Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Dell To Offer Windows-Less PCs

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the backdoor-in-the-fine-print dept.

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."

18 of 547 comments (clear)

  1. Go Dell! by rknop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Go Dell! by Coplan · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I'm not so sure that M$ will change their licensing this time. I think they've been under a lot of pressure as of late. I think they have realized that people have this view of the "Evil Empire" and they have been making some PR moves lately that might make small steps to make them look more friendly than they always have been. Remember that issue where that guy discovered security issues in the XBox? MS didn't step in there to prevent the paper from being published. I think MS wants people to believe that they care about the end user.

      On the other hand, if they were to try to throw Dell under the bus, and change their licensing...not only would they loose a lot of respect from the consumers, but they'd loose the respect of Dell. I don't believe for a minute that Dell makes this move to spite MS. Dell is a business as well, and if their consumers aren't going to use Windows, they're more likely to buy a computer without it. Even if Dell were to offer said machines for cheaper than the windows-toting counter parts, Dell would surely make more money off of each computer, and not have to pay royalties to MS for that particular machine.

      It's great that Dell found this loophole. If MS were to do anything, I'd bet that Dell would make a big stink, the consumers would make a big stink, and MS would look more evil than it already does. Dell is large enough of a company now that it can actually get away with things like this under the shadow of MS. MS is on touchy ground...this is the OS war they never thought they'd have to deal with, and they're fighting companies that offer their products for free. It's all about image now -- they have to listen to consumers, they have to listen to retailers, and they have to end up looking good to win.

      On a side note, keep in mind the average linux user (who might potentially buy a machine without an OS). Chances are, if they buy from Dell, they're buying large quantities for a company that will run Linux. The minor difference in cost isn't always worth the extra trouble...so it doesn't impact a corporation nearly as much to buy a machine, rip the OS and start over. They practically do that anyhow. The typical consumer who uses linux is likely the same type of consumer who builds his own machines...so he's less likely to buy a Dell for his Linux box anyhow. Just an observation.

    2. Re:Go Dell! by markmoss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think a lot of people are just amazed that M$ has the clout to force another company into things like this.

      That's what the antitrust suit should have been all about...

    3. Re:Go Dell! by rseuhs · · Score: 5, Informative
      In real life, MS did very little.

      IBM gave them the OS-monopoly on preinstalled IBM-PCs back in 1981.

      After that, they just followed the industry and were late on every computer related motion there was. The GUI, multitasking the transition to 32 and 64 bits are things where Microsoft was always very late. Bill Gates assured us in 1993 that he's not interested in the Internet for example.

      That's pretty much it. Everybody would have made billions with that monopoly. actually Microsoft are not evil genuises, they are just lucky and pretty incompetent.

    4. Re:Go Dell! by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought this is what the /. community believed in? If you buy a product, since you've paid for it, you can do anything you like with it.

      Why shouldn't the same hold true for MS? If they've bought the Justice Dept, then they can use it as they wish.

      Is a government agency open-source or GPL?

      --
      -Styopa
  2. Dell should take the moral high ground here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Instead of doing what Microsoft does, and interpreting every contract to the letter, Dell should have gone with the SPIRIT of the contract, not the letter. If everyone started to do this, the world would be a much better place.


    This interpretation of their license agreement can only lead to more money for the lawyers!

  3. Two key points from the article by klieber · · Score: 5, Informative

    1. The systems will cost just as much as if you'd ordered them with Windows in the first place.

    2. They're aimed primarily at large companies and won't, for the most part, be available to consumers via Dell's web site. (their workstations will, but not the generic line of optiplexes.

    Given point 1, I fail to see how this is a Big Deal, other than the obvious snub at Microsoft.

    --kurt

    --
    Gentoo Linux http://gentoo.org/
    1. Re:Two key points from the article by renehollan · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The systems will cost just as much as if you'd ordered them with Windows in the first place.

      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.
  4. Thank God by brennan73 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  5. I can't believe they'd spin it this way. by Latent+IT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Re:Why not Linux then? by Dalroth · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If they're going to offer the software, without it being installed, why FreeDOS and not Linux? Is anyone actually going to use FreeDOS?


    No, and that's the point. They don't have to support it. Linux is big, complicated, sometimes quite painfull to use. Dell most likely does not have the expertise in their call center to handle the influx of support calls a linux installation would cause, so I think this is a very smart move.


    They could, however, partner with a company like Mandrake or Red Hat in the future. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Problem is, even with the party line "call Red Hat for help", they'll still be getting a large volume of Linux calls that they probably don't want right now. Maybe when the economy gets a little better.

  7. Re:Shouldn't n-Series Computers Cost Less? by friedmud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  8. How to make an impact by div_2n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:The obvious move by joib · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I guess they wanna charge you a few bucks extra for installing linux. As is said in the article, this is mainly aimed at big corporations who install their own stuff anyway, so they don't want to pay extra for a linux installation they probably won't use anyway.
    As to why use freedos instead of some 1-floppy linux distro, who knows?
    Maybe they don't wanna tarnish Linux reputation (which perhaps would hurt their server biz) as "that toy crappy thing which is included with every pc to circumwent MS contracts and everybody throws away anyway".

  10. Let's face the facts by coryboehne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft can do pretty much whatever they want and most people and company's just don't really care all that much, however this last move was a bit too far and most definately an example of anti-competitiveness rather than the anti-piracy measure they would have you beleve it to be. However not being able to buy a PC without an OS is not a concern for the mass majority of people. Now, we're all /.'s and we definately care a great deal about this, mostly just because we're all nerds and geeks who like to install an OS for the fun of it, but another perfectly valid reason for our caring (and in my opinion more important) is the fact that it seems Microsoft is trying to be a bully agian and we are all just really, really tired of that position from MS, as a matter of a fact if they started to act decent I might actually have a few good things to say about them.

  11. Re:It will be interesting to see Microsoft's react by PolyDwarf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Such a monopoly. I know that justice is supposed to be blind, but I didn't realize that the DoJ was blind, deaf, and dumb all at the same time.


    Actually, I think the word you're looking for is "bought"
  12. Good reason for this: cozying up to Red Hat by MtViewGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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).

  13. how about looking at it like this... by Hooya · · Score: 5, Interesting
    i believe that MS actually asked Dell to ship FreeDOS for one reason and one reason only.

    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.