Dell Customer Gets Windows Refund

scottv67 writes "Dell today gave freelance programmer and sysadmin Dave Mitchell, of Sheffield, UK, a refund of 47 pounds ($89) for the unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP Home SP2 bundled with his new Dell Inspiron 640m laptop, Mitchell says. Dell also refunded the tax, for a total of £55.23 ($105)."

Comments

Return on Investment?

[dada21]

I'm no fan of EULAs or any software licensing (not even the GPL) because I feel they don't really give you much room to negotiate a contract to your terms. But there comes a time in every transaction that you have to gauge your time versus what you get in return for your time. In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people? Laptops do seem to run better under *nix today than just a few years ago, so I will finally accept that a laptop can be a decent workstation for open source OSes. But I also see that for many people who use the PC, even if they eventually put another OS on it, Windows works fine, and even if they never run it, the path to try to return their copy is costlier than just eating it with the rare chance that you MIGHT need to run it.

Sure, there is a small percentage of "geeks" who will never run Windows, but for the great majority of *nix users, I'm not sure if this is the case -- even the average slashdot geek. Personally, my laptops that I use require Windows because they're production PCs -- AutoCAD, RIP print drivers (don't even try these under anything but Windows), scheduling/project management software, etc. For me, if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return. What are most techs worth today?

I'm glad Dell did it, and I wish they did offer laptops free of operating systems. I'm not aware of the exact details of Microsoft's license agreement with Dell, but to me it seems as though they've both agree to a figure that makes a sense in a market perspective: the software is just expensive enough to make everyone money, and just cheap enough to make it useless to try to work around buying a copy. Also, Dell likely is able to produce less expensive hardware since they can now sell laptops that work out-of-the-box, rather than dealing with the support issues of helping users run their hardware on dozens of different operating systems. It is a double-win for both manufacturers, and not enough of a loss for the average user.

I'm never shocked when a geek complains about the Microsoft licensing scheme, even though I agree that more choice is better. When I break down the cost of a workstation for an average business client for a year, the US$210 or whatever Microsoft "tax" is barely 1% versus the costs of the applications and maintenance they need to run that workstation for a year. That's right, 1% -- many of my business clients spend upwards of US$10,000+ a year per user on software licenses, maintenance, and hardware. And they still need Windows for it, so if you price in Windows across the board (those who need it and those who don't want it). I'm sure that percentage of overall cost falls even lower -- making it seem to me that trying to get a refund doesn't show a big return on investment overall.

In this user's case, it may have been (I wouldn't have gone through the hoops, I'd buy an OEM laptop from another manufacturer such as Averatec), but I don't see that being true for most cases.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

Re:Return on Investment?

[pottymouth]

"Sure, there is a small percentage of "geeks" who will never run Windows"

Would you appreciate it if I posted something like "sure, most idiots run Windows" or "most stupid people will still run Windows". Stop refering to Unix/Linux users as geeks. They don't bite the head of chickens at the fair they just choose to use a less popular OS than the average person. Sticking labels on people is what brings about wasted communications to protest like this one.....

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lanoitarus]

You missed the entire point. It may not be "ok" to have 1% of my income stolen each year, but that doesnt mean im going to spend 5% of my income (in this case, in the form of time invested) to prevent the 1% getting stolen.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

But there comes a time in every transaction that you have to gauge your time versus what you get in return for your time. In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people?

Maybe he was just trying to prove a point? I'd say that he shouldn't have got the refund since the laptop was sold as a turnkey package. I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?

I think, instead, the large manufacturers should not be prohibited from selling "empty" computers. IE, OS installation should be purely optional from the factory. Unfortunately, whenever this is tried, MS comes out of the woodwork and makes noises about suing for encouraging software piracy. Maybe if they threw Ubuntu on there it would appease MS and cost basically nothing for them.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[backwardMechanic]

Most large companies have a site license for Windows anyway. Buying a computer with Windows already installed usually means paying for Windows twice. But this isn't about the big corporates buying $10k+ software licenses, is it? For a home user, knocking $100 off the price of a laptop is worth having. The more people do it, the easier it gets. If Dell could find a way to consistently make their laptops cheaper, they'd be laughing. Dell Linux anybody?

Re:Return on Investment?

[RAMMS EIN]

``For me, if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return''

All that says to me is that the refund procedure is too much of a hassle. Obviously, companies can use this to make it unattractive for you to get your refund, which means they get to keep the money. If we accept that you are entitled to your refund, the refund procedure should be less involved, or you should be compensated for the effort it takes; otherwise, the refund is a lose-lose preposition.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

They don't bite the head of chickens at the fair

Hey, speak for yourself. I'm a coder by day, carnie by night. But I much prefer biting the heads off of rabid bats.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have way more than 1% of my income stolen each year -- actually, about 50% stolen. You do, too. It's called taxes, and the more you try to reduce that percentage, the more you seem to pay anyway.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Sierpinski]

I'm never shocked when a non-idiot complains about the Microsoft licensing scheme, even though I agree that more choice is better.

I fixed it for you. Anyone who doesn't complain when they're forced to spend money on something they won't use is an idiot.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he used "geeks" ... I probably would have went with "elitist jackasses like you."

Re:Return on Investment?

[diersing]

So true. This site is for NERDS, not geeks. News for Nerds, stuff that matters

Re:Return on Investment?

[szembek]

Some people are just geeks. It's not a bad thing. Learn to embrace your label.

Re:Return on Investment?

[frdmfghtr]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

To answer the question: of course not.

A mugging is where you are FORCED to give up your dough...buying a PC with Windows is not a mugging, since you can, with some time and effort, build your own to-spec PC without Windows and install your own OS on it. Furthermore, paying for a Windows license is a one-time thing, until the next version is released. I paid for a WinXP license on my laptop once, and once only, and I've had it for several years. Maybe site-licensing for businesses is different; I'm not familiar with that idea.

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort? Is the extra time and distance required to fill up at a gas station a mile down the road worth saving an extra two cents per gallon as opposed to the station I'm in front of now?

If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lumpy]

AutoCAD, RIP print drivers (don't even try these under anything but Windows),

funny, I know of many that do both of those under Solaris easily.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Rob the Bold]

I'm never shocked when a geek complains about the Microsoft licensing scheme, even though I agree that more choice is better. When I break down the cost of a workstation for an average business client for a year, the US$210 or whatever Microsoft "tax" is barely 1% versus the costs of the applications and maintenance they need to run that workstation for a year. That's right, 1% -- many of my business clients spend upwards of US$10,000+ a year per user on software licenses, maintenance, and hardware.

I'm shocked that owning and operating each workstations costs your clients at least $20000 a year. Cause that what it would have to cost for your $210 to be barely 1% of the yearly TCO of the workstation. I'm not doubting your numbers, but it sounds like your clients must be doing some pretty specialized work on these workstations to justify that expense before even putting the idiot between the keyboard and chair, roof over it, heat and cooling, etc. Assuming that they're not idiots and they're really getting a return that justifies that cost implies that their work is not really typical of the average office PC.

Re:Return on Investment?

[LiquidCoooled]

Not quite nothing.
If they start selling computers with Linux, they have to made damned sure they can support it - even if that support is a checklist leading upto a full system rebuild.

How would you feel if you bought a computer to find problems with it and being told to RTFM?

Currently at least dell support will attempt to help you get the machine you bought from them running.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Thansal]

Geek has not had a negative conotation for a long time (especialy in geek subcultures like /.). So lighten up, the guy is just pointing out that only those people that really are into OSS/*nix/alternative OSs/whatever are going to be the ones that never run windows, and yes, geek is a good term for them.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

If they start selling computers with Linux, they have to made damned sure they can support it - even if that support is a checklist leading upto a full system rebuild.

No, those systems would be treated as "blank" systems by Dell. The install of Ubuntu or whatever would just be to placate Microsoft so that they couldn't accuse Dell of encouraging software piracy.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Rob the Bold]

``For me, if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return''

All that says to me is that the refund procedure is too much of a hassle. Obviously, companies can use this to make it unattractive for you to get your refund, which means they get to keep the money. If we accept that you are entitled to your refund, the refund procedure should be less involved, or you should be compensated for the effort it takes; otherwise, the refund is a lose-lose preposition.

Sounds to me like at $100 they found the "sweet spot".

Re:Return on Investment?

[giorgiofr]

It's kinda like social security, isn't it. If you don't use it and you complain about it, you are considered a smart indiv... oh wait.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Trelane]

Microsoft volume licenses are upgrade only . I.e. you must already have an upgradeable (or downgradeable; downgrade "rights" are not universal) version of Windows installed to be able to use the license. source

Re:Return on Investment?

[VendettaMF]

Microsoft have pointed out in the past that a site license for a given windows version is not a set of licenses for all the machines on the site. It's a universal upgrade/downgrade of all the existing licenses (one per machine) to the site license version.

I.e. A site license is not valid on machines lacking an OEM windows install.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do please stop trying to tell other people how they should be offended. I am a Geek and proud of it. My wife loves me because of it. Don't try to be the Thought Police just because you don't like the word and don't understand what it means.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

You can already buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it. This is about Laptops, which for the most part you cannot build yourself without Windows. If you could, I suspect that if you could build your own laptop, Dell would offer Windows-free laptops in order to reclaim some of the built-it-myself laptop market.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort?

Depends what the work and purchase is...

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[cloudmaster]

We're not exacltly a minority here on the dot...

Re:Return on Investment?

[Bert64]

But there's nothing to stop you from selling your rear seats to a third party, whereas trying to sell OEM bundled software will cause you a lot of hassle.
You can also buy cars which have no rear seats to start with.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not worth if you earn $50/hr for 24 hrs a day.

Re:Return on Investment?

[PPGMD]

Though not quite as varied as cases for PCs you can find build it yourself laptops. You select the CPU, RAM, hard drive, and sometimes the wireless card. Since it doesn't come with a hard drive it doesn't come with Windows.

On top of that there are the usual PC shops that sell Linux laptops.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

As a libertarian, I'm with you there. One battle at a time, eh?

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

You can also buy cars which have no rear seats to start with.

True, but I don't see very many cars (maybe vans and pickups) that have an *optional* rear seat. Perhaps I should have used a better example - the gas pedal. Would a manufacturer refund your money just because you wanted to put an aftermarket gas pedal in. How about an aftermarket engine control computer (perhaps even more apropos)?

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

I would. Spending a thousand or two on a gun, some classes, concealed carry permit, ammo, and range fees is well worth it, if it prevents one guy from getting away with another mugging, and, if you are lucky and the situation allows it, takes that leech out of society permanantly.

What's the expression? Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Miseph]

If you can make in excess of $100 in 3-4 hours, then good for you. For those of us who don't make $25/hr or more, then this is great news.

I trump your appeal to "logic" with basic arithmetic.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GoMMiX]

The trend I have noticed among vendors who do offer Linux, is that Linux costs more than Windows. Not always, I'm sure - but again the 'trend' *I* noticed, is manufacturers charging inflated prices on Linux offerings - one like me would presume as an attempt to coerce users into buying a Windows PC and debunk the 'myth' (lol) that free Linux is cheaper. (Free != cheaper than windows in a MS world - is the point I believe they are trying to make.)

Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.

Even now, if you go to www.dell.com - good luck finding a system they offer linux on. Sure, you can google and find their linux desktops - but unless you know what to look for - you won't just browse by a linux product for sale on Dell's website.

Now, when you DO find Dell's Linux offerings - you should compare them to similar Windows offerings. In some cases you will find those desktops offered with "FreeDOS" (See: No OS at all really - and no choice for a Linux distro) the machine is the same price. In the vast majority of cases - you will find the machine with a non-Windows offering to be substantially more expensive.

In many cases you find a Linux offering on Dell's website you will find a large advertisement directly above the OS selection - promoting Windows, stating Windows offers "Access to twice as many PCs", the ability to "Connect to the widest variety of networks", "Guard your files and protect customer data", and a "Learn More" link that pops open a new window with a slew of propaganda explaining why Windows is a better choice.

It's not just Microsoft that doesn't want to see Linux succeed. It's hardware vendors too.

If you take a step back, and think about it - one of the best things about Linux is that it will run fantastic on your old Pentium III machine with 128MB of memory.

Then you look at the upcoming Vista and think, hey -- my one year old PC will barely even meet the recommended system hardware specs on Vista -- or more likely won't even come close.

With every effort MS makes to force user/corporate upgrades of software, they do the same for hardware. Manufacturers are not going to ignore that.

The Microsoft tax is no longer imposed on hardware vendors by Microsoft - but rather imposed on the customer by hardware vendors.

That's just the way I see it, anyway.

Re:Return on Investment?

[dada21]

Maybe it is just my markets, but our consulting business has a huge variety of clients -- lawyers, contractors, fish distributors, accountants, graphics designers, etc. Our AVERAGE per-workstation cost including maintenance is well over US$1200 per month including all legal licenses for software. I'm not sure how any business doesn't account for all the costs, on average. I'm also including infrastructure (switches, routers, servers, printers, e-mail costs), and if I toss out smaller client bases (less than 40 users), that average cost jumps up significantly (around US$1700 per month).

That breaks down to around $40 a day -- which is a great return on investment considering most employees are costing the employer quite a bit more, but the overall profit is greater than employment overhead + IT infrastructure + support staff/phones. I'm thinking that my clients are happy with the costs since they're still competitive in price to THEIR clients, so the numbers are jiving somewhere.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

If you can make in excess of $100 in 3-4 hours, then good for you.

Good techs in the NJ and NYC area can sell their services for $40-50/hr. At minimum. Some people charge much, MUCH more.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The last time I tried to buy a machine from Dell without Windows they offered Linux, but it was "more expensive than Windows."

Re:Return on Investment?

[dwandy]

I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?

When the back-seat of my car comes with an EULA that I don't like, I'll look into returning it just the same as Windows.

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku]

Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.

Yeah. Like we need one more law. The only thing that we *may* need is a court injunction enjoining MS from using coercive practices to prevent vendors from selling "blank" hardware. Apart from that, sales prices should be a vendor's choice. If they feel that supporting a Linux system will cost them more than Windows or if installing Linux will cost them more due to lack of economy of scale, they should feel free to charge more.

Think about this: a Lotus Elise weighs less than a Ford Taurus, doesn't have an automatic transmission, side impact airbags, power steering, or a back seat. Guess which car costs more. Guess which car has an economy of scale behind it.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lonewolf666]

The point is that you are supposed to accept limitations on how to use the product, which are only revealed after the sale. And the manufacturer extends an offer that you can return the limited part of the product for a refund.
To extend the car analogy, after buying the car you get in to drive home. Over the ignition lock, there is a seal with a note that says "By breaking the seal, you agree never to have sex on your back seat. But if you don't like that condition, you can return the back seat for a refund".

Now such an after-the-sale condition may or may not be legally binding, depending on jurisdiction.
But if it is binding, I think the refund offer should also be binding. And the car manufacturer (Microsoft) should be obliged to reimburse the dealer.

Re:Return on Investment?

[jejones]

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort?

I guess that depends on how much one thinks one's principles are worth.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft "tax" is barely 1% versus the costs of the applications and maintenance they need to run that workstation for a year."

Yes, that's not much to the end user or business. But that 1% sums up to Billions for Microsoft. And it keeps them a position of dominance and influence. And I, for one, don't want even 0.001% of my money going to MS because I want to them to become less significant and less influential in the computer world. A world where hardware/software is made for more than one platform, Web pages that are not browser dependent and documents that people can share with anyone they want just to name a few.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I think a better example is can you buy a car without the engine control software installed? Let the manufacturer know that you're going to write your own.

Rich.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Engival]

I'm so sick of that arguement.

So, you lose $50 by watching a 1 hour TV show... and just think of all the money you've lost while sleeping.

The fact is, most people do have some "spare time". You don't have to skip work, or turn down another contract to watch TV, sleep, or complete the refund process. You aren't losing money by doing it in your "spare time".

Unless of course, you really are some extreme workaholic, don't take time out for any personal activities at all, and barely have time to eat or sleep. In that case, your arguement is justified. Only problem with that is, you're posting on slashdot, so you obviously you do have some time to spare.

