On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 11:07:58 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> You are missing the point entirely. Why was the answer "no"?
Because you cannot buy THAT model without Windows.
> This question can be posed in a variety of contexts.
No, it can't.
> Was it hard for the vendor to sell the same hardware without bothering
> to touch the hard-drive? (rhetorical)
You're confusing "hardware" with "model". You can have identical hardware
with two models. One with Windows, one without.
> Why has it reached the compelling circumstance where /all/ hardware is
> exclusively bound to Windows? (rhetorical)
Microsoft claims that most OEM's prefer this method, since it makes
accounting simple. Simply calculate how many machines of models designated
as Windows models, and multiply times price of Windows.
Of course if Microsoft wants to audit the sales of the OEM, then this makes
it easy to audit as well, and you don't have to go through records to find
which models had which OS.
>> And, of course, this guy thinks he's discovered something new. He hasn't.
>
> The guy is not the brightest, but he proves a point.
Yes, he does. That point is that he did not ask "Can I buy a computer
without Windows", but somehow extrapolated this based on incomplete
information.
> I understand that you
> have a certain commitment to stay consistent, argumentatively. You stick
> with your stubborn choice of obfuscating anti-competitive traps, whereby the
> shake of hands warrants no diversity. To think that you can be utterly blind
> to that only leads me to losing respect for you. The latter argument is the
> sole reason why I reply to your post. Think before you post.
Microsoft isn't preventing any OEM from selling machines without Windows,
or with other OS's. They simply cannot sell models designated as Windows
models without the OS. It's that simple.
|
|
