Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Sued Over Vista-To-XP Downgrade Fees

Krojack writes with this excerpt from Computerworld: "Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch. Alvarado is seeking compensatory damages and wants the case declared a class-action suit. ... Irked at having to pay a fee for downgrading a new Lenovo notebook to XP, Alvarado said that Microsoft had used its position as the dominant operating system maker to 'require consumers to purchase computers pre-installed with the Vista operating system and to pay additional sums to "downgrade" to the Windows XP operating system.'"

479 comments

  1. Just giver her Windows 7 by geekoid · · Score: 1

    and call it even.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by hansraj · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, what you are suggesting is very odd!

    2. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Yvan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if it's a weird psychological experiment you're doing, but after reading your title "Just give her Windows 7", I read your post as "and call it eleven".

    3. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Windows 7 is "just not all that."

      I don't understand this "Windows 7 is better than gawd" crap that is peddled here and elsewhere. It's not. It is Vista plus a service pack. It fixes NOTHING that was wrong with Vista. Talk about hype..Microsoft stumbled into one of Apple's brainwaves for a brief moment and this created Windows 7.

    4. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I completely agree with this.
      Where is all this "modular operating system" i heard so much about? All the kickass features they went on about? The "change" we all wanted?
      So much for that, yet another case of Microsoft's poisoned food.
      When i saw Windows 7 Beta, all i heard was "VISTA VISTA VISTA VISTA" echoing in my head over and over.

      Screw Microsoft, they can go to hell now, i am sticking with WinXP for now and fully switching over to Linux later on, i've had enough of their bullshit.

    5. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this "Windows 7 is better than gawd" crap

      I don't think anyone feels like that. If you replace "gawd" with "vista", on the other hand, you get a reasonably low bar for Windows 7 to clear, and lo and behold, some people actually think it might clear it.

      It is Vista plus a service pack. It fixes NOTHING that was wrong with Vista.

      It lowers the system requirements (the real ones, not the ones on paper), and it fixes UAC, so that it's more configurable and less annoying. That's enough for me to say there's a fair chance it'll be better than Vista.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    6. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Win7 (as it currently stands) runs quite well even on my P4 2.6GHz with 1.5GB's of RAM, which is well below most peoples PC's these days.

      You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...

    7. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      giver? When did you learn grammar? Watching TV?

    8. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Granted, that's nowhere near top of the line anymore, but I still can't say I know many people with a computer like that. I'm not in the ghetto. It's just that everyone's got an XP-sized box that's still bumbling along.

    9. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I recently did a basic test of Win 7 Beta and found it quite lean and just as fast in 512 MB as 1 GB RAM. It still got destroyed by the Ubu 9.04 Alpha 4, though.

      I'll have to replicate it on some real hardware to make the numbers count, though.

    10. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      That's probably close to the norm for new machines for the last couple of years. It doesn't count the majority of computers still being used that are more than a couple years old.

    11. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah... Microsoft pulled an Obama, big time.

    12. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Washii · · Score: 1

      I want to chime in with Vectronic. At my work, we pulled out a 2.6GHz Celeron with 512MB of RAM and compared 7 Beta 1 to Vista SP1.

      Windows 7 performed awesome. It took a little longer to load (boot screen only) than would be hoped, but it ran slick. In fact, a virtualized copy I was running with VirtualBox on an Athlon X2 with the Virtualization Extensions used ran only somewhat better with 2GB of RAM allocated and practically nothing else running on the host. Also, shitty virtualized video vs. crappy Intel 'Extreme' Graphics.
      (The host was Server 2003 R2 Enterprise that did nothing more than serve up WSUS and a few simple workgroup fileshares. Rarely ever more than 2-5% utilization, and nothing was going on when 7 was played with).

      Trying to run Vista on that with 512MB of RAM? Ha! It was horrid.

      That's some pretty heavy-duty 'Service Pack' right there.

    13. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Q6600 is kind of a sweet spot though, price wise. Or at least it was in December. Not a stupidly small amount of L2, and decent clock for the price. Seriously. Even a 3.0 GHz proc is only 25% faster. Frankly, I'm unimpressed by any improvement much smaller than 1 f-stop. Especially if said improvement corresponds to a price difference of more than 3dB$.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    14. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Kugrian · · Score: 1

      You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...

      You should frequent people who don't use $20 notes as cigarette papers. A p4 with 1.5gb ram is an impressive computer in some low-income circles.

    15. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of which; Giraffe!

      In Natalie Portmon, Giraffe grits BSD to death?

    16. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Win7 (as it currently stands) runs quite well even on my P4 2.6GHz with 1.5GB's of RAM, which is well below most peoples PC's these days.

      You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...

      no kidding....three computers here:
      1.6Ghz - 512MB,
      1.6Ghz - ~700MB,
      800Mhz - 192MB

      and in our circles I am *the* IT person...and u know what? Intrepid Ibex runs beautifuly on all of them..where even XP is slow (on the last I still use WinME coz XP is worthless on it)

    17. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      I haven't been able to play with Win7 since I don't have a spare machine sitting around, but if it performs that well on that hardware (which is similar to the laptop I'm using right now), I'm honestly impressed.

      Hopefully it remains in that good a state, performance wise, and doesn't have the DRM, etc problems that Vista has when it gets released.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    18. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Netcraft Confir..

      Ok, I'm not doing this, it's demeaning to both of us. Someone get my agent on the phone!

    19. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by afabbro · · Score: 1

      You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...

      You should frequent people who don't use $20 notes as cigarette papers. A p4 with 1.5gb ram is an impressive computer in some low-income circles.

      Um, dude? That's what he's saying. Parent said a P4 with 1.5GB RAM is below most people's standards, and CorporateTroll corrected him. Now you're giving CT a hard time because...you can't read?

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    20. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Vectronic · · Score: 1

      I do, I fix a lot of peoples PC's, the worst of which I have fixed in the last year, was 800MHz Duron, the next up from that was a 1.6GHz Laptop...

      And they aren't kids/teens/gamers or anything, most of them are 35 to 60 years old, anyone with a PC older than 6 years, probably isn't going to try and put Win7 on their PC anyways, however, even if they did try, it would surely run better than Vista... even if it's just a 210 second boot time, compared to 220...lol

    21. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As a PC repairman I can say that I have ZERO customers outside the hardcore gamers that have dual core. Right now the "sweet spot" for the home users is the following.

      Intel 2.2-3.6GHz or AMD 1.8-2.6GHz with 1GB to 2GB of RAM and 80-320GB of HDD space and a Geforce 6200 or the AMD equivalent.

      Sorry that I can't put it in nice list form, but ever since Slashdot went "web 2.0" I haven't been able to make lists. I'm a repairman not a web designer, dammit! But I work with both home users as well as SOHO and SMBs and I can tell you that the home users are at the above. Most of the SOHO and SMBs are actually running a little less than that because as long as the software required to do business works they simply see no ROI for buying new hardware. As I was telling a SOHO customer today I truly believe for most home users and small businesses we have already passed the "good enough" stage with computers and more and more folks are going to be fixing what they have instead of buying new.

      And MSFT forcing Vista has helped with my business since nobody around here wants it. Thanks MSFT! I have a customer who is about to throw $120 at me after having thrown $50 to recover his files because 4 hours of trying to run Vista with a 2GHz AMD with 1GB of RAM and he said "I'll pay whatever, just make this damned evil thing go away and make XP come back." so I found a former customer who has a brand new copy of XP home sitting in a drawer for $70 and with another $50 for me to throw it on he will finally have his Windows XP. Of course Walmart won't give him his money back for Vista Home Premium(He asked if I could sell it and I told him none of my customers actually WANT Vista) so he paid over $100 for a doorstop. But that's what happens when you don't listen to your repairman. I told him to avoid Vista like the plague, but would he listen? Nope. Sometimes lessons are painful.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    22. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      I have a 733MHz with 384MB of PC100 and XP runs great. Are you actually trying to run the default install? Because the default install of ANY MSFT OS is crap. Go get a copy of NLite or XP ISO Builder and make you a nice unattended with all the crap services turned off and see the difference.

      If you don't know which services to kill here is a nice easy to follow list. But with 192MB you might be better running Win2K as I've found the lowest "sweet spot" for XP is 256MB, whereas Win2K plays nice with 128MB. But please don't torture yourself with WinME. Is your self esteem low or something that you would want to flog yourself with that evil OS? I'm sure that whatever you've done in the past surely isn't worth THAT level of punishment. Just forgive yourself and move on.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    23. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by ozphx · · Score: 1

      I would take a guess... a stab in the dark... and suggest that the people who can't afford a $350 computer should probably not be considered in discussions regarding $350 operating systems.

      It reminds me of the low income areas in Australia - the ones that aren't currently on fire - take a drive through there and marvel at the $500 cars with $2500 rims.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    24. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      We're about to order a computer for my lady's mom and I'm ordering her a dual-core. Why? Because a hundred bucks at dell gets you the dual core AND more RAM. Besides, I consider it future-proofing, and realistically don't expect Vista or Windows 7 to perform acceptably in less than 2GB or with less than two cores. Now that Windows 7 is going to be a free upgrade and Vista has been service packed I don't have to fear to give it to her to run firefox on.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      I installed XP on a co-workers old Dell laptop
      P1-233mhz, 128mb ram, 4gb hdd
      It took a LONG time, but it works perfectly and for him it's fast.
      He's not in IT.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    26. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by ais523 · · Score: 4, Informative

      3dB$

      You mean just 3dB. Decibels measure ratios; a 3dB difference is approximately equal to a 2:1 ratio, or a doubling, which is presumably what you meant. When decibels are used with another unit, such as your dB$, the extra unit refers to the amount that "0 dB", or a ratio of 1:1 refers to. So 3dB = double (approximately, not exactly), 3dB$ = double one dollar = $2, which is probably not what you meant. (To put it another way, 33dB$/30dB$ = 33dB-30dB = 3dB; 33dB$-30dB$ = approx $2000-$1000 = approx $1000 = approx 30dB$.) Logarithmic units can be confusing, but given that you seem to have been trying to use them to show off, I would have expected you to get them right...

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    27. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      "Windows 7 - the change you need". Uh huh. Yep. So is it too late to buy an OEM PC with XP-64 bit installed?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    28. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>>> Win7 (as it currently stands) runs quite well even on my P4 2.6GHz with 1.5GB's of RAM, which is well below most peoples PC's these days.

      >>You should frequent people outside of IT a bit more...

      Agreed. My brother is running just 1/2 gigabyte... bought brand new. I think that's closer to typical for the average Joe Q. Public.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    29. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Kugrian · · Score: 1

      My bad. Had past the Ballmer peak long before I posted.

    30. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

      Wow. Your customers must only be spending 3-400 for PCs. Sucks to be them.

      We build desktops and haven't sold anything but a dual-core system for over a year.

      There's just no excuse now.

      Also, on our home user systems, we offered Vista OR XP up until January 31st. You know how many people took me up on XP from last July to Jan 31? Maybe 5. Why? Because we built systems that run Vista the way it's supposed to run. Proper spec's, certified hardware, and no crapware.

      What's the result? 1, maybe two customers who had a few issues that we resolved easily, because we're familiar with the hardware AND software (because we took the time to learn Vista properly.)

      I've got scores of happy Vista customers out there... what am I doing wrong?

    31. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Mozk · · Score: 1

      3dB$

      You mean just 3dB.

      You mean 3 dB. According to the ISO, NIST, BIPM, and most style guides, there is a space between a number and its unit.

      --
      No existe.
    32. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Retron · · Score: 1

      where even XP is slow

      Blimey, XP should fly on all of those, assuming you've not got loads of junk running in the background.

      I've got a 10-year-old P3-450 in the other room, running XP with 384MB of RAM. And you know what? It flies! It boots in less than a minute (58 seconds from turn on to hourglass disappearing last time I checked), Firefox and Openoffice are subjectively the same as on this Windows 7 P4 machine. The only things it can't do in a timely fashion are a) play anything remotely modern games wise and b) play MPEG-4 video, such as found on YouTube - it gets juddery and out of sync. Commit charge is 102MB after first boot.

      Note that this is a stock install of XP, with SP3 applied and no third party apps sucking up RAM in the background.

    33. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says that's what she needs?

    34. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XP is still available if you know where to look:

      http://www.ebuyer.com/product/114048

      They do no checking that the purchaser is a "System Builder", but to my mind, if I'm installing an OS, then I'm building the system. Maybe they define that term in the EULA which I didn't read.

    35. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      That was nice of you... Really... I appreciate it. Glad some people got it.

    36. Re:Just giver her Windows 7 by afabbro · · Score: 1

      No problem. Of course, now you're morally obligated to jump on a grenade for me someday.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
  2. upgrade! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is not a downgrade is a upgrade.

  3. Am I missing something...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You want another one of their products and it's somehow your RIGHT to have it for free ?

    It came with a version of windows on it, if you don't like it, buy another version.

    1. Re:Am I missing something...? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It should be my RIGHT to choose - ie. not to pay for Vista if I'm not going to use it. A sale is a sale, Microsoft shouldn't care whether it's Vista or XP.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Am I missing something...? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Nope, life begins at install~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Am I missing something...? by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      its not abortion its gene therapy

    4. Re:Am I missing something...? by the_humeister · · Score: 0, Troll

      Okay, I want Windows 98 on my computer. I'll sue Microsoft to get it too.

    5. Re:Am I missing something...? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You want another one of their products and it's somehow your RIGHT to have it for free ?

      It came with a version of windows on it, if you don't like it, buy another version.

      She did buy another version but was charged for the version she didn't want.

      Falcon

    6. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should be my RIGHT to choose - ie. not to pay for Vista if I'm not going to use it.

      It IS your right to choose. And when Lenovo tells you that they're selling a machine with Vista on it, and you choose to buy it, you're making your decision. I know it may sound crazy, but if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shouldn't buy a PC with Vista.

      I'd be a bit more sympathetic if they didn't tell her it came with Vista, but that doesn't seem very likely. All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed. And when you buy a machine in a store, there's almost always a sticker on the box listing the OS, amount of memory, hard drive storage, etc.. She knew what they were selling, and she chose to buy it.

    7. Re:Am I missing something...? by v1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, I want Windows 98 on my computer. I'll sue Microsoft to get it too.

      The difference here is that there was not anywhere near the percentage of people that preferred 98 over 2000 as there are that prefer xp over vista.

      Also back when 2000 came out, it was very easy to still obtain a machine bundled with 98se, for a long time.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    8. Re:Am I missing something...? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Funny

      All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed.

      Unlike somewhere else where you can buy Ubuntu by mistake ;-)

    9. Re:Am I missing something...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it also be a seller's RIGHT to offer to sell what they want?

      It is, up to the point that you can prove they have abused market dominance to severely restrict buyer choice in the matter. That strong-arm argument is difficult because Apple offers a line-up of very popular laptops, plus it's not uncommon at all to see Ubuntu booted up on laptop screens. You'll have to prove that a 'Windows' laptop is sustantially more capable than the readily available Apple and Linux laptops, to the point that they are not comparable devices. Personal preference and minor superiorities won't cut it here.

    10. Re:Am I missing something...? by vux984 · · Score: 0, Troll

      The difference here is that there was not anywhere near the percentage of people that preferred 98 over 2000 as there are that prefer xp over vista.

      Doesn't fucking matter. MS holds the copyright to XP. They can choose to give it away, not sell it, or charge whatever they want for it until long after most of us are dead. What people prefer is completely irrelevant. We can either choose to buy what Microsoft decides to offer, or not, but we don't get to decide what they offer... at least that would be true for most companies.

      This isn't that cut and dried because Microsofts status as a "monopoloy" changes the game a bit, but even so, this is bullshit.

      Also back when 2000 came out, it was very easy to still obtain a machine bundled with 98se, for a long time.

      That's primarily because Windows 2000 was more an upgrade to Windows NT4 not Windows 98. 98 wasn't discontinued when 2k was launched. It was discontinued when ME launched. (And it was very difficult to find a Win98 machine after ME launched.)

    11. Re:Am I missing something...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree in principle, however:

      She doesn't have a choice. Customers demonstrated a clear preference for XP over Vista. Thus OEMs started offering XP - until Microsoft put the kaibosh on that and essentially made it impossible for OEMs to do so.

      Furthermore, different places have different laws regarding customer protection. Since you are presumably not a lawyer, all you are offering is some vague concept of what you think a free have different laws regarding customer protection. Since you are presumably not a lawyer, all you are offering is some vague concept of what you think a free market should be.market should be. The laws however codify precisely Microsoft's culpubility if any.

      So there's actually several issues here:
      1. Whether or not OEMs should be charging for putting XP instead of Vista (which makes sense now, after 2 years).

      2. Whether or not Microsoft should be allowed to pressure OEMs to force Vista, or charge for XP.

      3. Whether or not Microsoft's behaviour (assuming 2 is proven) violates the laws in Washington.

      4. Whether or not the laws do what they're meant to and whether or not they are good laws to begin with.

      All that's important in this case is the following. 1 is undisputed. Is the reason for 1 because of 2. If 2, does it violate 3 given that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

      4 is a more philosophical issue about economics & free markets (which again must consider that Microsoft is a very aggressive, anti-competitive monopoly) and would have no bearing on this case.

      However, I think you miss the point the GP is trying to make (at least from my interpretation) - it is his choice. If you ask Lenovo to put on XP & they refuse (or chare a lot for it) because Microsoft isn't letting them, it's far different than if Lenovo decided on their own to do that.

      Yes, you could choose not to buy from them. But that would only affect Lenovo's business decisions if they were the ones making the decision in the first place. If it's Microsoft, then all of a sudden you've got a far greater counter-incentive than losing the 1 customer.

    12. Re:Am I missing something...? by atraintocry · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's the monopoly status, honestly. It changes the game a lot. I agree that normally they should be able to charge whatever they want, but we're still looking at a desktop monoculture. And if you are a monopoly with lots of government contracts, charging twice for your most popular product is a quick way to get lynched.

      They got off pretty easy with the DoJ so I can't say I feel bad either.

    13. Re:Am I missing something...? by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Normally this is where individual responsibility comes into play. But the fact that they are a monopoly changes things quite a bit.

    14. Re:Am I missing something...? by gruntled · · Score: 1

      Except that Microsoft is perfectly willing to provide the product she actually wants, XP, but only provided she buys a product she doesn't want, Vista.

    15. Re:Am I missing something...? by PitaBred · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The difference is when Lenovo is not allowed by Microsoft to sell you XP, even though they can still sell it to business customers and it's quite obviously available from Microsoft (otherwise you wouldn't be able to buy XP period). It's Microsoft pushing it's new product on a market that did not want it by coercing machine sellers to not sell anything but Vista, and charge more for the permission to put XP on it.

    16. Re:Am I missing something...? by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. The difference is that Microsoft was still selling XP. Just not to everyone, only to certain customers. Or if you really, REALLY wanted it, you could pay for both Vista AND XP. Because they abused their market control to push Vista on consumers who didn't want it by making XP cost more than Vista.

    17. Re:Am I missing something...? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      No she didn't. She paid a downgrade fee which is far less than the retail cost of XP. It could probably be argued that the downgrade cost factored in increased support cost for her ANTIQUATED operating system that they'd be required to continue supporting. Or that the reduced cost of Vista + the downgrade fee = current cost of XP.

      I hope this lawsuit falls flat on its face.

    18. Re:Am I missing something...? by rxan · · Score: 1

      The whole point here is that customers should have the choice of their OS on a computer and not have it bundled with a particular OS. If you start bundling with one OS, obviously Vista here, you're automatically producing an unbalanced market in an already dominated one.

      In this case the market isn't unbalanced, but simply unfair to the customers.

      OS Development is an industry of its own. Such a move of bundling Vista, Linux, or any other OSX with nearly every customer available computer on the market would be considered antitrust in other industries.

    19. Re:Am I missing something...? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Of course support for an OS should last as long for the first customer who bought it as the last customer who bought. What B$, the somehow support evaporates from the day the software was first released to market, rather than from the day a person bought it. That has to be the biggest lie, cheat and theft in modern history, especially when you pay the same price, regardless of the killing off of support in an attempt to force you to buy an upgrade. Face it M$ are lying, cheating, thieves, so sue them hard, sue them often and class action them into extinction.

      Really that a customer cannot make use of the time and effort and costs associated with learning an OS and must abandon that knowledge to feed the greed of a company forcing upgrades. Support ends when either they have fixed every bug in the system or governments around the world change software copyright laws, support ends so does copyright protection. Don't want to support it. Then out to the public domain it goes and people can support it themselves.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    20. Re:Am I missing something...? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      WOw, thanks for the obvious, genius. The only problem is, in someplaces we don't have that many choices, and it is a PC with Vista or no PC at all. But thanks for your brillant insight, Einstein.

    21. Re:Am I missing something...? by leathered · · Score: 1

      You're overlooking the fact that thousands of machines have been sold with a 'Vista Capable' tag which have turned out to be anything but.

      The only solution to stop these machines running like a one-legged dog is to downgrade to XP. This woman is well withing her rights to sue Microsoft, who we know colluded with Intel et al to sell these machines when they knew they were unsuitable for the task.

      --
      For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
    22. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      The only problem is, in someplaces we don't have that many choices, and it is a PC with Vista or no PC at all.

      Wow, guess that means that in someplaces, if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shop on the internet.

    23. Re:Am I missing something...? by PJ1216 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So we should be allowed to force companies to sell products that they don't want to sell? Its their choice to sell what they want to sell. I don't care if they have a government-defined monopoly. There's way too many opportunities to switch to another OS. If MS is pissing you off, go for a Linux or go for a Mac (though I'd rather you didn't).

      MS said well in advance they'd stop selling XP. You have no right to complain that you can't buy it after that point in time. She could have purchased a laptop with Ubuntu and purchased her own copy of XP from newegg or something. She was in no way coerced to do anything.

      I use Windows and Ubuntu. I have my issues with MS and I want to try out a Mac, but the cost of entry is too high to justify buying one just for fun. No one is forced or coerced to buy any OS. If they don't know any better than they should try educating themselves about it. Ignorance is NOT a defense.

    24. Re:Am I missing something...? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      She did buy another version but was charged for the version she didn't want.

      No she didn't. She paid a downgrade fee

      In other words she paid for both Vista and XP when she only wanted XP.

      I hope this lawsuit falls flat on its face.