Re:Return on Investment?

[laffer1]

You can get a barebones kit to build a laptop but at considerable cost compared to a dell. Asus sells kits for instance that require you to purchase drives, ram and wireless card. I wouldn't consider that "building" completely as its partially assembled. If you look at the case designs and specs, you'll realize other PC vendors (HP's compaq division for instance) probably use these for their systems. You can get one from compaq (HP) for roughly the same price as the barebones kit including everything and a warrenty as well as a windows license.

When a dell laptop costs $599 but a home built > $1000, what makes more sense to buy? Granted I researched pricing a few months ago, but it makes no sense to build a laptop without a warranty to me. Too many things can happen to them.

In my opinion, the real crime is that the EULA doesn't allow you to run windows virtualized on that laptop. For business use, it would be great to put linux on a system and then just setup vmware with your windows copy that came with it. Microsoft's licensing terms are rough. You can't use their open licensed versions of windows on PCs that did not ship with windows. They are considered upgrade versions only. If you buy a PC with no copy of windows, and later require it you must buy a retail copy of Windows by their terms.

Re:Return on Investment?

[MECC]

"but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase,"

FTA:"Mitchell ordered his Dell laptop on Oct. 21, and it arrived on Oct. 27. He sent a postal letter requesting a refund to Dell's Bracknell, UK office on Nov. 1, received a phone call two days later, and his refund today, he says."

It doesn't sound as though he spent three hours to get his refund ($89). If it took him 15 minutes to compose a letter and mail it, that roughly comes to $356 per hour, less the expense of paper and postage.

You're right - so not worth it.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's too late.

I think you should accept that the meaning of words change over time. The same with "piracy" and the negative connotation for "hacker". A few people on some web site aren't going to change the mainstream usage.

I know what they originally meant, but fussing about its meaning just makes you look like that stereotypical old retired fart down everyone's street that rambles on about how things should be.

Re:Return on Investment?

[hal2814]

"but that doesnt mean im going to spend 5% of my income (in this case, in the form of time invested) to prevent the 1% getting stolen."

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back? Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day. Your free time is just that. For example, I get paid about $35/hr but I only get paid between the hours of 8AM and 5PM. It's not very accurate for me to assume my free (as in beer) time is worth $35/hr. If I can spend 2 to 3 hours of my free time to get $100, I may just do that.

Re:Return on Investment?

[LurkerXXX]

Making a law for that is dumb. Really really dumb. We don't need more laws.

If you want hardware without an OS, but it from a company who sells it that way. They exist.

Most customers (not myself, but most) want the OS already installed so they don't have to do it, and so that they know it is fully supported (drivers, etc) on the hardware.

Dell and many other companies charge more for *nix because they are expected to support the OS they ship with their hardware. The windows community is huge, so their cost for building up the support infrastructure (knowledge base, writing manuals for their support techs, etc, etc) can be spread over a huge number of customers. Their *nix customers are a much smaller market. They still have the expense of researching and creating tech support manuals for it, and training all their techs, but that cost gets spread over a much much smaller number of customers. So while their cost for the OS itself is less (or nothing), the higher per-customer support cost can easily make the overall *nix offering more expensive than windows. It's no deep dark anti-*nix bias, it's the realities of cost structure.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So... don't buy a Dell?

Somebody please explain to me this intense desire to buy a laptop from a manufacturer who doesn't sell what you want.

I just bought a laptop last week without Windows on it and Fedora Core 6 is now installed. It's really quite lovely.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Big picture... You are not getting paid 24/7 so your 1% arguement does not hold water. You have over 2400 posts here on /., how much money did you lose for those? You ate dinner and watched TV some last night right? Just think of all the money you are losing from doing all of those things. RIAA math does not apply here and you will lose no money trying to get your money back. You may lose some hair, miss a tv show, read one less magazine, "waste" time that you could be doing something more enjoyable instead of getting frustrated with Dell and all of which are valid reasons to not try to get a refund but none of those are monetary loses.

I'm posting AC now but I have about 2400 /. posts myself and I do not consider that as any money lost.

Re:Return on Investment?

[jotok]

My roommate makes this argument when I tell him it's his turn to take out the garbage. He makes about half again as much as I do and has a graduate degree where I have an associate's; "What is my time worth? It's obviously more efficient for you to take out the trash because my time is more valuable." The only problem is that money is not the only thing we value, so perhaps the satisfaction of not having to pay for an operating system you do not want to support is worth a few hours' time. Or, in the case of my roommate, reciprocity and fairness are valued, as is the absence of rotting garbage, so he eventually takes it out (with much bitching).

Re:Return on Investment?

[frdmfghtr]

Good point...I overlooked the laptop part of it, my bad.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bladesjester]

Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day

I may not make my professional wage 24 hours a day, but my free time isn't free. It's worth a great deal to me.

Let's face it - time is the one thing you can never get back.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lanoitarus]

Well, it all depends on how much you enjoy the process. If you enjoy spending hours dealing with Dell and writing letters and such, then your cost is quite negated anyway. If, on the other hand, you view dealing with Customer support people as being even worse than actually working, then yes, it is correct for me to value that time at my working salary- Id much rather spend the time working and getting paid for it.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Kuciwalker]

My principles of saving money are worth exactly as much money as they save, of course. To put the question back at you: if you had just flown from the UK and found that the guy at the bar at the UK airport had overcharged you a pound, would you a) fly back to Britain for the dollar or b) say "so what, it's just a dollar"?`

Re:Return on Investment?

[bigpat]

I think, instead, the large manufacturers should not be prohibited from selling "empty" computers. IE, OS installation should be purely optional from the factory. Unfortunately, whenever this is tried, MS comes out of the woodwork and makes noises about suing for encouraging software piracy. Maybe if they threw Ubuntu on there it would appease MS and cost basically nothing for them.

Dell does this for its servers. I recently bought a PowerEdge from them with no OS preloaded, on the configuration screen I just chose RedHat Linux configuration to let them know what I intended to install on it. Though I ended up using Ubuntu server.

Dell could easily do the same thing. And I would be perfectly happy paying the same amount for a linux install as the Windows installed version as long as the hardware just worked under the OS out of the box, but no OS should be cheaper than OS preinstalled.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Spacehog320]

why not just buy a laptop with a Linux distro(suse 10.1) pre-installed, configed AND supported by vendor?

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Many people, the driven ones at least, spend much more time making money than their 9 to 5.
2. Such people can instead of spending time getting a refund instead work more on one of the above for a much greater return.
3. Assuming the amount of free time they have is to them the optimal amount they wish to have then using it on something that they do not consider "fun" or whatnot is indirectly costing them money (see 1).

Re:Return on Investment?

[a.d.trick]

I'm no fan of EULAs or any software licensing (not even the GPL)

FYI, The GPL is not a EULA, it doesn't apply to the end user at all. Only to redistribution of the software. If your at the stage where your redistributing software you can probably take the effort to contact the authors.

Re:Return on Investment?

[hswerdfe]

So, I see you live in America.
  Your Free (As In Beer) time is not Free (as in Freedom) time.

Re:Return on Investment?

[sasdrtx]

Was writing this post really worth the hundreds of dollars of your valuable time? I could have gotten 2 or 3 refunds from Dell in the time it took me to read it.

btw, $210 is >2% of $10,000. So you were off by 100% or more. Better do better accounting than that.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Monsuco]

If they start selling computers with Linux, they have to made damned sure they can support it - even if that support is a checklist leading upto a full system rebuild.

Dell could either say upfront "Ok, we don't support Linux so if you buy one of these, your not going to recieve support." Or they could simply have community support. I should be allowed to choose Linux if I know it wont be supported, and as long as Dell tells me that I am on my own upfront, I should have the right to do so.

Re:Return on Investment?

[rosciol]

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back? Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day. Your free time is just that.

You've never heard of the opportunity cost of time, have you? I suspect that this is exactly what the gp was referring to, not to his professional salary. Maybe you can't value your free (as in beer) time at your professional rate of $35/hour, but look at it this way: if you were offered the opportunity to work at Starbucks for $10/hour for three hours on a random night, would you? Most of us making a good salary would say no. And yet, according to your argument, since my time is "free" then anything >$0 for that hour should be worth it, no? There is a set value below which you'd be unwilling to work, even in your "free" time. That threshold value is, essentially, your opportunity cost of time. Any hour of your free time could easily be devoted to doing something that produces money, but you value your relaxation and you pay for it in terms of opportunity cost.

I understand that if we take the parent's assumption of $100 over three hours it works out to $33.33/hour, but the point remains. If that $100 isn't worth three/five hours of my free time, just as working at Starbucks for any amount of time during my free time isn't, then I'm simply not going to bother. I don't know what your opportunity cost of time is but, in general, I agree with the gp. Spending three to five hours on the phone for a measly $100 would make me want to gouge my eyes out. I value my time more highly than that. If you don't, then you can tie up the phone lines.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Labels didn't cause any protest here, you did.

"Geek" stopped meaning that a very, very long time ago. It's time you stop being a douche and accept it. Nobody insulted you.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Joebert]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

Sure why not ?
I can always take a page out the the Music Industry handbook & tell my insurance company it was $500.

Re:Return on Investment?

[nine-times]

I thought computer geeks liked being called "geeks". Some consider it ok to call nerds "nerds" too. Both terms are sometimes used in a context where you're just noting that someone is smart, or that they're interested in things like computers and Star Trek. I call myself a "computer geek" at times, and when I meet a computer geek who's smarter than me, i call that person an "uber-geek"-- which is meant to indicate that I'm not as good of a geek as that person is.

Not so much on the dorks, though. For some reason, dorks still don't like being called "dorks". The sportos, motorheads, sluts , bloods , waistoids , dweebies , dickheads are still undecided on what they want to be called.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bunions]

> Let's face it - time is the one thing you can never get back.

This is exactly the kind of defeatist attitude that's stifling important time machine research in this country. Why, it's getting so that garage inventors can hardly afford a Delorean at all, much less buy the necessary conversion parts.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bunions]

if you're paying 50% taxes, your first concern should be to get an accountant that knows which end of the pencil to use, not bitching about the concept of taxation.

Re:Return on Investment?

[nine-times]

Let's not forget that most consumers want turnkey solutions.

That being said, I don't know the current situation, but it's true that Microsoft has (at least in the past) offered better deals to OEMs who don't market their "empty" or Linux-based computers, even if they offer it.

Apparently there was some deal where the OEM got a better price if other operating systems weren't offered, or if they were on-request only, configured to use Windows by default, or some such thing. Different levels of Microsoft loyalty got different price-breaks. If anything like that is going on currently, I think Microsoft should be prohibited from continuing that behavior.

However, I think part of the issue is still that Microsoft is selling Windows to OEMs very cheaply, and most people want Windows machines (or don't even know there is an option). I think you don't see "empty" or Linux machines because the demand is small.

Re:Return on Investment?

[everphilski]

*I* value my free time at the same price as my employer pays me. And somtimes I value it even more. My free time is exactly that - free. Free for me. Free to play with my kids or my wife or learn a new skill or just relax and recharge. I don't need to "work" more than I am already.

Re:Return on Investment?

[rosciol]

I ran through the argument you're sick of (opportunity cost of time) in an earlier comment, and I'm thinking you might be sick of it because you don't get it. It's not a myth, but a fact, that there is not a span of time that you could not allocate to revenue producing activities if you chose. You may not literally spend $50 to watch a 1 hour TV show, but during that one hour you truly could have done something revenue producing. There is no true concept such as "spare time". Spare time, in your quoted fashion, merely refers to the time that you have allotted to be free. Most people do this by default by just saying that any hour not at the office is spare time, but did you know there are people in this world that work two jobs (or three, or four)? Some of them need to, and some do it just to save up for something special, but the point is that you could be one of these people as well; you simply choose not to be.

Why? Because you value your free time. You wouldn't trade it for an amount below a certain threshold value; we call that threshold value your opportunity cost of time. I bet nickels to pennies that if someone offered you a "work anytime you want for $10,000/hour" job that you'd watch a hell of a lot less TV, because you simply don't value your free time that highly. My only point, however, is that there is a precise, estimateable value that you value your free time at. If a particular activity, like persuing a refund, does not exceed that threshold value then you're not going to give up your free time for it (and, yes, I understand that there are other factors like personal satisfaction, principles, enjoyment, and other things involved, but the fact of the matter is that those can be quantified to some extent as well; for example, how many people are willing to abandon their principles for a large enough wad of cash? How small can that wad of cash be for them to abandon their principles? Bingo, you have your dollar value for that person's principles.)

In your post you make fun of workaholics who don't take any time out for personal activities, but that's exactly what opportunity cost of time is about. The major difference between a workaholic and a "normal" person is that a workaholic does not value their free time very highly so they can't see themselves allocating their opportunity cost of time to that free time. Most people, on the other hand, despite understanding that they could be doing something else, choose to allow themselves free time because it's worth it to them.

Maybe the gp prefers posting on Slashdot to working for several hours on a task that will net him $100; I know I would. $100 isn't all that much, and the frustration isn't worth it. Instead, I can spend time doing things I enjoy and wind down from the day before I have to go to work again. Hence, I am one of those people who values their free time highly. You'd have to pay me a lot of money to get me to give it up. Maybe you just don't value your "spare time" all that highly.

Re:Return on Investment?

[slackmaster2000]

MSI has a nice laptop kit. I know a guy who builds custom laptops for gaming, and they're very nice. I've always built my own PCs, and suspect that if I need a laptop in the future I'll build it myself.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bberens]

Federal income tax, state income tax, toll roads, 'sin' taxes on alcohol, taxes on businesses built in to the cost of things I buy. Most people wind up paying at least 35-40%+ in taxes.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Alchemar]

Show me a car manufacturer that stated what you are and are not allowed to use the back seat for and then added the clause "If you do not accept these terms and conditions, please return the back seat to the car manufacturer for a full refund" into the purchasing contract and I will reconcider your argument. A clause to that effect is put into the EULA to make it have the apperance that it was negotiated. If they want the appearance that you can refuse the EULA and get a refund, they need to let you refuse the EULA and get a refund.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Yer Mom]

Have you learned nothing from the RIAA? It cost MS a sale, therefore it's piracy...

Re:Return on Investment?

[bunions]

Sure, plus you forgot property taxes. Still, if it's working out to 50% taxes, you need a better accountant.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Dare nMc]

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back?

read up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
in micro-economics your free time should be considerided equally as valuable as your work time. otherwise you would take on more hours, or more jobs until the value of your free time=value of your work time. granted in the US we have as a society setup the 40 hours work week instead of each individual reaching their own balance.

So just because you have no life, and theirfore your free time isn't worth anything, doesn't mean that applies to the rest of us.

Re:Return on Investment?

[q-the-impaler]

The necessary conversion parts? Try eBay

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

You've posted the 1 millionth senseless, useless bash of the US on Slashdot! You win an undeserved sense of smug self-satisfaction!

Re:Return on Investment?

[soundvessel]

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back? Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day. Your free time is just that. For example, I get paid about $35/hr but I only get paid between the hours of 8AM and 5PM. It's not very accurate for me to assume my free (as in beer) time is worth $35/hr. If I can spend 2 to 3 hours of my free time to get $100, I may just do that.

I don't know about you, but I consider my free time to be worth more than my working time. If I'm making $35/hr for my job, then my off time costs nothing less than double that, because I have less of it. Worse, in typical slashdot fashion, someone up there in the parent considered it the "MS tax" as if you weren't paying for anything you got something out of in the first place. People are so goddamn selfish.

Contrary to that, of course, I'll go ahead and sound selfish: Let's say I work $35 an hour. On my free time I'll call that $70 an hour. But to me, 15 minutes is worth more to me than an hour is. So if someone needed something from me for 15 minutes, I'd probably charge that 15 minutes as $70; otherwise it wasn't worth spending the time on it-- 15 minutes isn't worth $17.50. If someone said, "I'll pay you $18 to deliver this letter for me down the street," I'd turn them down. $18 is nothing, certainly not a reimbursement for spending my free time 'working'.

Re:Return on Investment?

