Frankly, I don't understand people who fail to make the jump...;) It's like a connect-the-dots restaurant placemat, you know?
I've been computing on the desktop for 18 years and over multiple platforms and it's truly mind-boggling what I've been able to do without the "helpful" technologies of DRM, Palladium, and TCPA (now you might make the technically accurate point that TCPA is not DRM, and you'd be correct. However, that does not alter the fact that A] it's not needed, and b] TCPA may in fact be leveraged by software DRM applications.)
You've got quite a few things backwards. It's actually the software companies which are accusing honest people of illegality (pirating software) and are stating loud and clear that they don't trust *me* as in individual enough to take my word that I don't pirate software (which I don't), but prefer instead to attempt to control my personal computing environment so they won't have to take my word for anything. I think this stinks--and I also think that in short order the DMCA will be repealed--the abuse of it already by private corporations is staggering. I'm for a *balance* between corporate rights and the state--I don't want to see the rights of individuals trampled by the rights of corporations.
Interesting, isn't it, how Microsoft's present financial position and strength owes nothing to DRM, Palladium, TCPA or Product Activation? The first three have yet to exist in the marketplace, and Microsoft was very rich long before it initiated Product Activation schemes. Absolute proof, then, that these initiatives are not about software piracy at all (at least from MIcrosoft's position.)
I think in the end it all boils down to greed and greedy men who fear the loss of a $ so much that they would cheerfully usurp the rights of everyone over private property simply because these greedy people consider that their right to make a profit is the Supreme Right in the Universe. That's nonsense, of course.
But as I said this is much ado about nothing at this point because DRM and Palladium are effectively nothing at the moment and control no one's hardware and software environment. Even with a complete acceptance by the markets this technology (after it is finished of course) would take years to penetrate before it would make any fundamental differences. Like the DMCA, though, I suspect it has a very shaky future in store, because there are a lot of people like me who want nothing to do with it--and the corporations which now exist will simply have to find a way to live with that--just as they found ways to "survive" the recording VCR which that idiot Jack Valenti proclaimed would be the "ruination" of Hollywood. (Come to think of it, maybe sending Hollywood down the tubes is not such a bad idea after all...;))
Oh, I think Brian's answers were very truthful...have no complaints about his forthrightness.
But you have to admit the logic in all of this gets a little tangled...if it's as unrelated as you say, then why would any software maker think of writing a DRM application that uses TCPA? Apparently Brian thinks it would be possible to integrate if not suborn TCPA into a DRM software application. The idea, as well as its feasibility, has occurred to him and apparently he's concluded that the two are not so dissimilar as to rule out someone writing such a DRM software application. If he thought that I think he would have said so.
I think you missed my point--if TCPA isn't in a bios, and Palladium chips aren't on motherboards--then obviously nobody's going to write software that integrates either one or requires either one, as is currently the case today.
As far as TCPA goes I'm interested in what is meant by an "authenticated" boot. IMO, this could conceivably have several meanings and not strictly refer to the unspoiled state of the kernel.
It's surprising to me, but as detail oriented as you have to be to get things done in this industry, I've friends and acquaintances who really have trouble seeing connections and subtleties that to me, anyway, seem quite obvious. This is like a Pandora's box of sorts because what you start with, regardless of how inoffensive it may seem, and what you end up are likely to be very different things.
(Microsoft has, however, continued DRM support in WMP9, I note, and the fact that WinXP Product Activation is not popular has not dissuaded Microsoft's continued use of it--which they have now spread to a program as innocuous as Plus!. But that's really not the point here....)
You make a very good point, which perhaps you ought to consider a bit more--like you say, DRM is currently possible on existing hardware--just as is SSL (which I think seems to work pretty darn well.) Something like SSL does *not require* DRM or Palladium to function properly.
So whence cometh the need for Palladium, TCPA, and DRM...? (DRM is the obvious one, of course.) IMHO, the others will be used as system foundations for more "advanced" (more invasive) DRM software technology.
I used to laugh at the notions people had when they said that Microsoft wanted to take over the world. In fact, I still find it pretty darn funny. However, with Microsoft pushing technologies like these I do think Microsoft wants to take over my desktop--and yours--and everyone else's. I don't find that to be outlandish at all. Microsoft is pushing to be the traffic cop on my machine and seeking to install software and firmware initiatives so that Microsoft, not me, decides what and when I can run something on my computer. The problem with the whole Digital Rights initiative is that my Constitutional right to the ownership of private property (which I consider my computers to be as well as the software that resides on them) is usurped in favor of the *imagined rights* of corporations to invade my privacy to "help me" remain honest.
So why does an end user "need" TCPA or DRM or Palladium?
I think it is a bit silly to say, "Someone would have to write software to tie our bios initiatives to DRM," as if such a probability is extremely remote.
I think the correct answer might have been:
"If we weren't including and supporting these bios initiatives, there'd be nothing in our bios anyone could tie to a DRM software inititiative."
The problem here is that even though it can be disabled by the end user, and can't be software-enabled through the OS on the fly, the mere inclusion of it as a standard feature in a bios will encourage the DRM software author to say: "If you don't enable your bios control, you won't get any standard functionality out of our software." The mere fact that it is in the bios will be enough to spur software development in that direction.
The bright side to this is that it's all still years into the future--there are hundreds of millions of machines in use world wide which don't have any such bios capabilities and which aren't going to be discarded any time soon. And of course current machines being sold right now do not have it.
The question is will there be a market for this sort of thing? If implementers could guarantee me that using it means I can safely shut out Microsoft or any other company from doing *anything* (via the Internet) in my system without my express advance permission [and I don't mean EULA licensing--I mean per-occurrence notification as it happens]--well, even I might be interested at that point.
But the DRM initiative by private companies and the "privacy issue" for me seem entirely at cross purposes, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of hearing that these initiatives are promising that they can allow companies to inspect my system and control my software in the name of DRM, but at the same time will use the same technology to guarantee my privacy. I can't see how the two mix.
These benches are more of the same passed-around mush that nVidia's been handing out since October. Wake up and smell the coffee, people--these are the same programs nVidia handed out in the October handouts for benchmarking. Did the reviewer have a gun to the back of his head, so that he couldn't mange to run *anything* else? How convenient.
By the author's own words, this was no review. There are no 6x, 8x FSAA tests, at all, although these are supposed capabilities of GF FX--there are no screen shots for comparison--in otherwords, there is absolutely nothing to prove this ever took place. There are no anisptropic filtering tests, we don't know what cpu system the Radeon 9700 benchmarked on--nothing--absolutely nothing of interest that you would normally see in a real review is present. Even if you believe the author--he says unapologetically he was under direct duress by nVidia as far as what he was permitted to show AND SAY.
