Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 15th Oct 2002 17:31 UTC
Linspire "Yes, after two anti-trust violations you're obligated to offer equitable pricing to the largest computer builders for the Microsoft Windows XP software, but what Microsoft does now is use MDF (market development funds) to pressure the behavior you want from many OEMs. You give computer companies a price break on Microsoft software in the form of a rebate for every computer they've sold. This program is disguised as a "marketing" program but OEMs only qualify if they agree to terms such as not working with competitor's products." Read Lindows' Michael Robertson open letter to Steve Ballmer.
Order by: Score:
Propoganda...
by k_semler on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:16 UTC

" As you can see, the price difference is dramatic for a general purpose computer running a typical set of productivity programs. The total cost for a Microsoft solution is over $1,000 versus less than $500 for a LindowsOS solution. That's more than 20 times the $25 difference you cite in your example. Over $700, or more than 70% of the total cost of a general purpose computer is monies going to Microsoft. That's why your $25 illustration is inaccurate. New markets will emerge and the tech industry will grow as consumers realize that modern computing for their home, business or school has become much more affordable. "

Yes, going all MS software can be expensive. But who actually does this in the first place. The only MS software that is installed on my machine is Windows 2000. All other software is FREE. Yes, free. Some is open source, some is not. The point of my argument is that I have it installed on a computer I got for the cost of $35.00. My OS was free (yet legal, I have the box and everything). So the total cost for my Windows setup is $35.00 going by this model. On my mandrake partition, I have 8.2 Professional installed ($63.00) so the cost would be $100.00 Still far cheaper than Lindows OS.

" Actually Steve, I don't think most people know what individual components cost. You seem to think they cost more than $200, but that's not true in this case. I assure you that we're not subsidizing these computers - they're just very affordable because hardware prices are dropping dramatically. This is why we believe that if we can make the accompanying software more affordable many more people will use computers or buy multiple computers."

Yes, it does have somewhat to do with the prives of hardware falling, but more to do with cheap parts. In this world, you get what you pay for. Sometimes even less. I wouldnt exactly call a Duron processr high quality. And 128MB RAM is not enough for any task on any modern machine.

"As you know Steve, one of the main reasons LindowsOS and other products aren't in more retail outlets is not because there isn't demand, but because Microsoft wields incredible financial clout which is used to extort companies not to work with competing products. Yes, after two anti-trust violations you're obligated to offer equitable pricing to the largest computer builders for the Microsoft Windows XP software, but what Microsoft does now is use MDF (market development funds) to pressure the behavior you want from many OEMs. You give computer companies a price break on Microsoft software in the form of a rebate for every computer they've sold. This program is disguised as a "marketing" program but OEMs only qualify if they agree to terms such as not working with competitor's products. Since most hardware companies operate on slim margins, they can't afford to defy Microsoft's demands and lose millions in kickbacks. If you wanted to spur innovation and give consumers a true choice, then you would allow them to carry competing products without jeopardizing their pricing terms. Until then, it's highly misleading to suggest that because of consumer demand or lack of sales that competitor's products aren't on the store shelves."

I agree with the OEM disribution statement because it is true. But I do not think that this is the reason that Lindows isnt in the Walmart stores. I think the reason is that most people do not even know what Linux is, and if they bought a computer installed with Lindows, they would propably buy MS Works, or another Windows program and expect to install it on thier newly purchased Lindows box. Right now, you cannot get a machine with any OS other than Windows unless you specificly look for it.

" With the price of hardware dropping so quickly, many people will have multiple computers and we agree that they should only have to pay for one copy of software - since that's all they can use at a time. Maybe they have a laptop and a desktop or even multiple computers in their house or office. Per user rather than per machine pricing is most fair and offers dramatic savings in these increasingly common situations. If we use the above numbers for a person owning 2 computers, the difference is a startling: $2,134.20 (2 computers running Microsoft software) versus $755.56 (same computers running LindowsOS). Per user licensing is not nearly as complicated as you might think. Feel free to use our license as a template since we already offer per user licensing. We think it's the only thing that makes sense as we move to a world where we're surrounded by inexpensive computers dedicated to specific tasks or locations. "

Except for people purchasing Windows XP, how many people that run Windows do you think actually have followed the EULA to the letter? Propably not many. Some people do not even have a license to run Windows or other MS products, but they do anyhow. Also they do have a similar lisencing scheme. It is called "site lisencing"

Just propoganda, and badly delivered at that.

Robertson is also full of something
by Splinky on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:17 UTC

I love how in his example of the cost of running windows - he compares StarOffice to MSOffice. That's NOT part of the OS cost. You can just as easily get StarOffice or OpenOffice.org for Windows. Yet he's accusing Ballmer of manipulating price figures.

Also, he is saying that the reason there isn't a $200 computer on the shelf at Walmart (as opposed to being online) is because of MS market pressure. Maybe partly true, but the economics of a $200 computer pretty much dictate that its not on the shelf. If anybody has to hold and maintain stock of these things (risking keeping them past their viable selling date) then the cost is most certainly going to be more than $200.

Not that you should trust Microsoft, but I think this Robertson guy is a pretty shady fellow himself.

Let's hope this wakes people up
by Mahazuhul on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:23 UTC

This makes perfect sense. The thing is, until Microsoft is pressured to do so, they will never alter their OEM licensing. It's simply making too much money. Funny though, a while back I saw an article where someone from Microsoft stated most of their revenue is generated by Office. Of course, the income from XP is not too shabby either.

Anyone know ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org)? Their website currently doesn't look like much, but basically it's an open source, Windows NT compatible (!), Operating System project.

What if these guys would pull through and finish this project? An OpenSource, free (as in FREE) alternative to MS Windows would exist, perhaps (depending on things like funds, time, motivation and resistance of MS in all ways) forcing MS to leave Windows for what it is (yeah right), lowering its price, actually radically improving it making it worth its cost or making it free, opening the sources.

In my opinion, that would be a very good thing. Not only would geeks around the world rejoice about MS simply "losing" Windows, it would open up the OS market.

That is, if OEMs decide to be brave and protest against MS's licensing.

Their licensing is crazy anyway. It killed Be and is holding off Linux and other alternatives, but the worst thing is it is denying PC users the freedom of choice.

It's impossible to buy a mainstream PC with any other OS then a Windows flavor pre-installed.

I know I'm just ranting away. What else can I do? I'm a PC user. Most of the applications I want to use don't have versions that run on other Os's, and the ones that do don't really compare to their Windows counterparts, because the focus of developers is still geared towards Windows. Of course, most PC users still use Windows. Most of them only use it because they either don't know any better (BeOS, five years old, still draws oohs and aahs. Nobody's ever actually seen it), are scared to use Linux (I just got aMSN for Linux to work. I hate to think I'm stupid when it comes to computers, I have used many a OS, but it is the first program I downloaded off the internet that would actually install and runs on my mainstream Mandrake Linux 8.1 distro), don't know about alternatives and let's not forget: their applications don't run.

The OS to break Windows (pun intended), so my dreamOS, should be:

Cheaper.
Windows compatible or just able to run Windows applications.
Easy to use, install, maintain and update.
It should be just as easy to install software as it is on Windows today. It should be much better manageable though.
Eventhough it should be able to run Windows apps, it shouldn't look and feel like Windows at all. The user should be aware this is not Windows he/she's using. If anything, it should look cool but still be as fast as BeOS is. If you don't know BeOS, try this to mimic the effect:

Install Windows 98SE on a Pentium IV 2Ghz with 512Megs or so of RAM and a fast hard disc. Then, while on the optimum resolution and colordepth when it comes to speed (800*600*16b) and only open apps like Solitaire and Notepad (the really light ones).

BeOS pretty much always feels just as fast, no matter what you are doing. Give it a try, it's free nowadays (http://www.bebits.com/app/2680). Microsoft killed them.

I'd like to see a good alternative to DirectX too, please.

Sorry about all that.
Didn't mean to dump all that on you guys. Anyone actually read through this thing?

Just my 2 cents. Whatever their worth.

/Mahazuhul

RE: Robertson is also full of something
by bigdufstuff on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:26 UTC

"I love how in his example of the cost of running windows - he compares StarOffice to MSOffice. That's NOT part of the OS cost. You can just as easily get StarOffice or OpenOffice.org for Windows. Yet he's accusing Ballmer of manipulating price figures."

well Robertson is comparing a total microsoft solution to a total Lindows solution, which makes perfect sense in this context

Re: cost comparison
by Splinky on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:33 UTC

Quote Robertson: "I think you used a classic "straw man" argument - where you use incorrect information to draw a favorable but inaccurate conclusion. You're probably right that if the price difference were just $25 then it wouldn't matter all that much, but $25 isn't a realistic number. Rather than work with a hypothetical, lets look at actual numbers for a computer outfitted with Microsoft software versus the identical computer outfitted with LindowsOS."


'computer outfitted with Microsoft software'
vs.
'computer outfitted with LindowsOS'

1st is a system with OS and other PAY software
2nd is an OS only - he then adds free software

He is doing the straw man. He's making it seem that to get the Windows computer you HAVE to buy this additional stuff.

You could look at it the other way. With Windows, you have the CHOICE to run free or pay software. With his LindowsOS solution, you are LIMITED to the free software (whether or not it is what you want)

That's like saying Linux is so expensive, because I can get mySQL for windows for free, but Oracle on Linux costs big money. The items aren't tied to either solution. He's bringing in outside factors to cloud the direct 1:1 comparison - which, as I see it is a $100 difference.

c'n'r
by idvah on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:38 UTC

the lindows click and run is $99.00/year to use free software. Now thats something he didn't mention.

wtf
by ced on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:51 UTC

Those two guys are really boring. All their comments are full of sh...

None is right, definitely

RE: Propoganda ->k_semler
by Andrew on Tue 15th Oct 2002 18:52 UTC

I agree it was propoganda. So is your post.

Fair Price Comparison
by James Hopton on Tue 15th Oct 2002 19:08 UTC

If you compare the base OS prices. Windows wins by 2 cents. I am not a Windows fan, but we should use MS tactics just to make LindowsOS look better.

Oops
by James Hopton on Tue 15th Oct 2002 19:10 UTC

Sorry shouldn't use MS tactics.

