Slashdot Log In
Dell Will Offer XP Past Cutoff Date
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Apr 25, 2008 01:41 PM
from the dude-you're-getting-a-more-functional-os dept.
from the dude-you're-getting-a-more-functional-os dept.
Dionysius, God of Wine and Leaf, brings news that Dell will be offering Windows XP pre-installed on their computers past the June 30 cut-off date. Computers purchased with Vista Business or Vista Ultimate past June 30 will come with a copy of XP Pro. Dell plans to simply install that copy upon request to save users a step. Perhaps this will help Microsoft officials make up their minds about another extension.
Related Stories
[+]
Microsoft Extends XP's Life By 6 Months 278 comments
hairyfeet writes "Despite Microsoft releasing Windows Vista more than nine months ago the adoption rate has not been as Microsoft hoped. Bowing further to pressure from OEMs and consumers, Microsoft has extended the life of Windows XP, which was due to end sale by OEMs on January 1 next year, to a new date of June 30. Asked if this was an indication of a strong demand for XP, a Microsoft representative sought to downplay the extension, stating 'We wouldn't term it strong, we would describe this as accommodating a certain element who needs more time.'"
[+]
Microsoft Extends XP For Low-Cost Laptops 388 comments
Ian Lamont writes "Microsoft says it will extend the sales of Windows XP Home to OEMs by several years, but it's not in response to the SaveXP petition. Microsoft is supposedly making the move in part to ensure that Linux doesn't dominate the market for certain types of 'ultra-low-cost' laptops. XP will be available for OEMs until June 30, 2010, or one year after the availability of the next client version of Windows, whichever date comes later. This greatly extends the earlier XP deadline of June 30 of this year (which was an extension itself), and means XP will potentially be installed on new computers nearly a decade after its original release. The author of the article suggests that the post-June 2008 release of Atom-based laptops encouraged Microsoft to extend XP, even though Intel says Atom can support Vista. Intel also claims that 'Moblin' Linux will be available on Atom-equipped mobile devices starting this summer."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
Selling a computer with XP past the Microsoft cutoff date is pretty irresponsible. At least Ubuntu has community support, whereas XP will have no support? Is it really Dell's place to oversee microsoft's business decisions?
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
I applaude this decision and will do my best to support them if they continue selling XP.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Informative)
I applaude this decision and will do my best to support them if they continue selling XP.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd imagine that pretty soon (if not already) there will be dedicated websites to supporting XP (including custom patches to any security issues)... and if Microsoft is smart, they will allow them to do this... I dont think it would really impede on their business (much) because most business would probably contimplate "upgrading" to Windows 7 or at least Vista by 2009... and if anything, the XP "Community" would still be promoting Windows potentially saving Microsoft the loss of some customers to Linux and/or Mac who might be willing to upgrade (stick with) Windows later on... Windows 8, or Win7 SP2...or whatever...
Parent
Microsoft is software's Dr. Death. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always thought that somewhat misses the point.
The fact is, solely to make more money, Microsoft has claimed that its earlier product will die. The death is completely independent of customer demand.
Who would want to partner with such a company? Because that's what you are doing when you buy an operating system, you are partnering with the OS supplier. You are betting that the supplier will be a true partner and will care about your needs, and not choose to be adversarial.
Even though Vista is just Windows XP with new features, Microsoft expects to be paid as though it is an entirely new product, with no relevance to the earlier version.
It seems to me that Microsoft is the Chief of Grief, software's Dr. Death. Other deaths:
Declared dead: FoxPro database programming language
Dead soon: PlaysForSure [slashdot.org] was corporate-speak for "we will kill it and destroy access to your music any time we want". Apparently the reason Microsoft executives wanted to reassure buyers by saying "Plays for Sure" is that they knew it was not sure.
This is connected with the rise of 3-year-old thinking: "I can do anything I want. You have no power."