Already people on the Rage3D forums are talking about how much slower the 9700P speeds are in this promotional propganda piece than they themselves can get with their systems at home.
Also....what, pray tell, would Alienware be doing with a NVIDIA beta prototype? As a small OEM I would expect that if anything Alienware would have an OEM beta version of the card--possibly. Certainly not a nVidia version of a prototype card! If nVidia needs Alienware to beta test its upcoming card this must mean nVidia hasn't even finished the prototype reference design yet and nVidia's OEMs haven't even begun production!
Here's what I think it is: a paid-for promotional piece which is designed to deter people from going ahead and buying an ATI 9700 Pro. What it most certainly is not is an actual review of the product--by the words of the author himself. What I still can't get over is that these are the very same benchmarked programs nVidia was handing out in October!
When nVidia starts sending out cards to reviewers with driver sets and saying, "Have at it--review it any way you like!" that's when I'll start listening.
...two of them, so you can record what you want). The Supreme Court settled that issue long ago and there's not a thing these guys can do about that.
Instead, they are actively trying to move people to DVD and "digital" because they think it's a different medium and they can do to digital what they'd loved to have done to the VCR. Don't fall into their trap. You want a DVD machine? Fine, buy it. But also buy at least one VCR while you're at it (I have two that perform very well.) They figure if everyone moves to digital and they are successful in their bids they'll wind up where they wanted to wind up when they sued to have the recording VCR made illegal.
I'm guessing this issue will eventually move back to the Supremos again, and that these guys will lose again--but it's not a sure thing. They've already lost with the VCR, however. Just something to think about.
Why would any sane person spend hundreds of thousands of his own dollars just to run Linux on an Xbox? I mean, why not just buy a $199 Lindows box from Walmart, instead?
The plan at its heart is very simple:
(1) If you want to run Xbox games buy an Xbox
(2) If you want to run Linux on similar hardware buy a Lindows machine
The guy is acting as if you can't run Linux on anything *except* an Xbox, and Microsoft is standing in the way!....What rubbish! You can run Linux on practically *anything*--hence there is no need or justification for this at all.
Microsoft does not market, imply, or pretend in any fashion that the xBox is a general-purpose computer. It is manufactured and marketed as a game console. If people buy it under any other delusion--well, that's their problem as I see it. The won't be the first to try and turn a sou's ear into a silk purse.
I have to believe, honestly, that the poor fellow is suffering mentally somehow, since there are far better ways to gain publicity about your products for the same amount of money. Interesting that you don't see Microsoft pulling boneheaded stunts like this--maybe that's why they've been successful (hint.)
...been going on for years. At its heart, really, it's a religious-political issue, as some people find a measure of relief in calling it a "fact" instead of a theory; people don't like uncertainty, even when they're uncertain. I should say "some people" don't like it; others recognize that uncertainty is the foundation on which all real knowledge is built. A few hundred years ago it was also a "fact" that the world was flat. I imagine that there are many so-called "facts" in our current scientific vernacular which will give future citizens quite a chuckle--just as we often chuckle and shake our heads over the antics of past generations. Whatever you do, though--stay aloof from the argument. Zealots on both sides of this issue are voracious.
I've had the opposite experience since September when I replaced the GF4 Ti4600 I had (moved it to the wife's machine at home) with a 9700 Pro. I have found the drivers terrific so far, from the included version on the CD up to the current 3.0 DX9-compliant Catalysts. What's more, I've tested the card with more than 35 3D games in my library--closer to 40--and have yet to find one that wouldn't run, or either ran so poorly the game was unplayable. From my point of view it's simply the best 3D card I've ever owned--especially for 3D gaming.
Also, this is the second motherboard I've used the card with--the first was an MSI KT333 chipset board, my current board is a nVidia-based nForce2 chipset board manufactured by Chaintech, which supports AGP x8 and several other things. The card runs extremely well. I've not even been tempted to swap cards with the wife and go back to the nVidia Ti4600 product--no way...
I would strongly suggest that either you have some underlying system incompatiblity of which you are unaware which prohibits the card from working properly--or else you simply had the bad luck to pick up a defective card (in which case an RMA is order.) Your experience is certainly not representative of that of the reviewer of the article on which this thread is based, none of the other reviews of the product (and there have been dozens of them), or my direct personal experience. Think how you like but I thought you should know your experience is anything but typical.
The point was not about nationalities, the point was that a diversity of products in *any* economy is a sign of health. My point had nothing to do with either elevating America or disparaging anyone else. Try putting the remarks in the context of the topic I was addressing. As I am an American it's natural for me to frame ideas from that perspective, just as it is natural for you to say, "Fuck you, you arrogant yankee prick," in the context of wherever it is that you come from.
First of all, take a look at ATI's sales figures for the first quarter which included 9700P sales--UP 34% sequentially! In fact, shortly after shipping the 9700P ATI announced that the demand for its new high-end graphics product was going to materially affect its earnings in a positive sense--and that's just what happened. By the first of October ATI had shipped 1 million + of its $400 3D accelerators into the market, according to an article I read. By now I would image they've shipped somewhere between 2-3 million of them. Twice I saw various enews outlets carrying stories on ATI being surprised by demand for the its R300-based products and having to seek out additional FAB space immediately. Actually, this market is vigorous and very healthy, and if anything there is a pent-up demand for products like this.
Second thing you forget is that M$ is driving 3D into the mainstream with its DX initiatives--which basically means that someone using a GF2 and someone using a 9700P can run the same 3D program--the only requirement being that the hardware developer has written DX-compliant drivers. Of course the guy running the old 3D card won't get anything close to the performance and atmosphere of the guy running the 9700P, but he can still run the program, and that's what counts. Upgrading his 3D card is up to him. Those who like 3D games will buy these cards--those who don't, won't.
*chuckle* If everybody had to run 3D games prior to their being published we'd never have seen the first 3D game--so obviously that's not a requirement. 3D gaming software is just like any other--there's never a case where "everybody" buys it, no matter what it is. There are still tens of millions of people who are still running Windows 98, for instance. "Everybody" participating isn't required for an unqualified success in this market because the market is segmented.
That's my last point--you talk about videocard markets being segmented--that's because the market itself is segmented! Not everybody wants a 9700P, but millions of people do, and that's plenty enough demand to create a sizable market. Talking about fragmented--look at the automobile industry. It's extremely fragmented, but the market is so huge that companies make money anyway.
I guess it all boils down to the fact that "one size does not have to fit all" for markets to succeed and thrive. Indeed, the raw diversity of the American economy stuns people who experience it after the limitations of planned economies. They often find the amount of choice staggering.
