I have no inherent problem with computer makers shipping their machines with Windows pre-installed. Of course, I’d much rather see a lot more diversity when I walk into an electronics retailer, but I can’t really blame OEMs for taking the safe bet and focussing on what they know customers seem to want. Still, we need better ways to return our unused OEM copies of Windows, and apparently, a lot of people in Italy agree.
Last Friday, a law went into effect in Italy which more or less introduces the concept of class-action lawsuits to the Repubblica Italiana. The Aduc consumer defense association didn’t waste a single moment, and announced that it will file a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft, seeking compensation for the OEM copies pre-installed on computers.
“Individual cases affect a limited number of users,” Aduc Chairman Vincenzo Donvito told Reuters, “Therefore, as there is a large number of users involved, and with the importance of the free market issue, we have decided to take a collective legal action against Microsoft.” Donvito recently won a pilot court case in Firenze (Florence) about this very subject.
I’d love it if OEMs started offering more choice in this regard. I don’t mean they have to supply Linux – merely a simple “no operating system” checkbox would suffice, lowering the price of the machine by a few dozen Euros. Especially on cheaper machines like netbooks this could make a significant difference.
Have any of you ever tried to get reimbursed for OEM copies of Windows? Did you have any success?
So they are suing Microsoft because OEMs aren’t offering options besides windows? How the hell does the logic work with that. The only way that would work would be if Microsoft was paying OEMs to only offer Windows, but since that was one of the things they got hit for during the anti-trust stuff, I really doubt they would have started that up again.
I can certainly sympathize with the consumers here, if I just want a PC to install Linux I do dislike paying for a Windows license, and places that offer a machine without Windows installed can be harder to find but it is possible. On the other hand I’m not sure if a lawsuit is the best way to do this, again because unless someone is doing something shady behind the scenes then the OEMs aren’t doing anything legally wrong wrong just annoying.
If I walk into my local computer store and pick up a computer, it’ll most likely have Microsoft Windows installed. I don’t want it; so I know need to get my money back from the unwanted copy…
This is where they have the issue.
1) The OEM ship the computer in mass to the retailer; thus, the retailer wont give me a refund/discount.
2) The OEMs normally wont help you because they have a contract with Microsoft that requires them to sell the computer with an OS.
3) Microsoft wont help you because you purchased the computer via an OEM (Depending on Make/Model the OEM prices vary so even MS doesn’t know what the OEM paid for the copy. Note they may know but they don’t want it to become public knowledge).
The law suit is asking MS to drop the “must have OS” rule and/or create an easy way to get refunds of the unwanted copy.
There is no such clause!!! Again did you read what first guy wrote?? Microsoft doesn’t force OEMs to install OS, OEMs do that because people are so fricking stupid! Remember people returning Linux netbooks because they thought they had Windows, even when the fricking big sign said LINUX YOU IDIOT. Ofc here it is easier and probaply more possible to sue Microsoft, american company, than local OEM.
Utter bunk.
There is a company in Australia that will happily put Linux on a Laptop for you, but they warn that they are only able to get the laptops from the Asian OEMs with Windows already installed.
http://www.vgcomputing.com.au/about.html
An Australian computer RETAILER apparently cannot even buy a laptop as a trader without Windows. For this reason, when you buy a laptop from them with Linux as the pre-installed OS, it is no cheaper than the same model with Windows.
Microsoft’s “must have MS OS installed” clause in their OEM contracts has got to go.
And do you have a copy of one of these? Where exactly is HP’s must have clause? Before you answer, might want to be a little bit better informed than your usual clueless self.
If an OEM wants to sell machines with Windows licenses, then Microsft aparently put in a clause that says that all machines sold must ship with Windows. No dual-boot machines either.
To counter such a claim and easily establish the non-existence of such a clause, please indicate where one may purchase at retail a machine with dual-boot full Linux and Windows pre-installed on the hard disk?
Well, they are not dual boot and only have Linux on them, but you can try K-mart, Walmart, target, etc.
That fact doesn’t disprove the contention that if an OEM (such as Toshiba or Acer) wants to sell a machine with Windows, then Microsoft’s contract with that OEM will include a clause that stipulates that all machines of that model must ship with Windows installed, and ONLY Windows installed.
