Windows Refund Day II

pbody writes "Sorry if this is rehashing an old topic, but I was looking for advice on how to try to get a refund for the copy of XP that is coming with the laptop I just bought when I came across this on LinuxJournal about windowsrefund.net. They are organizing "Windows Refund Day II" on January 23, 2003 -- which coincides with the LinuxWorld Expo in NYC. Knowing how the first refund day turned out, how many out there are going to the Expo and are thinking about participating? For that matter, has anybody had any luck at all getting a refund from a vendor lately?"

Comments

avoid the problem altogether

[dirtmerchant]

I really don't get the people that are in a huff over this. You've seen from past examples that Microsoft and the OEMS aren't going to honor that EULA, and frankly, more power too them. Its just going to tick people off so much that they either build their own (which is the real solution to this problem) or go with a reseller that wil provide whatever OS you feel like running (there are plenty out there).

Re:avoid the problem altogether

[FatAlb3rt]

Its just going to tick people off so much that they either build their own

So when's the last time you built your own laptop?

Re:avoid the problem altogether

[jav1231]

I think if MS doesn't uphold this portion of the EULA then it is in fact void. The problem is finding a lawyer to fight this. What would be appropriate would be to attempt the refund, get the denial, then sell the copy outright and blatent. If any litigation comes about, then take your documentation to court. The problem is that a "little guy" can't really do this, though. This needs to be tackled at a high level (EFF?). >

Its like car insurance

[oliverthered]

I can phone up tomorow, cancel it and get a pro-rata refund.

please people

[claude_juan]

a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it. like it or not, most people use windows, and its good business practice to be able to pre-install it and probably cut the end user a little bit off the price of paying for the os retail.

not everyone likes linux and mac. not everyone can build machines. most people dont like the attitude on this web site, cuz its so intolerant. its time to quit bitching and understand that the world does not need to "be freed from microsoft."

by the way, before you get a chance to reply with all sorts of snide remarks, i built my two machines and i run linux (gentoo) and windows xp. peace.

Ehh ...

[halftrack]

I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.

Re:Ehh ...

[anomaly]

Except for the fact that when GM bundles a product with the car, I don't have a separate license agreement with GM's vendor. What these folks are saying is that they don't want to be bound by the license agreement, and in fact want the vendor to unbundle that component.

Using the car analogy, that seems a bit unfair. This is where the car analogy breaks down. In this instance, the component supplier demands that the user agree to either follow the terms of the agreement, or the supplier agrees to not provide that component AND THE CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE VALUE OF THE SUPPLIED PRODUCT!

As a result of the vendor's own terms, the consumer should get what they want.

Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"

It's a shakedown.

Hope this sheds some light on their perspective.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

Are you all listening?

[Nanite]

To the slashdotters who are saying 'Just build your own, or go to reseller X instead', the poster is talking about a laptop. Building a laptop yourself is an excersize in futility, and once you have your eye on a certain laptop, say a Sony Viao or IBM Thinkpad, that's what you want. One shouldn't have to go with some lame brick laptop just because it came without an OS. So getting the laptop you want, without the MS tax is something that can't be solved with the 'Build it yourself or shop elsewhere' attitude. Microsoft should be help accountable for what is in their (possibly) binding EULA. MS is treating their EULA like the Bible, sticking to the parts that benefit them and ignoring the rest. That's complete nonsense and they should be held accountable!

Let's see...

[jaredcoleman]

[MS] If you sell just our OS you can have them at $20.00 each.

[Dell] Ok.

[Techie] Dell, will you give me a refund for this unused OS at full market value?

[Dell] No.

[Techie] MS, will you give me a refund for this unused OS at full market value?

[MS] Uh, no.

[Techie] I can't figure out why these guys won't budge...

Re:Ehh ... EULA!

[gosand]

I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.

The difference is that a graphics card doesn't come with an EULA that says you can return it for a refund if you don't agree to the ludacrisp (heh) terms.

What many people assume is that you want to install Linux on a laptop. What if I own a copy of Win2k, and don't want XP? I should be able to return XP and install my own copy of Win2k. It isn't all about Linux.