[paniq]

"Sure, there is a small percentage of "geeks" who will never run Windows"

soon, we will count 7 000 000 000 humans. even if the percentage of windows-hating geeks is small, we're still a decent mass of people that all in all outnumbers the 60 000 employees of microsoft.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Laur]

I'd say that he shouldn't have got the refund since the laptop was sold as a turnkey package. I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?

What if the seat came with a license that said "if you do not accept the terms of this license return it for a refund"? I understand that Microsoft's EULAs do contain a term such as this.

Re:Return on Investment?

[heinousjay]

You probably are, actually. You're just vocal.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Cyberax]

GPL is NOT an EULA!

You are not required to agree to GPL terms if you are just using a GPL-licensed program.

Re:Return on Investment?

[dada21]

Actually, slashdot accounts for around 15% of my income (no, not the ads on my blogs). Posting on slashdot gets me responses. These responses help me cater to my customers better. Basically, when you reply to me, if it is really informative (for me), I use that information to increase my value to my client base.

Slashdot posting also seems to have an odd side effect of increasing my recreation time by warning me about products that aren't worth my attention. I'd say I save 100 hours a year just from reading other people's experiences.

I browse slashdot in my incremental free time -- the time between the time I work, but not during my real free time. When I have 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there, I pop open my RSS feed reader and scan for articles I like across blogs, sites like slashdot, Google New's RSS feeds of keywords I'm interested in, etc. I'd say that of those 2400 posts I made, if I am "ahead" by 400 hours plus I was able to increase my income by that 15%, those posts are likely worth $25 a post -- a HUGE return on investment for 5 minutes each.

There's some side benefits, too. My name shows up in search engines pointing to some of the best slashdot discussions, so people who search for my name (a few a day, based on the referrals I get to my sites) know what I'm about, and also can read up on what I've said on a variety of topics. I also often link to my slashdot posts on various blogs I write as well as one tech e-mail newsletter for my clients, so they can also profit from the responses I get.

If anyone is here for pure pleasure, I'd be surprised. The folks here have a GREAT variety of opinions, and for me to go out and try to get those opinions any other way would be either impossible, or too costly. I can see why slashdot gets the PageRank and Alexa ranking it gets -- many people who visit without posting are gaining a profit just from reading the replies and conversations.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Fnkmaster]

I see several posts about how it's impossible to buy a Dell with no OS on it or that it is always the same price. While this may be the case for their laptops (where perhaps the market for Linux-based laptops is too small for them to concern themselves with), it's definitely not for their server boxes.

My company just bought several Dell Poweredge 2950s. Dell offers 3 options - no O/S, Redhat Enterprise Linux, and Windows. We didn't want to pay for RHEL when we don't really want their "support", and we've had generally bad experiences with RPM-based distros and RPM dependency hell.

So we went with the no O/S option and saved a couple hundred bucks over the RHEL option and at least a decent amount cheaper than Windows. We installed Ubuntu 64-bit server 6.06LTS on the servers, and I felt very good about not paying an OS tax.

Re:Return on Investment?

[clipped_apex]

I agree, its great having a choice as to what operating system you purchase with your system, but we live in a free society (well most of us at least...) where organizations, like individuals, are free to do business as they please (Obviously within the constraints of the Law). It comes down to the consumer having to make the final decision; if they don't like what a particular supplier has on offer, then go elsewhere.

Organizations are there to do business, by doing business they provide employment for countless people, which in turn enables those people to provide for themselves and their families. If doing business means pushing a product with a better value proposition from a proprietary provider (such as Microsoft) as opposed to a Linux 'vendor', then so be it. This option, I'm absolutely sure, appeals to a large portion of their target market.

I am a great fan of Linux, and am in no way trying to be a troll - I am just trying to highlight the realities involved. Yes, it would be nice to live in an ideal world where the consumer has the final say over what they get for their purchase. To a degree, we do have that choice, no one is forcing you to buy from a particular consumer, or accept their price on face value.

Re:Return on Investment?

[LiquidCoooled]

I don't mind if they sell a base model without an operating system, but when companies sell products they should be able to support them.
If its a hardware only sale then they support the hardware, if there is bundled software they better know how to support it.

They can put as many disclaimers as they like but its just going to bring bad vibes in when a user cannot boot up their computer which is DOA.

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian]

Guns are not good or evil. They're chunks of metal. It's the people handling them that can be good or evil. A computer can be an evil thing too, if directed as such by it's user. (For example, by making it easier to create and distribute child pornography)

If you're going to place blame, at least place it where it belongs.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

If you ask me that's just as bad. Why do I want to give $x to SuSE for a linux that I don't want to use?

Re:Return on Investment?

[Kimos]

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things.
All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.

Always remember, if guns make people safe then why isn't the United States the safest place on earth?

Re:Return on Investment?

[timjdot]

hmmm... $10k on SW per year? Duh, buy Linux once and get more capabilities than you're paying for now.

    Linux HW vendors high priced? DSL sells a ~$300 nanoitx. Lots of others sell in the sub-$500 range. The high price you are paying for a 'doze pc is the Microsoft tax although you may not realize how it works. My understanding is soft gives DELL, HP, D&H, SystemMax (Tiger Direct), Frye's and such very deep discounts on the OS ($10 was quoted here on slashdot by someone else). Thus they'd effectively lock in their $300 profit per CD simply on their arrangement with soft. The arrangement I've been told as recently as two weeks ago is still that every laptop and every PC that leaves must have doze or dos (workstations are different). In fact, a head-to-head comparison on 4G, AMD 3800++, 1TB, geForce video systems shows Linux vendors near the low end of the cost on only hardware and a small fraction of the cost once any software (antivirus, office suite, etc) is added in to the package. E.g. DELL starts off leading the dozers in low cost versus Gateway, HPQ, et al but quickly vaults up as they nail the customer on SW upgrades. In contrast, Linux vendors like Serviza offer complete GPL business suites at what would be valued in the $10's of thousands for Windows comparables. That trend will only continue. The Bundle will kill 'soft as we know it. That's why they are buying into NOVL. They're not stupid.

The real benefit of releasing Vista is eliminating the secondary market on Windows XP licenses. Like many others I have a stack of Widnows licenses here I am not using and would like to sell on EBay if I had the time. The fiar market price of an OS such as DOS is around $10-$15. That's what would happen to doze if they did not keep releasing new versions to keep the FUD factor up.

Cheers,
TimJowers
Serviza Monster Computers, http://www.serviza.com/ We Make Open Source Rock out of the Box.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

Desire? I don't know about that... Many times you don't have a choice though. Many school and corporate IT departments provide a short list of hardware that is supported on their network. In the case of schools, many just flat out require you to buy a (dell|IBM) just so they can get the kickback the manufacturer pays to them every time a student buys one of their laptops. That's regardless of whether you already have a machine of your own or if the machine you already have is better or even exactly the same.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument is faulty because you are saying that the time spent to save 5 dollars costs you 10 dollars worth of work. That is not the case since you are not doing it while you are at work. You are doing it on free time, which means that you are saving 5 dollars period. You can't value your time by potential income unless you are doing it during work hours.

Re:Return on Investment?

[wolfgang_spangler]

All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.

You are wrong.

Guns do not have to kill people, many target shooters don't even hunt or carry a concealed weapon. They simply enjoy target shooting. The same is true for archery. Hell, shooting guns and bows are both Olympic sports.

You are backing up the very point which you are trying to break. Guns are not evil, or good, or even in-between. They are simply chunks of metal. Comparing guns to computers is a very apt analogy. Both can be used for good, for evil, or for benign tasks.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Noodles_HK]

Guns has one purpose: to launch a projectile in one direction. The projectile does not have to hurt living things. Even if a gun is used more as a weapon, it is still not designed to hurt living things. You can make the arguments that some bullets are design to hurt living things, but not the gun itself. Can you say that a night-stick is design to hurt living things? Yes, because it is use to hit other people. But it can also be use to restraint another being. Still not a evil thing.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

Good. You stay in your disarmed society where armed criminals can attack unarmed law-abiding citizens with little worry, and I'll stay here, and we'll all be happy.

Re:Return on Investment?

[JazzLad]

Here's a reply from someone that doesn't think you a troll for defending your rights. Assuming you are in the USA or other country that permits you to bear arms, I for one am glad you took the time to take classes & get a cc permit.

My Karma is positive, mod me a troll if you have to, but sometimes people need to remember that just because you don't exercise a specific right doesn't negate it's value. I didn't go after Acer for the 1/5 of my laptop's cost that was XP Home (which I deleted withen 48 hours) but I'm glad this guy got his back from Dell. I don't carry a firearm, but I'm glad people exercise this freedom. I belong to a somewhat unpopular religion (especially in the southern parts of USA), but it is my right to do so.

Cheers to the guy who got his money from Dell, cheers to GigsVT. Everyone should exercise their freedom every chance they get.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Princeofcups]

> Stop refering to Unix/Linux users as geeks.

And that includes us OSX folks, running a derivation of FreeBSD Unix. I thought we were the art freaks? :-)

jfs

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The posting amount comment was just an example. Great points and I agree (partically why I have so many posts and participation here as well). I will forward your comments to my management the next time I get called into the office after they feel inclined to comb through the Websense logs again. I'll let you know how that goes.

Re:Return on Investment?

[greed]

I'm no fan of EULAs or any software licensing (not even the GPL)

Not to defend EULAs, but you know you don't have to accept the GPL to use GPL'ed software? It even says right in the license that you don't have to accept it. See clause 5. (So now we have the irony of brain-dead installers saying "You must accept the license to install the software" and the license says "You do not have to accept this license".)

If you don't like the GPL, you can just let regular copyright law define your rights. Which means no derivative works without permission, no distribution, and so on.

Most other EULAs add restrictions. And many of them say you should return the software to the place of purchase for a refund if you do not agree--at least, the ones I've read recently. Hmmm. If Windows has a clause like that, there's a good reason for taking it back and getting a refund....

The problem being, of course, once you've read the EULA and found out you should return it and ask for a refund, most retailers won't give you one because the box is open.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well nuclear weapons are also just chunks of metal so why worry if distributed ? Just go ahead and make the evil people glad!

Sure you must understand that guns are very dangerous if given to the bad people and bad people are the ones who need them most.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense

Arguabley shooting someone to prevent the rape/murder/serious bodily harm of your family is a great thing. Not that one needs to shoot anybody to accomplish this. In the US the vast majority of time where a gun is used in self defense the gun is not fired. Nobody is hurt, the gun prevented a crime. This is certainly a good thing. Not that the gun did the good thing, as always it is just a lump of metal, a tool.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. Dell does nothing to help you use Windows. They put it on the machine and provide you with a restore CD, but that is where all help ends.
Call them to find out how to setup a network (for example), and they will refer you to TFM or maybe a gold support deal.

The highly acclaimed support of Windows is left dangling between Microsoft and OEMs like Dell. Having no support at all is just as good.

Re:Return on Investment?

[haystor]

His economic argument is only valid if he's paying you to take out the trash. He would then have to spend the time saved making money at a higher rate than what he's paying you.

Alternately, you can point out the lost income during his convalescence.

Re:Return on Investment?

[hal2814]

"I'd turn them down. $18 is nothing, certainly not a reimbursement for spending my free time 'working'."

Working?!!! Oh noes!

I'm not so lazy as to affix a set value to my free time. Sometimes the free time may be worth a lot. For example, if I'm spending my free time to spend time with my family or attend a sporting event, the value might be astronomical but if I'm not doing anything anyways, I may take $18 to deliver a letter down the street. I may not be able to slot out 3 hours to get that $100 but I may. That's why I used the word "may." I'd wager the 3 hours in question doesn't have to be entirely devoted to the task at hand. If it ends up being 15 minutes of actual work and 2hrs 45mins doing something around the house with the speakerphone on, I could certainly see it being worth it.

The original poster used a percentage of income as the basis for deciding whether or not to do the task and think that's a fallacy becasue it entirely eliminates some very important factors.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Many school and corporate IT departments provide a short list of hardware that is supported on their network.

True - but they're paying the bill for Windows of their own volition.

In the case of schools, many just flat out require you to buy a (dell|IBM) just so they can get the kickback the manufacturer pays to them every time a student buys one of their laptops.

That's a good case - students held hostage is a common theme. The article was about a "freelance programmer and sysadmin" though.

Re:Return on Investment?

[mr_matticus]

It's not stolen. You (collectively) approved the loss of each and every penny to the greater good of society. You might not personally approve of taxes for x and y, but you might be okay contributing money for cause z; someone else might have the reverse opinion. You might feel that less taxation is appropriate, but there are people who think taxes should be higher. In the end, we meet in the middle and that's the way it works. If more people agreed with you, things would be closer to your ideal vision for the world. Not every individual gets his way, but that's what you get for living in a pluralist society.

Oh, and I invite you to find a major liberal democracy where taxes are lower. That's small-l liberal, by the by.

Re:Return on Investment?

[burndive]

Guns are evil things

Guns are powerful things. Power and evil, while often correlated, are not the same thing.

Re:Return on Investment?

[burndive]

In your opinion. As long as we're using guns to kill or harm other humans I see them as evil, certainly in the hands of the general public. I'm very glad to live in a country with extremely strict firearms laws, in fact I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun.

And how do you suppose those strict firearms laws are upheld? Magical fairies?

Re:Return on Investment?

[bodan]

Sorry to troll, but do you mean you just bought a MacOS copy you won't use?

Re:Return on Investment?

[planetmn]

Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.

Do you think there should be a law that all cars should be priced without radios/airbags/seats/engines/etc.?
How about a law where all new houses should be priced without doors/windows/kitchens/baths/etc.?

A computer system is a system. It's comprised of hardware and software to create a product which the consumer desires. If the buyer doesn't want Windows, they can replace it. If they don't want to pay for windows, they can purchase a system without it. Just because most major vendors don't sell systems without windows, doesn't mean they aren't out there.

And what about the people that don't know how to or don't want to install their own OS? You know, the ones who buy a computer to use it.

And this talk of a MS tax just bugs me. It's not a tax, in any way, shape or form. A low end dell desktop (E521) runs $329. A low end Dell laptop (B130) runs $499, both including Windows XP. You won't find any manufacturer with a lower price system without an operating system.

By putting windows as the default on all systems, Dell saves money by ensuring compatible hardware and drivers, and with streamlined support documentation and scripts. If anything, the average support cost (and therefore purchase price) would go up if they were required to support their product with any OS of the consumers choice.

-dave

Re:Return on Investment?

[hal2814]

"You've never heard of the opportunity cost of time, have you?"

I have indeed.

"if you were offered the opportunity to work at Starbucks for $10/hour for three hours on a random night, would you?"

But based on the question you give as an example, I do wonder if you've put any thought into calculating that opportunity cost for your free time? (Hint: If you're getting a fixed value, then you're doing something wrong.) I may not work at Starbucks for $10/hour on a random night but I may do it on a night when I'm bored. It depends largely on what my alternatives are and what is involved in the work. There are many factors that go into that opportunity cost. That's why I used the word "may" in my original post. To simply put the potential earnings in the context of percentage of income like the GP does is hardly a valid opportunity cost calcualtion.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Kazzahdrane]

Of course, Captain Planet taught me that. I still think guns are evil, probably because as mentioned in another post I live in a society where gun crime (and gun ownership) is extremely rare.

Re:Return on Investment?

[burndive]

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things. All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy. Always remember, if guns make people safe then why isn't the United States the safest place on earth?

Guns aren't just for hurting people, they're also for protecting people, by threatening voilence to those who would otherwise be voilent. One of the purposes of government is to be a "terror to evil."

No one is suggesting that unrestricted access to guns is the answer to all of society's problems. We're just trying to correct your irrational classification of them as pure evil. None of us think of them as pure good.

Re:Return on Investment?

[planetmn]

Is this really the case? My school just required minimum specifications, and that was if you needed to run certain classroom software. You could (and we did) attach just about every type of hardware you can think of. And most systems were built by the user, not purchased.

Now, if you wanted on-campus warranty support through the campus computer shop, you needed to buy a laptop through the school, but I think that's valid.

