HP Customer In Need of Warranty Service Gets the Runaround for Installing Linux

44

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Morpheous416

HP's notebook warranty is simple.

The hardware section is not affected by the software installed unless it's proven that 3rd party software caused the damage.

You can run whatever OS you want to.

The original OS may have to be installed in order to run certain diagnostic tools.

Choosing a non shipping OS only voids the software warranty, in essence, you have to pay to troubleshoot any issues you have... this includes your original OEM software installation disks if you chose not to create your own when you were prompted after the first system boot.

The problem this person is facing, is the technician who was no doubt misinformed by their supporting staff. 

On top of all that, HP's warranty that describes everything I posted here, is freely available on the net... both to the customer, and HP's technicians.

avatar

ubuntucuber

to find out all the hardware in a computer in linux (I only use ubuntu), run sudo lshw -html in the terminal, open the html file and find the warranty ID. My dell laptop can do that, and I have run ubuntu for years.

 

Regarding the beginning of the article, now, I cannot run windows XP and use wifi internet.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

There are a lot of Loony Tunes nuttjobs commenting here saying things like;

"This isn't about denying people the right to use what OS they like"

YES IT IS!!

Install any "ILLEGAL" copy of Microsoft XP that does not contain Genuine Advantage or that requires that you register directly with Microsoft, then demand HP fix you're hardware that is still under warranty to see how wrong you really are

This is all about semantics, word definitions and the laws currently in place to FORCE you to use an OS filled with spyware instead of a non-spyware OS such as certain "Illegal" copies of XP, or connecting to the Internet after booting to a Linux CD!

Any OS that lets you communicate with others without either a walled garden hardware approach or a closed source OS filled with spyware such as Windows 7 is being systematically banned worldwide "WHILE" those in the know as well as those in denial are, at the same time, claiming that this is not happening!

Any OS that REQUIRES the end user to give up personally identifiable information just to connect to the Internet will be used by dictators to find, torture and kill anyone opposing such a dictatorship!

That is why they turned the Internet back on in Egypt isn't it?

To find those who oppose the ruling criminals?

I said it before and I'll say it again

Prove me wrong or STFU

YOU are the one with the Tinfoil Hat!

Not me!

 

 

 

avatar

OliverSudden

I'd just like to correct a few things here.

Firstly, you'd do well to know the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.  This is a popular mistake and it's fairly pervasive in this 'good enough' culture of the interwebs.  But it needn't be that way because the rule is so very simple:

If you mean to say 'you are' then that's the only time you use 'you're'.  For everything else, use 'your.'

That's it.  That's all you've got to remember.  You're = you are.  Nothing else.

Sure, I could talk about verb-subject agreement and possessives but that's not likely something that speaks to you.  So yes, I'm tailoring my message and if that's elitist, then fine.  I'm an elitist.

Now that we've put that baby to bed, I'd like to address the first responder who thinks there's little difference between a conspiracy theorist and an evolutionary biologist.

The difference, good sir, is that evolution is demonstrable via a wide swath of methodologies: fossil record, genetics, living fossils, etc.  And when a scientist says 'prove it wrong,' well, that's the scientific method in action.  It's not merely a challenge they know can go unanswered (like with conspiracy theorists).  Rather, it's the bread & butter of the scientific method.  Science only works because at the heart of it, there's the search for truth.  Real truth, not someone's interpretation of it.  That's what peer review is all about.  You think all the conspiracy theorists perform a peer review of their kooky claims?  HA!

If there's any specific problem with any of our theories (electromagnetic, gravity, flight, evolution, plate tectonic, abiogenesis, etc.) then scientists GENUINELY want to hear about it.  Really.

Because science works.  The proof?  You're able to read this message I've just typed.

You're able to travel to Seattle from Atlanta in just a few hours.

Your father's high blood pressure is mitigated because of medicine.

Your iPhone.

