[Am-info] Naked PCs from Wal-Mart

[Mitch Stone]

On Sunday, March 3, 2002, at 11:14 AM, Geoffrey wrote:

> Did you catch my post regarding the same issue, except I did find to 
> identical machines (except one comes with a monitor and windows)?

Yes, but "except" means some guesswork is required to make a real 
one-to-one comparison. The 1.0 and 1.1 ghz systems I cited are as close as 
we can get to comparing the same system with and without Windows. The 
difference in price is about $100.00.

But that's not my point. I didn't start with the assumption that Microtel 
was charging for Windows on systems that don't include Windows. What I 
wanted to know is how _much_ they were charging buyers for Windows. I came 
away with the distinct impression that Windows OEMs do not have the option 
of disclosing this cost -- Microsoft evidently requires that the cost of 
Windows be buried in the system price. I think this is very a significant 
restriction because it's pretty clearly intended to prevent the consumer 
from determining how much they are paying for Windows on an OEM system.

I strongly suspected this was Microsoft's policy when I conducted some 
research on the Dell, Compaq and IBM web sites a few months back. 
Theoretically, all of these OEMs sell BTO systems, and all offer Linux 
pre-installed. But one thing you will not find on any of these sites is a 
BTO with Linux. The reason seemed fairly apparent, but it was never so 
apparent as it is now, with the Wal-Mart naked PCs.

IRRC, twenty years ago, IBM was required to invoice the costs of software 
separately from hardware. Microsoft has so far avoided a similar 
constraint, but like IBM, they should not be permitted to hide the costs 
of their products from the final consumer.

   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com