Lenovo offering Windows refunds in Germany

[Patrick]

Lenovo is offering Windows refunds of 30€ for people who do the following:

* turn down the Windows EULA agreement
* mail back the Windows serial number tag on the bottom of the laptop
* return any Windows media
* write a letter stating they will not use Windows

There is a standard pdf for people to send instead of a letter. I have a copy of this file.

Micro Mueller (Gnome developer) got a refund a:
http://macslow.thepimp.net/?p=148

[Tsuroerusu]

* mail back the Windows serial number tag on the bottom of the laptop

The problem with that, is that it's almost impossible to peel those things off without ripping them apart, they are designed to not be removable and be intact as well.

[davijordan]

Now I generally only purchase used equipment that has no os. But, I keep a copy of windoze for the around just to show people it vs linux. There is also a ton of free software and tax software for windoze also which is not on linux yet. I would like to put kde on tinyxp just to give my windoze only step-brother a hard time.

You can get the stickers off if you use a razor blade to start it and go extremely slow in pulling off the tag. I have only one machine that was windows home edition that I have failed on. I left the sticker on and cut the plastic holding the sticker down to the size of the sticker, Since i get machines in horse trades, i just put the sticker in a license folder. I do not bother for a refund.

[Tsuroerusu]

I just build my own computers or buy used machines. My laptop is an old ThinkPad X31, which I bought used on a Danish online auction site.

[Wally Balljacker]

For me personally, I don't care about paying for a copy of Windows I'll never use. It's really a negligible increase in cost. Not really anything worth fretting about. And it is cheaper to buy a run-of-the-mill PC with Vista and install a Linux distro yourself than to buy a pre-installed machine from System76 or EmperorLinux. Same goes for Apple hardware. Sure, I can avoid the Windows tax, but I'm paying way more for the hardware. It's just not worth it. I thought about buying a Mac Pro back in November, but there are perfectly good Vista PCs out there that are 1/4 the price, and every bit as fast.

[Vogateer]

I take a different look at it. I say that if Microsoft is able to get money from me even when I don't want to use their product, then something is terribly wrong. I'm willing to pay more to avoid Microsoft getting my money. I understand that others don't feel this way, but I feel like I'm just rolling over and letting Microsoft win and screw me over if they get my money for a product I will not use.

[davijordan]

Walmart was selling the gos pc with vista for around 270 bucks. Fry's came out with an equivalent or better box for 250 dollars for a limited time. if you get one of those boxes and put linux on it instead, eventually ms will wonder why no updates were accessed and get the hint that no one wants mswindows. To me that sends a bigger message.

Linux has windows too.

[Tsuroerusu]

I take a different look at it. I say that if Microsoft is able to get money from me even when I don't want to use their product, then something is terribly wrong. I'm willing to pay more to avoid Microsoft getting my money. I understand that others don't feel this way, but I feel like I'm just rolling over and letting Microsoft win and screw me over if they get my money for a product I will not use.

I completely agree. I'm an advanced computer user, I have the knowledge needed to avoid the Microsoft tax (Unlike your average run-at-the-mill computer user) and you better believe that I'm gonna use it, because I hate paying for stuff that I don't actually want to use. Like you said. there's just something fundamentally wrong about that crap!

This is a case where I think that government regulation saying that the customer must at least be offered the option, of not having to buy Windows, is a good idea. And I literally mean an option at the same place you would buy any Windows machine, because if the customer had to go some place else to find a machine without Windows (Aka less convenience), then having such a regulation is pointless, really. Some people obviously do not like government regulation of the market (Or of other things), but I think this case quite clearly demonstrates how not having a regulation that enforces fair competition, essentially creates a less free market (Because a single party can come in and throw a lock down on the market). This dynamic is similar to how the GPL works, and I personally see the GPL as "more free" than say the BSD license, because it's not just a here and now thing, the GPL always looks in the long term of things.

[Wally Balljacker]

I take a different look at it. I say that if Microsoft is able to get money from me even when I don't want to use their product, then something is terribly wrong. I'm willing to pay more to avoid Microsoft getting my money. I understand that others don't feel this way, but I feel like I'm just rolling over and letting Microsoft win and screw me over if they get my money for a product I will not use.

