On Jul 15, 12:09 pm, thufir <hawat.thu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:24:14 +0000, thufir wrote:
> >> First you claimed it was "a requirement created by how Microsoft
> >> handles OEM's."
> >> When you couldn't support that claim, you slimed to "just my
> >> understanding".
> >> From where does your "understanding" derive?
> > You're right, I should've qualified that statement. Not quite sure
> > where I read that.
> Anyhow, here's a cite:
>
> "In theory the CPU tax was ended by the 1994 consent decree[43] Microsoft
> signed to end that lawsuit, but in practice Microsoft weaseled around it
> by switching to "per product line" licensing, requiring OEMs like Dell to
> set up a separate production line if they wanted to install a non-Windows
> OS on any of their machines. Microsoft then lobbied against "naked PCs",
> claiming that shipping systems without any OS preinstalled could not have
> any purpose but pirating copies of Windows."
>
> http://catb.org/~esr/writings/world-domination/world-domination-201.html#msoft
It wasn't even that dramatic. OEMs got around this by selling a "Bare
Bones" PC that included everything EXCEPT THE HARD DRIVE. The user
then purchased the hard drive as a separate item, which they had to
install themselves.
Microsoft has asserted numerous times that any PC sold without a
Microsoft OS will end up having a pirated OS installed by the user.
Yet when challenged to actually produce records of this, even though
Windows machines "phone home" when they are booted, Microsoft was not
able to prove that the 40% of the market that was "White Boxes" were
actually running Windows. The "White Box" market has been gradually
expanding, and several White Box makers, including Acer and Lenovo,
have now merged and grown to the "Top 5" PC makers. ASUS isn't in the
top 5, but the are a major supplier of "White Box" motherboards and
laptops. They seem to be very aware that a substantial portion of
their market is Linux users (probably because Linux users can be
pretty annoying when Linux doesn't work with their motherboard.
More recently, companies like Dell and HP have announced the
availability of Linux PCs and laptops, but there are a few catches.
Typically there is a minimum order of 50 units, there are also
limitations on the warrantee, and the OEM has to promise not to
install a pirated copy of Windows. Some major buyers of these
configuration are VARs like Empror Linux, who sells Dell, HP, and
Lenovo laptops with Linux pre-installed and fully configured for about
30% more than the same machines running Windows. Their biggest
markets are corporate customers and specialized applications such as
point-of-sale machines (cash registers), or kiosk machines.
Many Linux users figure that since they don't get a discount for
ordering a machine with Linux, they might as well get the Windows or
Vista license and use that License for a VM image that can run as a
Linux "Client Appliance".
Many OEMs and Retailers are very disappointed with Vista. Sales have
not been robust, and this is Microsoft's third unsuccessful launch,
the first was Windows NT 3.x, the second was Windows ME, and the third
was Vista. The problem for Microsoft is that there isn't a new OS
waiting in the wings, and Apple's OS/X is so hot Apple can't keep up
with the demand.
The OEMs are looking for new ways to get Linux out on retail shelves.
There is a very real possibility that if KDE 4.0, or Beryl, or one of
the other fine Linux desktops were on display, with Windows as an
"Application", that the demand would lead to a huge surrge in PC
sales. The problem is that Microsoft still refuses to share the
desktop with Linux on Retail display machines.
Normally, the OEMs make "Minimum Commitments", agreeing to purchase
more licenses than they could possibly need, in exchange for a deeper
discount. Some companies, like Dell, and HP, have been less willing
to over-purchase licenses without some concessions, such as the
ability to downgrade customers to XP, and the ability to offer
installation media such as CDs or DVDs.
> Separate production lines for non-Windows OS. There's no technical
> reason to segregate them, it is, or at least was, the result of
> Microsoft, literally, according to this article, requiring OEM's to have
> separate production lines.
The requirement is for seperate "burn in" streams in the production
line. If a PC is configured with Windows and it is booted, even just
for burn-in, then it's a Windows PC and by contract, Microsoft
controls the configuration. A "white box" machine is burned in using
either FreeDOS, or Linux.
The core components are often the same on both Linux and Windows
machines and at this point, almost all PCs are "Linux Ready". The
only difference is the software that is on the hard drive that is
installed on the machine. However, once that hard drive is installed,
there is a "fork" in the assembly line.
> -Thufir
|
|
