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.

An OEM "recovery" disk will only do a "recovery" installation. Now if you
had an OEM operating system disk, as opposed to a recovery disk, you'd be in
business.

"Dapper Dan" <dapperdan@home.com> wrote in message
news:uBSfchzDGHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>

Bootit NG is Effective/freeware for repartitioning. Here:

http://www.terabyteunlimited.com/



"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.
>
>
>

> 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.

You could use Knoppix linux CD's qtparted to create/resize NTFS partitions.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/nixcraft/vi...ition-with.php

--
.~. Might, Courage, Vision. SINCERITY. http://www.linux-sxs.org
/ v \
/( _ )\ (Ubuntu 5.10) Linux 2.6.14.4
^ ^ 19:23:01 up 9 days 8:20 load average: 0.27 0.14 0.10

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 19:24:49 -0800, "guestuser" <guestuser@yahoo.com>

>An OEM "recovery" disk will only do a "recovery" installation. Now if you
>had an OEM operating system disk, as opposed to a recovery disk, you'd be in
>business.

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.

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

There's plenty of info on how to verify that Windows is "genuine",
i.e. that MS has been paid for it - but absolutely no committment to
assessing whether you will get a proper installation disk, or be
fobbed off with the "golden handcuffs" approach of instant restore CD,
or even no CD at all and "call PC vendor for repair".

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?

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.

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



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

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. If the sales clerk claims to not know,
and can't be bothered to examine the contents of the box the computer
comes in, I walk away. Works every time. (I also make it known that
I'll be telling anyone who asks that they shouldn't make any computer
purchases from that store.) 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.


> 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!"


>
> 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. (Mind you, I'm not defending the practice - I
won't buy a computer from a company that doesn't provide a real
installation CD, nor will I ever recommend that anyone else do business
with such a company.)


> 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.



> 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.


--

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

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
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

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 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.



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


And who would set these "standards?" Are you advocating more
government interference and/or hand-holding?


> 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?
>
>


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).



>
>
> 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.



>
>
>>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,...


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.




--

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:

> 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. If the sales clerk claims to
> not know, and can't be bothered to examine the contents of the box
> the computer comes in, I walk away. Works every time.


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.

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

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.


--

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