Submitted by A senior Microsoft executive says the company is concerned that uncertified third-party software loaded onto new computers by manufacturers could hurt the launch of consumer versions of its Windows Vista operating system later this month. In a discussion Tuesday night at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the Microsoft official told CBC News Online, on condition of anonymity, that the world’s largest software maker is frustrated by legal shackles that prevent the company from restricting what kinds of software major computer makers install on new PCs. “We can’t do anything about it because it would be illegal,” the executive said in reference to restrictions placed on the company following a U.S. federal anti-trust lawsuit against the company.
Though Microsoft are not the pillars of crash and bug free software, this point of view is very much correct. These companies litter computers with software and “offers” that are basically useless and slow the computer down. Who gets the blame? Microsoft because it has “Windows” on it.
I don’t think vendors should be prohibited by law or “agreement” with Microsoft, however I do think they should not install it by default and require the user to select them to be installed upon first boot.
I think that they should not install windows.
This might be good or bad. If they’re talking about really bad, yet highly visible “gadgets” then they’ve got a point. Loading pointless crap like that onto OEM boxen is very, very far from cool. All I want from OEMs are the OEM computer, my OS of choice, and the latest non-OEM’d (I.E. Manufacturer) drivers. Nothing more…I particularly don’t want 3 different media players, 10 games, McCrapee (Anti?!?!)Virus and 3 bloated ISP programs…
Of course Toshiba already loads tons of bloaty, useless tripe onto their OEM boxen…usually about 20-40 pieces of software or drivers that need not be installed. Not to mention it generally is buggy and/or slow.
On the other hand if they aren’t allowed to load competing 3rd party software (Firefox? Thunderbird? OpenOffice) then we’ve got some anti-trust issues.
I think the point is that we should be given the choice to have hardware vendors install “bundled” software, not have it thrown at us automatically.
These companies litter computers with software and “offers” that are basically useless and slow the computer down. Who gets the blame? Microsoft because it has “Windows” on it.
Awww, poor Microsoft. That’s soooo unfair to them. Can one not force a product down the throat of a whole industry in peace anymore?
World’s tiniest violin is playing for them as I speak.
I believe (at least this time), Microsoft has good intentions in requesting such a thing. An unstable system (like ones loaded with 20+ OEM chosen applications, especially slow antiviruses or buggy drivers) will be a very bad advertisement.
However it’s necessary that Microsoft is restricted. Even though some division in Microsoft request this for stability, we cannot be sure that some other division would prevent installation of uncertified applications like “OpenOffice”, “Firefox”, or other competitors.
Every operating system faces this. Only MS is lame enough to blame third parties. Why can other operating systems manage this without whining about such things!
Oh no, the others did it – we’re not responsible for it, and we cannot do anything against it because it’s illegal. So much crap …
Every operating system faces this. Only MS is lame enough to blame third parties. Why can other operating systems manage this without whining about such things!
So what other OS comes pre-loaded with a bunch of shitty apps all running in the system tray, that the OS vendor has absolutely no control over?
Linux distros at least have direct control over what apps come on the installation CDs and at try to test them to make sure they all work well together. I don’t know about Macs, but I’m assuming that nothing gets installed by default on new Macs without Apple’s blessings.
I’m assuming that nothing gets installed by default on new Macs without Apple’s blessings.
Particularly easy since Apple is the only one making Macs
yes, because you know all the computers shipped preinstalled with QNX or BeOS have extra software added..
or are you referring to OSX? nope, only Apple ships that..
Linux? hrmmm.. i dont think i know of even one ‘vendor’ that ships linux with its own apps OR 5+ 3rd Party items that start on boot and bog the system down. (ones that do ship with say, adobe or realplayer, which dont load ‘until needed’)
and wow, im replying to MS hate.. defending MS.. and personally use ubuntu. go figure
~sn0n ( http://sn0n.com )
errrm Apple supply the hardware and the software.
In Linux 99.9% of software supplied with any distribution is 3rd party and includes many competing variations.
If your looking for a double standard there isn’t one.
It is still incorrect (or unreasonable) to blaim Microsoft for the failures committed by OEM’s. When HP ships PC’s filled with ugly bloated destabilizing software this is a fault by HP, and not a fault by Microsoft.
I can see many reasons to bash MS, but please do it due to the right reasons.