The U.S. government is worse: "We can take your money and give it to weapons and war suppliers. You have no power. All laws we don't like are invalid."
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Microsoft gets to "sell" a Vista license with all of these new computers.
2. Dell gets a bundled Windows XP "downgrade" license and just installs XP on the computer instead of Vista.
3. Microsoft gets to brag about how many millions of people have bought Vista and how successful it is.
4. Profit?
This is all a shell game for Microsoft. They can't polish the turd that is Vista so they'll just continue to sell XP but make it look like Vista on the books, so that Wall Street is none the wiser.
And before you think I'm an anti-Microsoft, I just bought a copy of Vista Home Premium SP1 64-bit so I can run a few games in DX10. It runs slower and crashes more often (even with nothing installed I get regular MS error reports) than XP on the same hardware. Right now I find I'd rather boot back into XP SP2 and run most of my games, even though I can only use 3.2GB of memory, than reboot into Vista and endure slower framerates and random shit popping up and crashing all the time...
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. MS gets to book it as a Vista sale. Because technically, it *is* a Vista sale. But the end user isn't going to care that they have actually bought a copy of Vista, they're going to care that their nice, shiny, brand new computer still has XP on it. It's going to mean more sales for Dell.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) WinXP will have "support" long past the cut off date. The end of support date for Windows XP was announced before the end of sale date, I can't rememnber what it is right now, but I believe its in 2010 sometime.
3) Even if they didn't have "support" from microsoft, Dell was already handling some of the support for their XP machines, so it's not fair to say it's unsupported, just "unsupported by vendor"
On the other hand, why not just reverse engineer the cut off date from the end of support date Microsoft? if you're going to stop supporting XP by Jan 2011, the only cut off date that makes sense to me to stop selling is is June 2010, not something in 2008.
OK OK... I know, I'm on slashdot, and expecting Microsoft to make sense, when will I ever learn?
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Funny)
When Microsoft stops supporting Win XP, the world will crash!
It was predicted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012 [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot Answer: Why the hell would you stop selling it if you are still supporting it? Stupid Microsoft. I would sell it until the same year as I stopped supporting it, this is just a ploy to get more Vista sales by scaring people.
Microsoft Action: Stop selling a product only a few months before you intend to stop supporting it.
Slashdot Answer: Its so irresponsible of Microsoft to be selling a product they don't plan on supporting! This is just a way to milk more money out of the consumer and force upgrades when their OS becomes suddenly outdated next month.
Microsoft Action: Donate $1m to "Save the Kittens" foundation.
Slashdot Answer: What about the mice? Microsoft is subverting the poor mouse by an illegal and monopolistic process of buying out a 'charity' that directly kills mice.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the whole reason the Linux/BSD market took off. NO ONE can tell you you can't fix that version of Linux 1.0.18 if that's what you REALLY want to run.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
Step out of your Linux bubble for a second and accept that XP is still in demand by a lot of businesses.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only do you have to pay MSFT for software, you have to pay extra for the privilege of getting help when it fails.
Save your self some money, and only Pay Novell, Red Hat, Mandriva, etc for help when the software fails and get the software for free.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Informative)
The grand parent wasn't saying that was how he decided, but rather that is how companies decide. I agree with what you're trying to say, it is stupid for a company to buy into a worthless support contract because legally the software vendor is not responsible for any problems that occur or are they even responsible for providing a solution. Support contracts are basically there so you have a number to call and whine to when shit hits the fan, and when your boss comes around and asks "why isn't it working," you can say, "well it's proprietary software vendor's X's fault." Which sounds a little better than "it broke."
I know how useless support contracts are because we just canceled one. We had an annual "support" contract with an old and dying vendor with some old and dying software. One day we decided to actually talk to them to see if they could fix our issue. And their answer was "pay us more money and we *might* fix it." We replied "nevermind." A month later I figured out what the issue was after dumping their junk software into a test environment and playing with the inputs we had access to. Eventually I found that it had a shitty algorithm for doing something stupid and we happen to have data that ran into the algorithm's worst case run-time. Altered how the data was being fed and the problem went away. I saved the company ten's of thousands of dollars that day.
