No More Fair-Price Refund For Declining XP EULA

mark0 writes "Getting a fair-price refund from Amazon or Asus after declining the Windows XP EULA appears to be a thing of the past. In contrast to reports from the US and the UK from earlier in the year, Amazon simply refuses and provides information to contact Microsoft. Asus is offering US$6. Despite being confronted with publicly available information about the real OEM price of Windows XP Home Edition being $US25-US$30, Asus replies, 'The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way.'"

Comments

Old OS

[sopssa]

What, we are talking about XP here? It was released in 2001, 8 years ago. As much as I'd like to join for a good bash, 8 year old software that since then has got several new versions will lose its value over time. And you also have to remember that major manufacturers who sell millions of Windowses have got the licenses cheaper, hence the actual cost and the refund being a lot less than if you bought it yourself.

I dont except to get a same kind of refund value for my 15 year old SDTV either than I would get for my new HDTV.

Re:Old OS

[caseih]

Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Manufacturers who still sell XP are also probably getting them dirt-cheap now. The blog post linked in summary is from 2006, before Vista and way before Windows 7...

Re:Old OS

[Mithyx]

If you can buy XP for 25-30$ I'd love to know where you're getting it.

Re:Old OS

[CrimsonAvenger]

I dont except to get a same kind of refund value for my 15 year old SDTV either than I would get for my new HDTV.

So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?

Brand new table, buy for $1100, return it, get $200? I think not.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

while I might agree in general its worth noting that netbooks are still sold with windows XP as part of them. thus part of there price, what ever fragment it might be, is the XP licence.

Re:Old OS

[sopssa]

Even if it's just that sticker and license you hold, it still contains the value. If you decline it, you are not legally allowed to use the software.

Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows. Or you can read the EULA online before buying it. Or ask to read it in store.

Windows XP has started to lose its value because the support is discontinued, so the "software doesn't get old during time" doesn't fully hold.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you've confused SDTV with SUV.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows.

As far as laptops go, that is a bold statement. Some web shops sells laptops without Windows but finding an actual shop selling laptops without Windows is, in my experience, impossible.

Re:Old OS

[sopssa]

The manufacturers are getting the licenses at different price than consumers, and it can be different price for different companies too. Besides that like someone said, the ~$30 per OEM license price is taken from a blog post from over 3 years ago - the price is most definitely different now.

Re:Old OS

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, there is something similar that occurs in software, called "bit rot". The older a piece of software is, the more security vulnerabilities have likely been found in it, making it a bigger and bigger target so long as it is in continued use (obviously, now that Windows 9x's user base is about 3 dozen people, they're not much of a target anymore).

This is true of MacOS X, Linux and Windows. If you install a new copy of Fedora 8, you are going to have a ton more security patches to apply than a recent Fedora 12.

Re:Old OS

[caseih]

You misread me. I never said you'd still be able to use Windows after getting a refund. Rather I was pointing out that no material goods change hands. They don't resell your license per se. They just invalidate it. Then they go on to sell XP on another machine for the full prices. So it's not like they are buying back an old license and then trying to resell it at some used market value. There is no used market involved at all.

So if the full price really is $45 today, then a refund should be just that. $45. Not $6. Depreciation has nothing to do with it.

Re:Old OS

[value_added]

It was released in 2001, 8 years ago.

A fairer and more broadly accpeptable calculation of how old XP is would be to determine the date large OEMs stopped shipping PCs with XP installed.

Put another way, from a consumer's perspective, XP is as old as his new computer. From a corporate perspective (both the cubicle-worker and the IT folks), XP is as old as the date testing was finished and deployment was given the go ahead.

Re:Old OS

[Z00L00K]

The big problem here is that you may not have any choice when buying a computer. It may already come preinstalled with a kiloton of junk that I don't need.

You may say - select a different model - but then I don't get the model with the functionality/hardware I want/need.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be worse. He could have confused STD with SUV.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

What, we are talking about XP here? It was released in 2001, 8 years ago. As much as I'd like to join for a good bash, 8 year old software that since then has got several new versions will lose its value over time.

Actually, XP has increased in value - MS refuses to sell it any more, thus raising the price of the remaining stock out in the market.

And yes, I know there still are ways to get XP through various license schemes, and some OEMs still offer it...

Re:Old OS

[sopssa]

OEM's can sell it at that price - of course, they usually sell it with hardware that they make the actual profit from.

Re:Old OS

[iron-kurton]

Came here to see a car analogy, and only in the second post *walking away happy as a pig in mud*

Re:Old OS

[Annymouse Cowherd]

I would not be surprised at all if the amount the OEMs pay for a Windows license is $6

Re:Old OS

[Lord Byron II]

The problem isn't that the license isn't available pre-purchase, but that it isn't mentioned pre-purchase. A lot of this could be avoided if the laptops at Best Buy had little stickers on them that stated "The software on this computer is subject to an EULA that limits your rights. Ask a sales associate for a copy of the EULA prior to purchase."

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 for spelling, +1 for intent. My mod points have run out, but the thought is true.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when its advertised as coming with $200 worth of software?
The MS EULA says you get a full refund and I bet the other software does too.

If they offer you $6 it would be false advertising.

Re:Old OS

[Tim C]

My Standard Definition TeleVision contains all that stuff? No wonder it's so much bigger than those new High Definition TeleVisions!

Re:Old OS

[cboslin]

Here are six great options, ZaReason, Inc: Building Linux hardware so you don't have to

Here are six more: System 76 laptops

Did you even try to look? Most people do not even try.

The biggest mistake any consumer of PCs, laptops, towers, etc can make today is to buy any hardware from a vendor who does not understand and do Linux. This goes for all the big box stores and even Dell, they only pay a passing glance to Linux and do not really do it right, as experienced by Linux being buried down in their website and not prominently marketed on their main page from the start.

If you are foolish enough to purchase from anyone but a Linux hardware computer builder, you will be frustrated with needless vendor lock-in issues meant only to keep you a Microsoft Windows users, period.

Here is the rub, Every Linux PC can run Windows. Because of Vendor Lock-In, not every Windows PC can run Linux.

Even the most devout Windows / Microsoft FAN can NOT deny that simple fact!

Moral of story: Eventually a proprietary company will STOP supporting what you purchased attempting you to pay more for new equipment. Your only choice for that older, yet very useful, hardware is to KNOW you can run Linux (any distro, there are many). Even if you do not want to run Linux, by purchasing hardware that will, you will be in a position to donate that older hardware to non profits that will get Linux up and running and donate it to third world countries so children can learn.

There is NO downside to purchasing hardware from a Linux vendor. There are almost ALWAYS vendor lock-in hardware issues from any of the big box stores and anyone who only does Microsoft.

Use the two vendors ZaReason or System 76 above, you will be glad you did, and you will help out children in third world countries one day when you upgrade your hardware, as the hardware your purchased will run Linux.

Re:Old OS

[mybadluck22]

The Apple Store.

Re:Old OS

[drinkypoo]

So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?

Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.

Re:Old OS

[cheftw]

Well Acer offered me 40 euro for vista a month ago, but said I'd have to pay them 50 to remove it.

Consumer rights are fairly low on the agenda here so third party help wasn't much use and so I have one tasty vista license to cover my Arch and Ubuntu installs.

Life isn't fair, software licensing doubly so.

Re:Old OS

[nog_lorp]

Like the 5th post of the first... 6 or 7 I've read to ignore the line in the summary saying "Despite being confronted with publicly available information about the real OEM price of Windows XP Home Edition being $US25-US$30".

Re:Old OS

[houstonbofh]

Did you read the parent post? He said there were online vendors, but no local shops. You posted online vendors... I do agree with the reasoning after, however.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

the price is most definitely different now.

citation please.

I see no reason to assume these OS purchases are not still being executed under the same contract that was in place 3 years ago

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, but what is the net after you include the shovelware?

Re:Old OS

[click2005]

and you should get the full value for it.

The EULA says you'll get a full refund but doesn't say exactly what that means. It could be the full price the OEM paid for it.
Its funny how almost everything else in the EULA is carefully defined.

EULAs in these situations are invalid and unenforceable here in the UK so I wonder how this would affect getting a refund.
That is assuming the retailers know the law (most dont).

Re:Old OS

[AlXtreme]

the ~$30 per OEM license price is taken from a blog post from over 3 years ago - the price is most definitely different now.

This is probably the case, MS has dropped XP costs significantly in order to get it pre-installed on cheap netbooks.

I recently sent an OEM Vista Home Premium serial/license back to MSI, they said that the refund would be between $15-$25 which seems reasonable.

MS is pushing Windows 7 hard, but doesn't mind cutting the price of their older products if that keeps them entrenched in the market.

Re:Old OS

[thomassnielsen]

A more likely explanation is that Asus pays just $6 per XP netbook license. They will refund their expense, not the cost of an OEM licence at Amazon.

Re:Old OS

[MightyYar]

"The software on this computer is subject to an EULA that limits your rights. Ask a sales associate for a copy of the EULA prior to purchase."

I'd go a step further - I should not be able to complete the purchase without explicitly agreeing to the contract. If they sell me something without me first agreeing to additional terms, then I should just be constrained by the statutory license.

Re:Old OS

[Atti K.]

This brings up the question: can I buy a Mac and then request a refund of the full retail price of Mac OS X, stating that I decline the OS X SLA (Software License Agreement, as they call it)?

*chuckles*

Re:Old OS

[morgan_greywolf]

Who cares about local shops? I've bought every single computer I've purchased in the last 10 years online, whether that entails buying parts or complete systems from vendors like Dell. My employers have also bought all their computers online (mostly from Dell or HP). The cost savings is real, even including shipping. All major laptop vendors (Dell, HP, Apple, Asus, Lenovo, Toshiba, etc.) sell online at prices that put anything you can buy in the store to shame. Why pay full retail?

Re:Old OS

[Sir_Sri]

Not really a different issue. How much does an 8 year old game sell for at retail (unopened). A 'collector' item, it's a lot. Daikraptana and it's probably 2 bucks. The linked price in the article simply doesn't apply anymore, it's from 2006. 3 years on windows XP is worth basically nothing. Whatever they had to pay 3 years ago, before Vista and 7 were out doesn't matter.

Your concept of value is missing the notion of liquidation - at this point the company is liquidating it's stock of windows XP keys, and their value is virtually nothing. Digital goods do depreciate just like physical goods, because price is supply and demand, and demand is almost none for XP now.

Re:Old OS

[drinkypoo]

This is probably the case, MS has dropped XP costs significantly in order to get it pre-installed on cheap netbooks.

I have here an Acer Aspire D250. It shipped with Windows XP... but it's not XP Home, or XP Pro. It's "Windows XP Home Edition ULCPC" (If I'm reading it right; it's a cheap paper sticker and everything but the actual registration key is rubbing off.) AFAIK that means it's a lower-cost version of Windows XP Home; I believe the only difference is the price paid by the OEM (this edition not being available in the retail channel.) So unless it's this particular low cost version shipped with netbooks, then the license cost probably has not dropped much. Windows wants OEMs to ship Windows 7 (and formerly, Vista, like my LT3013u came with. Errrgh.)

Re:Old OS

[BenoitRen]

You're talking about an OS that has gotten its third Service Pack only about a year ago and that still gets patches. To say it's 8 years old based on the release date of the release of its first iteration is misleading.

Re:Old OS

[mdwh2]

Putting the EULA on a website is irrelevant - it's still only presented to people after purchase.

By your logic, MS owe me a million dollars, because the EULA on my website says that's what MS agree to do if they sell me any software. It's no good telling me they weren't aware of the EULA, they should've read my website, or asked to read it when I bought it in the store...

Re:Old OS

[Grimbleton]

"What works for me had better work for all of you!"

Re:Old OS

[mugurel]

Here are six great options, ZaReason, Inc: Building Linux hardware so you don't have to [zareason.com]

Did you even try to look? Most people do not even try.

Did you even try to look? Three out of six are out of stock...

Re:Old OS

[jo_ham]

I suppose you could, since the EFI and all the fancy bootloader stuff is in the hardware - I'm just not sure you can install Windows onto a Mac without using Bootcamp to prepare the machine in the first place, since it comes from Apple with the drive already formatted in HFS+.

I'm not sure you can just put the Windows install disc in and tell it to just clean format the while drive - I think Bootcamp has to make the initial partition for the Windows disc to format or the machine just won't boot in the first place.

Maybe you can do it with a Linux install of some flavour.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

IT'S OVER 9000!

Re:Old OS

[Atti K.]

In theory Vista and 7 have EFI support... Anyway, what I meant with the question is that how would Apple handle such a request. I guess the answer would be something like: "Sorry, it's a package deal".

Re:Old OS

[WCguru42]

Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.

I'm sorry, but software does lose value over time. The value of Photoshop 2.0 is not equal to the value of photoshop CS3. Photoshop 2.0 isn't even worth it's original MSRP because more advanced packages have been developed. Going back to car analogies, if I maintain a 2000 Ford taurus to be at the exact condition it was when I bought it new it still won't be worth the price I paid for it back in 2000. Newer technology makes older technology less valuable.

Re:Old OS

[jo_ham]

Aye, that was my eventual point - I think Apple would say "it's not possible to install a different OS onto a Mac without booting the factory-installed copy of OS X at least once, thus you have to agree to the EULA" or something like that.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP has a point in regards to not being able to find a windows free computer. Sure, it might be difficult at a brick and mortar store but that doesn't mean it's impossible to find. It's not fair to complain that you can't find a honda because your dodge dealer doesn't sell hondas when there's a honda dealership 2 miles down the road.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

walking away happy as a pig in mud

Nothing like a pig simile to top the day after a car analogy.