RE; Propoganda
by k_semler on Tue 15th Oct 2002 19:29 UTC

How is my post propoganda? I am not promoting or bashing either Linux, or MS Windows. I use both platforms. For Windows, I use Windows 2000 SP3. For Linux I use Mandrake 8.2. If ReactOS gets finished, and will run my software, I will use that instead of Windows and Linux. Just going off of the end goal of this project, it would be perfect for me.

OS War -- Getting Ugly
by Lambchop on Tue 15th Oct 2002 19:54 UTC

WOW, This OS War sure is gettin' ugly.

Reminds me of the fast food wars a few years back....but just a bit uglier.

OEM
by Jay on Tue 15th Oct 2002 20:37 UTC

Robertson is quite a hypster. However, if what he's doing helps the OEM situation, I'm glad.

... over Win 98 SE, Win 95, Win 3.11, Win 1.0, DosShell, etc.? Its kind of funny that the general sentiment that Linux is so great usually comes along with comments like:

"I love how Red Hat 8.0, Mandrake 9.0 and the new KDE 3.1b desktop I just downloaded. They are so much better than the shit software Microsoft produces - like my win 95 box that keeps crashing."

"Mandrake 9.0 with Star Office is a definite Windows killer, its just works. Unlike how every time I try to type "Hi" in Office 97 on Win 95a it crashes every 1/10000th of a second."

I'm starting to think that reason that people don't compare their precious linux distros to XP is that the only really bad thing people can come up with is Luna's ugly.

RE; Propoganda
by Andrew on Tue 15th Oct 2002 21:02 UTC

Okay, I agree your post was not propoganda. The line that got me was:

the total cost for my Windows setup is $35.00 going by this model. On my mandrake partition, I have 8.2 Professional installed ($63.00)

I don't think that is a fair comparison. There are a host of applications you cannot get for free on Windows that come with Mandrake Professional, and its all packaged for you. What PIM do you use on Windows for free that is decent. Mandrake comes with Evolution.

But you are right about his 'Open Letter'. It was so transparent and obviously a pure promotional effort. He will jump on anything to promote his OS.

I can't make up my mind who is slimier Balmer or Robertson.

You can't compare Windows XP/W2K with Lindows OS
by Michael on Tue 15th Oct 2002 21:59 UTC

In this world, you get what you pay for.

And that's about what there is to say about this... There's no way to even compare Windows XP/Windows 2000 with Lindows OS. Come on people...

hogwash semler
by Anonymous on Tue 15th Oct 2002 23:54 UTC

"Yes, going all MS software can be expensive. But who actually does this in the first place. The only MS software that is installed on my machine is Windows 2000. All other software is FREE. Yes, free. Some is open source, some is not. The point of my argument is that I have it installed on a computer I got for the cost of $35.00. My OS was free (yet legal, I have the box and everything). So the total cost for my Windows setup is $35.00 going by this model. On my mandrake partition, I have 8.2 Professional installed ($63.00) so the cost would be $100.00 Still far cheaper than Lindows OS."

Your claim of "35.00" is bogus. You did not buy a legit copy of W2k for $35.00, at least not according to Microsofts rules.
If you are running W2k upgrade the software cost is what you paid for it PLUS the cost of the original version of Windows you are using for your valid upgrade.
If you are using an OEM version of W2k, by Microsoft rules, must be running it with a new computer. If you are not you are running it illegally.

"I wouldnt exactly call a Duron processr high quality. And 128MB RAM is not enough for any task on any modern machine."

A Duron is plenty of power and 128 meg is fine for memory. The BBB gene sometimes distorts thought processes.

But I do not think that this is the reason that Lindows isnt in the Walmart stores. I think the reason is that most people do not even know what Linux is, and if they bought a computer installed with Lindows, they would propably buy MS Works, or another Windows program and expect to install it on thier newly purchased Lindows box."

You miss the point completely and point the blame for the lack of Linux on store shelves at customer ignorance. Robertson is correct in his evaluation of the current situation. Microsoft is at the head of the line when it comes to where to lay the blame for the lack of choice available to consumers. The OEMs and Retailers are only trying to survive without having the MS monopoly crush them by withholding product or punishing them with higher costs for not toeing the partyline. Consumers are ignorant because of Microsofts monopoly powers not because they are wanting to use Windows programs.

"Except for people purchasing Windows XP, how many people that run Windows do you think actually have followed the EULA to the letter?"

I agree, not many. The reason is not because users are unaware of the EULAs and other rules from Microsoft, its more that Microsofts EULAs and rules are unreasonable to the point that consumers basically ignore them.

Thoughts
by Darius on Wed 16th Oct 2002 00:22 UTC

If I'm not mistaken, you can get the same Microtel PC with Windows XP for $100 more than the one that comes with Lindows. So, that's a price difference of $100. And unless they're just broke-ass poor, I think most mainstream users would be willing to pay the extra $100 for XP. Everything else (ie - Office) is irrevalent becuase you could choose whatever office suite you want, and I'd be willing to bet there's at least half a dozen free ones for each OS.

Speaking of Offfice, does it really cost $450+ to get MS Office with a new computer? I mean, I know it's probably that much shrink-wrapped, but OEM? And even if it was, MS Word XP(probably the one app in the Office suite Joe User would be intersted in), along with other productivity apps such as Encarta can be had with the Works Suite for about $100.

As for software comparison, yes .. you're going to pay more for Windows software. But on the other hand, you're not limited to whatever's available on Click & Run or Freshmeat either ;)

Re: Anonymous
by Darius on Wed 16th Oct 2002 00:29 UTC

"The OEMs and Retailers are only trying to survive without having the MS monopoly crush them by withholding product or punishing them with higher costs for not toeing the partyline."

Eh? What are you talking about? I certainly haven't seen a shortage of Linux distros shrink-wrapped on store shelves, have you? If retailers can sell and Wal-Mart can call computers with the OS, why can't they sell applications for it? If Redhat is available for $39.99 (or whatever), why don't we see The Gimp right beside it for $10.00?

Way to go Michael.
by Aitvo on Wed 16th Oct 2002 00:43 UTC

I'm not a Michael Robertson fan, but WOW that was a great read. The truth hurts, one of these days Microsoft will actually feel it financially. Now Michael, drop that LindowsOS price to something realistic and you may well have a winner.

Oh, gosh
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 00:49 UTC

Rather than work with a hypothetical, lets look at actual numbers for a computer outfitted with Microsoft software versus the identical computer outfitted with LindowsOS. All price quotes are from Walmart.com as of 10/02.

Note all the prices come from Lindows' partner, Microtel. The OEM prices, the REAL OEM prices, for what I guess as Microtel volume is around $40. If Microtel can't get it at that price, I wonder why my brother could..

The reasoning behind this is that if the price differences is litte, say, $50, people would obviously choose the Windows machine.

But at least the Windows machines allow you to install applications without being bogged down to the command line, for free. Unlike Lindows, whose main purpose in selling cheap to the OEMs is to increase CNR memberships ($100, my friend).

Actually Steve, I don't think most people know what individual components cost. You seem to think they cost more than $200, but that's not true in this case.

Yeah, I have to agree with this guy. Using components so cheap and slow and lousy, I wonder how slow LindowsOS would crawl on it...

I have to admit this comment made me angry and let me explain why. As you know Steve, one of the main reasons LindowsOS and other products aren't in more retail outlets is not because there isn't demand, but because Microsoft wields incredible financial clout which is used to extort companies not to work with competing products.

No, I don't think so (blaming Microsoft for your problems doesn't make it right). Firstly, do you have ANY grain of proof that Microsoft actually stopped retailers from selling Linux boxes? NO! If that's so, why is it that Microsoft only disallows physical retail, when Internet retailing is just as bad? Or why is it there are Lycoris boxes in some Fry's, IIRC?

Then your whole point goes to OEMs! Most OEMs don't have their retail chain of stores, with an exception of companies like Gateway. And they wouldn't sell an competiting product, with Windows or not. So normal retailers, say WalMart, K-Mart, Fry's, etc. WOULD retail the product if they realize that there is demand. But I wonder how there would be demand for a product Lindows still claims is beta?

As for the OEMs in the first place, I wonder why HP, Dell, IBM etc. is able to load Linux-only on selected workstations. Why? The licensing plans to speak of doesn't hinder them? Maybe the hinderance comes from the fact that either you want them to ditch Windows alltogether, want them to price Windows higher than Lindows, want them to dualboot Lindows - or heck, just wanting to load Lindows.

If I was Michael Dell, I wouldn't even consider loading Lindows on my machines now. For the same reasons I mentioned at other threads.

If we use the above numbers for a person owning 2 computers, the difference is a startling: $2,134.20 (2 computers running Microsoft software) versus $755.56 (same computers running LindowsOS).

Let's do a recount. Windows XP Home cost $200, retail. Times two, it is $400. I have no idea where the $1,734.20 came from, and I still can't guess. Then for LindowsOS, for a insider's pass, $199. Then for each machine, $99x2, $198. $397. By golly, I wonder where all that extra cost comes in for both Lindows and Windows.

Perhaps I'm missing something here...

Sincerely,

Michael Robertson


That is, my friend, is something that I don't believe you are. Come on, you are on this anti-MS press right now so you can get more possible users. Once upon a time Linux users, mostly, from those in slashdot and Newsforge, supported Lindows based on what Microsoft is doing to it (suing them). But even that, though matter how hard Michael pushes, they turn against Lindows.

This is one company with a bad PR. There is only a selected amount of articles, all of them "reviews" that are possitive towards Lindows.

Huh?
by Aitvo on Wed 16th Oct 2002 00:51 UTC

"Firstly, do you have ANY grain of proof that Microsoft actually stopped retailers from selling Linux boxes?"

Uhh, you are aware that MS was found guilty of AntiTrust violations which included OEM lockin right?

Re: Huh?
by genaldar on Wed 16th Oct 2002 01:19 UTC

MS was found guilty of some things but oem locking wasn't one of them (iirc). Even if they were that wouldn't prohibit retailers from carrying other os solutions, of course they'd have to hunt to find suppliers, but thats another issue.

...
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 01:20 UTC

Splinky: he is saying that the reason there isn't a $200 computer on the shelf at Walmart (as opposed to being online) is because of MS market pressure. Maybe partly true, but the economics of a $200 computer pretty much dictate that its not on the shelf.

Wow, thanks! I never actually thought of that. If that Microtel machine was on the retail shelf, it would be about $50 more expensive. Heck, perhaps higher.

Mahazuhul: Anyone know ReactOS (http://www.reactos.org)? Their website currently doesn't look like much, but basically it's an open source, Windows NT compatible (!), Operating System project.

ReactOS, IIRC, doesn't run much Win32 apps. Certainly not more than WINE. It hardly has the GDI working, and most graphics related APIs. What they are replicating is the kernel and the core, for now.

Mahazuhul: What if these guys would pull through and finish this project? An OpenSource, free (as in FREE) alternative to MS Windows would exist, perhaps (depending on things like funds, time, motivation and resistance of MS in all ways) forcing MS to leave Windows for what it is (yeah right), lowering its price, actually radically improving it making it worth its cost or making it free, opening the sources.


Well dream on. ReactOS is not close in replicating Windows NT APIs, and they haven't started on Win32 and .NET yet. It has a few NT fans programming behind it, and for it, it would stay as what it is, a nice hobby OS.

But would it force Windows off the market? Doubt it. If, again, *if* they succeed replicating the WHOLE OS, they would have other problems. Namely, patent problems. They would be forced out of their servers in no time (well, they don't have any money to fund their legal counsels, no?)

Mahazuhul: In my opinion, that would be a very good thing. Not only would geeks around the world rejoice about MS simply "losing" Windows, it would open up the OS market.

It would probably make you happy, but I wonder how dramatic would this affect geeks NOT using Windows. Little to none. Big deal. It would probably cause all that anti-MS guys at Slashdot to rejoice, maybe make a party.

Mahazuhul: That is, if OEMs decide to be brave and protest against MS's licensing.

Why should they? It is not like they are dying to dual-boot Windows and some OS to confuse their users and lower their profit margins.

Mahazuhul: Their licensing is crazy anyway. It killed Be and is holding off Linux and other alternatives, but the worst thing is it is denying PC users the freedom of choice.

Funny you should say that. Be Inc. was a company bound to fail, even if they got the OEM deals and there is machines dual-booting with BeOS. Be Inc. was a company without direction. It has no niche (even though it claims to be a multimedia OS< it never tried to get multimedia-related apps). It had no target market. The product itself it a result of "Hey this idea is good! Let's make an advance OS".

Yeah, that's right. They broke marketing first and most important rule. Make something to sell, not sell something you made.

As for Linux, I can go to Pogo Linux and buy a Linux machine (neatly done package. I can go to almost any whitebox store is Asia and pick out a Linux machine. I can build my own Linux machine. Heck, I could even buy a high end Dell with Linux-only.

What you wouldn't find is Windows and Linux dualboot from major players. Why? With that, the only main consumer advantage of Linux is erase: the price advantage.

Mahazuhul: It's impossible to buy a mainstream PC with any other OS then a Windows flavor pre-installed.

This is as funny as "It is impossible to buy an mainstream PC with any other processors than Intel". "Mainstream" I hope is what you mean by where most of the market get their computers. And no, it is not from Dell, or HP, or IBM. It is from whitebox makers.

Besides, Dell and HP, and IBM, load Linux on selected workstations where there is demand for it.

Mahazuhul: The OS to break Windows (pun intended), so my dreamOS, should be:

...imposible to make.

Jay: Robertson is quite a hypster. However, if what he's doing helps the OEM situation, I'm glad.

What he is doing probably wouldn't help the OEM situation. I doubt the guys at Redmond would be sweating heavily "Oh no, oh no, Robertson found out about our OEM deals, lets pull it and replace it with a friendlier one".

Andrew: What PIM do you use on Windows for free that is decent. Mandrake comes with Evolution.

Go to download.com, and pick one you like. Never tried any of them because I don't use PIM applications. Heck, maybe k_sembler don't use PIM.

Anonymous: Your claim of "35.00" is bogus. You did not buy a legit copy of W2k for $35.00, at least not according to Microsofts rules.

Uhmm, he said he got it with his PC, so it is obvious it is an OEM copy. So it is legit.

Anonymous: The OEMs and Retailers are only trying to survive without having the MS monopoly crush them by withholding product or punishing them with higher costs for not toeing the partyline.

Robertson made no proof or proper claim that Microsoft was using its monopoly to block WalMart from selling Microtel machines on the retail shelf.

Darius: Speaking of Offfice, does it really cost $450+ to get MS Office with a new computer? I mean, I know it's probably that much shrink-wrapped, but OEM?

No, for Dell, getting Office SBE cost, IIRC, $150 when you buy a new Dell.

Re: Huh?
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 01:21 UTC

Retailers, my friend, like Wal Mart, Fry's, etc. Not OEMs. Retailers.

Here's the quote for you again:

"Firstly, do you have ANY grain of proof that Microsoft actually stopped retailers from selling Linux boxes?"

Re: Re: Huh?
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 01:25 UTC

True. The only thing that they are found quilty of "co-mingling" (can't they find a better word?) Internet Explorer with Netscape. That's all. The allegations made against Microsoft concerning Java and .NET, as well as locking OEMs out, came a bit wee too late, although in both settlements countermeassures are there.

Which is why both Be Inc. and Sun is still pushing their antitrust case in court.

Speaking of antiturst violations, I'm sure you all know I'm anti-antitrust (protrust?), but really, creating false competition by breaking the legs of the stongest one wouldn't really help consumers.

