Linux Security
tab
Ray Ingles
> http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2150023/attackers-publish-exploit-code
Yup, sweet. Unlike with Microsoft, the patch is out *before* the
exploit code is deployed. I was automatically updated last week. :->
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
We were once willing to go nuclear to avoid secret prisons, torture,
and indefinite detention. What happened? - Malor
Peter
> On 2006-02-10, tab <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2150023/attackers-publish-exploit-code
>
> Yup, sweet. Unlike with Microsoft, the patch is out *before* the
> exploit code is deployed. I was automatically updated last week. :->
>
And there was no indication in the article that the exploit could obtain
'privilege escalation', so anyone using the exploit could could make use of
'user' facilities only.
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:slrndupcm3....@localhost.localdomain...
> On 2006-02-10, tab <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2150023/attackers-publish-exploit-code
>
> Yup, sweet. Unlike with Microsoft, the patch is out *before* the
> exploit code is deployed. I was automatically updated last week. :->
>
your suspicious eyes, ray? rick? chris? clark? peter? midget? goat?
anybody?
The Ghost In The Machine
<bi...@twcf.rr.com>
wrote
on Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:31:55 GMT
<fD7Hf.23029$g47....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
Indeed; it is quite clear that Microsoft's performance is far
"better" in this area since no Microsoft machine has ever been
"infected" from this particular problem.
(And if you believe that, I've a few logs to show you... :-P )
In any event my Gentoo readouts indicate that the 1.5.0.1 build
was made available on February 6, if not earlier. The package
database says Feb 5th, with an addendum Feb 9th apparently because
of a very minor regchrome problem.
http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1-r1
http://packages.gentoo.org/ebuilds/?mozilla-firefox-1.5.0.1
Note that 1.0.7 is apparently not vulnerable to this exploit, and
any such vulnerability on a Linux box would be limited to its
taking over the user's desktop. While serious, other non-desktop
services would not be affected beyond 100% CPU and disk space
issues, and the latter can be managed through quotas and partitioning.
The patches were apparently made available Feb 3. But never
mind that; IE must be the better browser since it's not vulnerable
to this particular issue. (Never mind the other already-exploited
vulnerabilities; they don't count.)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
billwg
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:9lgvb3-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
that the "many eyes" failed here as they do everywhere and the whole
idea is just another myth told around the campfire. Firefox continues
to suffer from discoveries of the same kinds of buffer overrun and such
coding errors as IE and really offers nothing new under the sun. MS
fixes IE bugs as they are found and so does Firefox. Ho Hum. They are
both free and they both do the same things. There is no choice here.
Just Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
Rick
(snip)
>>
> Well, ghost, I don't think you got the point at all. Suffice it to say
> that the "many eyes" failed here as they do everywhere and the whole idea
No, they didn't.
> is just another myth told around the campfire. Firefox continues to
> suffer from discoveries of the same kinds of buffer overrun and such
> coding errors as IE and really offers nothing new under the sun. MS fixes
Fewer bugs, especially security bugs, and they are fixed faster.
> IE bugs as they are found and so does Firefox. Ho Hum. They are both
> free and they both do the same things.
IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
> There is no choice here. Just Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
There is choice. You're to dishonest to recognize it.
Malware Magnet
Hi Ghost,
I am sure you realize that corresponding with billwg is a complete waste of
your time. I hate to see a good bloke like you waste your time and energy
on that ignoramus.
Kind regards :-)
--
Back from the restroom? Better scan your Windows system.
billwg
"Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>
> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>
Quit being such a goon. IE is free, just as Firefox is free and both
require Windows to run. That is the way the world sees it. You want to
claim there is a difference, but you are just fooling yourself, which
appears to be easy to do!
>> There is no choice here. Just Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
>
> There is choice. You're to dishonest to recognize it.
>
Firefox does the same things as IE for the most part, rick. Where it
doesn't people using Firefox keep a copy of IE for when they need it.
Rick
>
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>
>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>
> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either, rick!
> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes care of
'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes care of
the 'Free'.
> just as Firefox is free and both require Windows to run.
I am running Firefox at the moment. I am not running windows. And I didn't
have to pay to get Firefox.
> That is the way the world sees it. You want to
> claim there is a difference, but you are just fooling yourself, which
> appears to be easy to do!
You are either too stupid, to dishonest or both to see the difference.
>
>>> There is no choice here. Just Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.
>>
>> There is choice. You're to dishonest to recognize it.
>>
> Firefox does the same things as IE for the most part, rick. Where it
> doesn't people using Firefox keep a copy of IE for when they need it.
... except for the people that don't.
B Gruff
> Well, ghost, I don't think you got the point at all. Suffice it to say
> that the "many eyes" failed here as they do everywhere and the whole
> idea is just another myth told around the campfire. Firefox continues
> to suffer from discoveries of the same kinds of buffer overrun and such
> coding errors as IE and really offers nothing new under the sun. MS
> fixes IE bugs as they are found and so does Firefox. Ho Hum. They are
> both free and they both do the same things. There is no choice here.
Sure baa-lamb, sure..... and here's more on the myth...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060210/tc_cmp/179102616
- and in effect, that's just on Windows....
(Did you miss out on the LOL! btw?)
billwg
"Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>
>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>>
>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either,
>> rick!
>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>
> No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes care
> of
> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes
> care of
> the 'Free'.
>
buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you been?
>> just as Firefox is free and both require Windows to run.
>
> I am running Firefox at the moment. I am not running windows. And I
> didn't
> have to pay to get Firefox.
>
Well, if you switch back to Windows, you will get it for free. Or you
can use Firefox if you want. It's a free country.
billwg
"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:456pr9F...@individual.net...
to use an unpatched version [of each browser.] We were trying to
understand the number of [spyware] threats, so if we used unpatched
browsers then we would see more threats."
Kind of defeats the purpose of fixing the browser in the first place,
eh?
Rick
>
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>>
>>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>>>
>>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either, rick!
>>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>>
>> No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes care of
>> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes care
>> of the 'Free'.
>>
> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick! Unless you
> buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you been?
No, you don't. It is part of the purchase price.
>
>>> just as Firefox is free and both require Windows to run.
>>
>> I am running Firefox at the moment. I am not running windows. And I
>> didn't have to pay to get Firefox.
>>
> Well, if you switch back to Windows, you will get it for free.
Yes, Firefox is both Free and free.
> Or you can use Firefox if you want.
I do. Have you not been reading?
> It's a free country.
Not really.
Chris Wilkinson
billwg wrote:
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>
>>IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either, rick!
> Quit being such a goon. IE is free, just as Firefox is free and both
> require Windows to run. That is the way the world sees it. You want to
> claim there is a difference, but you are just fooling yourself, which
> appears to be easy to do!
Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
OS...
--
Kind regards,
Chris Wilkinson, Brisbane, Australia.
Anyone wishing to email me directly can remove the obvious
spamblocker, and replace it with t p g <dot> c o m <dot> a u
billwg
"Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
> That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>
copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on to
influence the sale. The Windows copy is restricted to the machine that
it is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just an inducement
to buy one company's model rather than another. Almost everyone using
Firefox is using it on Windows as well, Chris, so your argument doesn't
really apply.
> I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
> it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
> has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
> OS...
>
I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always
obtained with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades to
new Windows versions are purchased by only a few percent of computer
owners and they keep the original version until the machine is replaced
or scrapped.
Rick
>
> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
> news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked. That
>> means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>>
> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away a
> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on to
> influence the sale.
No, the price of the windows license is hidden in the price of the machine.
> The Windows copy is restricted to the machine that it
> is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just an inducement to buy
> one company's model rather than another.
Uh, no. You can separate the windows license from the machine.
> Almost everyone using Firefox is
> using it on Windows as well, Chris, so your argument doesn't really apply.
Can you prove that?
>
>> I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download it for
>> free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it has an
>> indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the OS...
>>
> I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always obtained
> with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades to new Windows
> versions are purchased by only a few percent of computer owners and they
> keep the original version until the machine is replaced or scrapped.
Chris Wilkinson
billwg wrote:
> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
> news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
>>That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>
> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away a
> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on to
> influence the sale. The Windows copy is restricted to the machine that
> it is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just an inducement
> to buy one company's model rather than another. Almost everyone using
> Firefox is using it on Windows as well, Chris, so your argument doesn't
> really apply.
OEM's buy Windows, and recoup that cost in the price of the
systems they sell. What part of that can you not understand?
>>I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
>>it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
>>has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
>>OS...
>>
>
> I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always
> obtained with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades to
> new Windows versions are purchased by only a few percent of computer
> owners and they keep the original version until the machine is replaced
> or scrapped.
Thats probably true. Customers often have no choice, and
have to contend with the cost of Windows in their system.
Anyone purchasing a ready-made system is helping nail the
coffin shut for alternative OS's, even if they intend to
bin Windows and use Linux...they've already payed for the
cost of having Windows on that system. Its robbery...
B Gruff
I can see that I will need to talk to you in words of one syllable,
baa-lamb.
The object was not to determine which is the safer browser, today, fully
patched. The guy actually SAYS that in the bit that you quote.
He also says, "Compare those figures, and it seems that IE users who haven't
patched their browser are 21 times more likely to have a spyware attack
executed -- if not necessarily succeed -- against their machine" (that is,
unpatched I.E. compared to unpatched Firefox).
Now, going back to what YOU wrote:-
"the "many eyes" failed here as they do everywhere and the whole idea is
just another myth told around the campfire" - remember?
- and going back to what I said, the rest of the "myth" is that Firefox, as
released, was found to be TWENTY ONE TIMES better compared to Internet
Explorer, as released. The "many eyes" contributed to a far better initial
product.
Many eyes? A myth? Some myth!
Cheer up, baa-lamb. I'm sure that Internet Explorer 7 will be the most
secure Internet Explorer ever - or at least until I.E. 8.....
B Gruff
> Most OEMs give away a
> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on to
> influence the sale. The Windows copy is restricted to the machine that
> it is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just an inducement
> to buy one company's model rather than another.
LOL!?????
ROTBFL!!!!!
B Gruff
> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick!
LOL????
ROTBFL!!!!
> Well, if you switch back to Windows, you will get it for free.
LOL???
ROTBFL!!!!!
B Gruff
> IE is free, just as Firefox is free and both
> require Windows to run.
Really?????????????
GreyCloud
blah, blah, blah, how come only M$ IE has these problems?
You can blather all the FUD you want, but the fact remains this is a M$
windwoes problem.
Keep spinning, billy boy.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
Buford
>
> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
> news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>> Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
>> That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>>
> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away a
> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on to
> influence the sale.
Wow. You're just as dishonest as you were the last time I looked in on
this newsgroup. Windows is never given away. Not by OEMs, and
certainly not by Microsoft. OEMs pay Microsoft for every copy of Windows
on every computer they sell. They then add that cost to the cost of the
computer.
But you know all this. You're simply lying about it.
I wonder, "billwg", if you've ever wondered what it feels like to have a
conscience. I bet not. :)
William Poaster
Keeeerist! Have you *ever* seen such a ludicrous statement? What rock is
billwg under?
> LOL!?????
>
> ROTBFL!!!!!
Yes, it *is* risible!
--
V.I.S.T.A
Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware
TheLetterK
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>
>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>>>
>>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either,
>>> rick!
>>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>> No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes care
>> of
>> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes
>> care of
>> the 'Free'.
>>
> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick! Unless you
> buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you been?
Still don't understand the concept of an embedded cost, do you?