      I don't know the licensing agreement between Microsoft and Dell but on the face of it I think it's Dell that should be sued, if she tried to get a refund from Dell for the cost of Vista. If however MS requires Dell to sell Vista to get XP then yes MS is the one that should be sued.

      Falcon

    25. Re:Am I missing something...? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      The difference is, Microsoft don't offer Windows 98 for sale.
      They do offer XP for sale, if you first buy Vista.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    26. Re:Am I missing something...? by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      I think that is the key here.
      When a new operating system is introduced the older one is usually discontinued or available as standalone. In this case the only way you could get XP was if you bought Vista too. In other words, Microsoft bundled Vista and XP into a single product and made customers pay for both of them. I am not sure if this is anti-competitive, but is clearly damaging to the US customer - hence seems like a valid anti-trust suit. Additionally since XP is the defacto standard for computers and customers really want the product, it could be argued that Microsoft is leveraging its monopoly position to sell Vista.
      Since these are complementary products it is difficult to find an analogy, but I am guessing this would be similar to a consumer products company giving out samples of their newer products along with their older products and then charging for both of them. For example if you buy Tide detergant, you get a bottle of Tide "Ultra clean" and then you have to pay for both of them. If tide was a monopoly, they may get into trouble.
      That said IANAL.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    27. Re:Am I missing something...? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      You do realise I am not talking about the US, where no doubt you could get a house delivered. Your world is this big ".".

    28. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's called "being on topic". The availability of PCs running XP in foreign countries is completely irrelevant because the idiot in the article clearly lives in the United States. From the first line of the fucking summary: "Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch."

    29. Re:Am I missing something...? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Could she have gotten XP preinstalled if she'd gone somewhere else?

      If so, then she's an idiot for not shopping around.

      If not, then MS is guilty of putting the screws on the OEM through illegal use of monopoly power, and she is merely eating the costs that were shoved down the OEM's throats.

    30. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      If so, then she's an idiot for not shopping around.

      No, I think she's an idiot for buying something she didn't want. She knew when she bought the computer that she'd have to pay extra to get XP. She decided to go ahead and do that. It's nobody's fault but her own.

      When did it become cool to make yourself out to be a victim all the time? WTF happened to people taking responsibility for their actions?

    31. Re:Am I missing something...? by v1 · · Score: 1

      didn't the local phone companies already get into trouble for "forced bundling"? With what you've said I was considering this and they are very similar. But that's a case of where you have a clear cut monopoly.

      Always important to remember, monopolies are not illegal... but abusing your monopoly is illegal.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    32. Re:Am I missing something...? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Oh of course moron, how dare anyone talk about anything except the US. Fucking excellent point. Well then, there are parts of the US that aren't, you know, in New York, or next to a Walmart. What about the Alaskans?? Oh, I guess I have gone to far again, and we should only really talk about LA?? Or maybe that is too much for your little mind to consider, and we should only consider EMMA'S FUCKING NEIGHBOURHOOD, hey moron!

      You are everything that is shit with IT in this country.

    33. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      You are everything that is shit with IT in this country.

      I agree. We need more people bringing up irrelevant information and then throwing tantrums and using ad hominem attacks when they're called on it.

    34. Re:Am I missing something...? by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Wow, so even after all that you talk about irrelevant information. And do you really consider your last statement a continuation of our discussion, addressing the last points I made, or a disguised attack. And to be far, every insult I used was deserved and correct. You clearly are a Moron, and are shit that works in the IT industry.

    35. Re:Am I missing something...? by jlarocco · · Score: 1

      So, what you're trying to say is, "My argument is shit, you must be an moron."

      You still haven't given a reason why you think foreign countries are relevant to the discussion. Or any other valid argument to support what you're saying, for that matter.

  4. She's right actually by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She had paid the "Microsoft tax" already, on the purchase of the PC.

    Why should she have to pay another "Tax" to [downgrade to] something that works???

    A pox on Microsoft...

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of her lawsuit if you RTFA is likely to get thrown out.

      "Microsoft did so in order to maintain, protect and extend its market power in operating systems software into the next generation of personal computing, to lessen competition, to promote Vista and to enhance its monopoly position"

      Um, the only thing that would have been different had she gotten XP was the not promoting Vista part.

      I'd say what it comes down to is once MS stopped supporting XP via release, they stopped discounting XP as well. Vista was heavily discounted to manufacturers, so it became cheaper for Dell, HP, Lenvolo and the like to put Vista on computers.

      Do you expect Lenvolo to foot the bill because you want a more expensive product?

    2. Re:She's right actually by Artraze · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may feel like a tax, but what you're paying for is a product. And, more importantly, a more desirable and a semi-custom (as Vista is the default) product. So it really only makes sense that the "downgrade" is more expensive, as that's just the way the market should fall.

      On top of that, XP is the previous generation and was released six years ago (IIRC). Plus, it'll be two generations old in a year or so when Win7 comes out. Why should MS continue to offer a product that was replaced more than a year ago and will soon will be phased out? The fact that they're offering a retail version is really more than they need to. The longer it's around, the longer they need to support it.

      I don't like MS, but I like whiners even less. Windows XP is a product that costs $200 dollars retail. If you want it, buy it. Windows Vista is also a product, that costs $100-$500 (IIRC). Whether or not MS gives computer makers some deal on some product has got nothing to do with the price of tea in China. So these people should shut up and be glad they don't have to dish out $200.

    3. Re:She's right actually by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      She has mistaken a court of law for the court of public opinion.

    4. Re:She's right actually by Leonidas89 · · Score: 0

      Becouse going from Vista-To-XP it's an upgrade. And it's one of the best choices you can choose to make your pc last at least two bootings. Not having her in technical support 3 days after using vista is not a good thing for micro$oft, isn't it? and well... They HAVE to sell vista somehow.

    5. Re:She's right actually by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      The thing is...you should do your homework when buying a PC. Let's compare HP desktops at PCMALL. This One. This One. They are both the same model, a dx2450. They both have an Athlon X2 5000B CPU, 1 GB of of DDR2, an 80 GB Sata Drive, a CD/DVD Drive, and a Geforce 6150SE Video card. The first one comes with Windows XP Pro with the option to upgrade to Windows Vista Business. Cost? $418.99. The second one comes with Windows Vista Business. Cost? $429.99. I didn't feel like looking for notebooks but the point is that it is your duty as a consumer to look around for the product you want at the price point that you want. This "XP Tax" is not the same across the board. Some units will be the same price or cheaper with XP, some units will be cheaper with Vista. Perhaps Lenova has some models that are like this, perhaps not. I would imagine the manufacturer has some input on this. Between Driver compatibility, BIOS compatibility, Bloatware compatibility, and support calls the manufacturer might say "Hey, we are going to charge extra for one of the operating systems to cover our costs." That is reasonable and it is not really the fault of Microsoft. Some Manufacturers (Toshiba for one) does not even have support for XP Drivers on some of it's lower end notebook and did not sell it with Windows XP ever. One model I know of is the A215-S4697 because I failed to do my homework, had someone purchase it, and tried to install their retail copy of Windows XP on it. Ooops. Time to dig for drivers that don't exist.

    6. Re:She's right actually by symbolic · · Score: 1

      This would have cost Microsoft exactly nothing. Whether it's XP on her computer or Vista, the cost involved is reflected in how Microsoft decides to do the accounting.

    7. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, XP is the previous generation and was released six years ago (IIRC).

      IIRC? Do you mean:

      If I Recall Correctly?
      If I Really Cared?
      If I Ran CP/M?

    8. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make it sound like she's got a 'right' to purchase a Dell computer without MS on it. She doesn't. If she doesn't like Dell's agreement with MS to only sell Vista machines - she's got a VERY simple option that she elected not to take. Dude - don't buy a dell. There are machines for sale online without OSs installed - or with free OSs installed. Buying one is a better, and more ethical option than what she did. I really hate people who make a choice - blame someone else for it, and want out of their own responsibility.

      Now - don't get me wrong - I hate MS. Don't own a single Vista machine. I like that Dell has some nice low cost hardware - but I won't buy it with Vista installed. I will buy the Lenovo with Linux, or a Mac... but none of those are cheap. For cheap - I buy a brown box computer from Fry's electronics and install Ubuntu on it.

      Note that none of the options I listed involved purchasing MS software and then suing them because I knew - going into the purchase - that I didn't want their stuff.

    9. Re:She's right actually by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's a "tax" because it's nearly impossible to get a pre-built computer without Windows, which means that even if you don't want the product you have to pay for it. If you had the choice of getting an OS or not, or even a choice between OS's, then you would be right. But we're to the point where your selection of machines is SEVERELY limited if you don't want Windows.

    10. Re:She's right actually by jkrise · · Score: 1

      On top of that, XP is the previous generation and was released six years ago (IIRC). Plus, it'll be two generations old in a year or so when Win7 comes out. Why should MS continue to offer a product that was replaced more than a year ago and will soon will be phased out?

      You are wrong. MS is actually offering the same XP without any of the Vista downgrade bullshit on the netbook range. It is illegal NOT TO offer the same XP just because the customer chooses to buy a different range of computer where the same XP can run as well.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    11. Re:She's right actually by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

      Almost eight years ago.

    12. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista has never been, and never will be a *more desirable product* when compared to XP... EVER!!!

      Vista sucks donkey balls (tm) edition can't play an mp3 and work on the net, both at full speed simultaneously.

      Vista hijacks your PC and your media and holds them for ransom (ie - it tries to lock your media and prevent you from using it how you want to - just because Vinny and Binny over here (RIAA/MPAA thugs) told them to.

      Vista requires 3 to 4 times the hardware just to run at half the speed of XP.

      Yes I know what the hell I'm talking about, I've been working with systems longer than most Winbloze-fan-boyz have been alive.

      I'll grant that Windows 7 (aka Windows Server 2008, Workstation Edition) has some merit, yet it still needs to have the entire DRM subsystem ripped out of it, yank IE and all hooks out, separate the UI from the system - ie - make the OS work as a CHUI, then allow your choice of GUI to be loaded over the top. Then maybe, just maybe it might be worth an upgrade. Otherwise, XP (and XP x64) will remain on my gaming system, although Crossover-Office and ubuntu are making great strides, and that may change soon too.

      Now, if I could get crossover office to run under Solaris x86(64), it'd be as close to perfect as it could get.

    13. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista works very well, if you know what to do.

    14. Re:She's right actually by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, because the cost to MSFT to train new support personnel on two versions of their operating system (let's assume that the support personnel who answer your calls on desktop OSes are different to those supporting Win2k3, etc) rather than one is "exactly nothing", I see. Tell me, what are you smoking?

    15. Re:She's right actually by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Wait, it's illegal? Pardon me while I pick myself off the floor. Is it also illegal for them NOT TO offer Linux? How about Windows 2003? I know, let's sue them for not selling Windows 98 on new laptops, after all, they can run it, right?

      Ye gods, some of the "arguments" on this subject are hilarious.

    16. Re:She's right actually by jkrise · · Score: 1

      I know, let's sue them for not selling Windows 98 on new laptops, after all, they can run it, right? >/i>

      Wrong. Microsoft is not offering Windows 98 on Netbooks or any other computers. But they are yet offering XP on Netbooks.

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    17. Re:She's right actually by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      And Toyota offers GPS on the Prius and Camry, but not on the Yaris. Your point? It's not like a Yaris is fundamentally incapable of supporting a GPS.

    18. Re:She's right actually by conares · · Score: 0

      Right, because the cost to MSFT to train new support personnel on two versions of their operating system

      Because it's so hard to say re-install...

      --
      That, that really grinds my gears!
    19. Re:She's right actually by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      She's got no case -- she paid for a particular product with full knowledge of what it's specs were. If she didn't want it, she didn't have to buy it.

    20. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If DELL really wanted to provide the OS option to the consumers, the should have provided it before not after.

    21. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The expression "Microsoft Tax" refers to the complaint, legitimate in my view, that the product in question is mandatorily installed on the hardware and that you are forced to pay for it whether or not that is what you wanted. If you don't like people calling this a tax, I can settle for "extortion". If I choose, of my own free will and on the basis of product comparison, to buy it for $200, _then_ it is a "product".

    22. Re:She's right actually by zach297 · · Score: 1

      What you say makes sense except for the fact that she was forced to pay for a product she had no intention of using. All she wanted was XP but she was forced to pay for XP and Vista.

    23. Re:She's right actually by ozphx · · Score: 1

      What the heck are you smoking? Microsoft can do whatever the hell they like when it comes to selling their OS.

      Repeat after me: Antitrust laws protect the economy from company which has a monopoly in one market from using this position to gain influence in another market. There is nothing wrong with a company having a monopoly in, say, the OS market. If they start to charge too much for their OS, then the competition will take marketshare back.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    24. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That isn't Microsoft's fault. OEMs sell computers, MS does not. If you want to fault the OEMs for not selling computers without Windows, thats fine by me. The problem comes down to that you're complaining that companies are choosing to sell products that they want to sell. You are more than entitled to purchase the components and build a computer yourself. Computers aren't a necessity. If I want a certain flavor cookie, I can't get made at the cookie manufacturers for not making it. If they can't justify the costs of doing so, why should they?

    25. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe look at it this way:
      If you're not buying a thing (OS on a CD) but the right to use it (license), and that license can change and you are bound by it even after the prior license is installed on your property, and the Company reinforces this idea by letting you install many licenses by using just one CD, couldn't a case be made that there is only ONE OS - The Microsoft License, and that by making her pay for the "up/down-grade she was being forced to pay twice for one thing. She is unable to run two licenses simultaneously, she can only run one instance of The Microsoft License on her machine. Has an attorney ever attacked this from this angle?

      It seems to me that by pressing the point of the different Microsoft releases in this case Microsoft is successfully keeping its detractors from noticing there is only one product involved: the License. If you establish that as fact then Microsoft's case disappears because you can't charge somebody again for the same product once the first sale has been completed. Different "releases" is a sham to disguise the License, which is the true and singular product here. The License, being changeable after first sale or even before use, transends time, unlike the decoy "Release." Nobody seems to notice that because consumers are still thinking of material goods.

      Because you think of commerce in tangible goods like one install CD, and Microsoft controls you by the strength of the changeable intangible License that covers a computer (even one built and sold and operated before the license is/was/may be altered), Microsoft gets to have it both ways. Nobody seems to have called them on this.

      Who knows. IANAL and use FreeBSD to boot, but I think you're going to have to be not just smarter than Microsoft to win this, but craftier. Big difference. Usually in the real world the win goes, not to lion, but to coyote.

    26. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS writes the contracts the OEMs have to agree to in order to sell their product. Which often involve limitations on what the OEM can do about installing other OSes. Microsoft has been sued and punished for this in the past (remember the whole anti-trust trial?). This is why people are complaining.

      So, yes, it is Microsoft's fault.

    27. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. She's nowhere near right. Because from what little information was in the article, it sounds like she purchased a machine with vista, and most likely called Lenovo for a set of recovery media which would cost approximately $50.

      Now, if you order a Lenovo Thinkpad currently with Vista Business, you can take the XP downgrade option at NO additional cost.

      The downgrade is only available for Vista Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise customers, though.

      If you're a non-business user, Vista works just fine. If you have a reason (old-ass hardware, custom software, etc.), then get the business edition and get the free downgrade to XP Pro.

      This is a stupid lawsuit.

    28. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On top of that, XP is the previous generation and was released six years ago (IIRC). Plus, it'll be two generations old in a year or so when Win7 comes out. Why should MS continue to offer a product that was replaced more than a year ago and will soon will be phased out? The fact that they're offering a retail version is really more than they need to. The longer it's around, the longer they need to support it.

      Right. This ridiculous especially as most of Vista's issues are worked out. Performance is equivalent to XP on new hardware, most compatibility issues don't exist anymore (for consumers, that is) and Vista is very stable.

      There's not really any reason to run XP at this point unless you're a business user. That's why the downgrade is only available to Vista Business users.

      Do the research before hand and you won't get stuck trying to downgrade a Home Premium system that's being used for business.

    29. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She has not been "forced" to pay anything.

      There are Mac and Linux alternatives, the only requirement is not to buy Windows.

      An analogy: if I decided I wanted to run an obsolete model of car, should I be allowed to sue the manufacturer if they insisted I had to either buy a newer model or pay a premium to buy the obsolete model? Microsoft is a business, the EULA states the software is licensed to you not owned and they can do what they like with their product. It's not like Vista doesn't work, it may not work how you'd like it but you do have a choice.

    30. Re:She's right actually by symbolic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When is the last time you called MS support for free?

    31. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing you ever so conveniently overlooked was that buyers have been REQUIRED to buy the particular operating system that Microsoft specified. Hence, the fucking problem.

    32. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shameful propaganda. I point out that prior to Vista, buying the latest version of a MS OS allowed you to run a previous version in place for free... When Vista didn't sell well, MS and the OEM's double dipped by charging to load said previous OS which was already imaged for the hardware. Clearly a dirty deal for the consumer. Slashdot's human test sucks too btw...

    33. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you ought to know how difficult it is to get bare metal machines so I can put Linux straight on them, even on second hand machines, I'm paying a Windows tax.

    34. Re:She's right actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of ANYONE calling Microsoft to get support. Well, businesses, and Microsoft charges them PER CALL. This is in other words not a useful excuse.

                That said, the proper solution is to order the machine blank (saving the wasted cost for Vista) and buy a copy of XP. Even better, don't get XP and put a good OS on there.

  5. Update by Mr.+Conrad · · Score: 5, Funny

    The suit has been canceled after Emma Alvarado was abducted by a mysterious, well-organized, group of mosquitoes. When asked for a comment on the strange occurrence, Bill Gates is said to have laughed awkwardly while pressing his fingertips together. More on this as it develops.

    1. Re:Update by mail2345 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The suit has been canceled after Emma Alvarado was abducted by a mysterious, well-organized, group of mosquitoes. When asked for a comment on the strange occurrence, Bill Gates is said to have laughed awkwardly while pressing his fingertips together. More on this as it develops.

      For those who don't get it: Bill Gates Unleashes Swarm of Mosquitoes

    2. Re:Update by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...well-organized, ..."

      well that leave Microsoft out~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh I get it. Because the OSS world is soooo organized and Microsoft isn't at all haha funny stuff!

  6. Paying for what ails you by unlametheweak · · Score: 5, Informative

    I often hear people bitching about Microsoft's operating systems and the problems with doing business with Microsoft and its Partners. Why don't people just get a computer with a non-Microsoft operating system. Linux, Apple, Plan 9, BSD; there are plenty to choose from.

    1. Re:Paying for what ails you by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 4, Funny

      You must be new around here!!

      Or, just a callow youth.

      --
      If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    2. Re:Paying for what ails you by Bunny+Guy · · Score: 1

      I did - I love my eeePC - scrubed Xandros - installed ubuntu - not goin' back

    3. Re:Paying for what ails you by Tom9729 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because it's hard to find a computer that doesn't come with Windows at Walmart/BestBuy/etc.

    4. Re:Paying for what ails you by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The OS she wants is Windows XP. Why should she pay for two operating systems if she's only going to use one of them?

      --
      No sig today...
    5. Re:Paying for what ails you by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Because it's hard to find a computer that doesn't come with Windows at Walmart/BestBuy/etc.

      You'd think that people who shopped for a computer at a Walmart wouldn't have the money or the sophistication to research "multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices", find a lawyer and start a class action law suit. Or if they were that sophisticated then why wouldn't they spend their mental powers and time and effort building their own custom computer without the help of the Geek Squad.

    6. Re:Paying for what ails you by db32 · · Score: 4, Funny

      People keep trying to use...

      If (cake.have) then eat(cake);

      This of course fails because everyone knows...

      #define cake=LIE;

      Windows is just a pane...

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    7. Re:Paying for what ails you by unlametheweak · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The OS she wants is Windows XP. Why should she pay for two operating systems if she's only going to use one of them?

      You can't always get what you want. But if you try some times, you just might find that you get what you need.

    8. Re:Paying for what ails you by supermanwashere · · Score: 1

      Go find one for me. Of all the OSes you listed only Apple is easy to find, and that's on overpriced hardware.

      This is what happens when you become a Microsucks Certified Unprofessional.

    9. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, like it or not, Windows is an industry standard.

    10. Re:Paying for what ails you by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      Ditto--- eeebuntu-nbr!

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    11. Re:Paying for what ails you by the_humeister · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I just bought a car and want a different engine in my car. Why should I have to pay for the two engines when I'm only going to use one?

    12. Re:Paying for what ails you by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Informative
    13. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least you can sell the other engine.

    14. Re:Paying for what ails you by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      When you buy a new car, and you're getting an upgraded version of an engine you generally pay more, this includes the upgraded drive train to support it. When you buy the same said car, and want one that has less power then normal, the price is adjusted downward accordingly.

      Hmm...makes me wonder. Does that mean XP is better then Vista?

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    15. Re:Paying for what ails you by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      funny stuff

    16. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better example would be when you special order a car, you normally have to pay more for the higher performance engine option. Which would explain why it cost more to equip the computer with XP instead of Vista.

    17. Re:Paying for what ails you by Neoro · · Score: 1

      Why can't Microsoft raise the price of a product that they produce?

    18. Re:Paying for what ails you by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Because the OEMs are greedy as hell?

    19. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is just a pane...

      Winodes is many panes.

    20. Re:Paying for what ails you by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Sure, those machines are available. How many of them are available in non-stripped-down configurations, or aren't hidden way down in websites or in back rooms? Oh, only Apple machines you say? Which means you effectively have a choice between 3 Apple configured machines and if none of those match what you want, a Windows box. Don't even say "Dell" with Linux configurations... it's not available for any but very minimal machines, and only two or 3 models. If those aren't what you want, you're SOL. Go ahead, try to buy a laptop from Dell with Linux on it with a screen that isn't 14.1". Oh wait... you can't.

    21. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to, if there is another engine that is a drop in for your car, it's an option at the dealership.

    22. Re:Paying for what ails you by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      A netbook. Sweet. What about a computer that has, say, a 15" or larger screen, that's a real laptop? They don't even sell those online at Dell.com. There's some Linux, but that's just as much "choice" as a moped would be "choice" if the only other vehicle available anywhere else was a Hummer.

    23. Re:Paying for what ails you by AceofSpades19 · · Score: 1

      It would make more sense if it were: if(person.haveCake()) person.eat(cake); ;)

    24. Re:Paying for what ails you by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      So your complaint comes down to the fact that your unpopular choice isn't supported as well as the most popular choice?

