New laptop, windows free!!

I’m here to write my 1st post with my new laptop: Dell Vostro 1310. It’s fantastic, I’m really loving it… Anyway, the important part of the post is that Dell sold me it WITHOUT operative system! No Windows(tm) in my system! No stickers and no.. yes, it has the window key, but noone is perfect… I just spoke with Dell commercial reseller and asked to remove OS from my purchase list. And that’s all! Things are moving, fantastic..

20 responses to “New laptop, windows free!!

  1. @olga
    I did as I said. Anyway, noone said me “you’ll save TOT euro”. I calculate the difference. I insisted just to not having to buy Windows.

  2. @Ian Monroe: “Microsoft is legally defined as has having a monopoly in the US, lol. You make it sound too complicated.”

    It is different to define corporation to have monopoly on Operating System markets or on the Operating System markets on specific platform.

    “The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s determination that Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Microsoft’s operating system monopoly is protected, in part, by the “applications barrier to entry.” See id. at 55-56. The applications barrier to entry exists because an operating system serves as a platform for applications that computer users desire to run on top of the operating system. If a competing operating system has a limited number of users, software developers have little incentive to develop applications for that operating system. Without a rich set of applications, it is unlikely that many consumers will switch to the competing operating system.

    Middleware products, however, offer the potential for eroding the applications barrier to entry. A middleware program is not an operating system, but rather is platform software that runs on top of the operating system. Middleware enables application developers to write programs that run on the middleware platform rather than directly on the operating system; this allows the application to run on any operating system that the middleware runs on, without requiring the application developer to port its applications to multiple operating systems. Middleware therefore can facilitate the creation of a range of cross-platform applications, which in turn could make non-Windows operating systems more attractive to users and enable those operating systems to compete on their merits.

    The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s conclusion that Microsoft unlawfully maintained its operating system monopoly by engaging in a range of exclusionary conduct designed to quash the nascent threat to the applications barrier to entry posed by middleware products. In particular, Microsoft engaged in a campaign to eliminate the potential threat from the Netscape Navigator web browser by placing restrictions on OEMs, integrating Internet Explorer into Windows in a manner that did not permit users or the OEMs to remove access, and engaging in restrictive and exclusionary practices with respect to Internet Access Providers, ISVs, and Apple. Microsoft was also found to have attempted to mislead and threaten software developers in order to contain the competitive threat from “Java” middleware technologies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that all of this exclusionary conduct violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.”

    That is the mainpoint. The monopoly is the state when there is no competition. When there is competition, you can not have an monopoly on whole market, but still have monopoly on specific area. Example, in USA you can have monopoly on one state, but you still ain’t monopoly on whole country. You can be judged to have a monopoly on that state and get special laws applied to you.

    The monopoly is very difficult subject and not a easy one. You just can call Microsoft to have a monopoly on OS’s if you do not specify it correctly for Intel-compatible computers.
    And even that monopoly gets braked and markets are free again and there starts to be a competition, it does not mean that the dominant market position owning corporation what was ruled as Monopoly, would get removed the monopoly status. It will be keeped to allow the non-domanint position competitors to gain marketshare and build their business so when the corporation what has the dominant position get freed from the monopoly-status. It can not throw competitors away without correct competition.

    And you can get the “Dominant market position” judgement when you have even only the 25% of marketshare, if there is lots of other competitors, but they all have so small marketshares each. That you can control the markets with that 25% share. But still you ain’t monopoly because you have the competition on markets.

    Microsoft has done wrong things in past, but it is the past. And we should not always punish it from the actions what it has done. And that means it, we can not call Microsoft to own a monopoly because it does not have it. That is simply a wrong. We need to use correct legal term “Dominant market position” and if we want to talk about monopoly, we need to talk about history and correctly speak how the monopoly was on Intel-compatible personal computers, not on all personal computers.