And corporate IT dept's are different, at least in my mind. For one thing, any work computer is/should be provided by the employer, therefore meeting their list of supported machines. And at least where I work, there is a seperate network for visitors (contractors, vendors, customers, etc.) that's firewalled from the employee network, and there are no restrictions on them.

I'm not saying you are wrong, my experience is just 180 degrees opposite of yours.

-dave

Re:Return on Investment?

[evilviper]

if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return. What are most techs worth today?

A) Outsource your refund process to lower-paid workers... Better known as children.

B) There's no reason you have to site on hold for an hour and argue with people that don't speak english. Postal mail works just as well today as it did 100 years ago.

Re:Return on Investment?

[dan828]

I'm very glad to live in a country with extremely strict firearms laws, in fact I don't think I know a single person who owns a gun.

I know several people with guns all of which have been legally acquired. None of these law-abiding gun owners have ever used them to commit a crime or shot at any people. It's the people that acquire them illegally that do that, so what you end up with is removing the guns from the hands of the responsible and law-abiding while really not effecting the illegal trade and use of firearms. Seems pretty pointless.

Re:Return on Investment?

[rosciol]

I did take notice of the fact that you said "may", but since it was in contrast to what you said in the rest of your post, which implied that since his time was "free" he'd obviously want to do it, I ignored the use of may.

I understand that there are a large variety of variables that go into calculating opportunity cost, and it is never a fixed value because the variables are never fixed. It does, however, have an average, general value for a specific individual. I used the word "random" to describe night on purpose because I wanted it to be general case; obviously, special circumstances might make you take up the offer for any odd number of reasons in a specific instance, but I think we can both agree that in the general case you wouldn't take up the offer. That was my point.

I do agree that fixed percentages are not a valid opportunity cost calculation by any stretch. I think it's a bit like splitting hairs, however, since it's more about the idea than about the semantics. All the gggp really meant (IMHO) is that, relative to his income or relative to a company's expenditures, chasing down that tiny amount of money was unlikely to be considered of interest.

Certainly, phrasing it in terms of opportunity cost might have made a more compelling argument, but I still think that what the gggp meant had more merit than your post saying that he should simply "use the time [he] wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back" would indicate. Such a statement was summarily dismissive

Re:Return on Investment?

[Bloem]

This might be one of those IT jobs that should be outsourced.

1. Buy laptop from dell

2. Find someone speaking/writing English that only wants a dollar per day

3. ??

4. profit

Re:Return on Investment?

[00Dan]

My personal favorite was having to buy a copy of Windows 2000 for our new Netware server. Dell wouldn't sell us one with no OS.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

All software sucks, all hardware sucks, all countries suck, all economic principles suck.

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian]

If we (The US, or any other nuclear capable country) did not have such warheads, I'm sure that some other nuclear capable country would be more than happy to send some our way without fear of retaliation.

Disarmament on a global scale is a noble goal. But EVERYONE has to do it for it to work. Good luck getting that to happen. Until then I'm glad my country has a crapload of explosives that make other countries think twice before they drop a crapload of explosives on me and my family.

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian]

Duh, you rely on the inherent morality of humanity of course!

"Hey you! Stop shooting those people because it's not nice! If you don't we shall be very cross!"

Re:Return on Investment?

[WarpSnotTheDark]

Wowsers. Your Fact: "Guns are Evil", Reason: People can and have been killed by both the proper and improper use of this tool (Not all guns have killed people, but many have). Conclusion: Lets make guns illegal. My Fact: People are Evil (Not all of them, just some of them - some people have even killed other people). Conclusion: Lets make people illegal. Heck, while we're at it, people have been killed by everything from water to sunlight - lets make it all illegal and we can all bury ourselves in Berkley, California and be so happy nobody could ever make us feel "frowny" ever again.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Spacehog320]

it's still cheeper then windows and it's supported. For the average user that a big plus because you dont have to waste hours searching through forums and news groups where you will mostlikely be flamed for being a "n00b".

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian]

And I'm sure there are a great many factors at work in your society that affect the rate of violent crime far more than gun ownership. Guns are not required for violent crimes to happen.

Re:Return on Investment?

[webwidejosh]

Yes, quite odd. All the gun-related incidents I seem to hear off are all from illegal used AND illegally obtained weapons. Its not even too often I hear of an incident where even a legally obtained weapon is used for a crime.

Re:Return on Investment?

[dosquatch]

Sure you must understand that guns are very dangerous if given to the bad people and bad people are the ones who need them most.

There are no grounds to the assumption that a gun owner is automatically a bad person. Of the millions of guns in the United States, only a fraction of a percent will ever be used in a criminal act at all, let alone to shoot or kill a person. The fact is, most guns are owned by responsible, law-abiding people who handle them in responsible, law-abiding ways.

But, sure, in the hands of a bad person, it can be used to do bad things. So can knives, baseball bats, cars, rope, bricks, peanuts, dairy products....

What about the Houston mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub? Does that make a bathtub full of water inherently evil because, in the hands of a clinically depressed mother, it makes children die?

Re:Return on Investment?

[iron-kurton]

Have you seen the cost of a Flux Capacitor? machine once.I worked on a time

Re:Return on Investment?

[thc69]

This whole thread deserves to be moderated offtopic.

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things.
All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.

They're also great for hunting, which can be for sport, pest control, or food; and there are firearm non-hunting sports too.

Always remember, if guns make people safe then why isn't the United States the safest place on earth?

Because everbody in the US doesn't have a gun. If everybody carried a gun, knew how to control themselves, and knew how to use it well, you can bet that there would much less crime. Since those three conditions are impossible, it's not possible to achieve that level of safety -- but in the US, states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates.

I've always liked "An armed society is a polite society."

Re:Return on Investment?

[Hrodvitnir]

im going to spend 5% of my income (in this case, in the form of time invested)

Potential income. You know, like when the record lables claim they are losing profits.

Re:Return on Investment?

[PeterBrett]

All the gun-related incidents I seem to hear off are all from illegal used AND illegally obtained weapons.

This is very true. Despite the fact that only the very tiniest minority (< 1%) of gun-related crimes in this country are committed by licensed firearms owners, Parliament seems to always have a bill under debate trying to restrict what we can own legally still further.

It seems that the idea that not every problem has a legislative solution is alien to our politicians. Considering the latest farce: how do they think the outcome of a someone being murdered with an illegally imported and illegally possessed pistol (with hand-loaded ammunition) will be affected by making hand-loading equipment illegal?

Re:Return on Investment?

[Kazzahdrane]

The thing is, aside from possibly putting down a rabid animal I don't see that guns are a "tool" anymore. We don't hunt for our food anymore, most of it is raised on farms. When we turned the guns on our own kind they stopped being a tool and became a weapon.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can buy a laptop from dell without Microsoft XP or purchasing the expensive linux version.

Two days ago, on the 6th of November, I was buying some kit from dell via my nice account manager and asked about purchasing laptops without an OS.

The reason for this is because we have select licences which we can transfer between equipment, so we don't want any OEM licences on top.

He didn't know and put me on hold for a few minutes to find out the answer from his manager.

His reply was YES!, DELL do sell laptops bare but there is no price on the system. He said he could get an exact price if I gave him a spec as that then goes off to the bean counters to price up, but his estimate was a saving of roughly £50 shiney pounds (ignore the VAT as we're a business).

If you don't ask...

Re:Return on Investment?

[RevWhite]

I know I've asked this before, but can we stop comparing computers and software to cars? The analogy is not an accurate one. In this case, you don't get asked if you agree to terms before using a gas pedal or back seat, otherwise some of us might not even exist.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ncc74656]

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns. The closest my guns have gotten to killing anybody is putting holes in paper that had Osama's ugly mug printed on it.

I'm free to keep and bear arms. You're free to become a red stain on the carpet if you choose victim disarmament for yourself.

Re:Return on Investment?

[MeNeXT]

Spending 5% of your income this year in order to save 1% for the remainder of your life is a very worthwhile investment. If enough people did it the savings would be automatic for everyone as sson as it would be uneconomical for these bundles to exist.

Another way to look at it is that this is not $100 of income. This is $100 net after taxes. In some jurisdictions, depending on your salary, this may represent over $200 or more of net income if you are in a tax bracket that taxes your at more than 50%.

Re:Return on Investment?

[MeNeXT]

If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.

It all depends on your tax bracket. Net income? or Just Income?

As an individual that $5 probably cost you $10 if you include the income taxes you paid.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT]

An oft overlooked facet to the debate, thanks for bringing it up. Cultural diversity is a much larger factor in crime than anything else. Countries that are a monoculture (or close to one), in general, have much lower crime rates.

Re:Return on Investment?

[close_wait]

Speaking as the guy who got the refund, yes it was worth it, both financially and emotionally.

It took maybe half an hour to read through the licence bumf, take some screen shots and write a letter. For which I earned about $80.

Emotionally, I was doing something satisfying. Some people might find it satisfying to sit for several hours by a river with a fishing rod. I found it satisfying that, in some small way, I was attempting to rectify the almost unprecedented situation whereby a near-monopoly supplier still gets its fee even if you use its copmpetitor's product instead.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256]

Now, if you wanted on-campus warranty support through the campus computer shop, you needed to buy a laptop through the school, but I think that's valid.

That's how the school I went to did it too, but both my sister and my sister-in-law were given a short-list (Both were IBM) and were required to purchase one of the laptops on the list through the school. My sister's school (this was only two years ago. She went to Marist College, though I hear since she left they upgraded...) had a token ring network, so you may have been able to attach whatever you wanted to the network, you were certainly not going to have an easy time finding modern devices that would be compatible.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you fucking assholes just shut the fuck up? Nobody cares about gun control.

Re:Return on Investment?

[metamatic]

DSL sells a ~$300 nanoitx.

Who are DSL?

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for doing what others (including myself) haven't, and having it appear on slashdot.

It's not "worth it" for someone to get out of their car and direct traffic when a traffic light goes out,... but it's a mark of a higher awareness [in my mind, anyway] that deserves praise and thanks, at the least.

Re:Return on Investment?

[el americano]

If the point of Microsoft offering a full refund for the software in their EULA is so that they can say that the consumer is being treated fairly, then this should be an offer based in reality, not some dodge to continue screwing us over. If MS were not a monopoly, then I wouldn't have a problem with companies offering only PC/Windows bundles. Due to their monopoly status and documented abuses, however, I think all computer models should be available without pre-installed Windows, and MS shouldn't be allowed to create financial disincentives to manufacturers in the process.

The refund is not a bad solution. Manufacturers don't have to change a thing. Microsoft should cover all refund charges. The manufacturers should be free to say what they're actually paying for the OEM version, and have that be the amount of the refund. What's so unfair about MS losing a sale? It's a perfectly ordinary concept for most businesses.

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

You (collectively) approved the loss of each and every penny to the greater good of society.

Therein lies the problem: we (collectively) decide what happens to someone's money without their (individual) consent.

You might not personally approve of taxes for x and y, but you might be okay contributing money for cause z; someone else might have the reverse opinion.

So, let's meet in the middle and only steal *some* of your money. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only kill *some* people. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only take away *some* of your rights. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only break *some* of the Bill of Rights. Sorry, *you* shouldn't get to make compromises with *other people's* property.

Only two moral compromises exist in that situation: either the government doesn't spend money on x, y, *or* z (fine by me, I'll pay for x and y myself) or the government spends my money on x and y and your money on z (much like you might pay half as much for roads if you have 1 car rather than 2).

Not every individual gets his way, but that's what you get for living in a pluralist society.

No, you don't. Everyone *can* have their way, about *their* property, as long as they agree that they don't get to have their way about *other people's* property.

Re:Return on Investment?

[WarpSnotTheDark]

"A weapon is a tool that is intended or is used to injure, kill, or incapacitate, to damage or destroy, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable." (Thanks Wikipedia.org) To say that a weapon is not a tool is incorrect. We (humans) have been turning the guns on our own kind for as long as they have existed - this is nothing new and changes nothing. Were we to exist in a world where guns did not, I can say with absolute certainty that we would persist in killing each other as indiscriminately as we do now. Guns did not invent self-defense, offence, violence or murder; Guns simply provide us with additional options should we find ourselves participating in such activities. Please understand that none of the anti-gun people would be happy for more than about 15 seconds were guns to be eliminated from the planet because some stupid, panicky human would kill a whole bunch of people with a coke bottle and then we would be arguing about how coke bottles went from being simple tools to weapons. A gun is a tool, nothing more. If we attempt to make tools illegal - no matter what they are, it's like casting a vote for returning to pre-stone-age times - personally, I'm all for that, because I'd love to be fighting probable liberal opinion of the wheel as a weapon to be made illegal. Where does it stop? It doesn't. Fix the humans by removing the things we love so dearly to fight about; Organized Religion, Property of any kind and anything that could make one person jealous or angry with another - and that'd put us right back in the stone age or worse. Basically, weapons are not evil, they are tools and it is the way in which we use these tools which is good or evil, the tool itself cannot be either, reinforcing my point: "Humans are Evil...Let's make them illegal." I think we got a bit off-topic here. I think it is good that the guy was able to get a refund on the copy of Windows he did not intend to use. I'm sick of copyrights being shoved down our throats; making us pay for everything - twice if they can get away with it. Who's looking out for the consumer that has gotten stuck paying for the rights to use the same darn thing over and over again whether or not they ever asked for or intended to use whatever it is.

Re:Return on Investment?

[mr_matticus]

"Therein lies the problem: we (collectively) decide what happens to someone's money without their (individual) consent."
Welcome to government. Individual consent is a prerequisite for nothing government does.

"So, let's meet in the middle and only steal *some* of your money. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only kill *some* people. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only take away *some* of your rights. Oh, let's meet in the middle and only break *some* of the Bill of Rights. Sorry, *you* shouldn't get to make compromises with *other people's* property."
Straw man alert! Everything up until your last sentence is illegal and thus irrelevant. The Constitution was drawn up as a compromise--the lowest common denominator of the powers everyone was willing to cede to the government, including the power to tax. Government needs money to operate, and in order to get people to pay for the services YOU want, you have to be willing to pay for some of the services other people want. Can you imagine if people got to choose whether or not to pay for national defense? Whether or not they wanted to pay their own way for education? Government can't work like that--if you look for an example to point to, you'll find none.

As for it being "your" property, it's important to remember that unless the government existed to secure that property for you, you wouldn't have any. Without government, you wouldn't have interstate road systems or any kind of nationwide infrastructure. Try negotiating an interstate highway, one citizen at a time. Try mediating disputes without an arbiter power; it becomes a barbaric battle of simple strength. Like it or not, this country was founded on classical liberal theory, where government exists to protect individualism and provide equality of opportunity. There's an inherent compromise in those notions. If you don't accept the foundations of this society, please feel free to go to a different one.

Maybe you don't understand liberal theory or pluralism, but suffice it to say that taxation is a constitutional right of government and it's never going away. People trade that money for participation in the society. I'll reiterate. It's the price you pay for living in a pluralist, liberal society. Maybe you were born into it and disagree philosophically. If that's the case, do what others have done throughout history: go somewhere more compatible with your beliefs.

Re:Return on Investment?

[sillybilly]

What about principles? I once witnessed someone argue on the phone for 2 days straight at work over billing of his premature born child being sent to an "out of network doctor" that he could not talk the hospital out of in the first place, being promised there would be no charge because nobody else is capable of doing that function, and then later there was a "mere" $10 charge of course. It sets precedent. If you let 1% stolen on arguments that it's too costly to recover, then you'll have 100% stolen provided that it would cost 150% to recover - how do you like that argument? True, most of the time people just use common sense and say forget about it, but other times people like to take a stand. I'm guessing it's not the $100 that he was after, but the principle of not getting violated.

Re:Return on Investment?

[miro f]

yes but you forget that you can then post the story on a blog, submit it to slashdot, and watch the ad impressions roll in...

Re:Return on Investment?

[tehcyder]

Spending a thousand or two on a gun, some classes, concealed carry permit, ammo, and range fees is well worth it, if it prevents one guy from getting away with another mugging, and, if you are lucky and the situation allows it, takes that leech out of society permanantly.