    25. Re:Paying for what ails you by zen-theorist · · Score: 1

      The OSes M$ wants to sell are: Vista at the price $0 (free with the laptop), and XP at the price $200. Why should they sell her XP for $0 (free with the laptop)?

    26. Re:Paying for what ails you by ThatCanadianGuy · · Score: 1

      If you're buying a computer at Wal-Mart, You're probably not very Tech savvy. So, for those people, Vista is just fine.

    27. Re:Paying for what ails you by db32 · · Score: 1

      It would still fail. :)

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    28. Re:Paying for what ails you by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      And by some minor miracle, your dealer is just gonna re-fit this engine for, what, free?

      Or is there going to be some sort of, I don't know, let's call it a "downgrade fee", for the service? Yes, I like that term, sounds familiar, people will understand what it implies. That there's extra effort involved in providing their choice of product, and ancillaries going therewith.

      Novel, I know.

    29. Re:Paying for what ails you by TheLivingPie · · Score: 1

      The product she bought had Vista preinstalled, thus she bought a license to use Vista. Since she did not pay for XP, so she must purchase XP in order to use it. If she wanted XP preinstalled in her computer, she should not have bought a computer with Vista preinstalled.

    30. Re:Paying for what ails you by TheQuantumShift · · Score: 1

      Then she should buy a PC with no OS or XP already installed. And yes, it is as simple as that. If you don't want vista, don't buy it. If you absolutely have to buy a pc with vista and just have to have xp, sell your COA sticker to someone who isn't afraid of change. Personally, I prefer Linux, but vista isn't worth suing over. Our courts have more important things to do.

      --

      Shift happens. Fire it up.
    31. Re:Paying for what ails you by conares · · Score: 0

      Are we talking new cars? If so they'll order with the engine you wanted. Please stop acting stupid.

      --
      That, that really grinds my gears!
    32. Re:Paying for what ails you by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Windows is just a pane

      That pun carries the death penalty in some of the more civilized nations. :P

    33. Re:Paying for what ails you by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Bad example. If you want the version with 8 GB of storage instead of 4, you have to get one with XP.

    34. Re:Paying for what ails you by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      But there is NO way to buy Windows XP now, so that would not help at all.

    35. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be asking "Does that mean XP PRO is better than Vista HOME", because at least that's a relevant question. XP Pro has plenty of features Vista Home doesn't.

      This is just like video cards. Your Nvidia 8800 is going to outperform your Nvidia 9400 and it's going to cost more, too. And it should.

      Yes, it's exactly the same.

    36. Re:Paying for what ails you by AppleOSuX · · Score: 1

      Is that where all the businesses buy computers these days?

    37. Re:Paying for what ails you by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Gee, that's nice that you link to a Dell Mini 9 computer sold on Walmart.com that runs Linux, but did you read down the page a little bit where it said:

      Not Sold in Stores

      To the vast majority of the buying public, a computer that isn't in stores will never be purchased.

      Normal people don't buy computers online from a website. If they had the ability to do that, they wouldn't need a computer. Normal people go to the physical Walmart or Best Buy store and buy whatever computer the sales droid convinces them they need.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    38. Re:Paying for what ails you by Sir+Homer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well lets take this a little deeper. Microsoft was convicted of illegal activity based on the deals they did with OEMs. It's a valid compliant, when you consider the popular choice is probably popular because of criminal activity.

    39. Re:Paying for what ails you by babyrat · · Score: 1

      Don't even say "Dell" with Linux configurations... it's not available for any but very minimal machines, and only two or 3 models. If those aren't what you want, you're SOL. Go ahead, try to buy a laptop from Dell with Linux on it with a screen that isn't 14.1". Oh wait... you can't.

      Well I suppose if you call a precision M4400 laptop with quad core processors and 8GB RAM a striped down machine I guess you are right. Assuming that this is not a stripped down machine (it does in fact have a screen that is larger than 14.1") then you are of course wrong.

    40. Re:Paying for what ails you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Microsoft is already bitching on their users

    41. Re:Paying for what ails you by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What if she wanted Windows 1.0? Should MS still be obliged to provide it to her for free?

  7. just silly by nhstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This would be like suing ford or gm for not continuing to keep last years engines for sale in new cars... this is just silly.

    --
    --- no sig to see here... move along.
    1. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's not as if the hardware could

    2. Re:just silly by supermanwashere · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. This is like Ford or GM telling you you have to use a specific brand of fuel or road to drive your car. Which is illegal.

    3. Re:just silly by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the engines were completely interchangeable, had zero manufacturing cost and this year's engine had worse mileage...

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:just silly by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh, no.

    5. Re:just silly by DodgeRules · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is more like being charged a fee to buy last year's model car because you don't like this year's version. Not silly at all. Why should I pay a fee to get an older model that suits me just fine? Next thing you know Microsoft will drop support for XP and then charge them extra when they want to refresh their XP install. If you don't pay, we won't unlock XP and make it "legal". Note: Microsoft is not authorized to read this post or use my ideas without paying me $1,000,000 in cash.

    6. Re:just silly by nelk · · Score: 1

      This would be like suing ford or gm for not continuing to keep last years engines for sale in new cars... this is just silly.

      It would be more like Ford telling a car dealership that they cannot sell last year's model (which they have in stock) to a customer who wants it. Instead, they need to sell the new model to the customer first, and only then can they sell the old model (so long as the customer gets rid of the new model first).

      Yes, this is just silly (but in a different way than your comment suggested).

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
    7. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you patented it ? ... too bad I just did it.

    8. Re:just silly by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. What are you smoking? That would be an appropriate analogy if HP was dictating that you had to use only Kingston branded RAM in their machines. Microsoft just isn't offering free support and OEM deals on their old product anymore.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    9. Re:just silly by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      That analogy falls flat because there are issues involved with supporting an older OS that don't exist so much with old cars. Older cars are not more likely to get broken into, whereas older versions of Windows are generally easier targets for malware writers. And it's not last year's version, it's more like the version from 8 years ago...

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    10. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be like suing ford or gm for not continuing to keep last years engines for sale in new cars... this is just silly.

      It would be more like Ford telling a car dealership that they cannot sell last year's model (which they have in stock) to a customer who wants it. Instead, they need to sell the new model to the customer first, and only then can they sell the old model (so long as the customer gets rid of the new model first).

      Actually no. This is more like Ford telling a car dealership "Hey, customers get $2000 off if they buy a 2009 car," Having the 2008 and 2009 models costing the same price before discount, and then having the customer wanting to buy the 2008 model and screaming that they have to pay a fee because they want the older model

    11. Re:just silly by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Why should I pay a fee to get an older model that suits me just fine?

      Because it's not manufactured anymore. A company that manufactures anything isn't responsible for maintaining it or offering it forever. If you want an antique, you pay antique prices.

      If Microsoft doesn't want to give you XP, you don't get XP from Microsoft. You get it somewhere else if you're so addicted to it. Somebody's basement CD collection, The Pirate Bay, China. I'll sell you a copy (minus the hologram) for $25.00. I'll even through in a copy of the latest Ubuntu release for free!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, good job pointing out why it should be even cheaper than it is. Slap a "I acknowledge that this software is no longer supported by the manufacturer" check box on the order form and you're done. Will even save on tech support fees. Brilliant!

    13. Re:just silly by bigngamer92 · · Score: 1
      However she is not being 'forced' to buy this year's model. It's that the dealership is forcing her to pay a premium to buy an older model (aren't car analogy's fun?).

      Of course it is very difficult to find a clean install or a non-premium xp install. But that goes more into the whole "You have to sell the OS we want you to" thing, which DOES need to be investigated.

    14. Re:just silly by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You guys are all smoking crack with these bad car analogies.

      It's like Ford is Baby Jesus, Chrysler is 3 rabbis, and AMC is a scorpion.

      So baby Jesus is born. The 3 rabbis are standing around, praising the event. This scorpion comes walking up...but the first rabbi throws his shoe at it. The scorpion takes off. About an hour later, the scorpion comes back. The scorpion almost makes it to baby Jesus, but the second rabbi throws a shoe at it. The scorption takes off. About an hour later, the scorpion comes back again! This time, the 3rd rabbi walks into a bar with a parrot on his shoulder. The bartender says, "that's cool, where'd you get that?" The parrot flies out of the freezer and replies, "may i ask what the turkey did?"

      That's how I read it anyway.

    15. Re:just silly by Eil · · Score: 1

      If you're going to resort to a car analogy, at least choose the one that applies.

      Almost every car you can buy comes with two to three engine options depending on how fast the car can go versus how fuel efficient it is.

      But almost every new PC comes with a single OS option: Vista. And it has only one speed.

    16. Re:just silly by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      You want an antique, you pay antique prices. You want obsolete technology on the other hand, you pay next to nothing. In this case, the marginal cost to produce a copy of XP is next to nothing. Microsoft has little to lose from continuing to offer a popular product.

      Your offer to sell someone an illegal copy of XP is not a wonderful solution to the person described in TFA; it would seem she wants a *legal* copy.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    17. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... I'm dying to know... what did the turkey do?

    18. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that argument falls flat because the support contract that comes with an XP install is notoriously short. Microsoft has long separated the costs for support from the purchase of the software. ie: They _don't_ have to support the software, they just have to sell it.

    19. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bow to you, sir! And, 20 extra internet points for the AMC reference.

    20. Re:just silly by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      Does ford or GM have a monopoly on car sales?

      Ford and GM would keep making and selling the old model, if that's what customers wanted. They also design their new models based on what customers want - this is why customers WANT the newer models of cars, and pay extra for them.

      Microsoft is using its monopoly to force a product on consumers that they clearly don't want. A product consumers dont want SO MUCH they are willing to pay extra to AVOID the newer model.

      Ford and GM don't have a monopoly. If they sell cars people don't want, they go out of business. Microsoft has a monopoly, and can make people buy whatever it wants them to buy. That's illegal abuse of their monopoly position.

      Your analogy is meaningless.

    21. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DUDE, what the hell happened to Baby Jesus!

    22. Re:just silly by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is meaningless.

      To be fair, the /. TOS clearly states that only car analogies are allowed.

    23. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know nothing of the Bible. The scorpion would protect Jesus, and the rabbis would try to kill him.

    24. Re:just silly by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      My kingdom for a +1 insightful mod point for you, sir...

    25. Re:just silly by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 1

      No, it's like not getting the rebate being offered for this year's cars when you want to buy last year's.

      Admittedly, in the case of most car lots, they do want to get rid of the older models, but I suspect if you went and demanded something offered on an out of date model, they'd push the newer one on you.

    26. Re:just silly by Manic+Panic · · Score: 1

      You guys are all smoking crack with these bad car analogies.

      Gonna have to agree with you here. Though I thoroughly enjoyed your use of scorpions in the previous analogy.

      Lets go back to those cake analogies, can't get enough of those!

      Yes... Cakes... with scorpions in them!

    27. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The woman is just a whiny little bitch looking for attention. Vista SP1 is in every way a superior product than XP. That is fact.

    28. Re:just silly by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      sounds like you've never tried getting tech support from HP. They'll only talk to you if you're running the original OS that the computer came with, even if you're under warranty. if you upgrade your OS to a new version of Windows, downgrade to an older one, or install Linux/BSD, even if the screen is broken, they're not talking to you until you reformat.

    29. Re:just silly by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Right, because it's not like Microsoft trains staff to support XP, so when you call that 1-800 number, someone knows what you're talking about. Hell, it's not like they pay staff to maintain the servers that look after the knowledge base, the IVR, hey, even the aforementioned staff.

      Wait, they DO have to pay those things? Wow, shit, I guess that makes a mockery of them being able to just 'toss in a copy of XP for "next to nothing"', don't it?

    30. Re:just silly by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 1

      Eh, support isn't really the same as not allowing it at all. But I do my best to avoid tech support for those reasons, and I guess technically even installing non-HP branded parts might make the techs not respond. Really, the best thing to do is build your own computer and if you run into trouble, post on forums, as they'll be a thousand times more helpful than standard tech support. That gets you the added benefit of being able to pick hardware that has good driver support under Linux, and better hardware in general.

      --
      All your base are belong to Wii.
    31. Re:just silly by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      You must be describing consumer-level support. Business-class machines qualify for support regardless of which OS you run. We run Windows Server 2000, 2003, 2008, Red Hat Fedora Core 8, and Red Hat Enterprise 3 and 5.1 on our HP servers, laptops and desktops.

    32. Re:just silly by WeeBit · · Score: 1

      $1,000,000 in cash?

      Piece of cake!

    33. Re:just silly by TheLivingPie · · Score: 1

      If you want last years model, you're going to end up paying market value for it. In this case, market value of XP after point of sale on a computer is some amount of money. It's not a fee, it's a price. If last years model is more in demand than this year's and their are associated costs with distributing and supporting it, then there will obviously be a price involved. Otherwise, Microsoft would not be a BUSINESS.

    34. Re:just silly by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If the engines were completely interchangeable, had zero manufacturing cost and this year's engine had worse mileage...

      You CANNOT MAKE AN AUTOMOTIVE ANALOGY HERE and HERE IS WHY: Automakers depend on service revenues to stay in business. That's why they don't want to make electric cars (any possible bribes from the oil industry aside.) They don't require enough service. They'd love to sell you last year's engine in this year's car, but nobody wants to buy it because they want a bigger warranty. A longer powertrain warranty represents more chances to get the owner into the dealer and try to sell them some service for a non-covered problem.

      Anyway, here's what you're missing in both the Microsoft situation and in the automotive analogy. Just like the engine, Windows XP does not have zero support cost. They have to keep kicking out updates for Windows XP just like they have to keep kicking out safety recalls for the engine. If they keep selling it they keep having to support it.

      P.S. This year's engine DOES have worse mileage. Have you been looking at mileage statistics? A lot of models have gone down since last year's adjusted figures (not the pre-retest figures, I know of that particular trap.)

      P.P.S. You are no longer permitted to make automotive analogies on slashdot. kthxbye.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

    36. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be like suing ford or gm for not continuing to keep last years engines for sale in new cars... this is just silly.

      No, its not. Its like Ford continuing to sell last year's car along with a new model that is heavier, has worse mileage, smaller capacity, is butt ugly, has an obnoxious sat-nav that you can't turn off, and oh yeah, not compatible with 85% of the roads in the state you live in. But in order to buy the old car, you all of a sudden need to pay the full price of the new model AND a weird "service charge" on top of that. Even though the manufacturing process hasn't changed a darn bit.

      The point is that Microsoft has every right to stop selling and supporting an old OS. However, they have chosen NOT to discontinue it, but charge an extra fee for it, because they know that if they discontinue the old OS everyone will either decide to buy nothing new, or may actually try an alternative OS. Being in a dominant market position where most people are already locked into the OS in the first place (for all practical purposes), makes this very likely illegal. MS can avoid the legality problem by either offering XP as usual with no extra charge, or not offering XP at all.

    37. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is more like having ford or gm charging you for both engines knowing you can only use one in your car.

    38. Re:just silly by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Except MS has made a second-hand market, as exists for cars, illegal.

      Microsoft is not authorized to read this post or use my ideas without paying me $1,000,000 in cash.

      I think your consultancy fees are a little on the low side.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    39. Re:just silly by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      The marginal cost to produce another copy of XP is next to nothing. You may want to look up the definition of the term. Go ahead, I'll wait.

      The costs of support are also negligible compared to the cost of development, and for a company like Microsoft, it's a pittance. They could easily ditch the phone support and just keep the KB articles. You know, like they've done with every other recent OS.

      Furthermore, in your colossal display of ignorance, you have overlooked the fact that OEM licenses (the subject under discussion, since system builder discs are still widely available) are not entitled to support from Microsoft anyway. Microsoft only offers support for retail copies; it's safe to say those won't be available again any time soon.

      So, marginal cost of one more xp license: near zero. Cost of continuing support: negligible. The question becomes, why doesn't Microsoft continue to sell XP?

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    40. Re:just silly by nhstar · · Score: 1

      the analogies are fun, however, I don't think that the woman in question was buying a ~laptop~ from 2 or more years ago... those packaged with XP originally. She was purchasing a newly manufactured laptop and wanted a customization of the operating system. Customizations cost money in nearly any commodity product. The "car" in my original analogy was ~not~ the operating system, but the gear that it comes on.

      Sticking with cars: would BMW charge you extra if you wanted to trade out the plush leather seats for a vinyl alternative? I believe they would, even though the cost-difference to tool and manufacture them are negligible.

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    41. Re:just silly by nhstar · · Score: 1

      Not true. Under the First Sale doctrine, you are allowed to resell your retail license of Windows as long as your sale includes all media and materials (assuming the manuals survived) and that you have removed all copies (running or backup) from your possession. OEM licenses are, in fact different as they were discounted based on the purchase being made ~with~ a specific piece of hardware. Dell subsidizes an OS that they bought in bulk from MS. No magic or mischief there.

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    42. Re:just silly by nhstar · · Score: 1

      Not at all: you can choose vista home basic, vista home premium, vista professional, etc etc etc...

      Just 'cause it's a poor and/or overused analogy doesn't mean that it's entirely false.

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    43. Re:just silly by nhstar · · Score: 1

      The analogy is poor, I'll grant you, but in no means meaningless. It's simply that you cannot expect to be able to buy a piece of modern hardware ~and~ have it pre-installed with an OS that is not the lastest offering. If Dell still had stacks of Latitudes from 2005, already OEM imaged, she could probably buy one and they'd happily ship to get it out of a warehouse...

      As for monopolistic powers and enforcement; your whine privilege has been revoked. Go buy a Mac and tell them that you want it shipped with Jaguar. Or try Emperor Linux and ask them to load RedHat version 4.2 (and not RHEL, btw). How much would either charge if they'd do it at all?

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    44. Re:just silly by ukyoCE · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, did a court of law find that Apple had a monopoly in the PC market? Or Linux?

      The rules are NOT the same for a business which has been declared a monopoly.

    45. Re:just silly by nhstar · · Score: 1

      The Monopolistic abuse was the inclusion of IE and the mandating of its sole inclusion with every shipped computer/os combo. That has been enforced, and now manufacturers can in fact ship with Mozilla, Opera, or even Safari pre-loaded. How many do?

      --
      --- no sig to see here... move along.
    46. Re:just silly by not-my-real-name · · Score: 1

      Finally! An analogy I can understand.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
    47. Re:just silly by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

      wascally wabbis.

    48. Re:just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tis amazing to me that passion overtakes reason on something as silly as an operating system.

      Only a socialist would make these emotional and illogical arguments. Yes, there are barriers to entry when it comes to operating systems. Yes, Microsoft enjoys a dominance in the marketplace that is overwhelming. NO, they are not a monopoly. No, you do not have to buy a computer with the Microsoft operating system preinstalled. -- BTW.. if you're buying a computer a WalMart, you have bigger issues than the bloody operating system.

      If the whiners at the DNC, DOJ and the competition would stop screaming and crying long enough, they'd realize that Microsoft is dominant because THAT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS DEMANDED FOR -- you see, contrary to fascism, no one has FORCED people to buy Microsoft.

      Suing Microsoft on this issue is just another example of the idiocy gripping the country. Whining, Whining, Whining.

      For all you Gates haters out there, go back to your triple lattes and wait for your bailout checks...

      Leave Microsoft to do what it does best.. provide services to the people (a vast majority of them) who WANT their services.

  8. Well what did she expect? by WiiVault · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I mean it's never free to upgrade. Vista -->XP, of course MS needs to charge for an upgrade of that magnitude!

  9. Re:And for $20 more ... by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a big question about whether the courts can punish a manufacturer for what businesses in the retail chain sell.

    I'd like to see MS taken down several notches, but unless there's some smoking gun, I would expect it.

  10. Get back to me... by djupedal · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...when MS is sued over Vista R & D by the shareholders.

    1. Re:Get back to me... by shentino · · Score: 1

      as long as MS is extorting obscene profits do you honestly think the shareholders are going to complain?

  11. less freedom if you're a monopolist by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Microsoft were letting OEMs sell either version of Windows for vaguely similar prices, it'd be okay. The issue is that they're effectively giving away Vista, while charging for XP. Now companies often can give things away as loss leaders, but monopolists are more constrained in whether they can undertake that sort of activity.

    This case is somewhat unusual because most of the lawsuits regarding dumping are e.g. giving away IE to kill Netscape, not giving away one of your products to try to kill one of your own other products. But it's possible that Washington state business law (vs. federal anti-trust law) has something that reaches that.

    1. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by PsychicX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't get it. It SOUNDS like this is alleging that Microsoft is behaving anti-competitive by suppressing their OWN product in favor of a newer one that people don't like. In other words, it appears that the suit alleges that Microsoft is conducting anti-competitive behavior against itself. Am I misunderstanding something? For that matter, why are they even required to give the older product at the same price? You can't frame Vista and XP as competitors and say Vista's anti-competitive behavior is destroying XP, because competition laws product companies, not products.

      Again, let me know if I'm totally missing something here.

    2. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't get it. It SOUNDS like this is alleging that Microsoft is behaving anti-competitive by suppressing their OWN product in favor of a newer one that people don't like. In other words, it appears that the suit alleges that Microsoft is conducting anti-competitive behavior against itself.

      Actually, the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version. Theoretically, they have to refund the cost of Vista, but I'm not aware of any reason antitrust laws would require them to sell XP. More complexly, one could argue that some of the changes in Vista itself could constitute abuse as it is bundled with "anti-features" designed to benefit MS over the purchaser... but that's a lot harder to demonstrate to the courts.

      You can't frame Vista and XP as competitors...

      Not all antitrust abuse addresses harm to competitors. Some, such as price fixing, directly harms consumers and they can ask for reparations in civil court.

    3. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      The issue is that they're effectively giving away Vista, while charging for XP.

      So Microsoft isn't allowed to change their price scheme? Should they charge money for free buttons and hats they give you at conventions? Should they charge money for the public betas of their software? No. Windows XP is old. Very old. It costs Microsoft a lot of extra money to keep supporting it alongside Vista... and Ms Alvarado should be glad they still offer it for sale. Obviously she thinks XP is a better product, so why isn't she willing to pay more for it?

    4. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your question is essentially "why should Microsoft be regulated"

      The answer is because they have a monopoly, and a court of law has said so.