--
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit
Chris Wilkinson
Chris Wilkinson wrote:
> billwg wrote:
>>
>> I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always
>> obtained with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades to
>> new Windows versions are purchased by only a few percent of computer
>> owners and they keep the original version until the machine is
>> replaced or scrapped.
>
> Thats probably true. Customers often have no choice, and
> have to contend with the cost of Windows in their system.
> Anyone purchasing a ready-made system is helping nail the
> coffin shut for alternative OS's, even if they intend to
> bin Windows and use Linux...they've already payed for the
> cost of having Windows on that system. Its robbery...
Oh, and have you ever mananged to convince a retailer
to remove Windows from a ready-built PC, and drop the
sale price accordingly? No? Why is that? I've argued
that point with countless retailers, but they've all
said 'we aren't allowed to remove it'. My response was
to learn to build my own, thereby removing the cost of
Windows from the system...
Erik Funkenbusch
> Oh, and have you ever mananged to convince a retailer
> to remove Windows from a ready-built PC, and drop the
> sale price accordingly? No? Why is that? I've argued
> that point with countless retailers, but they've all
> said 'we aren't allowed to remove it'. My response was
> to learn to build my own, thereby removing the cost of
> Windows from the system...
You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales like
this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and charge you
less, for instance, when you buy a TV. You can't tell them that you don't
need the extra cables that come with virtually every retail Hard disk or
recordable optical drive. You can't tell them to keep the "free" games you
get with most video cards and charge you less for it.
B Gruff
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:14:32 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> Oh, and have you ever mananged to convince a retailer
>> to remove Windows from a ready-built PC, and drop the
>> sale price accordingly? No? Why is that? I've argued
>> that point with countless retailers, but they've all
>> said 'we aren't allowed to remove it'. My response was
>> to learn to build my own, thereby removing the cost of
>> Windows from the system...
>
> You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales like
> this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and charge you
> less, for instance, when you buy a TV.
Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
> You can't tell them that you don't
> need the extra cables that come with virtually every retail Hard disk or
> recordable optical drive.
Of course you can. It's called the "bare" or OEM version - MUCH cheaper.
"Can't" in the Computer+Windows case is pretty much true as things stand,
and true because of the way the licences are priced by MS.
Perhaps it's time that we legislated against the practice.
billwg
"Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
> Hi there,
>
> billwg wrote:
>> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
>> news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>>Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
>>>That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>>
>> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away
>> a copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of
>> come-on to influence the sale. The Windows copy is restricted to the
>> machine that it is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just
>> an inducement to buy one company's model rather than another. Almost
>> everyone using Firefox is using it on Windows as well, Chris, so your
>> argument doesn't really apply.
>
> OEM's buy Windows, and recoup that cost in the price of the
> systems they sell. What part of that can you not understand?
>
take it. Certainly everything that a company spends to stay in or
improve their business is an expense, but is it part of the price? What
about the TV ads that Dell runs to convince people to buy a Dell? Is
that a direct cost? If they didn't advertise, they would lose a lot of
business, or so the advertising people say. If they didn't throw in a
copy of Windows, they would lose business, too. To me it is the same
thing. Dell says to itself "Dell, what do we need to do to get some
business?" And Dell tells itself, "Self, you need to give away a copy
of Windows with each machine and advertise on TV!". They set the price
on what they think the traffic will bear.
>>>I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
>>>it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
>>>has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
>>>OS...
>>>
>>
>> I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always
>> obtained with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades
>> to new Windows versions are purchased by only a few percent of
>> computer owners and they keep the original version until the machine
>> is replaced or scrapped.
>
> Thats probably true. Customers often have no choice, and
> have to contend with the cost of Windows in their system.
> Anyone purchasing a ready-made system is helping nail the
> coffin shut for alternative OS's, even if they intend to
> bin Windows and use Linux...they've already payed for the
> cost of having Windows on that system. Its robbery...
>
Well, it is self-inflicted, Chris, and it has been aired out here many
times. It is less expensive to buy a main-line brand, Compaq or HP,
say, and throw away the Windows license than it is to build a machine
from parts and not install Windows ever. I think that is because the
OEMs have gotten their production systems so fine-tuned that they can
make money from the volume alone. That helps Microsoft a lot, but
Microsoft got themselves into that position through hard work.
billwg
just that? Putting Windows on the machine is as necessary as running
ads in order to get customers to look at you as a serious seller. Name
one!
B Gruff
LOL?
ROBFL!!
Do you know why the East Germans built the Berlin Wall?
I heard the question asked at an outdoor communist "rally" one time.
The speakers answer?
"Because there was conscription in West Germany, and it was put up to stop
all the West German young men crossing to the East"!
If anybody believes the drivel that you spout baa-lamb, they deserve all
they get.
billwg
rather than Firefox, presumably because so few people use it. The fact
that some threats work against Firefox as well just shows that they are
no better than IE and possibly worse.
billwg
Windows. Mozilla wouldn't get out of bed for the linux business.
billwg
"Buford" <b...@hp.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.12...@hp.net...
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 01:47:32 +0000, billwg wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
>> news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>
>>> Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
>>> That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>>>
>> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away
>> a
>> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on
>> to
>> influence the sale.
>
> Wow. You're just as dishonest as you were the last time I looked in
> on
> this newsgroup. Windows is never given away. Not by OEMs, and
> certainly not by Microsoft. OEMs pay Microsoft for every copy of
> Windows
> on every computer they sell. They then add that cost to the cost of
> the
> computer.
>
little packs of ketchup (catsup in NY) that McDonald's puts in the bag
when you buy your Happy Meal? Has that been added to the cost of the
burger? Not at all. It is added to the cost of running a store and
being in business. If McDonald's was known for not supplying any
ketchup with their Happy Meals, their volume would decline and so it is
with anything that you might buy.
The manufacturer or other seller figures out what has to be in the box
in order to be able to sell it and then figures out what the box can
sell for and then decides if there is any market for that kind of a box
at that price.
> But you know all this. You're simply lying about it.
>
> I wonder, "billwg", if you've ever wondered what it feels like to have
> a
> conscience. I bet not. :)
>
All this is is a discussion on what makes for a sensible approach to a
business of buying personal computers, buford. Where on earth does any
morality enter into it? Maybe if there was a plan to cheat customers
from the beginning, but all we are discussing is how best to lure
customers to our product versus the other guys' product. Try to stay on
an even keel.
billwg
"GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
news:5O-dnQ1JK6plHHLe...@bresnan.com...
until it is a lot more likely that a target consumer is actually using
it. These people are not out to infiltrate the geeks and nerds, they
are out to corral the ordinary user who might be persuaded to buy
something.
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
news:anPHf.4367$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
the OS, K. Since you cannot, it is part of the product and is included.
What if it said on the box "Batteries and Windows OS not included"? You
will probably make some silly remark, but what would happen is that
sales would be reduced in favor of a competitor advertising "includes
Windows OS!".
Rick
... except that in rare, but increasing, instances you can buy the
computer without the OS.
TheLetterK
> "TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
> news:anPHf.4367$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>> billwg wrote:
>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either,
>>>>> rick!
>>>>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>>>> No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes
>>>> care of
>>>> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes
>>>> care of
>>>> the 'Free'.
>>>>
>>> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick! Unless
>>> you buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you been?
>> Still don't understand the concept of an embedded cost, do you?
>>
> If it were a separable item,
It's not free no matter how Dell chooses to hide the cost. That $400
machine just became a $450 machine, but they throw in a 'free' copy of
Windows. That's not free, idiot.
> you could buy the computer with or without
> the OS, K.
I wish they would let me do that. I don't want to pay extra for an
operating system that isn't going to be used.
> Since you cannot, it is part of the product and is included.
Yes, included. *Not Free*. The cost of Windows is *built into the price
of the product*. Now, instead of selling you $400 worth of hardware for
$400, they sell it to you for $450 and include a copy of Windows. And
idiots like you think they're getting something. Did you know you're
also helping to foot Dell's shipping costs, and the taxes they'll pay on
that box?
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Monday 13 February 2006 01:20 Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:14:32 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, and have you ever mananged to convince a retailer
>>> to remove Windows from a ready-built PC, and drop the
>>> sale price accordingly? No? Why is that? I've argued
>>> that point with countless retailers, but they've all
>>> said 'we aren't allowed to remove it'. My response was
>>> to learn to build my own, thereby removing the cost of
>>> Windows from the system...
>>
>> You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales like
>> this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and charge you
>> less, for instance, when you buy a TV.
>
> Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
> BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
Actually, an OS is a lot more "part of the PC" than a remote control is
"part of the TV". A TV works just fine out of the box without the remote.
A computer is useless without an OS out of the box.
>> You can't tell them that you don't
>> need the extra cables that come with virtually every retail Hard disk or
>> recordable optical drive.
>
> Of course you can. It's called the "bare" or OEM version - MUCH cheaper.
We're talking about RETAIL stores here. You're not buying OEM products in
most retail stores (such as Best Buy or Circuit City). And most stores
that sell OEM products will also cheerfully sell you a PC without an OS.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> OEM's buy Windows, and recoup that cost in the price of the
>> systems they sell. What part of that can you not understand?
>>
> The part where the price is not any different whether you refuse it or
> take it. Certainly everything that a company spends to stay in or
> improve their business is an expense, but is it part of the price? What
> about the TV ads that Dell runs to convince people to buy a Dell? Is
> that a direct cost? If they didn't advertise, they would lose a lot of
> business, or so the advertising people say. If they didn't throw in a
> copy of Windows, they would lose business, too. To me it is the same
> thing. Dell says to itself "Dell, what do we need to do to get some
> business?" And Dell tells itself, "Self, you need to give away a copy
> of Windows with each machine and advertise on TV!". They set the price
> on what they think the traffic will bear.
This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
Dell sells PC's, and whether they come with an OS or not, the PC has a
price. They simply take less of a margin to sell more PC's by including
Windows.
I am trying, but I can't see the flaw in this line of reasoning. It's no
different than "free shipping". Are you paying for the shipping in the
price of the PC? Or are they taking a hit in the margin to sell more
stock?
> Well, it is self-inflicted, Chris, and it has been aired out here many
> times. It is less expensive to buy a main-line brand, Compaq or HP,
> say, and throw away the Windows license than it is to build a machine
> from parts and not install Windows ever. I think that is because the
> OEMs have gotten their production systems so fine-tuned that they can
> make money from the volume alone. That helps Microsoft a lot, but
> Microsoft got themselves into that position through hard work.
The difference, at leat to many Linux advocates is that, even though
they're spending more, they're not giving Microsoft any money.
Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
> has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
Note that cereal is usually sold by weight, not volume. That raises a
question: does the weight include the toy? If it does, then you are
getting less cereal because of the toy, and so might be paying for the
toy after all.
(Also, you have to consider the possibility that the cereal company is
getting paid to include the toy. These toys are often tie-ins to a
current movie, or to popular cartoon characters, and might be sponsored,
similar to the product placements we see on TV and in movies).
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales like
> > this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and charge you
> > less, for instance, when you buy a TV.
>
> Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
> BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
But some people don't need the remote. I have an 8-in-1 universal
remote that has built-in codes for all major TVs, for example. There is
a very good chance that I would have no use whatsoever for the remote
that comes with the TV. Only if there was some obscure function on it
that my current remote does not understand would I need it, in order to
use it to program one of my buttons.
--
--Tim Smith
Chris Wilkinson
Windows is not a physical part, its only software. Removing it will
not jeopardise the ability of the PC to work.
