Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>
>> But what do you do if he says yes, it comes with an installation CD?
>> Do you believe him? Why? Computer sales clerks are usually paid
>> minimum wage, or slightly more, and seldom know much, if anything,
>> about the products they are selling.
>>
>
>
> If the sales clerk lies, I've got legal redress. And I don't see how
> there's any possible correlation between a person's salary and his
> integrity.


Sorry, I didn't mean to suugest that he might lie, but that he just might
not know, and would say what he thought, rather than was true.

I wasn't trying to make a correlation between his salary and his integrity,
but rather to point out that low-salaried employees are usually not the best
informed. If they had any real knowledge of computers, there would usually
be better jobs available to them.

And by the way, even if he did lie, unless you got it writing, that legal
redress would probably be very hard to come by.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

>
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to suugest that he might lie, but that he just might
> not know, and would say what he thought, rather than was true.
>


Which reflects rather poorly upon the store. I can't speak for other
people, of course, but if I'm a customer and am so poorly served by
untrained sales staff, I won't do any further business with that store.


> I wasn't trying to make a correlation between his salary and his integrity,
> but rather to point out that low-salaried employees are usually not the best
> informed. If they had any real knowledge of computers, there would usually
> be better jobs available to them.
>


Actually, if they had any real knowledge of computers, they probably
wouldn't be working in a sales position, at all. ;-} I'm not expecting
a sales clerk to have any significant amount technical knowledge, but
any competent sales clerk should have more than a basic familiarity with
the features of whatever product he/she's selling, to include the
contents of the packaging.


> And by the way, even if he did lie, unless you got it writing, that legal
> redress would probably be very hard to come by.
>

Oh, you're no doubt correct, but, again, a store that employs such
people shouldn't be surprised when it gets very little repeat business.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't mean to suugest that he might lie, but that he just
>> might not know, and would say what he thought, rather than was true.
>>
>
>
> Which reflects rather poorly upon the store.


Certainly, but most store are like that.


> I can't speak for other
> people, of course, but if I'm a customer and am so poorly served by
> untrained sales staff, I won't do any further business with that
> store.


OK, but the problem is that this is a very competitive business and stores
have to keep their prices low. With very few exceptions, most stores are
unable to pay enough to attract, train, and keep qualfied people.


>> I wasn't trying to make a correlation between his salary and his
>> integrity, but rather to point out that low-salaried employees are
>> usually not the best informed. If they had any real knowledge of
>> computers, there would usually be better jobs available to them.
>>
>
>
> Actually, if they had any real knowledge of computers, they probably
> wouldn't be working in a sales position, at all. ;-}


Yup!


> I'm not
> expecting a sales clerk to have any significant amount technical
> knowledge, but any competent sales clerk should have more than a
> basic familiarity with the features of whatever product he/she's
> selling, to include the contents of the packaging.


I'm with you on the "should," but my experience is that it's very seldom
true in practice.



>> And by the way, even if he did lie, unless you got it writing, that
>> legal redress would probably be very hard to come by.
>>
>
> Oh, you're no doubt correct, but, again, a store that employs such
> people shouldn't be surprised when it gets very little repeat
> business.


This is part of the reason that I hardly ever buy anything in stores
anymore. Except for groceries, I buy almost everything on the internet.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>
>>Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Sorry, I didn't mean to suugest that he might lie, but that he just
>>>might not know, and would say what he thought, rather than was true.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Which reflects rather poorly upon the store.
>
>
>
> Certainly, but most store are like that.
>
>
>
>>I can't speak for other
>>people, of course, but if I'm a customer and am so poorly served by
>>untrained sales staff, I won't do any further business with that
>>store.
>
>
>
> OK, but the problem is that this is a very competitive business and stores
> have to keep their prices low. With very few exceptions, most stores are
> unable to pay enough to attract, train, and keep qualfied people.
>
>
>
>>>I wasn't trying to make a correlation between his salary and his
>>>integrity, but rather to point out that low-salaried employees are
>>>usually not the best informed. If they had any real knowledge of
>>>computers, there would usually be better jobs available to them.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Actually, if they had any real knowledge of computers, they probably
>>wouldn't be working in a sales position, at all. ;-}
>
>
>
> Yup!
>
>
>
>>I'm not
>>expecting a sales clerk to have any significant amount technical
>>knowledge, but any competent sales clerk should have more than a
>>basic familiarity with the features of whatever product he/she's
>>selling, to include the contents of the packaging.
>
>
>
> I'm with you on the "should," but my experience is that it's very seldom
> true in practice.
>
>
>
>
>>>And by the way, even if he did lie, unless you got it writing, that
>>>legal redress would probably be very hard to come by.
>>>
>>
>>Oh, you're no doubt correct, but, again, a store that employs such
>>people shouldn't be surprised when it gets very little repeat
>>business.
>
>
>
> This is part of the reason that I hardly ever buy anything in stores
> anymore. Except for groceries, I buy almost everything on the internet.
>

Well, I guess that's what we are here for, eh? Too bad more folks don't
come here and ask advice _before_ making a new computer purchase.

