Subject: Re: Another: can't *not* buy Win95 on Dell or Gateway
Sharp, Larry D. (ldsharp@mwbb.com)
Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 08:28:41 -0400
Message-Id: <41CDD3692E31D1119C780060B066F8A427EEDE@WAS> From: "Sharp, Larry D." <ldsharp@mwbb.com> To: roundtable@cni.org Subject: Re: Another: can't *not* buy Win95 on Dell or Gateway Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 08:28:41 -0400
On Sun, May 03, 1998, Ted Kircher <kircher@realtime.com> wrote:
>
> The reason for this is probably not because of a Microsoft 'monopoly',
> but because a system manufacturer doesn't want to warrent their product
> w/o some operating system running on it which they use to test the
> system prior to shipment. The fact that Dell or Gateway probably only
> support Windows 95 (OS/2?) is a secondary factor.
>
> I recently brought a system from a 'hole in the wall' store - in which
> there are many in Austin (and I am sure elsewhere), and they asked for
> my Windows' registration number which they used to load and test Windows
> 95 on this new system. I doubt if large telemarketing companies like
> Dell and Gateway would offer this personalized service.
>
> With all due respect to Larry Sharp, he does not appear to be a leading
> edge type (just/finally upgrading from a 486), hence I recommend he find
> a 'hole in the wall' store and ask them to do what I did.
>
> Btw, my new system included a AMD 233MHz, 32 MB, 2.1GB, 56Mb modem, 32X
> CD-ROM, keyboard, mouse, video and 16b sound (on mother board),
> mini-tower for $450. Dell/Gateway/... don't get close to this price as
> they are optimized for businesses (multiple systems and a wide range of
> configurations, ..). A local 'hole in the wall' store (that has been in
> business for over a year) will result in the best buy (even better than
> Best Buy, Circuit City, ...) especially for someone who knows how to do
> most upgrades (which are fairly simple).
>
> PS: I am not for giving Microsoft free-rein, and I have recommended
> positive (hopefully constructive) steps in the past on this listserv
> rather than simply criticize them - which I believe will either lead to
> nothing being done or worst yet something bad for the computer
> industry/U.S. economy.
>
> On 5/3/98, James Love <love@cptech.org> wrote:
> >
> > This is another "can't not buy Win 95" when buy a computer from Dell
> > or Gateway.
> >
> > ---------------
> >
> > Subject: Microsoft Windows Puzzler
> > Date: Sun, 3 May 1998 08:51:18 -0400
> > From: "Sharp, Larry D." <ldsharp@mwbb.com>
> > To: "'at-members@abanet.org'" <at-members@abanet.org>
> >
> > I'd like some insights on how market forces produce the following
> > situation.
> >
> > I am in the market for a computer. I upgraded my old 486 to run Windows
> > 95, and bought Windows 95 for it, but the old machine is dying. I need
> > a replacement. The old machine will be taken out of service.
> >
> > I have decided I would like a Dell or a Gateway. When I price them
> > online, I find I can upgrade, downgrade, or eliminate various components
> > to match my needs. I can even decide to take no monitor at all, and try
> > to stretch a little more life out of the one I have now.
> >
> > One thing I know I don't need is another CD with Windows 95 on it. But
> > when I try to eliminate that, I find that I can't. To buy one of those
> > computers, I must buy a copy of Windows 95 that I do not need.
> >
> > Why are these manufacturers willing to let me customize or even
> > eliminate other parts of the packages they sell, but not willing to let
> > me take a pass on the Windows 95? If they are paying $40 for each copy
> > they throw into a box with a computer (am I wrong when I recall that
> > Microsoft has given up per-processor fees?), why do they not let me save
> > a bit, and them make a bit, by offering me a less-than-$40 deduction for
> > excluding Windows 95 from my purchase package?
Actually, the machine I use most is a Micron TransPortXKE with a Pentium
233, not the hottest box going, but not exactly on the bleeding edge.
For the past few years I have been using a series of notebooks as my
primary computer, and used the old box as a backup - and actually even
more I used it for the fun and challenge of the upgrading process. I
added a new CPU (a "586" was the best you could do on the old
motherboard), added as much memory as the motherboard would hold, and
bolted in a new, larger hard drive.
And my copy of Windows 95 was not an upgrade. (I had had a problem in
the past when I moved from Word Perfect to Microsoft Word via an
upgrade. When I added a new hard drive, I found the old WP disks had
been damaged and would not load, so I had a devil of a time figuring out
how to load the upgrade. It can be done, though.) So I had every right
to believe that I would be able to use the Windows 95 I had purchased on
a new machine. My question was really addressed to the economics of the
issue. The option I propose would seem to make sense for me and for the
manufacturer, but not for Microsoft, yet it is not available. What are
the market forces that produce this anomaly?
Larry D. Sharp
<ldsharp@mwbb.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:25 EST