Below.  Disclaimer: these are my opinions and do not necessarily
represent those of my employer. =20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg A. Woods [mailto:woods@weird.com]=20
>=20
> [ On Thursday, February 21, 2002 at 16:43:31 (-0800), David=20
> Lawler Christiansen \(NT\) wrote: ]
> > Subject: RE: IP: Wal-Mart PC, Operating System *Not* Included: $399=20
> > (fwd)
> >
> > To which "nefrious" (sic) business practices do you refer? =20
> I'd never=20
> > accuse MS of sainthood, but do bear in mind that at least=20
> 80% of what=20
> > people say about the "Evil Empire" is pure speculation.
>=20
> Every single one of the practices proven in the courts of the=20
> USA.  Read Judge Jackson's briefs if you haven't already.  If=20
> I'm not mistaken there have been some other judments handed=20
> out against M$ recently by other judges too that revolve=20
> around not just nefarious, but down right illegal business=20
> practices.  Perhaps soon we'll also have judgments from=20
> courts in other jurisdictions too.  Maybe George W. Bush and=20
> his friends can change the tunes sung by the courts, but I=20
> hope he'll have a much harder time changing the facts=20
> recorded so far by history.


I didn't ask whether the practices to which you refer have been
"proven".  I asked which ones. =20


>=20
> > AFAICT, anyone can offer PCs without an installed OS.
>=20
> Yeah, they can try.  And these days it might even be possible=20
> to carve a little niche in the marketplace doing so, and I=20
> suppose Wallmart might be a wonderful test case to see if=20
> this is true or not.  I only hope they succeed and that their=20
> success spreads to other retailers.
>=20
> Meanwhile when your CPU supplier, motherboard suppliers, and=20
> pretty much everyone else you buy components from (even some=20
> of the suppliers of the networking gear you might use to link=20
> your systems together with), leads you down the garden path=20
> and tells you you'll have to use M$-Windows for some stuff no=20
> matter what you might wish,=20


You're chaining unrelated arguments here-- there's a difference between
"I don't want to buy a PC with Windows preinstalled" (next section) and
"This component only has Windows drivers" (above, dealt with here).  I
was given to believe that the latter was the subject of contention here.
Nobody was lauding Walmart for selling NICs that have Linsux drivers. =20

As I've said in the past, hardware companies don't take software
terribly seriously.  Why would they?  They're more interested in
crafting nifty gizmos and in their eyes, "anyone can be a good coder,
right...?"  This means they're usually understaffed to maintain even
drivers for Windows, let alone for the gazillion-odd free unixes there
are out there. =20

Remember, it's not as simple as ensuring that the driver builds on the
following X incarnations of NetBSD, detects and that the kernel boots.
You have to test it.  Often, you also have to test it with multiple
motherboards, configurations, etc.  All that labor, time, and expertise
costs money... Money which, in their eyes, they may not get back from
the three to five thousand odd people who *might* buy the product.  So,
it's often not worth it to them... They aren't in this just out of the
goodness of their hearts.  This is THEIR problem, Not Microsoft's Fault
(NMF).  It is not our job or even our desire to educate those who build
Windows Drivers how to make drivers for other OS's.=20

Unfortunately, they also (sometimes with very good reason) have no
desire to share the interface specifications for their components with
others.  So, if they only make Windows drivers and Windows configuration
applications, then they're (IMHO foolishly in many cases) cutting out a
good chunk of market space.  Again, that's THEIR decision, not
Microsoft's.  Would you honestly expect any company to encourage people
to write software to enable their competition? =20


> and indeed some of them even give=20
> you very strong incentives to pre-install M$-Windows on your=20
> PC, well then you're going to find it pretty damn hard to=20
> offer machines without pre-installed M$-Windows on them=20
> aren't you? =20


Last time I checked, you could order machines from several manufacturers
online with no OS.  Those businesses seem healthy enough.  I know this
because I buy them-- working in the Windows group, I have no reason to
waste money having someone else preinstall an OS that I will most likely
be replacing with a more recent beta anyway.

Did you mean traditional brick-and-mortar stores?  There are several
chains near me that sell machines of that nature
(http://www.computerstop.com or http://www.hdnw.com are two such
examples).  I'd guess that this is based on population density, except
that even in a land of sparse population, such as my home state of Iowa,
there are similar stores-- I remember visiting them back in college.

My point is that you need to look beyond the likes of CompUSA and Best
Buy.  If anyone thinks that chains like that are stocking Windows
machines because of some enormous "nefrious" plot by MS that involves
black helicopters, kickbacks, and strongarm tactics, please speak up-- I
love to shoot down idiotic theories like that.