Even if you actually believe that muggers should receive the death penalty, this should be done via the justice system, not one pissed off individual who may completely misread the situation.

Re:Return on Investment?

[tehcyder]

I've always liked "An armed society is a polite society."

Yes, that's certainly the case in Iraq.

Oh wait...

Re:Return on Investment?

[tehcyder]

You've posted the 1 millionth senseless, useless bash of the US on Slashdot! You win an undeserved sense of smug self-satisfaction!

You mean a complimentary US citizenship?

Uh oh...

Re:Return on Investment?

[tehcyder]

I just bought a laptop last week without Windows on it and Fedora Core 6 is now installed.

So you paid the Apple tax instead. What's the difference?

Re:Return on Investment?

[AbRASiON]

I dunno, you run a kitten through a sink disposal unit and I'm thinking you may have trouble getting that little guy back too,....

Re:Return on Investment?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sorry to troll, but do you mean you just bought a MacOS copy you won't use?

No, I'm running it as the host for virtualized OS's.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bill_mcgonigle]

So you paid the Apple tax instead. What's the difference?

MacOS is Unix and Apple supports Open Source Software. Microsoft produces poor operating systems and fights Open Source Software.

Is this a trick question?

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. Haven't you seen cowboy movies where guns are used to SAVE the LIFE of a guy who's about to hang? His buddy in the crowd shoots the rope? OK then.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bodan]

Sorry to troll, but do you mean you just bought a MacOS copy you won't use?

No, I'm running it as the host for virtualized OS's.

You might, but the parent suggested he just deleted it and uses Fedora or something. He was implying that he got a better deal by buying an Apple (thus not paying for Windows, which is usually bundled with other laptops), disregarding the fact that he did pay for MacOS (which is bundled with Apple hardware). Which is the same thing as the MS tax if you don't use it.

I doubt you can buy an Apple machine without MacOS.

Re: Return on Investment?

[mr_matticus]

"He was implying that he got a better deal by buying an Apple (thus not paying for Windows, which is usually bundled with other laptops), disregarding the fact that he did pay for MacOS (which is bundled with Apple hardware). Which is the same thing as the MS tax if you don't use it."

Except that it's not the same. You're paying for it in the sense that the price you pay includes Apple's margin, part of which funds OS X development, but you're not being charged a discrete amount for it. The "MS tax" only happens when you have to pay Microsoft when you buy a computer from another company. It's not the "MS tax" if you're buying a Microsoft-labeled computer with Microsoft software on it.

So it certainly is a better deal, because you're not being forced to pay a higher rate than you would otherwise. In other words, it's a "common pool" issue. By giving money to Apple, you're funding all of their corporate endeavours (there is no opt-out--you can't say 'I don't want this money I'm giving you for my Mac to be used for iPods'). By giving money to Dell, you're funding Dell's corporation and also Microsoft's (there should be an opt-out here, because this is forced on you, as if your GE stove came with Calphalon pans and GE pays Calphalon part of each sale). A more tech-industry example is how the studios are getting a share of Zune sales, but the irony there is that someone's doing to MS what they do to Dell, HP, etc.

Re:Return on Investment?

[pottymouth]

I'm not telling you how to be offended. If you like being called a Geek, lovely! I however, do not! Stop telling ME when to be offended or not.

However, I now will start refering to everyone that uses Windows exclusively as retardedMondkeys (note the syntax). Hopefully it will catch on and in the near future retardedMonkeys will begin to embrace their status and refer to themselves as retardedMonkeys and be loved by their wifes, daughters and sons because they are a retardedMonkey. I'd like that a lot!!

Re:Return on Investment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, yeah? Well, I have a Inspiron I bought for home use. $500 machine. There's no 1% there. $100 is fully 20% of the price I paid for this machine. It PISSES ME OFF that M$ extracts money from people like me who have no intention of ever running their products. Kudos on someone getting their money back! Since Dell oddly required purchase of a word processor package (which I also don't use), I did get the Wordperfect one rather than M$'s though 8-).

Where will it end?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

What if all Windows users started demanding their money back?

Re:Where will it end?

[Tim C]

How can they? The whole point is that he's not a Windows user, and was claiming a refund as he had no intention of using it.

Re:Where will it end?

[szembek]

If they are Windows users they won't be able to get their money back. This guy obviously was not a Windows user which is why he requested/received his money back. If you are going to actually use windows, you can't get a refund.

Re:Where will it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

What if all Windows users started demanding their money back?

The Horror! The Horror!

Seriously, you made a mistake. It's NOT the Windows users that are getting their money back, it's the ones who don't use Windows. It is. Don't even start about piracy or I'll slap you.

Re:Where will it end?

[John Jamieson]

Your tag says
"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill"

While a big fan of the man, he was an Intolerant Idealist! He had this ideal (a free autonomous/free England) and had little tolerance for anyone who had a different view (Hitler). He could have cut a sideroom deal, maybe coming out semi autonomous, but he WOULD NOT! He "squandered" many, many lives pursueing his dream!

Summary: Sometimes intolerant idealism is right... I think Mr. Churchill proved the point.

Let the trend begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't use the bonus discs from DVDs either, can I get a refund on that too?

Re:Let the trend begin...

[Anonymous Coward]

>I don't use the bonus discs from DVDs either, can I get a refund on that too?

Only if you don't agree to any special licensing terms the DVD requires you to agree to past standard copyright. Of course, up to now, I haven't found any like this yet... YMMV.

Re:Let the trend begin...

[WidescreenFreak]

Then rent from Netflix or Blockbuster. They usually don't offer any bonus discs for rent (via mail, anyway), and because of their pricing structure you're paying for the service, not the discs themselves, and you don't own anything that they send to you.

Next time, try to use an example that's not no ridiculous. Then again, you're AC. I shouldn't have such high expectations of you.

Re:Let the trend begin...

[Thansal]

actualy, they offer alot of bonus discs, however you order them just like a standard disc!

Re:Let the trend begin...

[WidescreenFreak]

Ah, but then he has to voluntarily select them. If he doesn't want them, he doesn't have to select them. :)

Or I would think that another option would be to sell the bonus disc on eBay. (The one that he bought, of course. NetFlix wouldn't appreciate it otherwise.) I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there would love to replace specific, damaged discs instead of having to buy the whole thing again.

Re:Let the trend begin...

[ack154]

Only if there's some possible agreement that by opening the case you're agreeing to accept any other bonus content/discs provided within. And if you choose not to accept said content, you can return the unopened/unused bonus content for a refund.

47 pounds

[Anonymous Coward]

47 Pounds??? Those are heavy bits!

Re:47 pounds

[r_jensen11]

Yeah, that's like, $5,000 Canadian, right?

Re:47 pounds

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's like, $5,000 Canadian, right?

      Or $4500 US. Have you seen what's happened to the US vs CDN dollar lately? I'd stop joking if I were you, yankee.

Re:47 pounds

[rHBa]

Not funny, flamebait

Common Knowlage

[thejrwr]

I thought most linux geeks did this already, shoot with my 1999 IBM laptop i got a 130$ refund for windows ME same thing for my Compaq Desktop, since i did not need windows, i had linux and a bought copy of windows i told them ship it without a OS and ill do the rest

Re:Common Knowlage

[CRCulver]

About four years ago, companies started selling notebooks wrapped in plastic with a label stating that wrapping meant agreeing to the terms of the EULA and accepting Windows with no possibility of refund. Before that, it was fairly typical for dedicated users to insist on getting their money back.

Re:Common Knowlage

[schnikies79]

who still does this? I just bought the same laptop as in the article (640m) and didn't have anything like that, nor did my roommate who just bought a compaq laptop. On both the EULA roughly appeared when first booting.

Re:Common Knowlage

[thejrwr]

maybe 4 min of talking on the phone (minus holding time) to get a refund, maybe a 3 month wait for the check tho

Re:Common Knowlage

[arivanov]

For example, I do not do it despite getting laptops and PCs via business channels which means that they come with proper CDs and licenses.

The reason for this is quite simple. If you return the license you are no longer entitled to use any of the Microsoft TrueType fonts. While the choice of free (as in speech and in beer) fonts has vastly improved lately, the set which comes with Windows remains essential for business use. Everything else aside, it is essential that your documents look the same as the documents of people who are still stuck with Windows.

So returning the CDs does not make business sense until the Microsoft TrueType fonts appear with a valid license from a valid retail source for less then the cost of an OEM license refund. This applies to everything but the very few 100% linux shops which never have to share a document in a DOC or PPT format with someone outside.

Re:Common Knowlage

[CRCulver]

The last two Toshiba notebooks I've bought had such wrapping.

Re:Common Knowlage

[UnxMully]

$130 for Windows ME? It's just as well they didn't pay what it was worth isn't it.

Re:Common Knowlage

[thejrwr]

my bad $130.46 from IBM and $130.54 from Compaq

Re:Common Knowlage

[b0s0z0ku]

This applies to everything but the very few 100% linux shops which never have to share a document in a DOC or PPT format with someone outside.

I use .pdf (which comes with its own problems). Why? Because it's more difficult (not impossible I know) to alter after receipt. Also, it's specifically designed to be viewable irrespective of equipment.

-b.

Re:Common Knowlage

[xenocide2]

I thought most linux geeks did this already, shoot with my 1999 IBM laptop i got a 130$ refund for windows ME same thing for my Compaq Desktop, since i did not need windows, i had linux and a bought copy of windows i told them ship it without a OS and ill do the rest

Of course not; most linux geeks buy their own PC then dual boot with their favorite .iso of WinXP or Vista. But I'd definately ask for a refund on Windows ME too ;)

Re:Common Knowlage

[arivanov]

That is true, but the exact nature of it being more difficult make editing a document by two people - one on Winhoze and one on Linux extremely painfull.

Re:Common Knowlage

[Frogbert]

Dude, somebody paid you not to use Windows ME?! Talk about a good deal!

Re:Common Knowlage

[UnxMully]

No, not your bad. Unless your jerking my chain :) Windows ME was a total dog of an OS that bought very few, if any, benefits over 98 second edition and if anything was far less stable. So getting a $130 refund was a major result considering it was probabaly worth absolutely nothing.

Good for him....

[MMC Monster]

And good for Dell for taking care of him with a minimum of fuss.

The floodgates have opened!

[dublinclontarf]

Quick, everyone else get a refund before Dell goes broke!

Re:The floodgates have opened!

[jvchamary]

Quick, everyone else get a refund before Dell goes broke!

Quick, everyone else get a refund so that Dell goes broke!
/. fixed it for you :p

Re:The floodgates have opened!

[CrazyTalk]

Too late, have you seen the price of their stock lately?

Buying a Dell

[electrosoccertux]

I would consider buying a Dell laptop if I can get my $$$ back for Windows

hm...

[mlc]

I tried getting a Windows refund out of Dell a few months ago for my then-new laptop. I never succeeded really, but they did give me a $30 refund basically just to go away, and told me to keep the Windows software. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Re:hm...

[rbochan]

...Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Slide the CD gently underneath the $TASTYBEVERAGE that's sitting next to you.

Re:hm...

[Rob the Bold]

I tried getting a Windows refund out of Dell a few months ago for my then-new laptop. I never succeeded really, but they did give me a $30 refund basically just to go away, and told me to keep the Windows software. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

If by "it", you mean the $30, just send it to me and I'll take care of it.

Re:hm...

[trjonescp]

Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Windows or the $30?

Re:hm...

[jalet]

> Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

If you're speaking about the dollars, just send them to me.

If you're speaking about the windows software, just send it to someone else you hate.

Re:hm...

[xtracto]

. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Sell it on Ebay! or any other place. Seriosly you could start the auction at 0 and whatever you win will be an extra :)

Re:hm...

[evilviper]

Slide the CD gently underneath the $TASTYBEVERAGE that's sitting next to you.

Windows doesn't even make a good coaster... The hole in the middle makes it useless.

Re:hm...

[Fear the Clam]

I'd buy it from you.

I'm teaching an online course using Centra next semester, and for this one thing I have to buy a copy of XP to load on my MacBook (I'm just glad I have the Intel machine to run it on).

There's no price break from the university, but I can buy XP Home SP2 OEM online for $87. As an adjunct professor, that's about what I'll make for teaching the course.

Re:hm...

[malsdavis]

Windows doesn't even make a good coaster... The hole in the middle makes it useless.

You must drink out of extremely narrow cups!

Why not sell them "clean"

[JayAndSilentBob]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife and I had to go through hell getting all the pre-installed crap out of it. It had adware and spyware preloaded by the factory. It even had a 10GB hard drive partition with backup copies of everything that should have been on the restore cds / dvds that should have come with the laptop. I would have much rather paid less for the laptop, added windows onto the price and arrived in mostly the same place. We didn't want a laptop that we hadn't tried out in person before buying it, which around here limited us to Best Buy, Circuit City, and Office Max / Depot. Nobody had "clean" systems.... grumble....

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[planetmn]

On my HP (I don't know if all HP's are like this) laptop, when I reinstalled the OS (hard drive replacement), there was an option for installing without all of the crap. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that this is a widespread procedure or not.

-dave

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Zarel]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife and I had to go through hell getting all the pre-installed crap out of it. It had adware and spyware preloaded by the factory. [...] I would have much rather paid less for the laptop, added windows onto the price and arrived in mostly the same place.

See, the adware and spyware companies PAY to get their stuff on the computer, so, in the end, it'd probably be cheaper (or at least not significantly more expensive) to buy a laptop with Windows and all that stuff preloaded than to buy a laptop with nothing loaded on it.

So the question becomes, would you rather have paid MORE for the laptop, added Windows onto the price, and arrived in mostly the same place?

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling them clean means they would lose all the money they make from bundling all that crap. Dell makes a lot of money per computer because of all that preinstalled crap. Google pay them to set the homepage to www.google.com and not the Microsoft default one, etc.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife and I had to go through hell getting all the pre-installed crap out of it. It had adware and spyware preloaded by the factory.

Dell seems to have gotten better about this, though, at least with their higher-end desktop systems. When we bought a Precision 380, it came with *just* XP Pro and some drivers preloaded. No MS Office (by our option) no Norton Antivirus, no adware, spyware, or unnecessary apps. Shame that we're going to install Linux on it pretty soon because the thing actually runs pretty well. It even came with OS and driver reinstall CDs. I think a lot of the problems that people see with "Windows" can be traced to stupid manufacturers pre-installing everything but the kitchen sink.

As far as Dell, I wonder, if you ask nicely upon purchasing, can you specify exactly what should/shouldn't be installed on their lower-end systems? -b.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku]

If they start selling computers with Linux, they have to made damned sure they can support it - even if that support is a checklist leading upto a full system rebuild.

Depends. If my time is worth $50/hr and I spend three hours reinstalling Windows and/or removing the unneeded scheisse that Dell chose to throw on, I'd much rather pay $150 or even $200 more. After all, I could actually be doing something fun instead of sitting at my laptop reinstalling software.

-b.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[chroot_james]

They don't sell them clean because they make money packaging all that crap on the system. They also test the system's performance by installing windows and benchmarking against what they expect...

Duh...

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[ksalter]

Your time is only worth $50/hour if it prevented you from earning $50/hour. I suspect that most people work on their home computers during non-working hours, and that a lot of the time they are waiting for the computer and/or install program to finish doing some task. So instead of staring blankly into the install screen progress bar with a small amount of droll on their lips, they do something else.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku]

So instead of staring blankly into the install screen progress bar with a small amount of droll on their lips, they do something else.

Well, except that getting all the drivers, etc, reinstalled for the average person who doesn't know to save the system/system32 directory contents may well take 2-3 hours. Endless screens of clickthroughs, periodic reboots, even freezes if they're installed in the wrong order will keep you sitting in front of the computer with your toes curled. And doing the completely automated install isn't an option since it'll install the same garbage that came from the factory. BTDT on a laptop whose HDD had crashed and it wasn't fun.

