Microsoft has urged UK PC vendors not to give customers the opportunity to buy a PC without a pre-installed operating system. Supplying base systems, or 'naked PCs', is a missed opportunity, according to Michala Alexander, Microsoft's head of anti-piracy. Writing in Microsoft's Partner Update magazine, which is distributed to computer dealers, Alexander estimated that 5 percent of computers sold in the UK in 2006 would not include an operating system.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-15
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-01-04
But on global level we are talking about millions of consumers.
So what. Practically none of those consumers is going to install their own OS, aside from a few hobbyists. So this is a non-issue, a tempest in a teacup.
Do you expect anyone to believe that millions of consumers that [would] buy PCs without an OS [if they were allowed to] are not going to install an OS of their choice on it? What are they going to do with a PC with no OS on it?
Before you can confine a million consumers worldwide to a "non-issue" teacup you will have to create a teacup that can hold them. Then you can try to convince them that they have no issue and claim that they have been properly served. Until then you are in denial of their issue and claiming [again] that it doesn't exist and that it's OK to do so because they are in a minority.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:2006-01-04
Who's screwed? How many consumers install their own OS? Practically none.
First sentence in the article:
"Microsoft has urged UK PC vendors not to give customers the opportunity to buy a PC without a pre-installed operating system."
If the customer isn't allowed to buy what they want, in this case a computer with no OS on it, are they being screwed into an unnecessary purchase or not? You may be so used to it that you no longer understand what is being done. Read the comments from the Brits. They don't seem to be completely complacent about paying for something to be installed on their machines that they don't want.
Or is your point that so few people want naked PCs that they should be forced into buying one with 'Doze on it? If only those people get screwed then it doesn't matter? How does that make sense as being fair and not being forced into an unwanted MS purchase is, what, unfair? To whom? MS? Because now they have to hire people to go out and visit those who bought machines with no OS and try to convinve them that they soemhow missed the "value proposition" of buying something they don't want or don't need?
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-07-28
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:
2005-10-02
Member since:2005-11-29
Member since:2005-10-02
A PC without Windows preinstalled is a terrible option in the eyes of Microsoft.
It affects competition because no OS on the system makes it easier to switch for the average user.
If you've already spent money on a PC with Windows preinstalled you're unlikely to change OS, and thereby throwing away your money.
If it's delivered without an OS, you are more likely to choose a non-MS product.
That's why MS don't like it. The excuse to prevent competition is to invade our privacy. And thereby gaining even more control of the modern society.
MS want a big brother society, and they want to be in control of it. That's the message MS is spreading, and that's why they're are scared shitless from the prospect of increased sale of base systems.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2006-03-14
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-30
If I want to spend the money on components but have a person who is better skilled than me to build it for me, this is the same thing. Microsoft is saying that they don't want these types of machines sold without an OS on them.
I've bought 5 machines in the past 4 years this way - going to mom & pop store, handing a list of components I want, selecting a case and having someone build it. I don't want to pay the extra $$ for Windows on these - as I run home with my new box an throw on Debian.
Why should I not be allowed to do this? I don't like building them myself. I may have the knowledge, but I want the security to know that if something goes wrong in the building, it was not me that caused it.
This is MS selfishness at its highest. Squeeze the last little $$ amounts left available from computer users. I don't buy an OS free box because I have a pirated copy of windows. It is because I bloody well don't want it. I wish MS would get this through their stinking heads. We - as consumers - should not all be penalized because of the 5% of OS free boxes that are sold which has some small percent of pirated Windows copies installed.
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-06
you missed his point (your comment have more or less the same content that mine had, the one he is replying to).
his issue was with not being able to pay his local computer parts klerk to have someone there take said parts to the back room and put it together under controled conditions (like say with antistatic wrist-bands and all that).
his interpetation is that microsoft says its a no-go if they allso wants to sell computers with microsoft products installed (or something like that)...
Member since:2005-09-30
My point was that I should be able to get one built for me at a store, which MS wouldn't then want to be sold without an OS.
