<http://maratux.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-microsoft-trying-to-equate-selling.html>

<quote>
Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event
in Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal
representative had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's
National Institute of Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to
make a statement specifying that they could take any legal action
Microsoft considered pertinent given the builder's lack of a Microsoft
certificate of authenticity or original license included along with a
computer built/sold by the independent builder. The builder states
that given that they sell their computers with Free Software instead
of Windows, the software has licenses and that Microsoft doesn't have
anything to complain about given that they don't own copyrights for
said software.
</quote>

Same old Microsoft.

Verily I say unto thee, that Hardon spake thusly:
><http://maratux.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-microsoft-trying-to-equate-selling.html>
>
><quote>
> Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event
> in Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal
> representative had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's
> National Institute of Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to
> make a statement specifying that they could take any legal action
> Microsoft considered pertinent given the builder's lack of a Microsoft
> certificate of authenticity or original license included along with a
> computer built/sold by the independent builder. The builder states
> that given that they sell their computers with Free Software instead
> of Windows, the software has licenses and that Microsoft doesn't have
> anything to complain about given that they don't own copyrights for
> said software.
></quote>
>
> Same old Microsoft.

Yes, arrogant bastards.

Not the first time, either:

[quote]
By a strange coincidence Microsoft's dire warnings against buying PCs
without preinstalled operating systems (see MS: how PCs shipped without
Windows will destroy your life) seem to have vanished from microsoft.com
on the very day that Microsoft argued that it didn't have a monopoly of
the OS market, and that "the market position of Windows was created
by... consumer demand, not Microsoft's control of total output."

....

From the look of the one we've got now, it's an even earlier version
than the 'old' version - the language is significantly more brutal and
less subtle, and there are fewer embellishments. There would, for
example, seem to be absolutely no chance that a user might buy a machine
without Windows on it for the entirely legitimate purpose of installing
a different operating system: "Trouble is, if you act on your customers'
willingness to buy Naked PCs - knowing full well they are at risk of
acquiring pirated operating systems elsewhere... And even if your
customer manages to illegally acquire and install operating systems
elsewhere..."

It's that "illegally", isn't it? It really does sound horribly like
Microsoft thinks it's illegal to buy other operating systems. And we
might at this juncture observe that once upon a time (not that long ago)
it was relatively easy to buy full versions of operating systems that
you could install on your new PC when you junked the old one. The first
generation of PCs shipped without an operating system, and you bought
this separately.
[/quote]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/

-- 
K.                           | "Do you have a dot on your head
http://slated.org            |  and are you based in Bangalore?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   |  ~ flatfish+++ the racist scum.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 41 days  | http://tinyurl.com/flattyracistscum

Homer wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> It's that "illegally", isn't it? It really does sound horribly like
> Microsoft thinks it's illegal to buy other operating systems. And we
> might at this juncture observe that once upon a time (not that long ago)
> it was relatively easy to buy full versions of operating systems that
> you could install on your new PC when you junked the old one. The first
> generation of PCs shipped without an operating system, and you bought
> this separately.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/

   http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/english_holding/nakedPC.htm

   404 NOT FOUND

   http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/23/ms_how_pcs_shipped_without/

   Before and after - how Naked PCs kill

   Version 1: customers are thieving pirates
   Version 2: customers are innocent victims who need saving from themselves

-- 
My computer can beat up your computer.
		-- Karl Lehenbauer

On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:27:19 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> Homer wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
> 
>> It's that "illegally", isn't it? It really does sound horribly like
>> Microsoft thinks it's illegal to buy other operating systems. And we
>> might at this juncture observe that once upon a time (not that long ago)
>> it was relatively easy to buy full versions of operating systems that
>> you could install on your new PC when you junked the old one. The first
>> generation of PCs shipped without an operating system, and you bought
>> this separately.
>> [/quote]
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/28/ms_its_nearly_illegal/
> 
>    http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/english_holding/nakedPC.htm
> 
>    404 NOT FOUND

Same here.

Verily I say unto thee, that Chris Ahlstrom spake thusly:

>    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/23/ms_how_pcs_shipped_without/
>
>    Before and after - how Naked PCs kill
>
>    Version 1: customers are thieving pirates
>    Version 2: customers are innocent victims who need saving from
>    themselves

It's especially ironic given that Microsoft's portfolio is, itself,
largely "pirated" from others, in one way or another (CP/M, Apple Lisa,
VMS, OS X, KDE4, etc.).

-- 
K.                           | "Do you have a dot on your head
http://slated.org            |  and are you based in Bangalore?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky   |  ~ flatfish+++ the racist scum.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 42 days  | http://tinyurl.com/flattyracistscum

"Hardon" <hardon.quirk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Nf4kp.53631$QN4.49661@news.usenetserver.com...
> <http://maratux.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-microsoft-trying-to-equate-selling.html>
>
> <quote>
> Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event
> in Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal
> representative had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's
> National Institute of Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to
> make a statement specifying that they could take any legal action
> Microsoft considered pertinent given the builder's lack of a Microsoft
> certificate of authenticity or original license included along with a
> computer built/sold by the independent builder. The builder states
> that given that they sell their computers with Free Software instead
> of Windows, the software has licenses and that Microsoft doesn't have
> anything to complain about given that they don't own copyrights for
> said software.
> </quote>
>
> Same old Microsoft.

Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right than 
wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a 
Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many statistics 
taken for computers used to access internet sites.  Granted a few machines 
will either never go into significant service or will remain with freeDOS or 
even Linux versions installed, but that is just a handful out of the many 
that are purchased with the express intent of installing a pirated copy of 
Windows.

The Mexican government is fully aware of this, but, given the tangle of 
lawsuits that inevitably ensnarl reality, there is nothing much for 
Microsoft to do beyond registering such mild protests. 

On Tuesday 29 March 2011 16:48 amicus_curious wrote:

> 
> 
> "Hardon" <hardon.quirk@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:Nf4kp.53631$QN4.49661@news.usenetserver.com...
>> <http://maratux.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-microsoft-trying-to-equate-
selling.html>
>>
>> <quote>
>> Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event
>> in Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal
>> representative had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's
>> National Institute of Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to
>> make a statement specifying that they could take any legal action
>> Microsoft considered pertinent given the builder's lack of a Microsoft
>> certificate of authenticity or original license included along with a
>> computer built/sold by the independent builder. The builder states
>> that given that they sell their computers with Free Software instead
>> of Windows, the software has licenses and that Microsoft doesn't have
>> anything to complain about given that they don't own copyrights for
>> said software.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Same old Microsoft.
> 
> Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right 
than 
> wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a 
> Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many statistics 
> taken for computers used to access internet sites.  Granted a few machines 
> will either never go into significant service or will remain with freeDOS 
or 
> even Linux versions installed, but that is just a handful out of the many 
> that are purchased with the express intent of installing a pirated copy of 
> Windows.
> 
> The Mexican government is fully aware of this, but, given the tangle of 
> lawsuits that inevitably ensnarl reality, there is nothing much for 
> Microsoft to do beyond registering such mild protests.

I see - and thank you.
Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would agree 
then that Microsoft *does* force large OEMs to install Windows on their 
products?

This post and your own attitude seem to confirm it.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:48:30 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:

> Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right than 
> wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a 
> Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many statistics 
> taken for computers used to access internet sites.

There are no such statistics.  There are statistics that show a high 
percentage of computers have Windows.  There none that say how many of 
those are pirate copies installed on machines sold with no OS.


>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service 
> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed, 

Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.


> but that is just a handful out of the many that are purchased with the 
> express intent of installing a pirated copy of Windows.

You can't possibly know this.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...

>
> I see - and thank you.
> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would 
> agree
> then that Microsoft *does* force large OEMs to install Windows on their
> products?
>
I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion, bb. 
The notion that there is some sort of compulsion to do so would depend a lot 
on what you might want to term "force".  Whether they are misguided 
"sheeple" as some COLA regulars believe or whether they are simply normal 
consumers with normal product expectations, there is a huge demand for 
so-called "Wintel" computers.  Unit volume for this sort of product in all 
of its forms is thought to be over 300 million units per year, so if you are 
a computer vendor that wishes to address that market, you must, perforce, 
supply both "Win" in the form of a Windows OS and "tel" in the form of an 
x86 compatible processor.  Certainly that is a force that is difficult to 
oppose.