-b.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[saleenS281]

No, because they make money off that extra "crap". That's what people on this site don't seem to understand, the reason dell ships all the shit on the "low end" PC's is because it allows them to make profit on the extra shit they dump on it. I say bring on the spyware of the default install, I'm just going to reload it as soon as I get it anyways. I'll gladly save 60$ to have a copy of windows pre-installed that I'll never use.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku]

I say bring on the spyware of the default install, I'm just going to reload it as soon as I get it anyways. I'll gladly save 60$ to have a copy of windows pre-installed that I'll never use.

It'll take at least an hour (of actual time, not just sitting watching progress bars) to get everything working right again. My time's worth as much. Besides, I could be doing something fun or interesting, not sitting in front of a screen fixing something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

-b.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[COMON$]

Unfortunately as a company that wants to make money they have to target the biggest part of their audience. People who just want it to work so they can play solitare will be fine. However, for those of us who want maximum efficiency, well we have to trod a different path.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Tetravus]

I would have much rather paid less for the laptop, added windows onto the price and arrived in mostly the same place.

If they came "clean" you'd pay more for the hardware and still have to pay for Windows.
The factory is paid by software producers to put all that spyware on the system. The spyware effectively subsidizes the price of the system.

Personally, I prefer to pay less cash and then perform a wipe and install than to pay more and still have to perform an installation. But for people who are uncomfortable doing that, or who's time is more valuable than my own, the pre-installed spyware on systems from national retail outlets is a great reason to buy from a locally owned shop, Dell, or IBM.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Lonewolf666]

Even without spyware, I usually dislike the layout of the default install.

For instance, the pre-installations tend to be on one large partition. I prefer to split the harddisk into at least two partitions, C:\ and D:\. This way, in case of a wrecked Windows installation I can later reformat C:\ without deleting my data on D:\.

The above is for a Windows only install, a dual boot configuration with Linux gets at least two more partitions.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[LoverOfJoy]

Speak for yourself. My free time is worth more than what I'd ordinarily get paid for on the job. I think a lot of people feel the same way. That's why people generally get paid more for "overtime". He may value his home time closer to $75/hour.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, but that backup partition is there for a reason - and it's rarely more than 2 gigs in size. You hit it on the head with the fact that what was in that partition was ALL THE STUFF that 'should' have come with the computer in the form of disks!?! You want the price of your cheap laptop to go up to support that? If so - go buy a higher end machine where that option is available. You try explaining *over the phone* that the customer needs the XP installation disk #1 and 2, and the driver disks 1 and 2 and Application disks 8-12 in order to get the them back up and running. They'll return the computer before doing all of that. Dell compromises and adds the stuff the *average* user will require to get back up and running after abusing their computer with a spyware or virus infection with the minimum hassle - aka, reboot & press the *magic* combination of keys and Voila - back to factory install. If you want it 'clean' - you can do what you did and wipe the drive or pay more for the option. You want Dell's support for Grandma's cheap laptop, you deal with backup partitions. Yes, I work at Dell in support. You are NOT the people we deal with day in and day out.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There is a fundamental difference in markets there. The Precision computers are business & professional level computers. IT departments probably don't tolerate that crap, so Dell doesn't try to put it on them. Plus, Precisions are higher margin computers so they don't need to pre-install sample software, I think most of that is paid for by the software maker in the hopes of the user paying for the full version, or at least thrown on to add bullet points to make the computer look better than it is. Usually the pre-loaded stuff is targeted at consumers anyway and useless for the pro buyer.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku]

The Precision computers are business & professional level computers.

The funny thing is that once you throw in the additional costs of optional features, a Precision doesn't end up costing that much more than a Dimension with a comparable featureset. Dell just advertised "stripped down" computers for the home market and soaks the consumers on the cost of every little upgrade.

-b.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Skadet]

limited us to Best Buy, Circuit City, and Office Max / Depot.

You must have missed the store with the big Apple on the front of it. ;)

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[WilliamSChips]

You're assuming that there was a store with a big Apple on the front of it.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Shiny One]

I think you missed the fact that you can treat a pre-installed machine very much like a clean system, overwrite it all with a quick format and it's gone in one foul swoop.

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[miro f]

considering most businesses will just nuke the drive and install a company image, it probably doesn't matter what they put on there, no one is going to notice

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[Anonymous Coward]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife

Bet that would sound different if SHE had written the post...

17.5% tax = outrageous

[Heian-794]

Considering that the consumption tax on Windows is a ludicrous 17.5% (8.23 / 47.00), I wouldn't be surprised to see the government stepping in and forcing people to pay for Windows just to keep that revenue stream flowing!

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[oggiejnr]

VAT is 17.5% in this country and applied to everything except food, books, children's clothes and a couple of other things. It has been around for so long that people don't really think about it - all prices except wholesale prices are quoted with VAT already added so most people don't think about it.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[abscissa]

Howdy from Ontario, Canada where we pay 14% tax on every single transaction unless it is for the "necessities of life"

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[imdx80]

Uk sales tax is 17.5% and is called Value Added Tax, unsure what value it brings, maybe i'm at a genuine advantage for paying it

on most things its rolled into the ticket price, i think by law because some garages tried to make a point by listing petrol (gas) at price + ~300% tax (or whatever it was at the time) +17.5% VAT

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[eht]

It is called Value Added Tax due to it being applied whenever the value of a product is increased.

In the US for example if a product is taxable it is taxed once, at the end to the consumer, everyone else in the chain gets a tax certificate which enables them to buy the raw goods without tax.

In places where a VAT is applied everytime the product increases in value it is applied. Shoes for example, once on the raw leather, once again when it gets assembled, and once more at the retailer, so that 17.5% is even more misleading depending on how many peoples hands it went through.

Good examples shown at Wikipedia.

What I am unsure of is how you have never learned of this, but me as someone who grew up and lived his whole life in the US has.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[pipatron]

Bah. In Sweden we pay 25% VAT, you insensitive clods.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[vidarh]

17.5% VAT is actually one of the lowest rates anywhere in Europe. Most countries are at around 20% or above (up to at least 25%). But consumer prices in most European countries are always quoted inclusive of VAT, so at here I don't constantly get surprised (I keep forgetting sales tax whenever I visit the US and look at prices).

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[TheBogBrushZone]

Uk sales tax is 17.5% and is called Value Added Tax, unsure what value it brings, maybe i'm at a genuine advantage for paying it

It is called Value Added Tax because it is a tax on the monetary value added to goods each time they are sold on to the next party in the producer-consumer chain. Companies claim back the VAT on their business purchases and pay the VAT from their sales so in the end only the difference (the added value) is taxed at each stage.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Cereal Box]

all prices except wholesale prices are quoted with VAT already added so most people don't think about it.

Which is exactly what the government wants you to do.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[eht]

Sorry to reply to myself.

What I said when I said misleading may be misleading, what I meant is that if for example a good is sold outside the country since the earlier VATs were already figured in, it isn't usually possible to remove them and you can end up being taxed for the product more if it goes through multiple countries, this is of course a problem being a member of the EU is supposed to solve, and of course instead of taxes if the product is sold outside the country you have tarrifs, so in theory is all works out, but with the VAT being at 17.5% compared to the highest sales taxes I've seen in the US at 10% that theory doesn't hold up well.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[vidarh]

The "value addeed" part refers to the fact that it is a tax on the value added by the seller, since the seller can offset any VAT they pay on products they buy. In Europe, VAT is a more important source of revenues for the government than income tax in many (most?) countries.

And you are right - in most European countries it is a legal requirement to at least show the VAT inclusive price in any advertisement or price display targeted at consumers (nothing stops you from also displaying the price without VAT, though). Trade publications and ads targetted at companies can generally use the VAT exclusive prices only if they prefer. The rationale is that since consumers can't reclaim the VAT, not showing the VAT inclusive price is misleading advertising.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[megaditto]

Considering the Brits get free health insurance and free college education, extra tax makes sense.

And those who don't like it over in England, they come to live over here, so everybody wins.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[imdx80]

What I am unsure of is how you have never learned of this, but me as someone who grew up and lived his whole life in the US has.

Many thanks for your interesting & illuminating discussion of consumer tax. In fact I am quite aware of how VAT works in the UK (at least to a level that I care about), but I decided to post a facetious comment, I had thought that the 'genuine advantage' part at the end of the line would help to illustrate this but obviously so very wrong.

(ps the bit about petrol wasn't facetious)

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[rosscoe]

In the EU VAT is generally only paid by the end user, a company may well pay the VAT before they sell it to someone else but then they can claim it back so it ballances out in the end.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[petermgreen]

while VAT is added when the value is increased it *can* be claimed back again at a later stage.

so if something is exported out of the EU then provided the exporter has done things correctely there should be no net vat payed on the item (people in the chain will pay vat and then the exporter will claim it back)

similarlly if it is bought from a vat registered buisness in one EU country by a vat registered buisness in another the VAT from the first country will be refunded.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Hrshgn]

Switzerland has 7.6%. But then one might argue that Switzerland is not really part of Europe.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[bWareiWare.co.uk]

Actually we don't get fee college (University) any more, and the health insurance is being gradually eroded (no dental etc.).

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Dunbal]

Canada where we pay 14% tax on every single transaction unless it is for the "necessities of life"

      Things like "air" mostly, are tax free. Uhh, that's about it.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[jd3nn1s]

Not quite true - UK top-up fees are an order of magnitude cheaper than US institutions and there is NHS coverage for dental, but its not 100% of cost. However, NHS dental treatment is very much inferior to private (which is just as expensive as US).

I do agree that with the amount of stealth taxation going on recently that the balance in Britain is being eroded slowly.

Lower taxation and private healthcare is a better deal for professional workers like IT workers, but for the poorer people who have far fewer benefits in the US and no good free healthcare its not good at all.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The EU provides social services that simply aren't available in the US, or are not nearly the same scale as the EU programs.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's a lot more convenient. A handful of shops here quote prices without VAT (they add it at the payment stage) - it makes for unpleasant surprises at the till, and comparison shopping becomes a little annoying.

Generally, Brits don't have the distaste of taxation that Americans do, because the money is spent on stuff that directly benefits us. If it weren't for the fraction that gets spent on defence I'd be totally happy with what I pay as tax. Taking money out of the healthcare equation makes being ill a little less unpleasant.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[jb.hl.com]

Generally, Brits don't have the distaste of taxation that Americans do

Thanks to the right wing press here (which somehow manages to pull a new example of a stealth tax (which really isn't) out of it's ass every couple of days), we're getting that distaste.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[WilliamSChips]

So...tempted...to make a joke about British dental hygiene...

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

So...tempted...to make a joke about American Southerner dental hygiene...

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

Feel free. It's a bizarre stereotype that brits really don't understand, so we're not likely to get offended.

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[megaditto]

There is nothing wrong with their teeth, other than that some poor Southern people use a certain type of home-made drugs, leading to what is called a "meth mouth".

Very sad actually.

Its still a Dell.

[mgblst]

Now, if there was only someway they would refund the money for the Dell. Ha, just kidding, dell is great, really.

Re:Its still a Dell.

[Carewolf]

Ha, just kidding, dell is great, really.

No they are not.

Refund amount

[cerberusss]

Problem is, you don't know what the refund amounts to before you press 'NO' at the EULA agree prompt. For $20, I'd like a nice Windows XP copy. For $50, I might not. It depends. But there's no way of knowing!

Re:Refund amount

[JayAndSilentBob]

Best Buy offered to do a free check of a laptop when we bought it. They clicked through all the EULA crap so I never agreed to anything. I suppose I'm still technicaly eligible for the refund if I want to fight it...

Re:Refund amount

[cerberusss]

I suppose I'm still technicaly eligible for the refund if I want to fight it...

Well, it seems this guy got his money without much of a fight. Seeing as how the article links to an example letter, it sounds like this worth a try.

Re:Refund amount

[zacbraak]

actually you are still liable for everything they did on your computer. you employed them as an agent to act on your behalf, which included clicking through the prompts....if you were to ever seek anything, you would have to fight best buy

Is this a UK Only thing?

[viper21]

I wonder if this is a policy adopted by Dell and other american companies operating in the UK to avoid legal trouble.

From what I have seen this isn't a general Dell policy to refund OEM MS Windows license costs on a pc.

Re:Is this a UK Only thing?

[ajs318]

The last lappie I bought (a Packard Bell, from Dixons, in either 2003 or 2004; and very probably the last machine ever to have been fitted with an audio Line In port) came with XP Home preinstalled. I was told by Dixons that I could not get a refund for the Windows, as I had paid £0 for the software anyway.

This is good news, though. Dell have even started using AMD processors (just before Intel brought out the AMD-beating Core 2 Duo; coincidence? I think not). I might actually consider buying a Dell.

Re:Is this a UK Only thing?

[__aawdrj2992]

They probably don't want to, the profit gained with all the bloatware means that Windows doesn't cost Dell anything. We saw this when they sold naked and Linux machines.

Re:Is this a UK Only thing?

[vidarh]

I was told by Dixons that I could not get a refund for the Windows, as I had paid £0 for the software anyway.

They can say that all they want - it doesn't make it true, and if someone tries that claim you should ask to get it in writing and take them to magistrates court for illegally bundling the products (they can sell them together, but they can't deny you the ability to buy them separately, and there's no way the court would accept their claim that you bought the software for 0,- unless Dixons could show they got it for free too) - costs you next to nothing and just having a lawyer prepare and show up would cost them more than the machine.

Re:Is this a UK Only thing?

[Lonewolf666]

Another question is if Microsoft can make a refund offer that is binding for the dealer.

In Germany, the computer magazine C't had an article written by a lawyer about this topic a few years ago. His take on the situation was that the EULA is unenforcable, one of the reasons being that the sale is a contract between dealer and end user, and Microsoft cannot modify the terms of that sale.

Of course, this depends on jurisdiction - in some US states EULAs are enforcable by law.

Re:Is this a UK Only thing?

[close_wait]

Speaking as the guy who got the refund, the woman on the phone was clearly offering me a Windows refund, while the credit note that turned up just listed it as "goodwill". Ie some lackey in a Dell office decided it would be easier to pay me some money than waste lots of time arguing. I doubt that Windows refunds are now official policy.

Still, I'd urge as many people as possible to try a similar approach - maybe it would then force Dell to make windows-less offerings (at a suitable price) in the first place.

Note also (although IANAL) that contracually they didn't have a leg to stand on - their T&Cs didn't say anything about returning the whole system, while the Windows EULA made a specific offer that I could return just it for a refund.

Bust MS bubble

[shirizaki]

This will suck for MS. I already have my own personal copy of XP Professional I'd like to install on a fresh lappy, and I wish they were sold without added software and an OS. This will kill most of MS's profits, since people will just say "I already own XP, why can't I just put it on another computer?" THEN people will start to see how convoluted the MS EULA really is. They won't switch to Unix like some people would hope, but there will be more "pirates" that install the same OS on different computer's they own. Of course I don't read the EULA like most people and it probably allows you to install a copy of XP on computers that you own.

Uh...obligatory "DOWN WITH MICRO$OFT!" comment.

Re:Bust MS bubble

[RAMMS EIN]

``Of course I don't read the EULA like most people and it probably allows you to install a copy of XP on computers that you own.''

The Windowses that come with new computers typically contain language to the effect that it is to be used with that computer only.

Re:Bust MS bubble

[Half a dent]

That may be the case in the US but the 1991 Computer Software Directive (I think that's the title!) allows for re-sale or re-use in the European Union so long as it is only on one machine at a time.

I'm not sure if this has been challenged by MS or others recently but this was the case a couple of years ago.

Re:Bust MS bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe OEM copies are only supposed to be installed on the PC they ship with, or with another PC of the same brand (that's probably stretching it). I believe retail copies can be installed on any PC, but only one copy can be installed at a time on any device. You can't purchase one license and install it on more than one PC. Even if you own two PCs and only use one of them at a time, you have to have two licenses. If you want to install your current copy of Windows on your new PC, you have to uninstall it from your current PC first. I haven't researched this, but I'm almost positive that this is how it works.