That clause would not prevent K-mart, Walmart, target, etc from purchasing a stock of motherboards, hard drives, cases etc, assmebling them, branding them as a particular model, installing Linux and selling that.
I repeat … where are the dual-boot machines? If one retailer offered a Windows model, but another were to offer the exact same machine at the same price but with Windows and Linux both pre-installed as a dual-boot machine, then the second retailer could market their machines as having extra value for the same price.
So why don’t we see any such offers to the public at retail?
Likewise, why don’t we see blank machines (no OS installed) offered for sale at retail?
Edited 2010-01-06 12:17 UTC
I think what one will find is that MS has dropped the “must have OS installed” clause after being sued over it and the halloween documents. The more likely method now is to offer deep discounts to OEM who only deliver Windows preinstalled machines. The results is that an OEM can only deliver Windows machines to remain eligible for a competitive license cost.
One with more legal background could probably clarify how shady “to qualify for discount” is versus “must include windows with each unit” contractual obligation.
Either way, the Windows Tax is very alive and well. Each of those Dell/Ubuntu units still counts as a Windows license though it’s not installed for delivery.
Pure speculations from you and Lemur, please show proofs! Perhaps the reason is that MOST PEOPLE DON’T CARE LINUX. Sales of Linux machines has been crap, perhaps thats why it is wasted time to reconfigure production lines for such products. Ofc no sane CEO will say Linux sales are crap because then freetards who nest on sites like OSnews will go frenzy. So they say its nice or some other lame excuse without showing any figures.
I never claimed that my comment was based on impirical evidence. Unless privy to the agreements between OEM and MS, speculation is about the best one can get in the time between document leaks. How is my speculation any different from your speculating that MS allows fair competition and it’s only the OEMs sales results driving the lack of OS choice or “no os” option in the consumer space? Have you recently negotiated an OEM licensing contract with MS?
I also made no mention of Linux based platforms. Your all caps crap us unjustified and off topic. But since you tossed that at me; my choice would still be the “no OS” option. A tech shop is not going to provide my normal clean Windows or other OS install. In your case, imagine being able to order a rig from a vendor without it including a badly configured OS and all the extra crap; doesn’t that save you a format and reinstall plus the additional cost of the OS you may already have waiting with a license?
I think you oversimplify the topic of market share and consumer choices but that’s really a different topic that has had more than it’s share of attention here in the discussions so we needn’t rehash it yet again.
To stick to the topic of my comment since you replied directly to me, do you care to comment on the theory of MS “to qualify for discounts” strategy since they can legally make it a contractual requirement? Can you provide reason why it is such an outlandish accusation to suggest MS is doing what most any other retailer does? (granted, usually in less of a strong arming way)
you say it yourself, apparently – thus, Microsoft enforcing single boot by contract is a speculation (which is moot as long as no proof is privided)
no.
the possibility to purchase a dual boot machine would not counter the claim you’ve made up yourself about the clause you (and only you, apparently) hypothesize about
OEM’s already have convenience in installing Windows as a single OS on their machines, without MS to impose and enforce such a clause:
– windows is the desktop OS with the 90% market share, that in itself is a selling point from both a customer ( who can be reassured he can run both free and commercial applications -and games- for what is already a ubiquitous platform) and vendor (who can target 90% of the market with the minimum costs – more on this later) perspective;
– volume licensing discounts – what large OEMs spend on the single license, and one gets with the reimburse, amount to ca. 30 €, much less than a single OEM license at 80-90 €;
– production economy: one notebook/desktop, one assembly, installation (from a pre-made system image) and testing pipeline
letting customers have another (free or not) OS OTOH means first selecting a version of this other OS the machine will work flawlessly with – then having dedicated assembly pipeline stages to install it in place of windows or alongside (depending on the product line or customer choice – not everyone likes dual boot, i for one hate it) and validate the final machine – this means added logistical complication and costs (for as little as they may be, they’re still above zero) for the OEM’s, resulting in fewer margins or higher product prices (in turn meaning reduced competitiveness)
i seriously doubt consumers would buy for 550/600 euros a notebook that they see for sale at 500/550 today, just because they can install an OS they don’t need anyway – i for done wouldn’t do that
Edited 2010-01-06 14:51 UTC
Better yet… require stores to stock a certain number of PCs without a preinstalled OS whether I want Windows XP, Vista or 7 or maybe even 98 for compatibility with some old apps or Linux because I choose. I recently opened 2 laptops (one my mom’s the other I bought myself) and there was a seal of the laptop stating that once removed I had agreed to keep the bundled software or something to that effect. Even if I never even booted into windows I couldn’t return it! That sort of thing is EXATLY what got Microsoft in trouble for including/”integrating” a web browser into windows in my opinion.
