Microsoft Limits Vista Transfers - UPDATE Microsoft Backtracks

[sammie]

I (and a bunch of other Dell purchasesers) had a battle royal with Dell and MS when the "Genuine Advantage" spyware forced download occurred. MS was saying that Dell wasn't properly licensing pre-installed XP and Dell was saying if it's outside the 90 day initial purchase you had to pay for a couple of hundred dollar "support pacakge" or $60 an hour for them to help you. Resolved when I took a picture of and screen shot showing the Dell computer and the message that I was using a pirated version of windows and e-mailed it to them and to some Austin newspapers.

A bit of a sidetrack, but think for a second, if you get a warrantee replacement of your system and keep the original hard drive, you have probably used up your one swap!!!!!!!

[oldandinthe way]

The EU focus on API is a false issue. The EU's attempts to limit Vista can only increase costs - hopefully only for Europeans, but potentially for everyone.

It would help if you actually knew what you talking about. The APIs in question are for networking:

"Microsoft is required, within 120 days, to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers. This will enable rival vendors to develop products that can compete on a level playing field in the work group server operating system market."

http://europa.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/382&format=HTML&aged...guiLanguage=en

FUDing and Trolling at the sametime, good job.

As many Microsoft filings have shown, what the EU says is not what the EU means.

This isn't a consumer oriented issue. This is crap in the corporate world. The documentation requirement and its constantly changing standard is just an attempt to divert Microsoft, not any attempt to actually sell more of competitive products. The parts of the corporate world which will consider non-Microsoft servers, already have.

It makes as much sense as some of the mergers of American companies they have blocked. NONE.

[CaptainVideo]

US Unit Sales of PCs are over 50 million units per year. I repeat my contention that roll your own PCs are a small market segment.

Stating 50 million units per year of PC sales does not make your contention that DIY PC market is small. You're not comparing that 50 million number to anything. Nvidia and ATI ship millions of graphics cards each year and most of those go to the DIY market.

In spite of the fact that many web retailers make a good living off them

In spite of? No the reality is because of the large number of people who build their own PC's these web retailers and Tech websites like Anandtech and Tomshardware do extremely well.

There are in excess of 2,000 new magazines launched each year, most of them for niche audiences.

A 300,000 circ is not a niche audience for a magazine title. That's actually about normal. And I'd like to know where you got that 2,000 number as it's completely incorrect. There were only 257 launched in 2005 according to the MPA (Magazine Publisher's Association). LINK HERE

Microsoft has taken a stand which primarily affects your group. The direct economic consequenses are small. Indirectly it may deter some early adopters.

Here is where you are wrong again. The consequences will be severe. This is the group of people that determine if a tech succeeds or fails. If this group does not buy Vista, Microsoft will feel the pain and so will their technology partners. Analysts will start hammering Microsoft and their share price will plummet as Vista does not meet sales goals. All of this is my opinion, however I'm pretty sure this will bear out. The proof will be when the OS goes on sale.

As for the EU, they are not consumer oriented. Their antitrust actions have been primarily to protect competitors of Microsoft who cannot compete.

This is true in their current case, however forcing them to not make this license change would be pro-consumer.

[RLT69]

This isn't a consumer oriented issue. This is crap in the corporate world. The documentation requirement and its constantly changing standard is just an attempt to divert Microsoft, not any attempt to actually sell more of competitive products. The parts of the corporate world which will consider non-Microsoft servers, already have.

What does being "consumer" oriented versus "corporate" orineted have to do with anything?

The point being Microsoft lost a legal case and as a result Microsoft was ordered to document their networking APIs so competing programs can work with Microsoft's operating systems. This is PRO CONSUMER, even if the consumer happens to be a corporation.

Based on your numbers logic corporations have a BIGGER impact on sales than consumers. Thus this is a big deal to corporations. Having choice helps the economy.

