__/ [lqualig@xxxxxxxxx] on Sunday 09 October 2005 16:10 \__
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Apologies if this was mentioned in COLA already.
>> Dell are allegedly charging more for their open PC than they charge for a
>> machine with a commercial O/S installed.
>> To me, this raises many concerns. Is it possible that Microsoft are
>> funding hardware to preserve the integrity of their shackles? Are they
>> relying on expensive Office licences and user dependency through
>> familiarity? If so, is this not unethical? Must anti-trust be woken up
>> Are Dell just too blind to see an irrational pricing scheme? I once went
>> to a restaurant where half a litre cost less than half than an entire
>> litre. Is it merely a fluke or a master plan?
> I suspect the reason for the lower price is that the windows machines
> are sold in mass quantity and the "Open PC" models are somewhat
> non-standard at the moment. Both manufacturing and support are
> different than usual for Dell so this might explain the price
I don't buy your argument; sorry about that...
Toss hard-drive down the bin, bundle empty Maxtor hard-drive to package.
Now, was that _so_ hard? If the will is there, practical changes will
I guess that the folks at uk.comp.os.linux were right when they raised
skepticism with regards to this move by Microsoft's so-called Hardware
Department. They anticipated no change in terms of price.
Is it possible that Michael Dell's donations to RedHat were merely serving
the interest of promoting his Web servers? I continue to wonder. I also
wonder how much HP's Ubuntu desktops and laptops will cost. Their
marketshare is similar to that of Dell. Their ties with Ballmer et al.
appear less tight.
Speaking of Ununtu in the forefront...
I don't know how reliable it is, but the Scandinavians are not inclined to
serve the Redmond agenda.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Did anyone see my lost carrier?"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:10pm up 45 days 6:24, 3 users, load average: 0.53, 0.36, 0.49