Skip to main content

This post is more than 5 years old

Solved!

Go to Solution

Closed

alldeth

1 Rookie

 • 

8 Posts

4603

March 6th, 2000 01:00

Dell OS discussion

I phoned dell tech support last night with a minor problem with my dell p2 400, during our discussion it came up that the original dell OS (win 98) that came with the machine had been replaced by me with a more recent version of win 98 SE. He asked where I got the other version from. I replied that it came with the new dell I had just purchased, my p3 550. So he says that I am violating my Microsoft users agreement because I am running an illegal OS now on the p2 400 and dell cannot give me support anymore, even though I was promised lifetime support.
I pointed out to him that i had purchased both dells and had paid for both operating systems and that it was up to me where I use these operating systems. He then reminded me that I am only allowed to use this os on one machine according to the licence agreement. He then asked me which OS i was using on my new machine. I told him this was none of his business as I wasn't having any problems with that machine and i needed no technical assitance with it.. This is disgracefull customer service, I buy $12,000 worth of dells in 16 months and this guy is telling me they wont give me support because he assumes I am running an illegal OS, i could be running linux or nt or nothing at all in my new p3 for that matter. So he assumed that because I was using a new os from my new dell that i was breaking the law. Now , who do dell think they are the " Microsoft Police"?? This tech certainly has a lot of nerve with this line of questioning, whether or not I am continuing to use that copy of se on both computers is noones busisness as far as I am concerned, and he has no right to ask. so I was refused technical support on these grounds. I used to have alot of respect for dell , I thought they made excellent products and gave excellent support, although I have delt with many techs and most where very capable ,this latest episode however really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the fact that my tech question had nothing to do with my os and his decission to ignore my problem and decide to refuse me assistance and pursue this illegal os crap. Who the heck does he think he is??....is DELL doing independent investigations for microsoft? Or is it that this tech hates his job so much that he is just looking for ways to refuse service?. Well DELL , all I can say is that I am dissgusted by your triviality, and concerned about what motivates your techs to pursue these lines of qustioning.

LarryCallaway

8 Posts

March 6th, 2000 03:00

I have experienced a certain amount of grilling in the past and have resented it...not so much for WHAT was said, but HOW the tech said it. I understand why Dell (or any other manufacturer) needs to get back to what was delivered with the system. On the hardware side, they follow certain scripts which are pretty much rendered null and void if they have unsopported hardware installed. But even in that case, i had found in the past that Dell was willing to work with me. I complained to a supervisor that, instead of coming across as "YOU MUST GET THE SYSTEM BACK TO ITS CONFIGURATION WHEN WE DELIVERED IT BEFORE WE WILL SUPPORT YOU!!!!" and basically hang up, I would have been much more cooperative had he told me something like "In order to give you the best support, and track down your problem better, we will have to start with the original equipment and see if the problem is still there. If it isn't then we can add one board at a time until we isolate the problem" In fact, that is the type of response i got from the very next tech. Regarding software, they are not required to support a retail copy of Windows, even though i have found that they frequently do. When it comes to light that a copy of an OS that another computer was licensed for, that is another matter...then the question of legality comes into play.

Having said all that, I feel Dell (and other manufacturers) would be well served to list these caveats in a very simple, non-legalese manner to prepare us for the rules of the game. I can understand the frustration that is felt and, on the spur of the moment, we tend to get combative about such issues...I know I did...even though, after some thought, i realized why Dell took such a stance with me. In any event, my point is that Dell should do a better job of explaining and simplifying something that is actually a very complex issue: LICENSING. Furthermore, they should provide us "hotheads" with the "whys and wherefores" of their policies. It would help them and it would help us, in my view.

I said my piece. Sorry to take so long to express it.

Larry Callaway

PS: I still think Dell is a HELL OF A GOOD COMPANY!

JDean

2 Posts

March 6th, 2000 04:00

LOL...just read all these, they need to call this the JERRY SPRINGER Forum. i can see the chairs breaking now. :)

Michigan cat

2 Intern

 • 

148 Posts

March 6th, 2000 04:00

sorry my last post should of been up the hill a little more like Disspointed with DELL sorry M.C.

Michigan cat

2 Intern

 • 

148 Posts

March 6th, 2000 04:00

PEOPLE / PEOPLE !! I never did no when to keep my big mouth SHUT.. but hear is my 2 cents worth > as a customer when i buy something , I own it to do with it as I WISH .!! but as a retailer if I lease you a product , the product is your to use BUT!! I as the retailer still retain legal ownership over that product ... And you the user or (customer) are bound to the use of that product , BY the agreament that you the customer or user agread to at the time of purchase of said product ,period . NOW that been said no one ever said that life was FAIR !!! I do under stand where you are coming from !!! but to use the words from my late but wise grandfather < READ THE FINE PRINT SON > some how he allways seamed to be right!!!!!!!! M.C.

