Not exactly. They are pissed because MS kills competition. For example, MS has decided that no major OEM can sell dual-boot machines. You can't get Compaq, Dell or any other major brand with Windows AND Linux. Why not? Because MS denies that right. They use their monopoly-power to deny that choice from the consumers.
Not exactly. They are pissed because MS kills competition. For example, MS has decided that no major OEM can sell dual-boot machines. You can't get Compaq, Dell or any other major brand with Windows AND Linux. Why not? Because MS denies that right. They use their monopoly-power to deny that choice from the consumers.
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Yes, and because Dell has chosen to use strictly MS stuff, it's all MS's fault because MS is a monopoly.
If you don't like Dell's choices, STFU and buy elsewhere or learn and build it yourself.
nik
Actually, it's NOT Dell's decision, it's MS's decision. It was MS that denied Dell the right to sell computers with no OS. If they want to sell computers with no OS, Dell needs to create a separate line of product for those (and that increses costs)
Link
I think it's just as alarming that if I go with McDonald's I can only get Bigmacs, and other McDonald's food. I mean, if I'm hungry, that doesn't mean that I'm hungry for McDonald's. McDonald's should offer Whoppers, and Taco Supremes, and whatnot as well. I want choice. Also, just because I order a Bigmac, doesn't mean that I should have to live with it the way they make it. If I want a Whopper patty on my Bigmac, they should make it that way for me. If I want Special Sauce on my Taco Supreme, that should be my choice.
That's bullsh!t. Each company has the conscious choice to make - and don't bullsh!t about power, either. There's plenty of ways around it.
nik
Right. Then why would Dell so quickly embrace and offer RedHat a couple of years ago when it matured, and now suddenly stop offering Linux except in the top-end workstation and servers product lines?
The issue here isn't whether or not someone likes Dells or not. Personally I wouldn't choose to buy a Dell for anything less than servers, but for businesses and home users who have more important things to worry about, Dell (and other OEMs) offers an attractive solution. The issue I'm addressing here is that why would Dell suddenly drop their support for RedHat, if it weren't for new Microsoft policies?
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Yes, and because Dell has chosen to use strictly MS stuff, it's all MS's fault because MS is a monopoly.
If you don't like Dell's choices, STFU and buy elsewhere or learn and build it yourself.
nik
Actually, it's NOT Dell's decision, it's MS's decision. It was MS that denied Dell the right to sell computers with no OS. If they want to sell computers with no OS, Dell needs to create a separate line of product for those (and that increses costs)
Link
lol - you guys are so retarded. Don't you see that Dell gave in to a request/demand by MS? Dell wants their huge discounts on the copies of Windows that they put on their machines, so the're going to let MS pull them around by the balls. Again, it's Dell's choice.
nik
If a Ford franchise started selling new Chevys on the side I think Ford would be pretty hot too.
There is a definite difference in not being compatible with something and sabotaging competing products on purpose. For example Samba. MS makes changes to relevant protocols now and then for the sole purpose to make the work of Samba-project more difficult. And MS purposefully sabotaged DR-DOS. DR-DOS was competitor with MS-DOS with several advanced features (and it was compatible with MS-DOS). MS didn't like that so they changed Windows 3.1 in such way that it won't work properly on top of DR-DOS. There was no technical reason for that, they just made Windows in such way that it checks what version of DOS runs underneath. If it was DR-DOS, Windows displayed error-messages. In reality there was no problems in running Windows on top of DR-DOS, MS just sabotaged it in such way that Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS.
Not quite the same. You have a McDonald's right next door to Burger King, right next door to TacoBell, for example. This isn't true with Microsoft.
Fresh off of slashdot:
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
MicrosoftPosted by CmdrTaco on Saturday August 10, @01:17PM
from the yer-bringing-me-down-man dept.
Some Sys Admin sent in an email that he got from Dell which basically says Microsoft will no longer allow Dell to sell PCs without an operating system. Please note that Microsoft is not a monopoly, and does not use their monopoly power to squish competition in the market place. The message itself is attached below, and is worth a read, especially the last bit.
UPDATES
1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS
MicrosoftPosted by CmdrTaco on Saturday August 10, @01:17PM
from the yer-bringing-me-down-man dept.
Some Sys Admin sent in an email that he got from Dell which basically says Microsoft will no longer allow Dell to sell PCs without an operating system. Please note that Microsoft is not a monopoly, and does not use their monopoly power to squish competition in the market place. The message itself is attached below, and is worth a read, especially the last bit.
