Dell Customer Gets Windows Refund

scottv67 writes "Dell today gave freelance programmer and sysadmin Dave Mitchell, of Sheffield, UK, a refund of 47 pounds ($89) for the unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP Home SP2 bundled with his new Dell Inspiron 640m laptop, Mitchell says. Dell also refunded the tax, for a total of £55.23 ($105)."

Return on Investment?

[dada21 (163177)]

I'm no fan of EULAs or any software licensing (not even the GPL) because I feel they don't really give you much room to negotiate a contract to your terms. But there comes a time in every transaction that you have to gauge your time versus what you get in return for your time. In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people? Laptops do seem to run better under *nix today than just a few years ago, so I will finally accept that a laptop can be a decent workstation for open source OSes. But I also see that for many people who use the PC, even if they eventually put another OS on it, Windows works fine, and even if they never run it, the path to try to return their copy is costlier than just eating it with the rare chance that you MIGHT need to run it.

Sure, there is a small percentage of "geeks" who will never run Windows, but for the great majority of *nix users, I'm not sure if this is the case -- even the average slashdot geek. Personally, my laptops that I use require Windows because they're production PCs -- AutoCAD, RIP print drivers (don't even try these under anything but Windows), scheduling/project management software, etc. For me, if I did run *nix, the 3-4 hours it would cost me to get a $100 refund would exceed the refund's return. What are most techs worth today?

I'm glad Dell did it, and I wish they did offer laptops free of operating systems. I'm not aware of the exact details of Microsoft's license agreement with Dell, but to me it seems as though they've both agree to a figure that makes a sense in a market perspective: the software is just expensive enough to make everyone money, and just cheap enough to make it useless to try to work around buying a copy. Also, Dell likely is able to produce less expensive hardware since they can now sell laptops that work out-of-the-box, rather than dealing with the support issues of helping users run their hardware on dozens of different operating systems. It is a double-win for both manufacturers, and not enough of a loss for the average user.

I'm never shocked when a geek complains about the Microsoft licensing scheme, even though I agree that more choice is better. When I break down the cost of a workstation for an average business client for a year, the US$210 or whatever Microsoft "tax" is barely 1% versus the costs of the applications and maintenance they need to run that workstation for a year. That's right, 1% -- many of my business clients spend upwards of US$10,000+ a year per user on software licenses, maintenance, and hardware. And they still need Windows for it, so if you price in Windows across the board (those who need it and those who don't want it). I'm sure that percentage of overall cost falls even lower -- making it seem to me that trying to get a refund doesn't show a big return on investment overall.

In this user's case, it may have been (I wouldn't have gone through the hoops, I'd buy an OEM laptop from another manufacturer such as Averatec), but I don't see that being true for most cases.

Re:Return on Investment?

[pottymouth (61296)]

"Sure, there is a small percentage of "geeks" who will never run Windows"

Would you appreciate it if I posted something like "sure, most idiots run Windows" or "most stupid people will still run Windows". Stop refering to Unix/Linux users as geeks. They don't bite the head of chickens at the fair they just choose to use a less popular OS than the average person. Sticking labels on people is what brings about wasted communications to protest like this one.....

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

They don't bite the head of chickens at the fair

Hey, speak for yourself. I'm a coder by day, carnie by night. But I much prefer biting the heads off of rabid bats.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[diersing (679767)]

So true. This site is for NERDS, not geeks. News for Nerds, stuff that matters

Re:

[Thansal (999464)]

Geek has not had a negative conotation for a long time (especialy in geek subcultures like /.). So lighten up, the guy is just pointing out that only those people that really are into OSS/*nix/alternative OSs/whatever are going to be the ones that never run windows, and yes, geek is a good term for them.

Re:

[cloudmaster (10662)]

We're not exacltly a minority here on the dot...

Re:Return on Investment?

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

But there comes a time in every transaction that you have to gauge your time versus what you get in return for your time. In this case, the US$100 this guy received was probably worth it for him to spend a few hours going through this process, but is it worth US$100 for most people?

Maybe he was just trying to prove a point? I'd say that he shouldn't have got the refund since the laptop was sold as a turnkey package. I mean, if you buy a car but never use the back seat, can you just give the seat back to the dealer and get a refund for the cost of the part?

I think, instead, the large manufacturers should not be prohibited from selling "empty" computers. IE, OS installation should be purely optional from the factory. Unfortunately, whenever this is tried, MS comes out of the woodwork and makes noises about suing for encouraging software piracy. Maybe if they threw Ubuntu on there it would appease MS and cost basically nothing for them.