Steve N.

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 11:09:17 -0700, Bruce Chambers
>cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

>> 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.

>So why do business with such a store? Take your money to a reputable
>vendor, instead.

It's not usually a "store" that Ideal with under such circumstances.

It's invariably laptops, for reasons I mentioned, and the client
approaches me for advice on what laptop to buy. They ask the
questions I suggest, and get weasel answers. Usually what follows is
a three-way email thing between client, sales droid and myself. I
don't physically take a morning off working prime time to accompany
the client to some retail palace where I can pull open product boxes.

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

>That's true. And laptops are the only sort of computer with which I
>buy OEM software. But I still won't buy one that doesn't have a full
>installation CD.

I try to avoid that too, but eventually fatigue sets in after
back-and-forth weaseling - it's clear the sales tactic is to stall
until the buyer eventually caves in. Getting an assurance pinned down
in writing, or via email, is very difficult indeed - and often the
client has to buy a second license for the same PC. That's happened
twice with Toshiba laptops, for example, and there's no way to get
credited for the bundled license you don't want.

This trickery gets MS two license sales for the same box, and is
outright bad-faith exploitation IMO.

>> There's that aspect, but really, the OS is a product that can and
>> should have minimum standards.

>And who would set these "standards?"

MS already does, by setting the precident of threatening OEMs with
exclusion from supply unless they desisted from installing Netscape
instead of IE, or from removing IE's in-your-face UI presence. Thier
agreements with OEMs reserve this right for themselves, and they have
excersized that right in the past.

So all that remains to be monitored, is what MS chooses to enforce as
acceptable minimum standards. It seems that undermining MS's desktop
UI monopoly is Bad, but screwing the user's ability to control how the
PC is set up is Just Fine, and if arbitrary pretexts can be exploited
to foist a second license sale for the same PC, that's even better.

For example, a PC may come with XP Home when the user requires XP Pro,
or may come with an XP Pro recovery disk when what the user requires
is a fully-controllable XP Home disk. It's pure bloody-mindedness
that forces such users to buy two licenses and never be able to use
one of them (e.g. on another PC).

>Are you advocating more government interference and/or hand-holding?

There's a role for regulatory imposition of fair practice, though
usually this can be done through standard legislation that addresses
such issues. In fact, a judiciary would be negligent if it did not
intervene when fair practice was being transgressed, and yes, I'd
expect such legislation to override rights self-granted by EUL"A".

>And just where is one prohibited from including Netscape on an OEM
>installation? One of the biggest chores of setting up a new computer
>(with an OEM software bundle) is removing the extraneous trash, that the
>manufacturer was paid to include. This often means cleaning out AOL
>products (which includes Netscape).

The relationship between MS and OEMs has been highlighted in legal
terms on a couple of ocasions, and one went about exactly this - in
fact, it may have been the start of the DoJ (Jackson) case.

Another case is where the practice of assumed license sales was
prohibited. Prior to this, it was assumed that every CPU sold by
large vendors would have been accompanied by an OS license, which
precluded a refund wherever the buyer chose some other OS.

I would rather MS cleaned up its act, if only to maintain in-house
uniformity that meets its claimed objectives and standards. However
if MS persists in pushing this envelope, then intervention is due.

>> 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.

>Are these bizarre rules the result of local (i.e., South African) laws,
>Chris? I've never encountered anything like this in the U.S.

Check out the terms of NDAs and EULAs that apply to Intel and MS
reseller programs, as a start. Much of this stuff obliges one to work
against the interests of the user, directly in opposition to one's
expected role as a vendor-independent advisor on value.

Terms may well vary according to geography, either due to local
conditions (such as rampant piracy in some markets, that saw "lite"
product valiants and/or easliest adoption of Product Activation) or
due to local opportunities (e.g. weak legislation allowing off-radar
persistance of tactics no longer tolerated in the US).

I've prolly been more specific than I intended; this is as far as I'm
comfy when caught between the need to back up my assertions while
respecting NDAs etc. I doubt if I've mentioned anything that is not
already Google-able, and I've been as "general" as possible.

