Windows now underprices free - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows now underprices free - Linux ; In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Doug Mentohl wrote on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:26:27 -0800 (PST) : > On 4 Feb, 18:24, "Mustafa Korn" wrote: >> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message > >> > It is curious that Dell + Vista is priced ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 61

Thread: Windows now underprices free

  1. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Doug Mentohl

    wrote
    on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 12:26:27 -0800 (PST)
    <2eb32d3e-2fba-44ec-a1ac-aa650fb37625@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
    > On 4 Feb, 18:24, "Mustafa Korn" wrote:
    >> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message

    >
    >> > It is curious that Dell + Vista is priced at Dell + Linux + $10 Dollars ..

    >
    >> the only "cost" that exists is the cost of the actual software ..

    >
    > What 'cost' goes from DELL to MICROS~1 for each copy of VISTA shipped
    > with each computer SOLD by DELL?


    Pedant Point: one has to ask as to which edition is used here.
    There are 6 that appear relevant; the other three (Starter
    Edition, Home Basic N, Home Premium N) do not apply in the US.

    It is also far from clear that the OP configured both machines
    correctly; Dell plays quite a few games in that area.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Q: "Why is my computer doing that?"
    A: "Don't do that and you'll be fine."

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  2. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Well, very few Windows users seem convinced today. Of course I haven't
    > really been trying to convince them either. The point is that cheapo
    > applications from OSS sources are just as cheap for Windows as they are for
    > Linux.


    Get them to use only OSS, then it is very easy to transition them to
    Linux.

    >> It happened that way with one of my neighbors. She realized she
    >> was pretty much using only firefox and OpenOffice on her Windows
    >> system, realized she could do the same on Ubuntu, made the switch
    >> and never looked back.
    >>

    > I'm sure Microsoft will feel the loss, but not until she buys a new
    > computer. Then she will apparently pay more unless she can talk you into
    > once again removing Windows and re-loading Ubuntu. Else she will have to
    > pay more for having someone such as Dell do it.


    No, she won't. Thad will help. Or she'll simply stick the install disk
    in and start clickin'.

    It's that easy (with some minor exceptions for some uncooperative
    proprietary devices).

    --
    If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all
    be driving $25 cars that got 1000 MPG.
    -- Bill Gates

  3. Re: Windows now underprices free

    Linonut writes:

    > * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Having done that, I thought that it was significant that Windows continues
    >> to have a cost advantage over non-Windows choices.

    >
    > Me too. It means DELL hasn't yet achieve the same economy of scale with
    > Linux.


    With a free OS?

  4. Re: Windows now underprices free

    * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:

    >> This actually makes sense. Remember, Dell buys Windows licenses in
    >> bulk. They have to pay for the license, whether you use it or not.

    >
    > Not true. You are way behind the times. In 1994 Microsoft agreed as part
    > of a settlement with the DOJ that they would no longer license DOS or
    > Windows this way. They have been charging only for licenses actually
    > shipped ever since and the courts and DOJ have been scrutinizing this ever
    > since.


    True. Except, of course, for the channel-stuffing.

    --
    Tardiness often robs us opportunity, and the dispatch of our forces.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  5. Re: Windows now underprices free

    * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > Having done that, I thought that it was significant that Windows continues
    > to have a cost advantage over non-Windows choices.


    Me too. It means DELL hasn't yet achieve the same economy of scale with
    Linux.

    --
    The wise man does at once what the fool does finally.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  6. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:ZAMpj.65939$vt2.19077@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> Well, very few Windows users seem convinced today. Of course I haven't
    >> really been trying to convince them either. The point is that cheapo
    >> applications from OSS sources are just as cheap for Windows as they are
    >> for
    >> Linux.

    >
    > Get them to use only OSS, then it is very easy to transition them to
    > Linux.
    >

    Why would you think that to be the case? If someone is using Windows and is
    happy with the performance of the OSS programs being used, what motive would
    they have for switching? Certainly they would realize that their best
    result would be that what they were using would continue to work as it had
    been. They gain nothing in the exchange and they risk that it might not
    work as well as what they are already using.

    If they are not happy with the OSS programs, it would be more likely that
    they would believe that the homemade stuff was not as good as the factory
    stuff and so they should stick with Windows and try real applications.