Microsoft have tied the OEM's/system builders into such a knot that
they cannot supply a ready-made system without Windows. As I said I
cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
against my will. That I believe is highly monopolistic and less than
fair trade...
Chris Wilkinson
billwg wrote:
> "Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
> news:43ef124b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>>Hi there,
>>
>>billwg wrote:
>>
>>>"Chris Wilkinson" <blob...@SPAMOFF.con> wrote in message
>>>news:43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
>>>>That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
>>>
>>>...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away
>>>a copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of
>>>come-on to influence the sale. The Windows copy is restricted to the
>>>machine that it is given away with, but that's fair, since it is just
>>>an inducement to buy one company's model rather than another. Almost
>>>everyone using Firefox is using it on Windows as well, Chris, so your
>>>argument doesn't really apply.
>>
>>OEM's buy Windows, and recoup that cost in the price of the
>>systems they sell. What part of that can you not understand?
>
> The part where the price is not any different whether you refuse it or
> take it.
The OEM cannot charge less for that ready-made box because they
have already installed Windows on it (which they have payed for).
In order to recoup the money *they* have payed in installing the
copy of Windows they add an amount to the margin on the box to
recoup that cost.
My point is that OEM's cannot remove Windows due to strict terms
of agreement with Microsoft. If someone wants to buy that box
they are forced into buying Windows because Microsoft will not
allow the OEM to remove it.
>>>>I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
>>>>it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
>>>>has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
>>>>OS...
>>>>
>>>
>>>I saw a statistic once that showed that Windows was almost always
>>>obtained with a new computer purchase as described above. Upgrades
>>>to new Windows versions are purchased by only a few percent of
>>>computer owners and they keep the original version until the machine
>>>is replaced or scrapped.
>>
>>Thats probably true. Customers often have no choice, and
>>have to contend with the cost of Windows in their system.
>>Anyone purchasing a ready-made system is helping nail the
>>coffin shut for alternative OS's, even if they intend to
>>bin Windows and use Linux...they've already payed for the
>>cost of having Windows on that system. Its robbery...
>>
>
> Well, it is self-inflicted, Chris, and it has been aired out here many
> times. It is less expensive to buy a main-line brand, Compaq or HP,
> say, and throw away the Windows license than it is to build a machine
> from parts and not install Windows ever.
Less expensive? What have I been doing all this time!! I should
have rushed to the local Compaq/Dell/HP sales store and bought
one of their ready-made systems, instead of building my own!
What the hell are you smoking? At the time I built my Athlon64
system comparable ready-builts were not even available for less
than AUD $2000. I paid AUD $1200 for a complete system, including
stuff that normal ready-builts often don't have (good 3D, TV card).
The only cost to me other than that was 2-3 hours, screwing it
together and installing SuSE Linux...a sacrifice well worth it.
Sinister Midget
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:42:37 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>> Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
>> BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
>
> Actually, an OS is a lot more "part of the PC" than a remote control is
> "part of the TV". A TV works just fine out of the box without the remote.
> A computer is useless without an OS out of the box.
I can buy a replacement remote without having the original. I can even
buy one that's made by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can walk
over to the TV and push buttons.
I can buy a replacement OS. I can run a computer without having a
particular *brand* of OS on it. I can go buy (or download) an OS made
by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can write my own.
DO THE FUNKY-BOY SHUFFLE
TIPPITY-TAP-TIPPITY-TIPPITY-TAP
--
"[Microsoft's] products just aren't engineered for security."
-- Brian Valentine
Senior Vice President, Windows Development
Microsoft Corporation
Sinister Midget
> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
> has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
The manufacturer is charging enough that *all* boxes of cereal sold
subsidize *all* toys included, now and in the future. If no toys were
ever included, the manufacturer could lower the price. (I realize that
might mean they lose a gimmick, making it harder to sell things to
little munchkins. But that's an entirely different matter.)
> Dell sells PC's, and whether they come with an OS or not, the PC has a
> price. They simply take less of a margin to sell more PC's by including
> Windows.
Dell charges *more* for not including an OS on the machine (or *did*
not long ago; probably still true). Wrong comparison.
I'd be real careful about using things Bilge posts as a springboard for
trying to make points, unless you don't care about your credibili....
Oh.
--
Whip me. Beat me. Windows ME(tm).
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:52:40 GMT, billwg wrote:
>
>>> OEM's buy Windows, and recoup that cost in the price of the
>>> systems they sell. What part of that can you not understand?
>>>
>> The part where the price is not any different whether you refuse it or
>> take it. Certainly everything that a company spends to stay in or
>> improve their business is an expense, but is it part of the price? What
>> about the TV ads that Dell runs to convince people to buy a Dell? Is
>> that a direct cost? If they didn't advertise, they would lose a lot of
>> business, or so the advertising people say. If they didn't throw in a
>> copy of Windows, they would lose business, too. To me it is the same
>> thing. Dell says to itself "Dell, what do we need to do to get some
>> business?" And Dell tells itself, "Self, you need to give away a copy
>> of Windows with each machine and advertise on TV!". They set the price
>> on what they think the traffic will bear.
>
> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether
> it has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy
> the
> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
>
And here we have it directly from the FUDmeisters arse (or whatever he
speaks through): Windows is a thrown in toy. Worthless or nearly so. After
all, it is just a toy put into a cereal pack. Or so
Do you have another useless analogy to share, Erik? How about your next
car-analogy? You are (in)famous for making really stupid ones
< snip >
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Erik Funkenbusch
>> You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales like
>> this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and charge you
>> less, for instance, when you buy a TV. You can't tell them that you don't
>> need the extra cables that come with virtually every retail Hard disk or
>> recordable optical drive. You can't tell them to keep the "free" games you
>> get with most video cards and charge you less for it.
>
> Windows is not a physical part, its only software. Removing it will
> not jeopardise the ability of the PC to work.
While there are some TV's that have functions that are only accessible via
remote, most do not. That means not having the remote won't jeopardise the
ability of the TV to work either.
> Microsoft have tied the OEM's/system builders into such a knot that
> they cannot supply a ready-made system without Windows. As I said I
> cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
> against my will. That I believe is highly monopolistic and less than
> fair trade...
Actually, many of them DO supply PC's without Windows, such as Dell's N
series, which is a couple years old.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2006-02-13, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:42:37 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>
>>> Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
>>> BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
>>
>> Actually, an OS is a lot more "part of the PC" than a remote control is
>> "part of the TV". A TV works just fine out of the box without the remote.
>> A computer is useless without an OS out of the box.
>
> I can buy a replacement remote without having the original. I can even
> buy one that's made by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can walk
> over to the TV and push buttons.
Exactly my point. The TV works just fine without ANY kind of remote. A PC
is useless without at least SOME kind of OS.
> I can buy a replacement OS. I can run a computer without having a
> particular *brand* of OS on it. I can go buy (or download) an OS made
> by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can write my own.
But you can't use the computer without one like you can with the TV.
> DO THE FUNKY-BOY SHUFFLE
>
> TIPPITY-TAP-TIPPITY-TIPPITY-TAP
You're the one tap dancing here.
Erik Funkenbusch
> The OEM cannot charge less for that ready-made box because they
> have already installed Windows on it (which they have payed for).
> In order to recoup the money *they* have payed in installing the
> copy of Windows they add an amount to the margin on the box to
> recoup that cost.
Do they? Or have they already determined the price that the market will
bear giving them a margin of x%, but realizing they won't sell many PC's
without Windows elect to reduce their margin in order to sell more units?
I don't think most major vendors would say "Oh, i'm only going to charge a
1% markup on this when the market would bear a 5% markup". They determine
the maximum cost they can sell it for, regardless of the cost. If the cost
is more than what the market will bear, they won't build it.
> My point is that OEM's cannot remove Windows due to strict terms
> of agreement with Microsoft. If someone wants to buy that box
> they are forced into buying Windows because Microsoft will not
> allow the OEM to remove it.
Many OEM's sell boxes without Windows. However, most vendors wouldn't sell
many machines if they didn't sell them with Windows.
> Less expensive? What have I been doing all this time!! I should
> have rushed to the local Compaq/Dell/HP sales store and bought
> one of their ready-made systems, instead of building my own!
Actually, I used to build systems for friends and relatives because I could
build them cheaper. I can't do that anymore. When you can buy a system
from dell for $299 it makes no sense to build for the average user. The
only reason to build is if you want a specific set of features (which I
still do).
> What the hell are you smoking? At the time I built my Athlon64
> system comparable ready-builts were not even available for less
> than AUD $2000. I paid AUD $1200 for a complete system, including
> stuff that normal ready-builts often don't have (good 3D, TV card).
> The only cost to me other than that was 2-3 hours, screwing it
> together and installing SuSE Linux...a sacrifice well worth it.
I don't know about the australian market, but today, it's damn hard here in
the US to build that cheaply unless you have access to wholesale high
volume pricing.
Part of the problem is that the vast majority of boards you can buy are
targeted at enthusiests, and thus are loaded with features, while an OEM
low-midrange PC can save money by building systems without them. Most
users don't need Dolby surround sound, RAID, or Firewire. They typically
don't need 5+ expansion slots.
I can't build even the most barebones system for under $300 today unless I
go with closeout older models.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2006-02-13, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>
>> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
>> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
>> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
>> has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
>> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
>> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
>
> The manufacturer is charging enough that *all* boxes of cereal sold
> subsidize *all* toys included, now and in the future. If no toys were
> ever included, the manufacturer could lower the price. (I realize that
> might mean they lose a gimmick, making it harder to sell things to
> little munchkins. But that's an entirely different matter.)
Why would they lower the price if their competition isn't? They're going
to sell the product for whatever the market will bear, regardless of
whatever gimmicks they throw in. Most people don't buy those kinds of
product based on price anyways, they buy because their kids want that
particular thing.
>> Dell sells PC's, and whether they come with an OS or not, the PC has a
>> price. They simply take less of a margin to sell more PC's by including
>> Windows.
>
> Dell charges *more* for not including an OS on the machine (or *did*
> not long ago; probably still true). Wrong comparison.
That's not true, and never has been. There are typically differences in
the hardware that you get that account for the price differences.
Certainly some manufacturers may choose a price point for their product
which would not allow them to include Windows or they would take a loss,
much like if the cost of the toy in the cereal box would make them take a
loss they won't include it.
> I'd be real careful about using things Bilge posts as a springboard for
> trying to make points, unless you don't care about your credibili....
>
> Oh.
I think it's a valid argument. So far you've not said anything to disuade
me from that.
In all reality, I think this argument makes a lot more sense. Vendors will
sell their PC for whatever the market will bear. Windows is just a cost of
doing business.
Sinister Midget
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:36:18 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2006-02-13, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:42:37 +0000, B Gruff wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course not. It's part of the TV. Chris isn't asking them to remove the
>>>> BIOS, merely the add-on - Windows.
>>>
>>> Actually, an OS is a lot more "part of the PC" than a remote control is
>>> "part of the TV". A TV works just fine out of the box without the remote.
>>> A computer is useless without an OS out of the box.
>>
>> I can buy a replacement remote without having the original. I can even
>> buy one that's made by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can walk
>> over to the TV and push buttons.
>
> Exactly my point. The TV works just fine without ANY kind of remote. A PC
> is useless without at least SOME kind of OS.
>
>> I can buy a replacement OS. I can run a computer without having a
>> particular *brand* of OS on it. I can go buy (or download) an OS made
>> by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can write my own.
>
> But you can't use the computer without one like you can with the TV.