I completely agree. I'm an advanced computer user, I have the knowledge needed to avoid the Microsoft tax (Unlike your average run-at-the-mill computer user) and you better believe that I'm gonna use it, because I hate paying for stuff that I don't actually want to use. Like you said. there's just something fundamentally wrong about that crap!

This is a case where I think that government regulation saying that the customer must at least be offered the option, of not having to buy Windows, is a good idea. And I literally mean an option at the same place you would buy any Windows machine, because if the customer had to go some place else to find a machine without Windows (Aka less convenience), then having such a regulation is pointless, really. Some people obviously do not like government regulation of the market (Or of other things), but I think this case quite clearly demonstrates how not having a regulation that enforces fair competition, essentially creates a less free market (Because a single party can come in and throw a lock down on the market). This dynamic is similar to how the GPL works, and I personally see the GPL as "more free" than say the BSD license, because it's not just a here and now thing, the GPL always looks in the long term of things.

The notion of forcing PC makers to provide alternatives to Windows is antithetical to a free market. If you don't like what Sony or HP is doing, then don't buy their products. And if enough people agree with you, they will need to either change their policy or likely go out of business. That is what a free market is all about. If you don't like what one company is doing, go elsewhere. Any time governmental coercion is involved, you take the "free" out of free market.

[Patrick]

Personally I can not in good conscious purchase a Vista license. I'm not going to do it. That's my choice and other people are free do as they like. While I really like Thinkpad laptops I will not buy one with Windows on it. Yes there are some vendors such as Los Alamos Computers and Emperor Linux that basically purchase windows machines and add their customized versions of Linux at considerable premiums. More than likely I will get an Dell XPS if the rumors of them being added to Dell's Linux offerings are true. Otherwise I will get machine from System76, R Cubed or some other vendor that sells machines with Linux or no OS installed on them.

[davijordan]

I can see why dell struggled with the decision to put linux on systems. I worked for Sears as a support person years ago when they did business a bit more legitimately. I left before it was sold. From a average retailer's point of view, they would prefer to have some kind of popular os on the machine. Then the user can take it home and use it immediately. A machine without an os or known os requires more support and problems for a non-techie retailer, Which means more support costs and possible returns. Most non-techie retalers do not have a big profit margin to absorb the extra costs unless extended warranties are sold. Most user's are not techies, nor should they be. Most users will not be going to specialty shops to get their computers. Having said that, I remember working at a mom and pop shop where we took quite a few sales away from the big guys because of our support for our product.

[Tsuroerusu]

I take a different look at it. I say that if Microsoft is able to get money from me even when I don't want to use their product, then something is terribly wrong. I'm willing to pay more to avoid Microsoft getting my money. I understand that others don't feel this way, but I feel like I'm just rolling over and letting Microsoft win and screw me over if they get my money for a product I will not use.

I completely agree. I'm an advanced computer user, I have the knowledge needed to avoid the Microsoft tax (Unlike your average run-at-the-mill computer user) and you better believe that I'm gonna use it, because I hate paying for stuff that I don't actually want to use. Like you said. there's just something fundamentally wrong about that crap!

This is a case where I think that government regulation saying that the customer must at least be offered the option, of not having to buy Windows, is a good idea. And I literally mean an option at the same place you would buy any Windows machine, because if the customer had to go some place else to find a machine without Windows (Aka less convenience), then having such a regulation is pointless, really. Some people obviously do not like government regulation of the market (Or of other things), but I think this case quite clearly demonstrates how not having a regulation that enforces fair competition, essentially creates a less free market (Because a single party can come in and throw a lock down on the market). This dynamic is similar to how the GPL works, and I personally see the GPL as "more free" than say the BSD license, because it's not just a here and now thing, the GPL always looks in the long term of things.

The notion of forcing PC makers to provide alternatives to Windows is antithetical to a free market. If you don't like what Sony or HP is doing, then don't buy their products. And if enough people agree with you, they will need to either change their policy or likely go out of business. That is what a free market is all about. If you don't like what one company is doing, go elsewhere. Any time governmental coercion is involved, you take the "free" out of free market.