Next when it came time to renew our annual support contract with this vendor, we decided to not renew it because not only did we know they were trying to leech huge amounts of money from us, but we also had plans to eventually retire the aging system. Bam, thousands of dollars saved for the company again.
Don't think that MS is the only "bad guy" when it comes to "support" contracts. Every big software vendor does it and everyone makes sure to cover their butts. If you honestly think you can save your company a lot of money just by terminating support contracts and ensuring that you can take the responsibility for supporting the software then by all means do it. But there are some support contracts that I think are stupid, but others that I think are essential. The easy way to figure that out is if the system fails, and you can't bring it back up in a reliable amount of time, then you probably shouldn't take that responsibility because you'll probably lose your job.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
So pay for it then. Plenty of companies out there will take money off you for supporting linux.
In fact, if you pay for linux support, you're in a better position than if you pay for Microsoft support, as you have the resiliance of choice in the market. You don't like what Oracle are doing, pay Redhat instead. You don't like what Microsoft are doing? Tough.
Parent
I have always loved this argument (Score:4, Insightful)
In truth, support from the vendor does little for you UNLESS the system they supply is so fscking locked up that you can't do anything with it in the first place, and are FORCED to call for help because you can't do anything with it.
Where I work, we are slowly writing code to work around 'no longer supported' binary processes. If there is no 'community support' we just learn how to do it ourselves or write code we can understand to take its place.
When you want to point that finger of blame it still will take 4hours minimum to get the pointing done. In that time I will generally have already fixed the problem and be working the code to avoid any such occurance in the future.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't even begin to take into account that most businesses I've come across use some kind of custom industry application. CAD applications, specialized accounting applications, lending an loan applications, guess what they're all written for? Windows. Linux still doesn't work for those customers.
If the Linux community wants to advance they're going to have to give up on some of their ideals and actually provide what people are looking for, which is a stable operating systems that run applications people actually want to use with a consistent look and feel everywhere. I ran Ubuntu for over a year and reverted to XP because I couldn't deal with the slowdowns for no reason, application crashes, incompatibilities, mystery feature additions and removals based on the whims of the developers (what's pigeon going to include or disable this week!), and decisions that were made purely for philosophical reasons (no mp3 support by default? please.)
Most of my machines still run some kind of Unix (mostly FreeBSD and OSX) but when I need Windows, I really need Windows and nothing else will do.
Besides, Outlook is still the best email/productivity/calendaring application out there. Nothing I've seen on UNIX even comes close, especially when I need to share data with others.
And just because XP will be end of lifed, the security updates for it will continue for a few years, which is all anyone really needs. If 75% of the market is still on XP, developers aren't going to move to being Vista only any time soon because it'd kill their sales.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If applications like Open Office fail to open an Office document even 1% of the time then they're useless if that document is really something you need to open. Gimp still isn't a satisfactory replacement for Photoshop. Sound in flash still doesn't work correctly out of the box on Ubuntu systems, there's no mp3 support by default, nor does Quicktime really work. There's still not a decent movie player.
Your OpenOffice point is valid, and a serious concern to most businesses. Your Gimp point is only valid to select groups that need Photoshop, who would ideally be using Macs by now anyway. But the rest of your points here are largely a non-issue from a business perspective. No sound on flash? Can't want movies at your desk? Unless you're in a specialized industry where those tasks are part of your job, you probably can't do that anyway.
If the Linux community wants to advance they're going to have to give up on some of their ideals and actually provide what people are looking for, which is a stable operating systems that run applications people actually want to use with a consistent look and feel everywhere.
Unfortunately, beyond advocacy, there is little the Linux communi
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but the open source community can do something... try to create a perfect open-source clone of Windows.