I have built my own in the past - but I once made an extremely expensive error requiring me to purchase a new motherboard. I have since decided that I would prefer to have them built for me at a shop where I buy my components.
I have had numerous machines built this way, and the shop is under pressure from MS to *not* sell them without an OS - specifically Windows. It is a dirty game. Especially for the smaller shops which already operate on razor thin margins and need whatever discounts from MS they can get.
Member since:2006-03-17
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-09-15
"So does that mean they'd be satisfied if just *any* OS can distributed with the PC?"
They said that so that they couldn't be accused of flexing their monopoly power again. All the pc maker has to do and I've seen some do this already to ensure all the parts work is ship it with FreeDOS.
But of course what MSFT is saying is piracy is nothing more than the end user using his copy of WindowsXP he already paid for with his now junked/cannibalized pc. We must remember that what MSFT calls "piracy" is a far far cry from what it used to mean and what we the consumer thinks of when we see and use the word.
Rob
Member since:
2006-01-15
Member since:2006-01-06
Maybe the bigger picture is lost revenues, In that the more pc(s) sold without an OS adds up to lost revenues for MS I suppose, since most will just install the copy they already have.
MS isn't the only that makes money on OS sales. Dell, HP, IBM, and others add their own premium for the OS cost to the price of each PC sold. People tend to forget that; consequently, there's no real incentive for anybody to sell barebones PCs.
Member since:2005-07-18
Member since:2005-07-06
and how big a group of their customer base demands a pc without a os? sure there is the geeks. but those are just as likely to rebuild their old pc as buy a completly new one ever so often.
people dont want a machine they have to tinker with, what they want is a appliance. a device that can be a typewriter, a advanced calculator, a mail and web client and maybe a multimedia unit.
Member since:2005-12-31
and how big a group of their customer base demands a pc without a os?
it's a big enough group of people for MS to care.
why don't they just give the consumer the choice of buying whatever OS they want post sale (or even the choice of reusing their existing licenses)? but if everyone actually had to make a concious choice about what OS they bought a few more people might just choose not to use Windows.
even if DRM/TPM/? insures that it's darn near impossible for people to pirate Vista MS will still be making an issue out of this. as far as they are concerned every computer that walks off the shop floor without MS Windows is a potential lost sale. of course with XP coming to the end of it's life (how many people are going to be shelling out for new XP licenses with Vista around the corner?) MS owe it to their shareholders to try and squeeze out as much money out of it as they can whilst they wait for Vista to be release.
Member since:2006-01-04
and how big a group of their customer base demands a pc without a os?
As someone else mentioned, businesses who buy site or bulk licensing aren't served by this. They pay for a new computer with an OS already on it and then install their own custom image which is licensed to them through a separate agreement with MS.
Businesses may not be people but they are customers who shouldn't have to pay twice to get the product that they use for work.
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:
2005-11-30
The real missed opportunity is for the vendor to pre-load their favorite distro of GNU/Linux on the box. I suspect a lot more people would be willing to give GNU/Linux a go if it were pre-installed, especially if the price was lower than the Windows box 'cause the OS licensing fee was less or non-existant.
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-01-04
Dell already tried selling Linux-based desktops and failed miserably. There simply wasn't enough demand to justify Dell's support costs.
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?subcat=&s=gen&c=us&l=en&cs=&k=L...
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2006-01-04
We're talking about desktops.
What we are you talking about? How many of you are there (is thy name Legion little imp?) and what is the first product listed on the page that I linked to?
Dell PrecisionTM open-source n Series1 workstations deliver maximum workstation performance. Smart for businesses with proprietary software images or special Linux needs, these systems are available with factory installed Linux.
TFA doesn't mention servers or desktops and the technique of providing an unresponsive post that doesn't address actual the issues, and in fact attempts falsely to deny them, does not increase either your status or number in this discussion.
Member since:
2005-11-14
How about Microsoft being dragged through the courts, charged with extortion and anti-competition offences by the UK and EU regulatory and law enforcement authorities. Or is it acceptable to have your own private police force to shore up your dubious business practices these days?