There is a cohesion and a method to it all. APIs like DX and OpenGL are making it happen, along with the competitive efforts of hardware companies like nVidia and ATI. In another year or so you won't be able to buy a graphics accelerator, for any cost, that won't include a decent level of 3D acceleration--indeed, even ATI's current value line of videocards is OpenGL 2.0/DX9-compatible. The 3D card market is just like any other--higher end products get designed and built because there's a real demand for them.
Also, instead of looking at one 3D game--why not look at combined sales for all of them to judge the success of the market. People's tastes differ--I can't stand the "Sims", for instance, but many people love the games. Looking at the sales depth of a single 3D game will tell you little about the overall market.
In my system at home for instance I replaced a GF4 Ti4600 with a 9700P and couldn't be happier. I make use of the features of the product--especially its incredible fill rate and bandwidth which allow me to run older games faster than was possible before, along with stunning visual effects like FSAA and anisotropic filtering--which are applied by the driver and can be used with any 3D game. So even running older 3D software I can see a big difference between my former GF4 Ti4600 and the newer 9700P which I bought back in September. I feel very much as if I've gotten my money's worth.
Just to let you know there's another side of the coin here...
Microsoft was distributing SUN's java under license; SUN sues Microsoft for shipping the "wrong" kind of java; Microsoft changes java; SUN sues Microsoft again for not shipping a "compliant java,"; Microsoft has enough and strips all SUN java products out of Windows; SUN sues again to force Microsoft to *ship* SUN's java with Windows (because Microsoft making SUN's java available on the Internet for anyone who wanted it to download was not enough for SUN), and another computer-illiterate judge decides to play it safe and rule against Microsoft (without, it seems, ever understanding the issues involved.)
The wonder of it all is what SUN thinks Microsoft's shipping of their little java engine will do for SUN...? That's what's I find baffling. Microsoft never stopped shipping SUN's java on its own in the first place--the company simply sickened of lawsuits from SUN objecting to the way Microsoft is run and managed. Who can blame them? I certainly don't. But the irony here is sweet: Scott McNealy believes so strongly in the strength of the Microsoft operating system that he would sue Microsoft just to make sure his little java virtual engine gets shipped with each and every copy. What's the deal? Does he think it makes Windows a better OS?
What is it with people and their seemingly insatiable need to reinvent the wheel? The irony is that Microsoft's OS's caught on as well as they did not because Bill Gates is an Evil Genius *chuckle* but because Gates was dumb enough to write operating systems for the lousy x86 hardware paradigm when it began--the historical fact is nobody else wanted to. (The fact is that the guy IBM originally picked to do their OS decided to play golf instead of meet with IBM representatives as scheduled by appointment, and Gates was second on their list and he was in at the time.) Literally, no one else wanted the job.
Flash forward to the mid-late 80's. No one who was "anything" in the personal computer scene at the time would be caught dead using an x86 clone or DOS--they used Macs and Amigas which were brilliant concepts at the time, the Amiga especially literally being ten years ahead of Gates and Windows and x86.
Ironically, especially in light of the recent DOJ hearings, the reason the Amiga died and the Mac became a butt for jokes and received permanent niche status had absolutely nothing to do with Gates and Microsoft and IBM. The reason for those events was internal--for Apple it was a short-sighted and greedy Steve Jobs who did not want to license Mac clones; with Commodore it was a greedy and short-sighted Mehdi Ali who did not want to license Amiga clones (I recall at the time hearing from a source I trusted who informed me that Commodore had actually gotten a cloning agreement penned with Tandy and Radio Shack, where the company would have sold its machines in its thousands of retail stores under a clone name, but that Commodore pulled out at the last minute.) Both Apple and Commodore felt they could make more money by being the sole distributors of their hardware--neither company foresaw the incredible boom that would hit the personal computer industry in the 90's.
So it just so happened that Gates was the guy who grew up writing OS's for the one, single hardware standard which was open to tons of competition within--the IBM-PC clone hardware marketplace. In it you had dozens of companies all competing with each other to sell systems and peripherals--today there are hundreds of such companies all devoted to a single standard--the one that allowed clones--x86. Some people to this day do not understand that it was the hardware engine that drove x86 to vast supremacy--certainly not Gate's software--which back in the late 80's absolutely sucked compared to other OS's at the time. But because so many companies were selling x86 hardware so much cheaper than companies like Apple or Commodore, it was the x86 clones that were bought (most of the time Apple and Commodore could not meet demand for their hardware, which is exactly why they should've liscensed clones early on.)
And everywhere an IBM-PC clone went, a Microsoft OS was sure to follow. It's pretty simple to understand how Microsoft got to where it is today even though it was selling one of the worst OS's in existence for several years. Gates has never made a secret of it--there's the famous Gates-Jobs memos in which Jobs asks Gates what he needs to do to get the Mac into the mainstream and Gates writes back "License clones." It was advice which Jobs declined (which he now admits he should've taken.)
That's why I think Dvorak's bored...he wants something "new"...yet the only thing *he* can think of is some *old* crap nobody ever really pursued years ago *chuckle*...;) There's some inkling in his opinion that an OS should not be "functional" but "something else"--whatever the "else" is, Dvorak doesn't say....
It seems to me that Dvorak is forgetting that most if not all of the "new" ideas as to what an OS should be and do have all been tried and the GUI is the best that anybody's been able to come up with. Maybe when the hardware gets here we can have 3D holograms on the desktop that will work in fundamentally different ways, but for right now and the foreseeable future we're stuck with a 2D display (even our "3D" is just simulated in a 2D display.) And the GUI seems to be everybody's consensus of "what's best" for an operating system interface (of course some people still prefer the command line, but that's not what Dvorak is talking about.)
Dvorak talks about "wintel roots" without realising that "Wintel roots" had roots of their own which came out of earlier computing projects--and accusing one company of "copying" another simply because it chose to adopt something as fundamental as a GUI is pretty ridiculous. It's like saying GM and Ford "copy each other" because they make cars with four wheels and rubber tires. Is it really that they "copied" each other, or more like the fact that these things are as fundamental to the design of a car (or computer OS) as doors are to houses? Of course, that I agree with the latter should come as no surprise.
The trend in Linux today toward workable GUIs that happen to "look like" Windows was not intentional, nor was it subconscious as Dvorak contends. Rather, Linux advocates and developers have always worked toward creating a better OS than Windows and a different OS than Windows. But the fact is there are only so many ways you can skin the GUI cat--only so many ways to make a GUI which is intelligible. Dvorak's "look and feel" arguments are pretty funny--I thought we'd gotten past that bit of nonsense years ago. It's like saying Goodyear should sue Firestone (or vice-versa) because the tires the other company makes "look and feel" the same *chuckle* The whole "look and feel" argument was atrocious from the beginning and it's gratifying to see it never got anywhere.