If you are such a vendor and also have fairly high unit volume dependent on 
such products, for example HP, Dell, Sony, Asus, Acer, Lenovo, and almost 
every other familiar computer maker other than Apple, you are well-advised 
to be cordial to Microsoft and participate in their various partnership 
programs which reduce the overall costs of licenses for Windows versions 
that you will need for your shipments.  Malcontents such as Homer, 7, 
chrisv, Rasker, linonut, and others project their own attitudes on PC 
manufactures and postulate that these companies would spit in the Microsoft 
eye if they were not somehow held in bondage, but I think that these fellows 
are grossly mistaken.  Even a cursory analysis of what would be the 
enlightened self interest of the PC makers as a class shows that PC vendors 
and Microsoft have a symbiosis that benefits both to a great degree and that 
nothing could be gained and a lot could be lost by disturbing that 
relationship.

So these folk postulate that there must be some malicious controlling force 
that causes OEMs to kowtow to Redmond.  Of course there is no such thing and 
so whatever expectations that the COLA mavens might have about OEMs rising 
up and casting off their chains are never going to happen. 

"Bob Hauck" <postmaster@avalanche.org> wrote in message 
news:slrnip442r.ehj.postmaster@bigbird.haucks.org...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:48:30 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>> Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right 
>> than
>> wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a
>> Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many statistics
>> taken for computers used to access internet sites.
>
> There are no such statistics.  There are statistics that show a high
> percentage of computers have Windows.  There none that say how many of
> those are pirate copies installed on machines sold with no OS.
>
The inference is clear, Bob.  Put on your thinking cap and you will easily 
conclude that virtually all the computers in use other than those 
manufactured by Apple are Windows based computers.  Then consider that the 
percentage of Windows computers in use is much greater than the percentage 
of Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows 
pre-installed.  The conclusion is obvious in that most of the balance of the 
computers, sold with no Windows license, are, QED, loaded with pirated 
versions of Windows.  The number of pirated systems is simply the total 
number of systems minus the legitimate ones.  Many COLA posters have 
stipulated that Ballmer's slides showing this phenomenon are legitimate.
>
>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>
> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>
There's no accounting for tastes, eh?
>
>> but that is just a handful out of the many that are purchased with the
>> express intent of installing a pirated copy of Windows.
>
> You can't possibly know this.
>
Think again, Bob.  The only alternate answer is that the purchaser of the 
bare machine is going to pay for a legal copy of Windows, but that is 
substantially higher in cost than just buying it from a legitimate source 
pre-installed.  So either the buyers are complete fools or they are pirates. 
Given the expertise needed to install an OS from scratch and the difficulty 
in even finding a source of bare computers, you cannot argue that they are 
simply making an uninformed, foolish purchase. 

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:13:23 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>
>> I see - and thank you.
>> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would 
>> agree
>> then that Microsoft *does* force large OEMs to install Windows on their
>> products?
>>
> I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion, bb.

He's a nut, that's how.


> If you are such a vendor and also have fairly high unit volume dependent on 
> such products, for example HP, Dell, Sony, Asus, Acer, Lenovo, and almost 
> every other familiar computer maker other than Apple, you are well-advised 
> to be cordial to Microsoft and participate in their various partnership 
> programs which reduce the overall costs of licenses for Windows versions 
> that you will need for your shipments.  Malcontents such as Homer, 7, 
> chrisv, Rasker, linonut, and others project their own attitudes on PC 
> manufactures and postulate that these companies would spit in the Microsoft 
> eye if they were not somehow held in bondage, but I think that these fellows 
> are grossly mistaken.  Even a cursory analysis of what would be the 
> enlightened self interest of the PC makers as a class shows that PC vendors 
> and Microsoft have a symbiosis that benefits both to a great degree and that 
> nothing could be gained and a lot could be lost by disturbing that 
> relationship.
> 
> So these folk postulate that there must be some malicious controlling force 
> that causes OEMs to kowtow to Redmond.  Of course there is no such thing and 
> so whatever expectations that the COLA mavens might have about OEMs rising 
> up and casting off their chains are never going to happen.

I'm sure it's a love/hate relationship between the vendors and
Microsoft.
Same could be said of IBM, the auto industry and virtually any industry
where dependence upon another product or supplier is part of the
business model.

The vendors want it better, faster and cheaper.
The supplier wants it restricted so the price stays high and wants to
squash his competition.
That's business.
Something the basement dwellers here in COLA have no clue about.

What ever the dealings that go on, the fact still remains that PC
vendors make a ton of money off Microsoft and Microsoft makes a ton of
money off of them.

They are free to install Linux or any other operating system, say
FreeDOS at any time.

They choose not to.

Why?

Because they know they will be out of business if they do because the
demand is for Windows and Windows applications and not for Linux.

Just consider the volume of systems that Dell or Lenovo ship each day.
Now consider that they are paying say $25.00 for each copy of Windows.

If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
to begin with.

When you add up all those machines at $25.00/machine that comes to one
hell of a good chunk of change.

And taking it one step further, since Linux is supposedly better at
fending off malware, that's less of a load on their tech support
department as well.

It would also simplify them having to load trial ware (subsidized)
software as well which puts one less company in the food chain.

They don't do it though.
Why?
Because they would go out of business because there is simply no demand
by the average consumer for desktop Linux.

It's a fact proven by companies like Walmart who have already tried to
sell Linux systems and failed.

Then of course there are the Linux netbooks, another porker that died a
quick death once Windows versions were released.

The list goes on and on but the end result is always the same.
Desktop Linux is a niche product and in it's current state of affairs
(500+ different versions) it will forever continue to be one.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "Bob Hauck" <postmaster@avalanche.org> wrote in message 
> news:slrnip442r.ehj.postmaster@bigbird.haucks.org...
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:48:30 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right 
>>> than
>>> wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a
>>> Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many statistics
>>> taken for computers used to access internet sites.
>>
>> There are no such statistics.  There are statistics that show a high
>> percentage of computers have Windows.  There none that say how many of
>> those are pirate copies installed on machines sold with no OS.
>>
> The inference is clear, Bob.  

Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual 
evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about 
a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.


> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually 
> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are 
> Windows based computers. Then consider that the percentage of Windows 
> computers in use is much greater than the percentage of 
> Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows 
> pre-installed.

But you have not actually demonstrated this.  I don't see any citations 
in there.  You are assuming.  You could be wrong.  I think you probably 
are wrong.


>>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>>
>> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>>
> There's no accounting for tastes, eh?

Indeed.  I dare say that the number of Linux users is much larger than 
the number of FreeDOS users.  My evidence for this is exactly as 
reliable as yours is for the opposite.  Which is to say I pulled it out 
of my ass.


-- 
 -| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
 -| http://www.haucks.org/

Bob Hauck wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>> The inference is clear, Bob.  
>
> Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual 
> evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about 
> a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.
>
>
>> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually 
>> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are 
>> Windows based computers.

What?  What about the massive mainframe/server/blade market?

And what the hell is a Windows-based computer?  They putting Windows in the
BIOS now?  Are all hard-drives shipped from the factory with Windows on them
now?  Is there a Windows chipset out there?

>> Then consider that the percentage of Windows 
>> computers in use is much greater than the percentage of 
>> Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows 
>> pre-installed.
>
> But you have not actually demonstrated this.  I don't see any citations 
> in there.  You are assuming.  You could be wrong.  I think you probably 
> are wrong.

Probably, since the biggest manufacturers apparently pay for a Windows
license for every machine they ship.

>>>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>>>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>>>
>>> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>>>
>> There's no accounting for tastes, eh?
>
> Indeed.

Imagine that.  "Billions of burgers served."  "Millions of Windows
installs."  That's some argument our Pecksniffian troll has got.

> I dare say that the number of Linux users is much larger than 
> the number of FreeDOS users.  My evidence for this is exactly as 
> reliable as yours is for the opposite.  Which is to say I pulled it out 
> of my ass.

Some people think they shit ice cream.

-- 
<Mercury> emacs sucks, literally, not a insult, just a comment that its
          large enough to have a noticeable gravitational pull...

"amicus_curious" <acdc@sti.net> writes:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message
> news:imuvcn$2p8$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bob Hauck wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The inference is clear, Bob.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual
>>> evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about
>>> a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually
>>>> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are
>>>> Windows based computers.
>>
>> What?  What about the massive mainframe/server/blade market?
>>
> I think that those machines are not in the desktop arena, nut.  Have you ever
> seen one at Best Buy? Ordinary people think of them as "servers" as opposed to
> what they might buy as a "computer".
>
>> And what the hell is a Windows-based computer?  They putting Windows in the
>> BIOS now?  Are all hard-drives shipped from the factory with Windows on them
>> now?  Is there a Windows chipset out there?
>>
> You have a rather narrow focus, nut!  LOL!
>
> A "Windows-based computer" is a computer that is sold with Windows
> pre-installed, of course.  Everyone knows that.  Except maybe a "linonut"!