(See what I did there, I provided decent examples of proper your/you're usage...damn, I'm good)

Here endeth the lesson.

avatar

MaximumMike

I think you missed the point. The point is that the burden of proof is always on the theorist, and not on the skeptic. In this context evolution is still a theory. It has neither been proven nor demonstrated. Anyone who gives evolution the scientific weight of a Law is dishonest and is doing bad science. Now some good evidence has bee presented in the fossil record as you mentioned, but that is far from being the same as demonstrating evolution. So, don't try to kid me there. It is still just a theory. Yes, I agree with you that scientists challenge others to disprove it, and that trying to disprove a theory is part of the scientific method. But again, you've missed the point. The context of my analogy was that one would need to accept it as truth if he could not disprove it. No real scientist would expect you to accept an unproven theory as truth just because you're not able to disprove it. Infact, quite conversely, non-flaisfiable claims are considered to be unscientific by most scientists. Finally, you missed the point again in your assertion that I think there is little difference between a conspiracy theorist and a scientist. Scientists are usually quite rational, while most conspiracy theories only have enough logic built into them to allow them to be conducive to the spoken word. My very point was that scientists are very different from conspiracy theorists in that they dont expect you to accept their theories unless they have proven them. I hope that clears it up for ya.

avatar

OliverSudden

"Just a Theory?"

You vastly misunderstand what that means in science, sir.  So let me tell you about it.

 

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.  It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory.

In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof.  In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch.  It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.  It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.  In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation.  It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law.  That's not how it works.  In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them.  You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it.  A scientific theory never becomes a law.  Let me give that sentence its own line so we can be clear.

A scientific theory never becomes a law.

In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws.  There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.  Laws describe things, theories explain them.  An example will help you to understand this.

There's a law of gravity, which is a *description* of gravity.  It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall.  It doesn't say why.  Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why.  Actually, Newton's Theory of Gravity did a pretty good job, but Einstein's Theory of Relativity does a better job of explaining it.  These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories.  They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things.  Laws describe *what*, and theories explain *why*.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess.  It's been tested.  All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested.  Also, gravity is real!  You can observe it for yourself.  Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law.  The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.

Regarding conspiracy theorists: *those* theories ARE merely guesses.  All evidence presented that disprove their conspiracy theories is systematically discarded.

Now, onto your point about the burden of proof.  Yes, the burden of proof is on the theorist, not the critic.

I agree with you there.

The difference I was highlighting is that the scientific theorist has done the work to make something a scientific theory.  The conspiracy theorist most certainly has not.

So I wouldn't make that comparison again as it's not very fair: it elevates the conspiracy theorist to a height he's never known while at the same time dragging down science to a deep abyss.

 

avatar

MaximumMike

Ehhhhh... you're really arguing semantics at this point. I will give you that scientists do alot of work to establish their theories, but you and I both know that there are some scientists who do very little work to substantiate their work. These are bad scientists. And yes, unfortunately, because the topic is highly controversial and because many people have a moral stake on both sides of the controversy, there are lots of scientists doing bad science on both sides of the issue. That isn't to say that there isn't also some very good science being done. However, it is a popular topic and it is easy for anyone to find some bad science being done on either side of the debate over evolution. This is unfortunate for the scientists doing the real work. However, that has no bearing on the fact that that bad science is being done in the field of evolution. So, as much as you may hate to face the facts, my analogy holds up fine.

Secondly, I disagree with you entirely that laws are lower than theories. That is absolutely absurd. Yes, I agree that some laws are generalizations that are the results of casual observations that anyone can repeat. I also agree with you that once a law is known, there will inevitably be new theories describing the laws and seeking to answer new questions that will certainly arise. However, there are some logical flaws in you reasoning.