Happy gentoo to all of you
Microsoft is not responsible for 3rd party applications installed by OEM’s. What Microsoft wants is a way to prevent OEM’s from installing crappy 3rd party software. They cannot do that legally, nor should they have that right, but the MS-critique is still relevant and correct.
How can Microsoft be blamed for the inclusion of 3rd party software by OEM’s?
Because many (most?) people buying a PC at Best Buy or the Evil Empire (W*lmart) don’t have a clue about computers. They don’t really care to know where each piece of software comes from, they just know it’s there and the OEM certainly didn’t list the junk they added to Windows on the package.
That’s the kind of people who call a tower “hard drive”.
I know they don’t have a clue, but it’s still the responsibility of the OEM’s and not of Microsoft.
[QUOTE]the world’s largest software maker is frustrated by shackles that prevent the company from restricting what kinds of software major computer makers install on new PCs.[/QUOTE]
Said from a company that have the monopoly thanks also to OEM install…this is plain foolish.
Thanks, I’ll keep building my own pcs by myself.
This is what they get for threatening to pull OEM supply contracts back when those dastardly providers wanted to add in none other than Netscape. They stepped out of bounds, and they’re paying for it in fascinating and unforeseen ways. So I hope no one confuses this legal restriction with any sort of a bad thing. I remember when Sun got a bad rep for not letting Microsoft make and include their own embraced and extended Java VM. Let’s not blame the good guys this time, too.
Maybe you haven’t been in contact with the crap that OEM install on their computers. Otherwise I don’t know how you could call them good guys.
If they wanted to add something that brings good value to their customers, they’d pre-install OpenOffice, Firefox and other useful apps or even games. Strangely enough though, it doesn’t seem any of them is willing to do that…
They may have a point…
oddly enough, ALL the apps the “Vista Upgrade Advisor” flags as being vista incompatible came with my system – nothing I installed myself is. DVD RAM tools, packet writing stuff, etc – nothing I ever actually use considering the machine is for gaming solely. None of the games get flagged.
Based on experience from work (BT Broadband), the bundled apps with computers cause 95% of all problems customers have with BB – buggered up third party firewalls and dodgy wireless config apps that don’t accept our routers security keys.
Windows doesn’t crash with proper drivers and software, yer right. Even with WHQL Certified drivers Windows still crashes, so dont give me that crap.
What next, software that will not crash windows that comes with a special logo, give me a break.
Edited 2007-01-11 23:19
Rubbish. As a Windows user since 3.1, and a Mac user since the launch of Tiger, Windows XP is incredibly stable. You have bad RAM or a chip on your shoulder.
I disagree…
As a Windows user since Windows 286, and a Mac user since 7.1, and a Linux user since SLS Linux kernel 0.93, the guy does not have a chip on his shoulder.
I have built a few machines, ran burn-ins on them for 24 hours, then installed XP, anti-virus, firewall, and they still crashed after a few days,(while not having anyone near them).
The parts inside the machines are all quality parts and have no problems with Windows 2000, Linux, Solaris or BSD.
XP is “more” stable than ME, but less stable than 2000. And more sheep use XP than anything else. They blindly click OK to anything and introduce instabilities of their own.
However, the point of the article is other companies making an unstable stack on top of unstable foundations.
While I really don’t like windows I have to agree. Since sp2 I haven’t had any stability problems with Windows whatsoever. I also must note that I keep my software to a bare minimum. I have adobe creative suite, nero, and firefox on that machine and that’s about it.
When you start to load Windows XP Pro with a lot of software, even solidly built software, windows turns into a stability nightmare. So just keep the amount of software you install reasonable and XP sp2 is pretty solid.
I do have Vista installed but I really haven’t had much of a chance to play with it, but so far, I really prefer XP pro over it (as far as windows goes). Ultimately I try to avoid Windows and if I had a license for Adobe Creative Suite for Mac I would probably never use it.
Edited 2007-01-12 15:35
It doesnt.
I haven’t booted out of OSX on my PC in weeks now, but I’ll admit that windows *can* be plenty stable. Our windows 2k3 server at work has just started giving up problems and thats because one of the drives in the raid array is going out. The install is 4 years old. This is the only issue we have ever had with it. And thats not really a software fault.
Stop with the bloody blind hate. It gets old and just shows your lack of intelligence.
Craplets are a side effect of the bottom of the PC market falling through. OEMS can no longer make money on base prices that consumers expect. Perhaps if Microsoft didn’t make Vista’s hardware requirements so high, then people wouldn’t perceive Vista was the problem when their brand new, top-of-the range machine crawls along, unable to hold Vista+Norton in RAM.
