Neowin.net

Yeah... Why can they not ship systems with either: a) nothing installed AT ALL and include an OS CD and a "craplet" CD or b) just install the base operating system and include a craplet CD.

I spent quite a while stripping all the junk off my parents' new Dell PC. When I get a new workstation at the office the first thing I do is format it and install what I want. Lawyers sue MS complaining about freedom of choice... What about the choice of not having anything extra loaded.

An OEM cannot support that type of system, the call center costs would be astronomical. And no, they can't believe you when you say you're "an expert" and can do it yourself. Besides, time=money, and the number of hours it would take for Average Joe to install the OS, then the chipset drivers, then the hardware drivers, then...you get my drift...ends up costing the consumer more than the system itself. The customer want to plug in and GO, so the most effective and economical solution is SysPrep (or whatever they're using now) plus a recovery CD for that 85% who will soon have their systems either hopelessly screwed up, or compromised.Those craplets are actually paid for by the craplet companies to be pre-installed on the systems. For example, the first thing I would do with a parent's Dell is to remove Norton with extreme prejudice...but Norton is hoping for new subscribers by including a "trial", so Dell gets a gratuity. All these craplets installed gives the customer a feeling of value...remember in the early '90s when computers wree advertised with $800 of free software? Similar thing today. If those potential Mom-n-Pop subscribers don't install it from an included craplet CD when the system is new, the probability they will become subscribers is less than 2% (down from 10%...of course, excluding those who simply let their 6-month trial expire).

Last edited by Slugbait on 13 Jan 2007 - 07:22

More than that, I think many here are frustrated at being unable to impose any kind of standards for the software that is installed (like quality, system start-up time for new Vista machines, code signing, DEP support, etc). It makes it difficult to ensure that users are getting a good Vista experience on their new machines.

Another part of the problem is that these OEMs often like to make their third-party add-ins (usually paid agreements with said third-parties) "look like" part of the default OS install, and I believe Microsoft is typically restricted from preventing that.

and you get norton in the end

Where are they laying down a law? Do you want the crap dell/hp install on your laptop? I bet not.

Where is media being crippled may I ask? DRM? Well thats been in there since XP and its hardly microsofts fault..blame RIAA/MPAA

If you buy a Dell or HP system then you get the software that they put on - if you don't like it then you don't have to buy from them. It is Microsoft's job to make sure that Vista is stable no matter what software is loaded - if these "craplets" cause problems or stability issues then it is either Microsoft's fault or that of Dell/HP. Either way Microsoft should not have control over what is installed on a new computer... we've already been in that situation and Microsoft abused their position in order to restriction competition. I don't like the crap they install on new computers but I still agree that they should be allowed to put it on there.

Just how do you propose they do that? No OS in the world can do that, be stable "no matter what software is installed".

I wonder if even MAC can do that...

Mac's are an extremely closed system, if anything it should be far easier since Apple 'can' tell people what can be loaded and what can't.

Besides opening OS X to any hardware and any application and watch that much vaunted stability turn to dust.

Mac still isn't an acronym.

If Microsoft want control over how Windows is installed as OEM, they need to make their own PCs.

If one day MS starts that u will be in the front row to bash at them, they steal other's business

What do you mean by that?

You think that the law says Microsoft should be handicapped versus its rivals because it has been successful?

Gee, probably he means that Microsoft has been successful through ILLEGAL means, as found in numerous court decisions. You should know this, as a Microsoft employee and all.

When I ordered my laptop, I saw a ton of software applications listed on the parts list and I called to get them removed. Dell refused. They told me that if I wanted them off the laptop, I had to remove them when I got it, which would have been fine, if there was not an image of the original installation with all of the junk on it saved on a hidden partition of the hard drive. If it had not been for that antitrust lawsuit, Microsoft would have seen to it that all of the junk was never installed, but since that antitrust lawsuit placed fascist and unconstitutional restrictions on Microsoft, they cannot do a thing.

How do you put a clean install of Windows on an OEM PC that only comes with OEM recovery disks or a partition of the recovery build?

Unless of course you shell out for a copy of Windows, you can't.

I think that's what the person meant. Use a copy of Windows they already have to just do a clean install and bypass all that crap you don't need/want.

You don't buy from cheap ass vendors who do that kind of crap is how you do it. What if your hard disk crashes? You lose EVERYTHING. You have to go buy the OS (which you've already paid for BTW) just for disaster recovery.