Here's the thing Dvorak forgets: so what if Linux versions "look and feel" somewhat like Windows? Who cares? The fact is it *isn't* Windows regardless of what it looks and feels like. If anything such superficial similarities might actually help spread the acceptance of Linux (if the community can ever get over the factional splintering of distributions--which is the one thing that could doom its ultimate success as a competitor to Windows--but that's another story.)
I guess Dvorak forgot the simple admonition that contains worlds of truth: don't judge a book by its cover.
I was with my parents at a lake house during vacation and we watched it on television as it happened. Incredible moment. One of those unforgettable things, you know?
Don't hook up any critical systems to communications networks which can can remotely control them. Use communication networks for communication, and use physically closed, local networks, and human beings, for the control of critical systems.
Simply put: what sort of idiot would ever want to tie in the direct control of a nuclear power plant to the Internet?
This reminds me of an exceedingly dumb, but funny, movie I saw where some bad guys used "the Internet" to take over the country. They disrupted financial institutions, turned off electricty, compromised the ability of the military to defend against them, etc. and etc and etc. And through the whole movie the central bad guy sat before a computer screen and used [what sounded like] a 56K modem to do it all just "hacking away" at the Internet *chuckle* It was pretty easy to see the writers had no clue as to what the mysterious and vaguely threatening "Internet" actually is--I doubled over laughing more than once...
Listen, if we as a country are ever so stupid as to put all of these critical systems [I am NOT talking about credit-card shopping, for goodness sake] "online" then...*chuckle* we're stupid enough to deserve exactly what we will get.
I have confidence that we are not that stupid.
Most people understand that the Internet will, of necessity, have boundaries. It will not be a cybergateway into "everything" as so many people whimsically imagine. The greatest value of the Internet is communication and information. It's best it be restricted to those capacities. Putting the control of critical systems "online" is just not in the cards--not for a thinking nation, anyway.
Did you know that your land line and cell phone calls can be tapped? Or that clerks in any of the institutions to whom you give your credit card numbers could steal them--or worse--*sell* them for profit! *shudder*
Your car, for instance, can be bugged and tracked by a Nav positioning satellite so that the baddies will know where you are every minute of the day! I could go on, but now I think you see...it's *horrible*!
...that someone who knows his way around a few unix configurations will find discovering a hack in Windows to be comparatively easy.
I do find his charaterization of people as "too stupid to use unix" seriously off--it's not stupdity, it's a lack of experience, desire/interest, time, etc.
...expectations, and my guess is you'll find the movie enjoyable. Most of the time when criticism
abounds concerning a genre rendition (who can deny that Star Trek is anything but that?) it's because the movie has dashed expectations. That's the whole problem with genre series like this--everybody has his own individual expectations. My guess is that those who see it who aren't so "serious" about it and take it on its own merits will enjoy the movie most.
that OS's commonly in use today were originally created for functionality and hardware support, not for "security", and that the foundational structure of these OS's (if not the code itself) predates the advent of the ubiquitous Internet. Trying to shoehorn security into them as an afterthought is often like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
The question is, will this unceasing paranoia about "security holes" lead to better software, or terrible software?
The Eula applies to the installed OS--if it is licensed. If the end user does not agree to the license terms, he *must*, according to the Eula, strip it from his system. That is a licensing term that the reseller agrees to when it pre-installs the OS. Again, the proper place to make the complaint is Sony, in this case--they are the ones who originally purchased the OS, and who profit from its resale to a VAR.
But all of this is highly academic--I'm certain if Sony had vendors who regularly requested Windows-free laptops it would supply them. But what does a vendor do if 49 out of 50 people request windows with their laptops--is he going to order a load of 50 non-Windows boxes because of that one person? Very doubtful--and there's the actual reason you don't see the "no os" option very often (although some OEMs and vendors provide it), or the single, non-Microsoft OS option, as in this case. HOw it is people get that M$ puts a gun to the OEM's head and forces it to buy and install Windows against its will is beyond me. I realize that's part of the current mythology--but it's not true (and never has been.)
As to the Ebay Auction--if the copy of WindowsXP has not yet been licensed--that is--activated with Microsoft, then nobody owns the license as of yet, regardless of what Ebay might think. The point is there are plenty of people who might buy it, and selling it himself he's apt to get a good deal more for it than he would if he got a "refund"--which probably amounts to pennies on the dollar compared to the retail pricing of XP.
The only point I wanted to make is that Sony makes the decision as to what OS's to put on its laptops before it sells them, and the reason the EL guy can't get the Sony laptops without Windows has nothing to do with Microsoft.
I really can't see the "tax" analogy because usually with any pre-built system there are items, both hardware and software, which the purchaser would rather do without but which are a part of the package and so come with it anyway. If the M$ OS is a tax, then so is all the rest.
Sony buys the licenses and installs them on their machines. Any 3rd-party which purchases them from Sony will get them with the OS included because that's the way *Sony* elects to sell them.
That includes a vendor like Emperor Linux who buys them from Sony (or a middleman wholesaler like Ingram-Micro) to resell them to you at a profit--with Linux in the deal as a VAR.
So, your order of payment is a bit off. It's this way:
(1) Sony builds the laptops and pays M$ for the number of copies of the OS Sony wants to buy. Sony sells their laptops, configured with the OS, to vendors like Ingram-Micro or EL, etc., who pay Sony.
(2)YOU PAY Emperor Linux what it demands you pay. Your money goes to them, not M$. You can either take this up with Sony, or EL--but M$'s not in the picture at this point.
My guess would be that Sony equips all of its laptops with Windows because the number of vendors who ask for them without the OS is so small it would cost them more to make the exceptions. (If they have such requests at all.)
Advice: Keep the OS and sell it to a friend or an acquaintance at 50%-75% the OS's retail/corporate cost (which ever applies.) Put it on Ebay if need be (I guarantee you'll get more for it that way than through any kind of "refund" EM is likely to give you.)
I wish people could get the "chain of purchasing" straight when it comes to who they are paying and for what.
Seems to me any refund would have to come from the vendor who bought that copy of Windows to sell to you along with his hardware.
Or, you could just keep it in the case that you have some machine running XP somewhere--it would serve as a second license for the OS to enable you to use XP somewhere else you might need to, if you needed a second license but didn't especially want to pay for another.
Slashdot Mirror
Frankly, I don't understand people who fail to make the jump...;) It's like a connect-the-dots restaurant placemat, you know?