To bring this closer to home - how about the latest battle between Symantec and McAffe over access to Vista's kernal for their anti virus software products. Microsoft refuses to provide access and at the same time Microsoft is touting their anti virus product. Tell me that's better for the consumer. Let's reduce choice and become further dependent upon one company.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The "roll your own" segment is insignificant. It is irrelevant to Microsoft whether you bitch and moan about its licensing or not.

Simple fact: Microsoft's primary duty is to its shareholders (like any corporation)

Simple fact: The Windows family of operating systems (excluding servers) falls within Microsoft's "Client" operating segment. According to Microsoft's 2006 Annual Report ( http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/index.html ):

Client revenue growth is correlated with the growth of purchases of personal computers from OEMs that pre-install versions of Windows operating systems because the OEM channel accounts for over 80% of total Client revenue.

Sales to Dell and its subsidiaries in the aggregate accounted for approximately 11% of fiscal year 2006 and 10% of total fiscal year 2005 and 2004 revenue. These sales were made primarily through our OEM and volume licensing channels and were included in all operating segments.

Microsoft's seven operating segments are:

Client – Windows XP Professional and Home; Media Center Edition; Tablet PC Edition; and other standard Windows operating systems.

Server and Tools – Windows Server operating system; Microsoft SQL Server; Exchange Server; Microsoft Consulting Services; product support services; Visual Studio; System Center products, Forefront security family of products; and Biz Talk.

Information Worker – Microsoft Office; Microsoft Project; Microsoft Visio; SharePoint Portal Server client access licenses; Microsoft LiveMeeting; OneNote; and Office Communication Server.

Microsoft Business Solutions – Microsoft Dynamics AX; Microsoft Dynamics CRM; Microsoft Dynamics GP; Microsoft Dynamics NAV; Microsoft Dynamics SL; Microsoft Dynamics Retail Management System; Microsoft Partner Program; and Microsoft Office Small Business Accounting.

MSN – MSN Search; MapPoint; MSN Internet Access; MSN Premium Web Services (consisting of MSN Internet Software Subscription, MSN Hotmail Plus, MSN Bill Pay, and MSN Radio Plus); and MSN Mobile Services.

Mobile and Embedded Devices – Windows Mobile software platform; Windows Embedded device operating system; and Windows Automotive.

Home and Entertainment – Xbox 360; Xbox; Xbox Live; CPxG (consumer software and hardware products); and IPTV.

For the year to 30 June 2006, the revenue breakdown was:

Client - 29%
Server and Tools - 24%
Information Worker - 28%
Microsoft Business Solutions - 2%
MSN - 6%
Mobile and Embedded Devices - 1%
Home and Entertainment - 10%

Microsoft estimate that 60 million pirated copies of Windows were shipped with PCs.

If you read about the new technical features of Vista (everyone seems to think Vista is just a tarted-up XP, it isn't - http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/technologies/default.aspx ), most of them are geared to the following:

1. Making the OS more secure against attacks
2. Making it easier for developers to develop complete systems for the business environment
3. Making device driver development easier
4. Making deployment and maintenance of the OS easier in a business environment

And reading between the lines, it is clear that the revenue from Client is important to funding new developments. Client is also the segment most at risk from piracy. So it's a simple business decision - protect the revenue from the cash cow that drives the future.

[oldandinthe way]

Protecting the consumer is the goal of US antitrust law, no consumer harm - no foul.

Protecting marginal competitors is the apparent goal of European anti-trust law.

The antivirus action is a real conflict between these interests. Antivirus products are using back doors that Microsoft is begining to close. The consumer is arguably safer with these back doors closed. The risks of these backdoors being open has increased due to increased disclosure of Windows internals.

Is a choice between anti-virus products preferable? - yes. Is a greater virus risk a fair payment for this choice? - No.

Symantec and McAfee need to find ways around these changes, if they can't there is no need for their products in the market.

Shopping for a European venue is not the solution.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Protecting the consumer is the goal of US antitrust law, no consumer harm - no foul.

Protecting marginal competitors is the apparent goal of European anti-trust law.

