OEMs Under Pressure from Microsoft to Stop Use of HDDs as Boot Drives from 2023

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Nothing new here ms will also start making drivers come from the ms store only just like newest game ready nvidia drivers so what's the difference ?
None
HDD for an os is not something worth arguing about ssd clearly should be a minimum requirement.
Storage wise is another issue completely.

 

[Valantar]

That would be like microsoft telling me how to run my business and how to built or rebuild the PCs that I sell. They can't do that. And I would never tolerate them trying. I don't know how things run down-under, but here, that nonsense is unlawful and can get you in trouble.

So you never enter into deals with your suppliers that have various stipulations attached to them? Yeah, sorry, but that's nonsense. They can set essentially whatever contractual limitations they want to on the sale of their products, which would be perfectly legal - as long as those limitations aren't discriminatory or otherwise illegal. And that's a pretty high bar.

MS most likely wouldn't give a damn about a small business like yours - nor are you likely to be buying your OS licences directly from them - but major OEMs that licence Windows directly from MS are subject to MS' contractual terms for those purchases. And if the licences are granted for use on hardware where the boot media is not an HDD, then they have to abide by that or risk the licence being revoked. That would be perfectly legal.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So you never enter into deals with your suppliers that have various stipulations attached to them?

Nothing like what microsoft is trying to pull here. And yes I have refused some "deals".

Yeah, sorry, but that's nonsense.

Maybe to you.

They can set essentially whatever contractual limitations they want to on the sale of their products, which would be perfectly legal

No, they can't. It is a form of price-fixing which is illegal here and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the EU.

MS most likely wouldn't give a damn about a small business like yours

Not true. Assumption #1

nor are you likely to be buying your OS licences directly from them

Also not true. Assumption #2

And if the licences are granted for use on hardware where the boot media is not an HDD, then they have to abide by that or risk the licence being revoked.

Also not true. Assumption #3.

That would be perfectly legal.

No, it isn't. Again price-fixing is illegal.

 

[Valantar]

Nothing like what microsoft is trying to pull here. And yes I have refused some "deals".

Maybe to you.

No, they can't. It is a form of price-fixing which is illegal here and I'm pretty sure it's the same in the EU.

Man, I know you lean something like libertarian-ish with all the baggage that typically brings with it, but I would still expect a better understanding than this on basic legal terms and common-sense level contractual law. First off, setting contractual limitations on the use or implementation of a thing you sell is not equivalent to price fixing. Not even close! It could be a component of a price-fixing scheme, but only in combination with ... well, things that actually amount to price fixing, cartel formation, etc. If your understanding of "price fixing" amounts to "any contractual limitation on the use of the product sold" - which is what you seem to be arguing here, after all - then you really, really need to look up what price fixing means.

Not true. Assumption #1

Yes ... it was explicitly formulated as an assumption. And?

Also not true. Assumption #2

Again: same. But I'm surprised that you're not buying things through a distributor - I guess that might be a difference between the US and the EU. Direct sales only exist for major actors here.

Also not true. Assumption #3.

So you're telling me that you could break the terms of sale, tell MS about it, and they would say "yeah, whatever, it's not like this is enforceable anyway"? 'Cause ... yeah, I don't see that happening. Or if it did, it would likely because of it being too small to be worth the legal costs, i.e. a confirmation of assumption #1, so ... yeah?

No, it isn't. Again price-fixing is illegal.

Again: please look up what price fixing means. Here's a helpful link. Please take note of the part where it says that "price fixing requires a conspiracy between sellers or buyers", which comes directly into conflict with any unilateral contractual requirement. There's also a rather fundamental conflict between your use of the term here and the goal/intention behind actual price fixing.

 

[AusWolf]

That would be like microsoft telling me how to run my business and how to built or rebuild the PCs that I sell. They can't do that. And I would never tolerate them trying. I don't know how things run down-under, but here, that nonsense is unlawful and can get you in trouble.

Alternatively, they could just include installing onto an SSD a basic system requirement without any legal stuff attached to it. Do you remember when you could install Windows onto any USB stick? Then Microsoft included a speed checker in the installer, so if your USB stick falls under the minimum requirement, it won't show up in the installer as a potential target drive at all. Nothing prevents them from doing the same with HDDs. If the installer detects one, it won't show up in the list of drives. They can also issue "your system isn't fully compatible with this version of Windows" messages through Windows update. Again, no legal shenanigans attached. It's their product, they do whatever the hell they want with it.

