As mentioned in the article, the PCDecrapifier is a really nice bit of (free) software -- I run it on all new Windows PCs (if I don't just format and rebuild from scratch). And the name is brilliant :)
I'll second the recommendation, but remember if you are using it in a corporate environment you should buy a license. I think it is only $25. Support the developer!
It's a solution that works for some people - but probably not my mom.
When one considers setting up Live services as part of what Microsoft is offering, it's not a bad deal. Hell, 99 bucks would be a better use of my time walking her through the process.
"With great power comes great responsibility" and it's a pity MS doesn't OWN the user experience. Lock up the ability of OEM to preinstall stuff (like, only drivers and specific software)
(yes, several parts of Windows have worsened over time, like the Control Panel. Still, MS products UX is usually better than most UX out there)
So, why Linux? It's obviously not for the freedom or openness since you're talking about how Microsoft should restrict people's ability to install software on a Windows computer.
Presumably the "crapware" is subsidising the price. Using the term "crapware" is a bit loaded and borderline swearing, it just doesn't seem like a good technical term to use - even though I don't like the stuff myself.
It's a term coined out of frustration. Having unboxed new PC's that were slower in operation than PC's from a previous generation I've felt and understand the emotional aspects of it.
Microsoft is offering a service to their customers which improves the performance of Windows machines. Although the article insinuates that Microsoft is somehow responsible for crapware, they're not, and never have been. That money goes into the hardware manufacturer's pocket.
Instead, Microsoft has invested in creating a variety of useful, free services via Live as an alternative - particularly Microsoft Security Essentials as consumer anti-malware packages have become primarily a means for tracking consumer behavior. Skydrive also comes to mind.
Blaming Microsoft for crapware is nonsense. Anti-trust regulators across the globe would be foaming at the mouth were Microsoft's licensing agreements with hardware manufacturer's to preclude the installation of third party software in lieu of their own offerings - they've been there and got the tee shirt.
Is $99 too much? Well, it's the same price as Apple's "One to One" and serves much of the same purpose - preserving your data during an OS install (though Microsoft offers the service any time and doesn't bundle it with a hardware purchase).
I wonder why manufacturers all over the world would rather use FreeDos on some laptops than install Ubuntu or some other linux distro.
Do you think it has anything to do with Microsoft coercing them into not giving customers a real OS choice, or is it because manufacturers don't want to be bothered to do the least amount of effort to support Linux (even though most drivers should work by default)?
How about C - there's no significant customer demand for pre-installed Linux machines. Yes, lots of you put Linux on boxes, but there are several different distributions.
People buy computers to run software. Until recently, that meant Windows for most people. For laptops and desktops, that will probably never mean linux.
Linux is a PITA for the average computer user. Keeping a distro current sucks compared to patch Tuesday and technical support blows...problem with Firefox? you will get linked to some page unrelated to your issue on Ubuntu's website.
It's not a conspiracy. Linux is going to require more manufacturer resources to support consumers while producing less revenue - i.e. most people aren't going to choose Linux unless it is cheaper than Windows.
On the other hand, FreeDos is so simple and limited that hardware vendors don't need significant resources to support it, so it is more profitable than Linux.
"Although the article insinuates that Microsoft is somehow responsible for crapware"
You're not the only person to get this from the article, but I didn't read it that way at all. Maybe that's a sign that the article wasn't clear about the author's feelings, maybe it's a sign of defensiveness from MS fans, but I read it more as a critique on the absurdity of the situation.
Is the service "beneficial" to consumers? Sure. After the $99 service, they have a better OS install.
Is it Microsoft's "fault"? Of course not. They're not the ones installing the crapware, and they're powerless to do anything about it (thanks DOJ!).
The absurdity comes in the simple fact that MS finds themselves in a position where their best choice is to offer a service to de-crapify operating systems that are made crappy by their own customers (OEMs). It's not Microsoft's fault. They're not doing anything malicious here, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
Once the author calls third party software "crapware" it calls his objectivity into question.