Please go back and reread my post, I didn't say HP, Acer or whoever, should be forced to sell machines with GNU/Linux, I said that I think they should be forced by law to make the inclusion of Windows optional, so you don't force the consumer to pay for something he doesn't want. If my mother wanted a computer with GNU/Linux instead of Windows, there is literally N O for her in Denmark (And Dell apparently thinks that Denmark is not a European country, and that Europe is only Germany, France and the UK), because all the PC vendors force the consumer to buy fucking Windows. I see that as market deception and lockdown, because it instills a belief in the user's mindset that Windows is the only product out there, which locks out compeditors. Windows is an operating platform, why should that area of computing not have the exact same amount of competition as say the area of antivirus products? So what you have, in Denmark and much of Europe, is that the supposed benefits of a free market is thrown into /dev/null, because Microsoft has locked it all down!! If you think that is more free, than forcing PC manufacturers to at least make the purchase of Windows optional, then fine, but then please explain why I am forced to buy Windows if I don't feel like building my own machine. Sure I can stay clear of HP, Acer etc. because they don't allow me to not purchase Windows, but to me that takes a diareeah dump on the idea of a free market, and consumer choice.

I don't think forcing say HP to offer machines with GNU/Linux or *BSD is a good idea, I fully agree with that, but I think forcing them to make the purchase of Windows optional is what is needed to create more competition in the area of operating systems. There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever, why there shouldn't be serious competition in the area of operating systems.

That's my opinion, feel free to disagree, but just remember that Danes still cannot buy a machine at a retail store and not get Windows. It's even hard to find one on the Internet without Windows, unless you build it yourself. I'd love to go elsewhere, but that's a little difficult when there aren't any "elsewhere" to go.

[Wally Balljacker]

Please go back and reread my post, I didn't say HP, Acer or whoever, should be forced to sell machines with GNU/Linux, I said that I think they should be forced by law to make the inclusion of Windows optional, so you don't force the consumer to pay for something he doesn't want. If my mother wanted a computer with GNU/Linux instead of Windows, there is literally N O for her in Denmark (And Dell apparently thinks that Denmark is not a European country, and that Europe is only Germany, France and the UK), because all the PC vendors force the consumer to buy fucking Windows. I see that as market deception and lockdown, because it instills a belief in the user's mindset that Windows is the only product out there, which locks out compeditors. Windows is an operating platform, why should that area of computing not have the exact same amount of competition as say the area of antivirus products? So what you have, in Denmark and much of Europe, is that the supposed benefits of a free market is thrown into /dev/null, because Microsoft has locked it all down!! If you think that is more free, than forcing PC manufacturers to at least make the purchase of Windows optional, then fine, but then please explain why I am forced to buy Windows if I don't feel like building my own machine. Sure I can stay clear of HP, Acer etc. because they don't allow me to not purchase Windows, but to me that takes a diareeah dump on the idea of a free market, and consumer choice.

I don't think forcing say HP to offer machines with GNU/Linux or *BSD is a good idea, I fully agree with that, but I think forcing them to make the purchase of Windows optional is what is needed to create more competition in the area of operating systems. There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever, why there shouldn't be serious competition in the area of operating systems.

That's my opinion, feel free to disagree, but just remember that Danes still cannot buy a machine at a retail store and not get Windows. It's even hard to find one on the Internet without Windows, unless you build it yourself. I'd love to go elsewhere, but that's a little difficult when there aren't any "elsewhere" to go.

Well, it's unfortunate that Denmark doesn't have any real competition with Microsoft, and I can understand the frustration if there are literally *no* alternatives to Windows PCs available. I can tell you that here in the States, there are countless vendors that you can buy Linux computers from, and there is also a fairly large Mac user base to help keep Microsoft's feet to the fire. Speaking for myself, I certainly don't feel like I'm *forced* in any way to buy Windows. It was my choice to by an HP desktop with Vista preloaded, and I'm fine with that. I could have shopped around for a pre-loaded Linux system, but it wasn't a very big deal to me.