-b.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GoMMiX (748510)]

The trend I have noticed among vendors who do offer Linux, is that Linux costs more than Windows. Not always, I'm sure - but again the 'trend' *I* noticed, is manufacturers charging inflated prices on Linux offerings - one like me would presume as an attempt to coerce users into buying a Windows PC and debunk the 'myth' (lol) that free Linux is cheaper. (Free != cheaper than windows in a MS world - is the point I believe they are trying to make.)

Personally, I think it should be law that all computer hardware is to be priced without software - and the user is given a choice to purchase whatever software he or she wishes.

Even now, if you go to www.dell.com - good luck finding a system they offer linux on. Sure, you can google and find their linux desktops - but unless you know what to look for - you won't just browse by a linux product for sale on Dell's website.

Now, when you DO find Dell's Linux offerings - you should compare them to similar Windows offerings. In some cases you will find those desktops offered with "FreeDOS" (See: No OS at all really - and no choice for a Linux distro) the machine is the same price. In the vast majority of cases - you will find the machine with a non-Windows offering to be substantially more expensive.

In many cases you find a Linux offering on Dell's website you will find a large advertisement directly above the OS selection - promoting Windows, stating Windows offers "Access to twice as many PCs", the ability to "Connect to the widest variety of networks", "Guard your files and protect customer data", and a "Learn More" link that pops open a new window with a slew of propaganda explaining why Windows is a better choice.

It's not just Microsoft that doesn't want to see Linux succeed. It's hardware vendors too.

If you take a step back, and think about it - one of the best things about Linux is that it will run fantastic on your old Pentium III machine with 128MB of memory.

Then you look at the upcoming Vista and think, hey -- my one year old PC will barely even meet the recommended system hardware specs on Vista -- or more likely won't even come close.

With every effort MS makes to force user/corporate upgrades of software, they do the same for hardware. Manufacturers are not going to ignore that.

The Microsoft tax is no longer imposed on hardware vendors by Microsoft - but rather imposed on the customer by hardware vendors.

That's just the way I see it, anyway.

Re:

[LurkerXXX (667952)]

Making a law for that is dumb. Really really dumb. We don't need more laws.

If you want hardware without an OS, but it from a company who sells it that way. They exist.

Most customers (not myself, but most) want the OS already installed so they don't have to do it, and so that they know it is fully supported (drivers, etc) on the hardware.

Dell and many other companies charge more for *nix because they are expected to support the OS they ship with their hardware. The windows community is huge, so their cos

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

The point is that you are supposed to accept limitations on how to use the product, which are only revealed after the sale. And the manufacturer extends an offer that you can return the limited part of the product for a refund.
To extend the car analogy, after buying the car you get in to drive home. Over the ignition lock, there is a seal with a note that says "By breaking the seal, you agree never to have sex on your back seat. But if you don't like that condition, you can return the back seat for a refund".

Now such an after-the-sale condition may or may not be legally binding, depending on jurisdiction.
But if it is binding, I think the refund offer should also be binding. And the car manufacturer (Microsoft) should be obliged to reimburse the dealer.

This isn't only about *nix but MS double-dipping

[parvenu74 (310712)]

This precedent doesn't just apply to folks who want to run some other operating system on the machines they buy from Dell. It affects me because I don't need the bundled XP Home when I've got an MSDN license that allows me to run XP Pro. Or take the case of a small business with a Microsoft volume license. If they are required to buy a bundled O/S with every machine they purchase, then Microsoft has, in effect, sold two O/S licenses per machine. The $$$ saved by getting back the cost of the bundled O/S will

Re:Return on Investment?

[Lanoitarus (732808)]

You missed the entire point. It may not be "ok" to have 1% of my income stolen each year, but that doesnt mean im going to spend 5% of my income (in this case, in the form of time invested) to prevent the 1% getting stolen.

Re:Return on Investment?

[GigsVT (208848)]

I would. Spending a thousand or two on a gun, some classes, concealed carry permit, ammo, and range fees is well worth it, if it prevents one guy from getting away with another mugging, and, if you are lucky and the situation allows it, takes that leech out of society permanantly.

What's the expression? Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.

Re:Return on Investment?

[JazzLad (935151)]

Here's a reply from someone that doesn't think you a troll for defending your rights. Assuming you are in the USA or other country that permits you to bear arms, I for one am glad you took the time to take classes & get a cc permit.

