<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I. Khider wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1240272349.3976.206.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="GtkHTML/3.24.5">
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.</blockquote>
Sorry, but this statement indicates both why you have no case and why
you *should* have no case.<br>
<br>
If you don't like HP's policy, don't buy HP. Or don't buy *that* HP
model, and choose one that has Linux pre-installed (ie,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10076884-58.html">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13845_3-10076884-58.html</a>)<br>
<br>
But please stop whining about it. This is no different than any other
consumer purchase decision in which some of the choices include
features you don't use.<br>
<br>
I don't use Bluetooth -- but I recently bought a laptop that had
built-in Bluetooth. That extra electronics (and potential battery
drain) I was prepared to pay "extra" for, because I liked the rest of
the total package (keyboard, weight, peripheral slots, Linux device
support, company reputation, reliability, etc.) It's not AT ALL that
I'm too "shy" to ask for a system without Bluetooth. I simply made the
decision that one overall package of features was a better value than
its alternatives. That occasionally means -- in a car, a camera, or a
computer -- paying for features I don't want in order to get the
features I really do need.<br>
<br>
Having Windows pre-installed, for a Linux user, is simply an example of
one such "feature" that you don't use. Treating it as anything more
than that -- as if it's your *right* to get the HP model of your choice
shipped without Windows -- will (and should) get you laughed at by the
BBB and government consumer agencies. I hope they were at least polite
in blowing you off.<br>
<br>
You have a choice not to buy HP. That's the strongest possible
statement you can make -- if enough other people make the same decision
then HP will change its approach. And now that an increasing number of
vendors are making Linux options available you can't say you have no
choice. Or if it really really matters to you, buy the no-OS laptop
from a foreign retailer and be prepared to pay the premium that such a
choice requires.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:1240272349.3976.206.camel-egX5H+F/hXEu8BFL9Asa/WHqWbEk1Anr@public.gmane.org"
type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
As I wrote in an earlier email, the amount of money that laptop vendors
pays Microsoft varies from $15 (for XP on netbooks) to $70 (for Vista
on larger laptops). After discounting subsidies for demonstration
software pre-loads (ie, anti-virus), the amount you would stand to
receive -- in the unlikely event you win(*) -- would barely cover the
cost of parking under city hall for your court trip and the gas to get
you there.<br>
<br>
And... what is your time worth?<br>
<br>
- Evan<br>
<br>
(*) -- just my opinion. IANAL<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>