I've been computing on the desktop for 18 years and over multiple platforms and it's truly mind-boggling what I've been able to do without the "helpful" technologies of DRM, Palladium, and TCPA (now you might make the technically accurate point that TCPA is not DRM, and you'd be correct. However, that does not alter the fact that A] it's not needed, and b] TCPA may in fact be leveraged by software DRM applications.)
You've got quite a few things backwards. It's actually the software companies which are accusing honest people of illegality (pirating software) and are stating loud and clear that they don't trust *me* as in individual enough to take my word that I don't pirate software (which I don't), but prefer instead to attempt to control my personal computing environment so they won't have to take my word for anything. I think this stinks--and I also think that in short order the DMCA will be repealed--the abuse of it already by private corporations is staggering. I'm for a *balance* between corporate rights and the state--I don't want to see the rights of individuals trampled by the rights of corporations.
Interesting, isn't it, how Microsoft's present financial position and strength owes nothing to DRM, Palladium, TCPA or Product Activation? The first three have yet to exist in the marketplace, and Microsoft was very rich long before it initiated Product Activation schemes. Absolute proof, then, that these initiatives are not about software piracy at all (at least from MIcrosoft's position.)
I think in the end it all boils down to greed and greedy men who fear the loss of a $ so much that they would cheerfully usurp the rights of everyone over private property simply because these greedy people consider that their right to make a profit is the Supreme Right in the Universe. That's nonsense, of course.
But as I said this is much ado about nothing at this point because DRM and Palladium are effectively nothing at the moment and control no one's hardware and software environment. Even with a complete acceptance by the markets this technology (after it is finished of course) would take years to penetrate before it would make any fundamental differences. Like the DMCA, though, I suspect it has a very shaky future in store, because there are a lot of people like me who want nothing to do with it--and the corporations which now exist will simply have to find a way to live with that--just as they found ways to "survive" the recording VCR which that idiot Jack Valenti proclaimed would be the "ruination" of Hollywood. (Come to think of it, maybe sending Hollywood down the tubes is not such a bad idea after all...;))
Oh, I think Brian's answers were very truthful...have no complaints about his forthrightness.
But you have to admit the logic in all of this gets a little tangled...if it's as unrelated as you say, then why would any software maker think of writing a DRM application that uses TCPA? Apparently Brian thinks it would be possible to integrate if not suborn TCPA into a DRM software application. The idea, as well as its feasibility, has occurred to him and apparently he's concluded that the two are not so dissimilar as to rule out someone writing such a DRM software application. If he thought that I think he would have said so.
I think you missed my point--if TCPA isn't in a bios, and Palladium chips aren't on motherboards--then obviously nobody's going to write software that integrates either one or requires either one, as is currently the case today.
As far as TCPA goes I'm interested in what is meant by an "authenticated" boot. IMO, this could conceivably have several meanings and not strictly refer to the unspoiled state of the kernel.
It's surprising to me, but as detail oriented as you have to be to get things done in this industry, I've friends and acquaintances who really have trouble seeing connections and subtleties that to me, anyway, seem quite obvious. This is like a Pandora's box of sorts because what you start with, regardless of how inoffensive it may seem, and what you end up are likely to be very different things.
(Microsoft has, however, continued DRM support in WMP9, I note, and the fact that WinXP Product Activation is not popular has not dissuaded Microsoft's continued use of it--which they have now spread to a program as innocuous as Plus!. But that's really not the point here....)
You make a very good point, which perhaps you ought to consider a bit more--like you say, DRM is currently possible on existing hardware--just as is SSL (which I think seems to work pretty darn well.) Something like SSL does *not require* DRM or Palladium to function properly.
So whence cometh the need for Palladium, TCPA, and DRM...? (DRM is the obvious one, of course.) IMHO, the others will be used as system foundations for more "advanced" (more invasive) DRM software technology.
I used to laugh at the notions people had when they said that Microsoft wanted to take over the world. In fact, I still find it pretty darn funny. However, with Microsoft pushing technologies like these I do think Microsoft wants to take over my desktop--and yours--and everyone else's. I don't find that to be outlandish at all. Microsoft is pushing to be the traffic cop on my machine and seeking to install software and firmware initiatives so that Microsoft, not me, decides what and when I can run something on my computer. The problem with the whole Digital Rights initiative is that my Constitutional right to the ownership of private property (which I consider my computers to be as well as the software that resides on them) is usurped in favor of the *imagined rights* of corporations to invade my privacy to "help me" remain honest.
So why does an end user "need" TCPA or DRM or Palladium?
I think it is a bit silly to say, "Someone would have to write software to tie our bios initiatives to DRM," as if such a probability is extremely remote.
I think the correct answer might have been:
"If we weren't including and supporting these bios initiatives, there'd be nothing in our bios anyone could tie to a DRM software inititiative."
The problem here is that even though it can be disabled by the end user, and can't be software-enabled through the OS on the fly, the mere inclusion of it as a standard feature in a bios will encourage the DRM software author to say: "If you don't enable your bios control, you won't get any standard functionality out of our software." The mere fact that it is in the bios will be enough to spur software development in that direction.
The bright side to this is that it's all still years into the future--there are hundreds of millions of machines in use world wide which don't have any such bios capabilities and which aren't going to be discarded any time soon. And of course current machines being sold right now do not have it.
The question is will there be a market for this sort of thing? If implementers could guarantee me that using it means I can safely shut out Microsoft or any other company from doing *anything* (via the Internet) in my system without my express advance permission [and I don't mean EULA licensing--I mean per-occurrence notification as it happens]--well, even I might be interested at that point.
But the DRM initiative by private companies and the "privacy issue" for me seem entirely at cross purposes, and frankly I'm getting a little tired of hearing that these initiatives are promising that they can allow companies to inspect my system and control my software in the name of DRM, but at the same time will use the same technology to guarantee my privacy. I can't see how the two mix.
These benches are more of the same passed-around mush that nVidia's been handing out since October. Wake up and smell the coffee, people--these are the same programs nVidia handed out in the October handouts for benchmarking. Did the reviewer have a gun to the back of his head, so that he couldn't mange to run *anything* else? How convenient.
By the author's own words, this was no review. There are no 6x, 8x FSAA tests, at all, although these are supposed capabilities of GF FX--there are no screen shots for comparison--in otherwords, there is absolutely nothing to prove this ever took place. There are no anisptropic filtering tests, we don't know what cpu system the Radeon 9700 benchmarked on--nothing--absolutely nothing of interest that you would normally see in a real review is present. Even if you believe the author--he says unapologetically he was under direct duress by nVidia as far as what he was permitted to show AND SAY.