      The fact that Microsoft was able to force people to buy their new product, despite no one wanting it, is an excellent demonstration both of Microsoft's monopoly, AND their abuse of their monopoly.

    5. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by cheezitman2001 · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that. If I buy a new PC with Windows on it and immediately switch to Linux, is Microsoft required to refund me the cost of Vista?

    6. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by atraintocry · · Score: 1

      Think of it like this: they're getting paid twice...once for the product you use and once for the one you don't. It doesn't matter if they suppress Vista in this case, because OEMs are buying it anyway and passing on the cost. In a perfect world, the OEMs would have brought this suit the day XP support ended, but they don't care because the upgrade treadmill benefits them most of all.

      This is hypothetical, though. I think that in reality MS gave the OEMs the same XP downgrade rights as their volume license customers, because everyone was screaming at them to do it. I'm sure they would have preferred to stick to the roadmap they'd set and get on with selling Vista.

    7. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that. If I buy a new PC with Windows on it and immediately switch to Linux, is Microsoft required to refund me the cost of Vista?

      In many jurisdictions, the OEM you bought it from is required to as a result of the copyright laws MS is using to enforce their EULAs. It has gone to court several times now in several countries. Some OEMs have policies against it or designed to discourage it (requiring a fee or return of the whole system), but none have won in court yet.

    8. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version"

      Yeah, and Vista Ultimate costs more than Vista Home Basic too! Those mother fuckers. Also, Vista is the future! Why should I have to pay a cent more for XP Pro than for Vista Home Basic? Clearly they're fucking me in the ass by saying the last version's professional edition costs the same as the current version's professional editions!

      Captcha: Flames

    9. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version. Theoretically, they have to refund the cost of Vista, but I'm not aware of any reason antitrust laws would require them to sell XP

      Why?

      I bought a Prius two years ago. There were eight option packages available. We wanted some of some, some of another, let's say for sake of example, option 1, GPS, 2, leather seats, 3 touring wheels. You can have 1, 1+2, or 1+2+3. You want 1+3? Not happening. Explain to me the difference here.

    10. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by kullnd · · Score: 1

      I disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly --- There are other options out there, both free (Linux) and not-so-free (Apple) --- You have a choice on what you want to buy. For every microsoft product out there, there are options. You need Office? OpenOffice is available and quite good. IIS? Apache. IE? Firefox. Zune? iPod. Microsoft has a very large market share because they are arguably good at what they do. Some people have to run their software, but is that because of them or should we blame the authors of the software some of us depend on for not porting their programs into other OS platforms? It's not Microsoft that limits what we do, it's the choice of all of the companies to build the software that doesn't work on anything else which then leaves us with no choice. This isn't like your cable company where you don't have a choice. It becomes more true with every year, Microsoft is becoming less and less of a monopoly as time passes. Flame away.

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    11. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by paving-slab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree that Microsoft is a monopoly...

      What you think is totally irrelevant.

      Courts in more than one country have decided that Microsoft is a monopoly, therefore in those countries they are legally a monopoly and are to be treated as such.

    12. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I bought a Prius two years ago. There were eight option packages available. We wanted some of some, some of another, let's say for sake of example, option 1, GPS, 2, leather seats, 3 touring wheels. You can have 1, 1+2, or 1+2+3. You want 1+3? Not happening. Explain to me the difference here.

      Tying only undermines the free market if the seller has monopoly influence in one of the markets. Toyota does not have a monopoly on cars or GPS or seats or steering wheels. You can look at the Prius and the Altima and the Sonata and if Toyota doesn't sell the combination you want, you can buy from the competition.

      Now if one company had cornered the market on GPS systems, they'd still be in the clear legally speaking, unless they forced Toyota to include their brand of seats in order to get the GPS (which they have a monopoly on) or if they ordered Toyota to only include version of their GPS, but one without support for certain features in order to get two GPS sales per car sale. In such a situation, even if Toyota is unwilling to sue the GPS maker for fear of retaliation the end user can still sue on their own since it is hurting them.

      Maybe my answer was too long. Toyota is not a monopolist in any pertinent market. Microsoft is.

    13. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      "the idea here is that MS is forcing one product on everyone who buys a computer (bundled price) then charging a second price to get a different version"

      Yeah, and Vista Ultimate costs more than Vista Home Basic too!

      That's actually fine. It's just using monopoly influence to make you buy both the product you want and a second product you have no intention of using that is criminal.

    14. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by Khaed · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big Microsoft basher despite being a Linux user, but --

      Just because there are alternatives doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly. They still are around 90% of the OS market.

      You need Office? OpenOffice is available and quite good.

      Yes, but you still have to deal with people who use Microsoft Office -- and they're more than 90% of the market.

      IIS? Apache. IE? Firefox.

      Yeah, Apache wins. Firefox? That's fine, but again, because of Microsoft's presence, there are sites that require IE.

      Zune? iPod.

      The Zune came out after the iPod was already a success, and Microsoft couldn't leverage their weight to squash the iPod.

      Microsoft has a very large market share because they are arguably good at what they do.

      They have a very large market share because of business practices that got them convicted as a monopoly. They didn't get their market share in a clean way.

      It's not Microsoft that limits what we do, it's the choice of all of the companies to build the software that doesn't work on anything else which then leaves us with no choice.

      I agree with this. Unfortunately, there's not enough of a non-MS market to convince companies to port, and we're stuck because there won't be a market until companies port...

      This isn't like your cable company where you don't have a choice.

      In a way, it is. Find a way for a non-techie to get a PC that doesn't come with Windows. This eliminates using websites because a lot of non-tech people won't know about sites that sell OS-less PCs (does Dell? I don't think they do), leaving you only with stores. Find a store that sells non-Windows PCs. Go ahead -- I'll wait. I don't know how common Apple stores are, but there's certainly not one near me.

      Microsoft is becoming less and less of a monopoly as time passes

      I agree with this, too. And their attitude since the Vista era is part of it. Which is why -- hey, let them charge extra for an XP downgrade and foist their shitty OS on people. If one out of a thousand users switch to Linux...

    15. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by kullnd · · Score: 1

      Nice post, really... I agree with everything you just said. It is unfortunate that most people AND software companies choose to use Microsoft --- It does cause some lock in --- My biggest point is that I think Microsoft is where they are at because although they suck at many things, their business decisions are really good, for them, leaving the end user as the looser... Any company as successful as Microsoft I guess will be subject to haters and people who scream "it's not fair", but that's life, there are always winners and loosers.. Natural selection, the stronger one wins, in this case the one that just does what people need it to do without getting as much of a headache wins ... It took too long for anyone to step up to them and out-play them at their own game. Seriously, we just recently started discussing an alternative to exchange?!? Exchange functionality is a basic concept of what computers should be able to do, in many businesses not having the ability to run shared calendars / contacts / email through one package that's easy to use and maintain is just unreasonable, they filled a niche that nobody else can do as well as them, even today! Guess what, they win! Open Software is making good progress in these areas, as is Apple, and Microsoft's days of being #1 are numbered, it's just a matter of time... But regardless of what the Govt's say, I don't think they are a monopoly -- I tend not to take what my government says at face value --- agree with me or not, I get my opinion. Microsoft just provides what people need better than the other options, as much as that sucks it's true. On my network, I recently tried to move some file sharing functions over to alternate systems, guess what, I had to put them back on a windows server because the performance loss I saw on Linux and the time taken to manage security on these systems (as related to user permissions) was just too much, I was shocked how poorly it performed, but guess what, I needed what worked BEST and that turned out to be Microsoft, it's not that I didnt have options, I just chose the option that worked best and provided me with less work in my already overworked department in the end. May the best man win, and hopefully some day that will be open source, but today OSS still plays catch up.

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    16. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by kullnd · · Score: 1

      And Gov't is always right, right? Do you trust everything your gov't does?

      --
      +++ATH0 NO CARRIER
    17. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by paving-slab · · Score: 1

      Whether they are right or wrong, and whether I trust them or not, Microsoft are legally a monopoly.

    18. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by shentino · · Score: 1

      By refusing to sell XP standalone, and making the premium version of vista the only one you're allowed to downgrade, then you force people to buy primo vista to get XP.

      The suit is because MS is illegally forcing you to buy primo vista to get XP. A move which, owing to OEM being required to purchase the primo vista, and then expend labor to downgrade to XP, costs the consumer more money than if XP could have been bought separately.

      It's an illegal tie because microsoft's market dominance in XP is being used to force people to buy vista to get it.

      It's as if you owned the town's only water supply and forced everyone to buy their water from you carried in expensive containers that you can't bring back for a rebate.

      MS needs spanked on this one.

    19. Re:less freedom if you're a monopolist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paragraphs, motherfucker.

      Paragraphs.

  12. As much as I dislike MS... by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And their history of anti-competitive behavior, I'm not sure this is the right case. Now if the case was making hardware makers decouple the hardware and software costs, that might be different. If MS could raise the price of XP in a competitive environment, even if they're competing against their own products, more power to them. The only element that's not right is the one that's been wrong for a long time. MS using it's monopoly position to run the OEM's and leverage their market position to freeze out competition. This case doesn't really get at that. Sounds more like someone whining they can't get XP.

    But today there are a lot of good operating system choices. MS isn't the only game in town...as far as you can get past the OEM issue...not even the best game in town. If you could buy a retail copy of Windows from someone like Dell, and that cost was essentially the same as the price quoted on a new PC or laptop, then the market can really decide what the best OS for the money really is. When you don't have a choice, you don't have a market.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:As much as I dislike MS... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Company X sells product A for 100 bucks. When they come out with product B which is more expensive than product A was. How can it not be obvious that something's awry when they arbitrarily raise the price on product A above and beyond that of product B... Especially when it's obvious that they're leveraging their monopoly on said types of products and they have a pretty obvious record of abusing that monopoly in the past?

      They are essentially the only game in town, no matter how much we point to Linux or Mac OSX. You know that and so does Microsoft. Let's get real.

    2. Re:As much as I dislike MS... by jkrise · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like someone whining they can't get XP.

      Wrong. Anyone can get XP today if they buy a Netbook. It is the very same operating system that runs on regular desktops and laptops as well. And yet on laptops and desktops; people are being charged for the Vista PLUS the so-called Downgrade rights to get XP; which is still available to people who buy Netbooks.

      Is it legal for Microsoft to restrict which OS is supplied on which class of computer?

      --
      If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
    3. Re:As much as I dislike MS... by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Is it legal for Microsoft to restrict which OS is supplied on which class of computer?

      Doesn't Apple do the same thing?

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  13. Oh grow up by indytx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article: "They have been forced to pay substantially more to acquire the Windows XP operating system than they would have to pay in a competitive marketplace," the complaint read. A competitive marketplace? Seriously? This person could have purchased something else. She could have bought a computer with Linux. What did people expect? A "competitive marketplace for Windows XP?" Companies take products off the market or replace successful versions with newer, "better" versions. Microsoft wanted to quit selling and supporting XP. Was Vista "better" than XP? Most people would say "no," but that doesn't change the fact that Microsoft can still shoot itself in the foot and sell something else.

    I'm no Microsoft fan, but it sounds as if $59.25 to get a completely different commercial OS, XP, isn't an egregious fee when you purchased the crummy consumer version of the newer OS, Vista. On the other hand, had I bought a more expensive version of Vista for my business (which I have not done), I would expect that Microsoft would throw in XP for free, maybe so I could run some legacy software for my business that was not completely tested or compatible with Vista.

    This makes about as much sense as someone buying a coach ticket on an airline complaining about not getting free drinks like First Class. The alcohol really isn't the issue, even though it may seem that way.

    --
    Make love, not reality television.
    1. Re:Oh grow up by zxjio · · Score: 1

      You totally miss the point. Having one product from a company compete against another product from the same company and calling it a competitive marketplace is a joke. For an end-user looking for a commodity, consumer computer, the "just works" straight from the box variety, there is no viable alternative for Microsoft. Therefore, their requiring that she buy two of her products in order to use one is a ridiculous abuse of their monopoloy power.

    2. Re:Oh grow up by supernova_hq · · Score: 1

      Paying $59.25 for windows XP would be no problem, if you could return Vista for a decent amount!

    3. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's one born every minute with Microsoft...

      Pay up or we'll force you to use Vista!

      In a competitive market XP is the saleable item and no OEM would be shipping Vistaster. Consumers shouldn't be forced to pay for 2 licenses when they only want a functional OS.

      Now, you go and grow up!

    4. Re:Oh grow up by Falstius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no Microsoft fan, but it sounds as if $59.25 to get a completely different commercial OS, XP, isn't an egregious fee when you purchased the crummy consumer version of the newer OS, Vista.

      In order to purchase the XP 'downgrade', you also had to purchase Vista Business. So the actual cost over Vista Home was closer to $150 dollars. Linux, or no OS, was probably not available as an option, arguably because of Microsoft's unfair business practices.

    5. Re:Oh grow up by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      > Seriously? This person could have purchased something else. She could have bought a computer with Linux.

      It's very probable that this person wants to run Autocad, Photoshop, or some 3D games for her childs, etc, etc, etc...

    6. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's really like being told that you're *buying* first class, on the concorde, only to find out that's it's a ride on a busted-ass crop-duster used to spray concorde-grape fields.

      Get your analogies straight...

      Vista should NEVER have been released... Ever!!

    7. Re:Oh grow up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more like wanting to fly coach, trying to buy a ticket, ending up with a ticket to first class, and having to pay more to sit in coach.

  14. Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft deserves every last bit of it. make it stick, make it hurt.

    I'd like to see computers sold at a price and have the OS as an option. Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.

    1. Re:Make it stick by dark42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.

      Because of the support nightmare it would cause when Joe Sixpack discovers he can't run his $10 game from Walmart on his new Linux-preinstalled computer (and he chose Linux because he didn't know it wasn't Windows, and he was cheap).

    2. Re:Make it stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'd like to see computers sold at a price and have the OS as an option. Car makers deal with optional engine types and other optional features. Why can't computer OEMs.

      Huh? How many car companies sell cars with engines as separate and optional?

      This is a dumb suit. She's complaining because Microsoft stopped offering discounts to manufacturers, forcing them to go to Vista. Lenovo (in this case) offers the legacy option of XP for a fee because of this, instead of just saying "we're not selling XP anymore because Microsoft isn't giving us a discount", and somehow it's Microsoft's fault?

      Look, I understand people here have a real hard-on for Microsoft's demise, but let's be serious. Nobody sued Adobe when they stopped selling CS3 upon release of CS4.

    3. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Because of the support nightmare it would cause when Joe Sixpack discovers he can't run his $10 game from Walmart on his new Linux-preinstalled computer (and he chose Linux because he didn't know it wasn't Windows, and he was cheap).

      Then the OEMs have to opportunity to create an "aftermarket" business, just like the automakers.

    4. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Huh? How many car companies sell cars with engines as separate and optional?

      You can choose engine and transmission on a lot of cars. A lot of custom shops can get frames and bodies.

      She's complaining because Microsoft stopped offering discounts to manufacturers, forcing them to go to Vista. Lenovo (in this case) offers the legacy option of XP for a fee because of this, instead of just saying "we're not selling XP anymore because Microsoft isn't giving us a discount", and somehow it's Microsoft's fault?

      Microsoft is using its monopoly position to force OEMs to restrict customer choice.

    5. Re:Make it stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      AFAIK they are forced to offer tiered pricing to OEMs. I mean, you're not just outright lying, your comments are just plain slanderous.

    6. Re:Make it stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a very simple reason for this.

      (I used to work for Gateway, and yes, I was in on the meetings).

      Microsoft OEM marketers contact big-name computer manufacturer. They offer huge discount on their entire line of Micro$oft products. The catch is, they *have* to buy one license of their current O.S. for every computer sold, period. If they don't, then the deal is off, and they get to pay full retail, or whatever they can wrangle from an intermediate reseller, but nowhere near the price originally offered by Microsoft.

      Intel did the same thing for their processors, but only if you don't offer to sell AMD.

    7. Re:Make it stick by conares · · Score: 0

      Because of the support nightmare it would cause when Joe Sixpack discovers he can't run his $10 game from Walmart on his new Linux-preinstalled computer (and he chose Linux because he didn't know it wasn't Windows, and he was cheap).

      Then the OEMs have to opportunity to create an "aftermarket" business, just like the automakers.

      Best answer to that question so far!

      --
      That, that really grinds my gears!
    8. Re:Make it stick by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is using its monopoly position to force OEMs to restrict customer choice.

      Has Microsoft taken Windows XP off retail shelves yet? When that happens, will you scream bloody murder, too?

      Microsoft is tired of supporting Windows XP. Who can blame them? Microsoft tends to put out security updates for longer than just about anybody else. I'd want to EOL XP immediately, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      Has Microsoft taken Windows XP off retail shelves yet? When that happens, will you scream bloody murder, too?

      Its more the point that the average user doesn't have a choice of anything than what Microsoft chooses to sell.

      Systems should be sold without operating systems or at least operating system choices. Microsoft's monopoly has too much control over the market place.

      That may cause the consumers to need to be more educated about their options, but a computer is a fairly big purchase. People put more thought into buying a TV than a computer and they are about the same price range. Forcing the consumer to be educated and responsible for their computer is better than allowing them to be spoon fed what ever Microsoft gives them.

    10. Re:Make it stick by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Systems should be sold without operating systems or at least operating system choices.

      There are already OEMs who will offer you operating system choices. If you want that to be the norm, then patronize them.

      Forcing the consumer to be educated and responsible for their computer is better than allowing them to be spoon fed what ever Microsoft gives them.

      Why don't you come here and fucking try forcing me into something? You have no right.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      There are already OEMs who will offer you operating system choices. If you want that to be the norm, then patronize them.

      There are *always* alternatives to a monopoly, it isn't that there aren't, it is that it is too hard for the average consumer to use something other that the monopoly.

      You really should read the standard oil case and the sherman act.

      Best Buy, Walmart, and others should offer choice. Microsoft should be forbidden from being the default.

      Why don't you come here and fucking try forcing me into something? You have no right.

      No, not force per se' but enforce a competitive environment which provides choice and options, which will require consumers to be more educated.

    12. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      There's a very simple reason for this.

      (I used to work for Gateway, and yes, I was in on the meetings).

      Microsoft OEM marketers contact big-name computer manufacturer. They offer huge discount on their entire line of Micro$oft products. The catch is, they *have* to buy one license of their current O.S. for every computer sold, period. If they don't, then the deal is off, and they get to pay full retail, or whatever they can wrangle from an intermediate reseller, but nowhere near the price originally offered by Microsoft.

      Intel did the same thing for their processors, but only if you don't offer to sell AMD.

      Its all been well documented, but 8 years ago, G.W.Bush and his gang of thieves stopped the Justice department from enacting a remedy.

    13. Re:Make it stick by mlwmohawk · · Score: 1

      AFAIK they are forced to offer tiered pricing to OEMs.

      Yes, but you should look into vendor bonuses. It is a shell game, "good" vendors get bonuses which actually reduce the cost of Windows.

      I mean, you're not just outright lying, your comments are just plain slanderous.

      Technically speaking, if I were intentionally writing something false, it would be libel.

  15. Re:And for $20 more ... by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, where I work we paid 3x for Windows to run Linux on a machine. 1 for Vista, 2 to change that option to XP, and 3 we have a site license for XP.

    Granted some of this was due to stupidity of people here, but the shear fact that we even had to pay beyond our site license for Windows to run Linux makes the phase "Microsoft tax" more than just a saying.

  16. You people have it wrong. by urbanriot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Microsoft isn't charging extra. The OEM's are charging extra for Windows XP Downgrade which Microsoft allows users and OEM's to install FOR FREE. OEM's have migrated to Vista and don't want to maintain deployment sets, support documentation and drivers for both operating systems so they're charging this extra XP tariff.

    As a small OEM, I give my clients the option to go with either Windows XP or Windows Vista, as we sell relatively similar base models so it's easy for us to maintain concurrent deployment sets for both operating systems. This extra charge isn't Microsoft's fault.

    1. Re:You people have it wrong. by Elektroschock · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is an example how Microsoft gets the blame for the policy of the OEMs to treat their customers badly.

    2. Re:You people have it wrong. by arkhan_jg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By threatening to withdraw XP from OEM sale entirely (and we've another deadline next month, I believe) they've pushed many OEMs to switch their product line entirely to vista, despite strong demand for XP from their actual customers.

      By withdrawing XP they've made OEMs switch to using downgrade rights on vista instead; Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate are the only versions of vista with downgrade rights (to xp pro) in the licence, so home premium (the rough equivalent of xp home, price wise) cannot be downgraded to xp home.

      The OEM licence programs costs are often mostly the 'upgrade' cost to vista business rather than the XP side of things; something that could have been entirely avoided if microsoft had allowed dowgrade rights in vista home premium too, or even just kept selling XP.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    3. Re:You people have it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly...there have been numerous posts about how Lenovo or other vendors offer this downgrade for free, but for some reason everyone thinks that because some companies charge for it, that it must be MSs fault. If they arent dictating this policy of charging for downgrades, this suit is going to fall flat on its face, and her lawyer is going to look very silly.

      -Brad

    4. Re:You people have it wrong. by randyleepublic · · Score: 0

      No, I think that you have it wrong. Just because you are paying the same for Vista as XP, doesn't mean that Dell is. I highly doubt that they are paying the same. Last time I helped someone pick out a Dell, (gag), the models that came *only* with Vista were about $150 cheaper, for comparable hardware, than the models that came with NO OS!! I have no doubt that in some way or another MS was and maybe still is subsidizing the installation of Vista.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    5. Re:You people have it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she had to sue her PC reseller instead! :)

  17. Tied Selling is illegal in many states by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Informative

    The issue is that in order to buy XP, people were forced to buy Vista as well. That practice is called Tied Selling and it is illegal in many states.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by cdrguru · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think anyone is actually required to buy XP and for most retail purposes, XP is simply unavailable.

      Try to buy the old version of just about anything else. Once the manufacturer drops it, it is gone. There is no more. Try to buy a computer to run OS/2 Warp. Just try. It is gone. The proper attitude is XP is just as gone as OS/2. For some reason, Microsoft got talked into making it partially available through certain OEM channels but not retail. I'd say it is a problem with Lenovo rather than Microsoft because Microsoft isn't selling the product at all. To anyone. At any price.

