-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Hailman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Have any list members seen this.........
>Ir has nothing to do with the Computer dealers... they don't want be forced
>to stop selling Win95, because MOST people want it on their computer
>(supposedly), and to not sell it or to give a refund would be in breach of
>contract. We really need to take this to Micro$hit.
This problem breaks down into multiple parts.
1) Microsoft requiring manufacturers to place Windows on each PC, and charge
for it whether it's there or not.
I doubt this is still really happening. It specifically violates the
consent decree, and Microsoft isn't stupid enough to still be doing it. I
suspect that the salespeople are simply incorrect, or were trained back when
Microsoft did indeed have such contracts.
I'm a Microsoft OEM (it's not hard to get this certification, all you have
to do is sign a contract and they're pretty much always approved, I've never
heard of anybody being rejected) and I was never placed under any such
condition, nor was the VAR/OEM I used to work for.
2) Manufacturers not wanting to complicate their lives by offering multiple
configurations.
While we may not agree with this, it's certainly understandable. It's
actually extra effort for them to offer the PC in a different configuration,
even if that configuration is "naked". Somebody has to keep track of how
the drive is formatted. It shouldn't be confused with action on Microsoft's
part, however.
3) Lack of education on the part of the salespeople. I note that one person
quoted in the article (the Comp USA rep) proclaimed that this was "the
standard for computers at any other company". This, of course, is not
correct; it's the standard for computers at the vast majority of large OEMs,
but it's by no means the standard everywhere. Smaller OEMs will often work
with a customer no matter how small the business, and there are always going
to be companies such as Indelible Blue and Linux Hardware Solutions (god
bless you, LHS) that build their core business around "alternative" OSes.
Lots of VARs build their business around a particular alternative OS,
although you'll find that generally if they decide to become an OEM the
first thing they'll do is pick up a Microsoft license.
It is a plain fact, however, that the majority of folks who buy a single
computer for home use want Windows 95 (or 98, now.) This isn't an opinion,
it's demonstrable by sales.
If you gave them Linux as it exists now, they'd be on the phone within
minutes wondering what's wrong with their computer.
Yes, it'd be great to change that. Yes, I'd like to participate in changing
it. But no, it's not useful to pretend things are different than they are.
And accusing Microsoft of still engaging in the practices mentioned isn't
useful unless they really are doing it. Does anybody have an example of an
OEM that's lost their Microsoft license for selling machines without Windows
in the last 4 years?
--
PLEASE read the Red Hat FAQ, Tips, Errata and the MAILING LIST ARCHIVES!
http://www.redhat.com/RedHat-FAQ /RedHat-Errata /RedHat-Tips /mailing-lists
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject.