If anything; a new next-gen Dell with Vista is probably going to be perceptibably slower than a new current Dell with XP due to Vista+Craplets being worse than XP+Craplets.
Maybe MS should work on better PR with the OEMS and help them determine what software might cause problems?
I’d rather see that then MS being able to restrict anyone from installing anything, for any reason on an operating system.
If MS had their way I’m sure we’d all be forced to run *signed* software that is blessed by MS and nothing else.
They’d claim it was for your *safety* and the *integrity * of the OS. In the end you’d lose all control over the computer you purchased.
Cry me a river MS.
OEMs don’t care if your computer is stable. They care who will give them money and that’s the bottom line.
OEMs don’t care if your computer is stable. They care who will give them money and that’s the bottom line.
I hate to agree but that is how it seems at times.
I wish people would not continue to buy crap products from the same companies over and over when they get a PC loaded with this junk.
Most people assume its how computers work and they keep buying from Dell, Gateway or (insert big vendor here).
My first thought when I read this was that Microsofts interest was removing competition. As many of the bundled applications are spyware removal;virus removal;media players…A Market Microsoft is now part of.
I find it ironic that on the same page that talks about IE and Media Player being removable when those are the applications I want to get rid of the most.
I’m seeing “Microsoft Compatible” office programs being bundled with cheap PC’s
If Microsoft really cared. They would focus on “suggesting” good programs to bundle with there OS. I can think of at least 5 good applications, that don’t compete with Microsoft products.
only because you don’t agree.
I also believe MS is facing those problems because of Windows design…. so if they want to make windows real secure and stable they should stop blaming other parties and start improving their own OS.
They are taking the same approach they tried once with bugs, attempting to hide the info instead of finding and fixing the problem. This is all about the same.
Is anyone suggesting that Microsoft be given control as to what vendor’s can and can’t put on their products for sale? Isn’t it bad enough that Microsoft dictates that I must have a copy of “Windows” on a new PC?
Talk about “craplets,” the OS itself is infested with all kinds of “crap” that is largely useless garbage. The only difference is that they are “Microsoft craplets” – but that’s somehow ok?
So you think Microsoft should be able to not only dictate that every new PC be sold with THEIR OS, but now you want to dis-allow the vendor’s from having any control at all in including what else might be included with the PC?
“Isn’t it bad enough that Microsoft dictates that I must have a copy of “Windows” on a new PC?”
Microsoft doesn’t dictate anything. Do what the rest of us do and immediately format your OEM machines the second you get them.
On the one hand MS has a very valid point and one I would agree with normally.
On the other hand MS is getting its just deserves by forcing OEM’s hand with their volumn discounts for only loading MS OS’s on OEM hardware. I see it more as a come uppance for MS.
Still, if I have to deal with a DELL or HP or any other OEM non WhiteBox PC I usually just format the hard drive and reload the OS without all the 3rd party crap that comes normally preloaded.
I wonder if this would happen if MS allowed competition on the bootloader level for OEM’s, loading more than one OS or even selling OS alternatives.
Maybe if Windows were a more open system, with standardized open API’s, then third-party software would be less likely to cause problems for it. Maybe third-party software would be programmed to take advantage of those open and standard interfaces.
Maybe the OS would be more robust.
Maybe Microsoft has only itself to blame.
Way to miss the point.
The issue is not APIs. The issue is third-party software loaded onto the system after-the-fact that makes Windows look bad if it runs slow or poorly. That has nothing to do with openness or APIs.
Please a poorly written program is a poorly written program. It has nothing to do with the OS.
If someone has weatherbug preinstalled and then their system slows down its probably because weatherbug is a horribly written piece of trash with more spaghetti in it then an italian restaurant serving a 1st grade class. Same for Norton. And Dell said that they would sell someone a PC without bloatware on it for $60 more.
Firefox and OpenOffice are not usually preinstalled because no one pays the OEM’s to preinstall it so I doubt MS is grouping that under “Craplets”
*Firefox and OpenOffice are not usually preinstalled because no one pays the OEM’s to preinstall it so I doubt MS is grouping that under “Craplets”*
Microsoft want rights to say what a company can or can’t supply with its OS. Those same rights would include Firefox and OpenOffice.
I suspect if they get the power to do this, you will see Microsoft Certified Programs(sic) or Programs from Microsoft Registered Partners(sic) etc etc.
