<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
</HEAD>
<BODY>
Hello all, <BR>
<BR>
As I get responses from you (thank you very much) I would like you to look at this issue beyond HP and apply it to all manufacturers. To their credit, HP had a policy where they voided harware warranties if Linux was installed, which they since rescinded. This policy should be applicable to any manufacturer across the board, be it Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Ummagumma, whatever. The reason no O/S is available as an an option manufacturers in other countries is because consumers were active to voice their concerns and make a change. <BR>
<BR>
Some said 'vote with dollars', I respectfully submit that this is not possible to do in Canada at this time. For instance, with Dell, only select models have Ubuntu installed. What if I wanted a model where Ubuntu is not an option? Such is the case--the computers I want have Windows installed. A consumer ought to purchase ANY model from ANY manufacturer and decide whether s/he wishes to have the Windows O/S. <BR>
<BR>
I do not think this is asking for the moon. In our society, we should have choice.<BR>
<BR>
-I-<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 20:05 -0400, I. Khider wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Greetings fellow Linux enthusiasts,<BR>
<BR>
As some of you may know, I am in an ongoing battle with HP (because I like their product) to have no O/S on my laptop as an option like they do in Europe, US, Australia, etc.. HP thinks it is fine to make a consumer pay for the Windows O/S when s/he does not need it. Microsoft stated a rebate for the O/S is availble for those who do not agree to the Microsoft End User Licence Agreement. However, only the manufacturer can apply for the rebate, not the consumer. <BR>
<BR>
I spoke with the Better Business Bureau and they stated the complaint was out of their jurisdiction. <BR>
I also spoke with the competition Bureau who stated that no competition rules are being violated by forcing the consumer to pay for Windows. The consumer can always install Linux after paying for Windows, so what's the problem?<BR>
<BR>
HP said they will only change their policy if it will impact their sales. As it stands, Linux users are too shy to ask for the Windows OS be removed. Linux users (it seems) in fact like to pay for Windows. <BR>
<BR>
Perhaps I am on naiive for thinking this, but I do not want to pay for something I do not need. In this case the Windows O/S. It has been suggested I buy the laptop and take HP to Small Claims Court and get the OS cost back that way. Two people from TLUG advocate this course of action--can anyone else give feedback on this?<BR>
<BR>
Thanks in advance, <BR>
<BR>
Ib Khider
</BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>