First, Laws are those scientific statements that have been proven to be true and have been demonstrated. Theories, on the other hand seek to answer questions that we don't know the answers to. Even if they have lots of good evidence to support them, they cannot be stated to be true unless they are proven. So how is it that you reason that the thing which is known to be true is on a higher level than the thing which is not known to be true? This is about as absurd as it gets. You might reply that theories seek to determine the things on which laws are based, so therefore those things are more important. I would grant you that they are, but once those things are fully known there will be laws regarding them. So, yes some laws may be more important than others, but theories can NEVER be higher than laws, because they are not known to be true.

The field of mathematics is a good example of why we dont give unproven theories the weight of law. How many times have mathematical scientists thought that they had a formula that generated all prime numbers, and then some time later someone produced a prime number that could not be generated by that formula? Those formulas or theories remain unproven. And don't take my statement lightly and say, "oh that's just some dumb formula and not the same thing as a scientific theory at all." Mathematics is one of the most important sciences. It is the very language with which we can describe proofs and on which they must be based. Mathematicians and computer scienctists have both done a considerable amount of research on prime numbers, and there are some very complicated theories regarding them. This is not an easy field of study. However, mathematicians will tell you there is a grave difference between laws and theories. If your deffinitions of these things are endemically different from theirs, then I know you to be a liar.

This brings me to my next point. I take your statement that a theory can never become a law as an outright lie. Such a statement has the ringings of a lazy scientist who doesn't want the grant money to run out. You may find my statement harsh, but I see no other reason for you to make yours. The fact is that many theories have become laws. Laws are not alway simple generalizations like, "what goes up must come down." Some of them are very complicated, having indeed started as theories which later became laws. For instance, take the laws or aerodynamics. They involve some pretty complicated mathematical calculations. We did not know most of these laws 200 years ago. Much of what we now consider law started as theory. Sure, alot of it is still theory, and as we learn more there will be even more theory. But that does not change the fact that what was once theory has become law. 

Now to be fair to you, I am sure that you are just defensive because evolution science is a controversial field and alot of good scientists are taking heavy fire every day. Were it in my power we would remove the factors of politics, hidden agendas, and personal ambition from science. However, the reality is that to be a scientist today is to live with some heavy, and many times unmerited, scrutiny, especially in the field of evolution. I understand the desire for one's work to be appreciated and esteemed, and for it not to be simply shrugged off by some half-wit who couldn't understand the half of it. However, that is no excuse for skewing the facts. That is no excuse for artificially elevating that which is theory to some ethereal position which is called "higher than law." That my friend is the beginning of delusion. 

avatar

OliverSudden

What bad science is being done with regard to evolution?  Cite specific examples if you can.  Outright hoaxes (deliberately made by con-artists) do not count because their goal was never about science, it was about perpetrating a hoax.

Your go...

avatar

MaximumMike

I would make one final point. You seem to be hung up on the thought that I am equating conspiracy theories with good science, when I am infact equating them with bad science. If you think that a scientist who asks you to accept an unproven theory as truth just because you cannot disprove it is doing good science, then you and I will never agree on anything regards to science. However, I don't think that is your stance.

Also, I would like to point out that there is good work being done in the area of conspiracy theories. Some conspiracies have been exposed, as documentation proving (or revealing) them has come to light. Those are now no longer considered "conspiracy theories," but "historical conspiracies," if you will. Alot of careful research and peer review goes into these to ensure that they are accurate and objective before they are entered into the annals of history by the historical community. So, you see, my analogy holds up once again as good research on conspiracy theories is very similar to scientific research. The point is that bad research is bad research no matter what you're researching or who is doing the research. Most importantly, no one is entitled to run around and insist that others believe what they are saying unless they have some good proof to go along with it.

avatar

OliverSudden

You know what, dude?  Never mind about that challenge to find specific examples of bad science.  There's no need to go to all that trouble.  But do one favor for me?  Think about breaking the pills in half.