He's showing off again. He should know what they are since his PC came
with it on at work where he makes his money as a Windows QA monkey. 

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...

>
> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
> to begin with.
>

I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be seen 
as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation of OS as a 
value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected to "figure in" 
the price of Windows when considering a computer purchase.  They pay extra 
for computers with upgraded versions of Windows, too, which reinforces the 
notion.  When Dell was still offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was a 
$25 price advantage over the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.

If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too. 

"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
news:imuvcn$2p8$1@dont-email.me...
> Bob Hauck wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The inference is clear, Bob.
>>
>> Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual
>> evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about
>> a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.
>>
>>
>>> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually
>>> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are
>>> Windows based computers.
>
> What?  What about the massive mainframe/server/blade market?
>
I think that those machines are not in the desktop arena, nut.  Have you 
ever seen one at Best Buy? Ordinary people think of them as "servers" as 
opposed to what they might buy as a "computer".

> And what the hell is a Windows-based computer?  They putting Windows in 
> the
> BIOS now?  Are all hard-drives shipped from the factory with Windows on 
> them
> now?  Is there a Windows chipset out there?
>
You have a rather narrow focus, nut!  LOL!

A "Windows-based computer" is a computer that is sold with Windows 
pre-installed, of course.  Everyone knows that.  Except maybe a "linonut"!

>>> Then consider that the percentage of Windows
>>> computers in use is much greater than the percentage of
>>> Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows
>>> pre-installed.
>>
>> But you have not actually demonstrated this.  I don't see any citations
>> in there.  You are assuming.  You could be wrong.  I think you probably
>> are wrong.
>
> Probably, since the biggest manufacturers apparently pay for a Windows
> license for every machine they ship.
>
We are not discussing big manufacturers here, nut.  That should be clear, 
even to you.  Rather we are discussing the so-called "white box" makers who 
sell the bare bones computers to individuals.  The major manufacturers are 
upfront with their licenses.

The company where I worked just prior to retiring purchased over 10,000 Dell 
machines each year, none of them with OS licenses since the company has a 
blanket volume license agreement with Microsoft.  We even had our own IT 
group employee designated as a Dell on-site maintenance tech and Dell 
supplied a room full of spares based on our local volume of installations. 
Their invoice price for a Dell machine was well under 50% of the on-line 
rate, too.  Dell's incremental costs for manufacturing must be very low to 
allow that.

>>>>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>>>>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>>>>
>>>> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>>>>
>>> There's no accounting for tastes, eh?
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> Imagine that.  "Billions of burgers served."  "Millions of Windows
> installs."  That's some argument our Pecksniffian troll has got.
>
Hundreds of millions, nut, hundreds of millions.  Annually.  Over history, 
they can claim "Over a billion served" as well.

>> I dare say that the number of Linux users is much larger than
>> the number of FreeDOS users.  My evidence for this is exactly as
>> reliable as yours is for the opposite.  Which is to say I pulled it out
>> of my ass.
>
> Some people think they shit ice cream.
>
My, my, nut!  You are getting rather crude in your dotage!  Keep it up, 
though, it gives chrisv and 7 a thrill, I think. 

"Bob Hauck" <postmaster@avalanche.org> wrote in message 
news:slrnip4qne.ogd.postmaster@robin.haucks.org...
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Bob Hauck" <postmaster@avalanche.org> wrote in message
>> news:slrnip442r.ehj.postmaster@bigbird.haucks.org...
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:48:30 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Statistically, though, you have to admit that they are much more right
>>>> than
>>>> wrong.  A PC sold without a Windows OS will eventually be loaded with a
>>>> Windows OS if it is ever put into use as evidenced by the many 
>>>> statistics
>>>> taken for computers used to access internet sites.
>>>
>>> There are no such statistics.  There are statistics that show a high
>>> percentage of computers have Windows.  There none that say how many of
>>> those are pirate copies installed on machines sold with no OS.
>>>
>> The inference is clear, Bob.
>
> Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual
> evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about
> a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.
>
That is rather a long reach, Bob, but even so, that sort logic is not so 
discredited by the man in the street.  After all, that is the only attitude 
that counts at the end of the day.  Ask Hosni Mubarak. Or Casey Anthony.


>
>> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually
>> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are
>> Windows based computers. Then consider that the percentage of Windows
>> computers in use is much greater than the percentage of
>> Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows
>> pre-installed.
>
> But you have not actually demonstrated this.  I don't see any citations
> in there.  You are assuming.  You could be wrong.  I think you probably
> are wrong.
>
>
>>>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>>>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>>>
>>> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>>>
>> There's no accounting for tastes, eh?
>
> Indeed.  I dare say that the number of Linux users is much larger than
> the number of FreeDOS users.  My evidence for this is exactly as
> reliable as yours is for the opposite.  Which is to say I pulled it out
> of my ass.
>
You want to quibble over the arithmetic here?  Well, I will have to admit 
that my use of "even" was simply meant as a snub for Linux.  I thought that 
was very obvious, but I apparently misled you.  Sorry.
>

 

On Wednesday 30 March 2011 13:33 amicus_curious wrote:

> The company where I worked just prior to retiring purchased over 10,000 
Dell 
> machines each year, none of them with OS licenses since the company has a 
> blanket volume license agreement with Microsoft.  We even had our own IT 
> group employee designated as a Dell on-site maintenance tech and Dell 
> supplied a room full of spares based on our local volume of 
installations. 
> Their invoice price for a Dell machine was well under 50% of the on-line 
> rate, too.  Dell's incremental costs for manufacturing must be very low 
to 
> allow that.

That bit seems to rather contradict another statement the you made, viz:-

On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:23 amicus_curious wrote:

> The inference is clear, Bob.  Put on your thinking cap and you will easily 
> conclude that virtually all the computers in use other than those 
> manufactured by Apple are Windows based computers.  Then consider that the 
> percentage of Windows computers in use is much greater than the percentage 
> of Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows 
> pre-installed.  The conclusion is obvious in that most of the balance of 
the 
> computers, sold with no Windows license, are, QED, loaded with pirated 
> versions of Windows.  The number of pirated systems is simply the total 
> number of systems minus the legitimate ones.  Many COLA posters have 
> stipulated that Ballmer's slides showing this phenomenon are legitimate.

So that latter statement (which you made first) is in fact wrong?
You were disregarding Corporate Licences, in fact?

On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:13 amicus_curious wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...
> 
>>
>> I see - and thank you.
>> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would 
>> agree
>> then that Microsoft does force large OEMs to install Windows on their
>> products?
>>
> I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion, 
bb. 
> The notion that there is some sort of compulsion to do so would depend a 
lot 
> on what you might want to term "force".

(snipped)
If you didn't read the ref. article, I can well see that you would have 
difficulty in understanding why I construed your remarks as I did.  I had 
assumed that you had actually read it.

You see, what it says is that:-
(quote)
"Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event in 
Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal representative 
had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's National Institute of 
Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to make a statement specifying 
that they could take any legal action Microsoft considered pertinent given 
the builder's lack of a Microsoft certificate of authenticity or original 
license included along with a computer built/sold by the independent 
builder. The builder states that given that they sell their computers with 
Free Software instead of Windows, the software has licenses and that 
Microsoft doesn't have anything to complain about given that they don't own 
copyrights for said software".

How do *you* interpret that?
Until/unless we agree on that the rest of your (snipped) response is not 
really relevant.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 
>>
>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>> to begin with.
>>
> 
> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be seen 
> as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation of OS as a 
> value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected to "figure in" 
> the price of Windows when considering a computer purchase.  They pay extra 
> for computers with upgraded versions of Windows, too, which reinforces the 
> notion.  When Dell was still offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was a 
> $25 price advantage over the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
> 
> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.

I have to disagree for several reasons.

1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.

2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.

I almost always roll my own, but it's at the point where it almost, not
quite, but almost doesn't even pay.
The only thing I am getting for the same money is higher quality parts.


But even following your theory, the real point is why don't the
manufacturers do this?

The answer is, Linux is not a product in demand.