But I don't need Windross. I can choose to suplly my own. Which negates
your attempt at implying they can't sell PCs without an OS because you
can use one without the OS installed on it.
>> DO THE FUNKY-BOY SHUFFLE
>>
>> TIPPITY-TAP-TIPPITY-TIPPITY-TAP
>
> You're the one tap dancing here.
You just tapped out a few more steps. I think you're looking at your
own reflection. Or maybe that's DooFu$ or Bilge performing a routine
alongside you.
--
Esbot: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Kier
> In article <3yk1j0nk...@funkenbusch.com>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
>> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
>> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
>> has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
>> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
>> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
>
> Note that cereal is usually sold by weight, not volume. That raises a
> question: does the weight include the toy? If it does, then you are
> getting less cereal because of the toy, and so might be paying for the
> toy after all.
To the best of my knowledge, no, you don't pay for the toy, if it's
intended as a freebie. When cereals of this type are packed, the permitted
average weight is calculated with a small margin on either side to cover
variations in contents, but all other materials - the sachet containing
the cereal, and its cardboard carton - are discounted, 'tared' out of the
calculation. (Of course, the materials are factored into the price of the
cereal which you end up buying of the shelf of the dupermarket. But the
weight of any toy would also be set aside, and assuming the price doesn't
rise when toy is included, you aren't paying for it.
>
> (Also, you have to consider the possibility that the cereal company is
> getting paid to include the toy. These toys are often tie-ins to a
> current movie, or to popular cartoon characters, and might be sponsored,
> similar to the product placements we see on TV and in movies).
This is a more probably scenario, IMO.
--
Kier
Erik Funkenbusch
>> Exactly my point. The TV works just fine without ANY kind of remote. A PC
>> is useless without at least SOME kind of OS.
>>
>>> I can buy a replacement OS. I can run a computer without having a
>>> particular *brand* of OS on it. I can go buy (or download) an OS made
>>> by someone else and use it. Or *shudder* I can write my own.
>>
>> But you can't use the computer without one like you can with the TV.
>
> But I don't need Windross. I can choose to suplly my own. Which negates
> your attempt at implying they can't sell PCs without an OS because you
> can use one without the OS installed on it.
You're ignoring the point. All kinds of products are sold bundled at
retail without the ability to seperate them, regardless of whether those
items are required to utilized the product or not.
Yes, you can use a PC with some other OS, just like you can use a TV with a
third party remote. That doesn't help you buy the TV without the remote or
the PC without Windows.
>>> DO THE FUNKY-BOY SHUFFLE
>>>
>>> TIPPITY-TAP-TIPPITY-TIPPITY-TAP
>>
>> You're the one tap dancing here.
>
> You just tapped out a few more steps. I think you're looking at your
> own reflection. Or maybe that's DooFu$ or Bilge performing a routine
> alongside you.
I've made my point clearly, and you're ignoring it to argue something else.
That's tap dancing.
Sinister Midget
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:44:19 GMT, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2006-02-13, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> posted something concerning:
>>
>>> This is, actually, an interesting argument. One could argue that when you
>>> buy the Dell PC, you're not getting a copy of the TV ad. However, consider
>>> other products like Cereal. The price of the cereal is the same whether it
>>> has a "toy" inside or not, so are you paying for the toy when you buy the
>>> cereal? No, the manufacturer is taking a smaller margin to sell more
>>> cereal and eating the cost of the toy.
>>
>> The manufacturer is charging enough that *all* boxes of cereal sold
>> subsidize *all* toys included, now and in the future. If no toys were
>> ever included, the manufacturer could lower the price. (I realize that
>> might mean they lose a gimmick, making it harder to sell things to
>> little munchkins. But that's an entirely different matter.)
>
> Why would they lower the price if their competition isn't?
Competiton? I mean, if the price is lower, doesn't that make it
possible to sell more products, maybe making a lower margin end up
bringing in even *more* money through increased sales?
I understand you're still stuck in the communist economic way of
thinking. But I can guarantee you there *are* other ways to make things
go. Some of those ways even work better than what's taught at the
Redmond University campus at One MICROS~1 Way.
> They're going to sell the product for whatever the market will bear,
> regardless of whatever gimmicks they throw in. Most people don't buy
> those kinds of product based on price anyways, they buy because their
> kids want that particular thing.
The kids want those things basd on gimmicks. Those gimmicks cost money,
whether they're little tinker toy prizes, cartoon characters on TV or
pictures of other kids being happy with what they're eating.
Parents oblige for a lot of reasons that often have nothing to do with
quality (sorta like Windwoes users in that respect). It's often just to
keep from having a tantrum thrown in the aisle of the grocery.
Ergo, the gimmick pays off.
But, that's still a beside the point in this, which is why I placed
acknowledgement of the loss of gimmicks in parentheses. I won't
continue down that particular line of diversion.
The point had to do with cost being spread across an entire spectrum,
which counters your claim that the maker of the product sucks up a
lower margin when they include the gimmick. No, they include the
overall cost of the gimmick into the cost of all boxes sold so as to
avoid having to live with lower margins.
You never know when a price war might break out. That lowered margin
can be a factor in whether a producer makes money or loses it during
those events. It's better to have made more than needed early on so
they can live through leaner times.
>>> Dell sells PC's, and whether they come with an OS or not, the PC has a
>>> price. They simply take less of a margin to sell more PC's by including
>>> Windows.
>>
>> Dell charges *more* for not including an OS on the machine (or *did*
>> not long ago; probably still true). Wrong comparison.
>
> That's not true, and never has been. There are typically differences in
> the hardware that you get that account for the price differences.
IOW your statement above can't possibly be any more true than mine. You
can't know what the final cost would be unless *all* machines were sold
without an OS, or identical models were sold both with an without.
> Certainly some manufacturers may choose a price point for their product
> which would not allow them to include Windows or they would take a loss,
> much like if the cost of the toy in the cereal box would make them take a
> loss they won't include it.
IOW you're saying your claim about them selling a machine for less
without Winders is mere speculation because you have nothing on which
to base it. Except speculation, that is.
>> I'd be real careful about using things Bilge posts as a springboard for
>> trying to make points, unless you don't care about your credibili....
>>
>> Oh.
>
> I think it's a valid argument. So far you've not said anything to disuade
> me from that.
>
> In all reality, I think this argument makes a lot more sense. Vendors will
> sell their PC for whatever the market will bear. Windows is just a cost of
> doing business.
Winders is a tax that *everybody* has to pay if buying form one of the
large PC vendors, whether they buy a machine with it on it, or can
somehow finagle one without it.
It wouldn't be so bad if it was a tax that actually produced something
good and useful. Hell, if it was a tax that benefitted some people (not
counting the taxers) and did nothing for most people I don't think I'd
mind it. But it produces nothing useful for most that they couldn't get
elsewhere, and it screws up almost everybody (zombies, viruses,
internet slowdowns, increased costs to businesses for security that end
up getting passed along to consumers, etc), including those of us being
taxed and not using it.
Blammer was right about the wrong thing. There *is* a cancer. The GPL
and linux aren't it.
--
Microsoft: The company that made web surfing dangerous.
William Poaster
> Hi there,
>
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:14:32 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Oh, and have you ever mananged to convince a retailer to remove Windows
>>>from a ready-built PC, and drop the sale price accordingly? No? Why is
>>>that? I've argued that point with countless retailers, but they've all
>>>said 'we aren't allowed to remove it'. My response was to learn to build
>>>my own, thereby removing the cost of Windows from the system...
>>
>>
>> You know, retails stores generally can't break apart items from sales
>> like this. You can't get them to leave off the remote control and
>> charge you less, for instance, when you buy a TV. You can't tell them
>> that you don't need the extra cables that come with virtually every
>> retail Hard disk or recordable optical drive. You can't tell them to
>> keep the "free" games you get with most video cards and charge you less
>> for it.
>
> Windows is not a physical part, its only software. Removing it will not
> jeopardise the ability of the PC to work.
>
> Microsoft have tied the OEM's/system builders into such a knot that they
> cannot supply a ready-made system without Windows. As I said I cannot buy
> a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft against my
> will. That I believe is highly monopolistic and less than fair trade...
Dell are attempting to stop putting M$ stickers on their products. 'Talks
are under way to eliminate what Dell production managers grudgingly
describe as “other people’s advertising”.' Apparently M$ are objecting.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050829-5253.html
--
V.I.S.T.A
Viruses
Intruders
Spyware
Trojans
Adware
Linønut
>> In all reality, I think this argument makes a lot more sense. Vendors will
>> sell their PC for whatever the market will bear. Windows is just a cost of
>> doing business.
>
> Winders is a tax that *everybody* has to pay if buying form one of the
> large PC vendors, whether they buy a machine with it on it, or can
> somehow finagle one without it.
The funny thing is that Eric is deliberately ignoring the idea that
Nathan Myhrvold (of Microsoft) bandied about -- that Microsoft could get
its OS on /all/ PCs, and this would be a "Microsoft tax" that would go
to Microsoft.
> It wouldn't be so bad if it was a tax that actually produced something
> good and useful. Hell, if it was a tax that benefitted some people (not
> counting the taxers) and did nothing for most people I don't think I'd
> mind it. But it produces nothing useful for most that they couldn't get
> elsewhere, and it screws up almost everybody (zombies, viruses,
> internet slowdowns, increased costs to businesses for security that end
> up getting passed along to consumers, etc), including those of us being
> taxed and not using it.
>
> Blammer was right about the wrong thing. There *is* a cancer. The GPL
> and linux aren't it.
Mmm hmm.
--
Q: Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel?
A: Because he can.
Linønut
You're ignoring what he just said:
>> cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
Or are you saying that DELL's deal does not include tallying up all the
PCs it sells and making a payment to Microsoft based on that number?
Linønut
> Dell are attempting to stop putting M$ stickers on their products. 'Talks
> are under way to eliminate what Dell production managers grudgingly
> describe as ´other peopleÿs advertising¡.' Apparently M$ are objecting.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050829-5253.html
"... but you wouldn't hear me complain if those stickers went away. While
I suppose that they're relatively harmless on desktops, I find them
exceedingly irritating on laptops. Never mind the fact that they
fade, get grimy, and tend to look awful after only a small amount of
time. No, the real problem is when they start to peel back. My Compaq
X1000 suffered from this problem, and when it finally made me batty,
I ripped it off only to leave remnants of adhesive goo, which I then
had to carefully remove with a solvent."
I, too, hate those fucking stickers. But, if you remove them when they
are new, you can end up with scratches or permanent smudges trying to
get rid of the crazy-glue used on the stickers.
But, at least I have the satisfaction of sticking them on the toilet,
where they belong.
Why do they have to stick them right where your wrist sits? Idiots.
Sinister Midget
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Sinister Midget belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> In all reality, I think this argument makes a lot more sense. Vendors will
>>> sell their PC for whatever the market will bear. Windows is just a cost of
>>> doing business.
>>
>> Winders is a tax that *everybody* has to pay if buying form one of the
>> large PC vendors, whether they buy a machine with it on it, or can
>> somehow finagle one without it.
>
> The funny thing is that Eric is deliberately ignoring the idea that
> Nathan Myhrvold (of Microsoft) bandied about -- that Microsoft could get
> its OS on /all/ PCs, and this would be a "Microsoft tax" that would go
> to Microsoft.
Deliberately ignoring, yes. As he always is wont to do whenever this
sort of subject comes along.
--
Ruland: Innovative Microsoft peer-to-peer software.