> I think that they should not install windows.
Please tell me why I can’t go to a store and buy a pc without a MICRO~1 os.
And tell why I have to pay the ms-tax, then do a ridicolous procedure, hoping to have my money back without asking a lawyer to write to $NOT_CLEAR_HERE.
For example, in my country, there has been many cases where Acer preferred to refund the whole cost of the laptop to customers not accepting the license on the 1st boot, than to give back the money for a maybe not needed/wanted os.
The EULA is not clear and change often: resellers, manufactorer, and ms rebounce responsabilities.
They only one to pay is the customer.
You can buy computers without Windows.
Your comment was also off-topic.
Thanks for playing.
The OEM’s bundle much software for a price. Much of it is junk, and in some cases malware. For example, HP/ Compaq come with ‘Weather Bug’ and ‘Wild Tangent’ products. The McAfee and Symantec crap are common, along with AOL, etc. are pretty much on all retail boxes. Generally, what I have seen with consumers and small business’s that purchase their computers retail, is they identifiy with the computer, not so much with Windows. When the crapware causes problems, they blame the computer maker, not so much Microsoft. Frequently when these customers purchase software and peripherals ask about compatibility, the question is directed at the computer brand, not the OS.
There will be lots of compatibility problems with software that is not designed or appropriately updated for Vista. This is very commonly the case with every major release of an OS and third party software, despite the MS fanboy nonsense about Windows legacy compatibility.
There is not much I like about MS, and in many ways I see Vista as one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, but MS is right to take this position. They have not stated it very well, but that is due to a few arrogant meatheads in their management staff, most likely their braindead marketing wonks.
There is not much I like about MS, and in many ways I see Vista as one of the greatest hoaxes of all time, but MS is right to take this position. They have not stated it very well, but that is due to a few arrogant meatheads in their management staff, most likely their braindead marketing wonks.
They can take this position, and they can suggest that vendors not “value add” things, but they have absolutely no right to demand anything or give anyone a favorable deal based on what they add or don’t add.
The vendors make a product. Windows is one piece of the product. The vendor may put anything they want on there. If you don’t like what a particular vendor bundles, don’t buy from them. If I made cars and the people I bought tires from started complaining about what kind of air freshener I hang from the mirror, I’d tell them to piss off. I guess you can’t do that when there’s only one OS vendor. Hmmm.
Claims that “Weather Bug” breaks Windows are a bit over the top I think.
Poor analogy. It’s more like Ford complaining to a dealer because of a sound-system they put in after the fact.
Exactly, but I never claimed ‘Weather Bug’ breaks Windows. OEM’s can bundle as they please. My point is that the OEM’s and their brand name will get the blame or praise from the consumer. Rarely, if ever, does the consumer blame MS.
“Rarely, if ever, does the consumer blame MS.”
I did a year stint here at the MS PSS hub here in Charlotte back when MS actually had consumer level support engineers here in the states. Thankfully I was not in consumer support, but I got to know quite a few folks who were.
EVERYONE blames MS. Half the calls they got were redirects from OEM’s, i.e. “It’s not our fault, call Microsoft.” The OEM’s blame Microsoft most of all, and the big 3 do their damnedest to actually shun their own support calls over to MS.
Maybe this has changed in the 4+ years since I worked there, but I doubt it.
It’s also worth mentioning that it was MS’s policy to not turn away any calls, and to at least give a “best effort” to getting the problem fixed, even if it actually wasn’t their fault.
OT, yes…but saying that consumers don’t blame MS is just flat out wrong, and the OEM’s actually condone this behavior.
Sony definitely did this when I did tech support for them ~6 years ago.
Probably a matter of perspective. I manage a private computer service company. providing training, repairs and upgrades, tech support and the usual system cleanup and data recovery. Generally what I see is the consumer first blames the computer, then themselves, occaisionally the children in the family (or their friends), and sometimes MS. I get a lot of work fixing problems after the OEM’s dissapoint their customers after the warranty has run out. The majority of problems relate to printers and peripherals causing software conflicts.
I am constantly amazed that the consumers do not rise up with “I’m mad as hell, and I am not gonna take this anymore” (apologies to Paddy Chayefsky)). In your position you probably saw many of those who recently swithed to Mac.
comes to no suprise to me, why don’t they just stall the release date an work on fixing bugs in it, or trash Vista an go straight to Windows Vienna an or Windows Fiji
Edited 2007-01-12 00:24
Great ! Other vendors are to be blamed for the lack of backward compatibility. No wonder that the statement was released from the condition of anonimity……
I don’t consider myself anti-Microsoft, but this is way too stupid.