Already people on the Rage3D forums are talking about how much slower the 9700P speeds are in this promotional propganda piece than they themselves can get with their systems at home.
Also....what, pray tell, would Alienware be doing with a NVIDIA beta prototype? As a small OEM I would expect that if anything Alienware would have an OEM beta version of the card--possibly. Certainly not a nVidia version of a prototype card! If nVidia needs Alienware to beta test its upcoming card this must mean nVidia hasn't even finished the prototype reference design yet and nVidia's OEMs haven't even begun production!
Here's what I think it is: a paid-for promotional piece which is designed to deter people from going ahead and buying an ATI 9700 Pro. What it most certainly is not is an actual review of the product--by the words of the author himself. What I still can't get over is that these are the very same benchmarked programs nVidia was handing out in October!
When nVidia starts sending out cards to reviewers with driver sets and saying, "Have at it--review it any way you like!" that's when I'll start listening.
...two of them, so you can record what you want). The Supreme Court settled that issue long ago and there's not a thing these guys can do about that.
Instead, they are actively trying to move people to DVD and "digital" because they think it's a different medium and they can do to digital what they'd loved to have done to the VCR. Don't fall into their trap. You want a DVD machine? Fine, buy it. But also buy at least one VCR while you're at it (I have two that perform very well.) They figure if everyone moves to digital and they are successful in their bids they'll wind up where they wanted to wind up when they sued to have the recording VCR made illegal.
I'm guessing this issue will eventually move back to the Supremos again, and that these guys will lose again--but it's not a sure thing. They've already lost with the VCR, however. Just something to think about.
Why would any sane person spend hundreds of thousands of his own dollars just to run Linux on an Xbox? I mean, why not just buy a $199 Lindows box from Walmart, instead?
The plan at its heart is very simple:
(1) If you want to run Xbox games buy an Xbox
(2) If you want to run Linux on similar hardware buy a Lindows machine
The guy is acting as if you can't run Linux on anything *except* an Xbox, and Microsoft is standing in the way!....What rubbish! You can run Linux on practically *anything*--hence there is no need or justification for this at all.
Microsoft does not market, imply, or pretend in any fashion that the xBox is a general-purpose computer. It is manufactured and marketed as a game console. If people buy it under any other delusion--well, that's their problem as I see it. The won't be the first to try and turn a sou's ear into a silk purse.
I have to believe, honestly, that the poor fellow is suffering mentally somehow, since there are far better ways to gain publicity about your products for the same amount of money. Interesting that you don't see Microsoft pulling boneheaded stunts like this--maybe that's why they've been successful (hint.)
...been going on for years. At its heart, really, it's a religious-political issue, as some people find a measure of relief in calling it a "fact" instead of a theory; people don't like uncertainty, even when they're uncertain. I should say "some people" don't like it; others recognize that uncertainty is the foundation on which all real knowledge is built. A few hundred years ago it was also a "fact" that the world was flat. I imagine that there are many so-called "facts" in our current scientific vernacular which will give future citizens quite a chuckle--just as we often chuckle and shake our heads over the antics of past generations. Whatever you do, though--stay aloof from the argument. Zealots on both sides of this issue are voracious.
I've had the opposite experience since September when I replaced the GF4 Ti4600 I had (moved it to the wife's machine at home) with a 9700 Pro. I have found the drivers terrific so far, from the included version on the CD up to the current 3.0 DX9-compliant Catalysts. What's more, I've tested the card with more than 35 3D games in my library--closer to 40--and have yet to find one that wouldn't run, or either ran so poorly the game was unplayable. From my point of view it's simply the best 3D card I've ever owned--especially for 3D gaming.
Also, this is the second motherboard I've used the card with--the first was an MSI KT333 chipset board, my current board is a nVidia-based nForce2 chipset board manufactured by Chaintech, which supports AGP x8 and several other things. The card runs extremely well. I've not even been tempted to swap cards with the wife and go back to the nVidia Ti4600 product--no way...
I would strongly suggest that either you have some underlying system incompatiblity of which you are unaware which prohibits the card from working properly--or else you simply had the bad luck to pick up a defective card (in which case an RMA is order.) Your experience is certainly not representative of that of the reviewer of the article on which this thread is based, none of the other reviews of the product (and there have been dozens of them), or my direct personal experience. Think how you like but I thought you should know your experience is anything but typical.
Feeling more righteous now, are we?
The point was not about nationalities, the point was that a diversity of products in *any* economy is a sign of health. My point had nothing to do with either elevating America or disparaging anyone else. Try putting the remarks in the context of the topic I was addressing. As I am an American it's natural for me to frame ideas from that perspective, just as it is natural for you to say, "Fuck you, you arrogant yankee prick," in the context of wherever it is that you come from.
First of all, take a look at ATI's sales figures for the first quarter which included 9700P sales--UP 34% sequentially! In fact, shortly after shipping the 9700P ATI announced that the demand for its new high-end graphics product was going to materially affect its earnings in a positive sense--and that's just what happened. By the first of October ATI had shipped 1 million + of its $400 3D accelerators into the market, according to an article I read. By now I would image they've shipped somewhere between 2-3 million of them. Twice I saw various enews outlets carrying stories on ATI being surprised by demand for the its R300-based products and having to seek out additional FAB space immediately. Actually, this market is vigorous and very healthy, and if anything there is a pent-up demand for products like this.
Second thing you forget is that M$ is driving 3D into the mainstream with its DX initiatives--which basically means that someone using a GF2 and someone using a 9700P can run the same 3D program--the only requirement being that the hardware developer has written DX-compliant drivers. Of course the guy running the old 3D card won't get anything close to the performance and atmosphere of the guy running the 9700P, but he can still run the program, and that's what counts. Upgrading his 3D card is up to him. Those who like 3D games will buy these cards--those who don't, won't.
*chuckle* If everybody had to run 3D games prior to their being published we'd never have seen the first 3D game--so obviously that's not a requirement. 3D gaming software is just like any other--there's never a case where "everybody" buys it, no matter what it is. There are still tens of millions of people who are still running Windows 98, for instance. "Everybody" participating isn't required for an unqualified success in this market because the market is segmented.
That's my last point--you talk about videocard markets being segmented--that's because the market itself is segmented! Not everybody wants a 9700P, but millions of people do, and that's plenty enough demand to create a sizable market. Talking about fragmented--look at the automobile industry. It's extremely fragmented, but the market is so huge that companies make money anyway.
I guess it all boils down to the fact that "one size does not have to fit all" for markets to succeed and thrive. Indeed, the raw diversity of the American economy stuns people who experience it after the limitations of planned economies. They often find the amount of choice staggering.
