Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft vs. UNIX
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's all just a matter of opinion. I think most would agree that MS's "opinion" here is wrong, but it's not lawsuit material.Originally posted by Hemingray
Sounds like a lawsuit to me!I'd love to see 'em get pegged with false advertising. Drive yet another nail into their cross...
blakespot
Originally posted by Beej
ROTFLMAO!
You idiot!
what didnt you know that that is actually bill's address but he is running mac os x and using apple's mail.app and just used the bounce tool to send it back to me, i mean come on its pretty obvious.
Stop sweating it
I'm a sys admin in a primarily Windows environment and we are actually installing Linux servers because of the ADDED flexibility. Relax, .NET is going to be a big headache for MS on the server infrastructure front, OSX server will start to be used by us because if you know UNIX you can configure all the services from the terminal - and most are more reliable and flexible than Windows(not OSX Server, but BSD and Linux).
Most UNIX vendors only offer expensive and complex solutions, that is why MS does so well, but the emergence of Linux and OSX is starting to peck away at the "web appliance" market - servers that only do DHCP or RAS or file/print serving, etc.
As MS starts inplementing more standards-based systems, which they must to be considered as UNIX replacements, that also opens the market to OSX and Linux since MS services are now more accessible in cross platform environments.
Life is really good, and
Apple is doing a fine good of taking advantage on their UNIX underpinnings.
I'm a sys admin in a primarily Windows environment and we are actually installing Linux servers because of the ADDED flexibility. Relax, .NET is going to be a big headache for MS on the server infrastructure front, OSX server will start to be used by us because if you know UNIX you can configure all the services from the terminal - and most are more reliable and flexible than Windows(not OSX Server, but BSD and Linux).
Most UNIX vendors only offer expensive and complex solutions, that is why MS does so well, but the emergence of Linux and OSX is starting to peck away at the "web appliance" market - servers that only do DHCP or RAS or file/print serving, etc.
As MS starts inplementing more standards-based systems, which they must to be considered as UNIX replacements, that also opens the market to OSX and Linux since MS services are now more accessible in cross platform environments.
Life is really good, and
Apple is doing a fine good of taking advantage on their UNIX underpinnings.
Oh, this is great!
Interesting article though. Suns reply was right on the mark though
'Sun responded to the campaign in a statement. "Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in the datacenter market where reliability, availability, serviceability and security are key," the company said. "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows." '
Its going to be a pissing war, the only thing I interested in seein is if Sun starts an ad campaign of their own. And there seemed to be no mention of Linux....
But what added more to the humor was the random ad that popped up on the page
I think its supposed to be Bill Gates under the hat!
Interesting article though. Suns reply was right on the mark though
'Sun responded to the campaign in a statement. "Sun still does not see Microsoft as a real threat in the datacenter market where reliability, availability, serviceability and security are key," the company said. "As for Unix being 'inflexible,' 'expensive,' and 'complex,' we feel those are terms much better suited to the closed and proprietary world of Windows." '
Its going to be a pissing war, the only thing I interested in seein is if Sun starts an ad campaign of their own. And there seemed to be no mention of Linux....
But what added more to the humor was the random ad that popped up on the page
I think its supposed to be Bill Gates under the hat!
Attachments
I think this could actually work in Apple's favor.
Several of you mentioned that consumers aren't too savvy about the tech behind their OS. So then it stands to reason that many of them believe that a Unix OS is just a command line. Just like they believe that more MHz means a better CPU, I'm sure many would believe that a GUI means it's not Unix.
Granted, Apple will have to be careful about marketing OS X now.
Do they tackle the giant head on? Or do they let it undermine itself and then swoop in for the kill?
Several of you mentioned that consumers aren't too savvy about the tech behind their OS. So then it stands to reason that many of them believe that a Unix OS is just a command line. Just like they believe that more MHz means a better CPU, I'm sure many would believe that a GUI means it's not Unix.
Granted, Apple will have to be careful about marketing OS X now.
Do they tackle the giant head on? Or do they let it undermine itself and then swoop in for the kill?
Re: Thick on the irony?