I also wouldn’t mind an itemized bill when I buy a PC I want to know how much the OS and every part costs OEMSs should receive the same pricing as you see in the store the product or be forced to disclose in billing how much they did pay for it IMO.
Most products will come with a discount when you buy in bulk. Order yourself 10,000 ATI GPU boards and you’ll pay less than the store shelf price. The shelf price is also the end price for the consumer. Each stage of the trip from factory presses to your hard drive has to get there cut. If OEM paid street prices, you’d simply pay the new OEM price plus markup. Music is the same, what you pay at the record store is not what the record store paid.
(I miss buying my parts wholesale when working for a reseller back in the day.)
And, you’ll probably see Windows around 40$ OEM cost versus the 100$ or greater retail price. People that have managed the hassle of returning an unwanted but imposed Windows license where getting about that for XP.
I’ve tryed three times already here in Spain. The answer was the same always: “the computes does not work without windows”. And this was coming from the tech department… what should I expect? You know what it is said here: “Spain is different”.
The third time I did talked to a person in charge on the store,in fact,he was the owner. He politely told me that they do not refund for the Windows copy and I was more than welcome to return the whole laptop if I didn’t accept the Microsoft EULA.
I obviously kept the laptop and payed for *ANOTHER* windows licence that I *DO NOT* use because if I wanna have a laptop without Windows in this country I’ll get the same on every store I can find :S
What do I have to do? Call a lawyer and appear to the store to get my money back? I should. I just don’t have neither the resources nor the time to do so
Maybe in a couple of years, whenever I buy a new laptop I’ll bother…
I think people would be disappointed if they did receive refund checks for the amount they’ve actually paid for pre-installed software. Probably $50 or less. Could be as low as $15 for netbook purchasers.
I think the amount is not the point. The point is that you should not pay for something you know you are not going to use.
I agree somewhat. But I get the impression that ~some~ people feel entitled to the full retail price when asking for a refund, which is much more than they actually paid.
And I only agree “somewhat” in that it would be nice to see more choices in the OSes offered by large computer OEMs. And I do feel that some of the reported contract terms between Microsoft and OEMs are anti-competitive, designed purely to prevent alternatives from entering the market, and should be illegal.
Also, what other consumer products offer refunds for unused/unwanted features or bundled accessories? Can I get a refund for the crap onboard sound that every motherboard manufacturer ‘forces’ me to take, even though I’ll never use it? Should the government force Nikon to buy back the Spanish language camera manual that I don’t need and can’t use? How many car owners remove the stock radio of a new car; should the government force car makers to sell radio-less cars? Rhetorical questions obviously, but not much different than the issue of topic.
Edited 2010-01-06 05:02 UTC
OS is software; that’s an easy component to return and account for. Crap audio on the motherboard is integrated hardware; you’ll need a saw and your soldering iron for that return.
Actually, Asus hits a happy middle ground. They include audio but as a daughter board easily replaced with any other mini-pci audio board. The part that I don’t get is why they include an audio board with such crap support; I had to replace it with a X-FI before I could get full sound out of games. (not as good as being able to return just the daughter board but better than fully integrated crap)
I agree with you. But you don’t have to pay for something that you know you are not going to use. In 17 years of buying computers, I’ve never purchased a desktop that came bundled with a copy of Windows. As for laptops, System76 along with Dell and HP sell Linux systems in the US/Canada and ZaReason ships internationally.