    Linux is easy to beat.



  7. Re: Windows now underprices free


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:ICMpj.65941$vt2.54687@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >>> This actually makes sense. Remember, Dell buys Windows licenses in
    >>> bulk. They have to pay for the license, whether you use it or not.

    >>
    >> Not true. You are way behind the times. In 1994 Microsoft agreed as
    >> part
    >> of a settlement with the DOJ that they would no longer license DOS or
    >> Windows this way. They have been charging only for licenses actually
    >> shipped ever since and the courts and DOJ have been scrutinizing this
    >> ever
    >> since.

    >
    > True. Except, of course, for the channel-stuffing.
    >

    When faced with facts, establish a new myth, eh?


  8. Re: Windows now underprices free

    "amicus_curious" writes:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:ICMpj.65941$vt2.54687@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>>> This actually makes sense. Remember, Dell buys Windows licenses in
    >>>> bulk. They have to pay for the license, whether you use it or not.
    >>>
    >>> Not true. You are way behind the times. In 1994 Microsoft agreed
    >>> as part
    >>> of a settlement with the DOJ that they would no longer license DOS or
    >>> Windows this way. They have been charging only for licenses actually
    >>> shipped ever since and the courts and DOJ have been scrutinizing
    >>> this ever
    >>> since.

    >>
    >> True. Except, of course, for the channel-stuffing.
    >>

    > When faced with facts, establish a new myth, eh?
    >


    It's all Liarnut does. I'm amazed his lies this time are even remotely
    related to the thread in hand. Maybe his schizo pills are taking effect!

  9. Re: Windows now underprices free

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:14:00 +0100
    :
    > "amicus_curious" writes:
    >
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:ICMpj.65941$vt2.54687@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>* amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>>> This actually makes sense. Remember, Dell buys Windows licenses in
    >>>>> bulk. They have to pay for the license, whether you use it or not.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not true. You are way behind the times. In 1994 Microsoft agreed
    >>>> as part
    >>>> of a settlement with the DOJ that they would no longer license DOS or
    >>>> Windows this way. They have been charging only for licenses actually
    >>>> shipped ever since and the courts and DOJ have been scrutinizing
    >>>> this ever
    >>>> since.
    >>>
    >>> True. Except, of course, for the channel-stuffing.
    >>>

    >> When faced with facts, establish a new myth, eh?
    >>

    >
    > It's all Liarnut does. I'm amazed his lies this time are even remotely
    > related to the thread in hand. Maybe his schizo pills are taking effect!


    In any event, channels are *designed* to be stuffed;
    otherwise, the OEMs will starve for units at crunch time.
    Think of it as a sort of buffer or holding tank. One
    can even model it as a spring (in both senses of the word).

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #12398234:
    void f(char *p) {char *q = strdup(p); strcpy(p,q);}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  10. Re: Windows now underprices free


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:beok75-b8d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >
    > In any event, channels are *designed* to be stuffed;
    > otherwise, the OEMs will starve for units at crunch time.
    > Think of it as a sort of buffer or holding tank. One
    > can even model it as a spring (in both senses of the word).
    >

    That ain't the way it works. The OEM has a master copy and copies it to
    hard drives as needed. There isn't any need to physically put goods into
    the "channel". OEMs pay Microsoft quarterly or else according to contract.
    Go review the testimony of IBM in the DOJ trial wherein MSFT caught IBM
    short sheeting their shipments and holding out on Windows licenses.


  11. Re: Windows now underprices free

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious

    wrote
    on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:20:55 -0500
    <47a7ba00$0$29801$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>:
    >
    > "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    > news:beok75-b8d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >>
    >> In any event, channels are *designed* to be stuffed;
    >> otherwise, the OEMs will starve for units at crunch time.
    >> Think of it as a sort of buffer or holding tank. One
    >> can even model it as a spring (in both senses of the word).
    >>

    > That ain't the way it works. The OEM has a master copy and copies it to
    > hard drives as needed. There isn't any need to physically put goods into
    > the "channel".


    One still has to build the PCs and verify that they work.
    The build requires a 72-hour or so burnin process, running
    something -- presumably Windows in the case of a Windows
    machine.