But, it's alright for Apple to include iMovie, iTunes, iDVD? Just like very few people install a 3rd party browser or media player for Windows, you can probably count on your hand the number of folks who get a 3rd party tool to rip and burn CDs on a Mac. How many shareware CD rippers saw thier business dry up when iTunes was first released? Yes MS bundles IE and media player, but nothing there keeps me from adding a 3rd party tools. I have Netscape and Real installed on my XP machines, no problem. It's no different than Apple packing in thier digital hub stuff. It's great value added to the OS.
Adding features and functionality is a natural evolution of the operating system. Who would buy a modern day OS that didn't include a browser, it's insane. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when I had to buy a seperate TCP/IP stack, a browser, a defragmenter, disk compression, etc. I really appreciate that out of the box there are great tools to do what I want on both the Mac and PC, and on both platforms I always have the choice to install something 3rd party if the pack-ins don't meet my need.
But, it's alright for Apple to include iMovie, iTunes, iDVD? Just like very few people install a 3rd party browser or media player for Windows, you can probably count on your hand the number of folks who get a 3rd party tool to rip and burn CDs on a Mac. How many shareware CD rippers saw thier business dry up when iTunes was first released? Yes MS bundles IE and media player, but nothing there keeps me from adding a 3rd party tools. I have Netscape and Real installed on my XP machines, no problem. It's no different than Apple packing in thier digital hub stuff. It's great value added to the OS.
Adding features and functionality is a natural evolution of the operating system. Who would buy a modern day OS that didn't include a browser, it's insane. I certainly don't want to go back to the days when I had to buy a seperate TCP/IP stack, a browser, a defragmenter, disk compression, etc. I really appreciate that out of the box there are great tools to do what I want on both the Mac and PC, and on both platforms I always have the choice to install something 3rd party if the pack-ins don't meet my need.
Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
the point isnt including the software its building it into the os. itunes, iMovie, iDVD are not part of Mac OS they are separate applications.
and if you want to really talk about ie you need to also realize that ms used ie to destroy other browsers not just by including it and building it into the os but by creating their own standards.
im not one to mindlessly defend apple but if you are going to make arguments you you cant leave out major details just to make your point, some of us will notice the holes in your logic.
the point isnt including the software its building it into the os. itunes, iMovie, iDVD are not part of Mac OS they are separate applications.
and if you want to really talk about ie you need to also realize that ms used ie to destroy other browsers not just by including it and building it into the os but by creating their own standards.
im not one to mindlessly defend apple but if you are going to make arguments you you cant leave out major details just to make your point, some of us will notice the holes in your logic.
Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Two points, first I see it as a natural tool to include in the OS. For example, the original help file system for windows was an RTF based system with all kinds of hoops and nasty stuff you used to have to do to get the psuedo-hyperlinks working. So now HTML comes along, it's easy to code for the developer (I can do it in notepad if I'm so inclined), it's got hyperlinks built in, and I just developed a browser to display this stuff. MS has a choice. They can continue to move forward with a proprietary engine and format for help files or use this nifty new standard called HTML. Guess which way they went? Now if you are going to base your help system on HTML, you need to guarentee the user is going to be able to read it. That means you need to include ("bundle") a browser and you need to make sure the user can't shoot themselves in the foot by uninstalling it completely. Thus one of the reasons why IE is bundled with Windows.
And while I certainly agree that MS does quite frequently do the embrace and extend philosophy, I don't remember that being part of the original rant I was responding to and from what I see in the headlines, does not seem to be an issue in the various monopoly cases. Once again that is simply about choice, as a developer I have a choice. I can target IE and get a richer user experience and deliver my product earlier because of some of the cool things that IE added first or only, such as iframes, ActiveX, etc. or I can increase my development time and target multiple browsers. Some folks may consider what they do as dirty pool, but as a developer I see it from a slightly different light. I've seen it several times, each time an alternative platform comes along MS figures out a way to make it easier for the application developer to target MS. It happened with OS/2 vs. NT, Borland's C++ vs. Visual C++, and Netscape vs. IE. In each case it was easier/cheaper to develop with the MS alternative. If you capture the mind of the developer, you get the applications, and the customers go to the applications. MS uses embrace and extend to make my life easier and I think that is just being a smart competitor.