There is a cohesion and a method to it all. APIs like DX and OpenGL are making it happen, along with the competitive efforts of hardware companies like nVidia and ATI. In another year or so you won't be able to buy a graphics accelerator, for any cost, that won't include a decent level of 3D acceleration--indeed, even ATI's current value line of videocards is OpenGL 2.0/DX9-compatible. The 3D card market is just like any other--higher end products get designed and built because there's a real demand for them.
Also, instead of looking at one 3D game--why not look at combined sales for all of them to judge the success of the market. People's tastes differ--I can't stand the "Sims", for instance, but many people love the games. Looking at the sales depth of a single 3D game will tell you little about the overall market.
In my system at home for instance I replaced a GF4 Ti4600 with a 9700P and couldn't be happier. I make use of the features of the product--especially its incredible fill rate and bandwidth which allow me to run older games faster than was possible before, along with stunning visual effects like FSAA and anisotropic filtering--which are applied by the driver and can be used with any 3D game. So even running older 3D software I can see a big difference between my former GF4 Ti4600 and the newer 9700P which I bought back in September. I feel very much as if I've gotten my money's worth.
Just to let you know there's another side of the coin here...
...the chameleon got there first.
Microsoft was distributing SUN's java under license; SUN sues Microsoft for shipping the "wrong" kind of java; Microsoft changes java; SUN sues Microsoft again for not shipping a "compliant java,"; Microsoft has enough and strips all SUN java products out of Windows; SUN sues again to force Microsoft to *ship* SUN's java with Windows (because Microsoft making SUN's java available on the Internet for anyone who wanted it to download was not enough for SUN), and another computer-illiterate judge decides to play it safe and rule against Microsoft (without, it seems, ever understanding the issues involved.)
The wonder of it all is what SUN thinks Microsoft's shipping of their little java engine will do for SUN...? That's what's I find baffling. Microsoft never stopped shipping SUN's java on its own in the first place--the company simply sickened of lawsuits from SUN objecting to the way Microsoft is run and managed. Who can blame them? I certainly don't. But the irony here is sweet: Scott McNealy believes so strongly in the strength of the Microsoft operating system that he would sue Microsoft just to make sure his little java virtual engine gets shipped with each and every copy. What's the deal? Does he think it makes Windows a better OS?
What is it with people and their seemingly insatiable need to reinvent the wheel? The irony is that Microsoft's OS's caught on as well as they did not because Bill Gates is an Evil Genius *chuckle* but because Gates was dumb enough to write operating systems for the lousy x86 hardware paradigm when it began--the historical fact is nobody else wanted to. (The fact is that the guy IBM originally picked to do their OS decided to play golf instead of meet with IBM representatives as scheduled by appointment, and Gates was second on their list and he was in at the time.) Literally, no one else wanted the job.
Flash forward to the mid-late 80's. No one who was "anything" in the personal computer scene at the time would be caught dead using an x86 clone or DOS--they used Macs and Amigas which were brilliant concepts at the time, the Amiga especially literally being ten years ahead of Gates and Windows and x86.
Ironically, especially in light of the recent DOJ hearings, the reason the Amiga died and the Mac became a butt for jokes and received permanent niche status had absolutely nothing to do with Gates and Microsoft and IBM. The reason for those events was internal--for Apple it was a short-sighted and greedy Steve Jobs who did not want to license Mac clones; with Commodore it was a greedy and short-sighted Mehdi Ali who did not want to license Amiga clones (I recall at the time hearing from a source I trusted who informed me that Commodore had actually gotten a cloning agreement penned with Tandy and Radio Shack, where the company would have sold its machines in its thousands of retail stores under a clone name, but that Commodore pulled out at the last minute.) Both Apple and Commodore felt they could make more money by being the sole distributors of their hardware--neither company foresaw the incredible boom that would hit the personal computer industry in the 90's.
So it just so happened that Gates was the guy who grew up writing OS's for the one, single hardware standard which was open to tons of competition within--the IBM-PC clone hardware marketplace. In it you had dozens of companies all competing with each other to sell systems and peripherals--today there are hundreds of such companies all devoted to a single standard--the one that allowed clones--x86. Some people to this day do not understand that it was the hardware engine that drove x86 to vast supremacy--certainly not Gate's software--which back in the late 80's absolutely sucked compared to other OS's at the time. But because so many companies were selling x86 hardware so much cheaper than companies like Apple or Commodore, it was the x86 clones that were bought (most of the time Apple and Commodore could not meet demand for their hardware, which is exactly why they should've liscensed clones early on.)
And everywhere an IBM-PC clone went, a Microsoft OS was sure to follow. It's pretty simple to understand how Microsoft got to where it is today even though it was selling one of the worst OS's in existence for several years. Gates has never made a secret of it--there's the famous Gates-Jobs memos in which Jobs asks Gates what he needs to do to get the Mac into the mainstream and Gates writes back "License clones." It was advice which Jobs declined (which he now admits he should've taken.)
That's why I think Dvorak's bored...he wants something "new"...yet the only thing *he* can think of is some *old* crap nobody ever really pursued years ago *chuckle*...;) There's some inkling in his opinion that an OS should not be "functional" but "something else"--whatever the "else" is, Dvorak doesn't say....
It seems to me that Dvorak is forgetting that most if not all of the "new" ideas as to what an OS should be and do have all been tried and the GUI is the best that anybody's been able to come up with. Maybe when the hardware gets here we can have 3D holograms on the desktop that will work in fundamentally different ways, but for right now and the foreseeable future we're stuck with a 2D display (even our "3D" is just simulated in a 2D display.) And the GUI seems to be everybody's consensus of "what's best" for an operating system interface (of course some people still prefer the command line, but that's not what Dvorak is talking about.)
Dvorak talks about "wintel roots" without realising that "Wintel roots" had roots of their own which came out of earlier computing projects--and accusing one company of "copying" another simply because it chose to adopt something as fundamental as a GUI is pretty ridiculous. It's like saying GM and Ford "copy each other" because they make cars with four wheels and rubber tires. Is it really that they "copied" each other, or more like the fact that these things are as fundamental to the design of a car (or computer OS) as doors are to houses? Of course, that I agree with the latter should come as no surprise.
The trend in Linux today toward workable GUIs that happen to "look like" Windows was not intentional, nor was it subconscious as Dvorak contends. Rather, Linux advocates and developers have always worked toward creating a better OS than Windows and a different OS than Windows. But the fact is there are only so many ways you can skin the GUI cat--only so many ways to make a GUI which is intelligible. Dvorak's "look and feel" arguments are pretty funny--I thought we'd gotten past that bit of nonsense years ago. It's like saying Goodyear should sue Firestone (or vice-versa) because the tires the other company makes "look and feel" the same *chuckle* The whole "look and feel" argument was atrocious from the beginning and it's gratifying to see it never got anywhere.