Options are available and have been for a while. If you purchase a system with Windows without any intent to use it, then it is your own fault.
Unless this is just the same old story of trying to create controversy and force “choice” on people who really don’t care in an attempt to further the cause of your own preferred operating system and whatever agenda happens to be attached to it.
Not just the principle of not paying for something you didn’t want. The sales counts may also be effected. If that license return is reported back up the sales chain (though MS knows already through the Genuine Audit.. er.. Advantage activations and ongoing updates).
If enough Windows licenses come back to a store, the store owner may realize that customers are interested in other options. Maybe more empty iron will turn up in the consumer class devices. (mind you, if I could buy servers as my standard home system I could always select “with no OS” from the list)
I wouldnt be surprised if this OEM was pulled off and Microsoft got stuck with another bill. The Italian legal system at times can be a real pain in the rear towards American based institutions, so I hope Microsoft comes prepared. (This was based on an issue that occured with the company I worked with this year concerning an issue with an Italian telecom, but sadly due to NDA I can’t say more.)
I’ve never had any luck returning OEM licenses in the past. I tried to explain I owned a boxed retail copy of XP and I really didn’t need two copies but no. They refer me to Microsoft who in turn refer me back to the OEM.
Incompetence of governments. MS should have been forced to make it very easy for people to get refunds for an unused OS as part of the anti trust settlements. It would have only been fair considering MS’s biggest abuses of the system all involve the under the table OEM deals. Is it too late to get this system fixed?
Hopefully Italy is a start.
Edited 2010-01-06 05:29 UTC
A system already exist in France to get refund on preinstalled software :
http://www.racketiciel.info/
Yep, tried successfully, in Poland: http://polishlinux.org/linux/how-to-get-a-refund-for-windows-in-pol…
But the effort was not worth it really.
If I don’t use the soundcard bundled with my PC, can I take it back for a refund? I doubt it. Why is Windows any different?
PCs aren’t Microsoft’s design. Microsoft don’t make the PC hardware. The PC hardware is (by design) capable of working with products other than Microsoft’s OS software.
Therefore, if I am buying a machine from one company (say Toshiba), then I should be able to match it with compatible software products of MY choosing from any other supplier. My contract with Toshiba is to buy their hardware assembly. Microsoft should have nothing to do with this transaction if I want it to be that way.
I believe, and please correct me if I don’t remember things correctly, during the activation process of Windows when you first boot up, or on a sheet of paper that normally comes with your laptop, somethings says that if you don’t agree with the licence that comes with Windows, return it for a full refund. This is a note from MS, so MS should be accepting the software and providing a refund.
It’s my understanding that that is what they are suing for.
Of course I could be remembering things correctly and in reality no such message exists and if that’s the case, forget I said anything
Your unopened Windows disks can be applied to another OEM machine or the local shop can save it (it will eventually come in handy to have around for support or sale).
Your motherboard bundled hardware is probably less useful without the motherboard. It does still suck but there is a little more basis for it than general purpose software (having also had to buy crap audio to get a good motherboard).
Ideally, one should be able to choose not to include those extra bits at time of purchase/order rather than as second visit for returns. This is where the “no OS” option far exceeds the ability to return unopened OS disks.
But, when MS was last in court over forced pre-installed “if it doesn’t have Windows on it, it’ll just be used with an unlicensed copy of our product” was the defense and the court swallowed.
If you don’t want or don’t need any piece of hardware in your purchased computer, you are free to resell it.
Software is different, all because software writers have long insisted that they should not be treated the same, but subject to an EULA. Since the OEM Microsoft EULA forbids you to resell the software or use it on another computer, Microsoft says you are entitled to a refund (or a voucher) and need to contact the OEM for that.
OEM, in this case, violate their agreements with Microsoft (and violate the rights of the consumer). They need to be held accountable for that.
If in practice it’s proven the consumer can’t exert at least this right, Microsoft would be the first to loose since that would subject him to far heavier monopoly abuse fines (they’re not subject to it because even though consumers can’t by 99% of the computers without having Windows come bundled to it, they are still supposed to be able to get a refund for the software bundled, thus the bundling of Windows is an accepted practice).
