "Look at what CompStore2002 is doing! We won't do that, give us a break on the licensing!"
Microsoft is using the greed of the industry against itself. Without hardware to run it on, software is useless, and Microsoft is useless. They are in a far more precarious position then they let on...Maybe it's time to give them a little scare
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Well, this might mean any of several things:
a) There has been some legal development in what's left of the legal arguement that we don't know about, but is distinctly in Microsoft's favor, and has made them more bold
b) Dell might have decided that the "No OS" clause doesn't restrict them from selling Linux boxes, and along with other vendors allowed Microsoft to set these terms to get cheaper licenses. What Microsoft defines as "No OS" isn't clear, but Linux certainly isn't "No OS", at least here in the real world.
c) Microsoft is becoming increasingly worried that the legal proceedings are not going well, and wants to get this new contract into effect before the judge forbids such moves
d) Or the most likely of all - Microsoft is ignoring all legal and consumer issues and is being openly anticompetitive in order to milk the cash cow some more. Maybe they believe that if they act like the consumer doesn't and shouldn't give a rip about it, it will be true.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Even if this is legit, is it really that big of a deal? Most Linux users know enough to ignore the "Dude, you're gettin' a Dell" dude, and build their own systems anyway.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
There are two problems with that:
1. Microsoft is pushing that having a computer with an OS other that installed on it is illegal (especially when they are donated to schools.)
2. More imporantly, Microsoft gets paid for every computer that sells with their OS. If you buy with theirs and remove it, you just gave MS your money for no reason.
~ kjrose
What they mean is that they are going to go from offering "hardware A, available as model B, with option C" to "hardware A available as model D which is available only with option C"
Bascially, the contract with MS says that they can't get the OEM price unless they sell the model in question with only MS products. So, they have to create another "model" which they ship without an OS. The obfuscation in the letter is designed to avoid outright saying that they're using the word of the contract against MS, so that MS can't say in court that Dell violated the contract in spirit (I'm not sure how defensible that would be, but if I were Dell, I'd avoid it too).
This announcement will not have any affect upon the current litigation. At least not the case by the States.
The reason is that all testimony has already been taken.
It is just like the stupid decision by the appellate court that Microsoft did not try to monopolize the browser market. That was clearly incorrect but the court is strapped with the evidence in the case as of the testimony. And as of years earlier, Microsoft only acheived about a 50% market share. And, with those facts before the appellate court, you are likely to get such an opinion.
However, when the AOL case gets to the jury, facts will be completely different. Then 90-95% will be evidence. Very different indeed.
That is a basic problem with the legal system and it is why Microsoft lawyers can lie in public the way they do. Microsoft lawyers lie to the press and to the public based upon old facts that are clearly no longer relevant. But, to the ignorant, it is a sale.
Funny, however, that Microsoft again starts to lie about having a monopoly.
But, they are just a bunch of cheap liars anyway. They have proven that numerous times.
Remember the idiot under oath who told the judge that SUNs JVM was not included with XP because of the GPL?
And, remember the idiot that told the judge that Microsoft will withdraw from the market if it does not like the judgment?
And, remember the three stouges that each claimed they thought removing icons had something to do with commingled code.
Microsoft's lies are not even credable and yet they spit them out to defraud consumers. And, the judges as it turns out.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
They didn't even get a slap on the wrist for this behavior.
Read the court's findings of fact. The court decided this behavior was an "anti-piracy" measure--not the anti-competition measure it really was.
I see lots of angry condemations here - but this is actually very typical price negotiation. Microsoft didn't go to Dell and tell them they couldn't sell PCs with other OSes or they wouldn't sell them Windows any more. Microsoft went to Dell and offered them huge discounts to Windows if they signed an exclusive offer. Dell saw the dollar signs and agreed.
Dell has done a pretty good job with their letter blaming MS...but MS would be ignoring basic business practices if it didn't offer and option like this. I'm sure Dell is happy with the deal and laughing all the way to the bank.
Imagine the same action taken by a large publisher in the bookselling industry.
Barnes and Noble: "Our contract with HarperCollins stipulates we can no longer sell blank journals or college ruled notebooks. Customers will have the following options:
1. Purchase a book published by HarperCollins.
2. Purchase a book published by another publisher.
HarperCollins demanded this because we all know people don't use blank paper to write their own stories or notes, but to pirate their intellectual property.
FYI-This affects all our competitors as well."