Like ReactOS.
(Although it's FAR from perfect right now...)
Well, the GP was slightly wrong. People don't care if programs have a consistent L&F with each other, they care if they have a consistent L&F with Windows XP and Office 2003. (Note that I said Office 2003 - the user interface is the single largest reason why the company that I work for isn't migrating to Office 2007.)
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But there are just some programs that you can not get on Linux yet. Some of those programs you may absolutely need to run your business.
And before you say the classic dumb answer of just pay for someone to write it for Linux and open source it or do it yourself. Not everybody has the time, talent, or money to write code or start a FOSS project.
Not to mention that you may need it TODAY.
Oh and Wine just isn't that good yet.
I sure wouldn't run Solidworks under Wine.
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
People think that Office is the ultimate lock in tool. They are so clueless.
VisualBasic is the best lock in tool ever. Just about every company on the face of the earth has some silly but vital piece of software written in VisualBasic.
If FOSS just created the perfect VB clone you might see many companies migrate to Linux.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I'm not a Microsoft fanboi, and don't introduce me to one unless you're prepared to deal with intense gamma radiation.
That being said, let's look at it from a business point of view.
I don't know how much of a large business's revenue goes to computers and related things; does 5% sound reasonable? It doesn't really matter if it's way off, so let's use it. Heck, go with 10%.
Now, how much is going to be saved by leaving Microsoft products and going open source? Licenses aren't the only IT cost; there's also hardware, people, networking, and so on. Suppose that half the computer cost goes to Microsoft and other proprietary software companies. Suppose, then, that converting to free software will cut the computer-related costs in half.
That's a maximum of 5% savings on the upside, and I think I'm being optimistic here. That's a good chunk of money, and most businesses would like a chance to save money like that. It isn't enough to force a change; businesses that aren't in particularly competitive fields often have worse inefficiencies than that.
The downside, of course, is that the free software doesn't work for some reason, and revenues drop off the cliff until the old Microsoft stuff can be re-installed. It may not be likely, but managers will worry about it. Or it may not work well enough for an organization's needs, and introduce inefficiencies that overcome the savings.
Therefore, Microsoft is insurance. For a stream of money the organization can afford, Microsoft provides more or less reliable business functionality. The opinion that Microsoft somehow stands behind their software, or will take responsibility for it, is naive, but the opinion that Microsoft software will usually work well enough is justified. Microsoft cannot do otherwise and stay in business for long. Microsoft is the safe choice, at an acceptable price. As far as internal business politics goes, a CIO who goes with Microsoft is unlikely to lose his job for it, while one who introduces free software on a large scale is endangering his or her career. If something goes wrong, the CIO going with "best industry practices" (i.e., mediocrity) will be largely immune from blame, whereas one going with something innovative is going to be out on his or her ear.
Yes, this is stodgy, unimaginative thinking that likely costs the enterprise a good chunk of change. That's the way large businesses work. They don't want to change a support function that works well enough. It's far better to put creativity and energy into a business's core functionality, the stuff that sets the business apart from the competition. Innovative product design, marketing, and sales will pay off more, and aren't as risky. It makes sense to pay insurance to Microsoft.
This doesn't mean that businesses will use Microsoft forever. It does mean that Microsoft is firmly entrenched, and is not likely to be dislodged by people who don't realize why. It will be dislodged by people who are able to explain to suits why what they've got is better in terms the suits will understand, and with assurances the suits feel they can rely on, and who have software with capabilities the suits like.
As a geek, I don't have to like this situation, and I don't. I do have to live in this world, though, and pretending it's something it isn't is not going to help me in the long run.
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, I'll replace the most important app for 1000 people with " couple of Linux projects which at least claim to support that."
You'll pick up my mortgage and other expenses when I get canned, right? Please be slightly realistic in the Linux fanaticism.
