MS OEM licensing
-
LukeV wrote: What would be the point to buy that??? Have no idea - user doesn't waste time on formatting HD? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you to his level and beat you with experience.
In that case, even if I had no plan on using it, I'd still buy the version with windows on (just so I'd have the option to use it if I wanted to) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
-
I have a question for anyone out there: How is it that an OS software company (Microsoft), can dictate to hardware OEMs like Dell, Gateway(? are they even still around), IBM et al how they can sell their products ? The question relates to the whole selling of an OEM machine with no OS. How can MS legally make the demand that they (the OEM's) not be allowed to sell PC's without an OS? I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? Just wondering...
AFAIK This was related to the deal MS did with IBM - a looooong time ago IBM agreed that all PCs would have MS OS on them. Then Dell etc made PC compatibles - which meant they had to stick to the agreement IBM made with MS. If Dell made non-PC PCs then they could put what the want on them. I think that this agreement has been watered down over time, but MS still has strong control due to original terms...
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, a sore thumb you will have."
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I expect more from our president and i'd like a president who treated the constitution as The Law, rather than as a set of general guidelines to be followed when they don't get in the way. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'd like a president who treated the constitution as The Law, rather than as a set of general guidelines to be followed when they don't get in the way. Ummm.... it would be the DOJ/AntiTrust division that enforces the laws the MS is accused/convicted of breaking, not the POTUS. The case is still being heard by a federal judge (not the POTUS) and being litigated by state AG's and DOJ lawyers (not the POTUS). EXACTLY what would you like Mr. Bush to do?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
LukeV wrote: What would be the point to buy that??? Have no idea - user doesn't waste time on formatting HD? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
Never argue with an idiot, he'll bring you to his level and beat you with experience.
Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Have no idea - user doesn't waste time on formatting HD? Not even that, according to Slashdot (yes even I take that with a grain of salt). The contract with MS says that every PC must have an Operating System installed, so, Dell is selling the PC with FreeDOS instead of Windows. I still can't figure out how the costs can be the same. Somewhere, deep inside the price, the OS must be accounted for. Given that a drive image is a drive image, I would bet that the manufacturing costs are the same for both Operating Systems, so where is the refund for the cost of Windows? Shawn
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'd like a president who treated the constitution as The Law, rather than as a set of general guidelines to be followed when they don't get in the way. Ummm.... it would be the DOJ/AntiTrust division that enforces the laws the MS is accused/convicted of breaking, not the POTUS. The case is still being heard by a federal judge (not the POTUS) and being litigated by state AG's and DOJ lawyers (not the POTUS). EXACTLY what would you like Mr. Bush to do?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
i guess i wasn't referring to the anti-trust stuff specifically, since we were already far off topic. i understand that that issue is still in the courts. (though it's obvious to me obvious that GWB wouldn't mind if MS got off without even a slap on the wrist). and, the guy in charge of the justice department, Ashcroft, reports directly to GWB. so, to say GWB isn't involved is ridiculous. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
I have a question for anyone out there: How is it that an OS software company (Microsoft), can dictate to hardware OEMs like Dell, Gateway(? are they even still around), IBM et al how they can sell their products ? The question relates to the whole selling of an OEM machine with no OS. How can MS legally make the demand that they (the OEM's) not be allowed to sell PC's without an OS? I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? Just wondering...