UPDATES
1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:
1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.
2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.
We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
previously MS gave different deals to different companies depending on those companies' compliance with MS requirements about not straying from MS's party line. thats now been declared illegal as part of MS's settlement. MS would punish you financially if you strayed from MS even a little bit.
You obviously have no idea how the business works. Yes, company could decide to say to MS "No, we will not dance to your tune". What's the end-result? MS just decides to increase their license-cost, or deny it altogether. In short, that would kill the OEM. OEM has no choice but to go along.
That's also known as "abuse of monopoly"
That's stifling competition. Microsoft made it so that if Dell wants to sell computers to home and business users, Dell *has* to sell the computer with a Microsoft operating system. Dell could stick it out and not comply with Microsoft, and offer Linux, but if they did that Microsoft would pull their license away from Dell. That's monopolistic behaviour.
Nope. Until a year or two ago in my hometown there was a McDonald's, and nothing else. The next closest fastfood place was a half hour's drive away. I don't have a car. If I wanted fastfood, it was McDonald's, or nothing at all. It's exactly the same.
So in order for OEM to stay competetive, they need those cheap licenses. And MS knows that and acts accordingly. You just admitted that MS abuses their monopoly. Thank you for proving my point.
Behavior of MS would be acceptable if they weren't a monopoly. But they are (that is a legal fact that has been upheld over and over again in courts), so some thing are no-no for them.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
its basically that if everyone else is using a product the only way to operate with them is to use the same product. so if the whole market is geared toward making stuff for MS products, then its hard to make a product to compete with that and its hard to make a decision to go with a competing system because of the limited operability with everyone else. it would almost be like some roads were built only for toyotas, some only for GMs, and very rarely did the roads meet.
and as a regular user, when MS pops up a window on the screen saying that things won't work (*cough*windows on DR-DOS*cough*) you'd probably be inclined to believe what microsoft says regardless that they're lying through their teeth.
Again, MS is changing THEIR PRODUCT to function how THEY SEE FIT. Don't like it? Bye bye.
nik
P.S. Sorry it's taking me so long. I have to clear my cache / cookies every time it times out with my damn work proxies. I never know if it's going to go through or not.
Okay, sure, that is the same. I didn't know you only have a McDonald's. I just meant that in the fast-food industry, there are many players, like at our local shopping plaza there's Wendy's and across the street is McDonald's, and they have to compete with each other for customers (but then again I don't like either so I just go to KFC one block down
).And just so happens that what Microsoft does is considered monopolistic behaviour, like we've said above. You can't have licensing policies that says a company can ONLY use your product or else you won't give them a license at all.Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
Again, MS is changing THEIR PRODUCT to function how THEY SEE FIT. Don't like it? Bye bye.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,414
- 8,356
- 126
lets also say there was one large phone carrier, and some smaller phone carriers, then the large phone carrier started popping messages up on the screen of their user's phones warning them against calling people on the other networks, saying lightning would strike their phones if they did so.
heck, you wouldnt' believe how many phone calls i get over products having non-MS certified drivers, that when the window pops up people get scared that their system is going to fry and so they try to buy another piece of hardware. this is a market MS isn't even in and they're exerting control over it.
heck, you wouldnt' believe how many phone calls i get over products having non-MS certified drivers, that when the window pops up people get scared that their system is going to fry and so they try to buy another piece of hardware. this is a market MS isn't even in and they're exerting control over it.
In any case, it's a decision that lays in the hands of others. If Dell doesn't want to do business with MS, they don't have to. Consequences aside, the choice is there and it belongs solely to Dell. My understanding of a Monopoly says that one company has complete control over a market. Is that where I'm missing something? Is the law different??
nik
nik
Originally posted by: IcemanJer
Okay, sure, that is the same. I didn't know you only have a McDonald's. I just meant that in the fast-food industry, there are many players, like at our local shopping plaza there's Wendy's and across the street is McDonald's, and they have to compete with each other for customers (but then again I don't like either so I just go to KFC one block down
Okay, sure, that is the same. I didn't know you only have Microsoft. I just meant that in the computer industry, there are many players, like at our local shopping plaza there's Mac and across the street is Unix, and they have to compete with each other for customers (but then again I don't like either so I just go to FreeBSD one block down
)Its not exactly the same.
If McDonalds was preventing another fast food chain from opening a branch in your town, then it would be the same as MS preventing Dell from selling systems with Linux.
If McDonalds was preventing you from eating food from another fast food chain, then it would be the same as MS preventing Linux from working with Windows via Samba.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter