Slashdot Mirror
Dell To Offer Windows-Less PCs
An anonymous reader submits: "As a follow-up to the Slashdot story Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS, News.com is reporting that Dell will sell systems without Windows. Microsoft's new licensing terms stipulate they can't sell PC's without an OS (hence the removal of the NoOS option), so Dell will be offering FreeDOS as an option for some computers. It will come with the computer, but not installed, so that users may install any other OS that they wish. It's a very creative interpretation of Microsoft's licensing terms, and one I imagine Microsoft didn't have in mind."
Who else could n't see this comming? Having said that I was expecting it to be some kind of Linux distro.
If they're going to offer the software, without it being installed, why FreeDOS and not Linux? Is anyone actually going to use FreeDOS?
I'm heartened to see them doing the right thing-- continuing to be willing to sell customers completely legal things that they want to buy even if that is what another very powerful company doesn't want.
On the other hand, it's utterly ridiculous that Dell would even have to perform this end-run around Microsoft's licensing terms in the first place.
Anybody want to place bets on how long it will be before Microsoft changes their licencing terms again to prevent Dell from what they're doing now? (Or perhaps M$ will just tell Dell that they've decided not to licence Windows to them at all; they've used those sorts of threats in the past.)
(Who appointed Microsoft as the regulatory agency for the computer industry anyway?)
-Rob
Considering that most vendors won't sell you a PC without a Windows license, I was beginning to wonder just what the hell the point of the Microsoft Select licenses was. I mean, wasn't it supposed to be that by buying them in volume, we'd get a discount? Wasn't this discount kind of, erm, compromised by the second license MS wants you to buy with new hardware?
This should have been a provision of any settlement the govt. accespted in the first place, but at least someone is doing it on their own. If Dell makes this stick, hopefully others will follow.
-brennan
Here's a line of crap from the article:
The new policy exists to prevent piracy and to better track OS shipments.
My ass. It exists to sell MORE MICROSOFT PRODUCTS. I'm not even normally a MSFT basher, but even someone completely asleep at the switch should see something wrong with that line.
Because Mac OSX licenses would cost them money, and add no value to the customer. FreeDOS is (I'm assuming), free, and only costs them the price of the media to ship it on it (i.e. essentially nothing). That's probably the real reason it doesn't ship with Linux, Linux would take more discs/space. I bet they cram FreeDOS on their driver disc or something.
What they're really doing is selling an OS-less PC, plus an extra CD that adds very little to their costs and might even be useful to a tiny fraction of their customers.
..as opposed to a couple of CDs (Linux) which would be very useful to a lot of users?
Sure many of us here probably build our own machines, but if you do plan on buying one of these, do it on the phone. Ask the salesperson if they can ship it with Linux (or your favorite OSOS).
If they say no, then tell them you want to place a customer request that they offer that because that is what you are going to install anyway and then order it.
If they get enough requests for it, then maybe they will warm back up to the OSS desktop market.
Of course, this may have no effect but it doesn't hurt to try.
This "new" PC system, is again only available to big buyers, you won't be able to order single Optiplexes sans Windows from their website.
Basically this is an old news rehashed as new news marketing droid PR stunt.
If you want a PC without Windows on it, your best bet is still Walmart.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
Isn't this kind of B.S. that the anti-trust case is about? What kind of software vendor tells a PC maker they can't sell a PC without speciific software included?
This is the kind of thing that makes me hope that M$ gets spanked clear into the middle of next year by Judge Kollar-Kotelly.
The most charitable thing I can say about Micro$oft is that they could be so much more than the festering abscess they've become if it weren't for their blind imperialism and obsession with maintaining a hegemony.
Vortran out
Knowledge is like ignorance.. too much can be just as bad as not enough.
If you aren't going to install an OS, and instead simply put it in the box, why not choose one that results in the user throwing away one floppy disk instead of throwing away all the media required for a bigger one? Most likely the user buying an OS-free computer isn't going to be using the pre-installed OS in the first place, so this makes the most business sense.