Here's the thing Dvorak forgets: so what if Linux versions "look and feel" somewhat like Windows? Who cares? The fact is it *isn't* Windows regardless of what it looks and feels like. If anything such superficial similarities might actually help spread the acceptance of Linux (if the community can ever get over the factional splintering of distributions--which is the one thing that could doom its ultimate success as a competitor to Windows--but that's another story.)
I guess Dvorak forgot the simple admonition that contains worlds of truth: don't judge a book by its cover.
man landed on the moon?
I was with my parents at a lake house during vacation and we watched it on television as it happened. Incredible moment. One of those unforgettable things, you know?
Don't hook up any critical systems to communications networks which can can remotely control them. Use communication networks for communication, and use physically closed, local networks, and human beings, for the control of critical systems.
Simply put: what sort of idiot would ever want to tie in the direct control of a nuclear power plant to the Internet?
This reminds me of an exceedingly dumb, but funny, movie I saw where some bad guys used "the Internet" to take over the country. They disrupted financial institutions, turned off electricty, compromised the ability of the military to defend against them, etc. and etc and etc. And through the whole movie the central bad guy sat before a computer screen and used [what sounded like] a 56K modem to do it all just "hacking away" at the Internet *chuckle* It was pretty easy to see the writers had no clue as to what the mysterious and vaguely threatening "Internet" actually is--I doubled over laughing more than once...
Listen, if we as a country are ever so stupid as to put all of these critical systems [I am NOT talking about credit-card shopping, for goodness sake] "online" then...*chuckle* we're stupid enough to deserve exactly what we will get.
I have confidence that we are not that stupid.
Most people understand that the Internet will, of necessity, have boundaries. It will not be a cybergateway into "everything" as so many people whimsically imagine. The greatest value of the Internet is communication and information. It's best it be restricted to those capacities. Putting the control of critical systems "online" is just not in the cards--not for a thinking nation, anyway.
Did you know that your land line and cell phone calls can be tapped? Or that clerks in any of the institutions to whom you give your credit card numbers could steal them--or worse--*sell* them for profit! *shudder*
Your car, for instance, can be bugged and tracked by a Nav positioning satellite so that the baddies will know where you are every minute of the day! I could go on, but now I think you see...it's *horrible*!
...that someone who knows his way around a few unix configurations will find discovering a hack in Windows to be comparatively easy.
I do find his charaterization of people as "too stupid to use unix" seriously off--it's not stupdity, it's a lack of experience, desire/interest, time, etc.
...expectations, and my guess is you'll find the movie enjoyable. Most of the time when criticism abounds concerning a genre rendition (who can deny that Star Trek is anything but that?) it's because the movie has dashed expectations. That's the whole problem with genre series like this--everybody has his own individual expectations. My guess is that those who see it who aren't so "serious" about it and take it on its own merits will enjoy the movie most.
that OS's commonly in use today were originally created for functionality and hardware support, not for "security", and that the foundational structure of these OS's (if not the code itself) predates the advent of the ubiquitous Internet. Trying to shoehorn security into them as an afterthought is often like trying to fit a round peg into a square hole.
The question is, will this unceasing paranoia about "security holes" lead to better software, or terrible software?
he's being paid to prefer it. Hopefully, no confusion exists on that point.
The Eula applies to the installed OS--if it is licensed. If the end user does not agree to the license terms, he *must*, according to the Eula, strip it from his system. That is a licensing term that the reseller agrees to when it pre-installs the OS. Again, the proper place to make the complaint is Sony, in this case--they are the ones who originally purchased the OS, and who profit from its resale to a VAR.
But all of this is highly academic--I'm certain if Sony had vendors who regularly requested Windows-free laptops it would supply them. But what does a vendor do if 49 out of 50 people request windows with their laptops--is he going to order a load of 50 non-Windows boxes because of that one person? Very doubtful--and there's the actual reason you don't see the "no os" option very often (although some OEMs and vendors provide it), or the single, non-Microsoft OS option, as in this case. HOw it is people get that M$ puts a gun to the OEM's head and forces it to buy and install Windows against its will is beyond me. I realize that's part of the current mythology--but it's not true (and never has been.)
As to the Ebay Auction--if the copy of WindowsXP has not yet been licensed--that is--activated with Microsoft, then nobody owns the license as of yet, regardless of what Ebay might think. The point is there are plenty of people who might buy it, and selling it himself he's apt to get a good deal more for it than he would if he got a "refund"--which probably amounts to pennies on the dollar compared to the retail pricing of XP.
The only point I wanted to make is that Sony makes the decision as to what OS's to put on its laptops before it sells them, and the reason the EL guy can't get the Sony laptops without Windows has nothing to do with Microsoft.
I really can't see the "tax" analogy because usually with any pre-built system there are items, both hardware and software, which the purchaser would rather do without but which are a part of the package and so come with it anyway. If the M$ OS is a tax, then so is all the rest.
Sony buys the licenses and installs them on their machines. Any 3rd-party which purchases them from Sony will get them with the OS included because that's the way *Sony* elects to sell them.
That includes a vendor like Emperor Linux who buys them from Sony (or a middleman wholesaler like Ingram-Micro) to resell them to you at a profit--with Linux in the deal as a VAR.
So, your order of payment is a bit off. It's this way:
(1) Sony builds the laptops and pays M$ for the number of copies of the OS Sony wants to buy. Sony sells their laptops, configured with the OS, to vendors like Ingram-Micro or EL, etc., who pay Sony.
(2)YOU PAY Emperor Linux what it demands you pay. Your money goes to them, not M$. You can either take this up with Sony, or EL--but M$'s not in the picture at this point.
My guess would be that Sony equips all of its laptops with Windows because the number of vendors who ask for them without the OS is so small it would cost them more to make the exceptions. (If they have such requests at all.)
Advice: Keep the OS and sell it to a friend or an acquaintance at 50%-75% the OS's retail/corporate cost (which ever applies.) Put it on Ebay if need be (I guarantee you'll get more for it that way than through any kind of "refund" EM is likely to give you.)
I wish people could get the "chain of purchasing" straight when it comes to who they are paying and for what.
Seems to me any refund would have to come from the vendor who bought that copy of Windows to sell to you along with his hardware.
Or, you could just keep it in the case that you have some machine running XP somewhere--it would serve as a second license for the OS to enable you to use XP somewhere else you might need to, if you needed a second license but didn't especially want to pay for another.
at .65 microns as well? It's always amazing to see how technology finds a way around problems.