> Not to mention that all your bigger competitors=20
> have defined the market as including pre-installed M$-Windows=20
> and your hands are pretty much tied.


Unclear whether "you" in this case is MS, or "you" is the consumer
wishing to buy components that are non-Windows-specific.  In my
experience, the consumer's hands are almost never tied-- he/she's just
not being creative or resourceful enough.


>=20
> I can't even easily configure my network hubs and switches=20
> any more without either running ancient software that does=20
> not support the newer hardware modules; or running the sole=20
> M$-Windows supported version, and that _really_ irks me,=20
> especially given that the name on that gear is of a company=20
> once thought to be a strong competitor to M$ in many ways.=20


Now we get to the heart of the issue-- you're complaining because
someone provided for your needs before, but no longer does.  For some
reason, rather than blaming the company whose service has regressed, you
hop on the bandwagon and blame that darn Microsoft.  How exactly is it
that MS prevented that company from providing you with non-Windows
software?

Maybe I'm missing something, but is there some reason you didn't or
couldn't just switch companies?  Why do you keep buying their modules if
they aren't serving your needs?  If you feed the bear, he will only
learn that he can keep taking your food.

=20
> My network gear vendor simply dropped support for the=20
> non-M$-Windows versions of their configuration software,=20
> without explanation and without making the old version freely=20
> available in any form after E.O.L. Obviously I'm never going=20
> to run any M$ software (except maybe my emergency officially=20
> licenced MS-DOS boot diskette), so I'm going to have to=20
> figure out how to configure my network devices the hard way.


So the other company failed to support your zealotry and now you're
complaining that their old version (which I think you mentioned above as
not fitting your needs anyway) would not be given to you free?  Again,
this is NMF.  It seems to me (and I realize your religious objections)
that the simple thing to do is to have a single MS client from which you
could launch your MS-requiring applications.  It would be different if
you genuinely COULDN'T run an MS client.  However, it doesn't sound like
that's the case-- you're just being stubborn and (IMHO) closed-minded.

If you really care, you could reverse-engineer the protocols they use
and implement them.  I'm uncertain whether this would actually be legal
or not, but if the company is obsoleting the software anyway, it's
unlikely they'd care.  You might even be able to get their permission to
do this (something I'd recommend anyway).  Then you'd be helping your
community AND yourself.  If you lack the resources or capacity to do so,
well... Them's the breaks.  Sometimes, running a non-mainstream OS
sucks. =20

> >  However, when you
> > build and sell PCs on the scale that the likes of (example)=20
> Dell and=20
> > Gateway do, the big question becomes whether it's worth the=20
> investment=20
> > given the potential payoff.
>=20
> So you (or at least the company owning the domain you posted=20
> from) would like to have us believe -- the problem is that=20
> even the big guys are under forms of pressure from their=20
> suppliers (eg. the BIOS authors, the likes of Intel, and so=20
> on). =20

I'm not sure what you're getting at, exactly-- what *I* meant is that in
order for Dell and Gateway (to continue the example) to offer OS-free
computers, they'd have to see a market for them, then setup the business
structure required to sell them, support them, etc.  My guess (and it is
admittedly only a guess) is that this would be more expensive than you
think, and the payoff would not be enough to justify it.  Period.


> M$ has made it more costly for the likes of Dell,=20
> Compaq, HP, Gateway, and so on to offer OS-free PCs because=20
> they've encouraged many of the component suppliers to give=20
> better support and maybe even better pricing for=20
> single-platform drivers, etc. Even specifications are=20
> withheld unless you're a member of a certain "club" (er,=20
> consortium, association, etc.).


See above.  Many companies withhold specs for many reasons.  For one, I
should point out that in order to keep a patent, you must defend your
intellectual property.  Some companies consider their interface a trade
secret, so you must be under NDA to see the interface specs.  This
precludes releasing the source (as I'm sure you know-- it's been a
problem for years), but this is obviously not a problem with releasing
binary-only drivers, as is already customary for Windows.  Again, NMF.


[...]

> Finally since Judge Jackson's rulings there have been a few=20
> of the Dell's and so on offering pre-installed Linux, [...]