avatar

MaximumMike

Wow! Sorry I offended you. Other discussions on this site have perhaps made me a bit cranky and defensive, so my tone might not have been very polite. But likewise, your initial post to me did not begin as the epitome of etiquette. Still I figured you were mature enough to handle it. I was actually enjoying the conversation with you and held you in no low regard. Also, it seemed to me that we agreed on most points. I figured that if either of my posts from last night held points of contention that would have set you off it would have been the first post and not the second one. But whatever it was, you are unwilling to continue the conversation civily. So, I bid you adieu.

avatar

MaximumMike

I really could care less if you are right or wrong. You are the one with the theory. The burden of proof is on you. What you are saying is akin to a scientist saying, "prove evolution is wrong or accept it as truth." I'm sorry, but logic doesn't work that way. I don't have to believe anything you say unless you prove it first. So quit challenging others to disprove your conspiracy theories. Either prove your point or STFU yourself.

avatar

Blues22475

It doesn't really surprise me that Kyle would have issues with HP. I am a computer tech and I do this stuff daily, and I also have difficulties with HP support. Either

A. The tech you speak with goes by the book so darn much that nothing gets done.
B. You spend forever trying to troubleshoot an issue that has already been troubleshot (I don't think that's even a word lol).

It's also no surprise that Kyle would have issues with the techs because even their supervisors (more often than not) go by the book so close. Doesn't matter what the situation is: it takes several hours to drive the point home that you will have to deviate from the standard protocol.

It's even gone so far as telling HP support I cannot troubleshoot the computer because no video, and they tell me to run the recovery tool (when you can't see a bloody thing you're doing good luck). I have nothing but bad things to say about to say about HP except on those few situations I got technicians that knew what they were doing and expediting the process (which I commend those who do).

avatar

don2041

Your looking for diagnosed

avatar

gendoikari1

Could've been worse. My Dell warranty went out the window after I replaced Vista with 7.

avatar

americaeh

Even worse for you though cuz you broke your gtx 295 which isn't nearly as replacable as a battery

avatar

xsaero00

He should have run WinPE and to get the warranty id. The fastest way to get service is to follow the procedure setup by company, not to call the supervisor. HP did not deny warranty to him. He just made his own life harder. When you install linux you gotta consider the the difficulties that you may encounter.

avatar

HeartBurnKid

I'd say Kyle is 10% wrong, and HP is 90%.  It probably would have been a good thing for Kyle to have written down the warranty info before wiping the hard drive, but it's still HP's hardware that was bought under HP's warranty, and HP should still support it regardless.  Besides, what if the issue was, say, a catastrophic hard drive crash?  How would the user get their warranty ID then?

HP needs to figure out a platform-agnostic way of getting the information they need (LiveCD?  Java applet?  Online registration?), rather than putting that burden on the customer.

avatar

windbane

What none of you guys seem to get is that the people in the call centers can only do what they are allowed to do. Calling HP's cust.reps evil and such is unfair and incorrect. I'm sure that the reps would love to help you out and give you whatever you needed to get your PC's back up and running. But they can't, they have to follow whatever procedures set out by HP, if that includes getting a warranty i.d or service tag or whatever from you, then that's what you have to. In the end the guy did get his battery replaced, he just had to follow the cust. service hierarchy. All companies work this way, try getting a jailbroken iphone fixed under warranty.

Thats the joy of buying an OEM computer, you do what they want you to do. Although HP should have a linux version of their warranty i.d software, or even better, a web based one. Anyway none of this is about HP not wanting other OS's on the systems the sell, they just don't provide software for any other OS besides Windows. I'm sure if they sold systems with linux then they probably would have linux software.

avatar

don2041

Look they are like any insurance company They will look for any reason not to pay

avatar

BAMT

I'm sure all the program does is pull some strings/numbers stored in the BIOS that can be viewed in the BIOS menu or from Linux and combine them somehow. If so he could have just sent all his SNs etc.

avatar

Bullwinkle J Moose

It's not just HP that is the spawn of Satan here..