    2. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      Ah, but here the manufacturer hasn't dropped it - you can buy it, because you cough up the cash after paying for Vista to get the copy of XP.

      Now, if you could keep the copy of Vista and sell it on, I'm sure there wouldn't be much of a problem, but as it is - if you want the officially supported and sold (by MS, Lenovo can only sell it because of MS's downgrade option) copy of XP, you have to buy Vista first.

      For OS/2 and others, there simply isn't the option at all to buy it.

    3. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the issue is Microsoft released a new OS and decided to stop selling their old one. They aren't required to keep selling stuff if they release new things just because people liked the older models. It might make good business sense, but that doesn't make it a legal requirement.

      The other issue is that she decided to buy a laptop from a company that doesn't provide OS-free products. That's not Microsoft's fault.

    4. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is indeed selling Windows XP even today. We have not yet moved to Vista (and will probably wait until Windows 7 instead) so we purchase downgradeable licenses for XP on every new computer that's deployed.

      There are still literally hundreds (or thousands) of places you can still buy XP retail from as well, just not necessarily your local Staples or Office Depot. It's my understanding that Microsoft forces those companies to drop XP in favor of Vista. It may be part of their marketing agreement, who knows?

    5. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually they are still selling it to VLKs, but that's another story. They're giving it away -- with the purchase of Vista Business.

    6. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      That practice is called Tied Selling and it is illegal in many states.

      You mean like being forced to subscribe to analog cable to get digital service from your cableco? Sometimes you have to get both to be able to get HD services.

    7. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to buy a computer to run OS/2 Warp. Just try. It is gone. The proper attitude is XP is just as gone as OS/2.

      But XP is NOT gone - you still CAN get it. You just can't get it DIRECTLY, but that is PRECISELY what the suit is about.

    8. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by nomike · · Score: 1

      You could still buy "OS/2" but it is now manufactured by a different vendor (IBM sold the rights) and is called "eComStation".

    9. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone is actually required to buy XP and for most retail purposes, XP is simply unavailable.

      No, it's that people WANT to buy XP and are forced to buy Vista.

      Try to buy the old version of just about anything else. Once the manufacturer drops it, it is gone. There is no more. Try to buy a computer to run OS/2 Warp. Just try. It is gone. The proper attitude is XP is just as gone as OS/2.

      I can't speak to the quality of OS/2 Warp's successors, but when even the average user can see that Vista is inferior to XP -- something that didn't even happen during the Win98/ME to XP transition (don't forget that the average user never got their hands on NT or 2000) -- then why would you risk alienating people?

      For some reason, Microsoft got talked into making it partially available through certain OEM channels but not retail. I'd say it is a problem with Lenovo rather than Microsoft because Microsoft isn't selling the product at all. To anyone. At any price.

      That's because OEMs hate Vista as well, and probably threatened to pull support if they didn't make XP available. Again, alienating your consumer base makes them wonder if there is a viable alternative out there. Despite the FUD spread by Microsoft, both Apple's OS and the myriad Linux distros are alternatives. Unlike the average computer user, OEMs have much more pull.

      Personally, I have my MSDN copy of XP Professional on my home-built box, and I'm quite happy with it. I don't have to worry about some of the undesirable features of the retail XP version, and it beat the hell out of my old copy of Win98SE. I have a copy of Win2K available, but I decided to go the legit route. If I'm dragged kicking and screaming away from my system and I don't like what Win7 has to offer, I'll seriously start considering said alternatives and run Win2K in a VM cut off from the Internet for the times I really need Windows.

      Ob.Apropos captcha: leeches

    10. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know why this was modded up informative.

      No. One-hundred nos. People were not forced to buy Vista as well.

      If you currently want Windows XP, a DISCONTINUED PRODUCT, on a PC from certain OEMs, you must buy the correct version of the current NON-DISCONTINUED PRODUCT, Windows Vista Business (or Ultimate, or Enterprise).

      Microsoft is choosing to make a discontinued product available as a service at NO ADDITIONAL COST, IF you purchase the correct version.

      Why is it limited to the Business edition only? Because regardless what the /. crowd would like to tell everyone, Vista is stable and performs well on current hardware for home users.

      However, since businesses tend to use older hardware and have custom or older software that is not quite compatible, they are offering the option to keep Windows XP Professional as a downgrade with the purchase of the current BUSINESS edition at no extra charge (that is, unless the OEM decides to charge extra, which is solely THEIR option.)

      In this particular case, it SOUNDS as if she bought the wrong version to take advantage of the free option and had to buy FROM THE OEM a set of recovery media, which is completely reasonable.

      keep hating on MS for this one, though, slashdotters... it just keeps y'all at my usual low-standing for your opinions.

    11. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

      No. Very simply, XP retail and OEM is still available in most wholesale tech distributors' stock today. Microsoft has ceased shipping XP to distribution, which means at some unforeseen time in the very near future, the CURRENT stock from distributors will dry up.

      Which then means that resellers' stock will dry up, and XP will not be available.

    12. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

      I can't speak to the quality of OS/2 Warp's successors, but when even the average user can see that Vista is inferior to XP -- something that didn't even happen during the Win98/ME to XP transition (don't forget that the average user never got their hands on NT or 2000) -- then why would you risk alienating people?

      The average user doesn't have a clue. We've sold probably 75% Vista PCs to our HOME users in the past year, and i've heard very very few complaints. Why? Because most of our customers are novices and they trust us to build a PC which runs Vista WELL.

      Also, they don't get bombarded with people who think they know better and recommend using an OS which has significantly lower security, lower stability and a limited life-span just because the first 6 months of its release were rocky and they haven't touched it since.

      The bottom line is Vista Post-SP1 is good for 99% of home users if they buy a machine that runs it well.

      Now, for business users, we sell Lenovo units almost universally pre-downgraded to XP. Why? Because businesses typically have costs involved in adopting a new OS, so Microsoft makes the downgrade option available to ease the transition.

      All this lawsuit BS is ridiculous. Research your purchase next time.

    13. Re:Tied Selling is illegal in many states by GuyverDH · · Score: 1

      That's the problem... (which apparently you spent ZERO time researching) XP has NOT been discontinued. Hell, they finally just discontinued Windows 3.11 last year.

      It's still being produced (for certain OEMs and embedded markets) and government contracts (which refuse to go to Vista, as do most corporations who have site licenses - so sales continue there as well).

      Sorry - as long as they sell it *ANYWHERE* then it needs to be available *EVERYWHERE* otherwise there's potential for lawsuits like this, which should win every time.

      --
      Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
  18. Thus I can buy a MacBook without latest OS X? by alohatiger · · Score: 1

    Anybody upset that they can't buy a MacBook with an older version of OS X?

    --
    Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
    1. Re:Thus I can buy a MacBook without latest OS X? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Anybody upset that they can't buy a MacBook with an older version of OS X?

      Not really because older versions of OS X are slower and less featureful versions. With Vista versus XP you have a slower version and one with certain "features" designed to make it harder for me to do things and make MS money in the process.

      Of course legally the real difference is MS has monopoly influence in the market (desktop OS's) whereas Apple is only one of many sellers of desktop computer systems and laptops. With Apple a user has a viable option, whereas for OEMs buying an OS to put on computers they sell they generally have only one viable option and with that power comes requirements as to how it is used. If an end user can show MS unlawfully used that influence in a criminal way that is costing the end user of the system money, then they have a case.

    2. Re:Thus I can buy a MacBook without latest OS X? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Not really because older versions of OS X are slower and less featureful versions.

      I find OS X slower since spotlight came in.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:Thus I can buy a MacBook without latest OS X? by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      And of course the obvious, Apple was never convicted of being a monopoly. If there was sufficient market demand for old versions of OSX, they would be available.

      Contrast that to most major corporations who have passed up Vista -- do some research and you'll find even Intel passing it up -- because of compatibility issues, user training issues, increased hardware requirements, etc. Many hardware accessories still don't work in Vista. It is a big deal to be forced into buying an OS that gives you less functionality than your current system.

      I feel bad for those whose computer dies and all they have is their OEM version of XP. When they purchase a new computer it costs more just to get what they had before versus the new OS.

      If Microsoft can offer downgradeable licenses for corporations at the same cost as the current OS, they should do the same for consumers. Frankly I'm shocked they don't discount the old version a little... if the new is so good, why wouldn't people pay extra for it?

      The obvious answer is that a lot of people feel it's an inferior product. They would rather have XP.

    4. Re:Thus I can buy a MacBook without latest OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The short answer is: yes, if the hardware is supported.

      I asked a local Apple dealer if I could get 10.3 in order to upgrade an even older 10.2 machine that couldn't handle more recent versions very well (not enough memory, and the RAM slots were full). The dealer said, not exactly, but you can buy the current version (10.4 at the time) and they would GIVE me a copy of the old 10.3 install disks to go with the shiny new boxed version. They said they had previously checked with Apple and it was policy to allow this.

      So, as long as you bought a new license, you can indeed get any of the preceding ones. I'm sure the case would be the same for the MacBook. In fact, because you just bought an OS X license with it, they'd probably give you an earlier version if you asked. You wouldn't have to buy anything more. And, of course, it doesn't need to be any kind of "Ultimate" or "Business" version either.

      But they'd think you were crazy to want it and the hardware would have to be supported by that older version. Driver support is a different issue from charging more/again for an older version of something you've already purchased.

  19. I have not been charged extra by adiposity · · Score: 2, Informative

    Currently, Lenovo charges the same price for Vista Business and Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro. I order this option all the time. They also offer the same price for Vista Ultimate vs. Vista Ultimate downgraded to XP Pro.

    While I'm not crazy about this setup, you must remember that you are effectively buying two license. At any time, you have the right to upgrade to Vista for free. Yes, you shouldn't have to buy the Vista license, but Lenovo at least is not charging business customers anything extra at the moment.

    -Dan

    1. Re:I have not been charged extra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that Lenovo does not offer any computers WITHOUT Windows, nor will they give a refund if asked.

      I run Linux on my Thinkpad and have a $90 copy of Windows Vista Home Basic I have absolutely no use for. That's the real anti-competitive practice here. I paid my Windows tax when I'm not even using Windows.

    2. Re:I have not been charged extra by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And hasn't Microsoft announced a free Windows 7 upgrade for Vista users (as they should?) Ah yes, there it is. So really, what you're buying now is Windows XP with a free "upgrade" to Windows Vista as soon as you like, and Windows 7 when it comes out. You're getting a three-pack! Vista Business will become Windows 7 Professional, as it should. Ultimate becomes Ultimate. Basic is not eligible, underscoring the importance of selecting that particular option. (Or not buying Lenovo? Or not running Windows?)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:I have not been charged extra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need any involvement of the manufacturer. Microsoft grants you the right to downgrade Vista Business or Ultimate to XP Pro - they'll give you a license key if you call them, but they won't give you media. The only difference if you orde r a downgrade form the manufacturer is that you get XP preinstalled, but do you get install CDs for XP?

    4. Re:I have not been charged extra by tokul · · Score: 1

      If you buy Vista Business or Ultimate, you have the right to downgrade to XP Pro even if you have only OEM license. The only possible issues are install media and winxp drivers.

      Downgrade Rights Chart
      "Rights to OEM versions of systems software are granted in the OEM License Terms. The OEM License Terms for most OEM versions of systems software do not grant downgrade rights. The exception is the OEM License Terms for the Windows® XP Professional operating system and the Windows Vista(TM) Business and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems, which grant downgrade rights. See the full text of the OEM License Terms for the specific downgrade rights. "

    5. Re:I have not been charged extra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I just bought a Lenovo to replace an ailing computer.

      Guess what? I've run nothing but Linux since 1994.

      Guess what? I had to buy vista to get the notebook, which I have every intent of formatting over when the computer arrives.

      Makes me very happy, I'll tell you.

  20. Re:And for $20 more ... by cdrguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you are going to buy pre-made computers with an operating system, what do you expect? The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way. You can, however, put your own together for often somewhat less than the cost of the pre-made computer.

    Then you get to choose how to put an operating system on it. Usually, for most people, it is very expensive to do this because you end up paying full retail price for the operating system. Whereas the pre-made computer folks are selling you a finished product with an operating system they paid $50 for instead of $200 like you can.

    However, if you have a site license, are paying for MSDN, Action Pack, Empower or any one of a myriad of other programs, you pay zero for the operating system on your nice put-together computer.

    Now how many people can actually do this? Oh, maybe 1%. Do you think you are going to get anywhere selling a product that only 1% of the people in the US can actually use?

  21. XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by ErkDemon · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Yep, MS could get into trouble for market abuse for their current inconsistencies over who is "allowed" XP and who isn't.

    If they'd simply pulled the plug on XP totally, and said, "that's it, we aren't going to sell XP any more, because it's old and we don't want to be lumbered with the after-sales support forever", then that might be a legitimate manufacturer's decision.

    But they didn't do that, because they didn't want to lose the netbook market. So they said that netbook manufacturers could continue to buy, install, and sell-on XP, but laptop manufacturers couldn't. When you say to a company, "We have a product, we're selling it to other people, but we refuse to sell it to you to work with your products, because we now want you to buy a different product from us", then that starts to get dodgy.

    It's a bit like if a car-seat manufacturer has two ranges of car seats, their older smaller range and their new wider deluxe range. They want manufacturers to build the wider seats into all new luxury cars that can take them, but if they discontinue the older range, they'll lose the section of the market that supplies cars where the newer seats don't physically fit. So they continue to sell both ranges, but tell manufacturers that they are "banned" from selling the older seats fitted to the larger cars, even if those same cars have been sold fitted with those same seats in the past. That level of interference is getting into "illegal restraint of trade" territory.

    The question is, how much control should a dominant component manufacturer have over how their products are used? Should they be allowed to micromanage what people do with their products with these sorts of restrictions and conditions? If a product has already been certified for XP, should they be allowed to then tell a manufacturer that they can still buy copies of XP, but they're are no longer allowed to preinstall them on those particular machines because new MS policy is that those particular customers should be buying something else? Even if this upsets both the suppliers and the customers?

    Now to me, it sounds like MS are probably legally in the wrong here (as they have been so many times before when it comes to OEM contracts). And they probably know that they're in the wrong, but figure that the stakes here are so high that they'd rather break the law and worry about the consequences later ... after all, none of their suppliers are going to want to sue them for fear of unofficial retaliation.

    So this customer has decided, look, this is complete s**t - I should be able to buy the current software that I want on the machine that I want, without my supplier saying that they aren't allowed to do that because of some arbitrary rule imposed illegally on them by MS. So she figures, (a) it's unlawful and unfair, (b) someone should do something about it, (c) the laptop manufacturers won't, (d) she has the receipts that prove that this illegal behaviour by MS has cost her money, and (e) if it's illegal, and she's provably been damaged by it, then she's in a position to take a stand and sue, and maybe have the court ruling force MS to stop breaking the law (as she sees it).

    1. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      I don't know if OEMs cannot ship a laptop with XP or if no OEM wants to offer anything except a downgrade option. I suspect Microsoft has strongly encouraged (financially) that nobody sells computers with XP as the original, default operating system. They may be able to subdivide the classification of "computers" in such a way as to have OEM builders put XP on some machines of a particular class. Maybe. Or, the netbook OEMs are able to put XP on the machines because they are paying more for it - the same price that any other OEM could use XP for.

      I do not believe anyone (especially the plantiff here) is going to get a court to enforce "I want what I want" no matter what. The essential question is going to be what is the material difference to the customer that causes harm? Is Vista harmful and XP not? Not in the eyes of the court. I don't think this is going to go anywhere at all.

    2. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by rtechie · · Score: 1

      The issue is complicated. Microsoft has every legal right to change their pricing structure whenever they want. What they did is stop selling the "site" discounted XP licenses to OEMs. Starting in 2007 that was passed to Vista. This means that in effect the OEMs with the big discount pay less for Vista than for XP. That's what these fees are about.

      As far as I'm aware, netbook makers pay the same price for XP i.e. they're paying more. Possibly more than they ever have.

      You might notice this has nothing to do with the consumer. If the OEM choose to resell the XP license for $5,000 I suppose they could do that. I have a feeling the $69 fee is intended to cover the extra cost of the XP license.

      About the only legitimate complaint for the consumer is if they're stiffed on the Vista license. After a downgrade they should have a license for both XP and Vista.

      There's also I believe a legitimate case to be made about the transferability of licenses. The dubious pack-in terms that you can't transfer an OEM Windows install are basically garbage. You bought a licese to the software, you should be able to install it wherever you want (as long as it's only 1 PC at a time).

      As far as monopolies go I'd have more sympathy if people weren't obviously singling-out Microsoft. For example, we just gave $35 billion to the Big 3 auto cartel (and they ARE a cartel) virtually guaranteeing no significant innovation in the auto market. Telsa, for example, is folding because of the bailout. Yet nobody's talking seriously about breaking up GM, Chrysler, or Ford.

    3. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 2

      OEMs cannot sell any more XP licenses. That happened last year, around April, I think. The only way to get an XP license these days is to get a System Builder disc. The only way to get a preinstalled copy of XP is through a Vista downgrade license. OEMs have to buy licenses from Microsoft, Microsoft dictates the above terms. Your "strongly encouraged (financially)" is what's known as a contract.

      Netbooks are the exception to the above licensing terms.

      Are we clear on that now?

      There are several good analogies and explanations on here as to how exactly this can be illegal. I might suggest you read them. Hopefully afterwards you would have something worthwhile to say.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    4. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      I can only find one problem in your analysis. No one is forcing OEMs to buy licenses from Microsoft. They do it because they believe it provides the best value for their own business.

      I certainly had no trouble finding several retailers willing to sell me computers without Windows. The choice may not be as broad, but that's pretty much how a market works. The demand for Windows is pretty strong, whether you like that or not.

    5. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      I didn't do much of an analysis. The phrase "OEMs have to buy licenses from Microsoft" was intended to convey that OEMs have no other source for Windows licenses. Other OSs are of course available to some extent.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    6. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by conares · · Score: 0

      Lenovo SL500, we sell them for 799 Euro and they comes with XP downgrade media. What is the problem here?

      --
      That, that really grinds my gears!
    7. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Then I apologize for the misunderstanding

    8. Re:XP supply inconsistencies = legal trouble by dhavleak · · Score: 1

      If MS sells XP and Vista currently, then it has to support XP and Vista. i.e. it needs to provide security patches, QFEs for bugs that affect customers, etc. for both OSes. The QFEs and security advisories for XP and Vista are not the same -- i.e. this is a doubling of maintenance effort and cost (at the very least). Also note that they need to support XP well into the future (way past the date at which they stopped selling it). So the longer they sell it, the longer they incur these maintenance costs. That's quite simply the reason that they need to get some revenue for every XP sale. So they are justified in charging separately for each OS, and they are justified for trying to phase out the older OS. The lady filing the complaint -- she has a license for XP and a license for Vista. She got charged for each license. Plain and simple.

  22. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are hundreds of companies that sell PCs with Linux pre-installed. It's hard to feel sorry for you if you're dumb enough to buy Windows when you actually want to run Linux.

    Also, why the fuck would you downgrade Vista to XP if you're just going to format and install Linux anyway? How is that in any way Microsoft's fault?

  23. State's rights trump. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Hey, the mantra of the traditional conservative is state's rights. It certainly is of mine, and here, Washington, despite its more liberal bent, is perfectly entitled to be more liberal, than say, Texas. If you want to do business in that state, then, hey, you gotta play by their rules. The desire of the businessman for national consistency is not an excuse to trump the rights of the residents of the various sovereign states who are signatories to the treaty that is the Constitution.

    --
    This is my sig.
  24. Epic fail on bad analogy... by rts008 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This makes about as much sense as someone buying a coach ticket on an airline complaining about not getting free drinks like First Class.

    No, it's not like that at all.

    Closer would be buying a First Class ticket, then being charged extra to move back into the almost empty coach section.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Epic fail on bad analogy... by stile99 · · Score: 1

      I can honestly say this is the first time I have ever seen Vista compared to first class. As I think about it though, it does quite fit. Overpriced? Check. Doesn't get you where you are going any faster? Check. There we have it. Vista IS a first class OS!

  25. You can't always git wot u wont by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Alvarado said that Microsoft had used its position as the dominant operating system maker to 'require consumers to purchase computers pre-installed with the Vista operating system and to pay additional sums to "downgrade" to the Windows XP operating system.

    Well, she wanted Windows but she got Windows.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  26. Re:And for $20 more ... by MrNaz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "myriad other" NOT "myriad of other"
    The word "myriad" is not used in the same way collective nouns are.

    --
    I hate printers.
  27. get another operating system by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I often hear people bitching about Microsoft's operating systems and the problems with doing business with Microsoft and its Partners. Why don't people just get a computer with a non-Microsoft operating system. Linux, Apple, Plan 9, BSD; there are plenty to choose from.

    People buy MS Windows, preinstalled, because that's all they know. Because most PC have Windows preinstalled they don't realize they have other choices.

    Falcon

  28. Re:And for $20 more ... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It wouldn't hurt to offer a wiped hard-drive as a purchase option. Even if 1% of people would use it, it would cost extremely little to implement, and it would definitely not hurt other sales.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  29. Re:And for $20 more ... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 4, Informative

    From Wikipedia:

    In English, the term "myriad" is most commonly used to refer to a large number of an unspecified size. In this way "myriad" can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Thus both "there are myriad people outside" and "there is a myriad of people outside" are correct.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  30. I fail to see how this has legs by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

    My take on the situation is that this person is stupid. For one, there's nothing wrong with what's going on. There are plenty of analogies above that make similar points regarding car stereos and engines.

    If you don't like what is offered, then don't pay for it.

    Simple answer for Microsoft next time: Tell everyone "fuck you" and not offer the older at all with the exception of the volume market and business market. This is all some stupid, frivolous lawsuit like this is going to accomplish.

    1. Re:I fail to see how this has legs by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      not so simple. For some manufacturers, they wouldn't sell a computer without some version of Microsoft Windows on it.

      That means you couldn't buy a Linux laptop. There was no choice. And being forced to pay an extortion fee to choose a product which people want over a product they don't is unethical. It's the ol' bait 'n switch.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:I fail to see how this has legs by magamiako1 · · Score: 1

      How is it a "bait and switch"?

      A bait and switch means that they intended to sell XP with the PC but put Vista on there instead, that the consumer did not "get what they paid for."

      That's incorrect. They paid for Vista, the sale was advertised as Vista, and that's what they got.