There is a new version of Windows, and everybody is supposed to trash the apps they payed for, and by new ones ? Dear people from Microsoft, if you continue thaat way, there is no bright future for you…….
DG
Well they could use their position as a monopoly to force all other software off the market and muscle the vendors into compliance OR they could build a decent operating system that could defend itself and not fall down every time an app farts.
I agree that OEMs are doing all sorts of crap.
and i find it to be very much poetic justice that this now hits microsoft.
this is what they get for misusing their monopoly, had they not done all sorts of utterly bad things, they may have been allowed more shoulder space to actually do something about this (if they had gotten big, who knows, without doing illegal things, microsoft may not even have gotten larger than a smalltime operation)
Microsoft want total control and they want to keep out any utilities or other software that might actually maintain the system.
They were barely smacked by the DoJ over trying to prevent other browsers, other media players, etc. but now they cry foul because they’re trying to sell services.
If Microsoft were given the choice, would Mozilla Firefox be considered a “craplet”? Thunderbird? Antivirus software? Open Office? How about Real Player? (Thought I think Real Player is crap too). Where do you draw the line? If MS has the power to police this – it’s like given them total monopoly power all over again.
Another interesting thought: If, as some suggested, that MS don’t want the “craplets” to make Windows look bad. They should just lock down Windows so that all you can ever have is the OS. no Office, no games, no anything else. I wonder if the supposedly “fresh” copy of windows then would still have issues? (like viruses, crashes, etc.)
All third party software.
I think the optimal solution is for OEMs to put the software on a CD and include it, OR present something when the consumer first boots the computer, asking them to install some bundled software.
“They could work fine, or they could cause huge problems,” the Microsoft source said. “The problem is that we just don’t know. And if someone buys a Vista PC and has a problem, they’re going to blame Windows.”
That a company who holds the code closely to thier chest, and try’s so hard to be everything to everybody, would be experiencing this… /sarcasm off!
To be honest, I don’t use windows for this very reason. I bought a computer that came with XP on it, And it was very slow and loaded up with these craplets. And when I tried to delete these programs xp couldn’t delete all of the program, just parts of it, then it was realy bunged up. OK, just reinstall, right? Wrong. Two calls to India later(“Why are you reinstalling, this number is taken already, etc,etc….), and still not working right. So I did the responsible thing, I installed Linux. I wanted to dual boot, but they definately made it tough.
So I think this looks good on them, as well. They need to keep thier kernel alot more protected from this,and install files should all be removed , period. It’s just a minimum standard they need to enforce before you are allowed to install on oem box.
Edited 2007-01-12 02:33
So you’re blaming Microsoft for the fact that the 3rd party software in question here doesn’t comply with the new Vista API’s (which were documented beyond belief well before Vista was even close to shipping)?
Why is it that some companies can ship software that works beautifully on Windows, yet another company in the same software market who probably has an office right down the street from them ships absolute crap? The analogy that comes to mind here is Norton/McAfee et al vs say, Avast or eTrust. Same core market, same intended purpose of software, radically different stabilities and effectiveness.
Why?
Some companies choose to do their homework and make apps that work fine with Windows, other companies just don’t seem to care and are just in it for a nickel or two. Some compnanies have the “it works good enough” mentality, while others are willing to go the extra mile to make sure it works perfectly.
All MS can do is provide the framework…if the framework were faulty then all apps would suffer from the same problems, yet that’s just not true.
I was suddenly stricken by the irony that most of those craplets he’s whining about were of a good probability to have been developed with microsoft tools by people reading and following microsoft press books linking to microsoft libraries.
Please tell me what development you use, that stops you writing bad code?
Here’s a hint; there isn’t one.
Microsoft have an history of making shitty frameworks, though.
I am working with MFC now. This is not pleasant.
That is harsh indeed, my condolences.
20 years of practice. Does a compiler have to produce unsafe code? Does an operating system has to execute bad code and explode leaving bits of glass or blue lcd shards in the users face? When someone controls the tools, educational materials and the platform and then rants the programmers only turn out shit I just find that more than a bit ironic.
Windows is bloated and should not come preinstalled on OEM computers
Windows = one big craplet
Bring it on
So you’re blaming Microsoft for the fact that the 3rd party software in question here doesn’t comply with the new Vista API’s (which were documented beyond belief well before Vista was even close to shipping)?