Well, I can only have a hard time looking for some reasonable company selling laptop without OS. I don’t have time and energy to fight with some stupid OEM wanting me to use OS I don’t need.
While it is actually interesting what this lawsuit will achieve (and besides, I live in Italy), the “unwanted OS tax” is common misconception, basically fueled by handy excuse Linux advocates spread all over the Internet.
It *was* true that Microsoft in the past tried to stop OEMs to install other operations systems, like all other companies did and like Apple is doing today. However, while MS wanted that, the bare truth is Windows became so popular that no OEMs had any real reason to ship something else.
Fast forwarding to present time, Internet myth spread the voice that PCs could cost hundreds of dollars/euros less if Windows got stripped away. This is of course a myth.
Like other said, Windows versions you get with your new PC cost maybe 15-30$. No OEM would *EVER* ship a machine WITHOUT any OS which customer would not be able to run by just plugging in : that would be pure nonsense and if you don’t understand why, I really wonder which planet you live.
Now, which crazy OEM would strip something they pay only 15$ out of their machines when that’s what 95% of people will probably want? Right: no-one. Also because that 1-3% that could want a different OS could simply install what he wants. Now, in a economy of scale, who would prepare a different business process to support a 1-3% userbase? Right: no-one. Expecially when you then need to provide support, assistance and so on. And expecially if you consider that end-retailer (which is the one who would provide support and stuff) maybe earns $30-40-50 per system.
That would simply be crazy.
OTOH, that still does not make it unreasonable to be refunded the actual cost of the Windows copy for that computer, should you desire to have yourself 20 euros in your pocket, rather than a copy of Windows.
Courts also tend to be a good way to challenge laws and regulations that are in place. Let’s say MS isn’t really guilty of any strong-arming, but there is no reasonable way, thanks to bureaucracy or general lack of knowledge or competence, for you to refund your OS. Taking it to court could, at the least, offer an avenue to get some method in place to get the job done. FI, if the sellers should be the ones taking the refund, but they are incompetent, MS should pick up the slack.
Suing a company does not necessarily mean you think they are of the devil, hate people, or are price-fixing, abusing their monopoly, or whatever–just that they have done things they shouldn’t have done, or did not do things they should have done.
Edited 2010-01-06 14:12 UTC
Beating a large corporation is always in our interest, even if I’m a Windows user. I’m not defending MS at all and, as I wrote, I’m interested in what this class actions could achieve. No-one of us should forget we’re all consumers and so we must defend ourselves.
*However*
My remark was all about suing Microsoft for this specific complaint, which is IMO a misconception. I, for one, would sue Microsoft for activation process which could prevent me to re-install my software anytime I wish. I would sue MS because they tie their OEM copies to specific hardware and I cannot install my new software onto another system of mines. Or I would sue MS because retail copies of their software is probably overpriced since they proved that they could sell same software to a much lower price if required (e.g. in Asia).
That specific complaint looks not really solid. But whatever…
Edited 2010-01-06 15:13 UTC
i’m not so sure anymore after seeing ms being beaten because of a browser and a media-player…
ship my machines with RD-DOS please!
As being italian I found these class actions suing Microsoft, truly amusing and funny than serious class-action.
Truly this time the consumer defence associations made poo out the littter…
They should have denounced in CEE Parliament the Italian law about selling computers that is bad written, because the law does not allow you Joe User to buy pre-assembled computers WITHOUT at least one OS pre-installed on it…
Pre-assembled computer? laptops?
in Italy these computers should have already installed one copy of any OS in order to stay in stores to be sold.
Or at least the defence associations had to sue the whole corporate sellers of electronic facilities because they prefer to sell computer with preinstalled Windows, rather than other Operating Systems.
That was a smart move.
Infacts this time Microsoft have no guilty.
Infacts as long as I remember the law here in Italy, if you built a computer by yourself, or make it assembled at a local store you can choose to buy it without any installed Operating System and choose one of your own such as any kind of Linux distros, or you can buy cheap Windows (if you are student) or even buy a copy of MacOS X and install it on your computer as long as in Italy is not prohibited by law to run ORIGINAL copies of any OS on any piece of hardware if you have necessary skills to make it run (it just need to be ORIGNAL software stuff though…)
But this is another story beacuse in Italy there could be no any unfair terms for the users written in EULAs.