Interesting observation.

What's bizzare about the whole Windows XP N thing is that the consumers have spoken with their wallets and stuck with the "unfair" version of Windows. All the EU has done is make Microsoft incur additional development costs to support two variants of the same product.

It's as stupid and harmful to consumers in the EU as the ridiculous tariff imposed on camcorders that can record from external sources. Basically, the EU wanted to protect EU-based video recorder manufacturers and so forced non-EU manufacturers of camcorders to cripple them!

Good old Brussels.

[oldandinthe way]

I (and a bunch of other Dell purchasesers) had a battle royal with Dell and MS when the "Genuine Advantage" spyware forced download occurred. MS was saying that Dell wasn't properly licensing pre-installed XP and Dell was saying if it's outside the 90 day initial purchase you had to pay for a couple of hundred dollar "support pacakge" or $60 an hour for them to help you. Resolved when I took a picture of and screen shot showing the Dell computer and the message that I was using a pirated version of windows and e-mailed it to them and to some Austin newspapers.

A bit of a sidetrack, but think for a second, if you get a warrantee replacement of your system and keep the original hard drive, you have probably used up your one swap!!!!!!!

Various friends with Dell systems have informed me that Dell changed the motherboard serial number on replacements to agree with their original system to avoid conflicts with Microsoft Advantage - Microsoft does not know a change has occurred.

[RLT69]

The antivirus action is a real conflict between these interests. Antivirus products are using back doors that Microsoft is begining to close. The consumer is arguably safer with these back doors closed. The risks of these backdoors being open has increased due to increased disclosure of Windows internals.

Having access to the kernel is a backdoor??? Closing access to the kernel for anti virus software does not close a backdoor for viruses.

"One way that current security software uses the Windows kernel -- by "hooking" into it, or patching the kernel code -- is to ensure that a Trojan, for example, can't disable defenses. "In 32-bit, if you get a Trojan and you don't know it, we make sure that the protection's not disabled. The malware's attempt to turn us off fails. Then, in a few hours, when we update signatures, we can detect and delete it." Without that defensive tactic, which relies on accessing the kernel, the Trojan would invisibly turn off the PC's security software so that it was completely defenseless."

http://www.informationweek.com/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193400079&subSection=Securityc

By your logic people should stop buying programs from other companies and only buy programs from microsoft because this way they are guaranteed to work and be secure. I mean if the competition can't keep up with the changing landscape, i.e., everytime microsoft tweaks their o.s., to hell wth the competition. Brilliant.

You have failed to provide any evidence of price increases by actions of the EU or the U.S. Justice department. Their actions have directly effected Windows XP but the price of Windows XP has not increased because of them.

This price increase argument is pure B.S. It's meant to scare people. All it's going to to do is get people to try other software.

I suppose you were one of the people who defended Standard Oil.

[oldandinthe way]

Access to the kernal is a backdoor. Application software should only access system resources through an API. This is fundamental to operating system design.

Many practices on the PC grew up due to inadequate hardware support for protection and trivial unsophisticated O/S design.

A transient number of software vendors enjoyed financial success for a short time by offering products which made up for operating system shortcomings. As the O/S improved the specific products these companies offered were unnecessary. The companies either offered new products or died. Symantec lives on because it understood that there are product life cycles. If it loses that understanding it will certainly die.

If Microsoft could create a totally bullet proof O/S, which required no anti-virus software, you would probably complain that it was anti-competitive, and the EU would probably fine them and require they add vulnerabilities.

[CaptainVideo]

The "roll your own" segment is insignificant. It is irrelevant to Microsoft whether you bitch and moan about its licensing or not.

Continuing to say the "roll your own" segment is insignificant doesn't make it so. The facts don't bear that out. 20% is not insignificant!

Simple fact: Microsoft's primary duty is to its shareholders (like any corporation)

Absolutely correct! And when they don't meet sales goals for Vista, the shareholders will be very upset as the share price is driven down because of weak demand for the OS. The OS will be released when people are not buying new PC's, so the "roll your own" segment would be the driving force for sales. But with this license agreement they will avoid it altogether.