      Just because there was no option for XP does not mean there was anything wrong done by Microsoft nor the retailers nor the OEMs.

      This entire article is completely irrelevant to Linux, fyi.

  31. Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Go find one for me. Of all the OSes you listed only Apple is easy to find, and that's on overpriced hardware.

    Apple's hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCs for years.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Apple prices by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Apple's hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCs for years.

      ROFLMAO.

      Mac Pro: comes standard with 2 x 1GB sticks of memory - 800MHz, DDR2, ECC. Let's try 2 extra 1GB sticks of memory. Apple price? $500. NewEgg price for 2 x 1GB sticks of Kingston 800MHz DDR ECC memory? $67. So only 650% markup there, after all, Apple's gotta make money somehow, right? What with them being competitive on hardware pricing and all, like you say. 16GB, 4x4 GB. Apple price? $4,300! Sorry, I'm still crying with laughter at your claim about comparable pricing. NewEgg? $604. Still, it's better, only 610% markup. Let's not even look at the 32GB option, Apple only wants the price of a new car for that...

      Oh, but "everyone" knows, you don't buy memory from Apple, right? How about hard drives?

      1TB SATA 7200rpm hard drive. The Apple price? A steal, at only $450. Aww crap, there I was thinking I could get one from NewEgg for under $100! Oh, wait, $99 IS under $100! Score!

      Let's try a video card. ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro. Wow, Apple's almost competitive there, $130, versus $55. First we've seen with under 200% markup!

      Maybe I'm not being fair, the Mac Pro is a "workstation" class machine, after all. Let's try the MBP.

      Let's jump from 4GB to 8GB. Tossing aside 2 2GB modules for 2 4's. Apple: $1,200. Confusing, as they're only $360, even without the subsidized cost from the 2 x 2 you were going to get anyway. Let's be charitable, and call it $250.

      Hard drives, 256GB solid state drive, same story, $750, though same drive at NewEgg is $540, and you're not subsidizing with a 320GB drive already, which realistic vendors only want $70 for.

      So to cut a long story short, tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced.

    2. Re:Apple prices by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Lies, check out their bullshit ram prices on their site now, I dare you.

    3. Re:Apple prices by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So to cut a long story short, tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced.

      The standard response to this is that OS X is worth it.

      Being someone who is platform agnostic and generally uses many platforms, I don't agree.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Apple prices by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      It's been a very long time since I've seen any Windows PC being advertised more than Apple's starting price.

    5. Re:Apple prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Apple" (I assume you mean the Macintosh) is overpriced compared to a generic PC, in the same sense that BMW are overpriced compared to Skoda.

    6. Re:Apple prices by ppolitop · · Score: 3, Informative

      The memory modules of the Mac Pro are *NOT* standard ECC DDR. They belong to the faster and more expensiveFB-DIMM family.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Buffered_DIMM.
      By the way I don't the OP said that Apple upgrades had reasonable prices, but the systems themselves, which is partly true. Especially if you account for all the things that they come with, applications, ports and design/robustness. Just check Sony Vaio prices up :P

      Peter

    7. Re:Apple prices by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Alienware, certain Dell XPS models, Falcon Systems machines. I've seen several that start higher than Apple. Granted, those machines are aimed at the suckers, er gamer market...

      Or you can just go build the Ars Technica God Box for upwards of $10k USD easily :)

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    8. Re:Apple prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, even my father (the avid Mac fan) laughed at that one. Apple hardware prices have been a joke for years.

    9. Re:Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apple's hardware prices have been comparable to Windows PCs for years.

      Mac Pro: comes standard with 2 x 1GB sticks of memory - 800MHz, DDR2, ECC. Let's try 2 extra 1GB sticks of memory. Apple price? $500. NewEgg price for 2 x 1GB sticks of Kingston 800MHz DDR ECC memory? $67.

      I said Apple hardware prices, Apple buys RAM from others and doesn't make it. And yes, I admit Apple charges more for RAM than what Newegg and others pay for it. I even had someone in an Apple store tell me that if I wanted more ram than standard then I should buy it from someone else. When I said Apple's hardware prices are comparable that's what I meant, unfortunately you have to start with Apple hardware. Take the Mac Pro and get the price. Then configure a Dell, HP, and or IBM, er Levono, to get as close to the same specs and the Apple's price will be comparable.

      All of the other examples you give are of hardware made by others not Apple. Now let's compare:

      Mac Pro
      Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
      2GB (2x1GB)
      320GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
      ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB
      Total = $2,799.00

      Dell Precision T7400
      Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
      2GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory
      320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive
      256MB PCIe x16 nVidia NVS 290
      Total price = $3,738

      The only part I'm not sure is comparable is the video card though both cards chosen support 2 monitors. You can however install a different card in the Mac.

      Falcon

    10. Re:Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Lies, check out their bullshit ram prices on their site now, I dare you.

      RAM is not Apple hardware, though I agree Apple sales RAM more expensively than you can get elsewhere. For the comparison I was talking about check this post comparing the price of a Mac Pro to a Dell Precision T7400.

      Falcon

    11. Re:Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's been a very long time since I've seen any Windows PC being advertised more than Apple's starting price.

      Here's a comparison between a Mac Pro and a Dell Precision T7400.

      Falcon

    12. Re:Apple prices by adam.dorsey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dude, those ARE the FB-DIMM prices. FB-DIMM long ago stopped being more than a few dollars off from the normal DDR2 option.

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134688
      Kingston 1GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM ECC Fully Buffered DDR2 800 - $33.49 each, $66.98 total; GP quoted $67.

      http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820134862
      Kingston 4GB 240-Pin DDR2 FB-DIMM ECC Fully Buffered DDR2 800 - $156.99 each, $627.96 total; GP quoted $604.

      FB-DIMM memory does not invalidate his argument in any way.

      --
      You are still innocent until proven guilty. What's changed is what they do to innocent people. - notnAP, #26891325
    13. Re:Apple prices by AppleOSuX · · Score: 1

      Right, but you're not getting a BMW. You're getting a computer. And no, they're not "the BMW" of computers.

      My early 2008 Macbook Pro has only 2 USB ports on it and the lame built-in display only goes up to 1440x900.

      Even low end Dells can have a screen that do 1920x1200. So no, that's not a BMW.

    14. Re:Apple prices by AppleOSuX · · Score: 1

      Why don't you compare machines at a price point that people actually buy?

      You won't get the same results in the $1,000 - $2,000 range.

    15. Re:Apple prices by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how the brand-name memory I buy from Apple is different from [same brand name memory, bought from NewEgg], please.

    16. Re:Apple prices by jabithew · · Score: 1

      I even had someone in an Apple store tell me that if I wanted more ram than standard then I should buy it from someone else

      I've heard a Genius in Regent Street (the flagship UK store) tell someone the exact route to another store which would sell and fit RAM for about 1/5 the price Apple wanted. Of course, if you can fit it yourself as I did you can get about 1/10th the price.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    17. Re:Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I've heard a Genius in Regent Street (the flagship UK store) tell someone the exact route to another store which would sell and fit RAM for about 1/5 the price Apple wanted. Of course, if you can fit it yourself as I did you can get about 1/10th the price.

      My Mac came with a booklet showing how to add RAM. And a genius at one store told me to go to this one store to have my hdd replaced with a bigger one. However Apple stores won't do this unless the hdd has to be replaced because it's bad. Mine was good I just needed a bigger drive.

      Falcon

    18. Re:Apple prices by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Why don't you compare machines at a price point that people actually buy?

      If people don't buy the computers from Apple and Dell I listed then why do they offer them? They offer them because people do buy them. For lower priced computers try this:

      iMac 20-inch with 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
      2GB 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM
      250GB Serial ATA Drive
      Total = $1,274.00

      XPS (Product) Red with 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
      2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz - 2 DIMMs
      250GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache(TM)
      Total = $1,099

      While the Mac is $175 more it has a 2.4 GHz whereas the Dell is only a 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo and the RAM is 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM whereas the Dell's RAM is 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM. Both the CPU and RAM are faster on the Mac.

      Falcon

    19. Re:Apple prices by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      Mac Pro: comes standard with 2 x 1GB sticks of memory - 800MHz, DDR2, ECC. Let's try 2 extra 1GB sticks of memory. Apple price? $500. NewEgg price for 2 x 1GB sticks of Kingston 800MHz DDR ECC memory? $67. So only 650% markup there, after all, Apple's gotta make money somehow, right?

      How in the hell did this get modded up? If you got to Dell or HP's website you'll see similar pricing. Put together a complete system with all the components and then compare price.

      Parent is just another of the million "Apple is too expensive" trolls.

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    20. Re:Apple prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's white has round corners and glows.

      GLOWS!
      Even the RAM glows, considering the MacBook cooling problems ;)

      Think different!

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL2l_Q1AR_Q&feature=related ;)

    21. Re:Apple prices by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      Read my comment. The point is that advertisements that I've seen in recent years have rarely included more than $1000 models. Hence, I would conclude that expensive PCs are rare and less popular.

      Most PCs are sold for much less than Apple computers (and have similar technical specs, but that's a different issue)

    22. Re:Apple prices by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      So to cut a long story short, tell me again how Apple isn't overpriced.

      As a package. The iMacs and some of the macbooks.*

      *IFF you are specifically interested in the exact hardware they're offering in those packages. And you need *all* of it. Including the built-in webcam, bluetooth, and wireless internet. (Have I missed any other price-justifying gimmicks?)

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    23. Re:Apple prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not start with a Dell PC, and configure an equivalent Apple for that? You can't? Bad luck, isn't it? You need a few billion dollars to buy out Apple, and then make it offer a PC equivalent to most Dell PCs. Not cheap, I would say.

  32. paying for two by falconwolf · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I just bought a car and want a different engine in my car. Why should I have to pay for the two engines when I'm only going to use one?

    You can sell the engine you don't want and someone can install and use it in another car. Try to install Dell's OEM version of Vista in another PC and there's a good chance it will not work.

    Falcon

  33. What kind of computer did they buy? by lifesizeactionfigure · · Score: 1

    It's time for someone at your work to get a lecture about the difference between a consumer PC and a business PC. HP & Dell offer business desktop machines and servers without Windows.

    Had they bought the machine SANS OS or with FreeDos or Linux they could have avoided forking out the coin for the extra windows license. (about $168 bucks these days)

  34. The whole thing's a scam by v1 · · Score: 1

    Theoretically, they have to refund the cost of Vista,

    That's what I was wondering about... we see stories around these parts from time to time about users trying to get a refund for the price of their bundled windows. On the rare occasion they manage it, it's a pittance, like $38 or some insulting amount. (they get back the "wholesale" cost, not the "retail" cost) Now MS has no obligation to return the retail cost, but then Dell needs to foot the remainder that they took as markup, and I don't think they ever have. So that model doesn't work.

    Retailers (like Dell etc or call them OEMs) should be required to be the ones to handle the return, not MS. MS shouldn't even be involved. Dell should refund them the cost of the license, and then Dell should go to MS to get THEIR compensation. But are they paying per license, or do they have a bulk sublicensing agreement? I bet the latter, in which case they couldn't ask MS for a penny back. No wonder they don't want to try this. That turns the $250 refund less $38 from MS, into just a $250 loss.

    The whole thing's a scam, and I don't blame MS. I blame the OEMs and their greed.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  35. An Optional Downgrade by DavidD_CA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these users *opt* to downgrade knowing there would be an additional charge?

    Not to mention that the charge is from Dell or HP or whatever OEM, and not Microsoft, but the customer opted for it.

    I'm sure there's a poor car analogy for this, but I don't even need one to point out how dumb this appears on the surface. Maybe there's just something I'm not seeing?

    --
    -David
    1. Re:An Optional Downgrade by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Of course she opted. She went to the Dell site, chose her laptop, and chose the "Downgrade to XP (add $49)" option. She chose it voluntarily, and then sued because she felt it should have been free, or cheaper. Bleh.

    2. Re:An Optional Downgrade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the law can't protect consumers for things they *opt* to do?

      Retard..

  36. ms at it again by emaname · · Score: 1, Interesting

    First of all, I can see that the m$ trolls are out in force trying to press everyone's hot buttons.

    It's more than a little obvious how wrong this is. As has been pointed out already, the cost of the MS Vista OS is already rolled into the cost of the computer (aka, ms tax). If MS Vista is not the OS you want, you should not have to pay to have the MS OS that you DO want. Especially since it's still available, ie XP. The cost of the OS has already been applied to the product. The fact that the retailer was stupid enough to pre-install Vista knowing how much people have spurned it is evidence of their own short-sighted ignorance. They should have to eat that extra cost of labor to remove Vista and install XP. And if MS is forcing them to bundle, then this suit is even more justified.

    Further, the original intent is to purchase a new computer, not a new OS. MS is trying to force people to switch to Vista and this is just another attempt. The customer should choose which OS (if any) they would like installed.

    If I'm going to buy a new computer and the only way the computer can be purchased is with win-D'ohs already installed, I will not buy it unless they discount the cost of the OS, the labor to install the OS, and the cost of all the paper work they must do to satisfy MS's requirements. Otherwise I buy a computer somewhere else.

    The car analogy that was used is not appropriate. When someone wants to buy a new car, they go looking for the most recent production-year cars. If they'd rather have an older model, they can easily get last years models by buying a used car. They aren't being forced to buy the recent production year. And by the way, they don't have to pay full price for the older car. Maybe nobody should have to pay full price for an old OS.

    This worn-out OS bundling strategy proves once more just how worried MS is. Now they're just desperate.

    --
    An effective "democracy" creates the illusion the people have a say in their government.
  37. This guy's a hero! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad someone is standing up to them. I just purchased a new laptop and I had to pay to have my rights stomped on (see Vista broadcast flag implementation). I just installed Ubuntu and I'm happy here. I only use Vista to play a couple of games Ubuntu can't run.

  38. Re:And for $20 more ... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Ah, YOU are THAT guy. Every thread has THAT guy, and you're it. You know, THAT guy. The guy who does THAT on every thread. If you're ever posting on a thread and you notice that THAT guy hasn't posted on the thread yet, that means that you are quite possibly THAT guy.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  39. Re:And for $20 more ... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    1) for Vista may be unavoidable, if your preferred hardware is always bundled with Windows. Here there is some truth to "Microsoft tax".
    2) is just plain stupid if you want to put Linux on. Just take the cheapest option and then reformat.
    3) is a company decision that could be reversed, in favor of something else. Here the only thing that can force you is that Linux or other alternatives don't support your software. Which would be a real advantage of Windows (disregarding for the moment that more Linux market share would lead to more software for Linux).

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  40. Re:And for $20 more ... by atraintocry · · Score: 1

    I don't understand. If you have a site license, shouldn't you also have media that accepts the license? Then as long as there are drivers for XP, it doesn't matter what OS comes on the hardware. Is it because of a warranty issue with the OEM or something that you're paying for the downgrade?

    I can't profess to understand the intricacies of Windows licensing, my place doesn't have enough machines to make bulk licensing worth my time. So maybe there's something I just didn't realize.

    Also, I'm not clear on what you're saying about running linux. You're not paying extra to MS to run linux, right? Just paying for Red Hat licenses or something?

  41. There is no Vista installed by HycoWhit · · Score: 1

    When you order a computer with the Vista to XP downgrade from a major manufacture, only XP is ever installed. There never is a Vista install performed.

  42. Re:And for $20 more ... by Exawatt · · Score: 1, Informative

    As a Staples retail employee I can tell you that that would not "cost extremely little to implement." There would definitely have to be a charge, to offset the time an employee would have to be away from the sales floor while wiping a computer hard drive.

    Also, we make very little (if any) profit on the computers we sell. Often times we sell a computer for lower than we purchased it (at a loss to us). We do this because the profit is gained from the protection plans, services, and peripherals (e.g. laptop bags and software).

    And it would "hurt other sales" when that employee isn't there to offer protection plans to customers making purchases.

    It'd be more likely that those who would gain from buying a clean computer are the same ones who would just buy or build their own custom computers.

    Also, as a side note, I'll bet that most of the customers who decide to buy an OS-free computer are the same ones who will bring that computer in a week later for EasyTech because they botched the install. This isn't to say that there aren't some who would benefit--just that the average user isn't one of them.

  43. Re:Am I missing something...? Unfortunately, yes. by Johnny+Loves+Linux · · Score: 1

    It should be my RIGHT to choose - ie. not to pay for Vista if I'm not going to use it.

    It IS your right to choose. And when Lenovo tells you that they're selling a machine with Vista on it, and you choose to buy it, you're making your decision. I know it may sound crazy, but if you don't want a PC with Vista, you shouldn't buy a PC with Vista.

    I'd be a bit more sympathetic if they didn't tell her it came with Vista, but that doesn't seem very likely. All of the machines on lenovo.com make it very clear which operating system they have installed. And when you buy a machine in a store, there's almost always a sticker on the box listing the OS, amount of memory, hard drive storage, etc.. She knew what they were selling, and she chose to buy it.

    The problem for this woman unfortunately is an old problem that Linux users have had to deal with for years, namely the issue of who decides what operating system, if *any*, is to be preinstalled on PC/laptop. In the case of people who just want to run Linux, Microsoft had a history of setting up deals with OEMs that charged OEMs a Windows tax on every computer they sold regardless of whether or not it had windows installed. For that reason among others, OEMs were (and some still are) reluctant to sell a customer a PC without an operating system or with a Linux distro installed as it would be an additional cost to the OEM.

    Ironically enough, in the case of this woman, she *wants* to do business with Microsoft she just doesn't want have to pay the *Vista* Tax in order to get XP preinstalled, which seems reasonable to me, as the OEMs already have a license for XP and the manufacturing set up to do XP preinstalls without additional cost to the OEM. As a Linux user I wouldn't want to pay any kind of Windows Tax, but I do believe she has a case and a reasonable expectation of winning this lawsuit.

  44. Add more to the Class-Action... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    She should be including companies like Dell and Gateway that sold machines with 1GB of RAM, and came with Windows Vista Home Premium (1GB of RAM system requirement) installed on it.

    Why the FUCK did they sell machines that couldn't do anything but turn on?

    And what about the middleman retailers that sold them?

    Windows Vista was a fraudulent, should-be-criminal mess that was started by Microsoft, spread by manufacturers, and perpetuated by retailers. They should ALL be held accountable.

  45. Re:And for $20 more ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).

  46. Re:And for $20 more ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    I want both XP and Linux so I can play games in Windows and do the rest of my stuff in Linux. That's why.

  47. Re:And for $20 more ... by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

    Are you sure you really have a site license? Most of the Microsoft agreements stipulate that you buy an OEM or retail license, and then you're covered for either upgrades OR downgrades, plus a variety of CALs. So yeah, paying extra for an XP downgrade was kinda dumb, they were probably covered. But I suspect that initial OS license had to be covered.

  48. I wish I paid by msblack · · Score: 1

    When I purchased my Lenovo ThinkPad 51 weeks ago, I sadly opted for Vista Home Premium because it looked like my work was ready to deploy Vista. Looking back, I wish I had paid the extra $18 to get XP Professional. With the sole exception of improved networking features, Vista has been a horrible experience. My decision had nothing to do with money.

    --
    signature pending slashdot approval
  49. Re:And for $20 more ... by kenj0418 · · Score: 1

    If they are making people pay more for Linux, then I can see that being an anti-trust issue.

    But if they are charging more for an older version that they'd prefer you not use - then that's just their marketing decision. Vote with your pocket book, and buy your PC elsewhere if you don't like it (or buy a Mac even).

  50. In violation of unfair practices? by dangitman · · Score: 1

    Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices?

    If Microsoft is guilty of violating "unfair business practices", then doesn't that mean that Microsoft is guilty of using fair business practices that conflict with Washington state's policy of unfair business practices?

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
  51. I bought a couple dozen machines for a lab by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1

    shortly after Vista debuted. I knew I didn't want Vista just yet -- if ever. But I also knew that you could legally backrev your Windows licenses (along with Office, etc.) to an earlier version. So I bought them with Vista pre-installed, formatted the HD of one of them, installed XP, etc., created an image of it, and deployed that image to the rest. Now I had my XP lab just as I wanted it, and I had Vista bought and paid for in the off chance Vista became desirable some day. You might think that's a lot of trouble to go through, but it was no more trouble than any other lab I've deployed -- I always wipe the factory install and deploy my own custom-built image. BTW, the lab is still running XP.

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
  52. Blaming Microsoft for OEM's fault by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    True.

    I worked in a small PC assembly shop briefly before. There was no support for Windows whatsoever. (OEM licenses are supposed to be supported by their PC manufacturers.) When customers had problems, the shop simply pushed the blame to Microsoft or viruses, and charged them $30 for labor charge to reinstall Windows. One staff even rebuked rudely, "Do you know how easy it is to corrupt Windows? Only 1 file!"

    There were other examples ... basically, we were giving as little customer service as possible, just enough not to end up in the small claims court.

    I left after a few weeks.

    1. Re:Blaming Microsoft for OEM's fault by despisethesun · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. I worked for Microsoft tech support and I can tell you that we were not allowed to push customer issues back to the OEMs unless we could be reasonably sure that the issue was with either the hardware or something specific to the OEM's configuration. On top of that, I regularly received calls from customers who were told by HP or Dell or whoever to call MS because it wasn't an issue on their end. The OEMs may or may not offer decent Windows support, but they're under no obligation to. All of the companies involved have strict support boundaries, and if something appears to be an issue with something one of the other parties is responsible for, the support call basically ends there.

      --
      This poo is cold.
    2. Re:Blaming Microsoft for OEM's fault by niw · · Score: 1

      No. I worked for Microsoft tech support and I can tell you that we were not allowed to push customer issues back to the OEMs...

      ... On top of that, I regularly received calls from customers who were told by HP or Dell or whoever to call MS because it wasn't an issue on their end. The OEMs may or may not offer decent Windows support, but they're under no obligation to. All of the companies involved have strict support boundaries, and if something appears to be an issue with something one of the other parties is responsible for, the support call basically ends there.

      If it is a bug in Windows sure, obviously the OEM can't fix it, but I was under the impression that the point of the OEM license was that Microsoft does not directly support it, and as such it is cheaper for that reason.

