Imagine a world where every student gets a copy of Windows XP, Microsoft Office, FrontPage and many other core Microsoft products for $25. If Iowa State University participates in a licensing program with Microsoft, at the cost of “approximately $300,000,” this could become reality.

To Microsoft’s credit, this agreement is perhaps the best thing to happen to students who need or want the latest version of Microsoft Windows XP or who need certain core Microsoft applications. For them, a broad site-license covering a number of applications is a great deal; they could obtain software they need at a reasonable cost.

But I am skeptical about the cost and terms of this program. According to the information, “Regardless of how many students obtain software under the program, it will cost approximately $300,000 for Iowa State to enroll.” Certainly this is not simply a one-time cost. Will the cost be $300,000 per year? Does Iowa State have some sort of protection against Microsoft increasing the cost of the program? What will be the costs associated with distributing and supporting this software? I’d like more details and would like the licensing agreement to include provisions to compensate students who would not benefit from this program.

New computer users would not benefit from this program. Most new computers are sold with the most appropriate operating system for that particular computer. Most large computer manufacturers know what their customers want and make a special effort to bundle a number of software applications with their computers. Why should students who have already licensed comparable software be forced to pay for additional software which they don’t need?

This university has a significant population of Macintosh and Linux/Unix users. Why should users of platforms other than Windows be asked to subsidize their peers’ software and then be, in addition, forced to pay the full academic (or retail) price for comparable software?

Finally, there are many students who do not own a computer. The option to cut lab upgrades and other crucial university computing services would hurt these students more than any other group.

These students should not have to accept a lower standard of computing on campus because they do not have a computer, and they certainly shouldn’t be forced into a lower standard of computing while subsidizing their peers’ higher standard of computing.

Perhaps by taking a look at how this program would not be beneficial to a number of groups of students on campus, students can make a more informed decision whether or not to support this proposal. All students should look at this proposal critically, and make their decision based upon the needs of the university’s students as a whole.

Aaron Hurd

Sophomore

Computer Engineering