Two points, first I see it as a natural tool to include in the OS. For example, the original help file system for windows was an RTF based system with all kinds of hoops and nasty stuff you used to have to do to get the psuedo-hyperlinks working. So now HTML comes along, it's easy to code for the developer (I can do it in notepad if I'm so inclined), it's got hyperlinks built in, and I just developed a browser to display this stuff. MS has a choice. They can continue to move forward with a proprietary engine and format for help files or use this nifty new standard called HTML. Guess which way they went? Now if you are going to base your help system on HTML, you need to guarentee the user is going to be able to read it. That means you need to include ("bundle") a browser and you need to make sure the user can't shoot themselves in the foot by uninstalling it completely. Thus one of the reasons why IE is bundled with Windows.
And while I certainly agree that MS does quite frequently do the embrace and extend philosophy, I don't remember that being part of the original rant I was responding to and from what I see in the headlines, does not seem to be an issue in the various monopoly cases. Once again that is simply about choice, as a developer I have a choice. I can target IE and get a richer user experience and deliver my product earlier because of some of the cool things that IE added first or only, such as iframes, ActiveX, etc. or I can increase my development time and target multiple browsers. Some folks may consider what they do as dirty pool, but as a developer I see it from a slightly different light. I've seen it several times, each time an alternative platform comes along MS figures out a way to make it easier for the application developer to target MS. It happened with OS/2 vs. NT, Borland's C++ vs. Visual C++, and Netscape vs. IE. In each case it was easier/cheaper to develop with the MS alternative. If you capture the mind of the developer, you get the applications, and the customers go to the applications. MS uses embrace and extend to make my life easier and I think that is just being a smart competitor.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Like 'Lemon said, you're failing to distinguish between bundle and integrate.
IE is built into the Windows shell. MS required (until recently) that shortcuts to IE be placed on the desktop by OEM manufacturers. The whole DoJ case at this point rests on MS's claims that IE can't even be removed from the OS without seriously rewriting the code. Does that sound like simple "embrace and extend" to you?
You can remove any Apple app w/out destroying the OS.
I agree with you that Netscape dropped the ball with their 4.x series of browsers. Their latest offereings are much better, but the damage has already been done. The problem is that IE has not progressed much in terms of standards lately, and without serious competition they won't have reason to.
Like 'Lemon said, you're failing to distinguish between bundle and integrate.
IE is built into the Windows shell. MS required (until recently) that shortcuts to IE be placed on the desktop by OEM manufacturers. The whole DoJ case at this point rests on MS's claims that IE can't even be removed from the OS without seriously rewriting the code. Does that sound like simple "embrace and extend" to you?
You can remove any Apple app w/out destroying the OS.
I agree with you that Netscape dropped the ball with their 4.x series of browsers. Their latest offereings are much better, but the damage has already been done. The problem is that IE has not progressed much in terms of standards lately, and without serious competition they won't have reason to.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
I don't really see the difference between bundle and integrate in this context. When I first boot up my new Mac or PC there a shortcuts. On the PC one is IE, on the Mac one is iTunes, as a consumer I don't have a choice to remove either of those before I boot up my machine. You are right, in the case of iTunes I can delete the whole app and install a 3rd party application to do the same thing. In the case of IE I can delete the shortcut and install a 3rd party app to do the same thing, IE will simply be in the background providing the services it supplies for the OS, but in no way impacting my user experience with the new 3rd party application. In both cases the problem for the 3rd party vendor is not that anything is integrated, but that it is bundled. With both those applications, my motivation for buying a 3rd party application is virtually nothing. iTunes is very cool, for my use I don't need to replace it. Likewise IE works very well and I am not motivated to replace it either, so the 3rd party vendor loses. So if IE is integrated (as opposed to bundled), but I can delete the shortcut and install Netscape never seeing IE again (as a browser), who cares?
The end result is still the same, I select a file or folder, click the delete menu, install my 3rd party app, and go on my merry way. Yes if IE was bundled (instead of integrated), it could be removed however, MS would still have to find another tool to do the things IE is doing for it now (help, explorer), that would mean that you still would have something integrated into the OS you couldn't remove even if it wasn't as blatent.
I agree that the HW manufacturers should probably be allowed to modify the MS configuration as much as they want, assuming the HW manufacturer then takes on the support role. If Dell wants to make Netscape the default browser, they should be able to, and nothing in the IE integration with Windows prevents that. Forcing MS to reengineer the components that use IE as a tool is lawyers making technical decisions for a company and that's wrong. Nobody is asking Apple to make Finder a removable component why should MS have to remove the technology they use in Explorer.