 

[64K]

The expense for a 256 GB SSD is very reasonable. I put my OS on the SSD and I have a 4 TB HDD for all my games. To get what I have today would be around $200. imo that's not a lot.

 

[ThrashZone]

The expense for a 256 GB SSD is very reasonable. I put my OS on the SSD and I have a 4 TB HDD for all my games. To get what I have today would be around $200. imo that's not a lot.

Hi,
Indeed
There will only be trouble if ms mandates storage being on an ssd.
Then shit will hit the fan then we can just sic Lex on them

 

[Mussels]

That would be like microsoft telling me how to run my business and how to built or rebuild the PCs that I sell. They can't do that. And I would never tolerate them trying. I don't know how things run down-under, but here, that nonsense is unlawful and can get you in trouble.

Yeah lex... you're kinda wrong.

Or did you not notice you cant sell windows 11 machines on a pentium 4, or windows 10 machines with 512MB of ram.

It's always been this way. You just never noticed.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah lex... you're kinda wrong.

Or did you not notice you cant sell windows 11 machines on a pentium 4, or windows 10 machines with 512MB of ram.

It's always been this way. You just never noticed.

Besides, if I'm a business and I'm told to install Windows onto an SSD, I'll do that and charge my customers a couple of $/€/£ more. Easy. It doesn't even have to be top-of-the-line, any basic cheap SSD will do.

 

[newtekie1]

It is crazy to me that OEMs are even shipping computers still with HDDs at the boot drives, but it's true. And not just low end machines either. I've come across 11th Gen i7 machines with a 1TB HDD as the boot drive from Dell and HP. SSDs are cheap.

Im sure SSD manufacturers could make a really really cheap ass SSD that performs somewhat on the level of a hard drive for absolute peanuts.

A 240GB SSD is like $30. It's basically the same price as a 1TB HDD. But the OEMs have convinced people that they need large amounts of storage and 240GB isn't enough. But the reality is most people don't need more than 240GB right now. And that's just becoming more true with the move to the cloud.

Sure when you can get cheap QLC ssds that are just as slow as hdds

There are no QLC SSDs that are as slow as HDDs in real world use.

but I would still expect a better understanding than this on basic legal terms and common-sense level contractual law

First you gotta understand that Lex doesn't believe in law, or common-sense. He believe whatever he thinks is the law, it doesn't matter what is actually written as law.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Man, I know you lean something like libertarian-ish with all the baggage that typically brings with it, but I would still expect a better understanding than this on basic legal terms and common-sense level contractual law.

You assume my understanding flawed. That's on you.

I guess that might be a difference between the US and the EU. Direct sales only exist for major actors here.

Seemingly so. I have and likely will again purchase OEM COAs from microsoft directly.

So you're telling me that you could break the terms of sale, tell MS about it, and they would say "yeah, whatever, it's not like this is enforceable anyway"?

No. If I told them anything at all I would tell them their terms are unlawful(and thus unenforceable) and that they can go piss up a flag-pole. I would also inform them that restricting future sale based on that stance would constitute a form of retaliation and would be acted upon. Just so you know, such would NOT be my first rodeo with them. There are laws that protect businesses from the kind of nonsense microsoft frequently attempts. If you don't stand up for you rights, you lose them. Your concept of how things work in the real world needs revision.

Again: please look up what price fixing means.

Again, not my first rodeo. I don't need you help defining and understanding the definitions of what is involved in price-fixing schemes.

Alternatively, they could just include installing onto an SSD a basic system requirement without any legal stuff attached to it.

And that would be easily defeated.

First you gotta understand that Lex doesn't believe in law, or common-sense.

Oh, another pathetic attack from the peanut gallery. You wound me sir...

He believe whatever he thinks is the law, it doesn't matter what is actually written as law.

You keep thinking that...

Yeah lex... you're kinda wrong.

No, I'm not.

Or did you not notice you cant sell windows 11 machines on a pentium 4, or windows 10 machines with 512MB of ram.

It's always been this way. You just never noticed.

Or I didn't/don't care. They can claim anything they wish. What they can actually enforce is something else entirely.

 

[Frick]

You assume my understanding flawed. That's on you.

Seemingly so. I have and likely will again purchase OEM COAs from microsoft directly.