Best Buy and many other Corporations follow the Federal guidlines to force consumers into using the Gov't sponsored spyware called Windows 7

Hardware warranties could easily be handled by giving HP the serial number from the device but "CHOOSE" to force the consumers through all these hoops like trained animals to be sure they are using the correct spyware

"Thats just the way we do things here" is the normal response you get when trying to avoid the spyware prepackaged from more and more companies these days, making it nearly impossible for consumers to use their device without Gov't sponsored spyware installed

The reason that HP and others now "REQUIRE" Identification that is only obtainable in an operating system that "THEY" (HP) do not make is to train the consumers to just give in and use what "THEY" give you!

You are not going to win by arguing with these people who hide behind a Corporation to achieve the Gov't objectives here

For example: Try arguing with Microsoft that XP, Vista and Windows 7 is "ILLEGAL" software

Sure, there are plenty who just claim "Tin Foil Hat Conspiracy" but follow the court cases involving stolen code used in these software packages that Microsoft calls "Genuine Advantage"

You and I are not allowed under current law to enter into any licensing agreement that violates the patents and copyrights of a 3rd party whose code was stolen and used in Microsoft products for the sole purpose of tracking everything you do online or off

Microsofts claim that Closed Source protects their intellectual property rights, yet they keep getting caught with other peoples code in their products

The Internet was recently turned back on in Egypt not to bow down to public demand as is publicly stated but to track and locate the most vocal opposition to Mubaraks regime

Those who were apprehended and tortured were most likely using either Microsoft products or the walled garden variety of hardware

Anyone denying these claims without offering any proof to the contrary should be shot as terrorist supporters

If it's not spyware, PROVE IT!

or STFU!

 

 

avatar

Caboose

Conspiracy fail troll is fail!

 

You've ranted about this for how long now? We're all tired of your bullshit. Multiple times you've been asked to cite your sources, and your only response is more crap!

Please, leave us in peace. I'd rather read the spam that is (still) being posted than your comments. Unfortunetly we can't hide posts.... You're just as bad as LHot

avatar

jaygregz

Bullwinkle.. don't forget that Tupac and elvis are still alive. Nasa faked the moon landing. Aliens landed in Roswell. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. 9/11 was an inside job. Oswald also had help from the Cia.

I could prove you wrong by your use of fallacies alone. Don't get me started.

avatar

whitneymr

There are a number of good pharmaceuticals out now a days to treat issues like this. Your Dr. can help I'm sure.

avatar

HeartBurnKid

Loosen the tinfoil and run a packet sniffer on your PC so you can notice that nobody is stealing your precious data.  I'm not a huge fan of Windows either, but damn.

avatar

strykyr

And Oswald had help.  Sirhan Sirhan was brainwashed by the CIA.  We have a whole colony of space men living underground in Central Mexico that's been on the planet for 500 years too.  That's why we have had such huge advances in technology in the past 100 years.  And Obama is the antichrist.

 

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

avatar

Carlidan

What Obama isn't a the antichrist? OMG. No I'm sad. *Sarcasm*

avatar

weaslem32

The Moral of the story should be this: whatever you purchase from whomever, you should ALWAYS write down all the ID's associated with that product whether it's a Serial#, Product#, ID#, etc. That way there is no concern when you decide to install whatever you want on your machine.

avatar

MaximumMike

The bottom of the line is that a hardware warranty should never be tied to software. I understand that software can in some cases cause hardware to break, but that's not what I mean. In this guy's case, the hardware was determined to be defective, but HP demanded he use another OS to obtain the warranty ID number. That is the problem, tying the warranty ID to the software. It should be in a book that came with the PC, or stamped on the motherboard, or stickered to the back of the case, but not tied to the software. It does not make any more sense than if I bought a snow plow from Honda and they told me I had to use AOL to activate my warranty. And no, I did not really buy a snow plow from Honda.

avatar

OliverSudden

This isn't about denying people the right to use what OS they like.  it's about RMA Procedure and beauracracy.  Like it or not, procedures exist to standardize everyone's day.  We all employ them whether you know it or not.  We wake up, shower, eat something, get the kids to school, go to work, etc.  A change to the procedure can complicate things, even make the entire day fall apart.

