Jerry,

>mmm... Gates became a billionaire because folks bought a 'license' to use software they don't own. In fact, outside of OpenSource and GPL, I would guess that all software vendors lease their software, they don't sell it. That is one thing that the GPL is fighting. A free WinPC would make plenty of sense to Microsoft, who is moving to sellng subscriptions to access their software (pay-per-use) on Passport servers. I think many folks would jump at the chance to get a free PC, even if it booted directly to a Microsoft and required paying on the 'installment plan', which, in effect is what it is. When they sign up for a 3 year contract, with stiff penalties for early withdrawal, Microsoft will more than make back the actual cost of the WinPC. A real question is why a professional coder would jump at something like that, but I'd wager that many VB coders would, and maybe VFP coders too.

Again, you are missing my point...yes, software can be sold without giving the user full control over it, because software is meant to do one thing and do it well. If I buy a word processor program I don't want to change it or add functionality to it -- I just want it to work.

This simply isn't true with hardware, especially not in the corporate arena. Virtually everyone will at some point need to add memory or add disk space to their system. In corportions especially, the owner _has_ to be able to meddle with the hardware in order to get the most out of it. Flexibility in hardware and software configuration are essential. The idea of a "set-top box" in the corporate world is simply not gonna happen, at least not from the vendor. Sure, corporations will do their own "vanilla" configuration of a box, but that is exactly the type of freedom to configure that I am talking about.

As for three-year contracts...there's another reason that Corporate America would never buy in...three tears is a loooong time to be locked into one set of services (and from one vendor!). Sure, some businesses might crunch the numbers and see that the costs are reasonable, but once they see that they cannot do any of their own software configuration or hardware manipulation, such an idea will be laughable.

>The new components are made to be autodestroyed when tampered with. Try to break in and it will break.

Auto-destroyed...where are you coming up with some of this stuff? Have you _ever_ owned a piece of machinery that auto-destroyed when you open it? How would you repair such an item? Are these machines going to be completely disposable, so if the hard drive goes out, you have to ship them back or pitch them? How will any company be able to maintain high-availability standards if they have to call an MS technician or ship their mission-critical machine back in the event it blows one tiny component? It's obvious that as cheap as these WinPCs are that they aren't going to be of very high quality. Or is MS also going to give away $25,000 WinServers for free? Remember, the server is where MS once to start infiltrating, since they already "own the desktop". I don't think the free-PC concept will work in the server room.

If you honestly believe anyone is going to buy something that auto-destructs when tampered with then we need to let this thread die here and just agree to disagree.



Some companies may think the WinPC idea holds water on the pure financials of it. But when they consider the downsides:

- single-vendor lock-in for a HUGE time period (3 years is an eternity, especially in technology)
- inability to do in-house software configuration
- inability to perform cheap/standard hardware enhancements (256 MB of RAM is down to $50 a pop, and adding that to a PC can increase performance dramatically, for just one example).
- inability to set hardware/software up to match the custom needs of your business. Corporate PCs are used for more than the games and web surfing that a home user would partake in...

So basic numbers aside, I don't see how any serious business would ever consider the WinPC concept. Heck, I don't even know many home users who would do it. The advertising-based free PC movement never got going, and neither will the subscription-based free PC movement.

>Meanwhile, MS has researched the cost of their WinPC down to $100 each. One of your WinPCs break? MS will send a new one FEDX and you will send them the old one back, or be charged $500 for it. Meanwhile, MS has dumped their CD replication charges, their documentation and knowledgebase charges, their sales staff... The oportunities just roll on...

The opportunities only roll on as far as the fanatsy runs on. You still haven't stated how MS is going to start doing all of this manufacturing and configuration when this all starts? You think the Dells and Gateways are just going to roll over when Redmond starts pumping out these disposable machines? You think the DOJ and various state attorneys are going to just sit there while MS not only takes over the OS market but the hardware, applications, and Internet markets as well?

Like I said above, I think we are going to have to let this thread die and agree to disagree here. If you want to start a thread again in 3 to 5 years once the WinPCs will have supposedly taken over the world, I will still be here using Linux on a generic PC that I can take apart without it self-destructing.

JoeK