On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:05:28 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
> "Bobbie" <bobbie4R3MOV3TH1S@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:29:46 +0000, Oliver Wong wrote:
>>> [post re-ordered]
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Instead of fretting about getting a refund for a nice box with that
>>>> | legacy system that bogs down and crashes for no reason every other
>>>> | week, I would encourage users to save their money a little longer
>>>> | they can afford the nicer boxes with no operating system, or that
>>>> | with a modern, robust system, such as GNU/Linux, already installed.
>>>> | After all, we sure don't want to encourage the folks at Microsoft to
>>>> | develop more shoddy software. It's kind of like buying a Yugo because
>>>> | it's cheap. It's cheap for a reason, and you get what you pay for.
>>> From a marketting standpoint, I don't think pushing the "you get what
>>> you pay for" idiom is effective when advocating Linux.
>>> If you want Linux, I don't see what the big deal is with buying a
>>> system, not caring whether or not Windows is preinstalled on it, and if
>>> is, to reformat the haddrive and install Linux on it. If the user wants a
>>> "nicer box", then go ahead and save up for that nicer box. But if the
>>> doesn't need or want the nicer box, I don't think the user should have to
>>> pay a premium just to get an empty machine without Windows preinstalled
>>> it. It just doesn't make sense.
>> It does make a lot of sense though. You know those numbers that DooFuS
>> keeps bantering around of how Windows has 95% of the total market. Where
>> does that number come from? It comes from total numbers of Windows
>> shipped. For the time being demanding a refund won't change those number
>> as Microsoft will still be quoting total numbers of copies shipped to the
>> computer manufactures without taking into account the total number of
>> licences returned.
> Well, now we're getting somewhere: The *REAL* reason the average end
> user should pay a premium for for a Linux box is to hurt Microsoft's
> marketting department by weakening one of the statistics they brandied
> about. Fine. Tell the user that, and let them decide whether or not they are
> willing to pay extra for this endeavor. Some of them will be willing, and
> that's great. Some of them won't, and that's fine too. But let's make sure
> the user fully understands what the impact of their decision is, so that
> they can make an informed decision, rather than throwing a blanket
> recommendation of "saving up" for a more expensiver machine, just to avoid
> getting a copy of Windows.
I'll agree with most of what you say here.
But we're still left with the problem of buying a copy of an O/S just to
get a cheaper laptop. Fine. Just format the hard drive and install
whatever you want. Except for the CEO bots around the country keep going
for the sales spiel that Microsoft has 95% of the desktop market. I'd be
like saying if Disney were to give out a copy of the DVD 'Song of the
South' to DVD manufactures to package with their DVD player that 'Song of
the South' was the most watched and most loved movie in all history. Even
if ala AOL 90% of the discs end up in the land fill never even having
their packaging opened.
>> But the manufacturers will start to take notice when
>> they keep having to pay out refunds which Microsoft isn't willing to do in
> It depends. It's not clear whether it's the manufacturer or Microsoft
> who has to give the refund.
At this point all that can be assumed as that it is the manufacturer
offering the refund. The mechanisms that exist between the manufacturer
and Microsoft are very closely guarded traded secrets.
>This is indeed something I encourage the blogger
> to take to the courts, so that it may be resolved once and for all.
It would take a little more than a blogger on his own. It would be more
along the lines of a class action lawsuit.
>>> I'm not sure I approve of this blogger's methodology. First of all,
>>> blogger clearly states he is "attacking" the corporations, rather than
>>> actually trying to simply solve his problem of getting a laptop with
>>> He [the Microsoft representative] did also give me a phone number for
>>> Microsoft that I can contact them on, should I have further queries.
>>> the fun in that? I like the idea of electronic mail. Your attacks and
>>> responses can be so much more planned and constructed... It also gives
>>> oodles of extra minutes to rant about stuff that isn't completely
>>> but worth mentioning nonetheless. In conversations, people get weirded
>>> by this type of approach, and thats why email wins hands down.
>> You'd be a complete idiot to talk to anyone on the telephone. Why do you
>> think when you call these days the first message that you always hear is
>> "This call will be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes".
>> Trust me, it isn't for quality assurance nor training purposes. It's so
>> the guy on the other end, with years of experience in these types of calls
>> and with a full legal team standing behind him can tongue tie you into
>> saying what they want. And guess what, once you've said something use able
>> to them that's it. They've got the recording. In fact most lawyers will
>> recommend that when dealing with a company for matters such as refunds or
>> other 'legal' type complaints you never call. Always use registered mail,
>> keep copies of all correspondence, but never call. When calling you're
>> solely at their mercy.
> Okay, fine. If you don't want to talk on the phone, you don't have to.
> I'm not criticizing the blogger's anxiety of using the phone (I actually
> share the same anxiety). What I'm criticizing is his motivation: Why doesn't
> he want to use the phone? Because it's more difficult for him to "attack".
> Again, that's his words.
> BTW, the legal department, etc. can keep records of e-mails just as
> easily as they can keep records of telephone conversations.
But with emails or more specifically registered mail it's much harder to
pretend that you didn't receive a missive. And if the blogger in question
were to try and record his phone conversation with the company you can be
gaurenteed that the phone call would end there. And if he recorded the
conversation without informing the other person you can bet that he'd be
up on charges of violating the U.S. federal Wiretap Law.
>>> Why can't he just say "I want to buy a laptop without Windows on it.
>>> much will that cost?"
>>> Toshiba has implied that they are willing to sell him a laptop
>>> Windows at the same cost as a laptop with Windows (I've inferred this
>>> the "car and radio" analogy the Toshiba representative presented). To me,
>>> that's reasonable, and the blogger is being unreasonable by demanding
>>> It's like ordering a cheeseburger without onions from McDonalds and
>>> demanding a rebate for the value of the onions.
>> So you're saying that Windows is of no value?
>> For someone advocating a
>> dropping of theatrics you sure go to extremes. You've equated the cost
>> ratio of onions on a cheeseburger to the cost ratio of an O/S on a laptop.
> The blogger has explicitly stated that he does not care what the rebate
> is, as long as he gets a rebate. He said he'd be willing to take a 50 cent
> rebate. So in his specific case, yes, the blogger's perceived value of
> Windows is on the order of the onions used in a cheeseburger.
>> Talk about theatrics.
> Staged or contrived effects.
> I'm accussing the blogger of theatrics because he makes the claim "Oh
> woe is me, I cannot get a Linux laptop", but his actions indicate he is not
> interested in actually getting a Linux laptop. His interest is in making the
> complaint itself.
> - Oliver
Bobbie the Triple Killer
email Bobbie @ bobbie4R3MOV3TH1S@xxxxxxx
remember to 'remove this'
Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.