Re: OEM Reinstall

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 07:22:34 -0700, Bruce Chambers
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

>> It should be easier to determine which PCs come with a proper
>> custom-installable OS CD, vs. those that come with one of these
>> useless "recovery" CDs, or even nil at all.

>I've always found it quite easy and effective to ask the person selling
>the computer. If the computer in question doesn't come with a proper
>installation CD, I walk away.

Well, that hasn't been my mileage, perhaps because the context is
rarely a showroom with stock on hand. So I ask, the sales droid
replies with an answer that could mean anything ("yes, you get a
genuine Windows CD") and then you play cat-and-mouse.

>Remember, this despicable practice of OEMs providing only a
>Recovery CD has been common for several years, now; it
>shouldn't catch anyone by surprise.

On desktop PCs, it's easy to avoid; just don't buy big-brand junk.

It's on laptops that the fun starts, because there usually aren't any
generic alternatives where you specify the parts.

>> Frankly, I see this as a possibly illegal cartel issue, hinging on
>> MS's dominant position as the sole legal source of the OS.

>I don't see how, as the choice of recovery method is left entirely to
>the manufacturer. Microsoft cannot dictate what specific recovery
>method the OEM chooses (as such a business decision can have
>some effect upon the manufacturer's bottom line) without the
>company running to the courts, crying "That mean old Microsoft is
>making me provide decent customer support! Monopoly! Monopoly!"

There's that aspect, but really, the OS is a product that can and
should have minimum standards. After all, if you are not allowed to
ship Windows with Netscape instead of IE, why should you be able to
ship Windows without a custom-installable CD?

>> If OEMs are to be allowed to choose to gouge users through providing
>> less value in the interests of simplifying support (OEM's agenda) and
>> using the CD on other PCs more difficult (MS's agenda), then this
>> should be visible to the user - otherwise how else can market forces
>> be applied on this issue?

>It is perfectly visible, and any responsible adult consumer can do a
>few minutes of product research and then ask the necessary questions
>before making a purchase.

It's not. You may be obliged to have an Intel Inside sticker on a PC
with an Intel processor it it - it's one of those "company writes
their own law as per EULA/NDA" things - but not only are not obliged
to disclose the completeness of the OS media, you may not be allowed
to disclose details of what is provided. At one time, you weren't
even allowed to quote the cost of an OEM OS, as a component of a
system spec; it was supposed to be included in the total pricem, even
if every other component had price specified.

>> As it is, it is VERY difficult to get straight answers from PC disties
>> or resellers on these matters. Invariably one gets fobbed off with
>> "yes, it's genuine", and the pretence that the sales droid doesn't
>> understand what you are asking.

>If a particular store or vendor is engaging in deceptive business
>practices, that is an issue to be taken up with local law enforcement
>agencies. It's well beyond Microsoft's purview to act as a law
>enforcement or consumer protection agency.

Oh please. MS threatens to cut off an OEM's supply because they
install Netscape instead of IE, and you claim they can't compel proper
installation standards via the same mechanism? Nonsense - the will is
not there, that's all; it suits MS to collude with OEMs to cripple the
reusability of OS installation CDs.

>> IMO, the "genuine advantage" concept is cynically value-free, as long
>> as this disgusting state of affairs is allowed to continue.

>It is that, particularly as it doesn't work very well, to start with.
>But "this disgusting state of affairs" will continue until consumers
>start taking responsibility for their own purchasing decisions, and
>start "voting with their wallets" by patronizing only those computer
>manufacturers who provide true installation CDs.

Which brings us back to disclosure, which is lacking.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Don't pay malware vendors - boycott Sony
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
.