    That's physical inventory, no matter how you stuff it.

    > OEMs pay Microsoft quarterly or else according to contract.
    > Go review the testimony of IBM in the DOJ trial wherein MSFT caught IBM
    > short sheeting their shipments and holding out on Windows licenses.
    >


    Link?

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #8830129:
    std::set<...> v; for(..:iterator i = v.begin(); i != v.end(); i++)
    if(*i == thing) {...}

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  12. Re: Windows now underprices free


    "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    news:46hm75-13n.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
    >
    > wrote
    > on Mon, 4 Feb 2008 20:20:55 -0500
    > <47a7ba00$0$29801$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>:
    >>
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
    >> message
    >> news:beok75-b8d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >>>
    >>> In any event, channels are *designed* to be stuffed;
    >>> otherwise, the OEMs will starve for units at crunch time.
    >>> Think of it as a sort of buffer or holding tank. One
    >>> can even model it as a spring (in both senses of the word).
    >>>

    >> That ain't the way it works. The OEM has a master copy and copies it to
    >> hard drives as needed. There isn't any need to physically put goods into
    >> the "channel".

    >
    > One still has to build the PCs and verify that they work.
    > The build requires a 72-hour or so burnin process, running
    > something -- presumably Windows in the case of a Windows
    > machine.
    >
    > That's physical inventory, no matter how you stuff it.


    Not really. These machines that are undergoing the 72-hour burnin process
    are already built and configured to a customers specifications. It's not
    like Dell has boxes and boxes of computers built that they are waiting to
    sell. The order comes in, the machine is assembled to the customers
    specifications, it gets tested then it goes out. There isn't any channel
    that was stuffed, certainly not by Microsoft, where there are boxes of Vista
    sitting around somewhere at Dell just waiting to be shipped.



    >> OEMs pay Microsoft quarterly or else according to contract.
    >> Go review the testimony of IBM in the DOJ trial wherein MSFT caught IBM
    >> short sheeting their shipments and holding out on Windows licenses.
    >>

    >
    > Link?




    Not what you were looking for but relevant in smacking down the ridiculous
    lies the "advocates" often post here:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080204/...8yLvLmx3MjtBAF


    --- "The 2002 settlement focused on Microsoft's operating system and browser
    and barred the software giant from seeking deals with computer makers to
    exclude competing software. It doesn't say anything about acquisitions or
    other deals, Houck said."

    Read twice the part about - "... and barred the software giant from seeking
    deals with computer makers to EXCLUDE COMPETING SOFTWARE."


    And how many times have COLA "advocates" perpetuated the lie that Microsoft
    forces OEMs to sell Windows or Microsoft has contracts with OEMs that forbid
    them from selling Linux?









    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  13. Re: Windows now underprices free

    * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, amicus_curious
    >>
    >> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
    >> news:beok75-b8d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
    >>>
    >>> In any event, channels are *designed* to be stuffed;
    >>> otherwise, the OEMs will starve for units at crunch time.
    >>> Think of it as a sort of buffer or holding tank. One
    >>> can even model it as a spring (in both senses of the word).
    >>>

    >> That ain't the way it works. The OEM has a master copy and copies it to
    >> hard drives as needed. There isn't any need to physically put goods into
    >> the "channel".


    Surely the OEMs must purchase their bona fide Microsoft Certificates of
    Authenticity up front, and take delivery of them well in advance.

    > One still has to build the PCs and verify that they work.
    > The build requires a 72-hour or so burnin process, running
    > something -- presumably Windows in the case of a Windows
    > machine.
    >
    > That's physical inventory, no matter how you stuff it.


    --
    The more sand has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should
    see through it.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  14. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:ZAMpj.65939$vt2.19077@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >> * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> Well, very few Windows users seem convinced today. Of course I haven't
    >>> really been trying to convince them either. The point is that cheapo
    >>> applications from OSS sources are just as cheap for Windows as they
    >>> are for
    >>> Linux.