Member since:2006-01-06
How about Microsoft being dragged through the courts, charged with extortion and anti-competition offences by the UK and EU regulatory and law enforcement authorities. Or is it acceptable to have your own private police force to shore up your dubious business practices these days?
MS has no power to force PC vendors to offer its OS.
PC vendors make money for the OS on each PC sold. You actually think that they're going to throw away that revenue? Why? To make a few Linux hobbyists happy? Get real.
Member since:2005-11-05
MS has no power to force PC vendors to offer its OS.
PC vendors make money for the OS on each PC sold. You actually think that they're going to throw away that revenue? Why? To make a few Linux hobbyists happy? Get real.
You are missing the point. If a PC vendor wants to sell a PC without an operating system, for whatever reason, they should be free to do so. At the moment they are technically free to do so, but as the original article suggests, they are not really free in practice. Aside from onerous Microsoft licensing requirements - one the basis of take it or leave it, one guesses - they also have Microsoft musing that perhpas the uncooperative are engaged in promoting piracy and need a "visit" from "the boys", for their own good of course. Being menaced by a wealthy, lawyer-toting bully who considers he is fully entitled to meddle in your business and take a cut on every PC sold isn't many people's idea of freedom.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-04
MS has no power to force PC vendors to offer its OS.
You may have missed the news that this is one of the things that MS was convicted of. Using their market dominance to force manufacturers pay them for OS licenses whether the OS is installed on the product or not. Otherwise they don't get licenses for the same discounted rate that other manufacturers get.
On top of that manufacturers that sell drives, motherboards and other components separately must pay all or part of a license fee on that sale since a major component was considered by MS to be equivalent or partially equivalent to a new sale. Guess who compensates the manufacturer for the added cost of the part due to the contract with MS? Never mind, I think I can guess what your answer would be...
You may not be right but you certainly are sure.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-15
i invite you to send email to pc constructor to get pc without os
hp canada: http://www.hp.ca/corporate/forms/prod_email_form.htm
hp usa:
http://wwemail.support.hp.com/fd2/email_form.cfm?countrycode=us&lan...
dell
http://support.dell.com/support/topics/reftopic.aspx/gen/ccare/en/c...
nec
https://www.nec.com/cgi-bin/contact/frame.cgi?Product1=&Product2=5&G...
send them email..... don't forget, you are the buyer...
Member since:
2005-11-12
Member since:
2006-02-12
Member since:
2005-11-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
...for the longest time I tried to convince many of the major OEM's to provide a "bare-bones" system, but I've only heard to most ridiculous stories on why they "should" provide me with an O.S.
Having said that, the smaller boutique PC makers are more forgiving, and some, even though they're not willing (or are afraid of MS) to show a "no O.S. option", it's still available from them, but only if you ask for it specifically when you order. :-)
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-09-30
iBooks,
MacBooks
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
http://mcelrath.org/laptops.html
Just because it isn't available at a large computer retailer doesn't mean it can't be done.
Member since:2005-07-06
<i.iBooks,
MacBooks
http://www.linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
http://mcelrath.org/laptops.html
Just because it isn't available at a large computer retailer doesn't mean it can't be done.[/i]
I'm sorry I should have specified: can't get notebooks without Windows tax in Europe.
The sad thing about those Linux certified laptops is that I can get better featured ones for cheaper in spite of Windows tax.
The second link however..extremely helpful! 
Member since:
2005-07-06
This even is a thorn in the side of microsoft shops. Last year we ordered Dell N series PCs with no OS installed. We have a microsoft site license and I don't want(or need) to pay even a couple extra dollars to get windows xp home edition pre-installed on every PC because it's coming right off for Pro.
Member since:2005-12-31
I know of at least one cash strapped educational institution which would buy Dell PCs with XP Home (at the time it was the cheapest option) and them just dump all the XP Home CDs etc and install Educational VL XP Pro everywhere.
Of course MS insures that OEM licenses can not be resold and AFAIK it does not offer a rebate (at least not in the UK).
