[Am-info] Naked PCs from Wal-Mart

[John J. Urbaniak]

Well, I would like to know why Wal-Mart is doing this.  Obviously they've done
some market research and concluded that there is some significant demand for
naked PCs.

Now what could the demand be:

1. Folks who want to install an alternative OS, like Linux, or OS/2 or Be or
eCS?

2. Folks who have Windows 98 or NT or ME who want a faster machine, but don't
want to pay for another copy of the OS?

I suspect lots of 2's.  It may be counter to Microsoft's license, but I'd love
to see MS try to sue all the Mom's and Pop's out there who already paid for
Windows once and don't want to pay again.

I bet this one is making Gates hop up and down like Rumpelstiltskin.

John

Mitch Stone wrote:

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info