    >>
    >> Get them to use only OSS, then it is very easy to transition them to
    >> Linux.
    >>

    > Why would you think that to be the case? If someone is using Windows
    > and is happy with the performance of the OSS programs being used, what
    > motive would they have for switching? Certainly they would realize that
    > their best result would be that what they were using would continue to
    > work as it had been. They gain nothing in the exchange and they risk
    > that it might not work as well as what they are already using.
    >
    > If they are not happy with the OSS programs, it would be more likely
    > that they would believe that the homemade stuff was not as good as the
    > factory stuff and so they should stick with Windows and try real
    > applications.
    >
    > Linux is easy to beat.


    You should let these people know what you have figured out:

    http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/e...s.asp?id=46692
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >> India's largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds
    >>
    >> Elcot's decision to switch platforms was a daunting task but the opportunity to bypass yearly software licensing fees was an irresistible incentive
    >> 1/16/2008 6:00:00 AM
    >> by Kanika Goswami
    >>
    >> On May 26, 2006, Elcot (Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu) let in its first penguin. Things would never be the same again.

    >
    >> A year later, Umashankar and his team had moved 30,000 computers and 1,880 severs belonging to some of the state's schools to Linux -- creating possibly the largest Linux rollout in India.

    >
    >> "First they migrated from Outlook Express to Mozilla Thunderbird for Windows. From there they took the mail folder and put it into the Suse Linux system, and started operating Thunderbird over Suse Linux system. Novel, isn't it?" Umashankar asks proudly.
    >>
    >> This interest helped his campaign to migrate completely to Suse Linux, from a 100 percent Windows environment.

    >
    > Notice the importance of a cross-platform application (Thunderbird) to the project's success. The project director claims the approach to be novel, but it was discerned years ago and will be one of the most important elements of the Linux migration paradigm of the next 5-10 years.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  15. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..


    "Matt" wrote in message
    news:co6qj.3503$7d1.61@news01.roc.ny...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "Linonut" wrote in message
    >> news:ZAMpj.65939$vt2.19077@bignews8.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>> * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> Well, very few Windows users seem convinced today. Of course I haven't
    >>>> really been trying to convince them either. The point is that cheapo
    >>>> applications from OSS sources are just as cheap for Windows as they are
    >>>> for
    >>>> Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Get them to use only OSS, then it is very easy to transition them to
    >>> Linux.
    >>>

    >> Why would you think that to be the case? If someone is using Windows and
    >> is happy with the performance of the OSS programs being used, what motive
    >> would they have for switching? Certainly they would realize that their
    >> best result would be that what they were using would continue to work as
    >> it had been. They gain nothing in the exchange and they risk that it
    >> might not work as well as what they are already using.
    >>
    >> If they are not happy with the OSS programs, it would be more likely that
    >> they would believe that the homemade stuff was not as good as the factory
    >> stuff and so they should stick with Windows and try real applications.
    >>
    >> Linux is easy to beat.

    >
    > You should let these people know what you have figured out:
    >
    > http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/e...s.asp?id=46692
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>> India's largest Linux rollout forges ahead despite tremendous odds
    >>> Elcot's decision to switch platforms was a daunting task but the
    >>> opportunity to bypass yearly software licensing fees was an irresistible
    >>> incentive


    I have often wondered what this notion of "yearly software fees" is in
    regard to. Certainly not Windows, once you buy it, you own it forever.
    Linux, on the other hand, requires annual support agreements, i.e. no pay no
    service. Of course you can maybe do without any support service altogether.

    India is the main outsourcing area for US software developers who get gobs
    of code written on the cheap by these suffering folk. Of course that
    pay-for software is all Windows stuff, so being good with Linux doesn't put
    any rice in the bowl or curry on the plate. Maybe they want to break them
    in on Linux with no pay so that minimum wages for Windows looks good by
    comparison. What do you think?

    ..


  16. Re: Windows now underprices free

    On Feb 4, 1:39 pm, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > "Rex Ballard" wrote in message
    > news:bd14c251-eb8e-4c04-b4dd-87f3438efe8c@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
    > > On Feb 4, 11:17 am, "amicus_curious" wrote:
    > >> The basic bottom of the line Dell Inspiron 530 with Windows Home Basic
    > >> and
    > >> support is $499 versus the Ubuntu Dell Inspiron 530N with no support at
    > >> $509. Seems like lukewarm has migrated to chilly.

    >
    > > This actually makes sense. Remember, Dell buys Windows licenses in
    > > bulk. They have to pay for the license, whether you use it or not.

    >
    > Not true. You are way behind the times. In 1994 Microsoft agreed as part
    > of a settlement with the DOJ that they would no longer license DOS or
    > Windows this way. They have been charging only for licenses actually
    > shipped ever since and the courts and DOJ have been scrutinizing this ever
    > since.


    You are referring to "per processor" licensing.

    Both the 1994 agreement, and the 2001 agreement gave Microsoft tthe
    right to set discount policies and rates based on minimum
    commitments. If Dell sells 10 million computers in the current year,
    then Microsoft can offer them 8 million licenrses to 12 million
    licenses at a 20% discount, let's say $50 per copy, so 10 million
    copies would cost 500 million dollars. If they agree to a minimum
    commitment to order at least 12 million licenses, they can get a 50%
    discount, say $30 per copy. So even though you're getting 12 million
    licenses, you are only paying $360 million dollars. The result is
    that you pay a lower total price by ordering far more than you need.

    As a result, it doesn't really matter whether you order Windows or
    not, Dell has already paid for the license, and they will include that
    cost into the cost of the PC itself. In addition, they need to add
    any license/support costs charged by the Linux distributor, and the
    overhead to inventory and install Linux images rather than Windows
    images.

    This is why many experienced users simply order a PC that is
    advertized to be SUSE or Ubuntu compatible with Windows. They can use
    the Windows image and/or installation media to install Windows as a
    virtual client, and install Linux as the primary operating system.
    This way the actually get what they pay for.


  17. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    Doug Mentohl espoused:
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >> you can get even more stuff to run on Vista from the OSS sites ..

    >
    > So what's MICROS~1 making on each licensed Vista sold on Dell hardware?
    > It is curious that Dell + Vista is priced at Dell + Linux + $10 Dollars ..


    If you're going to download your apps from foss sites, why not go the
    whole way, and use a foss operating system distribution, so that you
    don't have to worry about anti-virus, package management, and so on?

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  18. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    * amicus_curious peremptorily fired off this memo:

    > I have often wondered what this notion of "yearly software fees" is in
    > regard to. Certainly not Windows, once you buy it, you own it forever.


    Bull****. You /don't/ own it.

    > Linux, on the other hand, requires annual support agreements, i.e. no pay no
    > service. Of course you can maybe do without any support service altogether.


    Linux solutions and Windows solutions are essentially identical on this
    issue, except that Linux also gives you source code access with no extra
    costs, and no non-disclosure agreement.

    > India is the main outsourcing area for US software developers who get gobs
    > of code written on the cheap by these suffering folk. Of course that
    > pay-for software is all Windows stuff, so being good with Linux doesn't put
    > any rice in the bowl or curry on the plate. Maybe they want to break them
    > in on Linux with no pay so that minimum wages for Windows looks good by
    > comparison. What do you think?


    I think you are, essentially, an gibbering idiot.

    --
    No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until
    it is ripe for execution.
    -- Niccolo Machiavelli

  19. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    [H]omer wrote:
    >
    >>> homemade stuff

    >
    > Is that "homemade" as in made by Red Hat, Novell, IBM, Sun, Apache,
    > MySQL, Mozilla, the NSA and the US Army? Damn, those "bedroom"
    > programmers have been busy.


    Yeah, I was going to take a job doing Linux coding for IBM, but
    then I learned IBM stands for Igor Brennen Molovich... a pimple
    faced geeky kid living in his parents' basement. Similarly, Red
    Hat is actually the name of a homeless guy that hangs out by the
    bus station handing out Linux CDs and yelling at strangers
    (actually, Red isn't such a bad guy when he stays on his meds).
    I guess the wintrolls have been right all along. >

    Thad
    --
    Yeah, I drank the Open Source cool-aid... Unlike the other brand, it had
    all the ingredients on the label.

  20. Re: Vista only worth $10 Dollars says amicus fuddie ..

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >I have often wondered what this notion of "yearly software fees" is in
    >regard to.


    Dumbsh*t. What do you think most corporate licensing deals amount to?


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast