[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Refund for Bundled Win95
If this be slander then make the most of it!
David: Twit thou art and twit thou shalt remain. What about Compaq? They
tried to install Netscape Navigator/Communicator instead of IE and were
threatened with losing their license to install Windows 95.
<foghorn_leghorn>
"Go 'way boy, ah say, ah say you bother me!"
</foghorn_leghorn>
Scott K. McGrath
mcgrats@ix.netcom.com
David E. Y. Sarna wrote:
> >>If you're willing to hand Microsoft approximately $100 for
> nothing more than forcing manufacturers to bundle Windows,
>
> that's your choice.
> No one is forced to bundle Microsoft products with their hardware. It is
> slanderous to say otherwise.
>
> Regards,
> David E. Y. Sarna davids@objectsoftcorp.com
> ObjectSoft Corp. (NASDAQ:OSFT) http://www.objectsoftcorp.com
> 433 Hackensack Ave., Hackensack, NJ 07601
> Tel.: (201) 343-9100 Fax: (201) 343-0056
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Donna. [SMTP:donna.s@niestu.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 09, 1997 5:56 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Refund for Bundled Win95
> >
> >
> > Chip Richards <chipr@niestu.com> wrote to this list regarding the
> > refund
> > for a pre-bundled Win95. Well, I'm actually the one who handled the
> > purchase and subsequent refund. Chip wrote about it here cuz the
> > issue
> > came up where he's already subscribed, and we tend to split up mailing
> > lists to give us both more ground cover. Since replies are rolling in
> > in
> > great numbers, however, I figured life would be easier on us all if I
> > just
> > subscribed for myself to deal with questions, objections, etc.
> >
> > When I first went to the newsgroups to see if anybody had done this
> > before, I got similar responses to what I'm getting now. So, here's
> > my
> > canned replies to the objections:
> >
> > 1. Build yer own!
> >
> > A. Sorry, but in all the years I've been building computers from
> > components (and sometimes even from scratch!), I've yet to
> > be able to build a notebook. We =do= normally build our own.
> > Built our own new server machine this weekend, in fact. But
> > last spring, the need was for a notebook.
> >
> > Even had it been a desktop model, however, "build yer own"
> > simply isn't an option for everyone. Not everybody's the avid
> > hardware hacks my partner and I are. If Linux is to be about
> > freedom, about options, about making our own computing choices,
> > then we mustn't get up on our high horses and say that everybody
> >
> > who can't build their own boxes must then be tied to only one
> > OS.
> >
> > 2. Patronize a pro-Linux hardware vendor.
> >
> > A. We tried. Honest. Unfortunately, the closest we found to
> > the system we wanted cost $1,000 more than what we paid, AND
> > we would have bought mail order for a system we needed
> > yesterday. Shipping's usually more than sales tax, folks.
> >
> > Besides, what about people who don't want Linux, either?
> > There be more options than Windows and Linux for 80xxx
> > architecture: QNX, OS/2, Plan9, Inferno, Solaris, BSDs ...
> > to name but a =few=. If we were talking about other
> > architectures, this argument might hold weight, but there
> > are more options for 80xxx boxes than any other game around.
> > That we let anybody say there's only one, or only two,
> > options is to shovel the truth under the rug, and perpetuate
> > consumer ignorance.
> >
> > 3. Just delete Win95, install Linux, and forget about it. That's
> > what I did.
> >
> > A. If you're willing to hand Microsoft approximately $100 for
> > nothing more than forcing manufacturers to bundle Windows,
> > that's your choice. I'm not so willing. I tried to buy
> > the notebook without Windows in the first place. As most
> > Linux users already realize, that ain't gonna happen.
> > Well, the truth is that it ain't gonna happen so long as
> > we who don't use Microsoft products continue to allow
> > computer manufacturers force Microsoft products on us
> > AND THEN AGREE TO PAY THEM FOR IT. They ain't gonna stop
> > forcing Microsoft down our throats as long as we keep
> > paying them to do so.
> >
> > 4. Just keep it and you can play cool games with it.
> >
> > A. Thanks for the thought, but there are already more than enough
> > cool games for me in Linux. What doesn't exist but I want
> > anyway, I write myself. If any flavor of bundled Windows is
> > more than a doorstop for you, great, enjoy it. With my
> > blessings, even -- I don't give a rat's behind what other
> > people use on their own computers, and in fact will defend
> > your right to choose your own software as much as I defend
> > my own. I, on the other paw, have no use for Windows, derive
> > no benefit from having Windows on my system, and in fact
> > suffer from having Windows on my system cuz it's so darned
> > big; I shouldn't have to pay for it, too.
> >
> > 5. How do you expect to (now: how did you) get a manufacturer to
> > give a refund?
> >
> > A. From these two relevant pieces from the Win95 End User License
> > Agreement (EULA). The first identifies the parties to the EULA,
> >
> > while the second says what to do if a user doesn't agree with
> > Microsoft's licensing terms.
> >
> > This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement
> > between
> > you (either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer
> > ("PC
> > Manufacturer") of the computer system ("COMPUTER") with which you
> > acquired the Microsoft software product(s) identified above
> > ("SOFTWARE
> > PRODUCT" or "SOFTWARE").
> > [...]
> > If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, PC Manufacturer and
> > Microsoft are unwilling to license the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to you. In
> > such
> > event, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and you should
> > promptly contact PC Manufacturer for instructions on return of the
> > unused product(s) for a refund.
> >
> > 6. Wasn't this more trouble than it was worth?
> >
> > Principles always come with a cost. If non-Windows users had
> > spoken
> > up more loudly when all this began (and I include myself in this,
> > despite not having touched Microsoft products since about 1987 or
> > thereabouts, using instead QNX and later Linux on my succession of
> > 80xxx boxes), all of us wouldn't be in this mess now. And what a
> > mess it is! After having built my own systems for so many years
> > and computed merrily along with Intel architecture yet blithely
> > unaware that Microsoft even existed except as an option for users
> > who didn't want to take control of their own appliances, I was
> > =shocked= to enter the world of pre-bundling and discover the
> > blaise' attitude of people who were paying for software they had no
> >
> > use for. I honestly didn't realize y'all existed until 1997.
> >
> > I feel better for having stood up for myself. I feel better for
> > knowing that I've managed to educate at least one Customer Support
> > manager at one computer manufacturer that yes, Virginia, the
> > computer is NOT just a doorstop if it doesn't have Windows. I feel
> > better for knowing that I, at least, did not bend over backwards
> > and invite Microsoft to, well, do what happens when people bend
> > over
> > backwards.
> >
> > Maybe, for you, these results aren't worth the approximately $100
> > that pre-bundled Windows cost. That's your choice. It wasn't
> > mine.
> >
> >
> > You may notice that the consistent thread running through all these
> > objections and my responses is: choice. Hardware and software are two
> > separate entities, no matter how closely connected they may be, and a
> > choice on one does not =necessarily= determine the choice for the
> > other.
> > Every one of us should be able to buy the hardware AND the software we
> > want, without having to pay for components we've no use for.
> >
> > IMO, USian consumers have become bamfoozled by corporate rhetoric
> > which
> > says that we must pay more in order to receive less, cuz "more
> > consumers"
> > want the more. How dumb is that, I wonder? We pay more to eat food
> > which
> > has not had chemicals and/or hormones added, to wear suits that don't
> > come
> > with a second pair of pants, to remove pre-installed yet unsafe
> > airbags
> > from cars. No doubt you've got examples from your own life. They keep
> > doing it because we, the consumer, not only let them get away with it
> > but
> > ASK them to continue doing it by paying them to do so. Well, I'm a
> > consumer who doesn't subserviently open up my bank account to
> > strangers
> > for no good reason any more. They may have forced me to buy the system
> > pre-installed with Win95, but so long as there's no law in this land
> > which
> > says I can't get my money back -- so long as there's a legal document
> > which tells me TO get my money back if I don't agree with Microsoft's
> > license -- I'm going to get my money back.
> >
> >
> > Donna.
> > Cybrarian, NiEstu
> > donna.s@niestu.com