Just some jealous goons you really need to go to the nearest bookstore and pick out a book about marketing.

Re: Re: Re: Huh?
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 01:27 UTC

True. The only thing that they are found quilty of "co-mingling" (can't they find a better word?) Internet Explorer with Netscape.

Proof that 16-year-olds need coffee too. Here, retyped:

The only thing that they are found quilty of is "co-mingling" Internet Explorer with Windows.

RE: Re: Re: Re: Huh?
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Oct 2002 02:41 UTC

The only thing that they are found quilty of is "co-mingling" Internet Explorer with Windows.

True, but really because that was all that the Justice Department went after and it dates back a long time ago.

MS pattern for success has been repeated over and over again, and has always been to leverage the OEM license, first through WIndows. Office became successful that way even though initially it was far from the best. Next IE, and now they have so may tools to tie people in it amazes me.

Only now are things starting to change and they are being challenged on all fronts. Hopefully what goes around comes around.

These major OEM offering Wordperfect office I think anyway is great news. Office is a huge Cash Cow for MS. We'll know in about six months how successful these programs have been.

Anyway for some reason the Justic Department chose not to take BE seriously and go after MS for the secret clause in the OEM agreement. I think that this fact was probably bigger than IE.

Oh well. The crown Jewel for MS will always be Windows on the Desktop, and with all that cash in the bank any damage done to them will not come in the short term.

Do I sound anti-ms? Just want competition actually, and the only way that happens is for MS to lose a bit, I mean a lot.

RE: Thoughts -> Darius
by Andrew on Wed 16th Oct 2002 02:45 UTC

If I'm not mistaken, you can get the same Microtel PC with Windows XP for $100 more than the one that comes with Lindows

Check your facts again. The $300 XP machine is an AMD duron not a VIA. The specs on the $300 machine are better.

I must admit it sounds strange calling a $300 machine a higher spec.

re: rajan r
by rain on Wed 16th Oct 2002 03:22 UTC

It has no niche (even though it claims to be a multimedia OS< it never tried to get multimedia-related apps). It had no target market.

Then tell me, what was Steinberg, Emagic, BIAS, Nemesys etc. doing? If not porting their apps to BeOS that is?
Also, which OS is the Edirol DV-7R using?

I think this Lindows thing stinks
by Sergio on Wed 16th Oct 2002 03:27 UTC

After all of the incidents I don't think that Lindows is a serious player on this field. I believe that this is about ripping off people for a quick cash. They will get publicity, and they think that they can make lots of money out of this.

First of all paying 99 dollars for already free software is stupid. I don't pay anything for apt-get install. That's free.

Second, all this publicity is stupid. Even the Linux guys themselves didn't do this much publicity stunts. If your product is better than Windows, why are you still talking.

Re: RE: Thoughts -> Darius
by Darius on Wed 16th Oct 2002 03:33 UTC

"Check your facts again. The $300 XP machine is an AMD duron not a VIA. The specs on the $300 machine are better."

Actually, the $300 PC with the 800mhz Duron comes with LindowsOS. The $300 WindowsXP PC comes with the same VIA 800mhz chip. Check it out:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.gsp?product_id=1957332&cat=8...

Actually, I'm thinking about buying one of those $200 boxes, throwing a PCI NIC in it, and making a FreeBSD server out of it ;)

Oh, and nobody ever answered my question about the retailers. If the reason why they don't have 'alternative OS' apps is because of Microsoft's abuse, then why can they sell Linux distros, but not sell applications for the OS? If you're going to sell the OS, wouldn't it make sense to box up apps like StarOffice, CrossoverOffice, whatever DVD player apps you have, etc?

Microsoft
by Jay on Wed 16th Oct 2002 03:36 UTC

rajan, I don't think Lindows would make Redmond shake in their boots, but Microsoft, it seems to me, is becoming ever more vulnerable. I'm not even an MS basher - I use and like XP Pro very much - but MS is getting chipped away on on several fronts. And, no matter what they say and do, for some reason they still cannot articulate what .Net is so that even corporate people understand it. Microsoft is an empire and all empires end up falling - although it often takes a long time. I don't not want Microsoft to vanish, I just wish they were a really good OS and software company without all the other stuff. Anyway, as Michael said, you can't compare Lindows to XP, but there are shifting sands beneath all of this...OSS, Linux, OS X, other Unix, there is something happening.

Re: I think this Lindows thing stinks
by luke on Wed 16th Oct 2002 04:43 UTC

Second, all this publicity is stupid. Even the Linux guys themselves didn't do this much publicity stunts.

Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. This guy is trying to get his product known by the general public, thus he has to do these "stunts".

If your product is better than Windows, why are you still talking.

Better product doesn't mean that you'll win at the end. Remember VHS vs Betamax? Bigger, badder publicity wins.

I'm not too familiar with Lindows, but I believe it's for the Joe and Jane Doe's of the world, thus apt-get install would not be appropriate. I think the $99 Click-n-run program is a good idea, cos it makes downloading and configuring Linux software easy. It's a decent price for a decent service if you consider all the behind-the-curtain work goes into Click-n-run(the idea anyway).

I personally don't mind dealing with apt-get install, but shouldn't you be spending more time living your life than wrangling with your OS?