From the other side the manufactuer of the OS is responsible only if OS support is damaged (non working floppies, CDs, USB-Keys, SD memory cards, etcetera).
The law in Italy MAINLY states that if you sell a computer that is PRE-ASSEMBLED or a laptop in stores, then you reseller must provide the buyer with a running copy of ANY Operating System , as long as you Joe USer are entitled to starting using your computer from the very first moment you buyed it.
It is a law made to protect people that are not skilled in computer and prevent you Joe User to buy a piece of hardware that then reveals to be unusable for you…
(and this law was made also to prevent malicious resellers to charge buyers of extra amount of money for buying apart the software and also to prevent they could also charge the user of assistance fees as long as the installing the OS could be considered as computer assistance)
Refunding:
Law in italy clearly stated that If you dislike the OS that was pre-installed, then you should remove original copy of the OS from the hard disk, with the testimony of the reseller, and the reseller is entitled to pick the original Installing Disks and refund the buyer of the price of the OS.
But this refunding reveals often too much difficult because resellers clerks does not know the procedure of removing the Operating System from the computer they sells, or even refuse to refunding in spite of the law.
They are just there to selling you the haredware and repeating as smart monkeys continuously in your ears the features of the hardware you are about to buy. They are young people (mainly pretty smart girls) too much often without any computer exeperience.
These girls are just there to show their boobs and PERSUADE you user to buy, and buy again, and buy again, and again…
So it is the corporate resellers, and the Electronic Selling Chains like Euronics, Eldo, Expert, etcetera to be blamend, and are these Big Chains of Electronics Resellers that deserved to be sued for not accomplishing what the law stated about refunding.
They also could have be sued by defense associations beacuse they are hiring personnel clerks that are not skilled, and are just smart monkeys trained to convince the user to buy a machine they ever don’t know how it works.
Just my 2 cents people.
Edited 2010-01-06 13:53 UTC
People keep bitching up and down about the extra money they spent on an unwanted OEM copy of Windows. And then it’s always pointed out how this actually lowers the cost of the computer. And it never sinks in.
You know that crapware that comes pre-installed on a new Dell or HP? That stuff you immediately remove using ccleaner and other tools? That’s put on there because the vendors of the crapware pay the OEM builder money to pre-install it. IIRC, someone did a study on this and came to the conclusion that the revenue the OEMs get from the crapware vendors actually exceeds in some cases the cost of the OEM version of Windows (which itself can be as low as $10, or at least it was for some vendors for WinXP). Since commodity PCs are a cut-throat low-margin business, this money from the crapware is reflected in lower pricetags to the consumer. If it weren’t for the fact that Windows was on the machine, the crapware wouldn’t have been installed, and you’d end up paying MORE for the OS-less PC.
The other major advantage to pre-installing Windows is the economy of scale. The vendor is able to mass-produce computers with identical configurations in a predictable way. This helps reduce the cost of both manufacturing and testing. In theory, Linux or some specialized testing software would be even cheaper. But this would only be the case if the vendor switched over entirely to Linux or went entirely OS-less. They’re never going to do this. Diversifying the OS offering represents a significant increase in the cost of manpower (production and customer service) and is a source of potential reliability problems. Remember, customer service has to be paid for when you buy the machine. If you want to support another OS, that means hiring more staff or training them better, an added cost which you would see on the price tag. On the other hand, those of us who want Linux are usually competent to install and maintain it ourselves.
Also, many of us who want Linux bypass the commodity OEMs entirely anyhow. I don’t want to buy crap Dell hardware, and I don’t want to screw around with trying to find Linux drivers for whatever lousy network hardware HP decided to put in their machines. So I go to newegg.com and buy the parts myself, making sure I get something that has good reviews and will work well with Linux. I actually pay more, but I also get a more capable, more reliable, higher quality machine in the process.
If Windows provably added $100 to the pricetag of every machine, I could see a reason to complain. But reportedly, it does not. The most you’d get out of a refund is maybe $10 or $20.