My Karma is positive, mod me a troll if you have to, but sometimes people need to remember that just because you don't exercise a specific right doesn't negate it's value. I didn't go after Acer for the 1/5 of my laptop's cost that was XP Home (which I deleted withen 48 hours) but I'm glad this guy got his back from Dell. I don't carry a firearm, but I'm glad people exercise this freedom. I belong to a somewhat unpopular religion (especially in the southern parts of USA), but it is my right to do so.

Cheers to the guy who got his money from Dell, cheers to GigsVT. Everyone should exercise their freedom every chance they get.

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian (770164)]

Guns are not good or evil. They're chunks of metal. It's the people handling them that can be good or evil. A computer can be an evil thing too, if directed as such by it's user. (For example, by making it easier to create and distribute child pornography)

If you're going to place blame, at least place it where it belongs.

Re:Return on Investment?

[wolfgang_spangler (40539)]

All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy.

You are wrong.

Guns do not have to kill people, many target shooters don't even hunt or carry a concealed weapon. They simply enjoy target shooting. The same is true for archery. Hell, shooting guns and bows are both Olympic sports.

You are backing up the very point which you are trying to break. Guns are not evil, or good, or even in-between. They are simply chunks of metal. Comparing guns to computers is a very apt analogy. Both can be used for good, for evil, or for benign tasks.

Re:

[burndive (855848)]

But a gun only has one purpose: To hurt living things. All a gun can ever do is hurt people, be it for good or evil. Arguably shooting someone is never a good thing even if it is in self defense. Comparing guns to computers is a highly flawed analogy. Always remember, if guns make people safe then why isn't the United States the safest place on earth?

Guns aren't just for hurting people, they're also for protecting people, by threatening voilence to those who would otherwise be voilent. One of the purp

Re:

[C0rinthian (770164)]

If we (The US, or any other nuclear capable country) did not have such warheads, I'm sure that some other nuclear capable country would be more than happy to send some our way without fear of retaliation.

Disarmament on a global scale is a noble goal. But EVERYONE has to do it for it to work. Good luck getting that to happen. Until then I'm glad my country has a crapload of explosives that make other countries think twice before they drop a crapload of explosives on me and my family.

Re:Return on Investment?

[C0rinthian (770164)]

Duh, you rely on the inherent morality of humanity of course!

"Hey you! Stop shooting those people because it's not nice! If you don't we shall be very cross!"

Re:

[burndive (855848)]

Guns are evil things

Guns are powerful things. Power and evil, while often correlated, are not the same thing.

Re:

[bladesjester (774793)]

Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day

I may not make my professional wage 24 hours a day, but my free time isn't free. It's worth a great deal to me.

Let's face it - time is the one thing you can never get back.

Re:Return on Investment?

[bunions (970377)]

> Let's face it - time is the one thing you can never get back.

This is exactly the kind of defeatist attitude that's stifling important time machine research in this country. Why, it's getting so that garage inventors can hardly afford a Delorean at all, much less buy the necessary conversion parts.

Re:

[rosciol (925673)]

Then why don't you use the time when you wouldn't otherwise be getting paid to get the $100 back? Surely you don't make your professional wage 24hrs per day. Your free time is just that.

You've never heard of the opportunity cost of time, have you? I suspect that this is exactly what the gp was referring to, not to his professional salary. Maybe you can't value your free (as in beer) time at your professional rate of $35/hour, but look at it this way: if you were offered the opportunity to work at Starbuc

Re:

[everphilski (877346)]

*I* value my free time at the same price as my employer pays me. And somtimes I value it even more. My free time is exactly that - free. Free for me. Free to play with my kids or my wife or learn a new skill or just relax and recharge. I don't need to "work" more than I am already.

Re:Return on Investment?

[frdmfghtr (603968)]

If you had 1% of your yearly income stolen by mugging every year (Say, $350 if you make 35k), would that be ok?

To answer the question: of course not.

A mugging is where you are FORCED to give up your dough...buying a PC with Windows is not a mugging, since you can, with some time and effort, build your own to-spec PC without Windows and install your own OS on it. Furthermore, paying for a Windows license is a one-time thing, until the next version is released. I paid for a WinXP license on my laptop once, and once only, and I've had it for several years. Maybe site-licensing for businesses is different; I'm not familiar with that idea.

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort? Is the extra time and distance required to fill up at a gas station a mile down the road worth saving an extra two cents per gallon as opposed to the station I'm in front of now?

If I give up $10 in potential income to save $5, I still lose.

Re:Return on Investment?

