Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee, that bbgruff spake thusly:
>
>> You say "Microsoft offers freedom of choice". In this instance, yes,
>> it is now doing so (imo).
>
> They're just complying with an EC ruling in a manner that still enables
> them to at least /offer/ their bug-ridden, insecure, archaic browser to
> users. The "no browser" option wouldn't do that.
>
> If Microsoft wanted to /truly/ offer people "freedom of choice", they'd
> unbundle /Windows/ completely - or rather, they'd allow OEMs to do so -
> then people would actually *have a choice* of OS, rather than be forced
> to pay for Windows against their will.
>
> I'd be much happier with /that/ ruling, than this half-measure.
Well, to the bit of my post that you quote, I did add "In fact, it is
offering the very same freedom of choice that the EC suggested that it
should!"
- which is pretty much as you say - MS is complying with what it was asked
to do.
I agree with you entirely wrt unbundling the OS completely.
I've read all the objections, including:-
- but most people want Windows
- you can't sell a PC without an OS - you need to test the H/W
- you can't expect the OEM to support all OSs
- it would be costly, and entail much customer inconvenience.
Thinking about this, my current machine came with Windows Vista (Home
Premium).
It also came with some sort of "upgrade" discs. I assume that if I had
inserted one of these (I'm guessing) I would have been offered the chance
to "upgrade" to Ultimate or whatever - for a price?
I really don't see why that principle can't be adopted "across the board".
By all means allow OEMs to install Windows on everything if they wish - just
don't let them charge for a Windows licence.
The payment comes at time of first use, or after a trial period, just as
they do with a pre-installed MS Office - if you wish to continue using it,
you register it and pay, either on line, over the 'phone, or by post.
Seems easy to me :-)
|
|