[JohnnyMalaria]

The "roll your own" segment is insignificant. It is irrelevant to Microsoft whether you bitch and moan about its licensing or not.

Continuing to say the "roll your own" segment is insignificant doesn't make it so. The facts don't bear that out. 20% is not insignificant!

Simple fact: Microsoft's primary duty is to its shareholders (like any corporation)

Absolutely correct! And when they don't meet sales goals for Vista, the shareholders will be very upset as the share price is driven down because of weak demand for the OS. The OS will be released when people are not buying new PC's, so the "roll your own" segment would be the driving force for sales. But with this license agreement they will avoid it altogether.

Re-read my original post and read the Annual Report. The "roll your own" segment is NOT 20%. 80% of OS sales (excluding servers) is OEM. A significant fraction of the remaining 20% are local system builders (not individual DIY'ers). And the total OS (non-server) revenue is 29% of total revenues. So, non-OEM OS revenue is, at most, 20% of 29% = 5.8%. Even if a quarter of this is "roll your own", that's 1.45%. Then consider how many DIY'ers change mobo's more than once and do NOT upgrade OS. I doubt the contribution of such OS purchases scratches at the surface of lost purchases due to piracy.

[oldandinthe way]

80% is OEM but the other 20% also includes retail upgrades, and corporate upgrades - roll your own is not 20% of client revenues.

I had a look at Nvidia's 10k filings. For their PC video related products it looks like close to 50% comes from sales to Taiwan and China. They do not break out chipset vs board sales but it appears probable that a good portion of their sales wind up as part of factory manufactured PCs. No way to measure from this data how much dependancy they have on "roll your own".

I'm not privy to Microsoft's forecasts, but the corporate rollout precedes the consumer rollout. They have been working on prequalifying Vista in a variety of corporate enviornments and certainly can realize that the consumer roll-out is after the big holiday sales push. So far no signs of a free upgrade to Vista on newly purchased systems so I would have to believe there is a lack of panic on Microsoft's part.

[adam]

Edit: Johnny beat me.

Continuing to say the "roll your own" segment is insignificant doesn't make it so. The facts don't bear that out. 20% is not insignificant!

Well if we're going to quote numbers lets make sure we get them right. Going by the figures quoted the "roll your own" segment accounts for roughly 20% of client revenue only. Client revenue equals 29% of total revenue. That means that the "roll your own" segment accounts for less than 6% of total revenue. And even that assumes that everything other than an OEM purchase falls into the category of "roll your own," which I seriously doubt. Whether this would be considered insignificant by MS or not I don't know, but you can be sure that every retail os purchaser is not going to know or understand or care about this license change. My guess is that there would be a very small minority of individuals in this 6% that would not only follow this licensing change, but would be bothered enough to boycott the os for this reason. In the grand scheme of all things Microsoft, I would definitely say that this change would have an insignificant negative impact on Microsoft. In my opinion, this is the only reason that MS would do this. Its a big up yours to the ~6% of their customers in this particular market but its a minimal PR hit.

[CaptainVideo]

Okay, so let's say it is 1.45% of revenue according to Johnny. That is $642 million dollars a year. These "roll your own" builders again influence other people's dollars, IT budgets and such. So while it may be a straight $642 million, why would you consider that amount of money insignificant? And by the way, the corporate community won't touch Vista for years on average anyway regardless of the license. They just don't work that way. They test the OS for a long time before they give the go-ahead to roll it out. So I really don't see the benefit to changing this license. This change will do nothing to prevent piracy. Vista will be hacked and operational. Odds are this will increase piracy.

[adam]

why would you consider that amount of money insignificant?

Because the number of people who boycott retail software for licensing reasons is already infintestimally small as it is even when you're considering the entire market. In this case the license restriction only applies to a very small percentage of their market. How many of that 1.45% will boycott Vista because of this new restriction? Geesh it will barely register. I do think its insignificant from MS's point of view, especially when you consider that the change will bring in many new sales. Sure people will grumble grumble at having to repurchase the os but at the end of the day many will still do it.