      According to this OEM license on Microsoft's website http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/default.mspx microsoft does not provide end user support for the license. In particluar section 7 states:

      7. End User Support. You must provide end user support for the Software or Hardware. You will provide support under terms at least as favorable to the end user as the terms that you provide to support any Customer System. At a minimum, you will provide commercially reasonable telephone support.

  53. Re:And for $20 more ... by ignavus · · Score: 3, Informative

    The market for computers without an operating system is zero

    Rubbish.

    Even in the consumer/home market a small portion of users want bare machines - and vendors do sell them that way. Try www.pioneercomputers.com.au who will sell you just about any of their models of laptop, desktop or server with Windows, Linux, dual-boot, or no OS (try the build your own option with almost any model). Most small vendors will sell you a generic unbranded or "house-brand" PC with no OS. I can easily find many vendors who sell desktop PCs without an OS.

    And as for servers, where Linux holds a significant portion of the user market, it is common to buy hardware without an OS. We do it all the time at work, because we put Ubuntu on almost all our servers now.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  54. Re:And for $20 more ... by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thank you. I was all set to defend the GP for knowing how not to use the word "myriad." I set out to find proof refuting your Wikipedia citation, and instead learned that I've been an ill-informed snob where this word is concerned for years. Seriously -- thanks.

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
  55. Re:And for $20 more ... by Matt+Perry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You can, however, put your own together for often somewhat less than the cost of the pre-made computer.

    Unfortunately, that's not an option for laptops.

    --
    Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
  56. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a Staples retail employee I can tell you that that would not "cost extremely little to implement." There would definitely have to be a charge, to offset the time an employee would have to be away from the sales floor while wiping a computer hard drive.

    Uh, are you wiping the hard drive by using a tiny magnet and flipping all the bits by hand? Typically, you just go out and find your favorite drive wiper, spend five minutes getting it started and then walk away for a few hours.

  57. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    the market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way

    Not true... we have a site license with microsoft for Windows XP and Vista. If a manufacturer *requires*
    us to pay them as well, we've bought it twice.

    Also, we buy lots of Dells with their DRAC cards (remote console, power, and other independent monitoring/control) just
    because we want a server with that feature, but we never need an operating system to go with it. (even if we did, we have site licenses for redhat linux, Microsoft windows variants, Sun solaris x86, etc... we'd be pissing money away if we accepted a bundled OS.)

    This certainly differs from the average household user, but many of those household users already OWN a license to Windows XP. They need not buy another one, but I'd recommend it just to have someone else go through the pain of initially installing it onto modern hardware.

  58. Re:And for $20 more ... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it would cost Dell more to offer a "blank hard drive" option, since with that option Dell would actually have to spend less time on those machines (not having to install an OEM copy of Windows).

    Not hard-pressed at all. Without an operating system, they can't install all of the crapware. And if they can't install the crapware, they don't get kick-backs from the crapware companies for putting the advertising on all the computers they sell.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  59. Booo..... by numbski · · Score: 1

    I just cannot believe this went un-remarked upon. For shame...

    --

    Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).

    1. Re:Booo..... by unlametheweak · · Score: 1

      Perhaps not sufficiently noticeable, but a Moderator did remark via a down-mod. Kids today! Reminds me of the time I went down to a demonstration and got my fair share of abuse.

  60. Re:drinks in coach airlines by bluetigerbc · · Score: 1

    love the analogies b/c they get the thought process going... if you buy a ticket for coach for $500.00 dollars you SHOULD DEMAND a free beer/glass of wine with your flight. ya that's right, DEMAND! I always thought it was extra too since those poor airline companies barely make it.....LMFAO My buddy flew to Japan and on Japan airlines the drinks are EXPECTED and FREE b/c you just paid hundreds for the ticket!!! So time to start demanding more free booze from the overcharging airlines. Least it's something other then the crappy food served to us. So 1st class gets free beer, doesn't mean coach passengers aren't ALSO paying TOO MUCH for the ticket too! DEMAND MORE BEER! Don't pay like a queer! Next time they ask if you'd like a beverage say YES, a nice BUDWEISER or CANADIAN would be fine and when they say 5 dollars FREAK OUT and ask to speak with their supervisor! :P actually being nicer gets you more but still, if they refuse then buy 2, drink one, dump the other down the back of the chair!

  61. Re:And for $20 more ... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

    No, the market for computers without an OS is most assuredly NOT zero. What's complete bullshit is that the computer is not somehow qualified to have a volume-licensed Windows installed on it. That is what's bullshit.

  62. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She bought "a new Lenovo notebook" and not a desktop machine. You cannot put together your own laptop at home and then choose the operating system.

  63. They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It amazes me how easily people in the U.S. accept abuse. "... businesses in the retail chain" sell what Microsoft gives them to sell. Microsoft has a virtual monopoly. Microsoft is able to force abusive practices.

    Microsoft DELIBERATELY released a KNOWN-BAD operating system. Why? To make more money.

    Read the story on Slashdot about the email sent by top Microsoft executives. They KNEW Vista was troublesome.

    And, they've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0 are only two examples.

    Microsoft 'Vista Capable' Settlement Cost Could Be Over $8 Billion

    HP's Fury At Vista Capable Downgrade

    Confidential Microsoft Emails Posted Online

  64. Fixed that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The summary, and many here are using the wring word! The correct word when going from Vista to Xp is *UPGRADE*.

  65. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by grub · · Score: 0


    why would you still want an archaic operating system anyway, unless of course you have low end hardware and/or amateur knowledge.

    Some dumb people still like Windows. Weird, eh?

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  66. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Wikipedia:

    In English, the term "myriad" is most commonly used to refer to a large number of an unspecified size. In this way "myriad" can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Thus both "there are myriad people outside" and "there is a myriad of people outside" are correct.

    (my own emphasis added)

    I was just wondering if you had a point, considering that even by your pasted wiki info, the parent poster's usage of "or any one of a myriad of other programs" was accurate. Perhaps you should double-check your snark before embarrassing yourself next time?

    --
    Posted as AC, without karma bonus, cheerfully awaiting the "offtopic" mods.

  67. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    You cannot put together your own laptop at home and then choose the operating system.

    I've done it a few times. Maybe YOU can't, but I can.

  68. Re:And for $20 more ... by grub · · Score: 1


    The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way.

    Dell's N series comes with no OS. OK, sure, you get a DOSish CD with it but the hard disk is clean.

    Not sure if they still sell them but we bought several at work for Linux & OpenBSD machines.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  69. Re:They've done it before: by Perf · · Score: 2, Funny

    Microsoft DELIBERATELY released a KNOWN-BAD operating system. Why? To make more money.

    Anybody want to buy a peanut factory?

  70. Re:And for $20 more ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do you have any hard figure on how much OEMs get paid for the crapware?

    Dell lets you opt out of most of the crapware, anyway... at least they do when you buy through their Small Business site instead of the Home & Home Office site (which everyone should, because Dell's Small Business computers often cost like $300 less for the same configurations).

  71. $1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by twitter · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Don't judge the victims, they don't know any better. It's amazing what a billion dollars a month in advertising will do to people. "Get the facts" and other smear attacks on competition do their damage. OEM and Vendor lock help to reinforce this. With every vendor robotically chanting, "We recommend Microsoft Windows" and never providing a fair price for any other OS, people believe what they have heard from everywhere else. With the FUD, many people are afraid a LiveCD will ruin their computer and think free software advocates are wreckless subversives, terrorists of the desktop even. This is how M$ has survived the last 10 years, despite the absolute panic free software caused in their upper ranks.

    It's all over now. No amount of lying can cover for Vista. Enough of the wrong words have gone into the right ears. M$ is out of money. OEMs have been burnt and see Windows7 as more of the same. Retailers are so dead, M$ is thinking about starting their own stores - oh please do! The revolt is on and M$ does not stand a chance.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:$1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "We recommend Microsoft Windows" and never providing a fair price for any other OS, people believe what they have heard from everywhere else. With the FUD, many people are afraid a LiveCD will ruin their computer and think free software advocates are wreckless subversives, terrorists of the desktop even.

      Right. I guess that explains why Dell sells Red Hat Enterprise Linux for substantially (2/3) less than Red Hat does, right?

      Oh, wait, it's twitter.

      Curious, what does your wife think of your obsession with this place?

    2. Re:$1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by ciderVisor · · Score: 1

      Curious, what does your wife think of your obsession with this place?

      This

      --
      Squirrel!
    3. Re:$1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Curious, what does your wife think of your obsession with this place?

      When she's blown up, or when she's folded under the single bed?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    4. Re:$1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by Risen888 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I don't get this obsession with twitter on this site. I've always thought that one of the greatest things about internet forums (fora?) is that we argue ideas, not people. (Yes, you did provide a refutation of the argument at hand, I'm not specifically talking about you here, just the whole anti-twitter brigade in general).

      What is it that pisses people off so damn much? Is it the whole sockpuppet/mod-gaming thing? I agree, that sucks and it kind of shows him as an obsessive lame-o, but so what? If I think someone's wrong (anyone) I argue the point. If my argument is stronger than theirs I get modded up and they get modded down. Isn't that how this is supposed to work? Why not just do that, then?

      (This is not a rhetorical post, I'd love it if someone could explain this to me, because it's always kind of been a mystery to me.)

      -risen (is a real boy, not a sockpuppet)

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
    5. Re:$1 Billion a Month in Dumb Down. by Risen888 · · Score: 1

      -1 Flamebait? That's ironic.

      --
      Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  72. Re:And for $20 more ... by Saffaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are forgetting that PC makers have to pay microsoft for windows whether their PC actually includes windows or NOT.

    Those are the terms to be able to sell windows on PC, if you don't like them as a maker, you are free to get windows from another vendor. Oh, wait, there is no such entity ? tough luck ... guess you're stuck with what is called the microsoft tax.

  73. Microsoft Sued Over Vista-To-XP Upgrade Fees by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

    There, fixed that for ya...

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  74. Re:And for $20 more ... by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    You see, Wikipedia fails. The article is saying that the following are both correct:
    "There are myriad people"
    "There is myriad people"

    While syntactically correct, both statements really do diverge from the typical use of the word myriad; it usually refers to a large number of objects, whose number greatly exceeds the numbers that we usually see people in. Furthermore, there are far more suitable collective nouns for referring to large groups of people, which makes the use of myriad in this context seem unconventional at best.

    E.g.,
    "There are myriad ways in which the word myriad can be used, but only a few of them are correct."

    The fact that I've been modded down and that Wikipedia gets it wrong is a fantastic illustration of where the internet fails; the collective vomit that Wikipedia often degenerates into is no substitute for expertise in a given field.

    The only time that myriad can be followed by the word "of" is when it is used in plural. E.g.,
    "The myriads of linguistic amateurs on Slashdot".

    I would encourage you (and the mods presumably) to look this up in a reputable English dictionary

    --
    I hate printers.
  75. Obligatory by daveime · · Score: 1

    Car analogy.

    You go to a car dealer, ask to buy the latest Toyota Landcruiser 2008 model, and then ask them to downgrade it back to the 2006 model by replacing the engine and removing the GPS computer. And you expect the car dealer to cover the cost of this.

    Sorry, but even if the XP downgrade itself should be free, there's still the time and labour of some geek technician in the computer shop to wipe the drive and reinstall the other O/S. It's just a sad fact of life that some people want everything for nothing, and an even sadder fact that they feel it necessary to sue if they can't get their own way. Something akin to a 3 year old stamping her foot ... petulant, that's the word I was looking for ;-)

    1. Re:Obligatory by StuartHankins · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy. In this case Microsoft, a convicted monopoly, through the use of contracts, forbade vendors who wanted preferred pricing (and marketing allowances) with selling XP on new machines.

      When the market rejected this approach, Microsoft decided they would sell XP but at an increased price, apparently in an attempt to force consumers to the new product, which many feel is inferior to XP and has reduced functionality. Most large businesses, including hardware and software manaufacturers, have rejected Vista on their corporate systems, and there have been many articles in the media concerning this.

      Microsoft charged consumers for the downgrade, which is in conflict with what they charged businesses (it was a free downgrade for businesses). I would argue that there was no substantive additional cost to Microsoft to continue to allow vendors to sell XP machines.

      Manufacturers already had the images in production, so I can't see any substantive additional cost to them either. Vendors such as HP offered the XP downgrade at no additional cost, which furthers this argument. If this were some small shop building custom machines and didn't have the level of sophistication to image the systems, I could see charging for labor, but that wasn't the case here.

    2. Re:Obligatory by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

      You're wrong due to one major point.

      Microsoft is NOT selling XP. They are making available a discontinued product as an additional NO-COST service if you choose to take advantage of it.

      While they restrict this no-cost service to only a few versions of their choosing, it's their option because it is a fully discontinued product.

      They're not charging extra, and they're not selling it anymore.

      Keep tossing out the "convicted monopolist" thing too, as i'm sure that if you look at their current policies and behavior since, they are less monopolistic than other "non-convicted" companies which have monopolistic behavior *coughapplecough* since the government intervened.

      You're living in the early nineties.

  76. Re:And for $20 more ... by niw · · Score: 1

    As a Staples retail employee I can tell you that that would not "cost extremely little to implement." There would definitely have to be a charge, to offset the time an employee would have to be away from the sales floor while wiping a computer hard drive.

    Uh, are you wiping the hard drive by using a tiny magnet and flipping all the bits by hand? Typically, you just go out and find your favorite drive wiper, spend five minutes getting it started and then walk away for a few hours.

    Well even five minutes would cost ~$10 to do it. And don't forget the computer has to be removed from its box and put back neatly, which adds more time to the operation.

  77. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Jurily · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft are within their right to no longer sell XP if they wish

    Yes they are. But they're not doing that. They're forcing their new product, knowing it's crap, and then offer XP.

    Update for Windows XP (KB959252)

    Install this update to resolve an issue in which you receive a 0x0000008e Stop error after you install security update KB954211 (MS08-061).

    2/6/2009

    That's not my definition of "archaic", sorry.

  78. Re:And for $20 more ... by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are going to buy pre-made computers with an operating system, what do you expect? The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way. You can, however, put your own together for often somewhat less than the cost of the pre-made computer.

    You can't even buy a computer WITHOUT an operating system even if you want, how to prove that the market is zero if the option is missing?

    We are paying Microsoft Tax - even if we don't use their operating system. And if we do, we may pay it twice because their licensing terms screws us.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  79. Re:And for $20 more ... by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1

    From Wikipedia:

    In English, the term "myriad" is most commonly used to refer to a large number of an unspecified size. In this way "myriad" can be used as either a noun or an adjective. Thus both "there are myriad people outside" and "there is a myriad of people outside" are correct.

    From the Oxford Dictionary http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/myriad?view=uk :

    myriad

    /mirid/ literary

    â noun 1 (also myriads) an indefinitely great number. 2 (in classical times) a unit of ten thousand.

    â adjective innumerable.

    â" ORIGIN Greek murias, from murioi â10,000â(TM).

    I'd trust the Oxford over Wikipedia on this one.

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  80. Re:And for $20 more ... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    If they're selling your product then yes, in a lot of cases, they should punish the company because MS doesn't just sell something to retailers and then disappear. They have input on how their product is sold and probably certain requirements that retailers must abide by. This is supposedly to keep things fair so retailer A doesn't get upset by retailer B and his better deals for your product.

    Sure the retailer sold the product but almost certainly under MS' terms so MS is the one at fault.

  81. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (my own emphasis added)

    I was just wondering if you had a point, considering that even by your pasted wiki info, the parent poster's usage of "or any one of a myriad of other programs" was accurate. Perhaps you should double-check your snark before embarrassing yourself next time?

    --
    Posted as AC, without karma bonus, cheerfully awaiting the "offtopic" mods.

    I was just wondering if you could check who he was replying to. Seriously, if you're not going to browse at 0 or -1, don't assume a post is replying to what appears to be its direct parent if it isn't.

  82. Bad lawsuit, instant loose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows is the property of Microsoft and they can choose to sell anyone license whenever they want. If you don't like it, switch to OSX or Linux.

  83. good luck winning agains MS in Seattle... by wheels4me · · Score: 1

    Winning a lawsuit against MS in Seattle for selling XP at a premium would be like finding Exxon guilty of price-gouging in Texas. That is not going to happen. Had she filed in California, her chances of winning would have gone up tremendously.

  84. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. I'm pwned. My bad.

    In addition, I was wrong about the usage of the word "myriad" in the first place. Corrected twice, and I should really double-check my "jump to conclusions" mat.

    Thanks for pointing out my stupidity (insert sheepish grin here).

  85. Re:And for $20 more ... by SL+Baur · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you are going to buy pre-made computers with an operating system, what do you expect? The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way.

    That's not even close to reality.

    Any major company with a Microsoft site license has no need of a computer preinstalled with a Microsoft O/S. The first thing they will do with the equipment is wipe out whatever is there and install the offically approved corporate version.

    The most vocal and most numerous of the Microsofties here say that the first thing one needs to do with a crapware infested preinstall is wipe it out and install from different media or from a pirated version.

    Of the two work machines I have, there have been 6 microsoft license fees. 2 preinstalls (both wiped), 1 Microsoft Windows 2000 (enterprise site license), 2 Microsoft Windows XP (enterprise site license, 1 presumably an upgrade for the older box) and 2 Microsoft Vista (enterprise site license, unused as the company has not deployed Microsoft Vista). Neither of those machines run Microsoft Windows in any version today, thank God.

    In Manila, you can walk into any commercial computer store and be offered a menu of choices that runs something like Microsoft Windows or Linux preinstalled and no O/S installed (Free DOS) at about a 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 ratio.

    To say that there is *no* market for computers without a preinstalled O/S is disengenuous at best. Unless maybe you're suggesting that people in a 3rd world country are more tech-savvy than people in the United States. Are you?

    Microsoft has built a business around selling people the same thing, over and over and over again regardless of whether it is being used or not. If that's OK with you, more power to you. Count me out please.

  86. Wikipedia == FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that I've been modded down and that Wikipedia gets it wrong is a fantastic illustration of where the internet fails; the collective vomit that Wikipedia often degenerates into is no substitute for expertise in a given field.

    The latter is certainly true. Wikipedia is an extraordinarily poor source of data. The fact that you got modded down though is not so much pointing to failure of the internet so much as the fact that there are a fair number of rabid Wikipedians who infest this site.

    I think you're being too nice. Wikipedia is crap.

    If you're researching something, read something else first and only look at Wikipedia if you get desperate. When you do, assume it's wrong. Occasionally you may be surprised and find something valid there, but don't hold your breath, it doesn't happen very often.

  87. But for euro100 less ... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way.

    Curiously, I bought one that way just a few weeks ago. It was offered with Vista-SomethingOrOther preinstalled, but the shop also sells it without Vista and knocks euro100 off the price (I opted for them installing a second 1TB disk instead of the discount).

    Then you get to choose how to put an operating system on it.

    Simplicity itself. It took about 1 hour for a largely unattended install from CD of Ubuntu 8.10 64bit (plus formatting time for the disks). This included getting updates over the network (we have a fast link). Ubuntu recognized and supported every bit of hardware, including the dual monitors on the graphics card.

    Now how many people can actually do this? Oh, maybe 1%.

    Don't underestimate people, or the ease of installation of modern Linux distributions. The majority of people between 15 and 50 could probably manage quite well, and a decent fraction of those between 50 and 70. Of those aged 70+, it might be 1%, I'll grant you. To get a PC connected to internet, no further configuration would be needed after installing Ubuntu.

    Since I have a home LAN with server, network printer, and a few PCs, I had to do some post-install steps - add more users & groups (easy), configure NFS (not particularly challenging) and install HPLIP, which automatically found our network HP printer/scanner/fax and set up the new PC to use them. These steps would have been necessary on any OS, and would not have been any easier.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:But for euro100 less ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish Linux installations were easy. I have 3 PC that I have a hard time installing on. All 3 are less then six years old. One I was able to use a live cd (Knoppix on, but install crashes. A 2nd I have only been able to install xubuntu on, and the last I can't get anything to work on. I like Linux, but you you want a easy for everyone to use pc, you have to go with Windows, or OS 10. I have installed linux before, but with newer distributions you have to have good hardware.

    2. Re:But for euro100 less ... by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I like Linux, but you you want a easy for everyone to use pc, you have to go with Windows, or OS 10. I have installed linux before, but with newer distributions you have to have good hardware.

      Your experience is probably not typical. In addition to the new quad-core PC and the server, we have three other PCs on the home LAN. One is a ten-year-old Dell with 450MHz P3 and ATI RagePro graphics, which has been upgraded to have 384MB RAM. It runs Ubuntu fairly well, and previously had PCLinuxOS (which is also a fine distribution). The other two are both five years old and run Ubuntu very nicely - one is a Dell GX with 2GHz P4, nVidia graphics and SB Audigy sound while the other is a Sony VAIO laptop with 1.6GHz Pentium-M and Radeon 9700 graphics, each with 1GiB RAM. They all work perfectly under Ubuntu, with all hardware supported "out of the box".

      I have never had an issue with installing Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS on a PC, whether new or old. I have heard of misery caused by Broadcom wireless LAN cards, but not much else.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  88. Re:And for $20 more ... by pkphilip · · Score: 1

    If you have a site license for XP, you can directly install XP on the computers. Why did you have to pay the downgrade fees?

  89. Re:And for $20 more ... by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

    and yet strangely someone bothered to translate anne rice into danish, and i doubt that even one percent of the danish are interested in buying those books.

    let me know if this is too subtle for you.

  90. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think you are going to get anywhere selling a product that only 1% of the people in the US can actually use?

    I agree with the rest of your post but this is a little silly. I don't see the prosthetic limb industry going out of business by any means. Or pizza places that restrict their delivery range to a few zip codes.

    Just because your customer pool is smaller doesn't mean you can't run a business. It's a different market, certainly, and you should adjust your advertising, prices, etc. accordingly, but that doesn't mean you can't run a happy profitable business selling things that some people still want.

  91. No such work was required. by argent · · Score: 3, Insightful

    RTFA. Lenovo didn't provide a breakdown of the fees, but Dell did: their charge was $20 for installing XP *instead of* Vista, and $130 for providing a Vista license (which the user didn't want) as well.

    This is a situation where the car was built with no engine, and the work required for installing either engine is the same, and there's zero warehouse costs for the engine, and the car manufacturer wanted and asked the engine manufacturer to keep the right to install the 2006 engine, but the engine manufacturer said they were only allowed to install the 2008 engine even though it had lower fuel efficiency and significantly reduced the car's performance and maneuverability.