Michigan cat

2 Intern

 • 

148 Posts

March 6th, 2000 04:00

COOL !! neat idea!! The New Jerry Springer Dell Site !!!!!! **LOL** M.C.

lungfysh

1 Message

March 7th, 2000 18:00

Concurrent use is the sharing of software licenses among multiple users. In
the past, this was permitted under the terms of the End User License
Agreement (EULA) for certain Microsoft applications software products. The
concurrent use right is not included in EULAs now being issued. It is now
available only under certain Microsoft volume license programs.
A Microsoft® License Pak, or MLP, is a license agreement product that
authorizes the making and use of one (or more, if indicated on the MLP)
additional copies of a specified, previously licensed, Microsoft product.
This product does not contain any disks. For example, if you work in a small
company with two computers, and need to use Microsoft Word on both computer
systems, you could purchase a single copy of Microsoft Word and a single
copy of MLP for Word. This would allow you to legally install Word on the
first computer, as outlined in the Word End User License Agreement, as well
as on the second computer, as permitted by the MLP license agreement.
You cannot make a second copy of the operating system. The right to make a
second copy of a Microsoft software product only applies to some application
products and not to operating system software.
The EULA may be found in one of several different locations, depending on
your Microsoftâ product. The three most common locations for the license
agreement are: (1) printed on a separate piece of paper that accompanies the
product; (2) printed in the User's Manual, usually on the inside front cover
or the first page of the manual; or (3) located online within the software
product.
Note
* You can also view the EULA, by clicking Start, pointing to Programs,
and then clicking Windows Explorer. Double-click the Windows folder and then
double-click the Help folder. Scroll down and double-click license.txt.

chriscjc

7 Posts

March 8th, 2000 19:00

I've got news for y'all - any company who thinks they can prevent the re-copying and use of licensed software, legally purchased by a private individual, is in "Banana Land" !!! In a free society, it happens everyday, and will continue to happen. Not saying they'll like or approve of it, or won't have legal recourse, but free-thinking people will act autonomously in their search of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ... and they'll make and use copies!! And no copyright laws will ever really stop that.

LarryCallaway

8 Posts

March 8th, 2000 20:00

I'm sure you are right. However, I am puzzled why otherwise law-abiding citizens feel it is OK to steal other people's intellectual property. I think anybody would do his or her best to make sure that something they developed at great cost and effort would not be taken by others for their use without compensating the creator of such things. I have to admit that, as a developer, i am sensitive to this issue. Essentially, people want to "freeload" off the efforts of others and i guess that such people will always be around, as you say. I take issue with the inference in your note that, as members of a free society, we all have a right to take other people's intellectual property. But perhaps you were just saying that, short of a police state, these things will happen...I HOPE that is what you meant.

chriscjc

7 Posts

March 9th, 2000 15:00

Larry - believe me - I don't believe in TAKING ANYTHING that doesn't belong to me. I DO have a little problem with copyright laws that make it "impossible" for me to utilize software that I BOUGHT on ANY SYSTEM that I OWN. But for me to buy software, copy it, and RE-SELL IT - that isn't right. ... Your inference (and I guess, mine) is correct - "Brown Shirts" don't necessarily sport government identification cards; they're where you find them, and some of them reside on the NYSE. But believe me - I support your right to protect your intellectual property; if you invented it, you should be rewarded for it, and neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to steal it from you. Thanks. - Chris

LarryCallaway

8 Posts

March 9th, 2000 15:00

Hey, Chris...thanks for the response.

I think the key to this issue is the concept that you BOUGHT the software. Software publishers don't SELL their software unless they are selling the RIGHTS to the software...like Symantec recently sold ACT! to another company...so now the other company has the full rights to that package. Those are usually transactions in the thousands or millions of dollars, depending on the package. Believe me, if you wanted to BUY Windows 98, for instance, you would be paying A LOT MORE than you did when you purchased the LICENSE TO USE Windows. So you never OWN the package to do as you will with it...you payed for the right to use the package in accordance with the license that you agreed to when you begin using the package. If you don't like the terms of the License, you have the right to send it back for a refund. But under no circumstances have your purchased the actual package. As a matter of fact, the CD itself and the information it contains is really not the key element of your purchase...THE LICENSE is.

Of course, this is the crux of the matter between Microsoft and the government right now. Since Microsoft sort of "owns" the PC Operating System market at this time, they can dictate rather onerous terms without the consumer having much recourse. Hence the potential for monopolistic abuse. But I should say that I believe that ALL software publishers engage in the same licensing practices. What has made Microsoft a target is simply that they own such a large portion of the market and thus (according to the government...which Microsoft disputes) ARE a monopoly. The rules you have to play by as a monopoly are very different from the rules that other companies must follow...So identical practices by the likes of Corel, for instance, are NOT illegal, whereas they MIGHT be when implemented by Microsoft.

Anyway, I got off the subject. I take issue with your statement that you OWN the software. You CANNOT use it as you please because, by breaking the label or using the software, you have implicitly agreed to the terms of the license...whether you like the terms or not. I might still be missing your point, but I think I understood what you said.

Larry

Was this post helpful?

View All

No Events found!

Top