More power to you for valuing the importance and power of the average consumer in this niche (yes, 1-2% of market is niche) market area, but the fallout from this new license restriction is going to be limited almost entirely to online websites like this. The marketplace will be mostly oblivious to the change.

[aia]

I just got very upset reading this article. Especialy the part that said:

"Windows is, as always, not licensed to an individual. It's licensed to a device. One device.".

Yeah, then you can ask money to the device, because I'm not buying anymore.

[SatStorm]

What scares me, is the fact that we are in front of a new generation of CPUs, the four core ones. At the same time, we have a new M$ OS...

[JohnnyMalaria]

What scares me, is the fact that we are in front of a new generation of CPUs, the four core ones. At the same time, we have a new M$ OS...

Why does that scare you?

You will have the option of using an Apple OS...as long as you buy Apple hardware and agree to some of Apple's pretty amazing EULA clauses...

[painkiller]

Code:
"Windows is, as always, not licensed to an individual. It's licensed to a device. One device.".

Which is why I protest.

This method is gleaned for the express purpose of generating revenue when a computer owner/user needs to replace a significant portion of a damaged/failed PC.

The claim of piracy (the reason for denying us the media that we paid for) while not completely bogus - is nothing but a claim. Mere words. Their cost analysis said the reliability growth of the hard drive & motherboard technology would let them get away with no longer providing the media with the software on it.

There can be no other explanation. This is particularly so as (remember when) the PC industry used to provide the original cdroms with the system you bought and paid for - you did buy the software, too, right?

So they eliminated the discs from the system package that we bought at the store. But we still paid for the software. Didn't we?

So. I object to buying the same product I had already paid good money for. I don't want to pay for it again. It isn't necessary.

If, however, I want to upgrade - then I will gladly pay for that.

While this may, or may not, be a fair analogy - we, personally, are licensed to drive. We should each have our own drivers licenses extending to each of us the privilege of driving about the locale. The vehicles are not licensed. We are. When the vehicle needs replacing - it doesn't have to affect our licenses.

So if this analogy isn't the right one - then each of the USA states are missing out on reaping the additional revenue benefits by not following Microsoft's lead.

So I am not interested in VISTA. I won't buy it. I won't pirate it. I won't use it at home. Don't want it. Don't need it.

I'm perfectly content with WIndows 2000 Professional. I paid for it. That's it.

[JohnnyMalaria]

While this may, or may not, be a fair analogy - we, personally, are licensed to drive. We should each have our own drivers licenses extending to each of us the privilege of driving about the locale. The vehicles are not licensed. We are. When the vehicle needs replacing - it doesn't have to affect our licenses.

Certainly in the state I live in, this isn't a fair analogy:

1. I pay to renew my driver's license every five years
2. I pay every year to license my vehicle
3. I pay every year to (separately) license a trailer
4. I pay property tax every year on both my vehicle and the trailer

And these serve purely as revenue generators for the state. If I had to retake my driving test every five years to keep my license, that would be different.

Plus, in terms of privacy, anyone can go online and see my tax bills for the property tax. That ain't right!

[normcar]

While this may, or may not, be a fair analogy - we, personally, are licensed to drive. We should each have our own drivers licenses extending to each of us the privilege of driving about the locale. The vehicles are not licensed. We are. When the vehicle needs replacing - it doesn't have to affect our licenses.

Certainly in the state I live in, this isn't a fair analogy:

1. I pay to renew my driver's license every five years
2. I pay every year to license my vehicle
3. I pay every year to (separately) license a trailer
4. I pay property tax every year on both my vehicle and the trailer

And these serve purely as revenue generators for the state. If I had to retake my driving test every five years to keep my license, that would be different.

