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."
I have get a few new NEC PCs that are having FreeDOS installed, too.
That just happened a month ago.
Why not FreeDOS? It doesn't matter. It's just a token.
How much space does FreeDOS take? Perhaps only one CD, or less?
It's pretty clear that Dell does not expect anybody (or much of anybody) to actuall install the included FreeDOS. The FreeDOS is just a maneuver to get around a loophole in Microsoft's licencing agreement. Now they can say, hey, we included an OS, we're abiding by their terms. 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.
(Heck, I'd rather get a FreeDOS PC than the useless Windows driver disks I get with every piece of hardware I buy. Even when I've installed the drivers on my wife's Windows box so that she can use the printers over the network, I discover they're broken and I have to get updated drivers from the web anyway.)
-Rob
The reason they dont cost less is you are STILL PAYING for windows - and Dell still pays microsoft for that computer!
I kid you not! This is just Dell trying to get back into our good graces. It is all a PR stunt - "Look we don't like M$ either!!!!" as they hand MS money under the table.
Don't take this as a win for all of us alternative OS people. M$ is still getting their cash in spite of being found a monopoly.
Derek
So if Dell is sell the systems for the same price as if Windows was included that means Dell is pocketing a nice hunk of change; What about MS? This has gotta hurt MS' sales since in the past companies buying the PCs would have a site license for x number of machines, plus all the systems coming in would already have an OS license included.
Microsoft is taking a hit on this one, right were it hurts the most, in their pocketbook.
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
If the world's most successful Intel PC maker has to do stuff like this, how can Microsoft argue it is not a monopolist?
The pattern, from Microsoft to the RIAA, seems more and more protectionist. Which is all very well, but protectionism stifles innovation and new business models. It's a tragedy that at a time when things are changing so fast, when a grasp of what is happening in the rest of the world is increasingly important, that instead of having a government that can hold monopolists and protectionists in check and encourage innovation, we sem to have a US government that is run by them and thinks that foreigners are funny people who don't matter unless they might be able to stop oil from flowing.
Dell has always been a company that challenged the conventions, and its low-cost manufacturing has been an example of how to respond to globalisation. It's ridiculous that they are being hampered by the sort of 19th century practices that Marx banged on about.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Are you sure?
At my last place of employment, we ordered about six Dell PCs for Linux-based development platforms. They came with a Microsoft OS (NT, I think). I called Dell, and they were quite happy to credit us about US$65 per license for every unopened OS installation media package that we sent back, and took our word that we'd reformat the hard disk without ever booting into the OS that was pre-installed.
It certainly improved my opinion of Dell at the time.
You could've hired me.
It would be more practical to use FreeDOS.
Since Mac OS X does not exist per se for PCs, Dell would have to go to the next best thing: Darwin, the open source core OS from Mac OS X, which does run on x86 and is free.
It would do a hell of a lot more than FreeDOS.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
MS is in the middle of an antitrust trial the core of which is the accusation that MS strongarms OEMs with exclusive deals. Now wouldn't it be convinient for MS to demo the fact that an OEM could indeed *not have to* ship with MS OSs even with the existing licences with MS. Enter Dell and FreeDOS. Who is actually using FreeDOS (well i am but i don't think that's the norm.)? From a shippers perspective Linux/xBSD would have been a better choice because of the market share. If Dell truly wanted to provide alternative OSs for the benefit of consumers wouldn't they pick from the list of OSs that are higher up in market-share-ranked list? ie. since they ship the top ranked OS -- windows -- woulnd't they pick the second next? But then MS wouldn't like that too much now would it? Solution: ship FreeDOS with the machines -- that way people are at least still in the DOS mindset. Then MS goes back to court saying -- "Look, Look, the OEMs can and are shipping machines with other OSs. We didn't strongarm them into exclusivity!! The OEMs *can* choose other OSs and that's not restricted by our *existing* license. The only reason they haven't taken advantage of that is because they didn't want to. Not because we threatened them in any way!"
So me thinks this idea hatched somewhere in the northwest US. NOT at Dell. Do you really think that if Dell wanted to piss off MS by shipping an alternative OS they would ship FreeDOS as opposed to something with more demand -- linux? Unless of course MS wanted Dell to *ship* (or at least look like they offer) another OS. That OS would have to be close to MSs own. But very very outdated version of MSs own.
Well okay so maybe the tail is 100 times the size of the dog, but it's still bizarre to read things like this:
I think it's safe to say that the concept of a "software license" is completely out of hand when a software license can dictate another company's product line.
Another strangely funny quote:
What a crazy idea! Who are these "Dell" people? They should sell customers what DELL wants! And lobby for laws that disallow everything else! That's the New Capitalism! Get with the program!
Hmm then again I guess you could parse that sentence so that "they" could refer to Microsoft..
Ok, lemme try summing up my opinion succintly and see if you still disagree, I suspect this is just an argument of semantics. This is what I'm trying to say:
"Microsoft should not force OEMs to sell a copy of Windows with every PC they sell, but even though it does not hold true in all situations, there is some logic to them thinking that you should ship something with the PC since otherwise you could very well be planning to pirate a copy of Windows."
Pay special note to the fact that I say that it does not hold true in all situations but really, you have to concede this. We all know tonnes of cut-rate PC shops are selling systems without Windows licenses or that people are buying a blank hard drive then downloading a Windows ISO off of a newsgroup. Surely you're not trying to deny this! If so you must also believe that no one ever downloaded a song illegally using Napster.