And part of what ticks people off is that they PAY for an OS that they are being forced to purchase. Microsoft has made sure that OEMs include a MS OS in the price by charging them whether they sell you one or not. Sure, you can say "then don't buy from them" but as long as the EULA exists and it says you can return it, people should do it. Not only that, you don't even get a full copy of the OS to do with as you please. If they gave you a full version, instead of those insane recovery disks, you could at least sell it or give it away.

Re:Refunds for everyone!

[Zathrus]

I could not buy the vehicle without buying the radio

Bet you could. You just didn't want to wait for one to be built and shipped from the factory. Or you could've purchased a model with an improved radio.

Likewise, my townhome came with really terrible, contractor grade windows

Did you buy the townhome from the builder? If so then you could've opted to pay for a window upgrade. If you bought it from a previous owner, well, duh.

Oh, you didn't want windows at all? Sorry, that's not up to code and would be illegal.

Finally all the Macs in my organization run one flavor of Mac OS or another. I could not buy these things without Mac OS. Maybe I can convince Steve Jobs to give me $100 for each copy of Mac OS I don't use?

You just said you're using them. Make up your mind.

Face it, bundling is prevalent every where you look

Yes, but when you get charged for the bundled item even when you don't receive it then it's illegal. Particularly when a judge says "that's not a legal contract".

Frankly, a better comparison is being charged for lettuce, tomato, and pickles on a hamburger when you ask for them not to be put on. It's a customary practice in the US. The only difference I can think of is that the tomato, et. al. don't compromise 10-20% of the overall cost.

Depends on the reason

[siskbc]

You're right - the OEMs are just making money, not playing ideology.

However, as I recall, years ago, you could get an OS-less PC from Dell. This was before M$ started strongarming companies, saying "put windows on everything you sell, or NOTHING." Obviously, from then on, OEMs sold windows on everything (this much is documented in the antitrust case).

Point is, are the OEMs basically refusing to sell OS-less PC's because it's convenient, or through fear? I know Dell will for some business clients, because usually they have a win site-license (could be mistaken about the details). However, they won't do it for just anyone.

I know it's hard to custom-make computers when you sell a jillion of them, but Dell does *some* tailoring of computers - it seems like formatting the HDD's of those pre-installed computers would not be that difficult to integrate into their business model. That's why I think there's still some fear of M$ involved.

Re:no luck

[Asprin]

If you're in the US, why not take 'em to small claims court?

Before you send anything back...

[sterno]

Before you go and ship your copy of XP back to anybody for a refund, be sure the company that it to you will support your system if you have any problems. I have a laptop from one of the largest computer vendors in the world, and it came pre-installed with XP. It turned out that it had a hardware problem, it has some bad memory. I used some dianostic tools and indeed confirmed that it was a hardware problem. When I tried to call them up to get this fixed it did not go well.

Basically what it boiled down to is that they refused to provide any service under my warranty unless I ran the operating system that came with the laptop. I asked the guy, "is my warranty effectively invalid if I run Linux?". He said that, unfortunately, that was, in essence, the case.

So, just a word to the wise that if you don't install XP on your system, you may in fact be making your warranty irrelevent even for hardware specific problems.

Re:Refunds for everyone!

[hal200]

sigh...

The whole "Windows Refund Day" is not about bundling. Yes, Microsoft, or any other vendor/manufacturer is perfectly free to bundle their software on your spiffy new PC, just like VW is free to bundle crappy stereos with their cars.

Where the important difference comes in is a quasi-legal contract called the End User License Agreement which you must agree to be bound by if you wish to use the software. 99% of the population don't read them and simply accept them. I suggest you take an afternoon some time and comb through one. The highlights of a typical EULA are this:

1. You have no rights to use the software in a manner not sanctioned by the manufacturer.
2. The manufacturer has no liability for defects in the product.
3. (and this is the important one in terms of the discussion at hand) If you do not agree with the terms of the EULA, you must return the unused product to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Frankly, I doubt your VW Golf, or your townhome came with such an agreement. (Your Mac is a different story, since EULAs are a standard practice in the software industry...although I am not familiar with Apple's EULAs, I suspect they have a similar clause.

The whole idea behind the Windows refund day is to illustrate that not even the software manufacturers pay any heed to their own EULAs. It's not about Microsoft-bashing, they just happen to be a very convenient target for too many reasons to list here...