Slashdot Mirror
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)."
And good for Dell for taking care of him with a minimum of fuss.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
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!
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.
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.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
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.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
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.