Sinister Midget
> I, too, hate those fucking stickers. But, if you remove them when they
> are new, you can end up with scratches or permanent smudges trying to
> get rid of the crazy-glue used on the stickers.
>
> But, at least I have the satisfaction of sticking them on the toilet,
> where they belong.
>
> Why do they have to stick them right where your wrist sits? Idiots.
As a constant reminder of what an irritant MICROS~1 is. It works, too.
--
I used to be all over Windows. Now I'm *really* over Windows!
Ray Ingles
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndupcm3....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-02-10, tab <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2150023/attackers-publish-exploit-code
>>
>> Yup, sweet. Unlike with Microsoft, the patch is out *before* the
>> exploit code is deployed. I was automatically updated last week. :->
>>
> Well, so much for the "many eyes" theory though! LOL!!! Where were
> your suspicious eyes, ray? rick? chris? clark? peter? midget? goat?
> anybody?
"Many eyes" don't prevent bugs from happening at all. They just find
them and get them corrected faster than closed-source bugs. Consider
that Microsoft's time-to-fix has been increasing steadily while these
bugs were fixed within days of discovery.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Windows 2000... will have lots of stuff you used to pay extra
for but is now built in for free, although none of it works."
- Eric Lundquist
Ray Ingles
> None of the spyware/adware distributors are going to bother with Firefox
> until it is a lot more likely that a target consumer is actually using
> it.
There's already been one exploit against Firefox. Well, technically, it
used a flaw in Firefox to target IE. Firefox itself couldn't be suborned
in that way, but IE could.
But, ignoring that, can you give me a number, Bill? How large of a
browser share will Firefox have to have, in percentages, before it
starts getting a flood of exploits? C'mon, even just a guess?
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
billwg
"Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> On 2006-02-13, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>> None of the spyware/adware distributors are going to bother with
>> Firefox
>> until it is a lot more likely that a target consumer is actually
>> using
>> it.
>
> There's already been one exploit against Firefox. Well, technically,
> it
> used a flaw in Firefox to target IE. Firefox itself couldn't be
> suborned
> in that way, but IE could.
>
> But, ignoring that, can you give me a number, Bill? How large of a
> browser share will Firefox have to have, in percentages, before it
> starts getting a flood of exploits? C'mon, even just a guess?
>
everything, ray. You end up not knowing the value of anything.
Firefox is not a major element in personal computing. If and when it
ever becomes one, you may see some hackers target its use. Until then,
who cares?
Peter Köhlmann
>
> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
> news:slrndv17oj....@localhost.localdomain...
>> On 2006-02-13, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>> None of the spyware/adware distributors are going to bother with
>>> Firefox
>>> until it is a lot more likely that a target consumer is actually
>>> using
>>> it.
>>
>> There's already been one exploit against Firefox. Well, technically,
>> it
>> used a flaw in Firefox to target IE. Firefox itself couldn't be
>> suborned
>> in that way, but IE could.
>>
>> But, ignoring that, can you give me a number, Bill? How large of a
>> browser share will Firefox have to have, in percentages, before it
>> starts getting a flood of exploits? C'mon, even just a guess?
>>
> You should quit being so fascinated with learning the size of
> everything, ray. You end up not knowing the value of anything.
>
Braying as usual, bilge?
> Firefox is not a major element in personal computing. If and when it
> ever becomes one, you may see some hackers target its use. Until then,
> who cares?
In other words, no, you can't substantiate your claim. Not the slightest
little bit. You just will repeat it again and again
--
Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course
billwg
"Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.02.13....@trollfeed.com...
>
> ... except that in rare, but increasing, instances you can buy the
> computer without the OS.
>
Oh, quit being so silly, rick! Anyone with an internet connection and
half a brain and any interest at all can find a source for barebones,
OS-less computers with a minimal effort at searching. There is nothing
"rare" at all about them. Ask yourself how it is that someone as
backward as yourself can find all these things and others cannot. The
answer is that they can find them just as easily but they don't give a
hoot about what you see as a problem. They don't buy them because it is
more convenient to buy a package and just use it.
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
news:dDTHf.5003$UD1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
> billwg wrote:
>> "TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
>> news:anPHf.4367$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...>>>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for
>>>>>>> $0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either,
>>>>>> rick!
>>>>>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>>>>> No, it is not. You have to pay for windows to get IE. That takes
>>>>> care of
>>>>> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes
>>>>> care of
>>>>> the 'Free'.
>>>>>
>>>> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick!
>>>> Unless you buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you
>>>> been?
>>> Still don't understand the concept of an embedded cost, do you?
>>>
>> If it were a separable item,
>
> It's not free no matter how Dell chooses to hide the cost. That $400
> machine just became a $450 machine, but they throw in a 'free' copy of
> Windows. That's not free, idiot.
>
>> you could buy the computer with or without the OS, K.
>
> I wish they would let me do that. I don't want to pay extra for an
> operating system that isn't going to be used.
>
>> Since you cannot, it is part of the product and is included.
>
> Yes, included. *Not Free*. The cost of Windows is *built into the
> price of the product*. Now, instead of selling you $400 worth of
> hardware for $400, they sell it to you for $450 and include a copy of
> Windows. And idiots like you think they're getting something. Did you
> know you're also helping to foot Dell's shipping costs, and the taxes
> they'll pay on that box?
>
I read your stuff and the trailer for "Dumb and Dumber" keeps popping
into my head! Do you think that Dell could sell more computers if they
lowered the price? If you could prove that, then you might want to go
to Dell and get them to agree. They'll probably hire you and give you
lots of money. But that is never going to happen because you are all
wet.
Dell doesn't set prices by adding up a catalog of parts and multiplying
by some factor. If Dell thought they could get the same revenues
without offering Windows as they do with providing it, they would do
that overnight. It would still cost $450.
billwg
"Peter Köhlmann" <peter.k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dsq86c$ocj$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Peter, you make a lot of noise, but no generate no content. Just like
an empty trash can! LOL!!!
Aragorn
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> Yes, you can use a PC with some other OS, just like you can use a TV
> with a third party remote. That doesn't help you buy the TV without
> the remote or the PC without Windows.
Pedant point, Erik... The remote that comes with most television sets
is *designed* *for* that particular brand or series of televisions,
whereas third party remotes are often one-size-fits(-nearly)-all
devices.
Although a lot of hardware - usually of the hotpluggable kind, although
there are others, e.g. Winmodems - may be designed to work with
Windows, Windows itself is not exactly tailored to a specific machine,
and the IA32 and IA32-64 CPU's - not to mention other platforms - are
not exactly designed specifically for Windows.
Even the IA32 and IA32-64 machines sold with Windows do not have a
specific version of Windows on them, the way that - say - SGI MIPS is
tailored to SGI-specific hardware, or OS X to Apple-specific hardware.
Microsoft's OEM license deals with brandname computer vendors ensures
that such machines will normally be _sold_ _with_ a Windows OEM license
in 98% of the cases, but this is due to a license deal, not due to a
technical requirement or technical consideration. The bottom line is
that you picked a poor analogy here.
If you were to throw together specific designed-for-Windows components
and build a computer around that, then your analogy would stand a
chance - although GNU/Linux is pretty good at working even on that
hardware and thus Windows would still not be an exclusive requirement.
However, most computer systems /may/ contain some components which were
"designed for Windows" - the presence or absence of such an
industrially glued-on sticker on the casing is totally irrelevant in
this respect - but said computers normally all work equally well - not
to say "much better" - with GNU/Linux, just as they would with any
other mature multi-platform operating system.
And here, the second bottom line reads that there is no justification
for the pushing of a Windows license with the purchase of any computer
system for 90% of the commodity PC market. No justification at all,
except for the economic "incentives" created by Microsoft's OEM deals.
But that's an economic and legal matter, not a technical one.
The consumer should be free to choose what operating system he wishes
to use on his computer at purchase-time, because no operating system is
technically coupled to said specific computer.
The better analogy would be to compare Windows with a car stereo and the
computer itself with a car. Some car stereos - the one in my car for
instance - were conceived to specifically be installed in this
particular brand or model of car, because they use the car's on-board
computer display and the stereo front panel integrates seamlessly with
the dashboard. Using a different car stereo would break the visual
appearance of the dashboard and center console.
There are however plenty of cars that do not require such a visually
matched stereo, and for which the buyer has the choice between various
models and brands of car stereos. To extend this analogy, Windows is
only one of many brands of car stereos, and it isn't even matched with
anything, other than that some car manufacturers actually try their
best to match their entire car design with the Windows stereo.
And *that* is quite stupid...
--
With kind regards,
*Aragorn*
(Registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
Aragorn
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> After takin' a swig o' grog, William Poaster belched out this bit o'
> wisdom:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050829-5253.html
>
> "... but you wouldn't hear me complain if those stickers went away.
> While I suppose that they're relatively harmless on desktops, I
> find them exceedingly irritating on laptops. Never mind the fact
> that they fade, get grimy, and tend to look awful after only a
> small amount of time. No, the real problem is when they start to
> peel back. My Compaq X1000 suffered from this problem, and when it
> finally made me batty, I ripped it off only to leave remnants of
> adhesive goo, which I then had to carefully remove with a solvent."
>
> I, too, hate those fucking stickers. But, if you remove them when
> they are new, you can end up with scratches or permanent smudges
> trying to get rid of the crazy-glue used on the stickers.
I have a Toshiba Satellite 1800 laptop that I bought second-hand off a
guy who needed money urgently, while I was in urgent need of a working
computer. Although the manual states that the machine was "designed
for Windows Millenium Edition", it actually came with Windows XP Home -
in the form of the typical recovery CD that wipes out the entire hard
disk and partitions it again for Windows, i.e. one 4 GB /sea/ /drive/
and the rest as the /duh/ /drive./
Needless to say that I wiped off what was installed and put GNU/Linux on
it... ;-)
Anyway, that machine also has one of those "Designed for Windows XP"
stickers on it. I couldn't remove that sticker, no matter what I
tried. It's still on, but there's nothing on it for anyone to identify
anymore. It has faded over the years and is now just a "mirror silver"
like sticker that just sits there.
I installed Mandrake 8.2 PowerPack on it, and back then, MandrakeSoft -
now Mandriva - used to put their own stickers in the shrinkwrapped
retail boxes. I put a few of those on instead.
They are not so thick, they don't peel back, and they still have all
their colors and graphs. The only problem is that they have a
completely white background, which doesn't quite look good on the black
and graphite plastic of the laptop, nor even on the typical "broken
white" of most desktop and deskside computer cases. ;-)
Ray Ingles
>> But, ignoring that, can you give me a number, Bill? How large of a
>> browser share will Firefox have to have, in percentages, before it
>> starts getting a flood of exploits? C'mon, even just a guess?
> Firefox is not a major element in personal computing. If and when it
> ever becomes one, you may see some hackers target its use. Until then,
> who cares?
Yup, no specifics, as usual. I suggest that Firefox is not going to get
a major malware epidemic, but not because it won't be more popular than
it already is. It's just that it's written better and updated better and
won't be as vulnerable as IE... even IE 7.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Improving our overall fuel efficiency by just 2.7 miles per gallon
would completely eliminate our need for oil from the Persian Gulf."
- Bill Maher, "When You Ride Alone You Ride With bin Laden"
GreyCloud
> "GreyCloud" <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote in message
> news:5O-dnQ1JK6plHHLe...@bresnan.com...