[ivan256 (17499)]

You can already buy a PC from Dell without Windows on it. This is about Laptops, which for the most part you cannot build yourself without Windows. If you could, I suspect that if you could build your own laptop, Dell would offer Windows-free laptops in order to reclaim some of the built-it-myself laptop market.

Re:

[ivan256 (17499)]

Desire? I don't know about that... Many times you don't have a choice though. Many school and corporate IT departments provide a short list of hardware that is supported on their network. In the case of schools, many just flat out require you to buy a (dell|IBM) just so they can get the kickback the manufacturer pays to them every time a student buys one of their laptops. That's regardless of whether you already have a machine of your own or if the machine you already have is better or even exactly the same

Re:Return on Investment?

[jejones (115979)]

The original point is this: is getting the OEM cost of Windows refunded worth the time and effort? If I can make $50/hour doing some work, but I spend three hours getting a $50 refund on some purchase, is it worth the effort?

I guess that depends on how much one thinks one's principles are worth.

it's not just a dollar, dude

[weierstrass (669421)]

more like $1.85

Re:Return on Investment?

[mr_matticus (928346)]

It's not stolen. You (collectively) approved the loss of each and every penny to the greater good of society. You might not personally approve of taxes for x and y, but you might be okay contributing money for cause z; someone else might have the reverse opinion. You might feel that less taxation is appropriate, but there are people who think taxes should be higher. In the end, we meet in the middle and that's the way it works. If more people agreed with you, things would be closer to your ideal vision for the world. Not every individual gets his way, but that's what you get for living in a pluralist society.

Oh, and I invite you to find a major liberal democracy where taxes are lower. That's small-l liberal, by the by.

Good for him....

[MMC Monster (602931)]

And good for Dell for taking care of him with a minimum of fuss.

hm...

[mlc (16290)]

I tried getting a Windows refund out of Dell a few months ago for my then-new laptop. I never succeeded really, but they did give me a $30 refund basically just to go away, and told me to keep the Windows software. Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Re:hm...

[rbochan (827946)]

...Not sure what I'm supposed to do with it.

Slide the CD gently underneath the $TASTYBEVERAGE that's sitting next to you.

Why not sell them "clean"

[JayAndSilentBob (517888)]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife and I had to go through hell getting all the pre-installed crap out of it. It had adware and spyware preloaded by the factory. It even had a 10GB hard drive partition with backup copies of everything that should have been on the restore cds / dvds that should have come with the laptop. I would have much rather paid less for the laptop, added windows onto the price and arrived in mostly the same place. We didn't want a laptop that we hadn't tried out in person before buying it, which around here limited us to Best Buy, Circuit City, and Office Max / Depot. Nobody had "clean" systems.... grumble....

Re:Why not sell them "clean"

[b0s0z0ku (752509)]

I just recently bought a laptop for my wife and I had to go through hell getting all the pre-installed crap out of it. It had adware and spyware preloaded by the factory.

Dell seems to have gotten better about this, though, at least with their higher-end desktop systems. When we bought a Precision 380, it came with *just* XP Pro and some drivers preloaded. No MS Office (by our option) no Norton Antivirus, no adware, spyware, or unnecessary apps. Shame that we're going to install Linux on it pretty soon because the thing actually runs pretty well. It even came with OS and driver reinstall CDs. I think a lot of the problems that people see with "Windows" can be traced to stupid manufacturers pre-installing everything but the kitchen sink.

As far as Dell, I wonder, if you ask nicely upon purchasing, can you specify exactly what should/shouldn't be installed on their lower-end systems? -b.

Re:

[chroot_james (833654)]

They don't sell them clean because they make money packaging all that crap on the system. They also test the system's performance by installing windows and benchmarking against what they expect...

Duh...

17.5% tax = outrageous

[Heian-794 (834234)]

Considering that the consumption tax on Windows is a ludicrous 17.5% (8.23 / 47.00), I wouldn't be surprised to see the government stepping in and forcing people to pay for Windows just to keep that revenue stream flowing!

Re:17.5% tax = outrageous

[oggiejnr (999258)]

VAT is 17.5% in this country and applied to everything except food, books, children's clothes and a couple of other things. It has been around for so long that people don't really think about it - all prices except wholesale prices are quoted with VAT already added so most people don't think about it.

Re:

[Cereal Box (4286)]

all prices except wholesale prices are quoted with VAT already added so most people don't think about it.

Which is exactly what the government wants you to do.