Re:Old OS

[nurb432]

Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.

Are they actually charging, or is it just passed along from Microsoft as a 'license fee'? With all the funny stuff that goes on with OEMs, i was just curious.

Re:Old OS

[Tracy Reed]

Not at all similar. Any defects are present in software from the day it is first shipped. The bits don't actually rot over time. Unlike in a car where the car is pristine when it rolls off the showroom floor but does actually rot over time.

Re:Old OS

[gslavik]

What about simply installing Linux? Boot from CD and no need for bootcamp or anything like that.

Re:Old OS

[westlake]

Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all.

Then I should assume all my old PC games won't have the least problem running on a multi-core 3 GHz CPU with a DX 11 graphics card.

That the upscaled low res sprite animation of The Dig will be tolerable at distances of less than 10 feet.

That color palettes designed for dithering on a low res CRT will display properly on the 47" LED wide screen.

Software may not decay physically.

But it does age - and it does lose its value. XP was a good choice for the first generation Atom netbook.

That doesn't make it the best choice for netbook security in 2010, the dual-core netbook CPU, solid state drive, DX10 ION graphics, power management, wireless networking, etc., etc.
   

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, have you seen those prices??? I can get a Dell/HP laptop for cheaper (similar configuration to the cheapest model on the websites) and install Linux, even without any refund from HP/Dell for kicking out Windows...

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

One small advantage to British / Australian law :- You can't "sign away" your rights. Thus the default consumer protection rights still bind the vendor - things like "fitness for purpose" etc.

EULA's are a joke, they're equivalent to a post-sale condition on the contract of sale - and if tested they would be found to be in breech of contact law - namely that you can't add clauses to a contract after the fact.
Put another way, they're an entrapment - they threaten to prevent you from using *your* legitimately purchased item if you do not agree to their terms - this is called coercion, and is another reason for EULA's to be invalid - that a contract agreed to under coercion is invalid.

If you read the EULA's closely, what they are asking you to agree to is to waive the default consumer protections enshrined in law. Along the lines of "don't expect this product to do anything useful, you're agreeing not to hold us responsible when it wastes your time repeatedly and/or breaks your hardware and/or deletes your data. Your license to run this software simply means we won't prosecute you for having it - you agree that you have paid for this and not an item fit for any particular purpose. We have your money now, in return for a promise and about $5 worth of plastic/paper. ha ha ha."

I believe that if software is a product, it should be held to the same standards as *everything* else that money can buy. Otherwise it's much more fair to pay for programming as a service, a model that OSS encourages. If you paid for it, then whoever you paid has an obligation to *have done* a competent job to construct what you paid for. MicroSoft to date has not done this - they have been the example of an apparently successful software engineering company that ignores all engineering practice and standards, and have largely succeeded by not having been called up on this. *Engineering* is, after all, much more expensive than getting technician-level people to just throw together something that sometimes works.

Re:Old OS

[T-Bone-T]

If you think about it for a second, that part of the EULA is carefully defined to not be explicit.

Re:Old OS

[Pyrion]

How does the pricing scale when bulk ordering is taken into account? I can believe the OEM price of a single license of XP Home Edition being around $30, but I would have a hard time believing that OEMs aren't getting significant discounts for bulk orders.

Re:Old OS

[Pyrion]

Up to a point. if you maintained a 2000 Ford Taurus to be at the exact condition it was when you bought it new it'd be worth far more than the price you paid for it a long time down the road, simply due to historical value. You'd have something that few others could claim to have, and it'd be in perfect condition. For the sake of context, try finding a copy of Star Trek: Birth of the Federation for sale, and try not to be surprised at how much it costs, despite being an old, outdated game out of print.

Re:Old OS

[IICV]

Actually, there is something similar that occurs in software, called "bit rot". The older a piece of software is, the more security vulnerabilities have likely been found in it, making it a bigger and bigger target so long as it is in continued use...

That is entirely not what bit rot means. The canonical definition is here. You may be referring to software rot, but it doesn't really mean that either, since both refer to software that hasn't been used for a while and obviously does not apply to Windows.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

as old as the date testing was finished and deployment was given the go ahead.

No such date exits in a meaningful sense.

Re:Old OS

[qurk]

Today Woot.com has for $650 a much nicer computer than those listed at much lower prices. 1 HP Pavilion dv7-1261wm Dual Core 2.2GHz Turion, 4GB DDR2, 500GB HD, Gigabit LAN, BluRay, eSATA, HDMI That's pretty nice, and it can upgrade ram to 8 gb even. I'm all for supporting local or online linux only vendors, but when the prices are like double...sorry. Windows tax or whatever, sometimes it comes in handy to have a valid windows liscense.

Re:Old OS

[qurk]

I forgot to mention a 17" screen. Even the $1000+ laptops on those linux websites were for a 14 or 15 inch screen.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting point. There're two different forces at work here - the purely pragmatic force of value for purpose, and later (when your Taurus becomes a vintage model) the scarcity value. If you define value as "ability to perform its stated purpose" then a 2000 Ford Taurus will always be less valuable than a 2009 Hyundai i30, regardless of what some collector is willing to pay for each.

Re:Old OS

[masterzora]

So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?

Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.

Actually, the parent means marketed. Yes, spam was first marketed marketed more than fifteen years ago and the price has gone up. That's wonderful. However, if I bought a can today and, for whatever reason, returned it to the store, I expect to receive a full refund of the amount for which I bought it, not some lesser value since the spam is now worth less.

Now, the spam example was terrible since, unlike OSes and tables, since those are relatively large purchases that you only need once every several years (for some sliding value of several), whereas spam ostensibly fits in as 'food', which you generally buy for 3 meals plus snacks or so per day.

Re:Old OS

[rdebath]

This is why, under British law, I always say if I don't want windows up front. They, frequently, point at the EULA and state I can get a refund. Because of this I can, even if the EULA is invalid.

Verbal contracts are as solid as the tape they are recorded on. (Probably)

Re:Old OS

[jo_ham]

I mentioned that in my original post - I think that might be a way to do it.

Re:Old OS

[Patch86]

The only minor point is that it tends to work out a lot cheaper to buy a PC with windows pre-installed than it is to buy a Linux box and an off-the-shelf copy of Windows to install on it.

If you want a Windows PC then it makes good monetary sense to buy it pre-installed. Not good hardware sense, as you point out, but that's still a compelling reason for the masses to ignore your good advice.

Re:Old OS

[lukas84]

All the parts online shops here have at least one or two store locations, were they sell OS-free self-assembled computers. Some of them sell barebone-based laptops, which you could purchase without Windows. All In-Store.

Lenovo also offers all it's laptop with FreeDOS as an OS option, though that's always a BTO option.

Re:Old OS

[ProfessionalCookie]

By your logic...

I like it! We need more guys that think like him.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

They have glossy displays, and are thus, unuseable. Nice try, though.

Re:Old OS

[El Gigante de Justic]

Just to play the Devil's advocate here, two counter points:

1) Anyone who has purchased or installed any software, including freeware, in the last 15 or so years would know that almost every piece of software sold today has an EULA, so you can't really cry foul anymore when you get an EULA at install or initialization. Most EULAs are available online prior to purchase so there's no excuse for not reading it in advance if you're concerned the terms of the EULA would cause you to stop installation after purchase.

2) 99.5% of people wouldn't bother to ask about or read the EULA in store, just like most consumers don't bother to read them now. They just scroll through, if required, maybe spend 5 second skimming through the legalese, and click Accept. I'd guess that even most slashdotters don't throughly read every EULA, they probably skim for one or two particular points and accept.
      In general, the only time an EULA is actually read thoroughly is when it goes through a corporate legal department for approval.

Re:Old OS

[Civil_Disobedient]

Newer technology makes older technology less valuable.

OK, so what's the newer technology? Windows XP x64 runs fully 64-bit, is compatible with all software out today (if not more compatible), suffers from less code bloat and runs faster.

The appropriate analogy would be Ford selling me a car today that uses twice as much gas to cover the same distance, but has a shinier new stereo system. I would contend that my older Ford is actually worth more than the latest piece of dogshit they're trying to cram down your throat.

And the support argument is similarly bullshit. Not that I dispute the fact, but that it is completely self-serving.

"We at Microsoft recommend you use this new version of the software because we at Microsoft have decided we don't want to support this older, better software that you already own."

Re:Old OS

[vegiVamp]

Umm... bitrot refers to decay of media, not bugs found over time.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting the EULA on a website is irrelevant - it's still only presented to people after purchase.

By your logic, MS owe me a million dollars, because the EULA on my website says that's what MS agree to do if they sell me any software. It's no good telling me they weren't aware of the EULA, they should've read my website, or asked to read it when I bought it in the store...

This sounds familiar...

"We are the Vogon Constructor Fleet here to demolish your planet to make way for an intergalactic highway bypass. We are sorry if this is an inconvenience for you, but the plans for the highway have been on display at your local galactic magistrate for decades and you had plenty of time to appeal. Have a nice day."

Re:Old OS

[RemyBR]

Then you just buy the parts and build your own. Actually you can probably build a superior spec for less money that way.

Re:Old OS

[orngjce223]

And if the Honda dealership is 100 miles away and doesn't let you test drive the cars before you buy them?

Re:Old OS

[SkunkPussy]

"Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows. Or you can read the EULA online [microsoft.com] before buying it. Or ask to read it in store."

The argument people make is that you buy the laptop, walk out of the store, then after you've already completed the transaction you are then asked to agree to additional terms in the EULA after you have already completed the contract. Some people would reason that if they bought a washing machine they wouldn't be required to agree to onerous terms post-purchase before being legally able to use it, so why should another piece of hardware (a laptop) be different. Furthermore (although I have not checked myself), I understand that the XP licence explicitly states that if you do not agree with these terms you should return the licence to the vendor and you will receive a refund.

Re:Old OS

[Z00L00K]

Won't work for laptops.

And depending on where you live you may not be able to get any other option on a laptop than windows.

Re:Old OS

[cboslin]

Oh, okay, 3 at ZaReason and 6 at System 76, so we are down from 12 to 9 possible laptops...of course both companies have desktops and towers as well.

The point is that if you buy from one of these two vendors you will have a PC that not only runs Linux, but can run Windows if you want too. No Vendor lock-in is all that matters. Period.

I would also recommend that you get as much memory as you can regardless of the Operating System you plan to use. Sure Linux runs in 128MB or 256MB of RAM, runs well in 512MB of RAM...but very well with 1MB or more. That is not even the important part.

What is important, is if you do not get the memory when you get your system and years later you decide you want more memory (for caching on a server or for Video Editing or for heavy Graphics processing) you will probably eventually need the memory anyway, so bit the bullet and get it on the front end. Granted for servers we are not talking a typical laptop are we...

So you have 9 Linux options (minus the "three out of six are out of stock") and none of them vendor locked in; that is the point!

Re:Old OS

[cboslin]

Cheaper in the short term, to buy Windows pre-installed, but the frustration, aggravation and hassles related to Vendor Lock-in are to be avoided at all costs.

Eventually that version of Windows will NOT be supported, unless you want an expensive paper weight (with a cheaper version of Windows on it) its best to ignore all hardware from big box stores and vendors that do NOT do Linux.

Besides have you looked at the prices at ZaReason and System 76 for pre-built Linux PCs, even with shipping you are way ahead of the game.

Just do yourself a favor, get as much memory as you can afford as later you will be glad to have it, no matter which operating system you are planning to use. Adding hard disk space via internal / external / external - usb is a piece of cake and most plug and play with Linux today, though it will not be advertised on the box in the store.

The point is to avoid vendor lock-in that only comes with a pre-built Windows PC...buy Linux first and you know your safe!

Re:Old OS

[Richy_T]

Interesting question would be what would happen if someone hacked up a Windows install disk where the EULA was editable or perhaps contains text about allowing the software to be installed as many times and wherever the user wanted. If activated with a valid license key, if clicking on "I agree" is the user agreeing to the contract then Microsoft activating the product must count as their part of the agreement, right?

Re:Old OS

[cboslin]

$650 for a laptop that most likely vendor locks you in to hardware that will only run Windows. You just can not be sure if you do not purchase from a Linux Vendor.

I checked on Pricegrabber.com for that model of laptop, it was $100 more from one vendor and $200 dollars more from another vendor...not that, that matters as if the hardware is designed for Windows, it might not run with Linux. Maybe it will, maybe it will not.

The only way to be sure is to purchase from a Linux vendor and buy Windows separately, even if it costs you $130 - $200 for that copy of Windows. Personally I do not think Windows is worth that, but that is only my opinion.

As for the Linux laptops being twice as much, you are being misleading and you know it.

ZaReason: $349 (10.2"); $699 (14"); $699 (15.4", out of stock); $799 (14"); $899 (12" out of stock); $1299 (15" out of stock)

System 76: $359 (10.1"); $789 (12.1); $879 (13"); $769 (14"); $779 (15.6"); $1299 (15.6")

In both cases, with both companies, only one of the many options was priced at $1299 ("when prices are like double").

Note none of the Linux options have larger than 15" monitors...I hook my 10" Asus Eee PC to my 22" monitor when at home anyway and use a 4 port switcher to switch between my netbook, desktop or two servers (internal at home use only) so I would not pay extra for a larger monitor anyway. I know I am in the minority there. And when I travel, I only take the Asus Eee PC, works great for what I need to do when I am traveling and does not require an extra case for the nickel-dime charges with the Airlines. A HUGE plus!

The only point is vendor lock in, if you buy Windows pre-Installed you might be prevented in running Linux. If you buy Linux pre-Installed; you can always run Windows.

