Installing Linux May Void Manufacturer Warranty!

Millionaire

wolfman wrote: »

Hmmm I guess there's two sides to the argument.

You're buying a package deal, and altering it, so effectively are voiding the warranty and agreement. They can't support something that you've changed.

Thats the point im making. Again the orginal post is only a heads up to people who want to run other OS to make sure they confirm with manufacturer if any future problems may arise in regards to the warranty and if they are covered.

Obviously in this Case the keyboard is not the fault of Linux but the manufacturer could refuse to cover it under the warranty. unless you load up Windows, In certain cases were it is not 100% evident it wasnt just hardware.

The Warranties by manufacturers in some cases specifily include exemption under certain software changes, mainly OS.

superscaper

Millionaire wrote: »

Obviously in this Case the keyboard is not the fault of Linux but the manufacturer could refuse to cover it under the warranty. unless you load up Windows, In certain cases were it is not 100% evident it wasnt just hardware.

The Warranties by manufacturers in some cases specifily include exemption under certain software changes, mainly OS.

Well there's a big difference between manufacturers' warranties and sellers' warranties. If the manufacturer doesn't want to uphold a warranty there's nothing you can do. But I see a manufacturer's warranty as a goodwill gesture and an indicator in how confident they are in their product. It's ultimately the seller of the product that is responsible if something goes wrong.

wolfman

I think both are valid arguments. I couldn't say which is right.

For example, if you change the package deal you've bought, why should they support you or give you warranty. You could put anything on it which could break or abuse the hardware. I know Linux isn't like this, but there is the possibility it could overheat/overload something etc... causing it to break.

Basically if you run Linux and something breaks, I think you are entitled to a replacement under consumer law, but have to prove that Linux wasn't the reason it broke. And I can't think of many cases where it would be the reason.

superscaper

wolfman wrote: »

I think both are valid arguments. I couldn't say which is right.

For example, if you change the package deal you've bought, why should they support you or give you warranty. You could put anything on it which could break or abuse the hardware. I know Linux isn't like this, but there is the possibility it could overheat/overload something etc... causing it to break.

Basically if you run Linux and something breaks, I think you are entitled to a replacement under consumer law, but have to prove that Linux wasn't the reason it broke. And I can't think of many cases where it would be the reason.

Depending on the circumstances it could be a major headache taking it to court. A pc is the most complex item a consumer can buy so it could get messy trying to prove some things in court. But I guess my argument is probably more from a point of principle view.

Millionaire

superscaper wrote: »

I completely agree it's down to the seller what kind of support they offer and the circumstances under which they offer it, but if there is a fault that was not caused by your use, ie an inherent fault at time of purchase that meant the product does not conform to requirements for a reasonable time then you are entitled under law to a refund or repair. Under six months and it is down to the seller to dispute it and prove there isn't a fault, after six months it is down to the buyer to show the fault wasn't caused by them. As wolfman says in the case in that article a keyboard hardware fault would quite easily be shown to be an inherent fault and not down to the user.

The sellers' warranty isn't the be all and end all, they still have to conform to the law whether they say their warranty is voided or not.

And your completly missing the point of my original post:rolleyes: .

which was to highlight that there "may" be a warranty issue by installing other OS such as Linux and rejecting the EULA agreement to save on windows when a hardware or Software problem occurs.

As they "may" need you to be running Windows to test your Product for faults. Thus the hassle of getting £50 back for windows in the long run might turn into abit of a nightmare if support is required as you havent got a windows copy.

And that if people intend to do this, then just check what the manufacturers stance is on the issue beforehand.

It was just a heads up.

I mean who wants to go through countless calls and stress and hassle that they "may" not get support because they havent got windows and then send letters here there and every where and have to go to small claims court etc etc.

Woudlnt it be better just to know what the stance of the manufacturer is just in case a problem arises beforehand? and which was the whole point of my post.

The example was just evidence of "a" problem a user had trying to get a manufacturer to honour the warranty.

superscaper

Millionaire wrote: »

And your completely missing the point of my original post:rolleyes: .

I think you must have missed my last post. Besides most of my posts were about the relavance of the law to the circumstances even if the warranty is voided. It was a discussion surrounding the article, I haven't disagreed with your original post and I'm pretty sure that most of the stuff I've mentioned would be quite relevant. I've already said that it may be a headache depending on the problem that it was more a point of principle. Which is usually enough to get companies to do things for you anyway without literally having to go to court which is quite rare statistically as most sellers and buyers reach a conensus long before then.

Also the manufacturer's stance is only relevant if they happen to be the seller as well, otherwise it doesn't matter. It's only the seller's stance that's important to check on. I know in this case they are the same thing but when it comes to solving problems and faults it's emphasis on the "seller" you want as seller and manufacturer can be mutually exclusive and as I've said the manufacturers in themselves have absolutely no legal obligation to offer any kind of warranty or refund policy to the buyer.

toasterman

I've just been reading through this and it's all very interesting.
I think if it was a hardware fault - black screen, won't turn on at all..etc - they wouldn't be able to refuse to have it back under warranty.

Most pc suppliers will advise you to reload it for whatever problem you have, but working in IT, I have managed to bull%h17 my way through a fair few times. I know what Dell want to hear, I know what HP want to hear...to take it back.

This isn't because I get some sort of pleasure in it - it is because the scripts they work through waste so much of my time, I'd never get anything else done if I didn't.
A few years ago, I was in the same boat, working for an ISP, and we had one of these scripted computer systems which gets you to try things in an order - and after a while, you realise what answers it needs to get to the end result you know is wrong with it....or else you just blindly follow it every time and waste everyone's time.

Under the above though..lets put in a theoretical scenario:
What if I wanted a new pc (because an old one had died) and needed to put dos or windows98 on it, to work with some antiquated database I was still using. When the screen stops working, they can't just refuse to replace it, because I'm not using Vista like it came with.

I think someone needs to challenge this in court though to be honest. Surely it's majorly anti-competitive to sell pcs of all kinds with only one type of operating system allowed on them.

Another scenario - what if I need a new laptop because my old one has been stolen, but I also need to run Adobe's software, Avid video editing software, iTunes, Trillian, etc.. for my day-to-day work. One of these definitely doesn't work (avid) with Vista, while the other three screw up my aero interface.
In that case, if I need to put XP on it, I don't see they can refuse to replace it (if I know full well its hardware), in the case of a fault.

Edit: I guess the only solution to that would be to keep Vista (even though you don't want it), and install your own copy of XP... thus meaning you have to pay for something you're not using JUST IN CASE it goes wrong...a whole operating system just for fault finding in the event of a problem.