    What comes to OS + Internet browser, it is true that Internet Browser is these days one of most used application. But the fact still remains, the Internet Browser ain’t part of operating system. It should be bossible to remove from the system and it should not be tied to operating system. Now on Windows 7, the Microsofts’ MinWin project did that it removed all ties from OS to all other parts of system. So they got small under 40MB OS on what to build complete software systems. The Internet Browser is no more part of OS but it is still bundled with it. But blogs says that Win7 allows user to remove the IE8 from the system and use other easily. This means that there is still libraries left for helpfile-system and other applications what need HTML-support. But the browser itself is “removed”.

    As you said, the problem has be that Microsoft had too great control for OEM’s but that is past too, thanks to goverments who has allowed OEM’s to free from MS control. But we can not know what is really happening on the leader level, what kind deals they are doing out-of-paper state, so there is no documents what to use against them. But as we know, Dell and others are using Linux now, because Microsoft can not remove the rights to sell Windows from them, because it would be illegal usage of the dominant position on markets.

    The most important thing is, that Microsoft Windows does not install the IE browser by default. Microsoft still can upkeep it and bundle it with the installation disk. But it should be the user choise to install it and not the other browser. If it comes installed by default, we are still almost on the same situation that people keeps using it because they do not want to switch. They like the what they have got and they keep using it. But if the user need to choose before they start using Internet, that what browser they use, there is real competition and power on users because they are free.
    I do not like at all the idea that Microsoft should bundle other browser to it is installation media or at all the idea that it should preinstall them. That is again anti-competive against those, who do not get their browser to that position. And that is the microsoft job to help specific competitors in that way.

    As EU has now suggested, Microsoft should make the pop-up window what ask user what browser he likes to use. When user clicks the wanted browser icon, it gets downloaded from Internet and installed automatically and started. If user has slow Internet Connection, it can install the IE from disk.
    I would like idea that Internet Operators are those who would offer good amount of browser on their CD what comes with the internet connection. Just like on the 90’s you place the disk inside, the autorun starts and you choose do you install IE or Netscape.
    Now you just would have 5-8 choises what to make. Isn’t that what we love, choises and freedom to do so?

    And you do not need and Internet Browser on your software system if you do not have Internet connection. Yes, there is need for HTML-libraries but those should only be used for helpfiles and other basic things. And thats why you should have the IE on the installation media that offline-computers can install browser if it is really needed.

    The EU vs Microsoft is bretty tough one. But we should not punish Microsoft from actions what were done 90’s. But that does not mean that we should let Microsoft get easily and repeat their actions again. We need to understand the history to not repeat it. And currently the EU is doing correct things. The N edition of Windows is needed and Microsoft should sell it just like any other edition of Windows. Currently it is not doing so and the EU judgement had no effect at all, because they did not order Microsoft to marketing it among other editions as well.

    And many people who like to defend Microsoft against EU. They throw those statements how Linux distributors and Apple can bundle software with Linux and Darwin operating systems. Difference just is that those do not own dominant market position on OS markets (on any platform) and never have owned the monopoly either, not even close. Apple has it’s own problems with the iPod on MP3-player markets, but that is the other story.

    The Open Source is great because it keeps the balance on markets. Anyone can anytime take the source as GPL offers (if they use your software etc) and fork it and then start competiting with you. And no one can do vendor lock-in’s because of it. Some distributors or software makers can get dominant market position, and even they would get the monopoly, it is very easily braked. Mayby reason for this is that Open Source is not competition but collaboration, to get best choise for everyone and everyone are free to make it even better.

    we should give the freedom of choise to users, not for the OEM’s or other corporations. That is the freedom what EU wants, that EU citizens are free. EU is not saying that Microsoft should not manufacture IE or it should disable the Edition N so that IE or WMP can not get installed, it just wants that customers are free to do their choise. Thats why I use Linux, because I want to be free to choose software what I use top of the OS what I have choosed.

  3. Pingback: Top Posts «

  4. Actually, a monopoly is defined as a provider who has more than 25% of the market, unless there are more than one such company, in which case it is an oligopoly. Since no other provider has more than 25% of the OS market, Windows is a monopoly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s