>> Oh please. MS threatens to cut off an OEM's supply because they
>> install Netscape instead of IE,...

>Where has this happened? Granted IE can't be removed, but I know of
>nothing to stop the OEM from loading Netscape along with the other AOL,
>McAfee, Norton, and/or Intuit trash they bundle with computers.

That followed legal challenge that arose in exactly these
circumstances. The will is clearly there, and as one particular
pressure point is armoured by legal precident, others will get pressed
upon instead. My point is that MS has the self-granted rights to
enforce minimum standards, and simply chooses not to do so.

What really needs to happen, is for the user's end of the EUL"A" to be
robustly represented and negotiated.



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

Bruce Chambers wrote:

>
> If the sales clerk lies, I've got legal redress. And I don't see how
> there's any possible correlation between a person's salary and his
> integrity.
>

Have you tried suing big retailers such as PCWorld & even HP? You simply can't
win against them and the cost is prohibitive. It becomes your word against the
sales clerk's. He would always deny he said anything toy you or promised!

You just need to open the box there and there and verify it infront of the sales
guy. If it doesn't contain the CDs then refuse to leave the shop.

With DELL you need to order it separately on online order form. There is a
charge for it but at least we can get the media CDs.

As to salary and integrity, they are normally on commision based on sales they
make on top of their basic wages. At least this is what happens in the UK.

Regards,

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 03:11:26 +0000, ANONYMOUS
>Bruce Chambers wrote:

>> If the sales clerk lies, I've got legal redress.

The trick is to get them to commit in writing (or even in email).

In one case, I wrote a paragraph stating what the OS CD should be
capable of doing, starting with legality of license, and asked the
droid to type Yes or No underneath. The reply came back as Yes, but
with all critera below "legality" snipped.

This is the sort of shite one has to contend with.

>You just need to open the box there and there and verify it infront of the sales
>guy. If it doesn't contain the CDs then refuse to leave the shop.

Something like that happened with a Toshiba laptop; it was delivered
here to be set up, and had only an "instant restore" CD, so delivery
was not accepted. What happened in the end? They sold an additional
XP Pro license at trade price, leaving the user paying for two
licenses of which she could only use one.

Win-win for two of three parties concerned (MS and Toshiba); everyone
happy except the user... though laptops are so over-priced per spec
anyway, what's one more kick in the nads?



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

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

snipped

>
> Something like that happened with a Toshiba laptop; it was delivered
> here to be set up, and had only an "instant restore" CD, so delivery
> was not accepted. What happened in the end? They sold an additional
> XP Pro license at trade price, leaving the user paying for two
> licenses of which she could only use one.
>
> Win-win for two of three parties concerned (MS and Toshiba); everyone
> happy except the user... though laptops are so over-priced per spec
> anyway, what's one more kick in the nads?
>

Perhaps it's time to start supporting sellers of "whitebox" notebooks. Intel
and AMD are both behind the idea.

http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/rese...eng/244898.htm

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...book_whitebox/

Asus, Gigabyte and others can supply the products.

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/56/1/

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Notebook/...oduct_List.htm

http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Notebook/...oduct_List.htm

Although both Asus and Gigabyte list their products as coming with XP I can
buy them from a number of wholesalers with no OS. You can install Linux or
whatever version of Windows you want.

Kerry

st.daniel wrote:
> Bootit NG is Effective/freeware for repartitioning. Here:
>
> http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/

It is not Freeware. It is a fully functional 30-day free trial.

Steve N.

>
>
>
> "Dapper Dan" wrote:
>
>
>>Just a short note to advise others who plan on doing what I had intended,
>>and that is, that I did a reinstall of an OEM 'puter but did not achieve
>>either of my objectives, ie reduce bloatware and repartition a very large C
>>drive.
>>
>>I did a complete recovery, including a format of the drive. I did not have
>>an option to refuse the reinstallation of any of the programs/utilities. I
>>have subsequently uninstalled all that I wasn't interested in that were
>>located in Add/Remove. However what's the best way to rid myself of other
>>programs/utilities that were not included in Add/Remove but which are
>>located in my Program files (ie AOL/ Internet Signups/HP Extentended Service
>>Plans etc). Is it simply deleting any given folder or is there a better
>>approach?
>>
>>And of course Carey was right with respect to partitioning. Again, I did
>>not get the option of setting any partition; I was forced to use whatever
>>way it was originally setup. Thus I will have to accomplish that objective
>>with the purchase of a partitioning utility.
>>
>>In any event, I wanted to provide this feedback for anyone contemplating a
>>similar intention.
>>
>>
>>