arstechnica.com— When a Linux user attempted to obtain a reimbursement for an unused Windows license, Lenovo agreed to refund him $130, but only if he would sign a nondisclosure agreement first.
Sep 1, 2008View in Crawl 4
Granted; not refunding the cost of Windows as per the EULA is wrong. However, it should be admitted that calling it the "Windows tax" is a FUD term. Everyone uses FUD, so admit you are using it, and get over it.
No you don't. You can just boot an x86_32 or _64 Linux CD and blow away everything. I'd recommend leaving OS X on there in dual boot even if you will only ever use Linux, as machine firmware upgrades will only ever be able to be launched from OS X. All bootcamp is is a wizard to help you resize your partitions, and, in previous betas, burn the Windows driver CD for you (now it's just on the Leopard / recovery CD.) Also, the first bootcamp beta came packaged with a firmware upgrade that added BIOS emulation to EFI in order to boot these (Windows, Linux) install disks that needed to have a BIOS present to feed them information. Macs come packaged nowadays with this firmware update already installed.
There are actually multiple choices now for easy-to-use "desktop" Linuxes that would be ideal for just what you described. In fact, your argument is the reason why the time is ripe for computer manufacturers to sell a Linux/no OS option... because the vast majority of what people want to do does not require Windows, and can still be done easily (more easily, with one-click installation of new software available on Linux, not to mention being free of the constant maintenance that Windows requires just to be usable). In fact, unless you have a specific software package that is unavailable on anything but Windows, and won't run well in virtualization, there really is no reason to run Redmond's behemoth anymore... unless it's shoved down your throat, that is. I think *that* is the real reason Microsoft likes these arrangements. Who would go out of their way to buy Windows?
@mooninite: Why would Microsoft want to compete with it's main customers (HP/Compaq, Lenovo, Dell, Gateway, etc etc) As they compete against each other, MS still wins. MS has the upper hand here ... these companies need MS. As well as Linux has been doing this past year or two, it'd be the death of any of these companies if MS stopped selling their software to them.Sure, us diggers can survive an alternative, but try to tell Joe Sixpack at Best Buy looking for a new box that it "doesn't run Windows," and he'll be moving on.
Even if he signed the agreement its rendered null and void since MS agreement never makes mention of it. MS Agreement of a refund trumps any s**t by lenovo.
@kefkaantakrist"I have a hard time buying the line that MS charges $5-20 for their OS."I never said they did. What I said they do is sell (as an example) a license to install 10,000 copies of windows for 50,000 dollars (which comes out to about 5 dollars per installed copy). Other than the license all MS is providing the buyer (dell, gateway, hp, lenovo) is 1 master copy of windows and access to their developer and distribution tools. It costs MS (not counting the development costs) a lot less than $50k to provide this even counting labor, research, lawyers fees, distribution costs, and everything else that goes into such a deal.Obviously these are guesstimates... not only is every deal with each major OEM slightly different but there are also do not disclose agreements involved. What is known for sure is that in the past MS has used this model with every major OEM.In the end they are turning a huge profit because (again, other than the cost of developing windows in the first place) the only cost for MS in these deals is a cd/dvd and the man hours to actually make the deal. The only thing MS is selling *in bulk* is their permissions which costs them exactly nothing.There are additional costs not related to MS though. The cost of printing cds, manuals, and of providing support to the end user falls to the OEM themselves. This is why many of them have begun selling their computers without the original cds and providing only digital documentation instead of hard copies.
yertthediggerSep 1, 2008
Granted; not refunding the cost of Windows as per the EULA is wrong. However, it should be admitted that calling it the "Windows tax" is a FUD term. Everyone uses FUD, so admit you are using it, and get over it.
norman619Sep 1, 2008
no dude, free ice cream
bigsteveSep 1, 2008
No you don't. You can just boot an x86_32 or _64 Linux CD and blow away everything. I'd recommend leaving OS X on there in dual boot even if you will only ever use Linux, as machine firmware upgrades will only ever be able to be launched from OS X. All bootcamp is is a wizard to help you resize your partitions, and, in previous betas, burn the Windows driver CD for you (now it's just on the Leopard / recovery CD.) Also, the first bootcamp beta came packaged with a firmware upgrade that added BIOS emulation to EFI in order to boot these (Windows, Linux) install disks that needed to have a BIOS present to feed them information. Macs come packaged nowadays with this firmware update already installed.
jessehaddenSep 1, 2008
There are actually multiple choices now for easy-to-use "desktop" Linuxes that would be ideal for just what you described. In fact, your argument is the reason why the time is ripe for computer manufacturers to sell a Linux/no OS option... because the vast majority of what people want to do does not require Windows, and can still be done easily (more easily, with one-click installation of new software available on Linux, not to mention being free of the constant maintenance that Windows requires just to be usable). In fact, unless you have a specific software package that is unavailable on anything but Windows, and won't run well in virtualization, there really is no reason to run Redmond's behemoth anymore... unless it's shoved down your throat, that is. I think *that* is the real reason Microsoft likes these arrangements. Who would go out of their way to buy Windows?
bigsteveSep 1, 2008
@mooninite: Why would Microsoft want to compete with it's main customers (HP/Compaq, Lenovo, Dell, Gateway, etc etc) As they compete against each other, MS still wins. MS has the upper hand here ... these companies need MS. As well as Linux has been doing this past year or two, it'd be the death of any of these companies if MS stopped selling their software to them.Sure, us diggers can survive an alternative, but try to tell Joe Sixpack at Best Buy looking for a new box that it "doesn't run Windows," and he'll be moving on.
elranzerSep 2, 2008
I don't find this news happy one bit.
Closed AccountSep 2, 2008
Even if he signed the agreement its rendered null and void since MS agreement never makes mention of it. MS Agreement of a refund trumps any s**t by lenovo.
wolferzSep 7, 2008
@kefkaantakrist"I have a hard time buying the line that MS charges $5-20 for their OS."I never said they did. What I said they do is sell (as an example) a license to install 10,000 copies of windows for 50,000 dollars (which comes out to about 5 dollars per installed copy). Other than the license all MS is providing the buyer (dell, gateway, hp, lenovo) is 1 master copy of windows and access to their developer and distribution tools. It costs MS (not counting the development costs) a lot less than $50k to provide this even counting labor, research, lawyers fees, distribution costs, and everything else that goes into such a deal.Obviously these are guesstimates... not only is every deal with each major OEM slightly different but there are also do not disclose agreements involved. What is known for sure is that in the past MS has used this model with every major OEM.In the end they are turning a huge profit because (again, other than the cost of developing windows in the first place) the only cost for MS in these deals is a cd/dvd and the man hours to actually make the deal. The only thing MS is selling *in bulk* is their permissions which costs them exactly nothing.There are additional costs not related to MS though. The cost of printing cds, manuals, and of providing support to the end user falls to the OEM themselves. This is why many of them have begun selling their computers without the original cds and providing only digital documentation instead of hard copies.