How long ago did you craft this email?  IIRC, people were offering
preinstalled Linux even before JJ's ruling-- I think the ruling only
gave them an excuse. =20

> [...] though=20
> some of them have just as quickly stopped such offerings too,=20
> giving very poor excuses as to why. =20


Surely you're not suggesting that Microsoft somehow pressured Dell into
yanking the Linux-preinstall line?  Isn't it much more likely (though
somewhat painful to consider) that Windows is just plain a more
palletable client operating system than Linux?  I say "client" OS,
because server operators could generally care less about
preinstallation, since they know they'll have to significantly configure
the hardware when it arrives.


[...]
>=20
> Once upon a time there was a choice for OS for your clone=20
> too.  I remember those days very distinctly.  I remember the=20
> times before M$-DOS 2.x came out.  It seemed like not much=20
> later when suddenly it was pre-installed everywhere, with the=20
> little guys forced to follow the lead of Compaq.  Soon all=20
> the suppliers we bought clones from suddenly couldn't find=20
> distributors for the other OSs.  Even IBM once offered at=20
> least two choices on their PCs (i.e. OS/2) [and of course now=20
> they finally offer several OS choices again on their iAPX86=20
> server platforms].


I, too, remember those days.  I should remind you out that at the time,
the concept of selling the OS separately from the hardware wasn't
well-embraced -- most platforms did not have multiple operating systems.
The PC was the exception because IBM wasn't interested in mandating a
specific OS, if I recall.  Your point?


>=20
> I believe that in the end the personal computer industry=20
> really won't be a free [...]


"free" is an interesting term.  How do you define "free" in this sense?



> and open market until either somone=20
> wins and well all end up running the same software, or until=20
> all hardware is sold independent of operating system and=20
> application software and only third-party vendors offer=20
> operating systems and/or applications. =20

...a great way to completely hose the PC market.  Look forward to
computers disappearing from homes then, unless you can find a way to
educate users about the differences between the operating systems.  You
should read a Consumer Reports comparing PCs (with Windows) and Macs
sometime.  It's truly amazing the things that consumers do not
understand.  Choices are good for people who are informed.
Unfortunately, most people aren't... not due to stupidity or anything
that can be faulted-- most people simply aren't interested or don't have
the time.

> I don't mind at all=20
> bundling OS and apps -- not even if they are tightly=20
> integrated -- just so long as the hardware vendors are forced=20
> by law to sell the software with a separate, visible, sticker=20
> price. =20


I doubt this will happen-- when you buy a PC from a chain, it's a
package, the same way many people buy cars.  I'd love it if PCs were
sold with itemized lists of what all the components were, but it's not
practical.  ...and why just the OS?  Why not the modems, NICs, graphics
cards, sound cards, RAM, HDU, CDROM, keyboard, mouse... You get the
picture.  I'd love to go to CompUSA and buy a machine that doesn't have
a modem in it, or doesn't have that shoddy graphics card that I'll
promptly replace, or whatever.  Unfortunately, that's just not how the
economics work.

And... heck, why even sell the package at all?  A government requirement
is all you would need to make sure to stifle technological synergy and
consumer palletability for PCs forever!  (insert evil laugh here)  Want
your parents to be able to buy a computer for their homes?  First, they
must understand and select from the following thousand-odd options.
Think it's hard to buy a car today, because the dealer doesn't have all
the options on hand?  Wait till you buy a computer tomorrow!

Or... maybe you just want disclosure... Hey, I think that's a great
idea.  You know what's going in your food, why not your PC?  This PC
contains the following: blah blah blah.  That's great.  However, once
you require people to add "...and each component cost this much..." you
add complications that prevent many manufacturers from selling PCs at
all (see below).


> The only cost that's fair to hide in the bundle price=20
> is the cost of performing the bundling service (pre-install=20
> of the customer's chosen software, configuration, etc.).

"fair" is an interesting term.  Fair to whom, out of curiosity? =20

Fairness isn't even the issue.  Many hardware manufacturers negotiate
prices on a bulk rate that may be variable... RAM's a great example,
because the prices sometimes change by the hour.  Think Best Buy is
going to go reprint labels just because Dell got a better price for RAM?
Think the RAM manufacturer wants to disclose the bulk rate that Dell got
for that RAM to organizations like Gateway that might be paying more
from them?   And who audits this stuff for correctness?  What keeps them
from lying to you about their prices to make it look like they have less
profit or contain better components, or to hide shady business deals?

And what price does the manufacturer put on the box, anyway?  The price
they paid, or the price you're paying?  The former is none of my
business and not terribly interesting in anything but an academic sense
or to determine the amount that's profit (again, none of my business).
The latter is entirely artificial and so similarly of no use to me.=20

Even if this were possible, it's NMF-- you should take it up with the
manufacturers.

-Dave