Parent
Re:Outlook? You must be crazy. (Score:4, Funny)
KDE's got better for what people actually use. Outlook had something to offer nine years ago but it's been outclassed big time since. The only thing Outlook really had going for it was device sync but most people gave up PDAs when M$ conquered the market. The things were an expensive toy and people did not buy new ones when their old ones got broken.
Just...wow. How can you even try to have a reasonable discussion with someone like this ?
Parent
Re:Outlook? You must be crazy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not having seen this mythical thing, I have no idea what it is like.
However, as a user of Firefox and Thunderbird in an organization which uses Exchange and Outlook calendaring extensively
See, the Outlook calendaring feature is so embedded in most organizations, that you can't seriously be offering up a solution to it. Believe me, if I could figure out how to NOT have to bit the bullet and use it, I would.
The reality of it is, there just isn't a replacement for that stuff that you could have any hope in hell of getting a large organization to adopt. The 2000+ people multinational organization I work for sure as hell isn't going to do it. You can't book a frigging meeting room in my company without inviting it to a meeting, and that's all Exchange/Outlook.
Sadly, I think that is one application that FOSS will never be able to kick out out the enterprise.
Cheers
Parent
GMail + Google Calender (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Ubuntu Instead? (Score:5, Informative)
XP has support into 2014. Wiki. [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering all the business and home people that would like XP Professional rather than Ubuntu. I'd say this a great business decision for Dell.
Submitter diversity (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Submitter diversity (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno, a few of their stories were pretty well linked, so I don't personally mind too much if it gets us better articles (and not Roland-style spam, where all submissions go to his blog, or Beatles keyword stuffing).
Why do people still want this OS? (Score:3, Funny)
What are the reasons people want to stay with XP?? As it is, I manage 1200 users, and we are happily switching all to Vista (as well as SLED) as we roll out new machines. (This is approximately 400/year.)
Vista (Not Responding) (Score:3, Interesting)
Both laptops suffer from the constant (Not Responding) bug.
Simply put you will be working away and suddenly your App (any App) will go into (Not Responding) for 5-30 seconds. Then it mysteriously comes out of that state and you can do work again
Don't give me that "drivers" BS. The drivers are up to date.
The Green Bar of Death is another wonder to behold.
Finally, after having the V-Bus lapto
Re:Why do people still want this OS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Performance is a big reason. You basically need new hardware to run it. Even then it is slower than XP on the same hardware. Consistency is another reason. Admins don't really want to support more OS's than they have to, and they don't have the budget to upgrade all of them, so XP on all makes sense. Then there are issues getting old hardware peripherals to work with it. There are issues with older applications that won't run or won't run stably on Vista. Some you can upgrade (another cost) others you cannot so it is a hard block. Finally, there are migration costs and user training (many of whom obstinately don't want Vista for whatever reason).
From an enterprise perspective, looking at a Vista migration means considering alternatives, like Linux which is a real possibility in many ways and a long term cost saver. A lot of companies are just holding off and waiting for it to stabilize and most of the problems I listed to go away. Others see holding off as a necessary step now, since Vista includes even more data and protocol lock-ins that will make migrating away from it even more expensive than migrating away from WinXP. I have nothing against Vista and recognize some of the real improvements, but I would not recommend a large scale migration to anyone for a while yet. A year ago I said, at least wait a year and see how it goes. It's been a year, and I'd still wait a while.
Parent
Activation? (Score:4, Interesting)
XP MCE Anyone (Score:4, Informative)
So is Dell offering MCE as well still?
Windows ME all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
If they won't sell it, we'll steal it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:If they won't sell it, we'll steal it. (Score:4, Informative)
Trademarks are slightly different, but you have not framed the issue in the correct manner. It's not the non-use of a trademark that itself causes problems, but rather the failure to defend against others making use of it. You can sit on an unused trademark (say, the "Fairlane" name for Ford) if you might have use for it in the future or if it's a temporary gap in use (like when they retired the "Taurus" name for several years). As long as you prevent someone else from using it, it's not considered abandoned. Like copyright, abandonment is more than not using it. But abandonment and losing rights for failure to prosecute ("dilution") are distinct.