Vendor Lock-in stiffles innovation and has for over a decade now, aren't you tired of this crap yet? Its been over 20 years for me and I am so over the vendor lock-in crapola!

Re:Old OS

[N!k0N]

personally, I like the old (as in '9x) editions of Office -- if you don't agree to the EULA Contained on the CD, DO NOT break this sticker, and return the product... note that the sticker held the CD jewel case closed...

Re:Old OS

[metamatic]

Have you read that EULA? Right at the top it says:

YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE.

So the EULA itself says that I agree to it when I install or use the software; therefore, I do not agree to the EULA by buying the machine.

And the EULA itself says that if I don't agree to it, I can return the software (not the hardware, just the software) for a full refund.

Re:Old OS

[WCguru42]

Up to a point. if you maintained a 2000 Ford Taurus to be at the exact condition it was when you bought it new it'd be worth far more than the price you paid for it a long time down the road, simply due to historical value.

And I would contend that XP is not at the point where it has historical value. Much like a 2000 ford taurus is not a vintage car and would not be that valuable. If it was a 1960s mustang in mint condition that's something else, but XP is not that.

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most of the people who ask for a refund are specifically the ones who have read the the EULA beforehand (and especially noted that it says "YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND").

Re:Old OS

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you actually read the EULA? It specifically says "full refund". That means how much I paid for it, not how much they paid for it. That's the $45 that the customer had to pay extra, not the $6 price they happened to pay for it. These contract-breaking companies need to be made an example of in courts.

Re:Old OS

[mr_matticus]

No, because the purchase includes the OS. You're not required to agree to the terms or to use the OS, but you're not entitled to any sort of refund. Same goes with your GPS--it comes with software. You may choose to purge the internal flash memory and install your own software, but that choice does not come with a refund. Buy a digital camera from Canon, and you can use their included software or not, but you don't get a refund for the included software because you didn't want it--no money changed hands for it, so its refundable value is $0.

You can request a refund of Windows because Microsoft doesn't sell the PC--someone had to pay to create a bundle, driving the actual cost of the machine up through an actual business transaction. If Microsoft gave Windows away for free, or if Microsoft sold you a Microsoft-branded box, the refund value would, like with Apple, be $0.

When you purchase an Apple machine, there is no purchase making a secondary bundle. The added cost of the OS is $0. The machine also will always carry that original factory OS license as an option to all owners of the machine. Just take a secondhand Mac to an Apple store. For a nominal fee, they'll replace the original restore discs and/or put the machine in a bootable configuration. You won't have to buy a retail packaged OS unless you want to upgrade to something newer than the factory version.

Re:Old OS

[man_of_mr_e]

Try again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rot

"Bit rot, also known as bit decay, data rot, or data decay, is a colloquial computing term used either to describe gradual decay of storage media or to facetiously describe the spontaneous degradation of a software program over time. "

Re:Old OS

[vegiVamp]

And here's the rest of that line:

'The latter use of the term implies that software can literally wear out or rust like a physical tool. More commonly, bit rot refers to the decay of physical storage media.'

Then, under "Problems with software", the article begins with:

'The term "bit rot" is often used to refer to dormant code rot, i.e. the fact that dormant (unused or little-used) code gradually decays in correctness as a result of interface changes in active code that is called from the dormant code.'

Nowhere is there reference of the number of security vulnerabilities that have been exposed over the years.

Re:Old OS

[man_of_mr_e]

A security vulnerability is incorrect code. It conforms to that definition. Time passing causes more information about the correctness of the code to be revealed, which is akin to rot.

Markups

[Jiro]

Why should they be given the wholesale price anyway? The markup the consumer pays is evenly divided among all parts of the computer; if the consumer gets a refund on any particular part, he should get a refund with the post-markup price.

Re:Markups

[Jiro]

Or to put it another way: suppose the consumer returned the entire computer. Should he be only given the wholesale price of the entire computer back? Or should he get what he paid for it?

Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly. Just because the retail-price-as-a-component of Windows is hidden within the price of the whole thing doesn't make it equal to the wholesale price. If the components of the computer cost $500 wholesale and he paid $1000, he should also get twice the wholesale price of Windows if he returns it.

Re:Markups

[hedwards]

Why shouldn't they? If the manufacturer doesn't offer the opportunity to get a full refund on the OS, when you reject the EULA, then you're not subject to the terms of the license. Which is bad for MS and presumably the manufacturer. The full refund is what you get for not accepting the licensing agreement on the OS which puts you in more or less the same position you would be had you not been forced to by Windows.

Failing to give a full and complete refund for the license is almost assuredly a violation of antitrust law.

Re:Markups

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, quite a few places have "restocking fees", which basically means yes.. they do give you about wholesale price back.

Re:Markups

[sopssa]

The thing is that the actual Windows license is most likely sold as a much cheaper price and the other components are making the profit for that. It is the same issue how consoles are sold (at least first) - the actual hardware profit is negative, but the console manufacturer gets their income in game sales.

When things are sold in millions counts, and when theres incentives and cheaper prices available for manufacturers, it's not as black and white.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

The Windows 7 (and perhaps also Vista) OEM EULA has some different language than the one for XP. It says

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You
must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the
entire system on which the software is installed.

I don't know if that's legitimate, but if it's enforceable, it means you no longer have the automatic right to return the software.

Re:Markups

[Annymouse Cowherd]

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Which begs the even better question, why should he be allowed to return only a small component at all? You bought the license, if you dont want to use it thats fine. Plenty of people buy cars with built in OnStar or Satelite radio that dont use it, will $MOTORCOMPANY refund you the price of the onstar/sat license?

Re:Markups

[Thinboy00]

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

I can think of three responses:

Tying is an unlawful monopolistic behavior.

The engine is an integral part of the car. The OS is just a set of instructions that the computer executes.

Do you know that you can't refund the engine?

Re:Markups

[PhunkySchtuff]

Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly.

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold water.

Say I purchase a laptop that's got an external optical drive bundled, it's part of the package and not a separate configure-to-order option. If this optical drive sells for $150 separately, then there's no way I can purchase this laptop and say "I don't need this drive, I want a refund on it" and get $150 back. It simply doesn't work like that.

Re:Markups

[icebraining]

Did your engine come with an EULA you had to accept? Mine didn't.

Re:Markups

[the_womble]

If I buy a new car, when I first put the key in the ignition, does a notice pop up saying: "you must agree to the terms of use of the engine before you can start it"?

Re:Markups

[baudbarf]

Imagine that, after buying the car, you turned the key to start the car and instead a lawyer popped out of the glove box holding out a contract insisting that you were not allowed to start the engine unless you signed it. That's not fair. You have to be permitted to decline that contract, and if the engine manufacturer refuses to let you use that engine as a result, they should buy it back from you.

Re:Markups

[JStegmaier]

When you buy a car, you don't have to agree to a separate license to use your engine, a license which restricts your freedom and that was not made available to you before you purchased your car.

Re:Markups

[houstonbofh]

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

I have never tried it on an engine. I have done it with wheels, stereos, and body parts. (Like ugly wings)

Re:Markups

[Bert64]

Those car companies won't stop you removing the unwanted equipment from the car and selling it to someone else...

Re:Markups

[Golden_Rider]

The old windows license agreement told people to "give the CD back for a refund" if they did not want to use Windows, but it seems the new license agreement as quoted above is a bit more detailed and leaves it up to the pc vendor if he wants to accept a return of only the windows license or not. So it might be that the days of buying a cheap (because of mass sales) notebook with Windows and then getting even more money back by returning the windows license might be over, if the vendor decides to only accept a return of the complete system.

Re:Markups

[Bert64]

Does the optical drive come with its own agreement which is separate (and includes additional restrictions) to the agreement under which you bought the rest of the system, not disclosed to you prior to purchase, and also contain a clause stating you can ask for a refund if you disagree with it?

If they want to bundle multiple components which are available elsewhere, they should detail what portion of the total these components constitute... They don't do that precisely because they want to create the illusion that the software comes for free.

Re:Markups

[darthflo]

Tying refers to bundling unrelated goods. You cannot use a modern computer without an operating system except perhaps as a space warmer. Most OEMs realize this and find bundling Windows exclusively gives them the best returns, so they stick to Windows. Let's not get into how Microsoft sweetens exclusivity with discounts, PR money and whatnot; fact is you need an operating system and most vendors stick to Windows as their only choice.

An engine is just as integral as an OS. Without it, both car and computer are mostly useless, but will still serve well as decorations or as places to store stuff in. The OS can be replaced by either different versions of the same family (e.g. Windows XP/Vista/7); the engine can relatively easily be replaced with a larger or smaller one from the same manufacturer. With some extra work (you might run into missing drivers, will require a new set of applications), the computer can run an entirely different OS (e.g. Linux, Mac OS). Same goes for the car -- go crazy with wheel-integrated electric motors or throw in actual foot pedals for each seat.

So we have that down to one response, and I don't know the answer. I'm guessing "Yes", even if it's only for accounting reasons or similar. Also, buying a car, the engine has extremely probably been used at least to drive it onto the lot, so some value would already be lost.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

No, upi can't return the engine, but from my experience you can return the stereo head unit. Did this with my last car and was refunded $300 (it was a non-premium head unit too).

Now the proper car analogy would be what if aside from Tesla and a few custom shops, *every* car came with a Bose sound system pre-installed which you couldn't return even though you could easily remove it and physically bring it back (and which happily adds $1500 to you car purchase price). Would you say you had a case to return that if you really didn't want it and had a severely limited choice to buy a car without it?

If that weren't bad enough, now what if Bose had been previously convicted of abusing their monopoly?

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

You most certainly may take the engine out and sell it.

You are not permitted to do that with the OS.

Re:Markups

[Animaether]

But your computer doesn't even do that. Your computer is already happily done starting by the time you hit that popup. Heck, drop in your favorite Ubuntu Live CD or UBCD(4Win) and you can use your computer just fine.

I find the Windows EULA popup a bit redundant but I guess that's because stores don't show it/have it easily available before you purchase the thing (even if you can readily look it up online). The reason I find it redundant is because you're purchasing a computer -with Windows-. By making that purchase you've already indicated you either want Windows (if you very strongly did NOT want Windows, you could've just gotten a Mac or an OS-less machine or a machine with Linux/whathaveyou pre-installed), OR that you want the machine and the fact that Windows is on it is not of particular importance at all (in which case, why come running for a refund on it? just format the drive and do whatever you want with the machine).

If nothing else, being able to get a refund (per MS's own writings) on that part of the configuration at all is.. odd.

Re:Markups

[dryeo]

You can take the engine out of the car and sell it or put it in a different car.
Windows has more licensing which stops you from (legally) selling it or using it on your old computer.
 

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds illegal ... oh wait this is the united states we're talking about. The scammer's paradise.

Re:Markups

[mysidia]

The logic that you can pick the price of an item out of a package is wrong. Do you think you should be able to buy a bundled package.. a complete computer from a vendor that was sold to you for $X price.. and return the Monitor or Keyboard, in exchange for a percentage of the price equivalent to the FMV of a monitor? (Even though the 'monitor' wasn't an option, and its price is built into the bundle)

The manufacturer doesn't have to allow return of only one piece of a bundled package for its fair value. In fact... the fair market value of each item in the package when all the items are added together, may meet or exceed the price you were charged for the package.

You can no more rent a hotel room, and after you check into your room... demand to return the kitchen (i.e. have them close or lock it up), for a 30% refund (since your hotel rental has 3 rooms in it, kitchen, bathroom, bed). The cost of that item is already incurred by the retailer, and the relationship to the price of the package may be complex. Parts of it may even be free or promotional.

In this case, however, the Windows EULA states that you are entitled to a refund if you refuse to accept. It doesn't provide for a restocking fee.

It would be a violation of the OEM EULA for a manufacturer to charge such a fee.. such a violation might imply that you are no longer bound by the agreement, if your response to not getting a refund is to use Windows, then it would seem that you are taking your self-help remedy in response for the retailer failing to follow the EULA, the EULA no longer properly applies to you, even if you click accept, due to the breach of the agreement by the other party.

Also, attempting to charge a restocking fee for refusing an unanticipated agreement, would probably result in litigation against the retailer, for deceptive/dishonest business practices.

However, the Windows EULA term also doesn't provide for separating Windows from the product. My impression of the term was always... if you don't accept, you can return the entire package that Windows was bundled with, for a refund.

The EULA doesn't guarantee you can return Windows alone, or that you can get a certain price for it.

Re:Markups

[misexistentialist]

How about less than $150? Computer seller buys part for $100, adds $150 to bundle price; consumer asks to return part, receives $100-$10 restocking fee. Seller makes a couple of bucks and customer happy. For a DVD drive the risk of customers returning damaged goods is too great, but software is impervious.

Re:Markups

[mysidia]

In the case of Windows, you can remove the unwanted equipment from your computer and sell it. Your perfectly within your rights (assured by the first-sale doctrine) to do that.

So long as you haven't accepted the agreement, and you still have the license material intact, you still have the legal right to sell it, and nothing legally prevents you.

But once you accept the EULA for Windows.. the EULA for OEM software won't allow you to transfer it to another machine.

It can be used only with hardware it was sold with. At some point, the final recipient who does accept the EULA will have to buy it with some piece of hardware, to be able to use it legally, e.g. you sell with some piece of hardware (such as a disk drive or motherboard).

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't get to impose a "restocking fee" when they impose an agreement (the EULA) after the point of purchase to be able to use a product.

Re:Markups

[base3]

The optical drive doesn't require me to agree to a separate legal agreement which gives me the right to return the drive if I refuse, either: false analogy, FAIL.