As for IE and standards, I'm using a SOAP, XML, and XSL. What other standards have been proposed lately? MS does tend to jump the gun and push out "preapproved" standards and then switches to the standard when it is approved at the next release. I have been bite by that one before, but that is the price you pay for coding to an "unapproved" standard.
I don't really see the difference between bundle and integrate in this context. When I first boot up my new Mac or PC there a shortcuts. On the PC one is IE, on the Mac one is iTunes, as a consumer I don't have a choice to remove either of those before I boot up my machine. You are right, in the case of iTunes I can delete the whole app and install a 3rd party application to do the same thing. In the case of IE I can delete the shortcut and install a 3rd party app to do the same thing, IE will simply be in the background providing the services it supplies for the OS, but in no way impacting my user experience with the new 3rd party application. In both cases the problem for the 3rd party vendor is not that anything is integrated, but that it is bundled. With both those applications, my motivation for buying a 3rd party application is virtually nothing. iTunes is very cool, for my use I don't need to replace it. Likewise IE works very well and I am not motivated to replace it either, so the 3rd party vendor loses. So if IE is integrated (as opposed to bundled), but I can delete the shortcut and install Netscape never seeing IE again (as a browser), who cares?
The end result is still the same, I select a file or folder, click the delete menu, install my 3rd party app, and go on my merry way. Yes if IE was bundled (instead of integrated), it could be removed however, MS would still have to find another tool to do the things IE is doing for it now (help, explorer), that would mean that you still would have something integrated into the OS you couldn't remove even if it wasn't as blatent.
I agree that the HW manufacturers should probably be allowed to modify the MS configuration as much as they want, assuming the HW manufacturer then takes on the support role. If Dell wants to make Netscape the default browser, they should be able to, and nothing in the IE integration with Windows prevents that. Forcing MS to reengineer the components that use IE as a tool is lawyers making technical decisions for a company and that's wrong. Nobody is asking Apple to make Finder a removable component why should MS have to remove the technology they use in Explorer.
As for IE and standards, I'm using a SOAP, XML, and XSL. What other standards have been proposed lately? MS does tend to jump the gun and push out "preapproved" standards and then switches to the standard when it is approved at the next release. I have been bite by that one before, but that is the price you pay for coding to an "unapproved" standard.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
I only said that MS claimed that IE was impossible to remove. In fact it's quite easy to do with a 3rd party app called IEradicator from http://98lite.net/. But you need the app to do it (unless you're comfortable with registry hacking and modifying the Windows shell).
It is very difficult to compare the business practices of MS and Apple, since the conditions are different. Apple, in effect, has the monopoly on Mac systems since they killed off the clones. They are free do configure the default installation of new machines since they provide the hardware as well as the software.
MS however should have nothing to do with the hardware side, and yet they have been mandating to OEMs what they can and can't do. They are now telling OEMs that they can't sell OSless or "naked" systems. Their public claim is that they fear pirated versions of Windows will be installed, but the truth is that they are trying to keep people from installing Linux or some other "alternative" OS on their machine. MS is finally *allowing* OEMs to remove the IE shortcuts from the desktop because Netscape is on its last legs and dead in the water.
To the average user bundling may be the same as integrating, but to people who want to have a choice, there's a world of difference.
The standards I was referring to were CSS (which nobody really supports completely, but Netscape 6 is way ahead of IE 6).
I only said that MS claimed that IE was impossible to remove. In fact it's quite easy to do with a 3rd party app called IEradicator from http://98lite.net/. But you need the app to do it (unless you're comfortable with registry hacking and modifying the Windows shell).
It is very difficult to compare the business practices of MS and Apple, since the conditions are different. Apple, in effect, has the monopoly on Mac systems since they killed off the clones. They are free do configure the default installation of new machines since they provide the hardware as well as the software.
MS however should have nothing to do with the hardware side, and yet they have been mandating to OEMs what they can and can't do. They are now telling OEMs that they can't sell OSless or "naked" systems. Their public claim is that they fear pirated versions of Windows will be installed, but the truth is that they are trying to keep people from installing Linux or some other "alternative" OS on their machine. MS is finally *allowing* OEMs to remove the IE shortcuts from the desktop because Netscape is on its last legs and dead in the water.
To the average user bundling may be the same as integrating, but to people who want to have a choice, there's a world of difference.