No. If I told them anything at all I would tell them their terms are unlawful(and thus unenforceable) and that they can go piss up a flag-pole. I would also inform them that restricting future sale based on that stance would constitute a form of retaliation and would be acted upon. Just so you know, such would NOT be my first rodeo with them. There are laws that protect businesses from the kind of nonsense microsoft frequently attempts. If you don't stand up for you rights, you lose them. Your concept of how things work in the real world needs revision.

Again, not my first rodeo. I don't need you help defining and understanding the definitions of what is involved in price-fixing schemes.


And that would be easily defeated.


Oh, another pathetic attack from the peanut gallery. You wound me sir...

You keep thinking that...

And what did these rodeos with them result in, and what were they about?

 

[lexluthermiester]

And what did these rodeos with them result in, and what were they about?

Attempted shenanigans by microsoft, me giving them the Will Smith treatment.

 

[Valantar]

You assume my understanding flawed. That's on you.

Sorry, but on this part I'm not assuming anything, just going off your postings here.

Seemingly so. I have and likely will again purchase OEM COAs from microsoft directly.

Guess that is indeed a major regional difference then.

No. If I told them anything at all I would tell them their terms are unlawful(and thus unenforceable) and that they can go piss up a flag-pole. I would also inform them that restricting future sale based on that stance would constitute a form of retaliation and would be acted upon. Just so you know, such would NOT be my first rodeo with them. There are laws that protect businesses from the kind of nonsense microsoft frequently attempts. If you don't stand up for you rights, you lose them. Your concept of how things work in the real world needs revision.

Lol, I would really like to see you try. Especially that amazing logic you're displaying by saying that it would constitute retaliation on their part if they won't do business with you if you refuse their contractual terms. I mean... if you refuse the terms of the contract, there is no contract. That's pretty basic. That's not retaliation, that is how agreements (and disagreements) work. They set their terms, you either agree and the deal goes through or you disagree and there is either a renegotiation of terms or the deal is off. None of that constitutes retaliation in any meaningful understanding of the word, and certainly not in a legal understanding of it.

Again, not my first rodeo. I don't need you help defining and understanding the definitions of what is involved in price-fixing schemes.

Considering your "understanding" entirely fails to reach the bar of any commonly accepted understanding of that term, whether legal or colloquial, I have to disagree: you really need help defikning and understanding that term. What you're talking about here bears the most tangential relation to price fixing possible: the involvement of a contract with terms. This is not sufficient for something to constitute price fixing. Not even close.

And that would be easily defeated.

And? Have I ever claimed otherwise? A contractual limitation does not mean a technical limitation that can't be bypassed.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Sorry, but on this part I'm not assuming anything, just going off your postings here.

Guess that is indeed a major regional difference then.

Lol, I would really like to see you try. Especially that amazing logic you're displaying by saying that it would constitute retaliation on their part if they won't do business with you if you refuse their contractual terms. I mean... if you refuse the terms of the contract, there is no contract. That's pretty basic. That's not retaliation, that is how agreements (and disagreements) work. They set their terms, you either agree and the deal goes through or you disagree and there is either a renegotiation of terms or the deal is off. None of that constitutes retaliation in any meaningful understanding of the word, and certainly not in a legal understanding of it.

Considering your "understanding" entirely fails to reach the bar of any commonly accepted understanding of that term, whether legal or colloquial, I have to disagree: you really need help defikning and understanding that term. What you're talking about here bears the most tangential relation to price fixing possible: the involvement of a contract with terms. This is not sufficient for something to constitute price fixing. Not even close.

And? Have I ever claimed otherwise? A contractual limitation does not mean a technical limitation that can't be bypassed.

I'm done arguing with a brick wall. Better things to do with my time. Carry on in ignorance if you wish, I don't care.

 

[Frick]

Attempted shenanigans by microsoft, me giving them the Will Smith treatment.

What shenanigans, and how did it end?

 

[lexluthermiester]

What shenanigans, and how did it end?

As most of it is covered by NDA, I'm not going to discuss it in detail. They tried their typical BS, we took them to task and came out on top.

 

[Frick]

As most of it is covered by NDA, I'm not going to discuss it in detail. They tried their typical BS, we took them to task and came out on top.

What typical BS?

 

[95Viper]

Stay on topic.
Stop the arguing... take your arguing to PMs.