Re:Markups

[LingNoi]

You can't have it both ways. Either the company accepts refunds as Jiro mentioned or Microsoft's EULA means nothing as there is no reasonable way to decline it.

Re:Markups

[luder]

Aww, really? The other day I got a flat tire, but I don't live near any repair shop. However, there's a car dealer just next to my house and they sell the same model I have. Are you saying I can't buy a new car and return everything except one of the wheels? That sucks...

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

The car won't run without the engine, the computer will work just fine without windows.

Looking at it another way:
If you want you can resell the engine (and there really is a market for the parts). Good luck selling an OEM copy (sorry, license) of Windows.

---

Honestly, if you're comparing the engine in the car to the OS, you've got the wrong bad car analogy. A better bad analogy is comparing the engine to the CPU. That's something the computer won't run without.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure that's what the dealer had me sign before he even gave me the keys.

Re:Markups

[Hurricane78]

they should buy it back from you.

No. They then haven’t even sold it to you at all. Selling means making the contract. Which did not happen yet. So they still need to sell it, or give you back the money that you gave them in advance. Or else you sue the living shit out of them for theft, fraud, and illegal advertisement practices. :)

Re:Markups

[Thing 1]

[...] and instead a lawyer pooped out of the glove box [...]

I much prefer my misreading of your statement.

Re:Markups

[phantomcircuit]

The difference is that by declining the EULA the seller is required BY LAW to give you a full refund on the purchase price of the software.

Either ASUS can ask for both the laptop and the software back and give him a full refund or they can accept the return of only the software and give him a refund equivalent to the full purchase price.

Clearly ASUS did not get Windows XP from Microsoft for 6 USD.

Re:Markups

[MeNeXT]

I'm purchasing a computer, If there are terms to the sale other than the purchase then I must agree before i accept possession.

Re:Markups

[Pyrion]

In a way, yes. The GPS navigation system of my car will not let me use it until I accept the EULA, each time I start the car.

As applies to your analogy, one could argue the EULA was already accepted when you purchased the car and signed all of the paperwork involved. It'd be a colossal understatement to say that there's a lot of legalese you contractually agree to with the purchase of a new vehicle from a dealership (as opposed to a secondhand sale where you're basically taking the previous owner at his word).

Re:Markups

[Pyrion]

Which is why such paperwork is handled and contracts are signed before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. The problem here with this analogy is that the computer manufacturer and the operating system provider tend to be different entities, whereas typically the purchase of a vehicle includes the engine, from the same manufacturer, as part of the same overall deal you contractually agree to purchase before you ever get physical possession of the vehicle. You become the registered owner of the vehicle, so even before you get physical possession of the vehicle, you are liable for anything untoward that happens with it (to the reasonable extents covered by law and warranties (and laws on warranties)) the moment those rights are signed over.

There is no "computer registration," though. The EULA is the operating system provider's (and in some cases, the computer manufacturer's) means of having you agree to their terms of use before you use their product, even if you've already purchased the computer. It seems to boil down to an issue of convenience, as they could go to all the trouble of making you agree to their license terms before you ever actually buy the computer (if bought online, forward the customer to a website where they sign a contract electronically before the purchase is completed; if bought at a brick and mortar store, an additional signature at the bottom of a printed EULA from Microsoft with copies kept by Microsoft, the retailer, and customer), but it's far easier and accomplishes the same goal by just making you agree to the EULA when you actually turn on and start using the computer, it being a reasonable assumption that the person agreeing to the EULA is the intended owner and user of the computer, and even more so since the EULA tends to only cover the use of the software as opposed to the use of the hardware.

After all, if you're using the OS provided with the computer, with the provided license, it's implied that you accepted the EULA. If you blew away the partition and installed your own OS of choice, then it's largely a non-issue outside of forfeiting your right to use that license later on, and haggling over how much you should be refunded, if at all.

Re:Markups

[Pyrion]

The problem is that even if the vendors had a policy of informing customers that they could decline to use the included OS and software, whatever refund they could get for declining the use of the license would be eaten by the consumer to pay a tech to unbox the system, hook it up, blow away the contents of the drive, invalidate the license key, and box it back up properly before handing it off/shipping it out to the consumer. The manufacturers could do this, but it's also likely that they'd have to pass the cost of shipping a computer sans shovelware and a prepackaged OS off to the consumer to not really validate getting much, if any refund at all, in the first place (not to mention the aforementioned process of blowing away the contents of the drive if we're talking about removing something already boxed and stocked on a shelf to be modified prior to shipping). It's probably a lot easier on everyone (but the consumer, but there's always a loser in these situations) to just make it entirely the consumer's responsibility of getting MS to issue a refund and invalidate the license key.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Your optical drive doesn't come with an EULA that you still have to accept. That was the whole point in the article - if you don't accept the EULA, then what?

Re:Markups

[KingMotley]

Your mistake is you assume the customer's purchase price and the companies cost must be the same thing. What is to keep ASUS from claiming that your purchase price for windows is $0.

Re:Markups

[KingMotley]

So... If I buy a copy of the Superduper World of Warcraft expansion pack, that comes with a teeshirt, and a figurine, and 2 mana drink potions, and log into wow, and I disagree with the terms of service, I can return the game portion of the superduper expansion pack and get a refund for the full price of the game? No, of course not.

Re:Markups

[phantomcircuit]

If they claimed in open court they could be in some serious trouble when it turns out that in fact they did pay for the license.

Re:Markups

[man_of_mr_e]

They can basically do whatever they want, because their return policy is available before you purchase the item.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Physical products and software are the same thing now, are they?

Re:Markups

[ProfessionalCookie]

So If I'm following... they will stop you from selling the unwanted equipment?

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the Netherlands EULA's are nonlegal for this specific reason: terms of sale must be known to the user at the moment of sale.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry, but it seems your analogy doesnt hold water either.

The optical drive does not ask me to agree to things I was not aware of before I opened the box. Instead, the product description
explained what kind of drive it was and I agreed to buy it.

Re:Markups

[Alex Belits]

...and since I do not accept the EULA in the first place, it does not matter what it says about anything -- including anything it says about not accepting EULA.

Re:Markups

[Animaether]

I'm purchasing a computer

...with Windows....

, If there are terms to the sale other than the purchase then I must agree before i accept possession.

I fully agree that you should accept to the terms of whatever constitutes the purchase - including the Windows EULA if you're getting a computer-with-Windows - *before* purchase. Hence why the EULA after booting the thing up seems rather redundant.

Hence the line of thought that if you're getting a computer-with-Windows then you've already indicated you want Windows.. probably even if the EULA said to sacrifice your first-born to Steve.

But even if you end up disagreeing with the EULA, I personally think you have two options...

1. Return the computer-with-Windows
2. Disagree with the Windows EULA, format, install something different.

That Microsoft even offer option..
3. Disagree with the EULA, go to the store for a refund on just that part ..is, quite frankly, bizarre.

I can't think of any other coupled-product that lets you do this. To go with car analogies.. I can certainly nag the car dealership to remove the pioneer stereo from the car and subtract the cost from the total, but if they say "no can do", I can go take my business elsewhere. I wouldn't be able to buy the car-with-Pioneer stereo, then decide I don't much like the Pioneer stereo for whatever reason, and go back to the dealership saying "here's the radio, now gimme the money".
( the analogy mostly fails because the stereo will happily work without agreeing to an EULA, but you get the idea )

Re:Markups

[hughk]

Last time I bought a car, it came as a package. No separate agreement from Michelin or Goodyear about their tires. I buy the car. Outright. I do not 'license' the car.

Re:Markups

[tepples]

(if you very strongly did NOT want Windows, you could've just gotten a Mac or an OS-less machine or a machine with Linux/whathaveyou pre-installed)

How do I find a shop in any given city that will sell me a computer with Linux/whathaveyou pre-installed? If one does not exist, then Microsoft has succeeded in monopolizing the market.

Re:Markups

[cptnapalm]

With regards to car analogies, I think the OS as gasoline might be a somewhat better fit. The car does require gasoline without it being part of the car itself and there are different brands of it. MicroGas gasoline, which is brand you don't want, adds a thousand dollars to the cost of the car and requires some sort of agreement or the car won't start. If you decline to accept it, you have to drain the gas yourself and pour in new gas of your choosing. Almost no one offers non-MicroGas filled cars, except Orange, though their gas is prettier and will only run in Orange brand cars.

The analogy isn't perfect, of course, but the separation between the hardware and the software is what I was going for.

Re:Markups

[euxneks]

Do you think you should be able to buy a bundled package.. a complete computer from a vendor that was sold to you for $X price.. and return the Monitor or Keyboard, in exchange for a percentage of the price equivalent to the FMV of a monitor? (Even though the 'monitor' wasn't an option, and its price is built into the bundle)

Yes.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold water.

Just when I finally wrap my head around the whole car analogy thingy, you introduce another variable. Water, sheesh!

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] and instead the glove box pooped out a lawyer [...]

Better yet.

Re:Markups

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the vendor is not obliged to take the Monitor or Keyboard back. That's because you bought them, the transaction is complete, and can't be voided unilaterally without good cause (goods not as described, warranties, etc.).

But in the case of windows, the transaction is not complete... there's still a contract to agree to!

An overlapping but separate issue: you own the monitor and keyboard, and you can remove them from the system and sell them second-hand. People do that all the time. However, Microsoft will throw a shit-fit if you try to sell the bundled copy of windows, claiming that you don't own it.

Remember, a contract isn't valid without consideration on both sides. If you pay money for a piece of software you can't use and can't resell, then there is no contract (no EULA). If they won't accept it back, then you're in legal possession of the software, and you do own the software, unconditionally, in exactly the way that Microsoft doesn't want.

That's why they're obliged to offer a refund: because they want to back out of the deal if you don't accept the EULA.

This is all very different from physical goods that are owned outright.

Re:Markups

[KingMotley]

Your mistake is you assume the customer's purchase price and the companies cost must be the same thing. What is to keep ASUS from claiming that your purchase price for windows is $0.

Might not be their intention

[Reed Solomon]

"Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way.'"

but they've definitely steered me away from Asus. I probably wouldn't have even bothered with trying to get a refund, but their dishonorable actions disgust me.

Re:Might not be their intention

[Anonymous Coward]

Have fun running your inferior hardware then. Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Re:Might not be their intention

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever used an Asus? Most of them are pretty terrible.

Re:Might not be their intention

[houstonbofh]

Have fun running your inferior hardware then. Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Are you referring to your own post, or the parent?

Re:Might not be their intention

[asdf7890]

Have fun running your inferior hardware then.

Inferior in what way? While I have no reason to call the quality of Asus products into question (aside from the anecdotal single-case evidence of a motherboard that died on me after a couple of months use), I very much doubt their build quality is greater than that of most other manufacturers. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Acer were perfectly happy to sell me a decent netbook without Windows, for less than the equivalent Asus product at the time even if you took a full Windows refund into account, and it is still working day-in-day-out several month later. Asus are not the only game in town, nor is anyone else.

Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot. Actually, the original poster did have a point to make. It was a point based on his opinion and how this change of circumstances changes his likelihood of purchasing a product from the company the current discussion is about. His point may not be relevant to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid point in his case. Your post on the other hand...

Re:Might not be their intention

[interval1066]

Intention or not it should be illegal. If I refuse a product or service, I should not be compelled to pay for it anyway. Being forced to bay for something I don't want is simply wrong. Another excellent case for geeks like me who don't mind putting in the time to build their own rig, which I have always done. Of course, if I want a laptop, that strategy blows and I'm forced to pay the Microsoft tax anyway. I just pisses me off having to pay that money.

Re:Might not be their intention

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the author of both posts.

Re:Might not be their intention

[phantomfive]

How do you know it's dishonorable? I mean, have you looked at their books? Seems you're being awfully quick to judge, there.

As another person mentioned, when you don't get Windows XP, you also don't get the pre-installed crapware. That could be the entire reason for the price difference.

Not everything that looks bad on the surface is really bad underneath. And vice versa.

Re:Might not be their intention

[lordandmaker]

Being forced to bay for something I don't want is simply wrong

But you're not being forced to pay anything, you're choosing to. There are workstations, laptops, netbooks, servers and smartphones for sale with no MS software on at all. If you don't want to buy MS software, the logical thing would be to buy one of those. When I buy computers, I don't pick a Windows one and then try to get a refund on it. I buy one that either comes with no OS or comes with a free one. It's far simpler and it it encourages the guys who sell PCs without MS on them. I've never quite got my head round the mentality of the free softwarists who somehow feel they're making a statement by jumping through hoops to get their money for XP back. If you're buying a PC with Windows on it (which you are), you're contributing to MS's sales figures at the expense of whoever's doing free software. Surely that's counter productive. In any case, the issue here is not about the morality of bundling goods (which seems perfectly fine everywhere that doesn't involve MS), it's about the precedent of awarding the fair market value when someone excercises a particular clause in a particular EULA.

Re:Might not be their intention

[WiiVault]

Nice to see Slashdot still has plenty of AC's (anonymous cunts). Why don't you register and show your true shit stained colors?

Re:Might not be their intention

[nukenerd]

You seem to live in a different part of the world from most of the rest of us. Or even on a different planet. Did you miss all that about MS charging PC makers full retail price for Windows unless the maker installed Windows on every PC they made?

It would be helpful if you could give us some pointers to where bare PCs with mainstream hardware could be bought in the UK.

The only way I know to get a bare PC is to build it yourself, and that's what I do. MS would like to take a tribute even from the likes of me though - on the assumption that I pirate their crap.