Besides, do they really want to get firebomed by Debian zealots when they bundle RedHat? Or have all the RedHat cusy-life sorts sitting there scratching their head looking for graphical configuration tools in a bundled Slackware? It's easier to go with a non-issue. Like the unbelievable generic people in sample pictures included with picture frames: the least number of people will be offended.
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
Does this mean that MSFT still gets their piece of silver (aka license) for a FreeDOS machine?
I would then proceed to install Linux the first day I got the computer, without ever booting up Windows, and ask for a refund for the software. Others have done it. If they are going to charge me the same amount, then why not prove a point? Worst case, you don't get your refund, which you wouldn't have gotten anyway, but maybe you can get the point across. Best case, you get your point across and maybe get a few bucks for your trouble.
Not the easiest solution, but it kind of sounds like fun.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
But who gets the money that is saved by not shipping Windows? Is any money saved at all? Previous incarnations of this sort of deal had the manufacturer pay Microsoft for a Windows license anyway.
I think it's a big deal whether you are sponsoring DELL for taking on Microsoft, or are actually making some sort of implicit mandatory donation to Microsoft, just to be spared from the horrors of running Windows.
It's not just the saved step and saved labor. It's also the reduced complexity in licensing. If a big corp buys a site license, they don't want extra copies under other licenses running around loose...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
>>I'd be just as happy to know that Microsoft wasn't getting paid a tax out of my money for purchasing a computer.
In fact, with this deal you are paying a non-Windows tax. They are charging you the same money as if they were installing Windows and pocketing it. Plus they don't have any obligation to support Windows on this system, further lowering their costs, and the system with Windows was profitable in the first place. These systems are a practical joke by Dell and you're the target for thinking that you're some how better off.
I don't know what you're talking about. They've been selling a practically useless OS for ages!
;-)
J/K
Actually, I think the word you're looking for is "bought"
If this flies, ya gotta love it.
Turnabout may not always be fair play, but sometimes it does justice.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
It was just this kind of "creative" contract interpretation that let Microsoft screw Spyglass pretty much out of existence.
PS: I hear that Spyglass picked up a little justice of its own in the form of a lawsuit settlement. Seems Microsoft told the Court some things in the antitrust trial that affected the way the Spyglass contract should be read. Guess they figured no one was paying attention.
Nah, it's completely legal... These numbers are made up, but they should illistrate the point.
Microsoft: Tell ya what, Dell. If you promise to only sell computers with our OS, we'll only charge you 30 dollars for a copy.
Dell: That sounds good. What if we want to seel OS-less or Linux computers.
Microsoft: Well, then the OEM Price for Windows goes up to 60 dollars each.
Dell: Ow. I guess I'll just sell computers with an OS installed (Quick, lawyers! make sure the agreement doesn't specify Windows!)
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
Which, in my mind, is total bitchcake. And part of the reason I use a Mac.
Not to split hairs with you here, but I'd be really surprised if Apple's EULA allows you to move your copy of the MacOS from machine to machine. There are lots of reasons to use a Mac, but I'm not sure that Apple's operating system policies (try buying a Mac without the MacOS) are one of them.
>it is a pity that you don't get a price break for not
>having to pay for Windows. On the other hand, I'd be
>just as happy to know that Microsoft wasn't getting
>paid a tax out of my money for purchasing a computer.
I would agree - except that we don't know this. After all - if the computers are the same cost - where's the extra money going?
Its an assumption on our part that as part of the new licensing rules that MS has set up with Dell, HPaq, etc. that they don't pay MS for every box that goes out the door. Perhapse that IS part of the new deal with MS - every box out the doors of Dell means $10 to Redmond, else its $MSRP (what's that? $199 for XPlite?) per actual box leaving the OEM?
In fact - the fact that you DON'T get a price break is really stupid. Who actually gives a shit if you get a copy of Windows? Gimme one, i don't care. I'll just dump it in the garbage, use it for kindling, make a cool coaster... whatever..
I just don't want to pay for it.. or in the case of businesses and colleges running under MS License 6.0, I don't want to pay for it twice.
So really - if i'm getting a computer - and i can get it with Windows and without, and its the same price either way.... why WOULDN'T you want to get a copy?