It would be like opening a snow factory in Alaska.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:33:04 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahlstromc@xzoozy.com> wrote in message 
> news:imuvcn$2p8$1@dont-email.me...
>> Bob Hauck wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 14:23:43 -0400, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The inference is clear, Bob.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.  It also may or may not be true.  You have no actual
>>> evidence, just a sort of Aristotelean logic.  Aristotle was wrong about
>>> a lot of things.  His approach is discredited.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Put on your thinking cap and you will easily conclude that virtually
>>>> all the computers in use other than those manufactured by Apple are
>>>> Windows based computers.
>>
>> What?  What about the massive mainframe/server/blade market?
>>
> I think that those machines are not in the desktop arena, nut.  Have you 
> ever seen one at Best Buy? Ordinary people think of them as "servers" as 
> opposed to what they might buy as a "computer".
> 
>> And what the hell is a Windows-based computer?  They putting Windows in 
>> the
>> BIOS now?  Are all hard-drives shipped from the factory with Windows on 
>> them
>> now?  Is there a Windows chipset out there?
>>
> You have a rather narrow focus, nut!  LOL!
> 
> A "Windows-based computer" is a computer that is sold with Windows 
> pre-installed, of course.  Everyone knows that.  Except maybe a "linonut"!
> 
>>>> Then consider that the percentage of Windows
>>>> computers in use is much greater than the percentage of
>>>> Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows
>>>> pre-installed.
>>>
>>> But you have not actually demonstrated this.  I don't see any citations
>>> in there.  You are assuming.  You could be wrong.  I think you probably
>>> are wrong.
>>
>> Probably, since the biggest manufacturers apparently pay for a Windows
>> license for every machine they ship.
>>
> We are not discussing big manufacturers here, nut.  That should be clear, 
> even to you.  Rather we are discussing the so-called "white box" makers who 
> sell the bare bones computers to individuals.  The major manufacturers are 
> upfront with their licenses.
> 
> The company where I worked just prior to retiring purchased over 10,000 Dell 
> machines each year, none of them with OS licenses since the company has a 
> blanket volume license agreement with Microsoft.  We even had our own IT 
> group employee designated as a Dell on-site maintenance tech and Dell 
> supplied a room full of spares based on our local volume of installations. 
> Their invoice price for a Dell machine was well under 50% of the on-line 
> rate, too.  Dell's incremental costs for manufacturing must be very low to 
> allow that.
> 
>>>>>>  Granted a few machines will either never go into significant service
>>>>>> or will remain with freeDOS or even Linux versions installed,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some few will use "even Linux"!  How generous you are.
>>>>>
>>>> There's no accounting for tastes, eh?
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> Imagine that.  "Billions of burgers served."  "Millions of Windows
>> installs."  That's some argument our Pecksniffian troll has got.
>>
> Hundreds of millions, nut, hundreds of millions.  Annually.  Over history, 
> they can claim "Over a billion served" as well.
> 
>>> I dare say that the number of Linux users is much larger than
>>> the number of FreeDOS users.  My evidence for this is exactly as
>>> reliable as yours is for the opposite.  Which is to say I pulled it out
>>> of my ass.
>>
>> Some people think they shit ice cream.
>>
> My, my, nut!  You are getting rather crude in your dotage!  Keep it up, 
> though, it gives chrisv and 7 a thrill, I think.

Good reply.
You echo my opinion as well.

Chris Ahlstrom is going off the rails.
He is trying to move the goalposts and not doing a very good job of it.

He is correct about the Blade Server market though.
It's exploding.
Most are Windows, but a good number are Linux as well and that number
will probably increase in time.

On 30 Mar 2011 19:53:00 +0100, An Old Friend wrote:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:29:05 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled
> 1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan:
> 
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>> 
>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>>> to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be
>>> seen as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation
>>> of OS as a value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected
>>> to "figure in" the price of Windows when considering a computer
>>> purchase.  They pay extra for computers with upgraded versions of
>>> Windows, too, which reinforces the notion.  When Dell was still
>>> offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was a $25 price advantage over
>>> the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>>> 
>>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
>> 
>> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>> 
>> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
>> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>> 
>> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
>> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
> 
> I'm sure that there are quite a few kickbacks from the trialware included 
> in the machine, which enables makers to lower their prices even below 
> manufacturing costs and still make a profit.

It's not a kickback, it's a charge and I'm sure the initial tech support
and loading costs offset that.

 
> And that's another thing, because you'd be hard pressed to find as much 
> "kickback" software installs on a Linux installation. Fluendo on Ubuntu 
> is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that is 
> optional--and I'm pretty sure that money goes directly Fluendo, instead 
> of being shared with the manufacturer.

The price is still the price.
Doesn't matter.

Do you call it a "kickback" when Cheerios are located at "kid level" in
the various supermarket while the generic brand is buried on the lowest
or highest shelf?

Do you think "Cheerios got that prime piece of retail real estate by
accident?

 
> So a company would be in a position where they have to charge *more* for 
> a computer with Linux installed, because they couldn't make additional 
> money by installing trialware.

Interesting point, but I don't agree.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:29:05 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled
1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
> 
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> 
>> 
>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>> to begin with.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be
>> seen as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation
>> of OS as a value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected
>> to "figure in" the price of Windows when considering a computer
>> purchase.  They pay extra for computers with upgraded versions of
>> Windows, too, which reinforces the notion.  When Dell was still
>> offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was a $25 price advantage over
>> the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>> 
>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
> 
> I have to disagree for several reasons.
> 
> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
> 
> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.

I'm sure that there are quite a few kickbacks from the trialware included 
in the machine, which enables makers to lower their prices even below 
manufacturing costs and still make a profit.

And that's another thing, because you'd be hard pressed to find as much 
"kickback" software installs on a Linux installation. Fluendo on Ubuntu 
is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that is 
optional--and I'm pretty sure that money goes directly Fluendo, instead 
of being shared with the manufacturer.

So a company would be in a position where they have to charge *more* for 
a computer with Linux installed, because they couldn't make additional 
money by installing trialware.

An Old Friend stated in post pan.2011.03.30.17.52.57@friend.com.invalid on
3/30/11 11:53 AM:

>> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>> 
>> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
>> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>> 
>> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
>> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
> 
> I'm sure that there are quite a few kickbacks from the trialware included
> in the machine, which enables makers to lower their prices even below
> manufacturing costs and still make a profit.
> 
> And that's another thing, because you'd be hard pressed to find as much
> "kickback" software installs on a Linux installation. Fluendo on Ubuntu
> is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that is
> optional--and I'm pretty sure that money goes directly Fluendo, instead
> of being shared with the manufacturer.
> 
> So a company would be in a position where they have to charge *more* for
> a computer with Linux installed, because they couldn't make additional
> money by installing trialware.

I agree... it is quite possible the trialware more than pays for the Windows
license.  But this is not an MS conspiracy... it is, as you say, a part of
the fact that few companies make such junk for Linux.   And Apple will not
include that type stuff on OS X (though they used to include a trial of MS
Office).  


-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>>
>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>> to begin with.
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be 
>> seen
>> as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation of OS 
>> as a
>> value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected to "figure in"
>> the price of Windows when considering a computer purchase.  They pay 
>> extra
>> for computers with upgraded versions of Windows, too, which reinforces 
>> the
>> notion.  When Dell was still offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was 
>> a
>> $25 price advantage over the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>>
>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
>
> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>
> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>
If that were the case then the OEMs would likely be offering a plethora of 
Linux machines to such people.  Microsoft only has a monopoly due to holding 
mind share of buyers.  The COLA folk are fools.

> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
>
Well, Dell's gross profit margin (Revenues minus manufacturing and 
distribution costs) was 18% last year and generated over $10 billion dollars 
in real cash.  They spent a lot on R&D and management perks and such, but 
they had a profit of $2.4 billion after taxes were paid.

I can't find any easy way to tell how many units they shipped, but if it 
were 10 million units (and that is twice what they shipped in 2007), their 
gross profit was $1000 per unit.  Of course they can't make that much on a 
$500 computer, but you do the arithmetic if you can find a better number 
somewhere.

> I almost always roll my own, but it's at the point where it almost, not
> quite, but almost doesn't even pay.
> The only thing I am getting for the same money is higher quality parts.
>
>
> But even following your theory, the real point is why don't the
> manufacturers do this?
>
> The answer is, Linux is not a product in demand.
>
Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either consumers demand something else 
like Windows or they don't care beans.  Which is it?  I think that they do 
care in the sense that they expect Windows on a computer and are put out if 
they don't get it, at least without someone doing a real selling job to 
explain why they shouldn't mind.  Look at all the advertising and buzz 
companies are doing for Android phones to convince the world that it is OK 
to buy one instead of an iPhone.

> It would be like opening a snow factory in Alaska.

Well, if there were some good reason for them to switch to Linux and go 
through the cost of the sales and marketing involved, for example getting 
that $25 or more per unit down to the bottom line, I think that it could 
probably be done, but the only reason good enough is that they can make that 
sort of profit and incur a smaller expense.  But Microsoft does have the 
power to punish in the sense that they could just drop the price to 
remaining OEMs who could easily capitalize on the lack of Windows on their 
competitor's machines.  The market is too mature for that to ever happen, I 
think. 

