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)."

65 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Return on Investment? by dada21 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Return on Investment? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:Return on Investment? by pottymouth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "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.....

    3. Re:Return on Investment? by Lanoitarus · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Return on Investment? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    5. Re:Return on Investment? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Funny
      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.

    6. Re:Return on Investment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Return on Investment? by diersing · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    8. Re:Return on Investment? by frdmfghtr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    9. Re:Return on Investment? by Thansal · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
    10. Re:Return on Investment? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Return on Investment? by cloudmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    12. Re:Return on Investment? by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    13. Re:Return on Investment? by GigsVT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    14. Re:Return on Investment? by GoMMiX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    15. Re:Return on Investment? by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    16. Re:Return on Investment? by jejones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    17. Re:Return on Investment? by Engival · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    18. Re:Return on Investment? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:Return on Investment? by bladesjester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    20. Re:Return on Investment? by Lanoitarus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:Return on Investment? by rosciol · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

    22. Re:Return on Investment? by bunions · · Score: 4, Funny

      > 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.

      --
      there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
    23. Re:Return on Investment? by everphilski · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *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.

    24. Re:Return on Investment? by C0rinthian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:Return on Investment? by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    26. Re:Return on Investment? by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    27. Re:Return on Investment? by JazzLad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    28. Re:Return on Investment? by mr_matticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    29. Re:Return on Investment? by burndive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Guns are evil things

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

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    30. Re:Return on Investment? by bodan · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      --
      "I think I am a fallen star. I should wish on myself."
    31. Re:Return on Investment? by burndive · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    32. Re:Return on Investment? by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    33. Re:Return on Investment? by C0rinthian · · Score: 4, Funny

      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!"

    34. Re:Return on Investment? by close_wait · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

  2. Common Knowlage by thejrwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

    1. Re:Common Knowlage by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  3. Good for him.... by MMC+Monster · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  4. hm... by mlc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:hm... by rbochan · · Score: 5, Funny
      ...Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

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

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
  5. Why not sell them "clean" by JayAndSilentBob · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....

    --


    Love,
    Jay and Silent Bob
    1. Re:Why not sell them "clean" by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

    2. Re:Why not sell them "clean" by chroot_james · · Score: 2, Informative

      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...

      --
      Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
    3. Re:Why not sell them "clean" by ksalter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  6. 17.5% tax = outrageous by Heian-794 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

    1. Re:17.5% tax = outrageous by oggiejnr · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:17.5% tax = outrageous by vidarh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

    3. Re:17.5% tax = outrageous by TheBogBrushZone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      And behold, a command prompt and he who sat upon it, his name was shutdown and -h 3:11 followed with him
    4. Re:17.5% tax = outrageous by Cereal+Box · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  7. Refund amount by cerberusss · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!

    --
    8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  8. Bust MS bubble by shirizaki · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, dots slash you!
    1. Re:Bust MS bubble by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ``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.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  9. Re:Where will it end? by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Technically.. by Channard · · Score: 3, Informative

    '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.

  11. But they're not itemised... by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:But they're not itemised... by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  12. This "shouldn't" be news (in an ideal world) by amigabill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re:The floodgates have opened! by jvchamary · · Score: 2, Funny
    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
  14. Refunded the Tax Twice? by SQLz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought the copy of Windows XP was the tax?

  15. Long Johns by racebit · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  16. dell rips you off by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    --
    I like muppets.
  17. Email Me ASAP, I'll help. by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (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.

  18. it's not just a dollar, dude by weierstrass · · Score: 3, Funny

    more like $1.85

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  19. This isn't only about *nix but MS double-dipping by parvenu74 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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!

  20. i got a refund from them as well by eufaula · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.