The standards I was referring to were CSS (which nobody really supports completely, but Netscape 6 is way ahead of IE 6).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Seriously...somebody needs to give them a swift kick in the rear to get them moving...
Seriously...somebody needs to give them a swift kick in the rear to get them moving...
Re: Thick on the irony?
I am in complete agreement with ewinemiller that the integration of applications or utilities into the software system can be beneficial. I also agree that developers can spot advanced software and develop accordingly. Lastly, I do not advocate a strip-down OS. I am merely trying to stimulate a conversation on something we accept as a given.
Consumers and CFOs in charge of companies' IT budgets might not be willing to accept a more advanced alternative if it costs more. For instance, by integrating IE into Windows, MS has effectively shut off Navigator. CFOs will wonder: "Gee, we're already paying for Windows and it includes a browser, so why license Navigator?" The choice to dump Navigator, then, becomes clear not due to any technological superiority per se, but merely because MS has been able to sell one app (IE) by integrating it with the important OS. Now, in my previous sentences, replace "browser" and "Navigator" with another application and company and you will see the predatory power MS can wield. Now, we think it's strange if MS starts bundling Excel or a game like Age of Empires as part of the OS, but what if MS senses a threat or wants to expand its market in the future to other apps? Wasn't it just a few years ago that Navigator was something we downloaded off the net separately?
I am not bashing MS for taking this route: In fact, Microsoft is merely flexing its competitive edge (its control over the OS). Bill Gates is an aggressive and smart competitor who has outfoxed his enemies. However, the threat to other companies who dare to make an app faces an unfair (and potentially illegal) obstacles created by MS. Yesterday it was Netscape, today its Real Audio, tomorrow it could be any company. Convenience is a positive for consumers, but Microsoft's ability to limit choice through its OS should give people something to think about.
I am in complete agreement with ewinemiller that the integration of applications or utilities into the software system can be beneficial. I also agree that developers can spot advanced software and develop accordingly. Lastly, I do not advocate a strip-down OS. I am merely trying to stimulate a conversation on something we accept as a given.
Consumers and CFOs in charge of companies' IT budgets might not be willing to accept a more advanced alternative if it costs more. For instance, by integrating IE into Windows, MS has effectively shut off Navigator. CFOs will wonder: "Gee, we're already paying for Windows and it includes a browser, so why license Navigator?" The choice to dump Navigator, then, becomes clear not due to any technological superiority per se, but merely because MS has been able to sell one app (IE) by integrating it with the important OS. Now, in my previous sentences, replace "browser" and "Navigator" with another application and company and you will see the predatory power MS can wield. Now, we think it's strange if MS starts bundling Excel or a game like Age of Empires as part of the OS, but what if MS senses a threat or wants to expand its market in the future to other apps? Wasn't it just a few years ago that Navigator was something we downloaded off the net separately?
I am not bashing MS for taking this route: In fact, Microsoft is merely flexing its competitive edge (its control over the OS). Bill Gates is an aggressive and smart competitor who has outfoxed his enemies. However, the threat to other companies who dare to make an app faces an unfair (and potentially illegal) obstacles created by MS. Yesterday it was Netscape, today its Real Audio, tomorrow it could be any company. Convenience is a positive for consumers, but Microsoft's ability to limit choice through its OS should give people something to think about.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
But IE is still there! Web content in your windows explorer windows is still enabled. Shortcuts will still open in IE. In short IE will always be there. No matter what.
The individual actions of M$ could be considered legal and just "good business". The actions as a whole, however, add up to an offense.
Matthew
But IE is still there! Web content in your windows explorer windows is still enabled. Shortcuts will still open in IE. In short IE will always be there. No matter what.
The individual actions of M$ could be considered legal and just "good business". The actions as a whole, however, add up to an offense.
Matthew
Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Very good point, for example if I was the CEO of company that provides antivirus software I'd be nervous right now. It's just the kind of tool that in the past has been added to the base OS. Remember Norton/Symantec used to provide a "must have" disk defragmenter for PCs, how popular is that product now? Current virus checkers are now priced in that service model kind of pricing that MS wants to move to. I think that it would a natural that MS would in the future would add virus checking technology to the core OS. The smart CEO would be in discussion right now to provide that engine.