[Tsuroerusu]

Please go back and reread my post, I didn't say HP, Acer or whoever, should be forced to sell machines with GNU/Linux, I said that I think they should be forced by law to make the inclusion of Windows optional, so you don't force the consumer to pay for something he doesn't want. If my mother wanted a computer with GNU/Linux instead of Windows, there is literally N O for her in Denmark (And Dell apparently thinks that Denmark is not a European country, and that Europe is only Germany, France and the UK), because all the PC vendors force the consumer to buy fucking Windows. I see that as market deception and lockdown, because it instills a belief in the user's mindset that Windows is the only product out there, which locks out compeditors. Windows is an operating platform, why should that area of computing not have the exact same amount of competition as say the area of antivirus products? So what you have, in Denmark and much of Europe, is that the supposed benefits of a free market is thrown into /dev/null, because Microsoft has locked it all down!! If you think that is more free, than forcing PC manufacturers to at least make the purchase of Windows optional, then fine, but then please explain why I am forced to buy Windows if I don't feel like building my own machine. Sure I can stay clear of HP, Acer etc. because they don't allow me to not purchase Windows, but to me that takes a diareeah dump on the idea of a free market, and consumer choice.

I don't think forcing say HP to offer machines with GNU/Linux or *BSD is a good idea, I fully agree with that, but I think forcing them to make the purchase of Windows optional is what is needed to create more competition in the area of operating systems. There is absolutely no reason what-so-ever, why there shouldn't be serious competition in the area of operating systems.

That's my opinion, feel free to disagree, but just remember that Danes still cannot buy a machine at a retail store and not get Windows. It's even hard to find one on the Internet without Windows, unless you build it yourself. I'd love to go elsewhere, but that's a little difficult when there aren't any "elsewhere" to go.

Well, it's unfortunate that Denmark doesn't have any real competition with Microsoft, and I can understand the frustration if there are literally *no* alternatives to Windows PCs available. I can tell you that here in the States, there are countless vendors that you can buy Linux computers from, and there is also a fairly large Mac user base to help keep Microsoft's feet to the fire.

The exact situation is that if you as a consumer, for whatever reason, want a computer without Windows (Maybe you have an old Windows license you want to reuse, or simply want to use something else, let's face it there's solid handful of great OSes for PC hardware) forcibly included, you cannot get that in a traditional computer or electronics store (Which is where your average computer user would go). Very few places will sell you a computer without an OS, and these places are typically places that sell custom built computers anyway (For example, if you go to shg.dk, you can buy hardware in a NewEgg sort of way, but you can also just put all the hardware needed for a PC together and have them build it for you) but let me tell you, these are very very few, and these places aren't places that your average computer user knows about, not at all. Some "standard" stores, do sell Apple machines, but if I wanted to use GNU/Linux or *BSD, well, that's no good either, plus it's really expensive and all that crap. I have heard people say Apple isn't that much more expensive, even in the US, I personally call bullshit on that, but that's irrelevant because I don't live in the USA, I live in Denmark and I can guarantee you that Macintosh machines are MUCH more expensive than a standard PC. I have seen a few Mac users around, but it's REALLY rare that you see any.

I personally enjoy building my own machines, I find the whole planning and build process very fun, but what is pissing me off is that I almost have to become my own OEM to get a machine without Windows. I just find that so ridiculous beyond belief.

Speaking for myself, I certainly don't feel like I'm *forced* in any way to buy Windows. It was my choice to by an HP desktop with Vista preloaded, and I'm fine with that. I could have shopped around for a pre-loaded Linux system, but it wasn't a very big deal to me.

Well, see that's the thing, you had the option of "shopping around for a pre-loaded Linux system", average computer users in Denmark does not. And remember I am not directly requesting for HP, Acer etc. to sell machines with GNU/Linux, although that would be nice, I just want them to make the purchase of Windows optional, so that I or whoever can walk into a store, and buy a PC, go home and load GNU/Linux or one of the *BSDs (Or both) on it. See where the problem lies is in the market for average users, because power users can always get around an obstacle, we can either build our own machines or do some Voodoo magic to avoid Windows. But average computer users (Or power users who're lazy, or simply prefers buying pre-built systems) who don't have this insight can't at all.

OK, I'm done ranting, I'm going outside to kick a tree for a few minutes!

[davijordan]

Let everyone else buy a new computer. I love Microsoft and Apple. Helping Windows and Apple users is good for you. I have acquired several of almost free computers and other stuff from people who have been brainwashed into getting newer machines. Blessed are the geek (meek?) for they shall inherit the earth. I do try to convert them to linux. The latest almost freebie was a socket 478 1.7g p4. Since I have too many toys now, so I only work on projects for myself and my daughter.