To me it looks like it's more about selling as many licenses as feasibly possible rather than any concerns about piracy.
Member since:
2005-10-12
Must be contrary to the linked sales laws in the EC. You can't do this sort of thing. You can urge your reps to sell more OS, and to not sell a system without one, and you can point out that its a missed sale.
What you cannot do is exert any more pressure than that, either on your reps or the customer. Fine line this. Not the sort of thing you want to screw around with while cases are pending before the Commission.
Member since:
2005-07-06
What an individual reseller does or does not install on a box that they have built is of no concern of Microsoft's.
It just shows how much that company has been absolutely drilled over the years into thinking that it is their God given right to have Windows installed on every PC that gets built and sold, and that OEMs are in their back pocket.
Th scary thing about what this, thing, is proposing is that they're not looking for counterfeit Microsoft products. They want to visit OEMs, resellers etc. who are selling PCs without Windows or Microsoft software - even though it is 200% legal and their right to do so - and collect their licensing tax like a government would do.
Member since:
2005-11-05
If Microsoft were truly interested in winning new sales on merit, they wouldn't have had this message delivered by their anti-piracy czar. So the lie that has to be nailed is "barebones PC = piracy", which is the basis of all the FUD and the attempt at a protection racket.
In the meantime, since Microsoft are seemingly happy to destroy 5 per cent of the PC market, it would only be fair if in future Mr Gates agreed to leave 5 per cent of himself at home before any foreign travel. Failure to do so would mean that the foreign country in which he found himself would have the right to choose which 5 per cent of the Gates anatomy was to be lopped off there and then with a pair of rusty scissors.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
For those of you who actually read the article and put some thought to it, you'd notice the Microsoft only suggested this, and there are no contracts involved nor any requirements or discounts.
HOWEVER, it is still a ridiculous thing for anyone at Microsoft to say. If the guy didn't have permission from his bosses, he should be fired. If he did, they should be fi--hm.. yeah, that'll happen.
Edited 2006-04-05 21:11
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
For those of you who actually read the article and put some thought to it, you'd notice the Microsoft only suggested this, and there are no contracts involved nor any requirements or discounts.
Are they suggesting that because they are afraid of competitions and afraid to get a loss of revenue?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-15
>So what. Practically none of those consumers is
>going to install their own OS, aside from a few
>hobbyists. So this is a non-issue, a tempest in a
>teacup.
So they shouldn't be given a choice? That's what Microsoft says... and guess what operating system they insist should be the one installed?
That's an argument so packed with idiocy that it's almost ready to go Big Bang.
Member since:
2005-07-02
I disagree. What if they already have a valid copy of Windows? Why should someone be required to pay twice?
Remember, no-OS PCs are priced lower, and therefore are more enticing for buyers. The Wal-Mart experiment proved this to be true.
What problem do you have with people saving money?
Member since:2005-07-18
What if they already have a valid copy of Windows?
Ah! You almost made my point before I got to it. But let me flesh it out a little. Suppose you purchased a PC a few years ago with a fully legal, full price copy of Windows XP, and today the PC died. Why shouldn't you have the option of buying a naked PC to replace the dead hardware and installing the licenced copy of Windows XP that you already have?
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-01-04
Member since:2006-01-11
Original comment:
Ah! You almost made my point before I got to it. But let me flesh it out a little. Suppose you purchased a PC a few years ago with a fully legal, full price copy of Windows XP, and today the PC died. Why shouldn't you have the option of buying a naked PC to replace the dead hardware and installing the licenced copy of Windows XP that you already have?
Responce:
Doesn't WPA make it so that if you buy a new computer you have to pay for another liscence to WinXP?
Edited 2006-04-06 13:35
Member since:2005-12-31
Doesn't WPA make it so that if you buy a new computer you have to pay for another liscence to WinXP? only if you have an OEM copy. MS allows customers to reactivate retail copies however.
according to MS if you're running Windows OEM and you upgrade your motherboard you should also be buying a new license.
