Windows Refund Day (1999)

I can. If companies want to profit by being a middle-man between the OS developers and the consumer, then they also inherit the responsibility of actually dealing with said consumer. If Microsoft wants to be a pain in their arse and make it harder for them to actually fulfil their obligations as a merchant, maybe they should stop doing business deals with a company that's actively hostile to them.

It's the same thing as tech stores that try to foist you over the the hardware manufacturer if you buy a faulty component from them. You don't get to put your fingers in the pie and then claim that you have no responsibility to ensure the quality of an item you're advertising and selling.

Edit: I also still have my copy of the form letter that Microsoft handed out to us, which I transcribed at

http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/dear-valued-customer.html

First, it was sponsored by a VC-backed company (that had hired a documentary crew to capture their success, the ill-fated VA Linux Systems (which eventually became known as Geeknet) and the pretty poor propaganda documentary “Revolution OS” that managed to just sort of forget the whole dot com collapse thing)), so although I know the LUGs were part of it, this was a marketing event by a company looking to boost their IPO. I didn’t know any of that at the time, but looking back, it’s so clear this was just yet another VA Linux publicity event.

Second, to anyone who wasn’t part of the group “protesting” — that is, outsiders — all you see is a bunch of weirdos dressed up with picket signs outside a sales office (they didn’t even go to Redmond) to demand action, only to be greeted what seem to be very polite corporate people with a sign and lemonade.

Third, it fundamentally changed nothing. It took the DoJ agreements to lessen the hold Microsoft had one some OEMs, but it really took the proliferation of Chromebooks (which was predicated by the short-lived netbook era) for manufacturers to get cheaper deals on Windows licenses and to offer more customizations of OS choice at purchase. That still had zero impact on Linux on the desktop adoption rates.

And sure, most bigger OEMs if you buy direct will let you customize a machine with no OS and sometimes with Ubuntu, but the Ubuntu XPS 13 isn’t much cheaper than the Windows variant (max $50), you just get more of an assurance that there is some sort of driver support for your system (although usually not for stuff like fingerprint readers).

So like, all I remember is that 21 years ago, some angry nerds showed up to an office park parking lot, got some free lemonade, were told politely to leave, and then went home with their cardboard signs screaming victory. When they didn’t get a refund. Didn’t change OEM terms, and had zero impact on OS adoption. OS adoption changed over the years but it wasn’t because of anything any of the people in that movement did, it was because of Apple and Google.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/02/biztech/articles/1...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_279000/2799...

I guess that for younger people, it might be hard to remember the "good old time" when we were fighting for reimbursement of the license.

One time, I did the process to try to get reimbursed for one laptop in France.

At that time, there was a lot of uncertainty and no clearly defined process, but it was clear that the French law was on our side.

In the doubt, I did it all: registered letters to HP and to the retailer. I think that in theory it was supposed to be HP that should reimbursed me, but I think that they never replied to me.

On the other side, I received a reimbursement from the retailer in a kind of "nice unofficial way":

<< We think that we are not responsible to do that, but here is a 100 francs reimbursement so that you will stop annoying us>>

(So it was not really needed that I burned/shred my Windows license or anything else)

The way Microsoft dealt with the whole thing though me that they don't really care about their EULA. It's not actually enforceable or relevant to their business. If it where, not paying the refund, or forcing the OEM to seems like a way to give anyone who truly wish to violate the EULA a legal entry point.

Still, the OEM licenses was/is not worth much, and most of us knew that. You could buy a Windows 98 license for something like $30, you just had to get it with a mouse, because then it would technically have been bought with hardware. Even if the mouse was only $10, you have to assume that the real OEM where getting even better deals.

Unfortunately laptops are a whole other problem. Sure there are a few laptops that you can get with Linux pre-installed. And a few more you can get without an OS installed, but the options are pretty limited. And building your own laptop from parts is a lot more difficult.

I think the situation is complex, perhaps Sony paid MS for Windows (XP mediacenter), but they made money on the Norton Trial software, the trailer for movies on my desktop, and ah lot of other cruft that was not really in my interest.

"...manufacturers would truely refund people..."

Just for balance, what Apple computers or Chromebooks are available without an os?

1. Make Windows ignore autorun.ini on writable media. -- When a user double-clicks on a drive that has a hidden autorun.ini file, Windows executes the binary referenced in the file. This is how most Windows viruses spread.

2. Disable automatic execution of scripts in Microsoft Office documents. -- Microsoft Office supported normal documents (DOC & XLS) and template files that can contain scripts (DOT & XLT). One could rename a .DOT file to a .DOC and MS Word would open like a .DOC file, and then silently execute the macros contained in it. This is how most Microsoft Office viruses spread. Since most users never use macros, Microsoft could have easily disabled the function by default and provided a config option to enable it. Additionally, Office could refuse to open template files that have a non-template file extension. And finally, it could prompt or simply refuse to execute macros from removable media.

3. Require PC makers to turn off the floppy boot option on new PCs. -- Nearly all PCs were sold with their BIOS settings configured to automatically boot from the floppy drive if one is present and has the right boot data on it. If someone turned their computer on while an infected floppy was in the drive, their computer would get the virus. Microsoft could have easily required PC makers to turn off the floppy boot option on new PCs. This would make the computers start up faster and stop an entire class of viruses. Microsoft could have gone further and made Windows refuse to start after booting from a floppy. Users would quickly develop the habit of removing floppies before turning on their computers.

But Microsoft made a lot of extra money because of viruses. When a person's computer got viruses, it would slow down or corrupt files. Many folks would go out and buy a new computer, paying for new licenses of Windows and Office.

Viruses harmed so many businesses in the developing world, keeping poor countries poor. I lived in Ghana when I was a teenager. I did some PC technician work and saw the impact of Microsoft viruses first-hand.

Microsoft really cheated the World out of a lot of economic growth and quality of life.

The IT media (PC Magazine, PC World, etc) turned a blind eye to it. They didn't have the integrity to go against their big ad buyers, the anti-virus companies. Nobody with an audience would hold Microsoft accountable.

Back then it was Microsoft; now it's Google & Facebook. Companies continue to exploit because US social structure has not progressed.

I wish getting an ANSI keyboard were that easy around here (Ireland)