Re:

[vidarh (309115)]

17.5% VAT is actually one of the lowest rates anywhere in Europe. Most countries are at around 20% or above (up to at least 25%). But consumer prices in most European countries are always quoted inclusive of VAT, so at here I don't constantly get surprised (I keep forgetting sales tax whenever I visit the US and look at prices).

Refund amount

[cerberusss (660701)]

Problem is, you don't know what the refund amounts to before you press 'NO' at the EULA agree prompt. For $20, I'd like a nice Windows XP copy. For $50, I might not. It depends. But there's no way of knowing!

Bust MS bubble

[shirizaki (994008)]

This will suck for MS. I already have my own personal copy of XP Professional I'd like to install on a fresh lappy, and I wish they were sold without added software and an OS. This will kill most of MS's profits, since people will just say "I already own XP, why can't I just put it on another computer?" THEN people will start to see how convoluted the MS EULA really is. They won't switch to Unix like some people would hope, but there will be more "pirates" that install the same OS on different computer's they own. Of course I don't read the EULA like most people and it probably allows you to install a copy of XP on computers that you own.

Uh...obligatory "DOWN WITH MICRO$OFT!" comment.

Re:

[RAMMS+EIN (578166)]

``Of course I don't read the EULA like most people and it probably allows you to install a copy of XP on computers that you own.''

The Windowses that come with new computers typically contain language to the effect that it is to be used with that computer only.

Refunded the Tax Twice?

[SQLz (564901)]

I thought the copy of Windows XP was the tax?

dell rips you off

[Turn-X Alphonse (789240)]

I think this is the last of Dells worries legal wise.

A couple of months back my father ordered a Dell PC with Windows XP pre installed, yet we didn't recieve an XP CD or any licence number as we should of done with a Windows licence. Yet a week later a man from Dell (with a very thick indian accent I could hardly follow to add to the fun) rang up trying to sell a "recovery pack" since "if stuff goes wrong it'll cost you less than to rebuy windows".

Is this even legal? I'm pretty sure it's not but may as well ask Slashdot before I look at legal advice on getting what was rightfully payed for.

Side note : I e-mailed Dell inquiring and recieved no reply (it's been a month, doubt I'll get one).

Email Me ASAP, I'll help.

[_KiTA_ (241027)]

(ObWarning: I work for Dell as a Gold Hardware Support Technician in Twin Falls Idaho.)

Email me your father's service tag, I'll be happy to look into it directly.

mark (underscore) cantrell (at) dell (dot) com

There's no reason if you ordered Windows that you shouldn't get a CoA and Windows XP CD -- UNLESS you ordered a machine with "image support", then those CDs are stored as ISOs on a partition on your drive, you just have to click the right button and the Dell software will burn you a WinXP CD and a Drivers CD.

Either way, you should have DEFINATELY gotten a COA label on the machine itself. Send me your tag, and I'll either fix it Friday when I get into the office, or I'll get ahold of someone (Dell Customer Care, which is in the same building as me, possibly) who can.

Re:Where will it end?

[Tim C (15259)]

How can they? The whole point is that he's not a Windows user, and was claiming a refund as he had no intention of using it.

Technically..

[Channard (693317)]

'Windows users' couldn't request their money back if they were using Windows already. The jist of the article is that by refusing to agree to the EULA they're saying they don't want to use Windows, or at least one that came with their PC. But there has indeed been many instances of this before - there was a mass march of some kind a few years ago, the end result being that most EULAs were modified to make the computer and operating system one package. A lot of the old Windows Refund stories involved conversations with managers who couldn't seem to comprehend that the EULA gave the user the right to reject windows, as a separate component from the machine. God knows what Dell's Indian call centre made of this guy.

Re:

[arivanov (12034)]

For example, I do not do it despite getting laptops and PCs via business channels which means that they come with proper CDs and licenses.

The reason for this is quite simple. If you return the license you are no longer entitled to use any of the Microsoft TrueType fonts. While the choice of free (as in speech and in beer) fonts has vastly improved lately, the set which comes with Windows remains essential for business use. Everything else aside, it is essential that your documents look the same as the docum

Re:But they're not itemised...

[vidarh (309115)]

Doesn't work that way in (most of) Europe. Consumer protection laws in most European countries require sellers to offer products unbundled when they are clearly distinct products. Since a computer can be used without Windows, and can be bought without from other vendors, and since Windows is available separately this is a pretty clear cut case. Trying to twist the pricing also wouldn't work all the time equivalent products are available unbundled to indicate the real values of the products.