4 ms·

So buy it twice to get a good copy? Microsoft really needs to reel in the bad behaviour on the part of the OEMs.

wlesieutre 11y ago
No no, sorry. Signature edition is buying the computer itself, not rebuying the OS. They're computers from Dell/Toshiba/Acer/etc. sold directly by Microsoft without any garbageware. Saves you the hassle of having to do a clean install after you buy it.
- astrodust 11y ago
  Do you have a link that explains what this is? The previous one dumped me on some random Microsoft Store page.
  - wlesieutre 11y ago
    Hm, link works for me. Maybe MS is doing a location based redirect or something? Try google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoftstore.com%2Fstore%2Fmsusa%2Fen_US%2Fcat%2FSignature-Edition-Computers%2FcategoryID.69916600&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...
scholia 11y ago
The US government launched a massive anti-trust case against Microsoft to enable OEMs to do whatever they wanted. It cost Microsoft many billions of dollars, almost had the company broken up, and put them under close Department of Justice supervision for a decade. I don't think Microsoft will risk anything like that again....
- Tloewald 11y ago
  Microsoft didn't get sued for trying to make installing Windows easier. It got sued for making changes in Windows designed to damage competitors (specifically Netscape, Sun, Borland, and Apple) and publicly and repeatedly lying about it.
  - scholia 11y ago
    The heart of the case was whether OEMs could install Netscape and/or remove IE. One direct result was that Microsoft could not insist on its preferred installation of Windows. Microsoft was also prevented from charging the major OEMs different prices, which was its main way of rewarding OEMs for doing installations the way Microsoft wanted.
    - Tloewald 11y ago
      This is true -- but again Microsoft got caught lying about how IE's functionality was "intrinsic" to Windows (which was why it prevented IE from being uninstalled). It was also forcing PC manufacturers to pay a royalty for every PC sold, whether or not it was bundled with DOS or Windows (which damaged rivals like Digital Research -- the company Microsoft essentially stole DOS from, but that's another story).
      - scholia 11y ago
        > how IE's functionality was "intrinsic" to Windows Microsoft had been forced to sign a consent decree in 1995, which prevented it from tying new products to the OS but specifically allowed it to add new features to the OS. It therefore didn't have much choice about its arguments, though (like every other OS supplier) it obviously wanted to include a browser. Equally obviously, delivering a free browser as part of the OS was good for consumers, which is why Microsoft won the browser bundling case on appeal. Microsoft had also componentized the browser so that different functions could be used by other programs, which to some extent, did make it part of the OS. (Much of the anti-trust case argument on that topic was phenomenally stupid.) >It was also forcing PC manufacturers to pay a royalty for every PC sold, whether or not it was bundled with DOS or Windows Don't think so. That was a deal offered to some OEMs, but as far as I know, it was never forced on anybody. In any case, the US Justice Department banned the idea in 1994. I tend to think 21+ years is a bit of long time to hold a grudge about something that was killed before it took off. > Digital Research -- the company Microsoft essentially stole DOS from, but that's another story Well, DR screwed up massively by refusing to sign a deal with IBM, then by charging too much for DR DOS, and then Apple screwed it in a court case over the UI in DR GEM. Either way, DR was dead long before the Microsoft anti-trust suit.

No no, sorry. Signature edition is buying the computer itself, not rebuying the OS. They're computers from Dell/Toshiba/Acer/etc. sold directly by Microsoft without any garbageware. Saves you the hassle of having to do a clean install after you buy it.

astrodust 11y ago
Do you have a link that explains what this is? The previous one dumped me on some random Microsoft Store page.
- wlesieutre 11y ago
  Hm, link works for me. Maybe MS is doing a location based redirect or something? Try google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoftstore.com%2Fstore%2Fmsusa%2Fen_US%2Fcat%2FSignature-Edition-Computers%2FcategoryID.69916600&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...

scholia 11y ago

The US government launched a massive anti-trust case against Microsoft to enable OEMs to do whatever they wanted. It cost Microsoft many billions of dollars, almost had the company broken up, and put them under close Department of Justice supervision for a decade. I don't think Microsoft will risk anything like that again....

Tloewald 11y ago
Microsoft didn't get sued for trying to make installing Windows easier. It got sued for making changes in Windows designed to damage competitors (specifically Netscape, Sun, Borland, and Apple) and publicly and repeatedly lying about it.
- scholia 11y ago
  The heart of the case was whether OEMs could install Netscape and/or remove IE. One direct result was that Microsoft could not insist on its preferred installation of Windows. Microsoft was also prevented from charging the major OEMs different prices, which was its main way of rewarding OEMs for doing installations the way Microsoft wanted.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    This is true -- but again Microsoft got caught lying about how IE's functionality was "intrinsic" to Windows (which was why it prevented IE from being uninstalled). It was also forcing PC manufacturers to pay a royalty for every PC sold, whether or not it was bundled with DOS or Windows (which damaged rivals like Digital Research -- the company Microsoft essentially stole DOS from, but that's another story).
    - scholia 11y ago
      > how IE's functionality was "intrinsic" to Windows Microsoft had been forced to sign a consent decree in 1995, which prevented it from tying new products to the OS but specifically allowed it to add new features to the OS. It therefore didn't have much choice about its arguments, though (like every other OS supplier) it obviously wanted to include a browser. Equally obviously, delivering a free browser as part of the OS was good for consumers, which is why Microsoft won the browser bundling case on appeal. Microsoft had also componentized the browser so that different functions could be used by other programs, which to some extent, did make it part of the OS. (Much of the anti-trust case argument on that topic was phenomenally stupid.) >It was also forcing PC manufacturers to pay a royalty for every PC sold, whether or not it was bundled with DOS or Windows Don't think so. That was a deal offered to some OEMs, but as far as I know, it was never forced on anybody. In any case, the US Justice Department banned the idea in 1994. I tend to think 21+ years is a bit of long time to hold a grudge about something that was killed before it took off. > Digital Research -- the company Microsoft essentially stole DOS from, but that's another story Well, DR screwed up massively by refusing to sign a deal with IBM, then by charging too much for DR DOS, and then Apple screwed it in a court case over the UI in DR GEM. Either way, DR was dead long before the Microsoft anti-trust suit.