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Look, I'm not some fanatical Linux Zealot on the fringes of society. I'm a programmer, system administrator, IT manager, whatever you want to call it. I use Linux and other free OSs, and I really hate being treated like some psycho zealot on the fringe when I try to avoid doubly (and sometimes triply) licensing microsoft software for Clients' PCs. ("You want what? We don't do that? Whats a EULA?" HP, Compaq, Gateway and now Dell. its all the same.) I mean, honestly, where is my FTC? Where is my consumer protection? It goes beyond frustrating.
Wendell
VADER: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.
To illustrate the monopoly issue here, what would actually happen is this. Firestone would tell Ford that they have to outfit everything with firestone tires. Then Ford would put out a bid to the other manufacturers to provide a replacement for Firestone's tire. One of them would undercut Firestone, if for no other reason, than to keep them from taking over Ford's tires, and that'd be that. This is what happens in a competitive market, unlike what we see in the O/S market.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Actually MS fraud would be more like their statement that their OSDN kits contain the complete Win32 API and that there are no secret API calls reserved for MS developers. That's an actual material fraud made over the course of several years and has changed the course of computing.
A lot of people believed in that promise and it gave MS the largest ISV community on the planet. And it was all built on a lie, one that MS now claims it never made.
What completely blows me away is that all the anti-MS people can't get their act together enough to document it and bring a class-action lawsuit based on it.
Despite all the rhetoric coming out of our government about how horrible this is and how we need a return of ethic to corporations, I'll be very surprised if anything really changes in the long run. The only real change I expect to see is stock holders will change the rules for their CEO's because it isn't in their long term best interest for a CEO to over-inflate his options and bail out.
But as far as ethics in business go, there is only one ethic: make money. The system is set up to encourage a company to find the shortest path to greatest profitability, and that's the way it will likely always be. Is this bad? Depends on what you want companies to accomplish. If you want them to achieve economic growth, increasing efficiency, etc, then they are ideally groomed to do this (as our economy has demonstrated over the past decades). But don't expect any higher moral sense to come out of a company unless there is a profit motive behind it. It can happen, but the system isn't designed to encourage it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I thought one of the stipulations of their settlement with the DOJ was that they wouldn't do that sort of thing any more.
The funny part is, that MS want's us to sell PCs with operating system and customers wants to get PCs without a preinstalled OS.
My firm is solving this thing by just adding a SuSE-Live-Eval CD to any PC that is delivered with an empty hard disk. So the customer is fine since he doesn't have to pay extra "MS taxes" and MS can't complain since we are shipping every PC with an operating system.
Dell makes great stuff, but hardly worth the price it fetches.
I just slapped together a dual p4 xeon2.0ghz system for 2500. It has a gig of rambus, 80 gighd, DVD burner and a gforce4ti4200 something a rather.
Dell only offered Xeons in the p3 flavor, similiar setup for around 800 dollars more.
I used to be a sysadmin, I know all the service benefits dell gives (pre-imaged systems, 24hr on-site part replacement, ect) but I think if you compare the cost a network being admin'ed by dell with a sysadmin who just "makes calls to dell" all day to the cost of a network being admin'd by a sysadmin who maintains an inventory of spare parts, uses ghost or NT2k Remote installation services, and buys his/her parts from a local screwdriver shop I really do think you would see a huge difference.
Parts don't really break that often, windows does. Especially outlook. Is there really a savings to pay for that dell "protection money"?
If you're currently a sysadmin in charge of some large corporate network, speak with your dollars, not with your slashdot. Try and talk your company into standardizing on a single platform. Here let me spec out a good standard...
Nvidia video (single unified driver = less driver headaches)
Creative sound (the standard by which all follow)
3com networking
Other than the motherboards changing over the next few years you won't really need to do a lot of work to maintain these machines over the next few years. Be smart, implement home directories and tell everyone to put whatever they want backed up in there. That way you can wipe their machines without hassle.
well, thats my 0.02. Wish I had caught the article sooner.
That's what I'm buying for my clients.
Here's a link to one of their server config menus.
On the menu is Win2k, Netware and no OS. So MS doesn't have the strength to do this on servers as they do on desktops. That would be my conclusion, as they'll only do whatever they can for their own profit - consumers be damned.
. This sig unintentionally left blank. I meant to put something here, but I'm busy.
Actually, the libertarian and conservative factions are based less upon anti-trust ideology than just "anti-government anything". This is particularly true with the Cato Institute. They do not defend Microsoft as against AOL but rather just think the government should stay out of it.
As for fraud, you do need the deception or lie (and it only needs to deceive) but you also need the transaction where they get your money.