Re:Might not be their intention

[travisco_nabisco]

As other have said, when you buy the computer you are paying for the whole bundle that the manufacturer put together. You can't go return the 5400 rpm hard drive from the laptop. If you don't like buying a bundle that includes a Windows license, that you can get a certain amount of money back for, think of it is a restocking fee being applied, then go find one of the barebones laptops and build your own. Otherwise get off your elitist ass and petition to more manufacturers to offer laptops without Windows installed on them. Sitting on Slashdot complaining isn't going to change anyone's practices.

Re:Might not be their intention

[Jiro]

If the 5400 rpm hard drive came with a license saying you could return it for a refund, I darn well would expect to be able to unbundle the hard drive.

And no, you can't petition manufacturers to offer laptops without Windows. The manufacturer still has to pay for Windows even when they don't provide it, so they can't charge you less for such a laptop.

Re:Might not be their intention

[lordandmaker]

You seem to live in a different part of the world from most of the rest of us. Or even on a different planet. Did you miss all that about MS charging PC makers full retail price for Windows unless the maker installed Windows on every PC they made?

No. But I don't see why that would support the idea that a vendor who only ships PCs with Windows on would be expected to refund the full value of a retail box - we know they're paying below the market rate. In any case, I can fully understand dislike of MS bribing box makers to stick Windows on every box they produce, but I really don't see how this translates to me (or anyone else) being forced to buy a PC with Windows installed on it.

It would be helpful if you could give us some pointers to where bare PCs with mainstream hardware could be bought in the UK.

In the UK, overclockers do some, but don't seem to have a search-by-lack-of-OS option, Ebuyer do, er, two. There're places like http://debianshop.com/ who do ship an OS but it's a free one. And there are some real-life shops who will do it, too (well, they sell hardware and charge on top for the OS, but if you don't want the OS they don't sell you it).

I've not checked the hardware specs, but it's hardly likely to be any more peculiar than Dell's.

The only way I know to get a bare PC is to build it yourself, and that's what I do. MS would like to take a tribute even from the likes of me though - on the assumption that I pirate their crap.

Sure, they'd probably /like/ it, but they've not done anything to me personally to infer that I owe them any money for not having bought any of their software.

Re:Might not be their intention

[interval1066]

But you're not being forced to pay anything, you're choosing to.

Sure, and if I don't want to pay pull price for bread I can eat cake, too. The facts are non-windows pre-packed machines are few and far between, believe me, I keep an eye out. After years of looking for and finding exactly what I wanted in a notebook (small and light; no light drive, Linux (Or no windows, I'll take either), and full-power cpu, no celerons) I found a notebook that fit the bill better and cheaper than the one I picked, except it had windows on it. So I bit the bullet and bought the thing. Hoping for a EULA I could document and deny, I was presented with a pre-configured rig that gave me no chance to go through the EULA. Really pissed off at this tactic, I bit the bullet and proceeded to wipe the drive and install the software *I* wanted.

It seems to me that if I want a notebook I have to buy crap with it I don't want and have no use for. THAT is wrong, don't give me this "choice" crap.

Wow

[nametaken]

What kind of babble talk answer is that? I hope this is a misquote from a phone conversation.

Re:Wow

[Pyrion]

Seems like a damage control answer to me. They know it's disappointing, but it's the only answer they have and they don't want it to influence you away from them.

Re:Wow

[rrohbeck]

At least they didn't say "Wait, it says 'Press F12 for more information'" like the call center drone I talked to yesterday (not related to ASUS or this issue.)

Piracy?

[girlintraining]

The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable...

So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages? Yeah. Right.

Re:Piracy?

[Shados]

ever heard of punitive damage? If you only ever have to pay exactly for what you did, and no putitive damage, when you g et caught, there would be no point NOT to do it.

Re:Piracy?

[newcastlejon]

Has there ever been a case of someone being (successfully) sued for just downloading software? I understand there's a difference between obtaining it from TBP or wherever through Bittorrent (so uploading too) and just downloading it from some warez site, assuming they still exist.

Re:Piracy?

[sopssa]

Usually the downloaders don't get sued but the uploaders. And if you've uploaded to hundreds or even thousands of people, it's easily argued that you've contributed for that kind of losses.

Re:Piracy?

[Albanach]

So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages

I'm not sure anyone (yet) has been sued for downloading. Typically people are sued for the uploading bit (that typically goes hand in hand with downloading in most clients), where you are making it available to others.

It's a lot easier for them to convince the judge and jury to award astronomical awards if they show you were sharing the file, not just downloading it for personal usage.

Re:Piracy?

[girlintraining]

ever heard of punitive damage? If you only ever have to pay exactly for what you did, and no putitive damage, when you g et caught, there would be no point NOT to do it.

First, I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response given the poor spelling and general lack of knowledge of the subject matter, but I'm bored. Second, here's how it looks in the US (I'm even more of a non-expert on non-US laws);

Actual:
$6--30. (from TFA) Copyright holder is also entitled to any profits derived from the violation (in general). In the case of someone using XP privately for themselves and deriving no profit beyond that, the profits would also likely be zero.
Statutory:
Only available if the copyright is registered with the copyright office.
$200 if it can be proved it was accidental at the discretion of the court.
$750--30,000 if it cannot be proved, but there is reasonable doubt at the discretion of the court.
Up to $150,000 per work if it can be proved to be willful. Source: 17 USC 504.
Punitive:
Not generally available. [1] It may be available if statutory damages are unavailable, or if the plaintiff elects to seek actual damages (plus profits derived). This is very rarely done in practice, and generally the punitive damages will equal the actual damages plus profits derived from the violation.

In the vast majority of cases, statutory damages far exceed actual or potential punitive damages.

[1] Leutwyler v. Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan, 184 F. Supp. 2d 303, 308
[2] http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Feb/10/172826.html#_edn14

P.S. IANAL.

Re:Piracy?

[Kjella]

Probably, in the days of warez ftps and that sort of thing. But these days it'd be a lot like going after those going 5 mph over the limit when everybody else is doing 20 mph over the limit, Outside the US, where awarded damages seem to be 1000x higher than anywhere else, people aren't really seeing it as much of a risk either way. At worst you'll likely get a letter from your ISP telling you to please stop that.

Re:Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is also the problem that copyright has no general provision that could cover downloading. The prohibited activities are copying and distributing as they are reserved for control by the copyright holder/owner exclusively. You would have to find another set of laws to cover downloading.

Re:Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice reaction there to getting your ass handed to you.

Re:Piracy?

[mdwh2]

If we're looking at the $1.92 million for 24 songs, let's call that $24 ($1 a song) - that would mean every song would have had to have been each uploaded 80,000 times. And that's still assuming every copy is a lost sale.

It's all very well claiming that uploading can cause more loss, but you're still many orders of magnitudes off trying to come up with the batshit RIAA style damages.

How much data would that have to be? 1.92 million copies, say an average of 4MB each, gives 7.68 TB of data. Even uploading 10 GBs a day continuously, that'd still take over 2 years!

Re:Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then your boyfriend needs better aim.

Re:Piracy?

[Fjandr]

Since proper spelling and subject matter knowledge tend to be very relevant to legal discussions, no, not ad hominem much. Thanks for playing though.

Re:Piracy?

[dbcad7]

IA(also)NAL but now I understand statutory rape.

Re:Piracy?

[Civil_Disobedient]

I think you missed some of the post. You appear to have read the first sentence just fine, but then what happened? Did you give up? Did your brain seize? There were like 15 more sentences to the GP, including some footnotes linking to, I presume, even more sentences.

Look, I know reading is hard, but you shouldn't give up so easily.

Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[MSTCrow5429]

This story has no link whatsoever to anything about ASUS. Of the two links on pricing, one is from June 15 2009, months before Windows 7 was released, while the other is an ancient article from fall 2006. How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Slow Sunday, I'd suspect.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Tim C]

Read the FAQ - the editors intentionally do not do any fact checking whatsoever on submitted stories.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[wampus]

To push the open source agenda, duh.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Anonymous Coward]

but shouldn't the moderators make sure that the submitter has done _some_ sort of fact checking in the first place? Basically, this story is missing a link to its article.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[westlake]

How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?

The geek knowingly goes out and buys the dirt cheap mass market OEM Windows PC - which represents about 90%-95% of all consumer PC sales.

He will then demand a refund to punish the OEM, Microsoft, and the big box retailer for delivering the marketable and well-advertised Windows product and - not at all incidentally to his purpose - shave another few bucks off the price of his new Linux laptop.

This cheeky little scam costs everyone in the chain a little bit of time and money. It costs the independent Linux-friendly retailer a sale.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[MSTCrow5429]

This isn't about fact-checking, this is about the editors taking the time to RTFA.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[mdwh2]

Ran out of Iphone stories today.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Fished]

How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?

You must be new here.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the FAQ - the editors intentionally do not do any fact checking whatsoever on submitted stories.

Then they would seem to be more accurately described as moderators instead of editors. Slashdot has always been something of a metagame when it comes to truth.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[ClosedSource]

Perhaps their day job is evaluating iPhone apps. The qualifications seem similar.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS

[Psaakyrn]

We were supposed to RTFA?

There's one large difference

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one large difference here and that is that the software is still under 100% protection of copyright. The persuit of breech of copyright is still accounted at 100% full volume and your damages assessed at 100% of market value.

NOT $6 a license.

Re:There's one large difference

[man_of_mr_e]

That doesn't matter. Let's say you throw a rock through your neighbors window, and you know for a fact that he owns a glass company and can replace it cheaply, but he takes you to court and seeks the full price of the repair.

Assuming you don't contest that you did it, or he can prove that you did, you will be liable for full price regardless of the price it costs him to replace it.

Re:There's one large difference

[Anonymous Coward]

The full price IS what it cost the guy to replace it. Whether he gets a deal through his company or goes to a competitor. He can't lie, and say he spent 100$ on the window if he got it wholesale.

Re:There's one large difference

[man_of_mr_e]

I don't understand your point. You throw a rock through my window, I take you to court. I go to a glass company and get an estimate for the cost of repair. you lose, you have to pay the cost of the estimate.

If it costs me half that to replace it because i own my own glass company, I don't have to give you a refund. I pocket the difference.

Re:There's one large difference

[NormalVisual]

If it costs me half that to replace it because i own my own glass company, I don't have to give you a refund

Bet you will. All I have to do is make you whole again. If I can show the judge I can do that for half your estimate, then that's what I'll likely be held liable for. Similarly, you don't get to make a profit when you get into a fender-bender, and your cousin that owns a body shop inflates the value of his repair estimate and agrees to split the profit with you.

Re:There's one large difference

[Anonymous Cowpat]

except thet you will likely have already replaced the glass, and the judge would like to see the receipt please.

Sooo...

[Junta]

If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?

I implore the laptop manufacturing sector to make more than token offerings of linux on your products. Every time I look for a laptop with linux preloaded, they are all very specific models with unappealing specs compared to the full selection available with Windows. If I were cynical, I would presume your linux offerings are intentionally screwed up so as to give Microsoft marketing material about how unpopular linux computers are. Oh, what the hell, I am that cynical.

I would have the same problem in the desktop sector, except I assemble my stuff piece-wise.

Typed from a linux laptop with a Windows Vista sticker still on it.

Re:Sooo...

[ShiningSomething]

If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?

Do you think the PC manufacturer pays the same price you would for a hard drive, a motherboard, or any other component? Them reimbursing you for the market value does not seem fair to me, they should pay you no more than what it cost them. I agree there should be more Linux laptops, but I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Sooo...

[betterunixthanunix]

I wonder what would happen if we simply asked various computer makers to sell us specific laptop models with Linux preinstalled. Maybe if enough people ask for it, get turned down, and then say, "Thanks, I'll buy from your competitors," we would start to see progress on the "Linux laptops" front.

Re:Sooo...

[base3]

Why wouldn't that seem fair? Any other return (e.g. defective laptop) for a refund would be at retail. Why not the OS--for which the user is forced to either agree to a EULA or return?

Re:Sooo...

[ShiningSomething]

Returning the *whole* product would be a retail. Have you ever gotten a refund on a laptop hard drive? Or on RAM? I replaced the 1gig SIMM in my netbook with a 2gig - was I eligible for a refund from ASUS?

Re:Sooo...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that you have finished buying the computer with RAM. You paid for it, you got it, you own it. You don't have to sell it back to ASUS; you can sell it on e-bay.

With Windows, there are two major differences:

1. The purchase has not been finalized; there's this extra contractual step to which your consent cannot be assumed. If you don't accept the offered terms, and Microsoft isn't willing to give you the software under other terms, then the contract must be voided. which means that everyone gets their own marbles back.
2. As part of the above, Microsoft claim that just because you are in physical possession of a copy, you don't own it and may not re-sell it on e-bay.

Is the difference clear now? If they just outright sold me a copy of Windows, there wouldn't be a problem. But by trying to impose extra restrictions in the form of a EULA, Microsoft and their resellers have brought this on themselves.

Re:Sooo...

[base3]

As the AC said, there was no attempt to enforce a contract after the fact before I owned the DIMM or the hard disk, so the analogy doesn't apply.

Re:Sooo...

[Richard_at_work]

If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?

Sign an OEM agreement, buy in (very big) numbers and yes, you can get it for $6. I find it interesting that the combined intellect of Slashdot cannot come to the realisation that different purchasers get different rates.

Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[hattig]

If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM, then surely Microsoft is dumping their product on the market? Probably why they're including it in their netbooks in favour of Linux.

Dumping product? Convicted monopolist? I think that there's a good chance here that some netbook OS vendors have a case here to make an official complaint about anti-competitive predatory tactics by Microsoft.

Or the story is a load of rubbish.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[Frosty Piss]

If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM

Asus isn't payng anything for XP, Microsoft stopped selling. XP is 8 years old $6 is just about right for 8 year old software. And talk about making a stink for the exclusive purpose of making a stink... This is just a "non issue".