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
Seems to miss the fact that Dell are aiming these boxes to major customers, those ordering in the 1000's at a time. There is an option for Joe Public to buy online, but its one specific workstation model. How many home users are going to think "Ooooh, thats good, no OS!". Most are gonna think "What? No windows? I dont want that!"
The up shot is that the guys buying these things are gonna be the big corporates who would strip and rebuild whatever OS came on it to start with to match their corporate config. So whatever its supplied with it gets what they use. There is no net change in OS usage as a result.
At the end of the day I'd say its nothing more than Dell getting a bit of good publicity by putting up two fingers to MS's licencing terms rather than promoting OS choice.
I'm not talking about Joe IT worker who uses it to make a living (I've done that in the past, and while it's uncomfortable and icky, it's a necessary evil.) I'm talking about the guy who comes home and uses Windows and posts to /. about how awful it is and how hardcore he is for hating it and making it crash. Big deal. If you believe in something, don't be wishy-washy. (I don't mean to sound like RMS, because I'm coming from an entirely different place. I just think that if you do have ideals, it doesn't reflect well on you if you don't walk the walk.)
There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
Max V.
NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
It's more than a PR stunt. Dell is using FreeDOS as a small doorstop so the door will remain ajar, allowing Linux or whatever other OS they choose to squeeze through in the future.
Dell does not think anyone will use FreeDOS. They just want to sent the prescedent that they have the ability to ship some other OS with their machines so that they can change this OS when production facilities, support people, developers, drivers, etc are ready.
If they shipped only windows and then 1 year from now tried to slip Linux in, MSFT would slay them on the spot. Instead, if they ship FreeDOS now, which MSFT knows is know thread, they can SWITCH to linux instead, continuing to do something which they had be doing for many months -- shipping an alternate OS with their PCs.
This will be interesting in Germany, where you can.
the ONE thing MS is desperate to do is to not let the end consumer see the cost of the software. Whatever they told the DOJ, this discrimatory pricing is a barrier to new entrants/competition. It is even more offensive to see this practice in 2002. EEC should just deem an implied OS price, and collect a tax/VAT/GST back off MS for a transatlantic source of revenue shifting. GATT implications an all that. Perhaps MS is more concerned with the tax angle. If the VAT man is awake, Dell may have to wear the tax difference - like AOL will.
Who appointed Microsoft as the regulatory agency for the computer industry anyway?)
Microsoft did, of course. And believe me, it for your own good.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
I think the reason why Dell is offering machines without Windows installed is the fact Dell has announced an alliance with Red Hat Software to provide Red Hat Linux on both corporate PC's and servers on Tuesday.
That way, Dell offers a low-cost alternative to Windows to satisfy increasingly penny-pinching large-volume customers, and Dell chose the Linux distribution that is #1 in the business environment, Red Hat (which has pretty much become the de facto standard for Linux distributions).
sPh
First, it's lose, not loose. I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but this error is so common I have to mention it. I admit that the double-'o' sound with a single 'o' is confusing, but that's just the way English is. :)
Second, the "minor difference in cost" isn't minor at all... I bopped over to Dell, to see the "freedos" option in action. Apparently they haven't changed the web page yet. More interestingly, I discovered that, for example, in a PowerEdge 1650 rack server the cost of adding a 5-client license of Win2k server increased the cost of the machine by 45%. I don't care how little anyone thinks businesses care about the cost of hardware -- only a moron pays an additional 45% for something they're just going to throw away, and any manager who approves such a purchase was ignorant of what they were actually approving.
I can definitely see why Dell would want to maintain a no-OS option.
The enemies of Democracy are
I know a lot of people see this as a way to avoid the MS tax, but there are other areas that need to be explored concerning the tax by Microsoft.
For instance, if you build your own system, you will buy several pieces hardware and most specifically a sound card and a video card. These two pieces of hardware generally will go through the Windows Hardware Quality Labs certification or the newer Digital Signature certification. These two certifications cost money for Microsoft to perform and that cost gets passed on the consumer.
If you want to avoid the MS tax totally, then you have to buy hardware that isn't designed for DirectX, if not you will be giving money to MS.