    1. Re:No such work was required. by daveime · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but surely in the case of XP, everyone says THAT is the one that has the better fuel economy, and improves performance.

      So you want what YOU consider to be a "better" operating system, but you want to pay LESS for it than the current piece of crap they are trying to force on you.

      Something like asking a Porsche dealer to sell you a Carrera for $3000, because they want you all to drive Volkwagen Beetles costing $6000.

      I'm all out of car analogies for one day. You could say I've lost my drive.

    2. Re:No such work was required. by argent · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but surely in the case of XP, everyone says THAT is the one that has the better fuel economy, and improves performance.

      Um, yes, that's the one I'm talking about. Learn to read, idiot.

      Dell charged people *upgrading to XP* $20 for the upgrade and $130 for a copy of Vista they didn't want *in addition* to the copy of XP they were actually using.

    3. Re:No such work was required. by wlovins · · Score: 1

      Actually, the cost isn't the same.

      For every new computer model (new/upgraded parts and versions of drivers), computer manufactures test the builds. This means that, as opposed to testing and certifying Vista with the NVidia 9800 card, they have to certify the machine with XP. This does add additional cost and time before they can sell it. Multiply this one factor over every component they offer and the cost does become very high. To use your example: It may be zero cost in storage once the engine is developed, but in this case - the cost to redevelop and test the engine every time a new spark plug model comes out isn't zero cost.

      After that, add additional support costs for personnel as supporting multiple operating versions with vastly different quirks (I'm talking about Vista here) and you incur even more overhead.

      Support organizations tend to prefer a single or at least uniform support model for individual products when possible to limit overall costs. Assuming that there are two groups to support the different operating systems (some for Vista and some for XP), having a single person out of one group makes support times longer and raises costs because you need to then keep even more people staffed to cover employees who aren't able to work (sickness/vacation/whatever).

      True, there will be some people who can support both products, but not every support shop has a phone queue that can or will have some people in the queue for XP, some for Vista support, and some that can do both. A separation of expertise is sometimes very useful as the people who focus on a single product become better able to support that one product over time. Take the finance person in an office who can't change their windows resolution, but can tell you the most obscure piece of information about Excel. They focused on a single product and became experts at it.

      What I'm saying is... there isn't a zero cost involved here.

    4. Re:No such work was required. by argent · · Score: 1

      It's Microsoft that is forcing them to do it, though. The manufacturers *asked* Microsoft to let them keep shipping XP. It's Microsoft that's saying "you have to support both operating systems, or just Vista, even if your customers are asking for XP".

    5. Re:No such work was required. by wlovins · · Score: 1

      True, Microsoft and vendors do have contractual agreements on how they can sell software.

      I think the telling point is that the manufacturers asked to keep shipping XP. I understand their reasons, but no one is forcing anyone to do anything here.

      Customers do not have to purchase machines from vendors with an operating system.

      Vendors do not have to sell XP, though they do (for valid reasons).

      Microsoft doesn't have to offer XP at all, but they have business reasons to sell newer versions of their software - additional/improved features, increased stability, etc.

      Yes, I agree that Vista isn't better than XP in a lot of areas, but Microsoft developed a newer version of their operating system in the somewhat misplaced belief it was better.

      At the end of the day, no one forced anyone to do anything here. Dell/Lenovo/HP did not have a gun put to their head to sell XP. They decided to do that themselves and they must accept the costs involved with that business decision.

      Lastly, I will say that I find it disagreeable that Microsoft would include language and provisions that would require the vendor to purchase two licenses (XP and Vista) when only one would be used (XP). Microsoft made a business decision to deter people from sticking with their previous operating system which the vendors accepted. Personally, I don't think they did anything legally wrong... just morally. I suppose that's just one of many reasons why I'm not running Microsoft.

  92. Re:And for $20 more ... by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

    The market for computers without an operating system is zero, so nobody sells them that way.

    Apart, from ALL THE SERVERS I'VE EVER BOUGHT?

    --
    "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  93. Re:And for $20 more ... by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Many site license agreements are actually "upgrade from whatever version of windows came preinstalled on the machine", so strictly speaking you have to buy a preinstalled machine...

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  94. Who cares? by alukin · · Score: 1

    Who really cares that M$ doing that or that stupid thing? Do not be silly moron and just do not use Windows. It's a shame for IT professional to be bound totally to one's company bad product.

    1. Re:Who cares? by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

      Right. You could go OSX and not be bound to one company's prod--- oh.

    2. Re:Who cares? by alukin · · Score: 1

      Even more. You can go to a lot of Linuxes and BSDs and forget about Win. The problem is monoculture. The problem is software vendors that support only one vendor's OS. Do not sue M$ for crap they sell. Sue your software vendor that does not support Linux and pushes you to buy Windows to use that product. For example, "Motorola phone tools" is soft you need to work with Motorola phone. It is win-only soft. It does not run on other platform, say wine or Linux. So you must buy windows to work with your phone. Sue Motorola for pushing you to buy another product you do not want.

      If i were an American citizen , I'd sue every company that sells win-only stuff.

  95. Outside of Windows IT you mean? by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    I'm in IT and get along swimmingly with the 1.6GHz and 1GB RAM in my 3-year-old Inpsiron. Of course, it has Fedora ... so I'm actually using its power for work ...

    Also last week I put Ubuntu on a friend's 2yo laptop and he couldn't stop talking about how much more responsive it was than the XP that used to be on it.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  96. Silly Suit by Frihet · · Score: 1

    The suit is, of course, silly. The right thing to is to avoid doing business with the idea monopoly. Alternatives exist. Those who are tired of seeing their basic rights chipped away by creeping lobby-law and the vending machine at the USPTO must make the effort (and it is an effort) to avoid these companies. You know who they are. Read the EULA. Is it DRMed? Does it come with a root kit? Take a serious look at FOSS and see if you can get by now and help to advance it. Your freedom to think, innovate, and prosper in a free economy depends upon this.

  97. Re:And for $20 more ... by lordtoran · · Score: 1

    There exist quite a few online stores offering neatly refurbished and tested second-hand laptops. Even if such a laptop comes with Windows preinstalled, it is the previous owner who paid for the license - thus, no tax implied!

    --
    Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
  98. Re:And for $20 more ... by skroops · · Score: 1

    Whatever.. I just built an inspiron 1525 on the small business site, and it cost almost $100 more than the same PC 4 months ago that I bought from the Home site. Also the only crapware I could opt out of was an ISP. You're right that sometimes you get better deals from the business page of a dealer, but it's not a rule.

  99. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Anpheus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So Microsoft should be forced to sell XP indefinitely and provide support for it indefinitely?

  100. How about this by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sell computers with whatever you want installed, but require an activation key to be typed in in order to use it. Sell the activation key for an extra fee at checkout. If you don't activate, you're free to wipe your computer and use it as you wish.

    Kind of like when you get a new credit card in the mail. You need to call an 800 number before you can use it.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    1. Re:How about this by niw · · Score: 1

      Sell computers with whatever you want installed, but require an activation key to be typed in in order to use it. Sell the activation key for an extra fee at checkout. If you don't activate, you're free to wipe your computer and use it as you wish.

      But then Windows isn't free!! We all know that a computer is useless with out Windows, so why bother selling the computer without. Just have the OEM give Windows to the user for free anyway.

      :)

      On a serious note, I have seen customers that for some reason think that the 60-day trial of Norton (or McAfee) that is bundled with their computers is all they ever need for AV, even if the software complains at them for 2 years! that it's subscription is out of date and to upgrade the subscription (seriously, a computer that I was working on, on Saturday, had its last definitions update mid 2007, and the customer brought it in because it was "acting funny").

  101. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep telling yourself that and you'll believe it.
    I work in a place with about 450 employees and 500 various computers running. All open source. OpenOffice for the secretaries, some open source financial stuff another group maintains. All in all we have 6 IT people for the whole place starting salary at $65K. Sure, we could have 15 Windows people running around making $40 but we're better off.

  102. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Mattsson · · Score: 1

    No.
    That's not what this is about.

    If they stopped selling XP, that would be within their right.
    You can still buy XP with a new laptop, thought.
    It's just that you can not buy XP without also buying Vista.
    That is what they shouldn't be allowed to require.

    Either sell us XP or don't sell us XP. Don't sell us XP only if we also buy Vista at the same time.

    --
    /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  103. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rightbias.com has a picture of my girlfriend, upper left.

    I wouldn't advertise that if I were you. She looks like she's had so much plastic surgery that she's forgotten what her face looks like.

  104. Re:And for $20 more ... by Mattsson · · Score: 1

    The market for computers without an operating system is zero

    That is only true in the private consumer-market.
    Anyone who has a site-license for their OS of choice, has no interest what so ever in having an OS license shipped with every single computer they buy.
    Also, most places that have a site-license never buy DIY hardware.
    If HP, Dell, etc, started offering their professional lines without any OS at a slightly reduced price, I'd bet that most site-licensees of Microsoft products would choose that option.

    --
    /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  105. Don't tell them about OS X by toby · · Score: 1

    ...or you'll be permanently out of a job.

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, because the average consumer can afford $1000 for a laptop and...what $2500 for a desktop that actually has an expansion slot? The reason Apple is hip is because it is expensive, same reason as Ferrari. I live next to a college with a good 75% Apple to PC ratio, and while they can't tell WHY an Apple is good or WHAT makes it hip, they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs. When have you seen that with a Windows user?

      In fact now it has become a pissing contest with the "Macbook Pros" VS the "Macbook Airs" with both thinking they are better than the other. Trust me, if they sold Apple computers for the same price as Dell they would go down in flames just as Porsche nearly went broke when they tried to sell a cheap sportster. Why? Because it ruined the exclusivity and thus the "cool factor" of owning a Porsche. That is why Apple will never sell "to the masses", because it will kill their high margin business selling to those that buy for the name, like BMW and Mercedes Benz.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by atraintocry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      they can tell you down to the last penny how much it costs

      It's a lot easier to keep track of one company's pricing than 10, especially when they only have 5 or so different models on the floor.

      All I can say is, try using OS X before you assume the only thing Apple has going is polish. There's no good reason to judge a computer system based on who's using it rather than its technical merits. Reading the pro/anti-Apple posts on here makes me think we're back in the days of people flaming each other over BBS because someone had a Commodore and someone had a Tandy.

      Anyway, how can you say that Apple doesn't sell to the masses? It's not like it's this boutique product that only 2,000 people have ever used. They have close to 10% of the market.

    3. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, just as I'm sure a Ferrari is a damned sweet ride. I simply pointed out that the "unwashed masses" can't afford it and that is EXACTLY the point. If they actually WANTED more than 10% of the market the could lower the margins they are making per unit and sell them cheaper. But if anything they will go UP, not down. Why? Because the more expensive a Ferrari or BMW is the "cooler" and more "exclusive" it is, and the same goes for Apple. If you don't believe me go to a local college that has a high Mac ratio and talk to the kids.

      Oh and see what they drive, because it ain't Chevy unless it is followed by Corvette. Most of the Mac users here are divided between BMW and super badass sports cars, like Porsche and Japanese exotics. They ain't driving no Ford Taurus. Does it make those cars bad? Nope, those cars are pretty badass and I wouldn't mind having one. But just like the Mac Air they are being bought for the name, and being good is just a bonus to those guys. And considering how many Macs are on the campus I would say they are a good representation of the Apple market. But the simple fact is ANYONE can afford a Windows box. Hell you can get one for $150 used that'll do what most folks want their PC to do. You will never find a Mac that isn't old as dirt for that price. That is why Windows has the low end market locked. That and the fact that Linux don't work with the crap you find in Walmart, but that is another story.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      Yes, because the average consumer can afford $1000 for a laptop and...what $2500 for a desktop that actually has an expansion slot?

      Yes, because the average consumer has so much need for an expansion slot.

      Let's just say it's no surprise a professional PC repairman doesn't understand why Macs are appealing. This amateur PC repairman is very happy that most of his friends and family have move to Apple though.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    5. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      If you are talking about the Mini, please. The mini is a joke. You know it, I know it, pretty much everybody knows it. No way to add a graphics card(which is my most popular upgrade by a long shot) and the only way to add a capture card is by USB(my second most popular upgrade), which frankly sucks. It is also overpriced and underpowered compared to what you can get from Dell, HP, pretty much anyone who isn't from Apple.

      Hell look up some of old Steve Jobs past speeches. He makes it pretty clear that he doesn't WANT the Windows users. And frankly why should he? Just like people will pay crazy money for the latest hip brand of sneaker, even though parts wise they are made from the same crap as your $50 shoe, so can Steve sell parts that Dell would sell for $500 for $1000. Hell if I could sell with that kind of margins don't you think I would jump on it? You'd be crazy not to! Just accept the fact that the Apple brand is an exclusive brand, just like BMW and Mercedes Benz. Why do you think there are clones? Maybe because those that would like something that PCs have had for 20 freaking years like an expansion slot aren't being supported? If they weren't priced so high there would be NO clones, because there would be no market for them. Why buy a knockoff if you can buy the real thing? But most folks CAN'T afford the real thing, hence the knockoffs.

      Tell me something, why must Apple guys always feel guilty and try to make excuses for the fact they use an expensive brand? Do you apologize for the car you drive too? The profit Apple makes by keeping the margins high as they do pretty much means the rich elite will stick with Apple, so we know they will weather any financial crisis. Look at Dell and the others laying off folks left and right. I haven't heard about Apple needing to do that. That is good, right? So just as you shouldn't apologize if you drive a 944, don't apologize and make excuses for Apple. They know they are for the high end and frankly they like it that way. And your unwashed Windows masses will NEVER be able to afford to get the same functionality they get from a $499 Dell from Apple. Because a desktop with the same is.....what, $2499 or something like that? Damned good money if you can get it.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of the iMac? You know, the best-selling desktop in Apple's lineup.

    7. Re:Don't tell them about OS X by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      I'm not apologizing, I'm pointing out that you have a skewed view of what average consumers want out of a computer. Expansion slots, really? How high do you think this is on most people's list of features and benefits?

      Besides, if cheap PC's are good enough for people, why do you keep getting paid to do all those upgrades?

      Hell look up some of old Steve Jobs past speeches. He makes it pretty clear that he doesn't WANT the Windows users.

      Right, that's why Apple spends millions on "Get a Mac" commercials that specifically target Windows. That's why they've built out a retail strategy that sells about half its computers to people who do not currently own Macs. Clearly they don't want Windows users.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  106. Re:And for $20 more ... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    I would encourage you (and the mods presumably) to look this up in a reputable English dictionary

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.

    Some more: Cambridge

    Oxford

    dictionary.reference.com says:

    Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives." This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word mÅrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mÅrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mÅrias was used only in poetry.

  107. pretty easy? by toby · · Score: 1

    They got away with murder.

    Nothing has changed. Still the same monopoly, still the same criminal tactics.

    Thankfully the EU is less tolerant of corporate crime.

    --
    you had me at #!
  108. let me be the 100th person to mention it by toby · · Score: 1

    Paying twice for the same "benefit" (if running Windows can be called a benefit). Or, put another way, being forced to pay for something you can't use. (Monopoly effects.)

    --
    you had me at #!
  109. only one thing to say by toby · · Score: 1

    Bwahahahahah hHAHAHAHAHA Bwahahahaha AHAHAAHAHAH Hhahahahahah HAHAHAHh LOL

    --
    you had me at #!
  110. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  111. Re:And for $20 more ... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

    > There are hundreds of companies that sell PCs with Linux pre-installed.

    Is that hundreds of "real" companies that will still be there when you
    are ready to buy your next upgrade? Or is this hundreds of fly-by-night
    little cottage operators that may not even be there next month and are
    not likely to be trusted by many Linux or Windows users?

    One guy in a strip mall that won't be there next year really doesn't count here.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  112. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I keep hearing this argument that OEM's get loads of money for all the crapware they load on to new machines, but I never see any real figures to back this up.

    I personally find it hard to believe they get more than half the cost of OEM Windows back, so can anyone provide real figures for what they get from installing all the trial software?

  113. Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like hypergolic flamebait.

  114. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, actually you were originally right. Then what happened was someone edited the Wikipedia article for a joke, the other "reputable" sources copied the Wikipedia article without fact checking, then Wikipedia cited the reputable sources which copied Wikipedia, then it became true. All hail the power of Wikipedia.

  115. Re:And for $20 more ... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

    As a Staples retail employee I can tell you that that would not "cost extremely little to implement." There would definitely have to be a charge, to offset the time an employee would have to be away from the sales floor while wiping a computer hard drive.

    1. I don't know if the GP was referring to brick-and-mortar big box stores like Staples. I wouldn't think it would sell terribly well there, for one thing. But Dell or something, certainly.
    2. You know, they do sell hard drives that already come like that. Probably even in the same aisle of the store.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  116. Re:And for $20 more ... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

    It's pretty common among local brick-and-mortar places where I live too (Minneapolis, ftr). They won't put them on the floor of course, but typically all you have to do is ask. For my own part, I'm a Linux desktop distributor, and although I don't sell machines with Windows preinstalled, I'll certainly sell it bare with a Windows CD (or, needless to say, without) if asked.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  117. Re:And for $20 more ... by Risen888 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Buy a damn soldering iron, you lazy shit. I do it.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  118. Re:And for $20 more ... by Risen888 · · Score: 1

    Not at big box stores, of course, because they know which side their bread is buttered on. Go to a local shop and ask for one. It's not as hard as you might think.

    --
    Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
  119. Re:And for $20 more ... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Troll

    Who cares. Her vag is TIGHT.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  120. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are companies who offer laptops with no OS. Like Novatech in England.

  121. Re:And for $20 more ... by PuppeteerJPV · · Score: 1

    Yes you can. It just sucks for you that you're not as tech-savvy as I am.

    Wiki "whitebooks."

  122. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just like to add that comment was a joke, in case it was a little to subtle.

  123. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Well good for you, but aside from costs there is no reason not to use windows.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  124. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    It's not Microsoft's fault if people don't know how to use their computers. You may or may not notice how its called "Vista" not "XP Vista" there is a good reason for this.

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  125. hyperbolic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you mean hyperbolic, which is somewhat hypocritical comming from a twitter hating AC. It's amazing how you people waste your lives taunting twitter. There are five sock puppet repplies above and almost every twitter post draws the same kind of shit. Day or night, you people are obsessed, sick and depraved. Please find help for your condition and learn to enjoy your lives doing productive things.

    1. Re:hyperbolic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone was wondering, the pp spelling error is a twitter trademark, so you can all move on - there is still nobody rational defending twitter.

    2. Re:hyperbolic by Marzo · · Score: 1

      As an adjective for flamebait? I think he did mean hypergolic.

  126. Arnie by arnierosner · · Score: 1

    When faced with this situation I purchased a MAC. MAC = 1 Microsoft = 0

  127. Re:And for $20 more ... by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    You'll notice that I did use the word "often" when describing the $300 price difference. You're absolutely right that it's not a rule, but (in my experience) it's fairly reliable in the long run. YMMV.

    And for reference, when I bought a laptop from Dell Small Business last week, I was able to opt out of the "productivity" software (Office or Works), antivirus, and ISPs. I don't think there's anything else you would want to opt out of, except maybe the Dell-branded media and recovery stuff they install.

  128. Vista Home / XP Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is that the user is FORCED to pay for a downgrade from the _default_ operating system. By default, to compete on price, you are given Vista Home edition. The user is not offered a downgrade to WinXP Home edition but is forced to upgrade to a higher version than they need just so they can downgrade to WinXP Pro.

    Microsoft "officially" did away with WinXP Home so that a free downgrade was not possible.

  129. Re:And for $20 more ... by johnnymar · · Score: 1

    Actually, as an entrepreneur, I'd be glad to fight for a market of 30 million people -- assuming I had a good product or service those people want.

  130. Re:And for $20 more ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People in 3rd world countries, I believe, are very savvy computer users. As a US citizen I believe the 1st world roots of the market give 3rd and 2nd worlders strong incentive tp reap the financial benefits of understanding computers. In the us, for example, I commonly see computers replaced simply because "I don't know, it just wasn't that fast anymore and I wanted a new one.".

    This is actually to techies' advantage as it means lots of free computers.

  131. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of support does Microsoft currently provide?

  132. Re:And for $20 more ... by Exawatt · · Score: 1

    1. I realized there were other options after I posted. I've worked there too long, and sometimes forget that there's other ways to get computers. :P

    2. They're actually a couple of aisles down. But seriously, there's a problem with that: The computers already come with hard drives. So, we'd have to do even more work to take out the hard drive, open a new one, switch the drives, etc. It'd take more time than a format (in which we would set it up and may be able to walk away). Actually, we already do the drive swapping... It's just considered a computer part install; the customer still has to purchase the hard drive (variable price) and pay for the service ($50).

  133. Re:And for $20 more ... by Exawatt · · Score: 1

    We can't "use our favorite" anything. Only what we're provided. It's inefficient, but protects the company.

    And five minutes is a poor estimate. Another poster mentioned set-up, which is probably two or three minutes on its own. There would also be paperwork to be done, and a 5-10 minute explanation what we're doing (to protect the company from idiot customers). The software we would have to have specially made (see first paragraph), will predictably be slow and a real pain in the ass. This is also hoping you don't get called to the floor while setting it up.

  134. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Blackhalo · · Score: 1

    "So Microsoft should be forced to sell XP indefinitely and provide support for it indefinitely?"

    How about, they can cease support once they open the code?

    --
    "There is nothing to do it. But to do it." -Floyd Pepper
  135. chant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ubuntu... Ubuntu... Ubuntu...

  136. Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking twitter!

  137. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it all about cost and productivity?

    What do you think GP's company saves in Windows costs, Office costs, etc every year. Many many thousands of dollars. Not to mention the money saved in not buying AV scanners, spyware crap, etc.

    Still, you're a good troll.

  138. Re:They've done it before: Windows ME and DOS 4.0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait wait you really think you cannot buy XP anymore....... Ok then how did I just buy 3 versions of it last month for new builds then?

    Microsoft is profitting NOTHING from this the OEM's are! Dell recently tripled the price to "Downgrade" to XP. I didn't see the price of XP licenses jump, did you? It is the price the OEM is incurring from users who didn't take the time of day to see what the new OS was about.

    This person has no case.......

    The only people who I see that have a case are those who are actually buying Vista before March 1st. That is another day another story though....