Microsoft is a target. We like to pick on Microsoft. This is because they’ve done evil, anticompetitive things. So with a feeling of wanting revenge, I say go for it. Their impact on the Dell you’re buying right now may be minimal and generally above board. But the only reason it is is because Microsoft was caught red handed and forced to mend their ways (to the minimum extent allowable by law). Just keep in mind that success in slapping them around right now is a double-edged sword. It has the potential to increase the cost of PCs all around.
excellent post though some people probably can’t accept that OEMs might just choose to sell windows stuff for reasons other than Microsoft paying them. I find it telling that servers, the one market segment where windows is not dominant, can be purchased with no os quite easily even from the big OEMs. No OS desktops and Linux desktop PCs are niche at best and the OEMs leave that market segment to the custom pc makers who can give all the dual or triple boot setups you desire. Its not a crime to choose not to serve all niches.
The lowest price for Windows OEM in big quantities is for Windows XP specificaly on Netbooks, and it’s between 15$ (for large OEM) and 35$. One has to note, though, that Microsoft lowered this price only after OEM starting to offer Netbooks with Linux installed, and since your point it so say that having Windows bundled with most (all) machines is not a problem for those not wanting Windows, it’s not that relevant.
The lowest price for Windows Seven (or Vista) OEM is 50$, and that’s only for the few biggest OEM out there (that was teh price revealed for Dell, who has always had really good prices for its Microsoft licenses). Windows Seven Starter is priced about the same as XP for netbooks, but again it’s only allowed to be offered on the market where they had competition from another OS.
Refunds are at least 50$. The bundled crapware can reduce a bit the price for the OEM (nothing as big as 10$ though), but on the other hand the OEM won’t have to offer any software support for computers they sell without Windows (and trust me software support can be a pain, considering the number of customers that can’t update an antivirus or install whatever warez or free game they find on the internet. Hardware support isn’t more expensive when you don’t have Windows, considering the first thing they tend to do is formatting your hard drive and reinstalling Windows, then running their diagnostic tools).
Order 10,000 hard drives with the windows image stamped on them. Order 10,000 hard drives with no image stamped on them. Offer a no-OS option. I don’t think offering these two minimal options is complicated enough to justify benefits from a single mass produced image. It should actually reduce OEM grief since they don’t need all the hard drives stamped with a specific machine image (to include drivers and model specific utilities). As the other poster mentioned; no OS means no software support obligation attached to that unit’s registration number.
I do agree that the market for no-OS consumer hardware may be much smaller though. Non-tech consumers expect a bootable OS on the hardware when they leave the store though everyone really should replace the craptacular preinstall with a proper clean one. I should be able to grab my Dell bundled install disk and place only Windows on the Dell hardware. Include the crap in the preinstall image if one must but when I put that reinstall disk in, the crapware should be third party optional not forced in with the Windows image. (maybe it’s changed since, our Dells are old and on there way out so disk images may have changed since)
Even Lenovo’s business class notebook preinstalls are a mess. If your X series notebook is locking up at login and shutdown; uninstall Thinkvantage Access Connections and you should gain instant stability. And the X series is supposed to be the model for executives. (good hardware, software that should be taken behind the barn and shot in the face)
We recently purchased a new laptop and of course it came with Vista which we did not need. Now I tried to get a refund of the License which was not needed, now I tried both the manufacturer and MS.
What did they do, they passed the buck back and forth until I gave up in frustration. I find this so wrong…….. why should I pay for an OS that I do not require. Albeit it might be only $50-100 dollars but that would buy other things that I need.
To me its a matter of principle, I don’t and won’t use the enclosed software so why shouldn’t I get some sort of refund.
It’s not like I can transfer the license to another computer or sell the license due to the restrictions of an OEM license which is another sore point courtesy of Microsoft. I must admit I do not appreciate what I feel are monopolistic restrictions like this.
One day I hope that we can purchase whatever hardware or form factor we wish and can either have the OS of choice installed or at least have the option to get the hardware without OS.
Choice is what is needed, not restrictive practices!