W2k
by k_semler on Wed 16th Oct 2002 06:38 UTC

Yes, my copy of windows 2k came with my computer, and it is a ligit copy. My computer is what cost me $35.00. I own licenses to run Windows 3.11, DOS 6.22, PC-DOS 2000, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000 Professional, and Windows XP Professional. Windows 98SE and XP Pro are upgrade versions. My machine will run XP. And for a personal information manager, I use Mozdev's calander extention with mozilla, OpenOffice.org Math, and a bulliten board (not online, just a physical bulleten board).

"A Duron is plenty of power and 128 meg is fine for memory."

Not compared to what I am using. On my P1 233Mhz MMX I have 512 MB RAM installed. (Thank god for BIOS updates). I have successfuly ran XP on this machine, with no effects disabled. I went back to 2000 due to DMA rights being put into Windows XP SP1. Even though I have no illegal content on my machine, I do not want anyone accessing my machine that I have not explicity given premission to. I have 3 firewalls for a reason.

" Consumers are ignorant because of Microsofts monopoly powers not because they are wanting to use Windows programs." I second that motion. For the last 10 years,the average consumet has had MS or nothing. Granted there were PC-DOS, DesqviewX, BeOS, OS/2 and others, but how many people acutlly had these OS's? Not many. The reason is becuse of preditory tatics by MS.

...
by rajan r on Wed 16th Oct 2002 06:44 UTC

Anonymous: True, but really because that was all that the Justice Department went after and it dates back a long time ago.

No, the point was about the antitrust allegations, you went way off-course here, buddy.

Anonymous: MS pattern for success has been repeated over and over again, and has always been to leverage the OEM license, first through WIndows.

It is true Windows depended on OEM deals. Heck, it wouldn't exist without it.... but...

Anonymous: Office became successful that way even though initially it was far from the best. Next IE, and now they have so may tools to tie people in it amazes me.

Actually, when Office started to gain ground in the market, around the time of Office 2 (IIRC), it had almost all the features its closest competitors (Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, Harvard Graphics, etc.) but had many of its own features. Plus the fact that these was all integrated (more or less, not to the degree of integration in Office 97/2000/XP). And it was so much cheaper than those from their competitors.

So while Lotus 1-2-3 was pushing for anti-piracy meassures with the floppy disk for its expensive software, Microsoft gain massive headway. Even if it didn't have 100% support for their competitors formats.

As for IE, notice around the time Netscape market share dropped dramatically, Netscape announce it has began rewriting Netscape, plus there were rumours of Netscape being bought over by AOL. To add with that, Netscape was pretty static while Microsoft was adding features like modern day Mozilla (suprise, suprise).

Anonymous: These major OEM offering Wordperfect office I think anyway is great news.

Unless you are that ignorant, you would realize that OEM deals doesn't contribute much of Office users. It is significant for Corel, where they can earn more money. But for Microsoft, I doubt they are sweeting a flood at Redmond. (Besides, they do hold an significant $134 million investment in Corel, they could get some money out of this).

Anonymous: Anyway for some reason the Justic Department chose not to take BE seriously and go after MS for the secret clause in the OEM agreement.

Because it haven't gone throught the courts and Microsoft haven't been aquited or found quilty accroading to the law. The Justice Department can't go, "Look, Be said this, IBM said this, *bang*, you are a dead bird now". US have a legal process, my friend.

Anonymous: Do I sound anti-ms? Just want competition actually, and the only way that happens is for MS to lose a bit, I mean a lot.

Faux-competition. When the DOJ brought down Rockfeller Standard Oil, how much did the competition help consumers? Little, if any. Prices still high, service still bad.... :-)

rain: Then tell me, what was Steinberg, Emagic, BIAS, Nemesys etc. doing? If not porting their apps to BeOS that is?
Also, which OS is the Edirol DV-7R using?


I'm talking about big companies like Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, Cubase, and so on. Plus, funny you should mentioned them, they are all not targeting the same target market. Which proves my point after all.

And to be honest, I never heard of Edirol. Till today, that is.

Jay: Microsoft is an empire and all empires end up falling - although it often takes a long time.

A fact I'm not denying. Heck, I think Linux would be the one that blows Microsoft's empire to bits and pieces. I'm not promoter of Microsoft :-)

luke: Bad publicity is better than no publicity at all. This guy is trying to get his product known by the general public, thus he has to do these "stunts".

Certain bad publicity is good, like minor PR blunders. But with the whole Linux press world badmouthing them, plus the mainstream press giving bad rviews (except that MSNBC one, which was rebutted a lot of times, plus cause trouble between AOL and Lindows)., if I was a average Joe buying a machine in which many says it is bad, plus with a bad PR behind it, I don't think I would sare. Even the product IS good after all.

luke: It's a decent price for a decent service if you consider all the behind-the-curtain work goes into Click-n-run(the idea anyway).

A front end like that could be built within a month. I guess need a server, for the front end page, and with apt-get, the magic's done. You may not even need to host the software themselves.

Its all about marketing
by Anonymous on Wed 16th Oct 2002 11:12 UTC

Wow someone who can spread as much FUD as MS and has enough money behind it to push it. If only he actually had a good OS and geeks behind him maybe he would get somewhere. This is like the opposite of Be. Good (funded) marketing, shoddy product.