"An Old Friend" <an.old@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:pan.2011.03.30.17.52.57@friend.com.invalid...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:29:05 -0400, flatfish+++ chiseled
> 1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net in stone using Trajan:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>>> to begin with.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be
>>> seen as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation
>>> of OS as a value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected
>>> to "figure in" the price of Windows when considering a computer
>>> purchase.  They pay extra for computers with upgraded versions of
>>> Windows, too, which reinforces the notion.  When Dell was still
>>> offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was a $25 price advantage over
>>> the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>>>
>>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
>>
>> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>>
>> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
>> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>>
>> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
>> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
>
> I'm sure that there are quite a few kickbacks from the trialware included
> in the machine, which enables makers to lower their prices even below
> manufacturing costs and still make a profit.
>
You are mistaken.  Such a thing would violate the financial principles 
equivalent to thermodynamics in physics.  You can't take out any profit that 
isn't put there by the buyers.  Google is free for the searcher, but costly 
for the sponsor who has to get a lot more business revenue than he pays for 
the advertising.

> And that's another thing, because you'd be hard pressed to find as much
> "kickback" software installs on a Linux installation. Fluendo on Ubuntu
> is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that is
> optional--and I'm pretty sure that money goes directly Fluendo, instead
> of being shared with the manufacturer.
>
> So a company would be in a position where they have to charge *more* for
> a computer with Linux installed, because they couldn't make additional
> money by installing trialware.

Well, if you don't have a good explanation, just invent one.

 

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:06:18 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
> news:1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>>> to begin with.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be 
>>> seen
>>> as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation of OS 
>>> as a
>>> value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected to "figure in"
>>> the price of Windows when considering a computer purchase.  They pay 
>>> extra
>>> for computers with upgraded versions of Windows, too, which reinforces 
>>> the
>>> notion.  When Dell was still offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there was 
>>> a
>>> $25 price advantage over the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>>>
>>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
>>
>> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>>
>> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
>> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>>
> If that were the case then the OEMs would likely be offering a plethora of 
> Linux machines to such people.  Microsoft only has a monopoly due to holding 
> mind share of buyers.  The COLA folk are fools.
> 
>> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
>> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
>>
> Well, Dell's gross profit margin (Revenues minus manufacturing and 
> distribution costs) was 18% last year and generated over $10 billion dollars 
> in real cash.  They spent a lot on R&D and management perks and such, but 
> they had a profit of $2.4 billion after taxes were paid.
> 
> I can't find any easy way to tell how many units they shipped, but if it 
> were 10 million units (and that is twice what they shipped in 2007), their 
> gross profit was $1000 per unit.  Of course they can't make that much on a 
> $500 computer, but you do the arithmetic if you can find a better number 
> somewhere.
> 
>> I almost always roll my own, but it's at the point where it almost, not
>> quite, but almost doesn't even pay.
>> The only thing I am getting for the same money is higher quality parts.
>>
>>
>> But even following your theory, the real point is why don't the
>> manufacturers do this?
>>
>> The answer is, Linux is not a product in demand.
>>
> Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either consumers demand something else 
> like Windows or they don't care beans.  Which is it?  I think that they do 
> care in the sense that they expect Windows on a computer and are put out if 
> they don't get it, at least without someone doing a real selling job to 
> explain why they shouldn't mind.  Look at all the advertising and buzz 
> companies are doing for Android phones to convince the world that it is OK 
> to buy one instead of an iPhone.

Yea, but it's just a phone to most people just like an iPod is just a
player compared to say a Sansa. 
People look at the gui, features and so forth.
With computers, it's about applications.
People, average people, don't care about Windows or OSX.
They expect it to be there.

 
>> It would be like opening a snow factory in Alaska.
> 
> Well, if there were some good reason for them to switch to Linux and go 
> through the cost of the sales and marketing involved, for example getting 
> that $25 or more per unit down to the bottom line, I think that it could 
> probably be done, but the only reason good enough is that they can make that 
> sort of profit and incur a smaller expense.  But Microsoft does have the 
> power to punish in the sense that they could just drop the price to 
> remaining OEMs who could easily capitalize on the lack of Windows on their 
> competitor's machines.  The market is too mature for that to ever happen, I 
> think.

The problem boils down to Linux not offering the consumer more or a
better experience than Windows or Mac.
In fact for most people, it's a major step down.

Any excitement about free software quickly becomes irrelevant when the
user starts using the Linux applications.

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8vgv4cFvucU2@mid.individual.net...
> On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:13 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>
>>> I see - and thank you.
>>> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would
>>> agree
>>> then that Microsoft does force large OEMs to install Windows on their
>>> products?
>>>
>> I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion,
> bb.
>> The notion that there is some sort of compulsion to do so would depend a
> lot
>> on what you might want to term "force".
>
> (snipped)
> If you didn't read the ref. article, I can well see that you would have
> difficulty in understanding why I construed your remarks as I did.  I had
> assumed that you had actually read it.
>
> You see, what it says is that:-
> (quote)
> "Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event in
> Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal 
> representative
> had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's National Institute of
> Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to make a statement 
> specifying
> that they could take any legal action Microsoft considered pertinent given
> the builder's lack of a Microsoft certificate of authenticity or original
> license included along with a computer built/sold by the independent
> builder. The builder states that given that they sell their computers with
> Free Software instead of Windows, the software has licenses and that
> Microsoft doesn't have anything to complain about given that they don't 
> own
> copyrights for said software".
>
> How do *you* interpret that?
> Until/unless we agree on that the rest of your (snipped) response is not
> really relevant.
>
Well, I certainly do not see any reason to suggest that Microsoft harassing 
a white box maker in Mexico implies that they are forcing "large OEMs" (say 
Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer) to do anything.  Also, my statement was that 
Microsoft did have a case, but it was a hopeless case due to the way that 
the laws work.  Show how that has any bearing on what you claimed, that is 
that my remarks mean that I agree that Microsoft is applying some undue 
force on the OEMs.

> 

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:17:09 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:

> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
> news:8vgv4cFvucU2@mid.individual.net...
>> On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:13 amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see - and thank you.
>>>> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would
>>>> agree
>>>> then that Microsoft does force large OEMs to install Windows on their
>>>> products?
>>>>
>>> I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion,
>> bb.
>>> The notion that there is some sort of compulsion to do so would depend a
>> lot
>>> on what you might want to term "force".
>>
>> (snipped)
>> If you didn't read the ref. article, I can well see that you would have
>> difficulty in understanding why I construed your remarks as I did.  I had
>> assumed that you had actually read it.
>>
>> You see, what it says is that:-
>> (quote)
>> "Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event in
>> Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal 
>> representative
>> had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's National Institute of
>> Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to make a statement 
>> specifying
>> that they could take any legal action Microsoft considered pertinent given
>> the builder's lack of a Microsoft certificate of authenticity or original
>> license included along with a computer built/sold by the independent
>> builder. The builder states that given that they sell their computers with
>> Free Software instead of Windows, the software has licenses and that
>> Microsoft doesn't have anything to complain about given that they don't 
>> own
>> copyrights for said software".
>>
>> How do *you* interpret that?
>> Until/unless we agree on that the rest of your (snipped) response is not
>> really relevant.
>>
> Well, I certainly do not see any reason to suggest that Microsoft harassing 
> a white box maker in Mexico implies that they are forcing "large OEMs" (say 
> Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer) to do anything.  Also, my statement was that 
> Microsoft did have a case, but it was a hopeless case due to the way that 
> the laws work.  Show how that has any bearing on what you claimed, that is 
> that my remarks mean that I agree that Microsoft is applying some undue 
> force on the OEMs.

Maybe I am missing the point here, but if the manufacturer is selling
machines with free software instead of Windows, what leg does Microsoft
have to stand on?

IOW the way I understand it, Windows is not installed on these things?

"bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:8vgv3bFvucU1@mid.individual.net...
> On Wednesday 30 March 2011 13:33 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> The company where I worked just prior to retiring purchased over 10,000
> Dell
>> machines each year, none of them with OS licenses since the company has a
>> blanket volume license agreement with Microsoft.  We even had our own IT
>> group employee designated as a Dell on-site maintenance tech and Dell
>> supplied a room full of spares based on our local volume of
> installations.
>> Their invoice price for a Dell machine was well under 50% of the on-line
>> rate, too.  Dell's incremental costs for manufacturing must be very low
> to
>> allow that.
>
> That bit seems to rather contradict another statement the you made, viz:-
>
> On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:23 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> The inference is clear, Bob.  Put on your thinking cap and you will 
>> easily
>> conclude that virtually all the computers in use other than those
>> manufactured by Apple are Windows based computers.  Then consider that 
>> the
>> percentage of Windows computers in use is much greater than the 
>> percentage
>> of Windows-capable computers actually sold with a legal copy of Windows
>> pre-installed.  The conclusion is obvious in that most of the balance of
> the
>> computers, sold with no Windows license, are, QED, loaded with pirated
>> versions of Windows.  The number of pirated systems is simply the total
>> number of systems minus the legitimate ones.  Many COLA posters have
>> stipulated that Ballmer's slides showing this phenomenon are legitimate.
>
> So that latter statement (which you made first) is in fact wrong?
> You were disregarding Corporate Licences, in fact?
>
Certainly not, bb.  Bob doesn't even seem aware of them.  When Dell ships a 
thousand blank machines to, say,  Symantec, they have verified the 
legitimacy of the deal.  Major corporations can trust one another in those 
sorts of situations.  The obscure white box vendor in Mexico, however, is 
not part of that trust relationship.  Those boxes mostly go to pirates and I 
am sure that you all suspect that is the case yourselves. 

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:lqpc16rplvul.1g96jbgek7yeb.dlg@40tude.net...

>
> He is correct about the Blade Server market though.
> It's exploding.
> Most are Windows, but a good number are Linux as well and that number
> will probably increase in time.

"Exploding" is an un-quantified term.  Server sales volume of x86 based 
units is growing at an attractive rate, but in absolute terms increasingly 
more Windows servers are sold each year than Linux based units.  That market 
doesn't hold a candle to the client market, however. 

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:xi0trhm075v4$.foow1g6govfq.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:06:18 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>> news:1vnyq7708p6cq$.1flmoitv3lpwo.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 08:17:34 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1k0qa0ed5rvm8.4ogc8rbkam3a$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If they shipped Linux they could save $25.00 on each machine and still
>>>>> keep the price where it is because they are already rock bottom priced
>>>>> to begin with.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that is possible.  A PC without Windows is going to be
>>>> seen
>>>> as a downward value since the OEMs have featured pre-installation of OS
>>>> as a
>>>> value-added item to their package.  Consumers are expected to "figure 
>>>> in"
>>>> the price of Windows when considering a computer purchase.  They pay
>>>> extra
>>>> for computers with upgraded versions of Windows, too, which reinforces
>>>> the
>>>> notion.  When Dell was still offering Ubuntu on their netbook, there 
>>>> was
>>>> a
>>>> $25 price advantage over the same unit with Windows 7 Starter.
>>>>
>>>> If they dropped Windows, they would have to drop the price, too.
>>>
>>> I have to disagree for several reasons.
>>>
>>> 1. The Linturds do have a point that most people don't even realize/care
>>> they are actually paying for Windows one way or the other.
>>>
>> If that were the case then the OEMs would likely be offering a plethora 
>> of
>> Linux machines to such people.  Microsoft only has a monopoly due to 
>> holding
>> mind share of buyers.  The COLA folk are fools.
>>
>>> 2. The mark up on these things, especially from Dell, Lenovo, is so slim
>>> right now I have to wonder how much they actually *do* make per machine.
>>>
>> Well, Dell's gross profit margin (Revenues minus manufacturing and
>> distribution costs) was 18% last year and generated over $10 billion 
>> dollars
>> in real cash.  They spent a lot on R&D and management perks and such, but
>> they had a profit of $2.4 billion after taxes were paid.
>>
>> I can't find any easy way to tell how many units they shipped, but if it
>> were 10 million units (and that is twice what they shipped in 2007), 
>> their
>> gross profit was $1000 per unit.  Of course they can't make that much on 
>> a
>> $500 computer, but you do the arithmetic if you can find a better number
>> somewhere.
>>
>>> I almost always roll my own, but it's at the point where it almost, not
>>> quite, but almost doesn't even pay.
>>> The only thing I am getting for the same money is higher quality parts.
>>>
>>>
>>> But even following your theory, the real point is why don't the
>>> manufacturers do this?
>>>
>>> The answer is, Linux is not a product in demand.
>>>
>> Well, you can't have it both ways.  Either consumers demand something 
>> else
>> like Windows or they don't care beans.  Which is it?  I think that they 
>> do
>> care in the sense that they expect Windows on a computer and are put out 
>> if
>> they don't get it, at least without someone doing a real selling job to
>> explain why they shouldn't mind.  Look at all the advertising and buzz
>> companies are doing for Android phones to convince the world that it is 
>> OK
>> to buy one instead of an iPhone.
>
> Yea, but it's just a phone to most people just like an iPod is just a
> player compared to say a Sansa.
> People look at the gui, features and so forth.
> With computers, it's about applications.
> People, average people, don't care about Windows or OSX.
> They expect it to be there.
>
>
>>> It would be like opening a snow factory in Alaska.
>>
>> Well, if there were some good reason for them to switch to Linux and go
>> through the cost of the sales and marketing involved, for example getting
>> that $25 or more per unit down to the bottom line, I think that it could
>> probably be done, but the only reason good enough is that they can make 
>> that
>> sort of profit and incur a smaller expense.  But Microsoft does have the
>> power to punish in the sense that they could just drop the price to
>> remaining OEMs who could easily capitalize on the lack of Windows on 
>> their
>> competitor's machines.  The market is too mature for that to ever happen, 
>> I
>> think.
>
> The problem boils down to Linux not offering the consumer more or a
> better experience than Windows or Mac.
> In fact for most people, it's a major step down.
>
> Any excitement about free software quickly becomes irrelevant when the
> user starts using the Linux applications.
>
I don't think that it would help if that were not so.  The idea is that 
someone who can recoup the expense would have to put up a lot of promotion 
money and basically bet the farm on Linux in a mature market where they 
could only lead for a short while.  If they fail, they are out of business. 
If they succeed, they have only pioneered a massive change in the market 
which will quickly revert to what it is today and the money will never be 
recovered.

It is a lot like Iraq.  Saddam used to be more or less our friend and we 
used him to poke at Iran and the West burned the oil he produced.  Then we 
got the wild idea that he was evil and had to go.  When all is said and 
done, we spent a lot of money and we now have a sort of friend who wants us 
to hell and gone out of there.  We will be able to burn the oil that is 
produced, but it costs close to 10 times as much as it used to. 

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:f8wehfe28fj6$.1s7bi0f31ghr0.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:17:09 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8vgv4cFvucU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On Tuesday 29 March 2011 19:13 amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> "bbgruff" <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:8veed4F42oU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I see - and thank you.
>>>>> Contrary to what several posters here were saying recently, you would
>>>>> agree
>>>>> then that Microsoft does force large OEMs to install Windows on their
>>>>> products?
>>>>>
>>>> I don't see how you could construe my remarks to form that conclusion,
>>> bb.
>>>> The notion that there is some sort of compulsion to do so would depend 
>>>> a
>>> lot
>>>> on what you might want to term "force".
>>>
>>> (snipped)
>>> If you didn't read the ref. article, I can well see that you would have
>>> difficulty in understanding why I construed your remarks as I did.  I 
>>> had
>>> assumed that you had actually read it.
>>>
>>> You see, what it says is that:-
>>> (quote)
>>> "Very recently (as recently as 23rd of March) there was a small event in
>>> Mexico. An independent computer builder and a Microsoff legal
>>> representative
>>> had a meeting at the Legal Direction of Mexico's National Institute of
>>> Author's Rights. Apparently Microsoft wanted to make a statement
>>> specifying
>>> that they could take any legal action Microsoft considered pertinent 
>>> given
>>> the builder's lack of a Microsoft certificate of authenticity or 
>>> original
>>> license included along with a computer built/sold by the independent
>>> builder. The builder states that given that they sell their computers 
>>> with
>>> Free Software instead of Windows, the software has licenses and that
>>> Microsoft doesn't have anything to complain about given that they don't
>>> own
>>> copyrights for said software".
>>>
>>> How do *you* interpret that?
>>> Until/unless we agree on that the rest of your (snipped) response is not
>>> really relevant.
>>>
>> Well, I certainly do not see any reason to suggest that Microsoft 
>> harassing
>> a white box maker in Mexico implies that they are forcing "large OEMs" 
>> (say
>> Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer) to do anything.  Also, my statement was 
>> that
>> Microsoft did have a case, but it was a hopeless case due to the way that
>> the laws work.  Show how that has any bearing on what you claimed, that 
>> is
>> that my remarks mean that I agree that Microsoft is applying some undue
>> force on the OEMs.
>
> Maybe I am missing the point here, but if the manufacturer is selling
> machines with free software instead of Windows, what leg does Microsoft
> have to stand on?
>
> IOW the way I understand it, Windows is not installed on these things?
>
Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything 
specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright infringement. 
The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law.  The 
claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling 
hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going to 
stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.

Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy is 
rampant. 

An Old Friend wrote:

> I'm sure that there are quite a few kickbacks from the trialware
> included in the machine, which enables makers to lower their prices even
> below manufacturing costs and still make a profit.
> 
> And that's another thing, because you'd be hard pressed to find as much
> "kickback" software installs on a Linux installation. Fluendo on Ubuntu
> is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, and that is
> optional--and I'm pretty sure that money goes directly Fluendo, instead
> of being shared with the manufacturer.
> 
> So a company would be in a position where they have to charge *more* for
> a computer with Linux installed, because they couldn't make additional
> money by installing trialware.

Based on their evangelism document:

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Comes-3096.pdf

[quote]
The Measure of Success

The success of evangelism is measured in the mass of shipping applications
that support Microsoft's platforms. Those applications that support a
given platform, move it closer to critical mass, and thus count as
successes; those that support a competing platform, move it away from
critical mass, and thus count as defeats.
[/quote]

Every computer sold without Microsoft Office or Microsoft Windows is
considered as a defeat, as it goes against critical mass - the decrease in
shipped Microsoft applications.

OpenOffice has been downloaded and installed by my friends and work
colleagues, because it is free and it meets their needs. It is much better
product than Microsoft Works and is a decent competitor to Microsoft
Office.

The thing I like about OpenOffice and derivatives, is that they support
Open Document, a standard. A document can be easily transported between
Unix, Linux, Microsoft Windows, Mac OSX and PowerPC, etc.

IBM has Lotus Symphony, which is based on OpenOffice. It was a free
download a year ago, but haven't downloaded it recently.

Of course if one uses Google Docs, any supportive browser will work.

[quote]
3. Analysts: Analysts are people who are paid to take a stand, while
always trying to appear to be disinterested observers (since the
appearance of independence maximizes the price they can charge for selling
out). Treat them as you would treat nuclear weapons – as an important
part of your arsenal, which you want to keep out of the hands of the
enemy. Bribe^h^h^h^h^hHire them to produce "studies" that "prove" that
your technology is superior to the enemy's, and that it is gaining
momentum faster.

[...]

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our
technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function
during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising
your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them).
"Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give
conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf
(and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just
$200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted
(and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should
start profiting from their early involvement in our technology. Every
possible source of leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage.
[/quote]

Well, it sounds like they have been working behind the scenes to
orchestrate damnation of the "enemies" of Microsoft by seeing that
non-Microsoft software technologies are excluded from desktop sales.

-- 
HPT

On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:33:00 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:


> Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything 
> specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright infringement. 
> The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law.  The 
> claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling 
> hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going to 
> stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.
> 
> Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy is 
> rampant.

Ah I see.

That's ludicrous and I have to side with the Linux loons on that one.
Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Besides, don't the Linux advocates keep telling us that Linux's desktop
market share is growing?
That alone should be evidence to dismiss the case.

BTW, if they were smart they should just load Ubuntu Linux on every
machine.
Case closed.

"flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
news:197juzbbp0s2e.mf5i26vgozaz$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:33:00 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>
>> Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything
>> specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright infringement.
>> The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law.  The
>> claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling
>> hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going to
>> stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.
>>
>> Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy is
>> rampant.
>
> Ah I see.
>
> That's ludicrous and I have to side with the Linux loons on that one.
> Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>
As I agreed, the case is too weak to stand up, even in Mexico, but that is 
the theory there.

> Besides, don't the Linux advocates keep telling us that Linux's desktop
> market share is growing?
> That alone should be evidence to dismiss the case.
>
> BTW, if they were smart they should just load Ubuntu Linux on every
> machine.
> Case closed.

Well, if you read the article, the case never opened.  OTOH, how many of 
these barebones boxes end up with a pirated Windows OS installed?

If they were shipped with Ubuntu or even freeDOS pre-installed, the OEM 
would have a far better case if the OEM actually supported the 
configuration.  These OEMs do not do that, however, they leave the OS (and 
license responsibility) up to the end user who would be crazy to buy a 
retail copy of Windows for the box rather than buy a brand name box with 
Windows already installed for a much lower package price.

Just like Napster, I think.  How many people using Napster were not 
violating copyrights?  Surely some, but very few compared to the number who 
were pirating.

The same is true for the warez sites and newsgroups.

I don't think that it has much effect on commerce either way since those who 
steal Windows would just do without if Windows were impervious to theft. 

On 2011-03-31, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
> news:197juzbbp0s2e.mf5i26vgozaz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:33:00 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything
>>> specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright infringement.
>>> The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law.  The
>>> claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling
>>> hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going to
>>> stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.
>>>
>>> Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy is
>>> rampant.
>>
>> Ah I see.
>>
>> That's ludicrous and I have to side with the Linux loons on that one.
>> Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>>
> As I agreed, the case is too weak to stand up, even in Mexico, but that is 
> the theory there.
>
>> Besides, don't the Linux advocates keep telling us that Linux's desktop
>> market share is growing?
>> That alone should be evidence to dismiss the case.
>>
>> BTW, if they were smart they should just load Ubuntu Linux on every
>> machine.
>> Case closed.
>
> Well, if you read the article, the case never opened.  OTOH, how many of 
> these barebones boxes end up with a pirated Windows OS installed?
>
> If they were shipped with Ubuntu or even freeDOS pre-installed, the OEM 
> would have a far better case if the OEM actually supported the 
> configuration.  These OEMs do not do that, however, they leave the OS (and 

    So now you are going to advocate that Microsoft can go after white box
dealers at will now just because they shove product out the door and leave
customers on their own. There are plenty of operations on this side of the
Rio Grande that have been doing the same thing for decades.

    Expecting the customer to "do for themselves" and trying to avoid the
cost of "support" just might be a common thing in a 3rd world country.

[deletia]

-- 
   Apple: because using something other than an Apple is an "edge case".   |||
    	   	   	 	   	      	       	     	   	  / | \

On 2011-03-30, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message 
> news:lqpc16rplvul.1g96jbgek7yeb.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>>
>> He is correct about the Blade Server market though.
>> It's exploding.
>> Most are Windows, but a good number are Linux as well and that number
>> will probably increase in time.
>
> "Exploding" is an un-quantified term.  Server sales volume of x86 based 
> units is growing at an attractive rate, but in absolute terms increasingly 
> more Windows servers are sold each year than Linux based units.  That market 
> doesn't hold a candle to the client market, however. 

    Ultimately, this all boils down to your claim that the monopoly vendor 
should be able to treat a company as a presumed pirate just because they don't 
choose to force bundle the monopoly product.

    This is far more meaningful than anything else.

    "statistics" are a silly distraction, a red herring, compared to your basic
and rather fascist main thesis.

-- 
   Apple: because using something other than an Apple is an "edge case".   |||
    	   	   	 	   	      	       	     	   	  / | \

JEDIDIAH wrote:
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> Well, if you read the article, the case never opened.  OTOH, how many
>> of these barebones boxes end up with a pirated Windows OS installed?
>>
>> If they were shipped with Ubuntu or even freeDOS pre-installed, the OEM
>> would have a far better case if the OEM actually supported the
>> configuration.  These OEMs do not do that, however, they leave the OS
>> (and
> 
> So now you are going to advocate that Microsoft can go after white
> box dealers at will now just because they shove product out the door and
> leave customers on their own. There are plenty of operations on this
> side of the Rio Grande that have been doing the same thing for decades.
> 
> Expecting the customer to "do for themselves" and trying to avoid the
> cost of "support" just might be a common thing in a 3rd world country.
> 
> [deletia]

[quote]
But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you
start adding up service, support, etc.

What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think
that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't
have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some
guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never
leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that
what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever
they want.
[/quote]

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

-- 
HPT

JEDIDIAH wrote:

>    Ultimately, this all boils down to your claim that the monopoly vendor 
>should be able to treat a company as a presumed pirate just because they don't 
>choose to force bundle the monopoly product.

It's for your own "protection", man.  An offer you can't refuse.

lying asshole "chrisv" <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n9gbp6t0hv5lgev6loc7kbqiebmebansqg@4ax.com...

fsck off and die you lying piece of shit.