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[harlows_monkeys]

It's not possible to do dumping with Windows XP. Even if they give it away for $0, that is (1) not lower than the competition, and (2) not lower than than the marginal cost of production.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[rahvin112]

I thought it was understood that when the netbook debuted Microsoft knocked the price down to almost nothing to eliminate Linux in the space. This article is nothing more than official confirmation that Microsoft did knock the price down to $6 a copy for ASUS to keep linux off the netbooks.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[Just Brew It!]

Umm... OEM copies of XP are still for sale; Microsoft only halted sales of the retail version. Furthermore, it is 8 years old only if you completely ignore Service Packs. A better yardstick would be the time since SP3 was released, which would make it less than 2 years old.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[Just Brew It!]

Developing and releasing security patches and updates, operating the activation servers, and paying the droids in the call center has to cost them something; so their costs aren't zero. You're implicitly paying for these things when you buy a Windows license. (We're putting aside for the moment the fact that only one of those things actually adds value for the end user, but that's a separate debate...)

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[Anonymous Coward]

If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM, then surely Microsoft is dumping their product on the market?

Since some of their competitors release distros with far more included software at $0 I don't know if any price could be considered dumping. More like it's a realistic pricing structure. I'd even consider using some MS software at that price, but not much above.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[BikeHelmet]

Most likely Asus is getting a sweet deal because they pushed Linux netbooks heavily early on. I'm guessing other OEMs are slightly higher - but not significantly higher.

Hey, for $12, I'd buy Windows too!

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare?

[Richard_at_work]

To prove dumping, you would have to prove that Microsoft are selling it for less than the cost to manufacture it, including original investment. On an 8 year, two generations old very successful software product I have a feeling that proving dumping would be hard. Very hard.

Proper value of operating system software

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that, given Microsoft XP is worth ten times the value of Microsoft Vista,
the vendors will only refund $0.60 if you decline the OS?

If that's the fair price, then

[joeflies]

I'd like to see which stores offer a $6 OEM option for buying XP licenses when you buy a bare motherboard.

Re:If that's the fair price, then

[91degrees]

Buy a million motherboards and you might get a decent deal.

Re:If that's the fair price, then

[Anonymous Coward]

search harder.

I can get XP licenses for $10 in lots of 10. I assume if I wanted a larger quantity the price would go down.

Priceless

[poormanjoe]

2 Gallons of gas: $6
1 Pack of Cigarettes: $6
Prescription refill at Wal-mart: $6
Blockbuster late fee's: $6
Sticking it to at least one of the men: Priceless

Small claims

[Hatta]

Take them to small claims court instead. They'll quickly learn that it's cheaper to provide a full refund than to pay someone to show up in small claims court.

Re:Small claims

[Wolfrider]

--Dude, everybody knows you never go Full Refund...
 
// Downey

Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

Can I also send back the graphics card for a full refund if I decide I want to use a card that's not offered? And return the hard disk because I'm only interested in using external drives?

The software is part of the entire package. If I'm not happy with it I'll send the whole thing back. What other products allow you to reject single components?

Re:Why reject just one component?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your graphics card come with an EULA that you must agree to before using it? How about your hard disk?

The software DOES come with an EULA that you are not required ot agree too. If you DISAGREE the eula says the contact the manufacturer for a refund, no?

Re:Why reject just one component?

[oojimaflib]

What other products come with a legal document stating that, if you so choose, you can return a single component for a refund?

Re:Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

None of them including the OS. It allows me to return the product. The product in this case is a PC with windows installed. The OEM licence is actually different from the retail licence in this respect (the retail licence specifically states "software", OEM says "product").

Re:Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

So I get a refund on the PC. That's what's being offered. Not a refund on a bit of it.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[JStegmaier]

Ones where you have to agree to an end user license agree that states " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE." Windows XP EULA
Surely Microsoft's license doesn't apply to all the components, but it specifically says you can get a refund from where you purchased the software. Companies don't want to honor the Windows EULA? Don't sell computers with Windows.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[0123456]

Something tells me that the PC companies would be even more pissed if we started buying PCs en masse and returning them because we don't agree with the Windows EULA.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[Corporate Troll]

It also said "if applicable".... So technically, they have a way out by saying "not applicable".

Re:Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

That would be "MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION (RETAIL)"

The OEM version tells you "AND YOU SHOULD PROMPTLY CONTACT MANUFACTURER FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON RETURN OF THE UNUSED PRODUCT(S) FOR A REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RETURN POLICIES." So it's up to the manufacturer what their return policy is. If they insist you return the entire machine that's the policy.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

Yup. You should do that. Hell, I'd love to just get loads of people to buy some packaged software remove the shrinkwrap, and reject the agreement then return the unwrapped product for a refund just as a matter of principle, but people aren't willing to do that.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[hisstory student]

"IF APPLICABLE" is the gotcha there.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[Anonymous Coward]

the trouble is, if you buy a package, then you cannot simply return part of the package, you are not buying windows XP, you are actually buying a package which contains a copy of windows XP alongside a computer system, the copy of XP included is a special copy for distribution with the new computer (assuming its an OEM copy) so not the same product

that would be like buying a graphics card that came with a free game disk, and then to ask for a refund on the game cos you didn't want to play it, you cant do so as it is part of a package, so you would have to return the entire package, not an individual component

Re:Why reject just one component?

[IRWolfie-]

they've offered a refund (just a smaller amount) so it must be applicable

Re:Why reject just one component?

[AK Marc]

The software is part of the entire package. If I'm not happy with it I'll send the whole thing back.

But the license for the software says "if you aren't happy with this, return the software for a full refund." It would be like buying a car and the tires said "these tires will not work off road (including gravel roads and dirt roads)" and that restriction wasn't told to you until after you pay for the car. But, you have the option to return the tires for a full refund and get whatever other ones you want. Does that mean that if you bought the car, you should ignore that option, and if you don't like the tires, then return the whole car? After all, returning something when instructed to return it if you don't want it is somehow a bad thing.

Re:Why reject just one component?

[91degrees]

But the license for the software says "if you aren't happy with this, return the software for a full refund."

Well, it depends on the version. The retail version of XP home says that. XP Pro says return the product. The OEM version of XP home says return the software but adds the proviso that you have to do so in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy which may indeed only have provision for returning the entire product.

It would be like buying a car and the tires said "these tires will not work off road (including gravel roads and dirt roads)" and that restriction wasn't told to you until after you pay for the car. But, you have the option to return the tires for a full refund and get whatever other ones you want. Does that mean that if you bought the car, you should ignore that option, and if you don't like the tires, then return the whole car? After all, returning something when instructed to return it if you don't want it is somehow a bad thing.

Well, if it said that you had to do in in accordance with the manufacturer's return policy and the manufacturer only offered the option of returning the car then I fail to see the difference. Or for that matter the point of the analogy?

Translation, please

[Threni]

> Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way

Sounds like someone cheap or non English wrote that last sentence.

Re:Translation, please

[Pyrion]

Yeah, cuz it's missing an apostrophe and needs a few words cut out. It's actually not that bad of a statement, contextually. It gets the point across.

Re:Translation, please

[drinkypoo]

Sounds like someone cheap or non English wrote that last sentence.

Asus is both; they make cheap product (check the prices as compared to the more expensive vensors like Abit) and they're based out of Taiwan.

Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in.

[Beelzebud]

A day without 2 Minutes Hate is like a day without sunshine!

Re:Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in.

[AliasMarlowe]

A day without 2 Minutes Hate is like a day without sunshine!

There is no #$@&% sunshine at this time of year where I live, you insensitive clod!

We make up for it with 30 consecutive 2-minutes hate in each and every hour :)

Re:Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the plus side, you can see Russia from your bedroom window.

Re:Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doubleplusgood!

Fair Price for Windows?

[Anonymous Coward]

But Slashdot told me it's zero!

Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[ciggieposeur]

A WinXP system is never just WinXP, it's also a boat load of crapware that the crapware authors have paid the manufacturer to bundle in. So ASUS is actually right in their math:

Option 1: Keep XP. No change in price.

Option 2: Refund XP: +$50. Also refund crapware: -$44. Net refund to user: $6.

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[Anonymous Coward]

Option 3: Keep XP, uninstall crapware: pay $44 to asus?

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[kill-1]

Exactly. Given the amount of preinstalled crapware on some notebooks, users should be happy that they don't have to pay more for a notebook without Windows.

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[Anonymous Coward]

give me the crapware, leave the XP and I won't use either. Now i'll get my full dollar value.

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[Anonymous Coward]

only problem is, consumer doesn't buy crapware, rather they buy a pc.

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right...

[Anonymous Coward]

If they're charging me for the crapware to begin with, I want a refund for THAT as well. Them losing 44 dollars in advertising means absolutely nothing. Whatever money they're paying to microsoft as the fee for XP is the price they should be giving back to the customer who demands a refund.

Sounds reasonable to me

[rrohbeck]

Everybody assumed that MS was selling XP at a seriously low price to netbook OEMs to recapture the market from Linux.

That's about how much it's worth I guess.

Windows 7 EULA is far worse...

[Hymer]

...it is now up to the manufacturer to decide whether they will give you a refund or tell you to return the PC, just look at MS EULA page.

Re:Windows 7 EULA is far worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

See, that's another trap altogether. The EULA is only one part of the argument. The *REAL* argument is that concerning tying: it is illegal to bundle a third party product and then refuse to take it back if the customer doesn't want it. This holds, regardless of the wording of the Microsoft EULA.

And, contrary to so many opinions expressed here and elsewhere, it does NOT apply to Apple - which manufactures its own hardware AND software (operating system), and thus is quite within its rights to tie the two together - there are no third parties involved.

So, you don't even have to quote the terms of the EULA to the manufacturer. Just tell them that they are not allowed to force you to buy a third party product, and that they have to take it back and issue a refund. Simple as that.

Escalate it to a Small Claims court, if necessary.

Re:Windows 7 EULA is far worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I went through the Windows 7 EULA .. at the end it says "!!!!EULAID!!!!" They aren't even hiding it anymore!

Mods can't read either....

[houstonbofh]

Did they read the parent post? He said you can not find a storefront without Windows system. Parent post found one! That was funny, or informative, not off-topic. I am still chuckling...

Guess this means XP is Abandonware?

[Kartoffel]

Well unless Microsoft steps up an provides the refund, this could mean that XP is finally abandonware. Free XP for all? Yeah... I can't imagine MS would go for that.

Major double standards

[Raisey-raison]

I love it that 'the obey the law no matter what' types go on and on about not pirating software and not infringing on copyright but when it's a big large corporation not giving you a refund, its different. When they short change you - very mysteriously its 'not stealing'. How very magical! I call it the 'Powerful corporations can never steal law'. How about we apply the same draconian penalties that we apply to copyright infringes to companies who don't issue refunds when the end users reject the UELA. How about we send them to jail as well?

Maybe as well if they claim that the cost of Windows XP is only $6 they need to show some evidence that they actually only paid $6 for it!

BTW the restocking fee is bulls###. They don't need to physically get back anything from you. They just invalidate the license. Besides here is quote from the EULA. Its says nothing about a restocking fee.
"YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."

Re:Major double standards

[mister_playboy]

I absolutely agree with your point. People should be mad as hell about this bullshit double standard, but instead we have a bunch of folks apologizing for it.

Apparently, the money spent on corporate propaganda is money well spent.

Re:Major double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. And right after you've returned the copy of Windows that came with your $150 netbook for a $200 refund, you can go take up that "buy one get one free" offer, then return only one of the items for a full refund.

Re:Major double standards

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. Sadly however, (and IANAL but I have pursued a few successful refunds of consumer goods by using the law) Amazon are probably within their rights in the UK as "goods must be fit for their intended purpose". The intended purpose of the netbook is to run Windows. If the machine was a washing machine, the retailer would refuse a refund if you told them that you wanted a rebate because you wanted to wipe the machine's EEPROM, install your own firmware, and make the washing machine spin your clothes in a clockwise rather than an anti-clockwise direction. When you buy a washing machine, you buy the package. Pretty much the same legally for a netbook, if you don't wish to accept the Microsoft EULA, decline it and return the netbook.

Caveat emptor at the end of the day, if you can't live with the legal ramifications of your purchase, purchase something else, and write to your MEP, complaining about the apparent abuse of a monopoly. With any luck they'll get another big fine.

Re:Major double standards

[steelfood]

No, there's fair, and there's unfair, and people can innately tell what's fair and what's not.

Most people like screwing over companies as much as they like getting screwed over by companies. Most people don't like sticking it to The Man just because he's The Man; they usually do it if The Man sticks it to them first.

Sue them for anti-competitive behavior

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason that you're supposed to be able to get a refund on a pre-installed Windows is probably due to competition laws. I.e. if you couldn't get a refund you end up paying Microsoft for their OS even if you don't use it. If we are unable to get the full refund - what the OEM paid Microsoft for the license on your system, then Microsoft is earning revenue for it's OS purely because it's installed pre-sale, even if the buyer does not want it.

No OEM should be able to deduct costs for removing the OS after the fact, either. They're fully aware of the provisions in Microsoft's EULA at the time they preload it.

No refund needed, by a laptop or pc without OS

[Anonymous Coward]

For myself I prevent paying the Windows tax by buying 'white books' which do come without installed software. For example Compal FL90 is my current machine. You have to search a little but there are ways to get a laptop/PC system without Windows installed. For me the 450euro PC was sold without OS for almost 100 Euro less.

Many hardware vendors are very depending on the deals the have with Microsoft. The discount they got on the os is very important for being able to compete. So if Microsoft takes away the discounts it will have a significant change on the sales.