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13705
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
I Have bought all of my PC's in the last 4 years or so without an operating system. Of course, I have to build them myself or my local builder, who happily will do it. They should do the same at the big stores....I just want the hardware...I can take care of the software myself. Bill Gates can stick it in his #$&*##
Member since:
2005-07-06
Please, could the conspiracy theorists please purchase some medication.
Microsoft is worried because of this; the end user will save a few bob, thats nice, but the reality is, the vast majority who purchase naked PC's, just as those who opt to purchase the cheaper PC with Linux, will simply wipe it, and load a bootleg/pirated version of Windows onto it.
That particular person will walk away $100 richer, have the same Windows compatibility, and Microsoft is left out of pocket.
Now, that is not to say that every person who purchases a naked PC is a pirater; I wanted a naked PC when I purchased my Dell XPS 550 back in 2000, not because I hate Windows but because I had a copy of Windows 2000 Professional which I wanted to install - so yes, there are valid consumers out there like that, but at the same time, the majority of those who do ask for naked computers, are those who don't purchase or use legimately licenced software.
With that being said, I don't think Microsoft is actually going the right way about it, by demanding that naked computers shouldn't be sold, as even if they were loaded with something else, the same issues of piracy would still remain.
Personally, they need to lower the price of an OEM copy of Windows to such a price level, that any possibly 'savings' one acquires off a bootleg copy are so small that people say, 'screw that, I'll get the legitimate copy'.
For example, in New Zealand an OEM version of Windows XP Home from the local computer store will set you back, IIRC around NZ$200 or so; the simple fact is, Microsoft provides no support to OEM versions; apart from service pack downloads, which is hardly something that is a costly thing to do, Microsoft could easily drop Windows XP Home down to NZ$50 (which only consists of the CD, sticker and cardboard 'start here' brocher), and you'll find that most will be willing to get a computer pre-installed with Windows XP Home without any issues.
For me, and purchasing a computer, $50 is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things, and when looking at the over all cost of the machine, I'm sure most computer assemblers would be quite happy to absorb such a piddly cost anyway.
Edited 2006-04-06 04:05
Member since:
2006-01-11
If Microsoft were too sell there OS at a reasonable price and not something that most people can't afford then piracy wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal as microsoft leads you to believe. The reason people resort to piracy is mostly because of price. I personally won't go out and spend $150USD for an OS when I can go online and download Open Suse 10 and install that and use it. If Microsoft were to open up there eyes and relise that most people can't afford that amount of money for just a CD and a piece of cardboard that tells you how to install the software then piracy will always be a large issue in Microsofts eyes along with EA and other gaming companies. People don't want to pay alot of money for something they can just download or get from a computer geek friend of theres.
Member since:
2005-12-09
For every one "naked" PC sold...
There's the distinct possibility that some other OS will be successfully installed and/or added to the growing supply of bug generators/detectors. The competing OS then gets better as increasing instances of the OS supply more data (best case scenario for other OS, to be sure). If then the install goes well enough, the user bounces about bragging to friends about this great "other" OS that works rather well, thank you.
In short: Microsoft is getting GM-ed. I know we hate the car analogy, but read on. Every Honda that lands on American soil (or is manufactured there) and performs as well or better than a GM product is one more person less likely to switch back unless certain pricing/functionality demands are met. Both demands cost real money, and each unit returns thinner profits. Cuts in profits per unit means less money for R&D, fewer huge paychecks to wave at industry "best and brightest", fewer glossy ads in glossy magazines, etc. The stockholders are not going to hold onto a bleeder, so you must give them their money, and the only people you have left to stick it to are the consumers and laborers (the analogy develops a cough here, so I'll let it rest).
Microsoft had EVERYTHING. Now it has less (if not much less), and nowhere to go but down unless certain pricing/functionality demands are met. It can't reset that reality without complete, obliterating control of the entire landscape. No wonder they strongarm and cheat. The real game would KILL them.