Lying to consumers about the price of IE is one example. You can lie and claim the billion dollar development project has no affect upon the price of the product, but the law says otherwise. Economics say otherwise. Corporations simply do not spend billions in R&D for a product they do not think they will get a return on. They just do not do that. Looking at the price of the OS before and after IE is bundled is not the test. As a matter of law, each item in the box is attributed to have received some of that money. And, even Microsoft claimed to stockholders that some money they get is allocated to IE. Of course, they tell stockholders one thing (the returns) but lie to the public (free product). But, when as a matter of law it is not free (as was in fact decided by Judge Jackson and not overturned by the appellate court) then saying it is free is fraudulent. And, perhaps actionable fraud.
The consumer class action suits against Microsoft are not over yet either. It will be interesting to see if some of that action is based upon fraud. Most likely it is but I have not read the complaints. There is about 100 of them. So, I am sure more than one made a claim for fraud in addition to the antitrust violations.
The problem with the API claim is with the money aspect. When Microsoft claims that no APIs are hiddle and developers are duped, technically they are not buying the product. Rather they are developing and helping to support it. They have been conned just the same. But, for actionable fraud some money or property has to flow from the mark to the deceiving liar. And, I do not think the mark has to actually believe the lie and in fact rely upon it. I think in many jurisdictions it is enough that the claim is false and the false claim was made for the purpose of getting the money or property. Some "marks" may very well not believe a statement but go along anyway suffering as the result (out of their money).
The FTC could be more instrumental here. Just as with PassPort, if claims are false, they should be held accountable. But, then as with PassPort, sometimes the "criminal" just agrees to stop while keeping tbe benefit of the false statements to date.
That is why it is very important that the illegal gains made by Microsoft in the browser market be turned back. Antitrust law is supposed to be capable of undoing illegal gains. But, if IE is not placed into open source by the remedy or IE's share of the market is not restricted or returned to 20% or so, the antitrust laws failed. And, anyone looking at that will just assume they are of no value. That is what Gates said and thinks. And, that is why that idiot violates federal law so much.
In the end, Gates may decide it was not worth it. But, if the AOL judgement is less that 10 billion or so, Gates will be conviced that illegal means are good business.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
I can't help but think about how MicroSoft is a monopoly-in-restraint-of-trade as bad as the American railroad ones of the 19th century.
In the 19th century, railroad monopolies charged people fees for shipping on competing lines. The goal was that you only do business with one rail line. Microsoft's response to BeOS is much like this one. Microsoft, like the monopolistic rail lines, coerced its customers, the OEMs, not do business with a competitor. However, instead of charging imaginary fees as punishment, MS uses sealed OEM licenses to forbid them from installing dual boot OSes.
However, I see why MicroSoft uses such tactics. If people got computers with Windows and BeOS dual boot or Windows and Mandrake Linux, people would actually realize that there's no reason to use only Windows.
BTW, although not monopolistic or evil, MS's frequent changes to the Word format is like the railroad lines' stubbornness against choosing a standard gauge.
On a personal not, this seems like it could have almost affected my situation. I recently bought a computer online from a NE Ohio computer company without an OS. I was planning on running GNU/Linux until I began studying at OSU, where I could get a legal copy of WinXP from a Microsoft club for $5. Of course, recent /. stories on EULA changes made me decide to use Win2k instead, and I bought a Like New copy through half.com. Unfortunately, Windows refuses to run because I have an "INACCESSIBLE_BOOT_DEVICE". I feel like using an illegal copy Windows if I can't get it to work.
Well, according to this, Microsoft paid $1,288,000,000 in income tax on $4,026,000,000 of total earnings in 02q1. That's closer to 32% than 0%, by my calculations.
It's pretty easy to explain what this entails and why this is happening - I'll make a bet that the XP installs that Dell ships after the cutoff date won't need to be 'activated' through Microsoft, but will recognize the machine and bios as a 'licensed platform'. This effectively means that the OS license is built into the machine - so so Microsoft won't let them ship them without paying Microsoft.
Ok, so maybe Dell will make a few machines ('n-series') that don't run Windows - but they're now a completely different machine. The previous court order stating that Microsoft cannot charge for every machine sold (regardless of OS) has now been circumvented.
That's enough of a step backwards to behaviour already found to be illegal on it's own, but this seems to be the first step towards making manufacturers have to distinguish "Microsoft ready' machines from OS agnostic machines.
A few more steps like this, differentiating Microsoft machines from the others, and it's a sure bet that the commodity hardware - 'Microsoft OS ready' machines - are going to be the much vaunted 'Trusted platform' - complete with a bios that will REFUSE to boot anything except a Microsoft OS.
Yes, I'm paranoid about Microsoft's intentions. but I suspect that I'm not being paranoid enough.
Liquor
Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.