You guys gotta keep up better. Dell sells machines and ships "FreeDOS" with them if the customer doesn't want Windows. This way, the machine goes out with an OS (but you don't have to use it if you don't want to. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
Tomasz Sowinski wrote: Have no idea - user doesn't waste time on formatting HD? Not even that, according to Slashdot (yes even I take that with a grain of salt). The contract with MS says that every PC must have an Operating System installed, so, Dell is selling the PC with FreeDOS instead of Windows. I still can't figure out how the costs can be the same. Somewhere, deep inside the price, the OS must be accounted for. Given that a drive image is a drive image, I would bet that the manufacturing costs are the same for both Operating Systems, so where is the refund for the cost of Windows? Shawn
Shawn Horton wrote: so where is the refund for the cost of Windows? i wouldn't be surprised if MS's contract had something in it that prohibited a discount on systems without Wind'rs. :) -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'd like a president who treated the constitution as The Law, rather than as a set of general guidelines to be followed when they don't get in the way. Ummm.... it would be the DOJ/AntiTrust division that enforces the laws the MS is accused/convicted of breaking, not the POTUS. The case is still being heard by a federal judge (not the POTUS) and being litigated by state AG's and DOJ lawyers (not the POTUS). EXACTLY what would you like Mr. Bush to do?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
He wants Bush to start using the DOJ as an extortion racket like Clinton did. "What, only 3 million in donations this year Mr. Gates? Well, let me see if I can find that DOJ phone number. Oh, thanks for the extra 2 million. You are a sweet heart." "Honest, we will use all that money we extorted, I mean deserved from the tobacco companies for the good of the public. BTW, we will be removing all current funding from programs and replacing it with tobacco money. Heh, we kept our word." Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'd like a president who treated the constitution as The Law, rather than as a set of general guidelines to be followed when they don't get in the way. Ummm.... it would be the DOJ/AntiTrust division that enforces the laws the MS is accused/convicted of breaking, not the POTUS. The case is still being heard by a federal judge (not the POTUS) and being litigated by state AG's and DOJ lawyers (not the POTUS). EXACTLY what would you like Mr. Bush to do?
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: The case is still being heard by a federal judge Not this http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.txt.html[^] case. Here's a little quote from half-way down the page (not that the very first line isn't interesting, but this is more specific: "Microsoft has used its monopoly power, in effect, to levy a "tax" on PC manufacturers who would otherwise like to offer an alternative system," said Bingaman. "As a result, the ability of rival operating systems to compete has been impeded, innovation has been slowed and consumer choices have been limited." "I was sweating, I was sweating like a fat lady would." -Man Inside My Mouth, The Cure
-
In that case, even if I had no plan on using it, I'd still buy the version with windows on (just so I'd have the option to use it if I wanted to) -- Help me! I'm turning into a grapefruit!
So would I because the other option (paying for nothing) is not a real option. "I was sweating, I was sweating like a fat lady would." -Man Inside My Mouth, The Cure
-
I have a question for anyone out there: How is it that an OS software company (Microsoft), can dictate to hardware OEMs like Dell, Gateway(? are they even still around), IBM et al how they can sell their products ? The question relates to the whole selling of an OEM machine with no OS. How can MS legally make the demand that they (the OEM's) not be allowed to sell PC's without an OS? I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? Just wondering...
Still sounds fishy. MS really shouldn't have any control over systems not using their software. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
-
Shawn Horton wrote: so where is the refund for the cost of Windows? i wouldn't be surprised if MS's contract had something in it that prohibited a discount on systems without Wind'rs. :) -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
Is that before or after the line about your immortal soul and firstborn child? "I was sweating, I was sweating like a fat lady would." -Man Inside My Mouth, The Cure
-
He wants Bush to start using the DOJ as an extortion racket like Clinton did. "What, only 3 million in donations this year Mr. Gates? Well, let me see if I can find that DOJ phone number. Oh, thanks for the extra 2 million. You are a sweet heart." "Honest, we will use all that money we extorted, I mean deserved from the tobacco companies for the good of the public. BTW, we will be removing all current funding from programs and replacing it with tobacco money. Heh, we kept our word." Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: He wants Bush... how very clairvoyant of you to know what i want. Tim Smith wrote: "What, only 3 million in donations this year Mr. Gates? Well, let me see if I can find that DOJ phone number. Oh, thanks for the extra 2 million. You are a sweet heart." since bush, not clinton, told the DOJ to drop the MS breakup idea, looks like that's exactly what happened. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Is that before or after the line about your immortal soul and firstborn child? "I was sweating, I was sweating like a fat lady would." -Man Inside My Mouth, The Cure
:)
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Still sounds fishy. MS really shouldn't have any control over systems not using their software. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: MS really shouldn't have any control over systems not using their software. Agreed, that is why I am wondering how it is even an issue. Of course as other have pointed out, and the slash dot folks are now dancing with glee, Dell is now offering certain select models to corps with out an OS but distributing FreeDOS. But my initial question no one has seemed to answer, and that is how is the whole OS-less computer even an issue ? Is it all something non-existant that is simply being hyped by the media, since they apparently have nothing else to report, or is there really an issue here? Are there actual contracts in existance today that hand over OEM control of their hardware to MS or is this all bogus? It would seem real as other OS vendors (namely BeOS, though I am sure there are others) have complained about the issue of being able to get the OEM to put their stuff on the machines. If this is a valid complaint then this just seems utterly ridiculous, and frankly all the bullsh*t over the browser integration (which to my mind is ultimately just silly) was wasted effort. This (the OS contracts) is something legitimate which should have been argued extensively over in the anti-trust case. And instead, apparently we are just in for more of the same, sigh...