I think quite a few of you here miss the point. Somebody else already pointed out, the difference between say a sound chip and some software is the EULA. Essentially software makers insist they are different and usual first sale doctrines etc. do not apply to them. So you have only entered into an agreement with them once you have agreed to the EULA (and they also say you’re actually licensing not buy, although that is a different matter). Now that puts the consumer into this situation where he has already paid for the software, but not really completed the transaction. See where this is getting? If you haven’t completed the transaction, you should be able get your money for this transaction back, otherwise you did already form a contract, i.e. the buying. MS and other software vendors can’t have it both ways.
Does this strike anyone as a bit of a blast from the past? I remember the comp.os.linux newsgroups, slashdot, etc, being filled with accounts of people who attempted to return bundled copies of Windows back in the late 90s.
Anywho, it seems like an issue only if you insist on buying from one of the big OEMs. Even in the (barely-a-) city that I live in, there are two or three smaller shops that will happily sell you a PC with a blank drive (or no drive), or Linux, or any other OS they can install. Not to mention the innumerable online computer retailers.
The OEM system install has been the gold standard in the home and SOHO markets for close on to thirty years.
The system appears on the shelves in a balanced – known good – configuration.
It comes with s warranty and maybe an in-home service contract. It works or it doesn’t – and if it doesn’t, it is the seller’s problem, not the buyer’s.
There are enormous economies of scale in building and marketing the Windows PC.
WalMart with its unmatched purchasing power and retail presence in the states could not price a credible Linux PC below Windows.
The retailer can expect strong after-market sales in hardware, software and peripherals.
Bare bones is for the technical hobbyist and the IT Pro. It is not mass market.
Maintaining dual – multiple – inventories and support structures is expensive.
Linux has 1% of the market – and is typically positioned at the low end. The very bottom In baseball, that’s two strikes against you before you even get the bat.
that a refund on an OEM copy of windows is only 10-20$… I hate to burst the bubble, but you are all wrong. I’ve tried 5 times over the last few years to get refunds on XP, Vista, and Winblows 7 against HP, Dell, and Sony. I’ve won everytime. I’ve always gotten back 199$ plus the cost of small claims.
First thing to do when buying a new laptop is to start it up in windows and wait to get to the OEM agreement. Scroll down till you see the line “If you do not agree with this license, please click I do not agree and return the software to the installer/manufacturer for a complete refund.” Make sure to take a picture of the cursor hanging over the I do not agree button.
Second step is to contact the OEM and politely ask where to return the install disks and to pick up a check for the amount. Most times they will try to stall you by saying that the system is only capable of running windows, to contact MS about a refund, or, in rare cases, offer you a refund of 10-15$. At this point you can accept that small sum or press it further.
If it comes to small claims, like it has for me in every case, you need to take in your computer, in my case laptops, so that the judge can see that windows has been removed and that you are using something else. You’ll need to take in a copy of the windows EULA, copies of any and all email exchanges between the OEM and yourself so that the judge can see that you tried to be reasonable, and a retail price tag for whatever version of windows came installed on your system.
I bet I didn’t spend more than 5 minutes in front of the judge in all cases. It usually went something like this:
Judge: Ok explain to me what we are doing in here today?
Myself: Your honor, I want a refund on windows from the defendant since I am not using it on my computer. The EULA says that if I don’t agree to the license, to uninstall windows and return it to the installer for a refund. They are refusing to provide a refund for it.
Judge: Ok. Let me look over this agreement. <Minute later> Ok if you aren’t using this windows on your computer, what are you using?
Myself: I’m using something called linux.
Judge: Whats linux?
Myself: Its an alternative operating system to windows.
Judge: Ok, let me see this. <Minute later> Ok, This isn’t windows. Why hasn’t the defendant given a refund?
Defendant: Windows is part of the package. If they didn’t want windows, they shouldn’t have bought the computer.
Judge: I see. Does your company offer computers without windows installed?
Defendant: No.
Judge: How much did your company pay for this windows license?
Defendant: I can’t reveal how much my company pays per license. Its a trade secret.
Judge: Plaintiff, do you know how much this windows costs?
Plaintiff: I don’t know how much they pay for it, but I have a price tag in front of me for a retail copy and it says 199$.
Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of 199$ plus small claims filing fee.