Subject: Re: Another: can't *not* buy Win95 on Dell or Gateway
Ted Kircher (kircher@realtime.com)
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 04:19:18
Message-Id: <3.0.5.16.19980504041918.48ef5f08@realtime.com> Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 04:19:18 To: roundtable@cni.org From: Ted Kircher <kircher@realtime.com> Subject: Re: Another: can't *not* buy Win95 on Dell or Gateway In-Reply-To: <9805040940.AA29580@a.cni.org>
On 5/4/98, Craig Summerhill <craig@cni.org> wrote:
>
> Ted, don't you think that Microsoft's market penetration has
> something to do with the fact that there is no non-Microsoft operating
> system that provides a reasonable alternative to support from the
> corporation's point of view?
Absolutely, and that makes good *business* sense to a large distributor
like Dell, Compaq, Gateway, ... In fact, it seems obvious that no other
operating system makes business sense on Intel based processor
architectures. However, this is *not* the (primary) fault of Microsoft
or any of the forementioned system manufacturers.
> I specifically asked the pre-order support person I was talking to about
> other operating systems when we purchased four i686/200 machines, and
> was informed that loading alternate operating systems on the machine(s)
> would void the warranty on the machines. I suppose, if push were to
> come to shove, they would honor hardware warranties -- at least to the
> point of swapping out components -- if we could demonstrate some
> competence in the analysis of the problem. But you can pretty much kiss
> off any form of telephone support if you're not using one of the two
> "blessed" operating systems. And since vendors like Slackware and Red
> Hat don't provide any significant form of technical support for their
> Linux products most consumers as well as many small businesses simply
> don't have a choice. (e.g. Red Hat provides 30 days of tech support to
> address installation questions only -- questions about customization or
> configuration are strictly out of bounds. In fact, it is so bad --
> Red Hat has just refused to provide us support on a problem that was
> created as a result of upgrading their product from version 4.2 to
> version 5.0 -- I am considering signing a contract with Sun Microsystems
> for Intel Solaris just to get some support.)
BAU - the free market competitive marketplace amoung vendors and
customers.
> I'm sure telephone support is a nightmare for companies like Dell and
> Gateway 2000. I know I certainly wouldn't want to have the job. There
> are enough problems with these things when you know what internal
> components it has. But even worse are the gobs of 'hole in the wall'
> configurations out in the world.
A good (been around for a year + a local reputation) 'hole in the wall'
is okay for home use if the customer is somewhat knowledgeable. As to
reliability, many components become obsolete prior to breaking.
However, I am still using a 170MB disk for backup after 6 years. Also,
my PC XT lasted over 9 years as a home terminal when I worked at IBM.
> Speaking as somebody who purchased for public funded agencies for over
> 10 years before coming to work for a not-for-profit -- those 'hole in
> the wall' deals aren't always that great a bargain. If all you are
> about is the bottom line, they look like great bargins. But when
> compared based on real technical specifications, they often fail
> miserably. The quality of the internal components is often very poor
> when you review the specs, if you can even get specs. The state and
> university accounting and buying people don't usually understand why
> this is, either, in my experience. At least when a consumer buys a
> Macintosh or a Sun or a DEC Alpha, they have reasonable assurances about
> what they are getting for their money -- and the tech support people
> have reasonable assurances regarding the hardware too.
I agree for even a mid-sized operation when computing facilities are
primarily a *necessary* means to the end of staying in business. Btw,
probably all of the reasons you mentioned are analogous to the ones that
Dell, Gateway, ... have made in only supporting Microsoft operating
systems.
> For larger corporate customers, there are third party service providers
> who can be contracted to provide post-purchase support. But the reality
> for the vast majority of home consumers and small businesses is that
> they can't afford subsequent contracting costs just to get support for
> their operating system. And based on my experience in having to call
> Microsoft every now and then, they certainly aren't spending any of
> their profits picking up the slack here either...
Again, I think this is a reasonably BAU.
> The real troubling thing is that I end up using technical support more
> today than I did ten years ago. I know a hell of a lot more about
> systems than I did then, sure. But system configurations and
> applications are getting more complicated, the hardware is a lot more
> variable, and networking places new demands on systems in terms of
> performance, security, etc. If Microsoft offered a great operating
> system that solved a lot of my support problems that would be one thing.
> But the truth of the matter is the Windows NT servers we adminster are
> the hardest to adminster, are almost impossible to fine-tune from a
> performance point of view, and require the most care and feeding to
> keep working at all...
> --
Probably anyone's 'customers' (in the general sense) - including yours -
have reached a similar assessment.
Ted Kircher
Information Age Consulting ("Exploiting Technology for Society")
6618 Lost Horizon Drive, Austin, TX 78759-6117, USA, 512-335-1149
<kircher@realtime.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:24 EST