Still has a chance to get somewhere though.

Remember just because marketing is all that seems to matter these days doesn't mean its right and that it should stay this way.

Hard for me to take this seriously
by John on Wed 16th Oct 2002 12:45 UTC

First of all, it is a bit of a sandbox. Second of all, Lindows. Hmm. Let's make shoes and call them Mike, or how about burgers from MacDonalds (OBS, original spelling: McDonald)? While we are at it, I have a free OS here called Winux...

Yes M$ is very nasty when it comes to selling their stuff, it has been very sucessful after all. But don't come and try to sound rightious when you try to ride the wave of a product name made famous by the very company you are scolding.

Had it been SuSE or Redhat I could have taken this seriously. Lindows? No way.

RE: Re: RE: Thoughts -> Darius
by Andrew on Wed 16th Oct 2002 13:02 UTC

You're right I beg fogiveness.

They must have changed that from when I looked that or my memory seriously failed me.

That being the case it means that Balmer has a case when he says those machines are subsidized. Because they don't pay $100 for XP.

Tell me more...
by Steve Ballmer on Wed 16th Oct 2002 13:12 UTC

What's this "Linux" thing you mention? And could you explain "Internet" to me? Don't we own those?

- Steve

don't worry steve
by dougie on Wed 16th Oct 2002 14:12 UTC

don't worry steve, the linux boys are fighting among themselves while you're $billions keep on rolling in to the bank

cloning windows and office just might work for a very few office workers doing simple letter writing

where i work ( 4000 users ) MS gets $300-$400 per machine, another $4000 goes to other software suppliers (these guys don't have linux versions of their products so our 4000 machines wont ever see linux until the're sold as scrap)

To all Windoze lovers
by Cloudy on Wed 16th Oct 2002 14:55 UTC

Wow, some people here are really st00pid...
Who pays $63 for Linux when he can download it for FREE ?
Oh, you can download Openoffice for your windoze but you BUY Linux !?
Interesting... (read - St00pid !!!)

Now, in Lindows you get a full operating system and if you want to download extras AND install them in a window's fashion, you'll have to pay $100/year. If you don't need the windoze style installation, you can download the normal stuff anywhere else. Still cheaper than Windoze !
Oh and by the way, a duron 800Mhz with 128Mb DDR kicks any Pentium 233Mhz with any amount of memory so don't BS me.

You're pathetic...

Re: Its all about marketing
by Steve on Wed 16th Oct 2002 16:28 UTC

Wow someone who can spread as much FUD as MS

Probably yourself on your post :-)

If only he actually had a good OS and geeks

They have. They have.

Good (funded) marketing, shoddy product.

Please explain to me on what aspect XP can be considered a "shoddy" product. Or you say that because, everybody at Slashdot say so, it must be true...

re: rajan r
by rain on Wed 16th Oct 2002 17:48 UTC

I'm talking about big companies like Adobe, Macromedia, Corel, Cubase, and so on. Plus, funny you should mentioned them, they are all not targeting the same target market. Which proves my point after all.

Those companies _are_ some of the largest ones in their field, with the exception of BIAS(they are making a very good product anyhow).

Steinberg - makers of Cubase, Nuendo etc. Nuendo was their first app to show up for BeOS, and it was almost 100% finished, but then the focus shift came along and Steinberg bailed out.

Emagic - made Logic Audio. It is among the most popular studio apps ever. Apple bought Emagic a couple of months ago.

Nemesys - makers of Gigasampler and Gigastudio which is the most popular software sampler out there.

As you see those were and still are some of the most important players of the digital audio creation market. And they are all targeting the same market.
But that was not the only market, there was almost finished ports of Cinema 4D and Bryce for example. However, almost all those companies stopped their BeOS development when Be made the focus shift. It makes me sad.

As for Adobe, they were registered Be developers, that's the only thing I know for sure. Rumors say that they were porting Photoshop to BeOS, but I can't find any proof for that.

However, the fact is that Be was attracting large media software companies, as well as new smaller ones. So please for once admit that youre wrong.

And to be honest, I never heard of Edirol. Till today, that is.

I'm not surprised. It's a niche product (using a niche OS). Unless you are a professional video editor you would most likely never hear about such products. But that doesn't make them any less important.
Here's some info about it: http://www.edirol.com/products/info/dv7/index.html

Steve "Re: It's all about marketing"
by Splinky on Wed 16th Oct 2002 17:50 UTC

I think you misread the comment by Anonymous.

He was commenting on Robertson/LindowsOS.

Re:Re: Its all about marketing
by Ores on Thu 17th Oct 2002 02:29 UTC

Good (funded) marketing, shoddy product.
---
Please explain to me on what aspect XP can be considered a "shoddy" product. Or you say that because, everybody at Slashdot say so, it must be true...
---

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but MS didn't build their empire on XP. Nor i did i claim XP was shoddy. I think it has severe design problems, but it is still quite a useable OS.

Just do you know...
by TommyBear on Thu 17th Oct 2002 07:07 UTC

Lindows comes with a membership to click and run. Click and run, it is a service that makes software easy to install on Linux. It does not just supply free software, some of it is commercial and licensed by Lindows, for example Star Office or Tux Racer Deluxe (not the free version), so let's get that clear first please.

In that context the comparison he made was quite fair.