That's what this was.  A change to the procedure.  In order to make smooth the RMA process, a warrany ID number is required so they can verify who's who and what you're entitled to as far as replacement stuff is concerned.  This fellow didn't have his ID.  End of story.  It didn't sound like they gave a fig about what OS he was running.  They were simply interested in following the established, road-tested procedure.  No anti-Torvalds conspiracy here, I'm afraid.

Sorry kids, but in the real world, companies make use of procedures.  If you make it impossile to follow them, then let's not feign surprise when problems arise.  Hey, that rhymed!

avatar

Zazubovich

That explains you and the blackeyed peas.

This is clearly a case of bad customer service and a Kafkaesque approach to avoiding honoring their warranty.  Anything you buy from HP that is home use equipment is failure prone-if you're spending over 10 grand you might be okay.  Thanks Fiorina.

avatar

jgrimoldy

Oliver, I think you nailed it.  The issue wasn't so much that he put Linux on the box.  The problem was that he couldn't come up with the magic-happy-number that they wanted.

It would have been NICE if the issue could've been escalated one or two steps up the food-chain quickly and a quick exception be made, using other proof of purchase.

I can understand that HP doesn't want to be taken advantage of.  However, the tier-1 cheese-dicks should have an effortless escalation path, and a Supe or Manager should be able to handle this.

avatar

don2041

HP could have asked for the serial # of his machine that would tell HP every thing they need to know

avatar

Caboose

Exactly. I've worked HP Hell desk for just over a year. And I went by the serial number more often than not. This is a case of HP being a dick!

avatar

TechLarry

That's what receipts are for. 

avatar

praetor_alpha

I'm pro Linux, so this is BS. This is the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that people should be flogged for.

avatar

AcerxZer0

I don’t believe you should be forced to use an OS you don’t like if you bought the hardware and its warranted they should replace it simple as that. I don’t think it’s the OS that cause his Battery to malfunction so that shouldn’t be an issue

avatar

AcerxZer0

I don’t believe you should be forced to use an OS you don’t like if you bought the hardware and its warranted they should replace it simple as that. I don’t think it’s the OS that cause his Battery to malfunction so that shouldn’t be an issue

avatar

TechW

The Warranty ID Location should be in the BIOS and on the computer case. If HP had done that he would not have a problem. Simple and good customer relations. Dell does this by the way with the Service Tag.

avatar

Exarkun1138

Hate to say it, but HP is in their right to deny this customer a warranty replacement. You MUST read the warranty associated with the products, and HP is not alone in their refusal of allowing other OS's to be installed on their systems other than what was purchased, and in doing so, said installation will void the warranty. Dell and other "Box PC" makers have very similar warranty constraints. At least HP gave him the replacement. But I work with Dell and HP on a regular basis and this is not unusual.

avatar

compro01

No, they are not in their right.  Please refer to the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act to discover why voiding the warranty on those terms is not legally valid.  They can only void the warranty if the user's modifcation is the likely cause of the failure.

avatar

Phoenix.

Do you realize how ignorant that makes you sound? Seriously. You're basically saying oh he has the warentee yes, and HP makes no stipulation about installing an OS other than windows, but it's okay for them to ignore their warentee because he used something other than my OS of choice, so it doesn't effect me at all. Maybe you should read the consumerist post and HPs warentee before you go posting this dribble because as the person before me was kind enough to point out he didn't void the warentee and HP was wrong, as are you.

avatar

MrSelatcia

If you read the consumerist post he finally gets them to admit that he IN NO WAY voided the hardware warranty. He has the warranty in hand and they fold.

Dell is actually quite good about this. You can take apart your entire box and put it back together without voiding their warranty. HP is the spawn of Satan. I have never received any decent customer service from HP and have therefore stopped buying from them.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.