Actually you have an excellent point, but what I failed to articulate to you was simply the idea of having a way to run better layering in there software so that these types of programs couldn’t be quite so destructive performance wise. Kind of like a digital certificate for the program to say it’s up to a certain level of performance. If you develope a test suite for the program, and it passes , the software gets a certificate, and windows allows the install. Probably very complex, but it seems to work most times with thier driver system.And it might work for virus control too, no certificate, no acsess to protected levels on kernel? Just a thought. But I’d say your spot on with work quality, it’s pervasive these days.
I love the way Microsoft are trying to introduce new derogatory terms where there wasn’t before.
Drop the price of the retail boxed versions.
…is of course “Naked PC’s”. They don’t come with any “craplets”.
Oh wait, those are “evil” too. Megalomania creates such wonderfull contradictions.
Show me the contradiction.
Microsoft makes 80% of its revenue from OEM PC’s creates new *bad* term for machines that should be running a Microsoft OS.
Microsoft creates a *bad* term for bundled applications that directly compete with Microsoft products and services on machines bundled with a Microsoft OS.
Those are two completely different areas.
Edited 2007-01-12 09:26
If you buy a computer with a pre-loaded OS, it should be JUST the OS and NOTHING else. The original OS disk should ALWAYS be provided. The first thing a person should do with a computer with crap installed is reformat the disk and install the OS from scratch. Of course, nobody wants to do this so no crap should be on it. Too bad for the venders.
Buy a computer from a local shop, have it custom built and either get it with NO OS installed or JUST THE OS and NOTHING else. Period.
Microsoft might actually have a legitimate complaint, but they brought it upon themselves with their aggressive marketing and commercialization. Those “Sony recommends Vista….” or “HP recommends…” crap on all of their adds are from direct payments. The OEM
vendors get paid to put crap on computers too.
There should be complete freedom on what you get and what you DO with the software on a computer. Period.
This crap has to end….I’m sick of it…and haven’t bought an “OEM” computer in over 10 years.
The entire software industry is a complete rip-off anyway….I know that all of this sounds extreme and harsh, but I’ve gotten so fed up with this stuff….
We will NEVER see what I recommend above because it goes against the entire greedy economic system of the U.S. (I live in the U.S. and am not a socialist, however).
I would agree that the stuff that computer makers put on their computers is annoying, but really, what gall for Microsoft to suggest that they have the right to tell computer makers what they may sell with their own product. It’s only because of their monopoly status that they think they can get away with that. (And maybe because of the years they HAVE gotten away with that, from the “browser wars” days). Such behavior SHOULD be illegal.
Ars Technica has an article at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070111-8598.html that discusses a similar theme and the admission by someone at Dell that if they could charge $60 more for a “crapless” PC, they would.
Anyway, the best thing about the Ars Technica article was the link to the “PC Decrapifier”:
http://www.yorkspace.com/pc-de-crapifier/
This is a script that shows you what “crap” you’ve got installed in your PC and allows you to choose which bits to remove all in one go. A great way to “de-OEM” your PC – note that the apps supported for removal are primarily tailored to Dell pre-installs apparently, but it should at least work partially on other non-Dell OEM machines.
No idea if the prog works on Vista, but I see no reason why it shouldn’t.
When I boot a Dell desktop for the first time, that’s filled to the brim with s**t, it reminds me why I like to build my own PC’s. In fact, any run-in’s with Dell’s garbage makes me realize that. But I digress….
I’ll go along with Microsoft on this. Not because I feel bad for them, since the I feel the “poorly written driver” excuse went out with Win2k, but because there is absolutely no reason why a brand new system that someone bought from a reputable company, should come pre-installed with massive amounts of crap. I bought my sister a run-of-the-mill Dimension, brand new. I spent more time uninstalling all the garbage (30 day trial-this, and lite-version that) than I would have to install and update Windows myself. In fact, I’d argue that if there’s any poorly written drivers today, they are coming from the manufacturers themselves. Can’t imagine how all of Dell’s tech support apps that load at boot can be good.
Of course, you know this is all about money. Pre-installed software, I’m sure, goes along with kickbacks from the software manufacturers. I just wonder why companies like Dell don’t provide the Windows install disks alone, with another disk of all the other bolshevik that you get “free”. If they did, the first thing I’d do upon receiving the computer is, “format C, reinstall Windows”.