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: The case is still being heard by a federal judge Not this http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.txt.html[^] case. Here's a little quote from half-way down the page (not that the very first line isn't interesting, but this is more specific: "Microsoft has used its monopoly power, in effect, to levy a "tax" on PC manufacturers who would otherwise like to offer an alternative system," said Bingaman. "As a result, the ability of rival operating systems to compete has been impeded, innovation has been slowed and consumer choices have been limited." "I was sweating, I was sweating like a fat lady would." -Man Inside My Mouth, The Cure
Believe me, I wasn't defending Microsoft. I think their business practices (as well as many of their products) suck. I'm just not naive enough to think that ALL cases of this size and scope don't have political overtones. I don't like that they do, anymore than the next guy, but I'm not blind to it. Chris Losinger (the devout Bush basher ;P ) made it sound as if everything was perfect until Mr. Bush let MS off the hook. First of all, like Tim Smith pointed out, the initial aspects of the case were politically motivated. Secondly, the DOJ started to lighten up even during the last days of the Clinton era once MS started greasing some Democratic palms. In addition, during the Clinton administration the DOJ attacked where he wanted them to attack and they took a blind eye where he wanted them to take a blind eye. *cough* Gore's fundraising! *cough* I find it amazing how Democrats/Republicans always sound so righteous when criticizing the opposite party for doing the very same things their own party does every day.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
I have a question for anyone out there: How is it that an OS software company (Microsoft), can dictate to hardware OEMs like Dell, Gateway(? are they even still around), IBM et al how they can sell their products ? The question relates to the whole selling of an OEM machine with no OS. How can MS legally make the demand that they (the OEM's) not be allowed to sell PC's without an OS? I understand that MS can play hardball and say, well if you want Windows, then this is how you have to play ball, but isn't that illegal ? Just wondering...
Reminds me of a conversation that was brought up in the MS anti-trust case. I think it was a Gateway representative who was tired of the MS BS, and he told the MS representative that "if you weren't the only supplier of Windows, you wouldn't be our supplier". The MS employee shot back, "Well, we're the only game in town, where are you going to go?" Microsoft has been treating OEMs like serfdoms for a long time. Even though MS claims it doesn't have monopolistic control, it knows it does (and so do the OEMs). Microsoft also has the habit of giving better prices to companies which do what MS wants. If they get out of line, they know they're in danger of MS raising the price of Windows for them - which has the effect of loosing sales to their competitors and hurting their bottom-line. ------------------------------------------ When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me. - Emo Phillips
-
Richard Stringer wrote: But he does let the interns alone tell me how that matters. i find it absolutely f'ing incredible how GWB's defenders simply can not talk about their own guy without trying to define him in terms of "not-clinton" or "not-gore". and, no Mr. Stringer, I'm not referring to you only - there are plenty of others just like you on CP. is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
Chris Losinger wrote: is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. Actually its not. Rather than engage in a discussion that has so much that is opinion and party affiliation why not just compare one to the other. Or if you have an intellect that can span any length of time with out putting on the Rose Colored Glasses just compare him to his previous few Democratic peers ( Clinton - Carter - Johnson - Kennedy ). Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded , one issue , pied piper type, who thinks that just being a Republican or making money on ones own or succesful outside of politics makes you something to be sneered at and held up to riducle. I can point to the fact that most of our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials who were of the opinion that they were "Doing the right thing" without any thought as to what the ramifications of their ides of "The Right Thing" was. So please don't start an argument on politics without a basis of argument - an understanding of what you are saying from a historical viewpoint - something a bit more constructive that "GW IS AN IDIOT" or "GORE IS A TREE HUGGER". It is said ( I think by PT Barnum ) that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Politics is a lot like that . What is amazing to me is how namy people fall into that first catagory. I live in the state that GW was the Gov of. I met the man many years ago when he was a minority owner of the local baseball team. I liked him then and I like him now. Is he perfect -NO. Is he better than Clinton ? Time will tell but it is not going to be a difficult task. Spare me the ideaology please and bombard me with facts. And make sure of your facts because another Democratic trick is taking a fact, massaging it with a bit of ledgend, spinning a web of half truths around it, and presenting it to the world as a great feat of deduction. Kinda like "Tax cut for the very rich" or "The President should do something to stop the market decline". Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Chris Losinger wrote: is it that they can't find anything good to say about GWB on his own, so the best they can come up with is "well he's not clinton!" ? it's pitiful, actually. Actually its not. Rather than engage in a discussion that has so much that is opinion and party affiliation why not just compare one to the other. Or if you have an intellect that can span any length of time with out putting on the Rose Colored Glasses just compare him to his previous few Democratic peers ( Clinton - Carter - Johnson - Kennedy ). Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded , one issue , pied piper type, who thinks that just being a Republican or making money on ones own or succesful outside of politics makes you something to be sneered at and held up to riducle. I can point to the fact that most of our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials who were of the opinion that they were "Doing the right thing" without any thought as to what the ramifications of their ides of "The Right Thing" was. So please don't start an argument on politics without a basis of argument - an understanding of what you are saying from a historical viewpoint - something a bit more constructive that "GW IS AN IDIOT" or "GORE IS A TREE HUGGER". It is said ( I think by PT Barnum ) that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Politics is a lot like that . What is amazing to me is how namy people fall into that first catagory. I live in the state that GW was the Gov of. I met the man many years ago when he was a minority owner of the local baseball team. I liked him then and I like him now. Is he perfect -NO. Is he better than Clinton ? Time will tell but it is not going to be a difficult task. Spare me the ideaology please and bombard me with facts. And make sure of your facts because another Democratic trick is taking a fact, massaging it with a bit of ledgend, spinning a web of half truths around it, and presenting it to the world as a great feat of deduction. Kinda like "Tax cut for the very rich" or "The President should do something to stop the market decline". Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Of course I doubt that you can do that on an objective basis as I have found that most Democrats are single minded you don't know if i'm a Democrat or not, do you? didn't think so. i could be anything, even a republican, and still think bush is an idiot. why? because i have a mind of my own. Richard Stringer wrote: Spare me the ideaology please ok, i will if you will. you have blamed everything ("our problems, both domestic and global can be laid right at the feet of Democratic officials") on Democrats, as if a person can only be a Democrat or a Republican and nothing else - as if they subscribe to the party line and live to uphold the ideals of the Party. well, guess what? where i come from, a person can do the wrong thing from either side of the fence. i'll say it again, partisan politics is the worst part of US government. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
-
Believe me, I wasn't defending Microsoft. I think their business practices (as well as many of their products) suck. I'm just not naive enough to think that ALL cases of this size and scope don't have political overtones. I don't like that they do, anymore than the next guy, but I'm not blind to it. Chris Losinger (the devout Bush basher ;P ) made it sound as if everything was perfect until Mr. Bush let MS off the hook. First of all, like Tim Smith pointed out, the initial aspects of the case were politically motivated. Secondly, the DOJ started to lighten up even during the last days of the Clinton era once MS started greasing some Democratic palms. In addition, during the Clinton administration the DOJ attacked where he wanted them to attack and they took a blind eye where he wanted them to take a blind eye. *cough* Gore's fundraising! *cough* I find it amazing how Democrats/Republicans always sound so righteous when criticizing the opposite party for doing the very same things their own party does every day.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Chris Losinger (the devout Bush basher ) made it sound as if everything was perfect until Mr. Bush let MS off the hook. that wasn't my intention. i merely pointed out that Bush is far nicer to MS than Clinton was. and if you think i'm strictly a bush basher - wait for the next sleazy president to take over. -c
Conservative: One who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. -- Leo C. Rosten