So hardware vendors are of course afraid of Microsoft for loosing their discounts.

Only via some small dealers, direct from the manufacturers in China laptops can be obtained without an OS. For PC's you can be of the hook by assembling a PC from parts. Some companies are specialized in building your PC from parts you select.

Go Android!

[BlackCreek]

If there is anything I expect Android to provide wrt laptops and netbooks, is a way to buy them without paying MS tax (or Apple Tax).

Product Tying Disallowed

[meehawl]

The product in this case is a PC with windows installed.

Product tying is explicitly and specifically one of the monopolist trade practices that Microsoft agreed in a consent decree with the US FTC to disengage from performing in the early-mid-90s, and contravention of this consent decree and Microsoft's continued constraint upon its OEM partners to continue product tying was among the monopolist actions that caused Microsoft to be judged as a criminal monopoly in the United States v Microsoft, and to further be judged an abusive monopoly by the European Commission and the European Communities' Court Of First Instance.

Re:Product Tying Disallowed

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no evidence of product tying here on the part of Microsoft. Perhaps you are confused as to what it means?

It means Microsoft couldn't force Office on an OEM to get Windows. It doesn't disallow an OEM from saying "No, you can either take the product and keep the OS, or give us the whole product back" as you seem to think.

Re:Product Tying Disallowed

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the reasons Micro$oft was indicted was that they were forcing their OEMs to bundle Windows with PCs anf rocing them to unbundle other operating systems

$6 is a good deal

[John Jamieson]

At a conference on the west coast, an industry insider told me that MS basically gave ASUS XP for free (as part of a deal to FUD Linux). That means that ASUS may be loosing money on this "refund".

Oh, and it also means that ASUS will sell out easily, which makes me interested in ignoring their products.

Re:$6 is a good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me rephrase that for you..

At a conference on the west coast, an industry insider told me that MS basically gave ASUS XP for free (as part of a deal to Fear Uncertainty and Doubt Linux). That means that ASUS may be sagging money on this "refund".

Oh, and it also means that ASUS will sell out easily, which makes me interested in ignoring their products.

Re:$6 is a good deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? They're "loosing" money? It could be worse, they could be losing money.

$6 Looks like a fair price to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knew Microsoft had cut the price of XP to prevent companies distributing Linux.

Now we know the exact value.

Too bad you can't build your own laptop/netbook

[Just Brew It!]

A DIY system build with the Open Source OS of your choice is by far the best route to avoid the Microsoft Tax. I put trying to get a refund for Windows after the fact right up there with mail-in rebates and free upgrade coupons -- in other words, I would not take it into consideration when making a purchasing decision, because I am not going to count on actually getting it. As often as not the vendor (or their hired-gun fulfillment company) will try to screw you, and you're left trying to explain the situation to the Nice Man in India who has no incentive to actually help you.

Re:Too bad you can't build your own laptop/netbook

[westlake]

A DIY system build with the Open Source OS of your choice is by far the best route to avoid the Microsoft Tax.

The "Microsoft Tax" is the most worthless of all geek memes.

The OEM Windows system install delivers 95% of your potential customers - and there are a lot of customers.

Millions - perhaps tens of millions - for the major players.

That implies enormous cost savings at every step along the way to the retail shelf.

   

Re:Too bad you can't build your own laptop/netbook

[Just Brew It!]

I wasn't speaking from the OEM's viewpoint, I was speaking from the end users' viewpoint.

Re:Too bad you can't build your own laptop/netbook

[westlake]

I was speaking from the end users' viewpoint.

The end user sees the Windows PC delivering the biggest bang for the buck even if he wants to install Linux.

Think US$6 is right? Another way to calculate:

[mark0]

A 1005HA with Windows 7 starter on Amazon.com: US$336. Same system with Windows XP Home: US$312. Difference: US$24. Subtract that from the US$50 estimate OEM price in the ars technica article and the remainder would be the price Asus is charging for XP home: US$26.

Why is that worse?

[Animaether]

Seriously - why is that worse?

It's commonplace with just about anything else you buy where, after the fact, you find something like a defect.

A hole in a pair of pants' pocket, for example. You never deal with the manufacturer of the pants, just the store.
The store in turn can either decide to give you *some* money back (to cover mending costs, say), give you the full amount back as long as you return the pants, or give you the option to exchange for a similar model (with the difference in price, if any, being resolved as appropriate).

So if you now buy some manner of computer that has Windows 7, you come home, boot the thing up, read the EULA, and decide you do not agree... you contact the store you got it from, tell them you do not accept the EULA, and either they will refund you the Windows bit (presumably you have to disable windows or they disable the key registered to that machine or however that works), or you'll just have to return the entire thing. Sounds fair to me.

Of course, the best part of your post is pointing out that the EULA -is- available before purchasing the machine. Perhaps stores should just point to that and let the user declare that they read that darn thing and agree to it -before- purchase. Problem solved (outside of the people who buy machines with Windows with the express purpose of tossing another OS on there and then raising a stink-a-la-"nobody actually reads it, they just declare they have to be able to continue with their purchase" anyway, of course).

Asus is overcompensating

[amiga3D]

Six dollars is far more than windoze is worth. I know it's flamebait but I just couldn't help myself.

They've got a problem in the EU then.

[Anonymous Coward]

The French courts have already slapped down this sort of avoidance trickery and loaded on damages for obstruction. The complainer ended up with more compensation than he paid for the machine in the first place

Vista Sticker

[Frankie70]

Typed from a linux laptop with a Windows Vista sticker still on it.

Maybe you could return the sticker & get a refund on the sticker?

But Windows is NOT sold with the computer!

[Anonymous Coward]

If the add-on were sold, with no additional restrictions beyond those imposed by copyright law, it wouldn't be a problem. I'd take the unwanted component (Windows, optical drive, whatever) and sell it on e-bay. Not the seller's problem.

The point is that the seller is very specifically drawing a line around a component of the system and saying "this is sold under different terms than the rest of the computer". In particular, there is an entirely separate contract which must be agreed to in a separate step.

Now, I am a customer who enters into a standard retail sale contract to buy a computer. I'm not even shown the second contract at the time of sale.

When I see the second contract, I say "fuck that," and reject it. But it's too late for the seller to have second thoughts about the first contract; it's been agreed to and goods exchanged and can't be voided without my consent.

Now, if the seller tells me "sorry, you're fucked" and doesn't offer a refund, then they've agreed to let me keep the copy of Windows without agreeing to the contract. Which puts us right back in the first situation (I legally own a copy with no restrictions on disassembly, reverse-engineering, modification, resale, renting, etc.), which Microsoft wants to avoid.

Don't buy from Amazon or ASUS (or anyone else)

[HermMunster]

If they don't offer a refund on software you didn't choose to have then don't buy from them. If they don't offer a unit without an OS don't buy from them. ASUS is ripping you off and it is absolutely a unfair refund price. They are cheating you. Don't buy from them.

Re:Don't buy from Amazon or ASUS (or anyone else)

[/dev/trash]

I didn't want the iSCSI port on mine either, should I ask for a refund for that too?

Re:Don't buy from Amazon or ASUS (or anyone else)

[rdebath]

Yes, if you can point to a legal document that says you can.

Re:Don't buy from Amazon or ASUS (or anyone else)

[/dev/trash]

Does Slashdot count?

This is ridiculous.

[tjstork]

The whole Windows refund thing is ridiculous. Please, just go into a restaraunt, and see how much you can get discounted because you order a dinner with green beans instead of mash potatoes. Maybe buy a car without the original set of tires and get some other tire swapped. If you don't want a computer with Windows, don't buy a computer with Windows. It's pretty basic.

Re:This is ridiculous.

[SEE]

If a computer maker doesn't like the licensing terms for Windows, they're free to negotiate with Microsoft different terms for distributing Windows. Until then, they owe the refund under the terms of their license to distribute Windows. It's pretty basic.

Re:This is ridiculous.

[Macthorpe]

The Microsoft EULA specifically states that the manufacturer decides the terms upon which a refund is given, so they don't have to refund you just the OS if they don't want to.

Re:This is ridiculous.

[tjstork]

Until then, they owe the refund under the terms of their license to distribute Windows. It's pretty basic.

No, they don't.

Firewire Drive mode

[DrYak]

I think Apple would say "it's not possible to install a different OS onto a Mac without booting the factory-installed copy of OS X at least once

As far as I remember from my Apple-using friends, the Macs have a key combination you can press while booting, and instead of starting the OS, they start a special mode in their firmware which makes them to appear like a harddrive on their firewire port.
This makes one able to rescue or repair a Mac even if the system is completely b0rked, just as if the harddrive was removed and connected to an external FireWire box.

And in the worst scenario, you could simply physically disconnect the hard-drive and connect it to some USB-to-Sata adapter.
Well if opening the Mac doesn't void the warranty. (Does it ?)
And if the Mac suvive the opening (I've seen a mac-mini getting opened. Compared to what I'm used to, looks like Apple machine are extremely hard to open).

But what I mean is that technically you can still always install an OS from another computer.
- Most Linux distribution I know can do an installation to a separate drive : openSUSE and Debian can, and that's the normal installation procedure for Ubuntu (installing from within a Live-CD system) and for Gentoo (when one is too lazy to recompile everything and just clones an already installed system).
- With Windows, given the proper tools are used (SysPrep before creating the image) it is possible to deploy it by cloning partitions.

In those situation a Mac OS will never be booted on the target mac. ...but while would one pay for an over-expensive Apple machine and *not* run the OS with it ?
I mean : If it's the hardware you're after, you could build a better machine out of spare parts.
The only advantage Apple have over beige boxes, is the "Apple experience" - pretty eye-candy design with an intuitive OS.
Remove the OS and an Apple loses most of its advantages.

Re:Firewire Drive mode

[Titoxd]

As far as I remember from my Apple-using friends, the Macs have a key combination you can press while booting, and instead of starting the OS, they start a special mode in their firmware which makes them to appear like a harddrive on their firewire port. This makes one able to rescue or repair a Mac even if the system is completely b0rked, just as if the harddrive was removed and connected to an external FireWire box.

Yes, that's Target Disk Mode.

Re: General Bogus Outrage

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason people aren't mad as hell about it is because the whole thing is based upon a disingenuous argument. To wit, that there's this mythological person who both 1) has no idea that Windows has a EULA yet 2) is able and ready to install an alternative OS. For all intents and purposes, such a person doesn't exist. If you want a computer without Windows, order one from the factory without Windows. If there's enough demand, large manufacturers will start offering fairly priced OS-free computers again in the consumer retail environment. In the meantime, buy your system from a smaller, more cooperative OEM or build your own PC from components. But it's disingenuous to indignantly claim that "oh I had no idea when I placed my order that I was going to have to agree to an EULA on this machine laden with Windows stickers, so I want a full refund."

And bottom line, very few people care. At lesat at the consumer retail level, most people who buy a computer with Windows actually WANT a computer with Windows. See if you can get Apple to discount OSX from their macs. I know, "it's different, they're not a convicted monopolist. It's ok for them to price gouge me."

How I deal with this MS tax.

[3seas]

I don't even look at computer ads that include windows OS's, except to see whether or not Windows is included.

Enough walk this way and they will change their stance.

Standard Slashdot Outrage

[ClosedSource]

Around here people always complain about things they don't buy and actions they don't take.

Re: General Bogus Outrage

[Jiro]

"1) has no idea that Windows has a EULA"

The people demanding refunds know very well that Windows has a EULA. The EULA doesn't say that you can only return it for a refund if you haven't heard of it. You're supposed to return it for a refund if you refuse to accept the terms, and it's entirely possible to know about it and still not want to accept the terms.

"If there's enough demand, large manufacturers will start offering fairly priced OS-free computers again in the consumer retail environment."

No, because Microsoft doesn't allow it. If the computer doesn't have an OS on it, the manufacturer still has to pay for Windows for that computer--that's how the licensing deal with Microsoft works. So the manufacturer doesm't have a lower cost for the Windows-free computer, and therefore can't charge less (without losing money).

The Walmart Experience

[westlake]

I don't even look at computer ads that include windows OS's, except to see whether or not Windows is included.

It is difficult to conceive of a more unlikelier hero in the Slashdot pantheon.

For years "The World's Largest Retailer" carried the torch for OEM Linux in big box retail in the states.

The geek could forgive the thirty-second warranty. The absence of the basic system bundle with monitor and printer.

The gOS system that sold in rural markets without a working modem and to draw in the suckers had a mini board mounted in a cheap out-sized case like a flea market boom box stereo.

In the end, nothing ever came of it.
 

Who is he?

[Hurricane78]

This price unfortunately is not negotiable

So who exactly is that guy/company, to tell me what is how, and what is allowed or not allowed?
Do they really think their clients are just cattle that follow whatever made-up own rules they throw out there?

If that price is negotiable is not your decision Amazon! It is ours. Because without us, you’re fucked.
The Spore debacle has shown, that the times of companies dominating their clients is over. The Internet killed it, by freeing us.

Hey Companies! You’re our clients too, you know? You buy our money with your products. And we now put rules to when you get that right, too!
And hey bosses and managers! You’re next!

(Then again, fair companies and bosses with good deals will now earn what they deserve, too.)

Re:Who is he?

[westlake]

The Spore debacle has shown, that the times of companies dominating their clients is over. The Internet killed it, by freeing us.