Very good point, for example if I was the CEO of company that provides antivirus software I'd be nervous right now. It's just the kind of tool that in the past has been added to the base OS. Remember Norton/Symantec used to provide a "must have" disk defragmenter for PCs, how popular is that product now? Current virus checkers are now priced in that service model kind of pricing that MS wants to move to. I think that it would a natural that MS would in the future would add virus checking technology to the core OS. The smart CEO would be in discussion right now to provide that engine.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Yes web content would be part of explorer, but that is the user experience that is windows these days, much like Aqua is part of the modern MacOS. And no URL short cuts do not open in IE. I have Netscape installed on a Windows XP machine, the shortcuts open in Netscape.
Yes web content would be part of explorer, but that is the user experience that is windows these days, much like Aqua is part of the modern MacOS. And no URL short cuts do not open in IE. I have Netscape installed on a Windows XP machine, the shortcuts open in Netscape.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Whoa! You are really starting to jump to some strange conclusions here.
Comparing the Aqua GUI (buttons, sliders, dialog boxes, etc) is in no way similar to how MS chooses to provide its Help application and HTML rendering.
That's like comparing Windows' Start Menu to Apple's ability to play back media files through the Finder...they are in no way related or even comparable.
The Windows "user experience" should have nothing to do with web content. It's only through their monopolistic practices that it came to be that way.
Whoa! You are really starting to jump to some strange conclusions here.
Comparing the Aqua GUI (buttons, sliders, dialog boxes, etc) is in no way similar to how MS chooses to provide its Help application and HTML rendering.
That's like comparing Windows' Start Menu to Apple's ability to play back media files through the Finder...they are in no way related or even comparable.
The Windows "user experience" should have nothing to do with web content. It's only through their monopolistic practices that it came to be that way.
ok ive been staying out of this because i didnt want to argue with someone who doesnt seem to understand anything about windows or mac os. but ill just mention real quick that mac os uses html in its help menu and in other places as well, but no web browser.
o an im surprised you guys have dropped the whole standards things since this ewine guy doesnt seem to know what he is talking about with standards. maybe someone should educate this poor fool.
o an im surprised you guys have dropped the whole standards things since this ewine guy doesnt seem to know what he is talking about with standards. maybe someone should educate this poor fool.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
Not arguing with you there, as long as the HW manufacturer supports thier configuration. I wouldn't want to be MS and having user's call me because Dell or Gateway futzed with my default install. Officially the OEM does support the OS install, but I know lots of folks who called MS directly for support on thier OEM install and MS was very friendly and helpful. I could see that stopping.
From what I understand about the "naked" machine issue, it's not that MS prevents them from offering naked machines, it's that they provide a discount or comarketing agreement(read discount) on the Windows license cost to those manufacturers who don't offer naked machines. From what I read the discount only amounts to about $10 a copy which might be tight squeeze on a $400 emachine, is probably not a tight squeeze on a $2000 Dell.
Not arguing with you there, as long as the HW manufacturer supports thier configuration. I wouldn't want to be MS and having user's call me because Dell or Gateway futzed with my default install. Officially the OEM does support the OS install, but I know lots of folks who called MS directly for support on thier OEM install and MS was very friendly and helpful. I could see that stopping.
From what I understand about the "naked" machine issue, it's not that MS prevents them from offering naked machines, it's that they provide a discount or comarketing agreement(read discount) on the Windows license cost to those manufacturers who don't offer naked machines. From what I read the discount only amounts to about $10 a copy which might be tight squeeze on a $400 emachine, is probably not a tight squeeze on a $2000 Dell.
'Lemon,
I'm trying here, but the guy has stopped responding to me...hmmm, maybe he doesn't have an answer...
BTW, nice 'tar. I was wondering when you'd post it.
I'm trying here, but the guy has stopped responding to me...hmmm, maybe he doesn't have an answer...
BTW, nice 'tar. I was wondering when you'd post it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thick on the irony?
This article might clear up the matter of "naked" machines:
http://theregus.com/content/4/24467.html
MS is flexing its muscle to force OEMs to preinstall an OS, rather than let the customer choose. One more reason to build your own system...
This article might clear up the matter of "naked" machines:
http://theregus.com/content/4/24467.html
MS is flexing its muscle to force OEMs to preinstall an OS, rather than let the customer choose. One more reason to build your own system...