I don't have an issue with the licensing scheme as much as I do the cost. Retail XP Home w/ SP2 is $195 @ Newegg. Newegg also has a 3-pack of XP Home SP2. It's an OEM version, which is usually cheaper, but it costs $270. Meanwhile, you can purchase Mac OS X Tiger for $130 direct from Apple, or you can get a 5 license pack for $200. If you have a family with multiple computers, you could buy 5 licenses for OS X for an average of $40 each. I don't know if those have to be in the same household or not, but I'd buy XP for $40 without thinking twice. I'd buy Mac OS X if I could run it. I don't like how Apple's OS is locked down to their hardware. I know they do it for stability, but I can't afford their hardware, even if it is cream of the crop. The bottom line though is that I don't think Apple charges much of a premium for the hardware; I think it's just better hardware so it costs more. Windows is just too expensive for the average home use in my opinion.

Re:Bust MS bubble

[saleenS281]

*most people* have no clue how to install windows, and would much rather have it come on the computer straight from dell.

640m laptop?

[Anonymous Coward]

640m laptop? No.

Any computer that is over 1/3 of a mile wide can hardly be considered a laptop.

No Fucking Way !

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no fucking way. Oh UK? Nevermind. That's old news.

Payments for pirates!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yarrrrg! Now all those scurvy seadogs who will, of course, be running pirates copies of Windows on their... cough cough "linux" haha cough cough... computers can get subsidized by the computer vendors!

Shiver me timbers! It's fun stealing other work, especially when you have an entire website dedicate to bashing them!

Technically..

[Channard]

'Windows users' couldn't request their money back if they were using Windows already. The jist of the article is that by refusing to agree to the EULA they're saying they don't want to use Windows, or at least one that came with their PC. But there has indeed been many instances of this before - there was a mass march of some kind a few years ago, the end result being that most EULAs were modified to make the computer and operating system one package. A lot of the old Windows Refund stories involved conversations with managers who couldn't seem to comprehend that the EULA gave the user the right to reject windows, as a separate component from the machine. God knows what Dell's Indian call centre made of this guy.

Re:Technically..

[Scratched]

You're right about there being a mass march to refund windows. It happened quite a few years ago, back in 1999. It was on Slashdot.

Windows Refund Day, February 15th.

But they're not itemised...

[91degrees]

Surely Dell are entitled to sell XP under whatever terms the customer agrees to. In this case, they sold a copy of XP and a PC for £800 (or whatever). No, Dell are entitled to sell the PC at £780, and make a £27 loss on the OS, or sell the PC at £700 and make a £53 profit on the OS, or even assume that the PC was given away for free, and the £753 profit was made on the OS. All of these are indistinguishable. Since they were sold as a bundle, surely Dell's only actual obligation is to offer a full refund on the OS and laptop.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[vidarh]

Doesn't work that way in (most of) Europe. Consumer protection laws in most European countries require sellers to offer products unbundled when they are clearly distinct products. Since a computer can be used without Windows, and can be bought without from other vendors, and since Windows is available separately this is a pretty clear cut case. Trying to twist the pricing also wouldn't work all the time equivalent products are available unbundled to indicate the real values of the products.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[Rob the Bold]

Since they were sold as a bundle, surely Dell's only actual obligation is to offer a full refund on the OS and laptop.

Since I'm not a lawyer in your jurisdiction or any other, I'll accept your argument that this is Dell's only legal obligation. However, as a business they might want to try to make reasonable accomodations to make the customer happy so can they compete for his and his friends and colleagues' future business. It's not really that tough to determine a fair market value for the bundled OS. Ya, ya, they don't have to. Ya, they can say "take it or leave it". I'm just saying that it's possbile that there is a better route.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[Anonymous Coward]

What incentive does any retailer/seller have to ever bundle something then? Isn't it therefore risky to offer a bundle deal to customers if they can come back and ask for a refund, making the seller possibly pay far more back to the consumer than he originally paid for the product from the manufacturer? I'm honestly curious how this works. It seems to me that any sort of bundle deal is based on the assumption that the individual products in the bundle are packaged at below normal price. Their actual value would be determined by the specific bundle package, not normal market value.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[Zak3056]

Consumer protection laws in most European countries require sellers to offer products unbundled when they are clearly distinct products. Since a computer can be used without Windows, and can be bought without from other vendors, and since Windows is available separately this is a pretty clear cut case.

This sounds like it will be really fun for Apple, now that they're on x86 hardware.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[mr_matticus]

It might force them to offer Macs with no preinstalled OS, but the law makes exception for "functional dependence." In other words, OS X may not be an added cost, since the same company makes both the software and the hardware ("make" being used loosely here)--in Dell's case, they're using a separate product involving a monetary transaction between companies. There is no monetary transaction between Apple and Apple on Macs. If you purchase a variety pack of cookies, for example, you're not entitled to any sort of refund because you only like two of the three kinds of cookies in the box and don't intend to eat that third type.

Take products based on some form of embedded Linux or even proprietary firmware. They're not required to discount the product simply because you intend to use an alternative firmware. In order for it to be financially beneficial, there has to be some sort of transaction taking place such that you're being sold (and charged) for more products than you want, and those added products aren't free. Or as another example, if you're buying a printer for manual envelope feed only and never plan to use the paper tray, you can't squeeze $5 out of the printer manufacturer. Same, I believe, with the starter toner in said printer; even if you plan on using a cheaper alternative from a third party supplier, I don't think you can argue bundling under European consumer protection laws (this one I'm less sure of).

In short, Apple can argue that the price of OS X on a Mac is $0. Dell can't say the same of Windows. Therefore, the customer is entitled to that price difference. Beside that, if you buy a Mac and don't want to use OS X, you can always sell that license, unlike OEM Windows.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[Zak3056]

In short, Apple can argue that the price of OS X on a Mac is $0.

Not so easy to do, when the yearly upgrade costs $99.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[mr_matticus]

So? There's no financial stake for the customer; they're not paying extra for OS X the first time. What consumables/upgrades cost subsequently is irrelevant to the law--"bundling" is concerned with products from different manufacturers being sold together or functionally discrete products being sold together (for example, if someone offered to sell you a TV, but only if you bought the TV+toaster package for higher than the list price of the TV itself).

If you buy a razor that comes with two blades for $7 and three blades cost $4, that doesn't mean you can demand to buy just the razor and get a partial refund--the starter blades are a "free" bonus. Without a financial stake--that is, a transfer of money or the bundling of an unrelated product (excepting monopoly proceedings, which is a separate issue), there's nothing to be gained by demanding an "unbundling." Case in point--Europe's Microsoft Windows N is the same price as the normal version, though it includes less than the "normal" version of Windows.

Re:But they're not itemised...

[mr_matticus]

So? There's no financial stake for the customer; they're not paying extra for OS X the first time. What consumables/upgrades cost subsequently is irrelevant to the law--"bundling" is concerned with products from different manufacturers being sold together or functionally discrete products being sold together (for example, if someone offered to sell you a TV, but only if you bought the TV+toaster package for higher than the list price of the TV itself).

If you buy a razor that comes with two blades for $7 and three blades cost $4, that doesn't mean you can demand to buy just the razor and get a partial refund--the starter blades are a "free" bonus. Without a financial stake--that is, a transfer of money or the bundling of an unrelated product (excepting monopoly proceedings, which is a separate issue), there's nothing to be gained by demanding an "unbundling." Case in point--Europe's Microsoft Windows N is the same price as the normal version, though it includes less than the "normal" version of Windows.

No real Value Added?

[Overzeetop]

Well, maybe there should be an argument that Microsoft Windows doesn't really add any value to the product, so should be exempt from the Value Added Tax.

Full refund?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they make him ship back the Windoze sticker?

Worse than you think

[Flying pig]

Only individuals and tiny companes pay it. Companies buy assets without having to pay tax, because large corporations would kick up too much stink. As a result if you are self-employed you have to register and do the paperwork to avoid paying sales tax on your business assets.

This "shouldn't" be news (in an ideal world)

[amigabill]

I think it's sad we live in a world where one guy getting a refund for something he didn't want to pay for in the first place is such big news. Ideally this should be so common that no one cares.

Re:This "shouldn't" be news (in an ideal world)

[NineNine]

If he didn't want it, he should not have bought it. It's that simple. Does the UK use force to make their citizens buy Dell laptops bundled with Windows? If so, that's pretty scary.

colusion...a class action suit...

[Anonymous Coward]

is in order here

This proves that it really is colusion between MS and the HW builders! I should get my money back for all the bundled windows licenses that I have purchased less the one I actually use...

I have paid for WinME only to blow it away with 2000, then I bought a copy of XP in 2002 and have subsequently bought two more copies of home just to whipe the drives and install Pro...many others are in the same situation...someone call the Attorney General!

Refunded the Tax Twice?

[SQLz]

I thought the copy of Windows XP was the tax?

How do you do it?

[Kadin2048]

Is there any site around which details which companies will either sell you a 'bare metal' laptop, or which will refund you the cost of Windows if you don't want it, and tell you how to go about getting the refund?

I've been thinking about getting a laptop to run Linux on, but I'm not going to do it if it means buying a copy of Windows. The idea of wasting money on that piece of crap software that I'll never use just irks me.

There seems to be anecdotal evidence of people getting Windows refunds; it would be nice if someone gathered the information on how they did it together, so that people who wanted to follow in their path could do it more easily.

Re:How do you do it?

[thejrwr]

call up sales, that what i did and i told them NO!! I DONT WANT WINDOWS! just gimmie the bare HD, a drivers disk, and dont worry about the recovery disks

The True Cost of this Investment

[Anonymous Coward]

"In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people?" + lots of other words. How much time did it take for you to formulate that response?

Long Johns

[racebit]

First Novell partners with M$ and now Dell is actually refunding money? I'm pulling out the wool underwear, hell hath frozen.

big companies...

[a_greer2005]

can order empty laptops if they have site licenses for their Windows/Office products of choice...so why can Joe Consumer not get an empty laptop to install their legal copy of Windows...or dare I say L/U-NIX?

Re:big companies...

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Contractual obligations to Micro$$$oft.

Re:big companies...

[r_jensen11]

There's some bullshit law that requires companies like Dell and HP to sell computers with some sort of OS in order to "protect" the customers. That's why Dell puts freedos on some of their computers rather than shipping them out with clean hard drives.

So?

[AlXtreme]

Getting 17.5% (or 19% over here) off of prices is worth it, in my opinion. Consider VAT on new PC's, broadband charges or even office supplies, it all adds up. Registering might take some time, but the paperwork should be done in an hour, tops. If in that hour you save 500+ a year, you've got quite a good hourly rate.

Then again, I went the lazy way and got myself an accountant. Netto it still saves me a nice sum of cash, and you don't have to worry about the messy details. Thankfully my accountant is pretty good, he even got my university fees deducted. A tip is to think with every purchase: could I get the VAT off of this? Business diners, lunches, books... it all adds up.

dell rips you off

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I think this is the last of Dells worries legal wise.

A couple of months back my father ordered a Dell PC with Windows XP pre installed, yet we didn't recieve an XP CD or any licence number as we should of done with a Windows licence. Yet a week later a man from Dell (with a very thick indian accent I could hardly follow to add to the fun) rang up trying to sell a "recovery pack" since "if stuff goes wrong it'll cost you less than to rebuy windows".

Is this even legal? I'm pretty sure it's not but may as well ask Slashdot before I look at legal advice on getting what was rightfully payed for.

Side note : I e-mailed Dell inquiring and recieved no reply (it's been a month, doubt I'll get one).

Re:dell rips you off

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL(I Am Not A Lawyer) but every laptop/desktop i purchased the Windows CD + drivers bundeled with it. I can't imagine it to be legal to sell a Laptop containing an OS for which you don't own a license key & installation CD...

Re:dell rips you off

[Anonymous Coward]

When you build a computer from Dell's website, you have the option of getting the CD or not. Obviously you chose not to get the CD with your computer.

Re:dell rips you off

[Turn-X Alphonse]

I didn't chose anything. It was a default machine, I never picked anything custom :)

Not fond of the GPL?

[ratboy666]

"I'm no fan of EULAs or any software licensing (not even the GPL) because I feel they don't really give you much room to negotiate a contract to your terms."

Please. You don't have to accept the GPL to use the software. Hows that for a negotiation? Let me give you the text of the negotiation, and its outcome.

dada21: I like this software. Can I have it?
GPL: Certainly. Free to use. Only it comes with the "GPL".
dada21: I don't like EULAs and licenses. I won't accept the license!
GPL: Ok, use the program.

The other negotiation is:

dada21: I like this software. Can I have it?
GPL: Certainly. Free to use. Only it comes with the "GPL".
dada21: I don't like EULAs and licenses. But I will accept the license!
GPL: Ok, use the program. And you can publish it too -- as long as you pass on the "GPL"!

How much more room do you need? You can use the software WHETHER OR NOT you accept the GPL!

The other point is: 100 USD is worth a few hours. Figuring that its after expenses and taxes, the gross needed to clear 100 USD is 200 USD (around). It takes me a few hours to make that! I'm going for the refund next time I buy name-brand!

Ratboy

Re:Not fond of the GPL?

[Scarletdown]

dada21: I like this software. Can I have it?
GPL: Certainly. Free to use. Only it comes with the "GPL".
dada21: I don't like EULAs and licenses. I won't accept the license!
GPL: Ok, use the program.

I think there's at least one point that needs to be corrected in this first example:

GPL: Ok, use the program. But remember, since you do not accept the GPL, your use of this program is bound by the normal copyright laws of your country (which are most likely more restrictive than the GPL).

Geek vs. nerds

[arfonrg]

Ever since I first heard the term "geek" used to describe "nerds" I have been offended. I have had MANY arguments with people that we are "nerds" not "geeks" because we don't bite the heads off of chickens. You sir are the FIRST person I have seen to support me on this. Thank you.

As for "what's the big deal about 'geek'?"- Nerd is a made up word that had no prior meaning. Geek was a pre-existing word that was transfered to nerds in a derogatory way. So all you idiots out there that call yourselves 'geeks', maybe you deserve the label.

Re:Geek vs. nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir are the FIRST person I have seen to support me on this.

That is because you are wrong.

Geek was a pre-existing word that was transfered to nerds in a derogatory way. So all you idiots out there that call yourselves 'geeks', maybe you deserve the label.

You are also an idiot. Do you also assert that homosexual men who call each other "fags" are homophobic, or that black people who call each other "nigger" are racist?

Re:Geek vs. nerds

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

The meaning of words change. You'll just have to get over it. If you ask most people what a "geek" is, you won't get an answer involving biting the heads off of chickens.

Re:Is this a Worldwide problem ?

[Anonymous Coward]

apparently yes :

http://detaxe.org/map.html

LAHOAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Now if we can only get dhell to load ogg vhorbis by default!!!

Whuppie!!!!

That's My Mama!

n Series Laptops.

[_KiTA_]

Dell does offer laptops without Windows. They package in FreeDOS and do not offer Software Support on those laptops, but they do offer them.

Kinda curious as to why this guy just didn't... you know... ask his sales rep for the nSeries version of his laptop?

Re:Is this a Worldwide problem ?

[ajs318]

Ha ha! C'est très drôle et je vous offre les meilleurs voeux! Mais je crains qu'il sera perdu sur la plupart des Slashdotters, qui sont des Barbariens avec une seule langue (qu'ils parlent même moins bien que ma grandemère fume les cigares) et qui déstestent irrationnellement tous les étrangers.

Refund on Windows

[Tarlus]

Wait... You can do that???

I remember being forced to choose a copy of Windows when I ordered my laptop from Dell. I chose XP Home since it was the cheapest one. Once I got the laptop, the first thing I did was wipe it clean, partition the hard drive, and put Kubuntu and my own legit copy of XP Pro on it.

If I knew I could have gotten money back for Windows, I could have saved myself $80! That's, like, 13/100 of a PS3!

Re:Refund on Windows

[X-Phile]

Once I got the laptop, the first thing I did was wipe it clean, partition the hard drive, and put Kubuntu and my own legit copy of XP Pro on it.

Technically, it's not a legit copy of XP Pro, as Microsoft does not allow the transferring of licenses between systems.

Unless, of course, you purchased the license specifically for this system, but then you should have just purchased the system from Dell with XP Pro bundled.