But changing an engine in your car does not make your license invalid. You are making a completly invalid comparison. MS does not say you have to renew the license. The license becomes useless if you have to replace the motherboard twice. The state does not make you renew your license for the same car when you replace an engine or part.

In the end, MS is simply screwing the consumer because it is an unregulated Monopoly. It has such a large portion of the desktop market, that it can do what it wants. I will stay with Win2000 as long as I can, but MS has already not produced a versionof IE 7 for Win2000, and at some point in the future I will have to pay Big Brother Bill large amounts of $ for crappy software that stops working because I want to upgrade my computer. I will do everything I need to do that is possible to not pay MS money it does not deserve before buying a 2nd license.

This will also dry up the secondary market for OS's because who will spend money on a valid license that may be invalid even though it is not currently loaded on any computer?

[oldandinthe way]

Normcar

If the secondary market for O/S dries up, that will be a bonus for Microsoft.

If you want the features of IE7, Mozilla runs on Win2000.

As a user who still has NT4.0 on at least one system, and WFW on another. I know that the absence of updates and service packs creates insecurity. Many of the myriad XP security updates fix holes that have existed since NT3.x. Eventually you will have to give up Win2000. The only question is XP, Vista or Linux. I'd choose XP, paricularly on an older system, but Linux could be an option. I don't think Vista makes any sense.

[Tom Saurus]

Windows Vista is looking less and less attractive as time goes on. It would serve them right if when it is launched that very few businesses and individuals decided to buy it. Somebody should send John Stossel from 20/20 to investigate this matter.

[RLT69]

If Microsoft could create a totally bullet proof O/S, which required no anti-virus software, you would probably complain that it was anti-competitive, and the EU would probably fine them and require they add vulnerabilities.

Love the hand waving here. Apple has a bullet proof O/S and noone is screaming anti-competitive.

Microsoft needs no help from anyone to release a security hole ridden OS. They do a nice job all by themselves.

Again, kernel access does not constitute a back door. There are programs that have access to the kernel. Read up on the Linux kernel.

So by all this EU bashing, i'm assuming they beat you up or stole you lunch money. Let's understand Microsoft is a convicted felon. Microsoft was found guilty of violating laws here in the United States and in Europe. But I guess you would rather noone did anything. Because poor little Microsoft is being ganged up on. Nevermind that they are a convicted criminal. Nevermind that they broke laws. Nevermind that Microsoft still tries to influence government policy - see Microsofts action in regards to Massachusetts and ODF.

Microsoft is a dinosaur who's time has passed. They can't compete so the stifle competition, spread FUD about other operating systems (Linux), and promote frivolous litigation (SCO). They try to scare their customers into purchasing long term "license" contracts with the promise of free product upgrade, and then never deliver any upgrades.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that Microsoft is a victim here? This 900 lb gorilla. What saves Microsoft is its' relationship with the OEMs. Until the OEMs start to unbundle Windows from the hardware - Microsoft will have a free ride. However, there seems to be movement there. Some OEMs are starting to offer Linux as an alternative. We'll see where that goes.

Back to the original point of the topic. Microsoft is changing the rules. They allowed people to install Windows as many times as they wanted. Now they are preventing that. They claim because of piracy. But as you pointed out, retail purchases of windows are an insignificant number. Therefore preventing people from reinstalling Vista CANNOT be because of piracy. It's about control. It's about money. And that just might tic off enough people to try something else.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Windows Vista is looking less and less attractive as time goes on. It would serve them right if when it is launched that very few businesses and individuals decided to buy it. Somebody should send John Stossel from 20/20 to investigate this matter.

But 80% of OS revenue (non-server) comes from OEMs such as Dell etc. So as long as people buy Dells, Gateways etc etc, MS will still sell Vista in large numbers. And 70% of Microsoft's total revenue is from other market segments, such as Home and Entertainment, which is growing rapidly.

11 years ago, similar discussions were going on about Windows 95.

When MMX was first introduced, no-one saw the point.