>
>>billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"B Gruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:456pr9F...@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Saturday 11 February 2006 03:11 billwg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well, ghost, I don't think you got the point at all. Suffice it to
>>>>>say
>>>>>that the "many eyes" failed here as they do everywhere and the whole
>>>>>idea is just another myth told around the campfire. Firefox
>>>>>continues
>>>>>to suffer from discoveries of the same kinds of buffer overrun and
>>>>>such
>>>>>coding errors as IE and really offers nothing new under the sun. MS
>>>>>fixes IE bugs as they are found and so does Firefox. Ho Hum. They
>>>>>are
>>>>>both free and they both do the same things. There is no choice
>>>>>here.
>>>>
>>>>Sure baa-lamb, sure..... and here's more on the myth...
>>>>
>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/cmp/20060210/tc_cmp/179102616
>>>>
>>>>- and in effect, that's just on Windows....
>>>>(Did you miss out on the LOL! btw?)
>>>>
>>>
>>>"We can't say IE is any less safe," explained Levy, "because we
>>>choose to use an unpatched version [of each browser.] We were trying
>>>to understand the number of [spyware] threats, so if we used
>>>unpatched browsers then we would see more threats."
>>>
>>>Kind of defeats the purpose of fixing the browser in the first place,
>>>eh?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>blah, blah, blah, how come only M$ IE has these problems?
>>You can blather all the FUD you want, but the fact remains this is a
>>M$ windwoes problem.
>>Keep spinning, billy boy.
>>
>
> None of the spyware/adware distributors are going to bother with Firefox
> until it is a lot more likely that a target consumer is actually using
> it. These people are not out to infiltrate the geeks and nerds, they
> are out to corral the ordinary user who might be persuaded to buy
> something.
>
>
Boy, are you totally clueless and ignorant.
This is a M$ design flaw, as usual.
But, keep believing in the M$ Kool-aide.
--
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?
The Ghost In The Machine
<thele...@spymac.nosppam.com>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:12:38 -0500
<dDTHf.5003$UD1...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>:
Pedant Point: the price does not necessarily reflect the cost.
If the unit/item/widget/thingy is an absolute "must have", costs
such as government taxes or increases in sublicensing prices
(Windows) get passed through; however, if the market is extremely
competitive, the corporate powers-that-be may decide to just eat
the cost themselves rather than run the risk of being undersold
by an agressive competitor.
>
>> you could buy the computer with or without
>> the OS, K.
>
> I wish they would let me do that. I don't want to pay extra for an
> operating system that isn't going to be used.
Dell's getting better at that, although one might have to go
through Small Business, and one might be saddled with RH Enterprise
instead on the higher-end systems.
>
>> Since you cannot, it is part of the product and is included.
>
> Yes, included. *Not Free*. The cost of Windows is *built into the price
> of the product*. Now, instead of selling you $400 worth of hardware for
> $400, they sell it to you for $450 and include a copy of Windows. And
> idiots like you think they're getting something. Did you know you're
> also helping to foot Dell's shipping costs, and the taxes they'll pay on
> that box?
>
We shall see. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
The Ghost In The Machine
<blob...@SPAMOFF.con>
wrote
on Sun, 12 Feb 2006 10:06:06 +1000
<43ee7a02$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
> Hi there,
>
> billwg wrote:
>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.02.11....@trollfeed.com...
>>
>>>IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either, rick!
>> require Windows to run. That is the way the world sees it. You want to
>> claim there is a difference, but you are just fooling yourself, which
>> appears to be easy to do!
>
> Is Windows free? IE requires Windows to work last time I looked.
> That means in order to run IE you have to buy Windows...
Not any more. I have IE6 running just fine on my Gentoo system.
(Well, as fine as IE runs, anyway.) WinE of course is
required, to implement the Win32 underlayer.
I can also now view CNN's Windows Media Player videoas -- the free ones.
For Gentoo, the instructions are in a Wiki:
http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Install_Internet_Explorer_6_SP1
I'd have to look regarding other distros. A neat testament to
the folks at WinE and Linux. :-)
(This probably is going to give Microsoft fits... :-) )
>
> I imagine you'll respond with 'ah, but you still get to download
> it for free!' argument, but really...quit deluding yourself...it
> has an indirect cost that cannot be avoided unless you pirate the
> OS...
Erik Funkenbusch
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:05:56 +1000, Chris Wilkinson wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft have tied the OEM's/system builders into such a knot that
>>> they cannot supply a ready-made system without Windows. As I said I
>>> cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
>>> against my will. That I believe is highly monopolistic and less than
>>> fair trade...
>>
>> Actually, many of them DO supply PC's without Windows, such as Dell's N
>> series, which is a couple years old.
>
> You're ignoring what he just said:
No i'm not.
> >> cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
>
> Or are you saying that DELL's deal does not include tallying up all the
> PCs it sells and making a payment to Microsoft based on that number?
That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On Monday 13 February 2006 10:52, Erik Funkenbusch stood up and spoke
> the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>
>> Yes, you can use a PC with some other OS, just like you can use a TV
>> with a third party remote. That doesn't help you buy the TV without
>> the remote or the PC without Windows.
>
> Pedant point, Erik... The remote that comes with most television sets
> is *designed* *for* that particular brand or series of televisions,
> whereas third party remotes are often one-size-fits(-nearly)-all
> devices.
So what?
> Although a lot of hardware - usually of the hotpluggable kind, although
> there are others, e.g. Winmodems - may be designed to work with
> Windows, Windows itself is not exactly tailored to a specific machine,
> and the IA32 and IA32-64 CPU's - not to mention other platforms - are
> not exactly designed specifically for Windows.
Windows may not be designed specifically for that machine, but it is
typically customized by the OEM to fit that particular machine. And, more
importantly, the PC is usually designed specifically for Windows (it may
work with other OS's, but most OEM's don't really care if that's true).
> And here, the second bottom line reads that there is no justification
> for the pushing of a Windows license with the purchase of any computer
> system for 90% of the commodity PC market. No justification at all,
> except for the economic "incentives" created by Microsoft's OEM deals.
> But that's an economic and legal matter, not a technical one.
Do you really think PC's without Windows would sell in any volume?
Seriously? Doing so would be suicide to any vendor except for the few that
specialize in that)
> The consumer should be free to choose what operating system he wishes
> to use on his computer at purchase-time, because no operating system is
> technically coupled to said specific computer.
That's simply not very feasible in a retail environment. That's why you
can't change out speakers on a typical bookshelf stereo or a remote on a
tv.
> The better analogy would be to compare Windows with a car stereo and the
> computer itself with a car. Some car stereos - the one in my car for
> instance - were conceived to specifically be installed in this
> particular brand or model of car, because they use the car's on-board
> computer display and the stereo front panel integrates seamlessly with
> the dashboard. Using a different car stereo would break the visual
> appearance of the dashboard and center console.
And, more importantly, (I assume you have a BMW, since this sounds like it)
you will void your warranty if you replace that stereo with an after market
one.
> There are however plenty of cars that do not require such a visually
> matched stereo, and for which the buyer has the choice between various
> models and brands of car stereos. To extend this analogy, Windows is
> only one of many brands of car stereos, and it isn't even matched with
> anything, other than that some car manufacturers actually try their
> best to match their entire car design with the Windows stereo.
>
> And *that* is quite stupid...
Just like when you buy a car off the lot, you are stuck with whatever the
car was built with, you are stuck with whatever the retailer purchased in
retail stores.
Aragorn
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:35:21 GMT, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> Although a lot of hardware - usually of the hotpluggable kind,
>> although there are others, e.g. Winmodems - may be designed to work
>> with Windows, Windows itself is not exactly tailored to a specific
>> machine, and the IA32 and IA32-64 CPU's - not to mention other
>> platforms - are not exactly designed specifically for Windows.
>
> Windows may not be designed specifically for that machine, but it is
> typically customized by the OEM to fit that particular machine.
Most machines don't need such customizations. What you're really saying
- and what is _really_ true - is that these machines come pre-installed
with Windows. So much for customization.
> And, more importantly, the PC is usually designed specifically for
> Windows (it may work with other OS's, but most OEM's don't really care
> if that's true).
No, it is not. Some are, but they are by far not the majority.
>> And here, the second bottom line reads that there is no justification
>> for the pushing of a Windows license with the purchase of any
>> computer system for 90% of the commodity PC market. No justification
>> at all, except for the economic "incentives" created by Microsoft's
>> OEM deals. But that's an economic and legal matter, not a technical
>> one.
>
> Do you really think PC's without Windows would sell in any volume?
I did say that it's an economic and legal matter. The point is that
it's technically not justified for more than half of the commodity
PC's.
> Seriously? Doing so would be suicide to any vendor except for the few
> that specialize in that)
Yes, because Microsoft sees to it that a vendor who sells 50% of his PC
stock *without* Windows gets to pay for that due to a different
license, and so selling them all _with_ Windows would cost him less
than if he were to sell Windows licenses on only 50% of his stock.
The issue here has nothing to do with whether it would be profitable or
suicide for any vendor to do. The issue is that Windows is being
pushed where it is not necessary from the technical point of view, and
where the user should have the option.
>> The consumer should be free to choose what operating system he wishes
>> to use on his computer at purchase-time, because no operating system
>> is technically coupled to said specific computer.
>
> That's simply not very feasible in a retail environment. That's why
> you can't change out speakers on a typical bookshelf stereo or a
> remote on a tv.
It's quite feasible, I can assure you. I've worked in a retail
environment. I was one of the people preparing the computers for the
customers.
>> The better analogy would be to compare Windows with a car stereo and
>> the computer itself with a car. Some car stereos - the one in my car
>> for instance - were conceived to specifically be installed in this
>> particular brand or model of car, because they use the car's on-board
>> computer display and the stereo front panel integrates seamlessly
>> with the dashboard. Using a different car stereo would break the
>> visual appearance of the dashboard and center console.
>
> And, more importantly, (I assume you have a BMW, since this sounds
> like it) you will void your warranty if you replace that stereo with
> an after market one.
No, I drive an Opel Astra - 3-door 1999 model - and there are no special
warranty clauses. The people at the garage - which is an official Opel
dealer - will be all too happy to help you in picking another stereo.
They even sell them.
>> There are however plenty of cars that do not require such a visually
>> matched stereo, and for which the buyer has the choice between
>> various models and brands of car stereos. To extend this analogy,
>> Windows is only one of many brands of car stereos, and it isn't even
>> matched with anything, other than that some car manufacturers
>> actually try their best to match their entire car design with the
>> Windows stereo.
>>
>> And *that* is quite stupid...
>
> Just like when you buy a car off the lot, you are stuck with whatever
> the car was built with, you are stuck with whatever the retailer
> purchased in retail stores.
Except that Windows is not a requirement for the normal operation of the
retail machine in more than 50% of the cases - I'm including the
whitebox PC's that the customer can virtually assemble from a list of
configurations and the brandname PC's that are not specifically
tailored to Windows. The latter category makes up for the bulk of
them.
The Ghost In The Machine
<str...@telenet.invalid>
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:24:06 GMT
<GV5If.254133$Uy7.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 20:42, Erik Funkenbusch stood up and spoke
> the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:35:21 GMT, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> Although a lot of hardware - usually of the hotpluggable kind,
>>> although there are others, e.g. Winmodems - may be designed to work
>>> with Windows, Windows itself is not exactly tailored to a specific
>>> machine, and the IA32 and IA32-64 CPU's - not to mention other
>>> platforms - are not exactly designed specifically for Windows.