\m/

Re:Refund on Windows

[Creepy Crawler]

The "license" called a EULA is NOT a license, but a demand made in duress.

The basic license I applied for was a copy under copyright law. And since there's NO way to return it, I dont give a shit of what MS says about moving OSes around. As long as Copyright law is satisfied, Im happy.

Re:Refund on Windows

[Shados]

While the legimacy of post-purchase agreements like EULAs is debatable, things like educational licenses or OEMs are pre-purchase agreements, so to speak. You can know the terms before you pay, the agreement is not inside the box only. So that falls pretty flat.

Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[_KiTA_]

(ObWarning: I work for Dell as a Gold Hardware Support Technician in Twin Falls Idaho.)

Email me your father's service tag, I'll be happy to look into it directly.

mark (underscore) cantrell (at) dell (dot) com

There's no reason if you ordered Windows that you shouldn't get a CoA and Windows XP CD -- UNLESS you ordered a machine with "image support", then those CDs are stored as ISOs on a partition on your drive, you just have to click the right button and the Dell software will burn you a WinXP CD and a Drivers CD.

Either way, you should have DEFINATELY gotten a COA label on the machine itself. Send me your tag, and I'll either fix it Friday when I get into the office, or I'll get ahold of someone (Dell Customer Care, which is in the same building as me, possibly) who can.

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Awesome, I'll hunt it out. Does it make a difference that I'm in the UK though?

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[_KiTA_]

I'll have to fill out some special paperwork if I do it myself, and failing that I might have to contact one of my friends at Dell UK to get them to do the actual dispatch, but one way or another I'll find someone who can get you fixed up.

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[Turn-X Alphonse]

Awesome, I sent the e-mail. It's from Mikari (Art) Gmail (dat) com (my spam account).

Thanks for the help. :)

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[Builder]

You sir, live in one of the most beautiful places on earth. Do you spend any time at the bridge?

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[_KiTA_]

Off and on, when I can. I am dumbfounded as to just how many people want to jump off a perfectly nice bridge like that, though! :)

Re:Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[Builder]

Heh - it's one of my dreams, to do my first jump course off of there. One day I'll make it out there :)

I am a nerd

[hatredman]

I'm fat, I use heavy glasses, I like 80's TV series, I read ./, I still program a C64, I watch MTV, I use FreeBSD, Toby Radloff is my hero, I buy stuff from ThinkGeek. whatsamatta? Whatsdapassvoid? Ken sent me.

Shenanigans

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a BUNDLE. The software comes bundled with the hardware, you don't want it, throw it away like I do with the crap that comes with every video card or DVD drive that I buy. Pick the cheapest laptops and let the competition decide.

Anyway, I don't think the OEM XP that's being sold with the Dell laptops is worth even close to what the retail price is, or that there is any reason really for dell to pay that refund, so I actually don't believe this story!

Re:Is this a Worldwide problem ?

[Dunbal]

Moi j'en parle trois...

When I worked in the UK IT resale market

[IHaveNothingToSay]

My Fujitsu Siemens Computers account manager told me we couldn't buy truly bare bones machines. We had to buy a blank machine and pay a nominal fee [if I recall it was about 5 quid] for a copy of *nix [I forget which distro - possibly Suse but not sure]. The reason? Because they weren't allowed to sell computers with no operating system - he got a bit hazy at this point and went on to say that it was because people were using illegal copies of Windows. He didn't agree with it [neither did I], but his hands were tied.

It's in the EULA

[Anonymous Coward]

And, despite what someone said about German law, this is a far better binding than the EULA has on you.

See, the EULA states that the seller will refund the cost of the license if you do not agree.

Now, that is a part the supplier has agreed to by supplying an OEM copy. If they didn't want to, they could source Retail Copies where MS will have to refund.

This is a level of agreement you, as the third party, do not have. You don't pay MS for the OEM copy, you pay the OEM. Therefore, any limits have to be ones the OEM places on you, NOT microsoft. The supplier IS in a relationship with MS so they DO have the limits placed on them.

Including a refund.

I had Watford Electronics for this one. Got my money back and a letter saying "Yeah, we should have obeyed the EULA".

How do you get three hours?

[dmarti]

It shouldn't really take three hours, now that there's a known working letter you can borrow from. 1. Get Dave's letter. 2. Put your info in. Print and send. 3. This is Slashdot -- people should know what step 3 is by now.

Re:How do you get three hours?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this letter public domain?

It's about the money. They want the M$ discount.

[webweave]

M$ gives PC manufactures discounts for doing various things. Things like pre-installing Windoze on every PC sold gets one discount, Advertising the line "We recommend rebooting and reinstalling" er, "We recommend WinXP" gets you another discount, not advertising a competing OS and so on and so on. The more you play with M$ the cheaper your bulk per PC cost of OS becomes thus lowering your sticker price.

It's one of the many tactics a monopoly uses to maintain position and keep competitors away. By the way these agreements are secret and classified as "proprietary" so we don't really know if M$ has a discount for not allowing pre-installed linux or not.

By not providing you with an easy way to return that unused copy of Winblows (possibly another discount) it ensures that the manufactures are allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Every time you install linux on a pc without returning the unused M$ product you are contributing to the M$ fortunes and slowing the progress of linux. Sorry but to be lazy has a price too.

Three Cheers to our UK friend for sticking to his guns and encouraging others.

In wisconsin you can get a refund

[Anonymous Coward]

For all of you in wisconsin who bought some MS software from 1998-to 2003:
There's a calss action suit for overcharging, this means you can get a voucher even if you still use the software, because it was overpriced.

"You may file your claim online if you are making a claim for 5 or fewer Microsoft products that does not exceed $100, and have the product identification numbers for each."

here's a link with more information

https://secureweb.rustconsulting.com/MicrosoftWISu it/FileClaimOnline.aspx#

it's not just a dollar, dude

[weierstrass]

more like $1.85

Hmm. Nope, don't have a subject.

[sketchman]

So, something that should work the way it did work worked that way?

Seems kinda like puting "Guy pees standing up!" in big bold letters on the front page of the New York Times. Yeah it may have actually happened, but is it really news, and does it really matter?

Time's up. No, no, no, no, no, NO! This does not matter to anyone, except of course that guy that was refunded.

if(rant=='end'); {endcmmt}; else; {endcmmt};

For those who are trying to figure out what language that was, don't hurt yourself. It's just remnants of C creaping in from my programming days, or day is probably more like it.

Re:Hmm. Nope, don't have a subject.

[Anonymous Coward]

if(!strcmp(rant, "end")) { endcmmt(); } else { endcmmt(); }

Re:Hmm. Nope, don't have a subject.

[sketchman]

well well. corrected by an anonymous superior coder.

You go, anonymous coward! Hehe. Almost sound like an oxymoron, dudn it?

I guess you learn something old every day. I did mention the word "remnants" didn't I? Oh well. If you know it, show it.

Kudos to Anonymous Coward!

Linked sales: MS and Apple

[Budenny]

Not at all sure about the legal rights and wrongs of this in the EU. If you are Dell, you are in exactly the same position as Apple. You are not technically a monopoly, as you have less than 25% market share. On the other hand, unlike Apple, you are engaging in linked sales with a product (Windows) which is technically a monopoly. But can you be guilty of anti competitive conduct without monopoly share, just because one of your suppliers has monopoly share? I would have thought not.

Dell or Apple surely did the same thing: they simply made a choice of supplier of OS. The supplier of the OS might well be guilty of anti competitive practices and abuse of market power if, for instance, he charged a royalty on every PC shipped, instead of every copy of the OS shipped. Note that Apple could not be guilty of this because it doesn't have monopoly share of OS.

The supplier of the OS, MS, appears to have given the guarantee that if you don't want "the product", which in this case seems to mean the software, that you can return it to your distributor and get a refund. Probably then, for the supplier of the OS to charge the distributor for all software shipped, rather than software shipped net of returns, might be anti-competitive behaviour.

Its a bit of a minefield, and what one really needs is advice from someone in the legal profession specialising in this issue.

I am not at all sure that the people who argue earlier that a retailer must give you a refund, and must unbundle sales, are correct. They are perfectly entitled, for instance, to sell dining room sets. They are under no obligation to sell you the chairs separately. It may be smart to make some arrangement to this effect, but I'm very doubtful that it is legally obligatory, particularly if they are able to argue that by restricting their range, they get a better deal and offer better prices. There are lots of people selling dining room sets and other furniture in the UK whose whole method of operation is, this is a package, take it or leave it. I don't think its unlawful.

Re:Linked sales: MS and Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

"Note that Apple could not be guilty of this because it doesn't have monopoly share of OS."

They might also make their own software and control manufacturing of the hardware.

Apples and oranges dude.

RTFA

[cortana]

They did not.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone probably mentioned this already, but there ought to be a "-1, RTFA" moderation.

Re:RTFA

[miro f]

but then the mods would need to RTFA!

This isn't only about *nix but MS double-dipping

[parvenu74]

This precedent doesn't just apply to folks who want to run some other operating system on the machines they buy from Dell. It affects me because I don't need the bundled XP Home when I've got an MSDN license that allows me to run XP Pro. Or take the case of a small business with a Microsoft volume license. If they are required to buy a bundled O/S with every machine they purchase, then Microsoft has, in effect, sold two O/S licenses per machine. The $$$ saved by getting back the cost of the bundled O/S will add up!

Re:Buying a Laptop

[Yabol]

You could get an Ubuntu laptop at http://system76.com/
Somebody in this discussion might be using one right now, and could maybe tell us how it compares to the Dell-type brands (not I though, as I'm shopping around myself for my first laptop).

UK students no longer get free education

[RidiculousPie]

Free university is no longer guaranteed in the UK; most people either have to pay Tuition Fees (up to £3,000) or recieve a loan for the amount.

By turning on the engine you agree

[Anonymous Coward]

to the following....

you don't get an EULA with engine management software.

Your use of the car does not mean you cannot have another driver assigned.

your use of the car is not limited to the initial user

etc...

Big difference, boyo.

Why I didn't buy Dell

[NWprobe]

This is exactly why I didn't buy a Dell laptop. I knew I would never run MS Windows on it, so I purchased a ECS laptop, without Windows. Running linux allows me to integrate my laptop closer width my colleges network.

Is it really leagal for any hardware vendor to bundle an OS without giving the customers a choice. Isn't this a more serious issue than MS bundeling IE with theri OS.

I mean it wouldn't be ok if I had to buy a SuSE proffessional license with my laptop either....

It's all about the bundleware...

[Chordonblue]

I suspect the real reason why a machine's price without Windows would be greater is because of all the crapware/trialware that comes preinstalled. I suspect that this stuff comprises a large amount of profit per machine - especially when a user actually registers the software! Shipping w/FreeDOS or Linux takes away that potential profit.

The question then is, how can you make Ubuntu profitable for companies like Dell?

I'll be getting a Windows Vista Refund myself

[WillAffleckUW]

and I live in Seattle. My next laptop is going Linux - I've had it.

WTF!?!?

[kvn]

$105 is only worth £55.23 ?

I knew I should have invested in Euros... damn those unfavorable exchange rates!

Re:WTF!?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pound sterling, not Euro dollars. The US dollar has dropped from about $1.40 to $1.90 over the last four years.

Dell refunds are quite common

[Anonymous Coward]

I got my $125 windows refund when I bought my XPS M1210 notebook. At first they tried to push a merchandise credit on me but I kept insisting on the refund and got it a couple days later. What's so special about it? You just need to be persistent with their sales people.

i got a refund from them as well

[eufaula]

note up front -- i did this about a year and a half ago, but put it in one of those blog-things that were so popular so i would remember what i did. anyway, the process might have changed a little. btw -- i am in the US.

i bought an inspiron 1200 laptop a year and a half ago and it came with windows xp home and word perfect office. i dont run MS stuff (linux and openbsd are my preferred choices) and could really care less what it came with. but, since "no os" wasnt an option, i thought that i would try my hands at getting the much talked-about "windows refund."

i first called the number on their website, and then promptly got transferred to the technical support line, which transferred me to preferred customer care or something like that. anyway, instead of jumping through hoops the number that you want to call is:

800.624.9897

this will get you to the right people to take care of this. you will need your service tag and express service code.

check windowsrefund.info for the FAQ, which has a good statement to make (they say via fax, but i just called them and asked). what i said was something along the lines of:

"When I turned on my computer for the first time, I was presented with a License Agreement. The agreement says to contact Dell immediately if you disagree with any portion of the agreement. I have refused all parts of the license, have used a free operating system to remove all software and format the hard drive. The CD's included with the system are still in their original, unopened state. I would, per the terms of the license agreement with Windows, like to request a refund for the unused software."

they put me on hold, and then came back to say that the software was free and no refund can be expected. i politely stated that the software cost Dell something, and that those costs were passed on to me when I purchased the laptop. I went on with a story about not wanting to pay for things that i did not ask for and were not going to use.

anyway, i suggested that the software cost Dell around $30, and that the laptop's price was probably $30 higher because of this. I persisted to state that, per the license, I was entitled to a refund of this amount.

I was placed on hold for about 5 minutes, and the dude came back and told me that they would credit my Dell Preferred Credit Account (note -- this may be what made the whole thing work -- it didnt involve any "real" money changing hands) with the amount and gave me a reference number for the credit.

if you follow this advice, you might try asking for more money. just keep it reasonable. that is one thing that I said -- Dell buys windows by the gross, so it couldnt cost more than $30-$50 per seat. if you ask for too much, you will get nothing. be reasonable, and your chances were will be better.

Some guy did this with a Toshiba, $110 refund

[Spikeles]

Here's a guy who got a refund for windows from his Toshiba laptop way back in '98

http://www.netcraft.com.au/geoffrey/toshiba.html

Alternate methods of avoiding the windows tax?

[BlackTyranny]

Why can't I just order a computer / laptop without a harddrive? Has this been tried?

Re:Alternate methods of avoiding the windows tax?

[SnapperHead]

I did try this a few years ago, of course Dell wouldn't go for it. The problem is, first off they have agreements with Microsoft to now ship PCs without Windows. Second off, they were not able to ship machines without hard drives. Their order system won't allow that kind of change.

Since that last dell laptop I bought, I have found an even better solution to avoiding the Microsoft tax.

I bought a Mac.

Public domain

[dmarti]

It is now. Hit reload.

What's in it for me, eh?

[el americano]

I doubt you live by this ridiculous premise. Do you really hire servants everywhere you could when it would save you an hour or more per $70. Do family members get a certain amount of minutes each month? - and minutes don't rollover, Grandma! Do you treat the primary cost of food as the time it takes you to prepare and eat it?

An efficiency expert like yourself must be a joy to be around... or maybe you're just posturing, because it doesn't make sense to me that someone would say they care so much about money, and then find excuses for not collecting $200 available to them.

Re:What's in it for me, eh?

[soundvessel]

This is purely in terms of doing work, or things I wouldn't otherwise want to do. Helping friends, family, etc. is a different matter.

And yeah, I'll posture if it gets a point across.

Do you know what a matter of principle is?

[jotaeleemeese]

There are some people out there that are so brainwashed about measuring life based in monetary terms, that go and take a piss wondering if it is cost effective to do so.

You should have adviced Nelson Mandela that the bussiness of opossing apartheid was going to cost him 30 something years of lost earnings.

Oh please.

[jotaeleemeese]

The unusual amounts of people killed by guns in the US in comparision with other developped countries should give you a clue about where the criminals are using guns.

Well, duh!

[jotaeleemeese]

People are forced to pay the MS tax and then Linux.

Quelle surprise.

They could do that with Linux

[jotaeleemeese]

And then do a quick disk wipe out.

Wow, that's a good deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that's a good deal! You should buy up like 100 copies for your best friends. I mean, they're £0 anyway. (Incidentally, how can I type £ on a USian keyboard.. I had to cut'n'paste..)

Re:Wow, that's a good deal!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can type a pound sign by pressing altgr + shift + 3; or generate one in HTML using an and sign, spelling out "pound" and finishing with a semicolon. I could do that here but it would turn into a £ sign. Alternatively use kchars or edit your X keymap.