While it is fair to state Microsoft are shafting a particular group, to argue that Microsoft are digging their own grave is hyperbole.

[normcar]

If you want the features of IE7, Mozilla runs on Win2000.

As a user who still has NT4.0 on at least one system, and WFW on another. I know that the absence of updates and service packs creates insecurity. Many of the myriad XP security updates fix holes that have existed since NT3.x. Eventually you will have to give up Win2000. The only question is XP, Vista or Linux. I'd choose XP, paricularly on an older system, but Linux could be an option. I don't think Vista makes any sense.

You are missing my point. Eventually even XP will be obsolete, it may take another 3-5 years, but obsolete it will become. MS will come up with even more restrictions on future versions of OSs, which may make the Vista restrictions seem minor.

Linux is really not a fully compatable and supported option. Many current software versions now only provide drivers, and especially support for Windows 2000 and XP, and perhaps Mac OS. But Macs are not as upgradeable, are more expensive, and therefore buying extra copies of Vista would be cheaper. Therefore Macs are not a good option either.

Face it, MS has been and always will be a Monopoly, and can therefore, do just about anything it wants, and get us to pay for it. There are currently no real options to MS Windows. So as long as MS does not do anything really really outragous, it will continue as a monopoly. The barrier to entry is far too high and far too expensive for any real competitors to exist. MS will simply drive them out of business before they can get any kind of foothold in the market. Even now potential software producers have to wonder if MS will simply add any new feature to windows that the new producer creates, and drive them from the market. No one has any idea about how many ideas have been prevented from market by the potentially destructive power of the MS monopoly.

MS can simply peck the consumer to death with restrictions and new versions of its software. People and corporations will grumble, but in the end, a monopoly is bad because there is no choice but to buy their product with all its restrictions and high prices. Computers are not going away, and need OSs to operate.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Let's understand Microsoft is a convicted felon. Microsoft was found guilty of violating laws here in the United States and in Europe.

Apple isn't so squeaky clean, either.

http://loop.worldofapple.com/archives/2006/06/13/apple-fined-100000-by-washington-state/

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34730

And have you read the iTunes EULA?

Have you installed the Windows version of Quicktime? If you want to watch .mov files you basically have one option - Quicktime. And it bundles iTunes withit - no choice. I installed it - was disgusted at how it f*cked up my OS. After uninstalling, iTunes stuff was still on my system.

And why won't Apple let OS X be installed on non-Apple hardware? Isn't THAT monopolistic?

What saves Microsoft is its' relationship with the OEMs.

Nonsense. More than 75% of Microsoft's revenue comes from non-OEM channels.

[oldandinthe way]

The MacOS is not bulletproof. When hackers have turned their attention to it, they have been able to exploit its security flaws. There are so few Macs in existance, and Apples upgrade stategies have been so repugnant that this tiny piece of installed base, is fragmented among Mac O/S releases.

Microsoft was not convicted of violating US law - they settled.

The dirty secret of the software industry is that there are only two markets that matter - corporate and oem.

This has been the case since the Kaypro introduced its PCs with an extensive software bundle.

The consumer does not want to buy software and never has - except for games and educational software. And sales of educational software have been low number of purchases per system because they fail to hold children's interest.

The computer manufacturers will not unbundle because that would provide them with unbounded support costs. As things are now the techs often wind up stepping the customer through a restore to factory state.

Linux based bundles do not sell because they do not offer a signifiacntly lower price to the consumer.

As for the EU, their antitrust policies run counter to a free and competitive market. A free market leaves companies free to fail as well as succeed. Any attempt to use government force to prop up failing companies is wrong.

In recent court action the US courts have tossed out complaints by AMD against Intel. AMD is pursuing these claims at the EU. This is because the EU does not have real laws on antitrust issues, it has bureacrats who make it up as they go along.

[ViRaL1]

It's not just the DIY / roll your own market that's affected either. We replace motherboards all the time and in many cases it's not with an identical model due to cost or user preference. In the end this is one more reason for someone to hack Vista.