>>
>> Windows may not be designed specifically for that machine, but it is
>> typically customized by the OEM to fit that particular machine.
>
> Most machines don't need such customizations. What you're really saying
> - and what is _really_ true - is that these machines come pre-installed
> with Windows. So much for customization.
It was probably messier than it is today. I would guess
that a lot of the preinstalls revolved around bundling and
drivers. Of course bundling is not customization as such.
Not sure if drivers would be either though it depends on
how proprietary they are.
>
>> And, more importantly, the PC is usually designed specifically for
>> Windows (it may work with other OS's, but most OEM's don't really care
>> if that's true).
>
> No, it is not. Some are, but they are by far not the majority.
I would wonder what this even means. At best, it means
that someone's written proper drivers for the hardware
under a NDA. At worst, it means diddly-squat and is merely
a throwaway "feelgood" phrase.
Either way, the customer's slightly screwed, especially
if he replaces hardware.
>
>>> And here, the second bottom line reads that there is no justification
>>> for the pushing of a Windows license with the purchase of any
>>> computer system for 90% of the commodity PC market. No justification
>>> at all, except for the economic "incentives" created by Microsoft's
>>> OEM deals. But that's an economic and legal matter, not a technical
>>> one.
>>
>> Do you really think PC's without Windows would sell in any volume?
>
> I did say that it's an economic and legal matter. The point is that
> it's technically not justified for more than half of the commodity
> PC's.
There is a justification for pushing a Windows license, and it's an
obvious one: the promulgation/perpetuation of a certain vendor.
That's about it, AFAICT.
>
>> Seriously? Doing so would be suicide to any vendor except for the few
>> that specialize in that)
>
> Yes, because Microsoft sees to it that a vendor who sells 50% of his PC
> stock *without* Windows gets to pay for that due to a different
> license, and so selling them all _with_ Windows would cost him less
> than if he were to sell Windows licenses on only 50% of his stock.
Yep. Neat arrangement, that!
Windows is a requirement (well, one of the choices,
anyway) in order to effectively use the machine; a good
Linux distro will also meet the requirement -- and will
probably function better in the right hands.
It's probably going to get a bit weird in the future,
if mobile phones, microwaves, and such go this route.
But it makes sense for desktops to allow a user to download
alternatives and install them.
Linønut
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 06:19:37 -0600, Linųnut wrote:
>
>> >> cannot buy a ready-made PC without some of my money going to Microsoft
>>
>> Or are you saying that DELL's deal does not include tallying up all the
>> PCs it sells and making a payment to Microsoft based on that number?
>
> That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
> than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
Why don't I believe you?
> Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
> Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
> for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
> cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
How do you know this?
Erik Funkenbusch
>> That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
>> than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
>
> Why don't I believe you?
Because you don't want to.
The justice department still oversees their compliance with the consent
decree?
>> Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
>> Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
>> for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
>> cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
>
> How do you know this?
Because that was revealed in the anti-trust trial.
Rick
>
> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.02.13....@trollfeed.com...
>>
>> ... except that in rare, but increasing, instances you can buy the
>> computer without the OS.
>>
> Oh, quit being so silly, rick! Anyone with an internet connection and
> half a brain and any interest at all can find a source for barebones,
> OS-less computers with a minimal effort at searching. There is nothing
> "rare" at all about them.
Rare as in you can now get them from Dell, if you know where to look.
> Ask yourself how it is that someone as backward
> as yourself can find all these things and others cannot. The answer is
That's funny, coming from a jerk like you.
> that they can find them just as easily but they don't give a hoot about
> what you see as a problem. They don't buy them because it is more
> convenient to buy a package and just use it.
No shit, sherlock. That's why Linux users get so happy when they here of
vendors starting to bundle Linux.
Linønut
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:58:22 -0600, Linųnut wrote:
Now I definitely don't believe you.
Mark Kent
Linønut <linøn...@bone.com> espoused:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>
>>>> That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
>>>> than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
>>>
>>> Why don't I believe you?
>>
>> Because you don't want to.
>>
>> The justice department still oversees their compliance with the consent
>> decree?
>>
>>>> Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
>>>> Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
>>>> for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
>>>> cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
>>>
>>> How do you know this?
>>
>> Because that was revealed in the anti-trust trial.
>
> Now I definitely don't believe you.
>
I have seen recently a couple of retailers in the UK offering OS free
machines, or the same machine with XP pre-loaded. Example prices were
£150 for the OS free machine, or £250 with XP loaded. Clearly, you're
paying £100 for XP, or practically the cost of the hardware - amazing.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Slowly and surely the unix crept up on the Nintendo user ...
Mark Kent
Aragorn <str...@telenet.invalid> espoused:
> On Monday 13 February 2006 10:52, Erik Funkenbusch stood up and spoke
> the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/
>
>> Yes, you can use a PC with some other OS, just like you can use a TV
>> with a third party remote. That doesn't help you buy the TV without
>> the remote or the PC without Windows.
>
> Pedant point, Erik... The remote that comes with most television sets
> is *designed* *for* that particular brand or series of televisions,
> whereas third party remotes are often one-size-fits(-nearly)-all
> devices.
Taking your pendantry just a tiny bit further, in reality, there are
only a few chipsets available for handling remote control for TVs and so
on. A second layer of indirection comes from how the mappings are made
within the remote and the TV set. This is why it's possible to have
'all in one' remotes, as there're only so many types to emulate, after
that, it's just a question of which signals to map to which buttons on
the remote.
As an example, I have a large Philips TV (big thing, multiple scarts,
inputs and so on, fast-text, nicam stereo, multi-standard) and a small
Bush 14" portable in the kitchen. The remote for the Bush can directly
control the Philips TV, and vice-versa. Even the button mapping is
almost the same (although not exact).
<snip for once...>
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On 2006-02-10, billwg <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Ray Ingles" <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
>> news:slrndupcm3....@localhost.localdomain...
>>> On 2006-02-10, tab <trental...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.itweek.co.uk/vnunet/news/2150023/attackers-publish-exploit-code
>>>
>>> Yup, sweet. Unlike with Microsoft, the patch is out *before* the
>>> exploit code is deployed. I was automatically updated last week. :->
>>>
>> Well, so much for the "many eyes" theory though! LOL!!! Where were
>> your suspicious eyes, ray? rick? chris? clark? peter? midget? goat?
>> anybody?
>
> "Many eyes" don't prevent bugs from happening at all. They just find
> them and get them corrected faster than closed-source bugs. Consider
> that Microsoft's time-to-fix has been increasing steadily while these
> bugs were fixed within days of discovery.
>
There was an analysis a few months back which showed that a
fully-patched Windows machine would have been vulnerable for something
like 3-6 months of a year, compared with a Linux machine which would
have been vulnerable for something like 1 week or maybe less. The
analysis was done on the basis of the /time taken/ to issue the bug fix
from the moment it was known.
Clearly, this is why Microsoft are trying to claim things like copyright
on such problems, as they know very well that Windows machines are
vulnerable far more than Linux, OSX, BSD or Unix machines, so they'd
rather that this be hidden from the users, customers, CIOs, and anyone
else who might be rather concerned about this.
Ray Ingles
> I have seen recently a couple of retailers in the UK offering OS free
> machines, or the same machine with XP pre-loaded. Example prices were
> £150 for the OS free machine, or £250 with XP loaded. Clearly, you're
> paying £100 for XP, or practically the cost of the hardware - amazing.
See my .sig...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"I remember saying [...] that people would spend more money on software
than on hardware. We certainly haven't passed that milestone by quite a
margin. But particularly as software as a service becomes a reality
[that might change]." -- Bill Gates, Newsweek, September 18th 2000
Jamie Hart
@tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
> How do you know that, buford? Are you a mind reader? How about the
> little packs of ketchup (catsup in NY) that McDonald's puts in the bag
> when you buy your Happy Meal? Has that been added to the cost of the
> burger? Not at all. It is added to the cost of running a store and
> being in business.
Which is what is used to work out how much to charge for each burger. If
the cost of running the store and being in business goes up, so does the
price of a burger.
If the price per carton of ketchup goes up, so does the cost of a burger,
simple as that.
> If McDonald's was known for not supplying any
> ketchup with their Happy Meals, their volume would decline and so it is
> with anything that you might buy.
>
That's an interesting theory, I wonder why low cost airlines are doing so
well. You know, the ones that offer "no frills" flights.
There is more than one way to stay in business, offering so called
"freebies" is not the only way.
> The manufacturer or other seller figures out what has to be in the box
> in order to be able to sell it and then figures out what the box can
> sell for and then decides if there is any market for that kind of a box
> at that price.
>
In a very roundabout way you are right, but you gloss over the deciding
what the box can sell for. They start off with their costs; meat, bread,
cheese, rent for the store, electricity, cost of the stove over five
years, staff wages etc. and yes the cost of the sachets of ketchup are in
there too. Then they add a little for fudge factor and then think about
how much more they can add as profit.
>> But you know all this. You're simply lying about it.
>>
>> I wonder, "billwg", if you've ever wondered what it feels like to have
>> a
>> conscience. I bet not. :)
>>
> All this is is a discussion on what makes for a sensible approach to a
> business of buying personal computers, buford. Where on earth does any
> morality enter into it? Maybe if there was a plan to cheat customers
> from the beginning, but all we are discussing is how best to lure
> customers to our product versus the other guys' product. Try to stay
on
> an even keel.
>
Who said anything about morals? He asked you about your consience.
chrisv
(Outhouse-mangled quotes corrected)
>"Buford" <b...@hp.net> wrote in message
>>
>> Proven liar billwg wrote:
>>>
>>> ...or get it for free, too, with a new computer. Most OEMs give away a
>>> copy of Windows with each new computer purchased as a sort of come-on
>>> to influence the sale.
>>
>> Wow. You're just as dishonest as you were the last time I looked in on
>> this newsgroup. Windows is never given away. Not by OEMs, and
>> certainly not by Microsoft. OEMs pay Microsoft for every copy of
>> Windows on every computer they sell. They then add that cost to the
>>cost of the computer.
>
>How do you know that, buford?
Dumbsh*t.
>Are you a mind reader?
Are you a stupid, lying troll? LOL!!!
Windows is not given-away for free. Period.
>(snip claptrap)
>
>> I wonder, "billwg", if you've ever wondered what it feels like to have
>> a conscience. I bet not. :)
>
>All this is is a discussion on what makes for a sensible approach to a
>business of buying personal computers, buford. Where on earth does any
>morality enter into it?
He was referring to your willingness to lie, billwg.
>Maybe if there was a plan to cheat customers
>from the beginning,
Dumbsh*t. The issue was "is Windows free or is it not", not "are
customers being cheated". How fscking stupid are you, anyway? LOL!!!
>(snip claptrap)
JEDIDIAH
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:58:22 -0600, Linųnut wrote:
>
>>> That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
>>> than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
>>
>> Why don't I believe you?
>
> Because you don't want to.
>
> The justice department still oversees their compliance with the consent
> decree?
The justice department "prosecuted" Microsoft again specifically
because they weren't really holding up their end of that original bargain.
>
>>> Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
>>> Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
>>> for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
>>> cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
>>
>> How do you know this?
>
> Because that was revealed in the anti-trust trial.
It was revealed in the anti-trust trial that MS was still acting in
bad faith. That's what got them sued.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2006-02-14, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:58:22 -0600, Linųnut wrote:
>>
>>>> That practice hasn't occured since 1994, and even then it amounted to less
>>>> than half of MS's contracts according to the 1994 consent decree.
>>>
>>> Why don't I believe you?