"chrisv" is a documented liar. "chrisv" is a piece of shit.

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnipackv.drg.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-31, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>> news:197juzbbp0s2e.mf5i26vgozaz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:33:00 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything
>>>> specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright 
>>>> infringement.
>>>> The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law. 
>>>> The
>>>> claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling
>>>> hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going 
>>>> to
>>>> stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.
>>>>
>>>> Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy 
>>>> is
>>>> rampant.
>>>
>>> Ah I see.
>>>
>>> That's ludicrous and I have to side with the Linux loons on that one.
>>> Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>>>
>> As I agreed, the case is too weak to stand up, even in Mexico, but that 
>> is
>> the theory there.
>>
>>> Besides, don't the Linux advocates keep telling us that Linux's desktop
>>> market share is growing?
>>> That alone should be evidence to dismiss the case.
>>>
>>> BTW, if they were smart they should just load Ubuntu Linux on every
>>> machine.
>>> Case closed.
>>
>> Well, if you read the article, the case never opened.  OTOH, how many of
>> these barebones boxes end up with a pirated Windows OS installed?
>>
>> If they were shipped with Ubuntu or even freeDOS pre-installed, the OEM
>> would have a far better case if the OEM actually supported the
>> configuration.  These OEMs do not do that, however, they leave the OS 
>> (and
>
>    So now you are going to advocate that Microsoft can go after white box
> dealers at will now just because they shove product out the door and leave
> customers on their own. There are plenty of operations on this side of the
> Rio Grande that have been doing the same thing for decades.
>
I don't advocate :going after white box dealers at will", Jedidiah, read my 
comments for what they say rather than for what you want to protest about. 
LOL!

Bare bones computers are still sold, I am sure, but to whom?  Many years 
ago, the price of a pile of parts that you could assemble into a computer 
and load your own OS became much higher than the price of a pre-assembled 
and pre-loaded machine ready to use out of the box.  That was due to the 
retail price of Windows becoming very high compared to the price of the 
hardware parts.  To make rolling your own economic, the home builder had to 
pirate the OS (or else settle for Linux).  When these boxes eventually show 
themselves, though, say by connecting to some web site, they mostly show up 
with Windows OS, the same as any other PC.

>    Expecting the customer to "do for themselves" and trying to avoid the
> cost of "support" just might be a common thing in a 3rd world country.
>
Sure, Jedidiah, all these poor folk are accomplished computer techs who can 
install an OS and can afford to buy retail copies of Windows.  You wonder 
why the rest of their society is so out of touch. 

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnipadcd.drg.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2011-03-30, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>> news:lqpc16rplvul.1g96jbgek7yeb.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>>
>>> He is correct about the Blade Server market though.
>>> It's exploding.
>>> Most are Windows, but a good number are Linux as well and that number
>>> will probably increase in time.
>>
>> "Exploding" is an un-quantified term.  Server sales volume of x86 based
>> units is growing at an attractive rate, but in absolute terms 
>> increasingly
>> more Windows servers are sold each year than Linux based units.  That 
>> market
>> doesn't hold a candle to the client market, however.
>
>    Ultimately, this all boils down to your claim that the monopoly vendor
> should be able to treat a company as a presumed pirate just because they 
> don't
> choose to force bundle the monopoly product.
>
>    This is far more meaningful than anything else.
>
>    "statistics" are a silly distraction, a red herring, compared to your 
> basic
> and rather fascist main thesis.
>
I think that the issue here is that you are just too thick to understand the 
statistics, Jedidiah.  Or else you are too biased to accept the logical 
conclusions.

They should not be treated as a pirate because their product isn't bundled 
with Windows, they should be treated as a pirate because their products 
almost always end up loaded with pirated Windows.  Very few people use Linux 
on the desktop;  that is a fact.  The vast majority of the bare bones 
machines end up running Windows on the desktop, though, and they are not 
being loaded with retail Windows.  The only alternative is pirated Windows. 

On 2011-04-01, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnipackv.drg.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-31, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>> news:197juzbbp0s2e.mf5i26vgozaz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:33:00 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Think of Napster in the early days.  They weren't doing anything
>>>>> specifically illegal, but they were facilitating copyright 
>>>>> infringement.
>>>>> The RIAA made that case and their file-sharing was shut down by law. 
>>>>> The
>>>>> claim by Microsoft is that the shady manufacturers involved are selling
>>>>> hardware to people who are known to be pirates.  That isn't ever going 
>>>>> to
>>>>> stand up, but that is, I think, the reasoning involved.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since it so easy to pirate Windows these OEMs can only exist if piracy 
>>>>> is
>>>>> rampant.
>>>>
>>>> Ah I see.
>>>>
>>>> That's ludicrous and I have to side with the Linux loons on that one.
>>>> Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on.
>>>>
>>> As I agreed, the case is too weak to stand up, even in Mexico, but that 
>>> is
>>> the theory there.
>>>
>>>> Besides, don't the Linux advocates keep telling us that Linux's desktop
>>>> market share is growing?
>>>> That alone should be evidence to dismiss the case.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, if they were smart they should just load Ubuntu Linux on every
>>>> machine.
>>>> Case closed.
>>>
>>> Well, if you read the article, the case never opened.  OTOH, how many of
>>> these barebones boxes end up with a pirated Windows OS installed?
>>>
>>> If they were shipped with Ubuntu or even freeDOS pre-installed, the OEM
>>> would have a far better case if the OEM actually supported the
>>> configuration.  These OEMs do not do that, however, they leave the OS 
>>> (and
>>
>>    So now you are going to advocate that Microsoft can go after white box
>> dealers at will now just because they shove product out the door and leave
>> customers on their own. There are plenty of operations on this side of the
>> Rio Grande that have been doing the same thing for decades.
>>
> I don't advocate :going after white box dealers at will", Jedidiah, read my 
> comments for what they say rather than for what you want to protest about. 
> LOL!
>
> Bare bones computers are still sold, I am sure, but to whom?  Many years 

    Probably the same people that always bought them.

> ago, the price of a pile of parts that you could assemble into a computer 
> and load your own OS became much higher than the price of a pre-assembled 
> and pre-loaded machine ready to use out of the box.  That was due to the 

    This isn't even true.

    That's why people still buy made to order boxes.

[deletia]

    Monopolyware might provide some sort of extra burden that makes a 
better DIY deal impoosble. Is that whay you mean to claim?

-- 
   Apple: because using something other than an Apple is an "edge case".   |||
    	   	   	 	   	      	       	     	   	  / | \

On 2011-04-01, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
> news:slrnipadcd.drg.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
>> On 2011-03-30, amicus_curious <acdc@sti.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "flatfish+++" <flatfish@marianatrench.com> wrote in message
>>> news:lqpc16rplvul.1g96jbgek7yeb.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> He is correct about the Blade Server market though.
>>>> It's exploding.
>>>> Most are Windows, but a good number are Linux as well and that number
>>>> will probably increase in time.
>>>
>>> "Exploding" is an un-quantified term.  Server sales volume of x86 based
>>> units is growing at an attractive rate, but in absolute terms 
>>> increasingly
>>> more Windows servers are sold each year than Linux based units.  That 
>>> market
>>> doesn't hold a candle to the client market, however.
>>
>>    Ultimately, this all boils down to your claim that the monopoly vendor
>> should be able to treat a company as a presumed pirate just because they 
>> don't
>> choose to force bundle the monopoly product.
>>
>>    This is far more meaningful than anything else.
>>
>>    "statistics" are a silly distraction, a red herring, compared to your 
>> basic
>> and rather fascist main thesis.
>>
> I think that the issue here is that you are just too thick to understand the 

     No. The legal principle is far more meaningful.

[deletia]

-- 
   Apple: because using something other than an Apple is an "edge case".   |||
    	   	   	 	   	      	       	     	   	  / | \

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnipc028.k44.jedi@nomad.mishnet...

>
>> ago, the price of a pile of parts that you could assemble into a computer
>> and load your own OS became much higher than the price of a pre-assembled
>> and pre-loaded machine ready to use out of the box.  That was due to the
>
>    This isn't even true.
>
>    That's why people still buy made to order boxes.
>
Then you should be able to find an example of where you can beat the price 
of a major brand machine with equivalent function for a no-name box along 
with the Windows license.  I doubt that you could even find such a thing 
without the license fee being a factor.  Put up or shut up, Jedidiah. 

"JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message 
news:slrnipc048.k44.jedi@nomad.mishnet...

>
>     No. The legal principle is far more meaningful.
>
You really are rather thick.  I thought it was just attitude, but I guess I 
was wrong.