"Abandonware" still protected by copyright remains so. If you own a license already, the law allows you to take some otherwise unlawful means to continue using it once it has been abandoned by the manufacturer, but it does not allow you to sell or distribute it simply because the original company no longer chooses to.
The only place the law is really grey is if the company no longer exists AND no one purchased or was assigned the rights. There hasn't been an affirmative ruling on that to my knowledge, but there's a strong case that the copyright has lapsed if the holder and their estate/successor no longer exist.
Parent
Make up their minds? Definitely. Answer: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
The way this works... (Score:4, Informative)
If you buy Vista Business or Ultimate, you have the option to upgrade to XP Pro or Windows 2000 instead, this only requires you to have a single license install media for the older OS but it doesn't have to be unique.
So dell simply brought a 1 user mass license for XP and give it out with that nifty "pre activated" thing, to everyone who gets vista business.
This process was explained to me by a MS OEM sales rep, sounds stupid imho, why not just keep selling XP?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Which Scares M$ the Most? (Score:4, Funny)
I know it gives me the willies just thinking about them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Flash without having to install 32-bit libraries. 32-bit is dying, Adobe, and I'm sick of redirecting Firefox windows from my server to my desktop.
2) A friendly and standard file open dialog for Gnome apps. Mplayer, PCB, and the Gimp are the GTK-based programs I most commonly use. Mplayer doesn't have any apparent way to get to hidden directories unless it starts in them, and neither Gimp nor PCB will just let me type my filename in. And why are they all different?
3) A sound-recording application that starts up and will record my line-in or mic when I hit "record." Making me jump through hoops and Google searches trying to find out which block device and stream to point it at is ridiculous; 99.5% of users have at most three inputs: Line-in, mic, and maybe a webcam.
As for what the community should push, I believe that we should push Linux as the OS (And let Apple push Macs and MS push Windows). More important than the OS, we should fight to the death for open standards. Look at image formats: Windows, Mac and Linux have about zero programs in common for viewing images. Yet that doesn't matter a bit for image formats that are open (bmp, png, gif, jpg, tiff, tga) because everyone can implement them the same way. Moreover, Linux for example has implemented them in one library (libpng, libtiff, etc) rather than having every app write it's own decoder. Possibly the best example we have of this is the Internet itself: But for Microsoft's almost successful attempt to fuck it up, any browser would get it's data from any server with zero OS-dependance. And why? Because we have an open standard, HTML, that everyone can implement.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Linux could do this, but what I've seen of Linux GUI conf tools is that they are rarely so organized. Someone comes up with a tool to manage or monitor feature XYZ, but it is first not integrated in with all the other tools, and secondly its name rarely describes what it does. Compare: "Network Monitor" to "Ethereal". Which would you expect to use to capture IP packets going through your machine?
To answer 2, I think the best choice is to come up with either a name-trademarked suite (like SuperConf) or a certification standard a la the Unix Specification or Linux Standards Base that distros would adhere to, and then recommend people choose a system that does that, e.g. "Any Linux or BSD distro which includes SuperConf by default will meet the IT department's needs," or "There are a variety of options that conform to the Linux Administration Guidelines [maybe have a version number like 1.1 to excite the PHBs]... RedHat provides enterprise support for a fee, Ubuntu is good for new users, Linspire looks and acts a lot like Windows..." This keeps the distro flamewars to a minimum, but still makes the necessary changes to make Free Software appealing.
[1]: Yes, there's plenty of stuff that's hard to find, but for a clueless computer babysitter like your average MCSE, it's everything you'd need.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly I am tired of this "You can fix it yourself" mantra. A very, very small percentage of users even have the capability and of those, only a small percentage have the motivation and time to attempt it.
Parent