Member since:
2005-07-02
Now, that is not to say that every person who purchases a naked PC is a pirater; I wanted a naked PC when I purchased my Dell XPS 550 back in 2000, not because I hate Windows but because I had a copy of Windows 2000 Professional which I wanted to install - so yes, there are valid consumers out there like that, but at the same time, the majority of those who do ask for naked computers, are those who don't purchase or use legimately licenced software.
What are you basing this opinion on? You state this as if it was an obvious truth, but to me it is far from obvious. I'm really curious to see what data you're basing this assertion on, because to me it looks as if you just made a guess.
I mean, you said yourself that you wanted to buy a naked PC because you already had a valid Windows licence...it seems to me that most people who've owned a computer do have a Windows CD somewhere. Installing the CD on their brand-new blank PC isn't pirating in any way shape or form. In fact, as long as they don't redistribute the CD's contents, they are not committing copyright infringement at all.
You're making quite an assumption here without presenting any facts to support it.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-10-20
Yes, Microsoft "strongarming" OEMs is reality for very long time already and is basis of their big fortune. They program "every new PC must have a Windows and Office" is totally anticompetive and argument "but user will install Windows anyway!" still doesn't hold lot of water. And it is main reason why I want to see Microsoft punished (by free market or legal justice, whatever), because damage they have done to PC market and industry with their grip is disasterous.
But IT era have came to moment when IT is becoming less and less expensive and MORE effective. In this age Microsoft solutions start to look bleak. Yes, there is still need for Windows, if you have specific apps, or you want to play games on PC (You should have gone for console then). Yes, there is need for it for various profesional apps which are stuck with Windows because it was wholy and one platform for long time. But with virtualisation, with Xen and new architecture which support virtualisation for Windows XP naturally and therefore it will be possible to run it within Xen, I see Microsoft won't be in control anymore.
They haven't been stupid and trying the same - see Microsoft Virtual Server. But it is still somehow very limited in it's prioritary nature, so my pick Xen will definetly win.
My pick is what will happen - people will get more and more aware of Windows bad sides AND that there is fix out there for it - various different OSes, working desktop envorements with good, proven programs. They know Windows is expensive and very buggy and bad in security. Interest about OS X is only begining - trough OS X I can see people to choose Ubuntu, Fedora or Linspire, Xenos, because they are different but the same too.
Let's see if Microsoft will be capable to change. But they definetly will have to. Otherwise they will go down.
Member since:
2006-03-03
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-18
Not long after the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, there was an article (posted here, I think) that relates to this issue. If I remember, a company lost 1000 servers in the attack. The company figured they should be able to buy naked PCs and reinstall Windows with no additional money to Microsoft. They had lost enough.
But no! Microsoft wouldn't allow it. New servers require fresh copies of Windows to be paid for. So they switched to Linux.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-04-02
Well while most people are saying its simply a way for MS to force linux down and make more people use their OS I doubt thats the case. MS has a pretty large market share and I doubt they are that worried on the consumer desktop side of things. I think their big fear is that people will simply buy these amchines and put a stolen Windows OS on there. I guess MS feels that if there is an OS on there people will be less inclined to wipe it and put on their bootleg copies. The average consumer buying a PC without an OS on it will turn it on when they get home and stare at a blank screen bring it back and complain it is broken. When they are told there is no OS on it they will want Windows anyways and probably buy a machine preloaded with it. Afterall how many times have you asked someone who made their PC and they say "Windows"
Even if Linux is preloaded on it I think MS will be a little more pleased because liek I said the average consumer will probably not wipe out their hard drive to install a new OS on it.
Member since:
2006-01-04
Member since:
2006-04-05
Perhaps Bill recognizes that the user would have toinstall Windows himself....in less than 16 minutes average time...loading windows from CD and then upgrading to latest SP opens the system to all viruses, spyware, trojans and worms before any protection is possible in that 16 minutes (average time for infection). This means that the OS has to be protected by OEM installs with all the SP's installed before purchase.
That seems to be the idea in calling for OS install to all computers sold.
Better use Linux.
Apple is exposing itself to windows now!!!!!!!!!!????
Member since:
2006-01-01