>>
>> Because you don't want to.
>>
>> The justice department still oversees their compliance with the consent
>> decree?
>
> The justice department "prosecuted" Microsoft again specifically
> because they weren't really holding up their end of that original bargain.
Did you actually follow the trial? Apparently not. Yes, the DOJ attempted
to prosecute MS for violating the consent decree, but they were not found
to be in violation of it. This caused the DOJ to start an entirely new
action that went further than the consent decree.
>>>> Microsoft now uses model based pricing. The OEM defines a model that has
>>>> Windows on it (most of their models usually, since most people want windows
>>>> for whatever reason). If they want to sell a PC without paying for the
>>>> cost of Windows, they define a model without it. Thus, the Dell N series.
>>>
>>> How do you know this?
>>
>> Because that was revealed in the anti-trust trial.
>
> It was revealed in the anti-trust trial that MS was still acting in
> bad faith. That's what got them sued.
No, Microsoft was found to be in compliance with the consent decree. The
DOJ wasn't happy with that, though.
billwg
"Jamie Hart" <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote in message
news:Xns976A9361D8EFB...@195.8.68.206...
> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote in news:xTRHf.1996$_c.431
> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>>
>> How do you know that, buford? Are you a mind reader? How about the
>> little packs of ketchup (catsup in NY) that McDonald's puts in the
>> bag
>> when you buy your Happy Meal? Has that been added to the cost of the
>> burger? Not at all. It is added to the cost of running a store and
>> being in business.
>
> Which is what is used to work out how much to charge for each burger.
> If
> the cost of running the store and being in business goes up, so does
> the
> price of a burger.
>
> If the price per carton of ketchup goes up, so does the cost of a
> burger,
> simple as that.
>
cost what a burger can cost and provide for a viable burger business.
If costs go down, profits go up and the price of the burger stays the
same. If costs go up there is no use in thinking about raising the
price of the burger. It should already be at the maximum price that the
business can charge. Rather, profits will go down and if they go down
too much, the business will necessarily close or quit selling burgers
and switch to some other product.
>> If McDonald's was known for not supplying any
>> ketchup with their Happy Meals, their volume would decline and so it
>> is
>> with anything that you might buy.
>>
> That's an interesting theory, I wonder why low cost airlines are doing
> so
> well. You know, the ones that offer "no frills" flights.
>
Many of them are going bankrupt as well. But airlines are a case in
point. Since their costs have gone up so much, why have they not raised
prices to suit? Answer: Same as burgers, they cannot really change the
price expectations of the population. The majority of the people won't
pay more.
> There is more than one way to stay in business, offering so called
> "freebies" is not the only way.
>
>> The manufacturer or other seller figures out what has to be in the
>> box
>> in order to be able to sell it and then figures out what the box can
>> sell for and then decides if there is any market for that kind of a
>> box
>> at that price.
>>
> In a very roundabout way you are right, but you gloss over the
> deciding
> what the box can sell for. They start off with their costs; meat,
> bread,
> cheese, rent for the store, electricity, cost of the stove over five
> years, staff wages etc. and yes the cost of the sachets of ketchup are
> in
> there too. Then they add a little for fudge factor and then think
> about
> how much more they can add as profit.
>
I don't think that you would find anything so simple-minded in any
business course anywhere. Where did you learn such an idea?
>>> But you know all this. You're simply lying about it.
>>>
>>> I wonder, "billwg", if you've ever wondered what it feels like to
>>> have
>>> a
>>> conscience. I bet not. :)
>>>
>> All this is is a discussion on what makes for a sensible approach to
>> a
>> business of buying personal computers, buford. Where on earth does
>> any
>> morality enter into it? Maybe if there was a plan to cheat customers
>> from the beginning, but all we are discussing is how best to lure
>> customers to our product versus the other guys' product. Try to stay
> on
>> an even keel.
>>
> Who said anything about morals? He asked you about your consience.
Conscience, that is. Which is your judgment as to the moral goodness or
evil of an act, certainly. Do you not believe that one implies the
other?
billwg
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:k4u3v1lmu0v5hmkdb...@4ax.com...
Is it possible for you to explain what sort of amusement you get out of
this continued name calling, chris? I think that I would be very bored
to just do that over and over, day in and day out, never changing
anything. I cannot see how anyone could be so desperate as to need to
do that, but I cannot understand what else could be enough of a
motivator to compel the action.
billwg
"TheLetterK" <thele...@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote in message
news:anPHf.4367$UD1....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
>>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:11:30 +0000, billwg wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Rick" <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
>>>>> IE is neither Free, nor free. You cannot legally obtain IE for $0.
>>>>>
>>>> Oh you're not supposed to take the tags off your mattress either,
>>>> rick!
>>>> Quit being such a goon. IE is free,
>>> care of
>>> 'free'. You cannot alter the source and re-distribuite. That takes
>>> care of
>>> the 'Free'.
>>>
>> You get Windows for free with most computer purchases, rick! Unless
>> you buy some really cheapo stuff mail order. Where have you been?
>
> Still don't understand the concept of an embedded cost, do you?
>
want to market a shopping good like a watch or a TV or a personal
computer or a refrigerator, you look at consumer price points. Then you
decide what area you want to compete within and you try to create a
product that beats the competition in that segment. So look at the
spectrum of PCs on the market and pick something. Then look at what it
takes to be in the market in that segment. It has to be competitive, so
that might mean that it has a minimum amount of RAM, HD, etc., and it
often means that you have to supply Windows XP Home or even XP Pro as
the OS. You try to pack as much as you can into that price and still
meet your margin requirements.
You people are so biased against Microsoft that you are blind to the way
these sales work. Linux vs Windows has to be sold to the consumer
referentially outside the package PC market, but there is no one who is
willing to spend the money to do that and so it will never happen and so
linux will never amount to much on the desktop.
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
>> I have seen recently a couple of retailers in the UK offering OS free
>> machines, or the same machine with XP pre-loaded. Example prices were
>> £150 for the OS free machine, or £250 with XP loaded. Clearly, you're
>> paying £100 for XP, or practically the cost of the hardware - amazing.
>
> See my .sig...
>
Bill Gates certainly has a good forward look on how he's going to keep
extracting the cash from the mugs, sorry victims, sorry, I meant
punters, err, no, that'd be customers. Clients. Valued guests...
Mark Kent
Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> espoused:
> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote in news:xTRHf.1996$_c.431
> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>
>>
>> How do you know that, buford? Are you a mind reader? How about the
>> little packs of ketchup (catsup in NY) that McDonald's puts in the bag
>> when you buy your Happy Meal? Has that been added to the cost of the
>> burger? Not at all. It is added to the cost of running a store and
>> being in business.
>
> Which is what is used to work out how much to charge for each burger. If
> the cost of running the store and being in business goes up, so does the
> price of a burger.
>
> If the price per carton of ketchup goes up, so does the cost of a burger,
> simple as that.
>
Absolutely. I sometimes wonder with bilge whether he really believes
these things that he says - perhaps he has such a loose grip on the
realities of business economics that he does.
Anyway, it works like this:
cost of burger =
(cost of all ingredients * margin )/(number of burgers sold).
Ie., you get a blended rate, so there is a proportionate but not direct
relationship in these cases - other methods could be done, but you'd have
to have a system which could link burgers sold to other items and directly
charge, which would be prohibitive for relatively small cost items.
Erik Funkenbusch
> Absolutely. I sometimes wonder with bilge whether he really believes
> these things that he says - perhaps he has such a loose grip on the
> realities of business economics that he does.
>
> Anyway, it works like this:
> cost of burger =
> (cost of all ingredients * margin )/(number of burgers sold).
> Ie., you get a blended rate, so there is a proportionate but not direct
> relationship in these cases - other methods could be done, but you'd have
> to have a system which could link burgers sold to other items and directly
> charge, which would be prohibitive for relatively small cost items.
Actually, no. Nobody says "I want a 3% margin" and proceeds to price their
products as cogs + margin. Instead, they determine the price the market
will bear, determine a minimum margin, and anything between their minimum
margin and actual margin is icing on the cake.
This is actually why I think so many Linux advocates are "disgusted" when
they look at Microsoft's margins. They think everyone should be selling
their products at a fixed, small margin. If the cost goes down, so should
the price.
That's not the way the real world works.
JEDIDIAH
>
> "Jamie Hart" <use...@jhart.ath.cx> wrote in message
> news:Xns976A9361D8EFB...@195.8.68.206...
>> "billwg" <bi...@twcf.rr.com> wrote in news:xTRHf.1996$_c.431
>> @tornado.tampabay.rr.com:
>>> ketchup with their Happy Meals, their volume would decline and so it
>>> is
>>> with anything that you might buy.
>>>
>> That's an interesting theory, I wonder why low cost airlines are doing
>> so
>> well. You know, the ones that offer "no frills" flights.
>>
The problem with airlines is that many of them have been
artificially kept alive rather than just being left to die. Much
like GM, they are seen as too big or important to simply let become
subject to economic darwinism.
> Many of them are going bankrupt as well. But airlines are a case in
> point. Since their costs have gone up so much, why have they not raised
> prices to suit? Answer: Same as burgers, they cannot really change the
> price expectations of the population. The majority of the people won't
> pay more.
OTOH, you can hedge against fuel costs.
Oh, and you can raise prices. It all depends on which part of the
market you want to serve. There are airlines that do very well servicing the
higher margin customers.
Although what puts customers off is not higher prices but lower
service levels and the attitude from traditional carriers that once they
have your money they can abuse you with impugnity. AA in particular acts
like it has no competition either in customers or labor.
I'd still pay more for SWA tickets on the same route for the simple
fact that SWA planes are less trouble prone and I can ALWAYS reuse my flight
credits if plans change. Traditional carriers won't even give you a refund
if their fleet is effectively grounded when your tickets are valid (9/11).
[deletia]
--
vi isn't easy to use. |||
/ | \
vi is easy to REPLACE.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
JEDIDIAH
>
>> Absolutely. I sometimes wonder with bilge whether he really believes
>> these things that he says - perhaps he has such a loose grip on the
>> realities of business economics that he does.
>>
>> Anyway, it works like this:
>> cost of burger =
>> (cost of all ingredients * margin )/(number of burgers sold).
>> Ie., you get a blended rate, so there is a proportionate but not direct
>> relationship in these cases - other methods could be done, but you'd have
>> to have a system which could link burgers sold to other items and directly
>> charge, which would be prohibitive for relatively small cost items.
>
> Actually, no. Nobody says "I want a 3% margin" and proceeds to price their
> products as cogs + margin. Instead, they determine the price the market
> will bear, determine a minimum margin, and anything between their minimum
> margin and actual margin is icing on the cake.
>
> This is actually why I think so many Linux advocates are "disgusted" when
No, we simply realize that a functional market tends to push those
margins towards ZERO in cheap mass consumer goods. The fact that Microsoft
doesn't have the same margins as Dell or Intel is rather suspicous.
> they look at Microsoft's margins. They think everyone should be selling
> their products at a fixed, small margin. If the cost goes down, so should
> the price.
>
> That's not the way the real world works.
Sure it does: when products can be readily replaced with each
other. This is why a burger joint has to worry about it's margins. You
are not limited today by what you had for lunch yesterday.
Microsoft's margins come from the fact that it is VERY relevant
today what OS or word processor you used yesterday. This turns Microsoft's
product into something with inelastic demand when demand for their product
should be as elastic as any other part of the PC. This artificial scarcity
is a perversion of the free market.