Spore continues to rank second only to The Sims in sales of "Life-simulation games." PC Games-Simulation-Life

MS Refunds

[cwarner7_11]

I have never purchased a computer based on the operating system offered. In the past ten years, I have generally not used the operating system originally provided with the computers I have purchased. With the exception of laptop computers, I see no difference in the price of a computer I build myself, without an integrated operating system, and a commercial offering of the same capabilities with an integrated operating system. Ergo, the operating system really has no value. If ASUS or any other provider wants to offer me $6 for something I know I won't use, I will accept their money. But, if Toshiba offers me the capabilities I am looking for, for a price I consider reasonable, then I do not care whether I am paying for a Microsoft operating system or not. As soon as I turn on the computer, the first command is usually, format c:\" anyway- I am buying hardware, not software....Arguing over $6 today is not the same as arguing over $6 back in the days when gasoline was $0.15 per gallon....

Re:MS Refunds

[rdebath]

Except, there's this EULA, that explicitly states you get a refund. A refund that any reasonable person would expect to be the sale price of the item it covers; that's what a refund is.

Historical data shows that the sale price of just Windows XP (the item covered by the EULA) is around $50 under an OEM agreement. Current data implies that Windows 7 is around $75.

This is what I want. It's enough beer money to be 'useful'.

Re:MS Refunds

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I just paid %80 for a copy of XP Pro. Guess I got ripped off...

So tired of this

[leeosenton]

Why sit around and debate what the proper value of a refund is for a Windows license when you dont want it anyway? What happened to voting with your dollars? Do you want HP, Gateway, Toshiba, and Sony to sell Linux systems? Then buy a machine that comes with an "alternate" OS! I am typing this on my Dell Mini 9 netbook running Linux. I ordered it from them so I could cast a vote for alternate operating systems on new machines. I wiped the Dell Linux (old ubuntu w/ Dell launcher) and loaded UNR, but I wanted my vote to count. Yes, my desktop runs Windows and that is the right OS for the tasks that I do. Linux is the right OS for my little travel machine. I eventually chose another distro, but Dell sold a PC with Linux and got positive feedback from a customer. I actually liked the HP machine a little better, but wanted to support Linux by recording a sale, and I have no regrets. Canonical rewarded me with UNR 9.1 which is most excellent! So, want to thumb your nose at the big boys? Stop supporting them, there are many vendors out there with alternate choices. Vote with your Dollar!

Its all the crapware refunds offsetting cost

[Anonymous Coward]

The $6 sounds about right as all the festering pre-installed crapware and trials actually pays for XP. If you are not going to use XP, then the vendors that pay to foist all their software onto you would not benifit and should be refunded as well...

So XP costs $A
Companies crapware refund $A-6 ...and you get $6 back.. Sounds about right... I think it should be against the law for HP to fill your computer with all that crap to start with in the first place.. It should be a clean desktop with a garbage can on it and the only additions would be proper hardware drivers With none of the Driver "utility" programs installed either!!! Damn systems are slow and unusable brand new with all that junk running.

Hang all the lawyers

[microbox]

Only the consumer is agreeing to the EULA. It's the perfect legal bum steer.

Can't return shovelware

[rdebath]

But I can't return the shovelware without returning the whole computer because it doesn't have an EULA that says I can. So your maths is meaningless.

Do you have a post-sale agrement

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a post-sale agrement on your keyboard or monitor?

No.

Those changes change the game

[Anonymous Coward]

Those changes change the game. You don't expect your 10 year old TV to manage HiDef just because they're still selling it, do you?

Well, maybe you would if that meant businesses to screw over the customer.

Dig will work on your new 3 Gig borgship just as well as it did on your old computer you used to play it on. Why do you want it to play *better*???

Oh, just so you can make up some shit that says that the customer getting screwed is fine.

Gotcha.

Did you disagree to the shovelware?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you disagree to the shovelware?

Because if you didn't, they can still give you a CD with the shovelware on.

You may, after all, be reusing a retail license for XP.

Wait, maybe ASUS isn't the bad guy here

[Provocateur]

I think $6 *IS* the correct price for the declining value of XP considering it's been EOL'ed repeatedly, and ASUS is just telling us what its current street value is.

Oh THERE's my sarcasm tag, it was on the floor all this time.

Old, unavailable OS

[SgtChaireBourne]

The article is a troll or misdirection because the computers you will find online or in the remaining brick-and-mortar shops will not be delivered with Windows XP. If they are infected with Windows at all, they will have either Vista or Vista7. So the article should be about the refund price for Vista or Vista7 not XP.

Re:Old, unavailable OS

[tepples]

the computers you will find online or in the remaining brick-and-mortar shops will not be delivered with Windows XP.

The Aspire Revo is Acer's answer to the Mac mini. It still comes with Windows XP, and my boss bought one from Best Buy within the past two weeks.

In the EU the EULA is void

[Anonymous Coward]

In the EU there is legislation to require 'fairness' in contracts. In the UK there are guidelines to indicate what is or is not fair in a contract. One of the types of contract considered unfair is a requirement for the purchaser of a thing, to also purchase a non integral component for the thing in question. For example an auto sales room cannot require you to also purchase petrol (gasoline) from them. It does not matter whether it is in the 'contract' or not. It is an unfair condition.

It is on those grounds that many people have asked for the Windows cost to be returned. Windows is not an integral part of the system being purchased and has been added to the bundle solely because of contractual requirements between the seller and the software manufacturer.

If you want to claim the money back, cite the Unfair Contract Terms Act 2005. If they still refuse use the small claims court citing the act and listing the circumstances. The costs will likely be minimal even if you were to loose the case.

Don't give in to these crooks.

The Crux of the Issue: Consumer Choice Infringed

[dtschmitz]

The issue, as I see it, is very simple. This should be applied not just regionally, but globally: Open PC. Mandate: The Consumer is given the ultimate right and therefore choice to determine which Operating System, if any, should be installed at 'Point of Sale'. That includes brick and mortar and on the internet. The effort required to burn an oem image to a machine might be a minor inconvenience for the technician or operating business concern, but that is the price to pay for making the Consumer's interests the prime concern. Even anticipating the array of configurations and having in stock inventory of pre-imaged drives would take less than 10 minutes for a proficient technician to install. That is not a huge burden for businesses to carry. If then I choose to purchase at an agreed price WITHOUT any operating system installed--that *should* be my prerogative as a Consumer. So, I say, the direction that should be taken is to leave the decision for the Consumer to make--it is their choice and right. Thank You. Dietrich T. Schmitz Linux Advocate

It makes business sense

[HikingStick]

Even though the companies incur almost zero cost (okay, Linux fanboys, apart from reputational costs) for shipping with Windows after creating a disk master image or disk burning process, the company does incur administrative costs when processing refunds for people who decline the EULA. While these costs would not be significant, they could easily add up to $20-$25 (the cost of employee wages, benefits, overhead, technology, recordkeeping, and the issuance of the credit). It appears that these companies are simply reducing their credits by their cost of operation--similar to a restocking fee for returns of physical goods.

While I, too, would prefer to see clean (no-OS)PCs on the market, and prices that reflect having no OS (vs. subsidized OS installs), it's unfair to villianize the vendors who bear the brunt of the administrative responsibility in processing a refund for a declined EULA.

On a tangental note, I'm waiting to see a court case where someone claims they never accepted the EULA(s) on their PC because the PC was set up by one of their minor children. In most jurisdictions, minors cannot enter into contracts, so that would be the angle taken by the defense.

Re:The Crux of the Issue: Consumer Choice Infringe

[muckracer]

> The issue, as I see it, is very simple. This should be applied not just
> regionally, but globally: Open PC. Mandate: The Consumer is given the
> ultimate right and therefore choice to determine which Operating System, if
> any, should be installed at 'Point of Sale'.

Nice thought. Instead we had the EU pseudo-pissing on Microsoft's leg by going
on about RealPlayer and Netscape and whatnot. Enabling real choices for the
customer was unfortunately not in their interest. But then....to expect
politicians and parliament-members to actually work for the common good is
pretty silly to begin with, I sadly suppose. The only people affecting change
are individuals, who do out-of-the-majority's-box actions like demanding a
refund for an imposed OS. Regardless of money involved, everybody doing so is
to be applauded just for principle!

PS: I much prefer the word 'customer'. To me being called 'consumer' is almost
an insult. Customer implies choice and free will...consumer doesn't. Just my
take on it.

Re:The Crux of the Issue: Consumer Choice Infringe

[dtschmitz]

> The issue, as I see it, is very simple. This should be applied not just > regionally, but globally: Open PC. Mandate: The Consumer is given the > ultimate right and therefore choice to determine which Operating System, if > any, should be installed at 'Point of Sale'.

Nice thought. Instead we had the EU pseudo-pissing on Microsoft's leg by going on about RealPlayer and Netscape and whatnot. Enabling real choices for the customer was unfortunately not in their interest. But then....to expect politicians and parliament-members to actually work for the common good is pretty silly to begin with, I sadly suppose. The only people affecting change are individuals, who do out-of-the-majority's-box actions like demanding a refund for an imposed OS. Regardless of money involved, everybody doing so is to be applauded just for principle!

PS: I much prefer the word 'customer'. To me being called 'consumer' is almost an insult. Customer implies choice and free will...consumer doesn't. Just my take on it.

Where the U.S. is concerned, the FTC uses the term Consumer. But, have it your way, 'Customer' it is!

Running encrypted binaries

[tepples]

and since I do not accept the EULA in the first place

Apart from the EULA, nothing else gives you the right to decrypt the software, which is stored encrypted on the hard disk or the CD, in order to load it into RAM. I know of an argument that the defense under 17 USC 117* does not apply to encrypted software, following Universal v. Reimerdes, because it's still unlawful to circumvent access control without infringing copyright.

* This analysis assumes United States law. Microsoft, Slashdot, and this poster are in the United States.

Re:Running encrypted binaries

[Alex Belits]

WTF are you talking about? There are no encrypted binaries involved.

Re:Running encrypted binaries

[tepples]

WTF are you talking about? There are no encrypted binaries involved.

Mac OS X has them; I assumed that Windows might have started to do the same. I just assumed that Microsoft was doing something alongside Protected Video Path and Protected User Mode Audio in Windows Vista and Windows 7 to satisfy nine major publishers of non-software works. And even if Microsoft doesn't currently use encrypted binaries or encrypted installers, once this workaround for 17 USC 117 becomes more widely known, it will.

Re:Running encrypted binaries

[Alex Belits]

And what does it have to do with users who wipe their computers' hard drives and install a completely different OS?

Dismissing

[tepples]

Tying is an unlawful monopolistic behavior.

Let's not get into how Microsoft sweetens exclusivity with discounts

As far as I can tell, "how Microsoft sweetens exclusivity with discounts" is what the grandparent poster wanted to get into.

License URL on the packaging

[tepples]

terms of sale must be known to the user at the moment of sale.

The packaging for at least retail versions of Windows and Office shows the URL of the EULA. The user is expected to enter the URL into a web terminal in the store and view the EULA before walking to the checkout.

Without OS vs. with a competing OS?

[tepples]

If the computer doesn't have an OS on it, the manufacturer still has to pay for Windows for that computer

But do computer makers have to pay Microsoft for PCs that are shipped with a working copy of another operating system such as Ubuntu? I'd like to see a citation that this is still the policy in 2009.

sudo apt-get install wine crapware

[tepples]

A WinXP system is never just WinXP, it's also a boat load of crapware that the crapware authors have paid the manufacturer to bundle in.

Then couldn't the manufacturer have installed Ubuntu, sudo apt-get install wine, and then installed the crapware on top of Wine?

How many miles?

[tepples]

Sure, it might be difficult at a brick and mortar store but that doesn't mean it's impossible to find. It's not fair to complain that you can't find a honda because your dodge dealer doesn't sell hondas when there's a honda dealership 2 miles down the road.

No, it's like not being able to find a Honda dealership or even a used car dealership that carries Honda cars within fifty miles.

With due respect to the late Billy Mays

[tepples]

So what happens when its advertised as coming with $200 worth of software?

The same thing that happens when "as seen on TV" products are advertised as "a $50 value for only $9.99 plus processing": absolutely nothing.

(Maze maze maze...)

McDonalds - Bundle Deals

[foldingstock]

From McDonald's "Value Menu" you can order the following separately:

Medium drink - $1.00 (+ tax)
Double cheese burger - $1.20 (+ tax)
Small fries - $1.00 (+ tax)


You can order a "double cheese burger" combo meal for $2.79 (+ tax) which includes all of the above.

If you order the combo meal but do not want fries, do you really expect to receive a full $1.00 off? No, because the $2.79 price is discounted since it is part of a combo meal, even if the individual parts separately would cost more than $2.79. In this example, if you did not want fries, it would be cheaper to buy the drink + double cheese burger separately instead of purchasing the combo meal and excluding the fries.

The main problem with my analogy is while it is simple to buy a drink + cheeseburger separately, it is not as easy to buy computer parts without an OS. Desktops are highly customizable, but laptops/portables/etc are difficult to find in either barebones, diy kits, or individual parts.

Re:McDonalds - Bundle Deals

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the main problem with your analogy is that McDonalds is selling you the fries. If you don't want them you may give them to a friend, or sell them to the guy behind you in line.

The whole point of the post-sale EULA is that it's not a simple sale. Microsoft wants some other, non-standard, contract with you, the customer, and you didn't agree to that contract when you handed over your money.

If you don't agree to their terms, then Microsoft wants to back out of the deal. When a contract is voided, everyone picks up their marbles from the table and goes home with them. That is why they have to give you your money back.

People keep making fallacious analogies with standard sale contracts. A standard sale contract is executed when you exchange money for goods. Voila, fini, you're not entitled to retroactively void the contract without cause, or at the seller's sufferance. With a post-sale EULA, it's a completely different matter: it's not a simple sale and the reason you're entitled to a refund is that the contract hasn't been executed yet.