"It could only be worse if the OEMs wanted payment to remove crapware."
Might at best, be considered damning Microsoft with faint praise. But it's clear that this article is intended as an indictment of Microsoft's practice:
"This isn’t an example of Microsoft benefiting at the expense of the hardware makers, it’s Microsoft benefiting at the expense of consumers"
It is actually possible to estimate the degree to which this is asinine:
If they actually get 40 customers per day per store and all that revenue is all pure profit, it represents 0.1% of Microsoft's 2011 Net operating revenue.
I don't understand the sense of anger in this article. What do they expect Microsoft to do, restrict the freedom of customers to install software on PCs? OEMs are customers just like the people who actually buy PCs; you can't trivially restrict one without restricting the other.
If you ask me, the fact that Microsoft offers this service is a risky move on their part because it risks upsetting the OEMs. Charging $99 for the cost of labor is pretty reasonable since you get phone support with it - I can easily imagine troublesome customers racking up hours of support costs in those 90 days after paying for this service.
> OEMs are customers just like the people who actually buy PCs; you can't trivially restrict one without restricting the other.
This is plain wrong. Microsoft dictates licensing with its customers and it certainly has the right to license on different terms to different customers.
And in fact they do exactly this with OEM's already.
MSFT is certainly within its rights and capabilities to include in their licensing dealings with OEM partners terms that prohibit pre-installing what they deem "crapware". And asking them to enforce this restriction (whether a good idea or not) is nonetheless reasonable.
I can go out and buy the OEM edition of windows, as an individual, without signing any license agreement with Microsoft. And I can go install it on a PC and sell that PC to a customer of mine if I happen to operate a PC shop.
> without signing any license agreement with Microsoft
Clickwrap is a blurry legal line, but you more or less are "signing" a license agreement by installing Windows.
And nonetheless the "OEM edition" that you get is potentially very different (license-wise) from the custom-negotiated contract that Dell is bound to when they order two hundred thousand licenses from Microsoft.
I don't think that's right. Microsoft has partnerships with manufacturers, and they give them early access to new versions of Windows so they beta test, they sign patent deals, and so on. In the Microsoft-manufacturer relationship, Microsoft is definitely on higher ground and can dictate them some terms.
The 2004 DOJ-Microsoft consent decree explicitly prohibits Microsoft from tying Windows licenses to the OEM's ability to install other software. So Microsoft is not within its rights to do that.
You're not frustrated that it's near to impossible to buy a Windows PC without a bunch of crap on it? I've set up plenty of PCs in my time, and I absolutely loathe the process. I can't simply turn the PC on and turn it over to whoever is going to use it. They'll encounter a continuous barrage of trial expirations and prompts.
What do we expect Microsoft to do about it? Nothing, really. It'd be nice if OEMs took the high road, but they're not going to do that either. Does that mean we should all just shut up about it? Heh, that ain't happening' either.
More inflammatory misinformation from cnet designed to bait readers to their blogs and traffic eyeballs to their ads.
MS is not charging to remove 'crapware' is some conspiracy with the OEMs.
MS is charging for a in-store service and product where they'll sit down and install a new OS and get someone to optimize everything for you while trying to keep all your data and whichever apps.
Huh? I'm not sure where you're getting the conspiracy thing from. It's no conspiracy, it's just stupid. The "follow the money chain" part of the article is completely factual and straight forward. It's not like he's alleging that MS wants the crapware on machines. Quite the opposite, MS tried this at one point, but parts of the DOJ anti-trust ruling prevent them from controlling what OEMs do with their OS installs.
If you can't see the ridiculousness of the scenario, then I'm not sure what to tell you. OEMs install all this crap to the detriment of their customers, who then have to go back to the company who originally sold the OEM the operating system, just to get a decent experience. If that's not ridiculous, then I don't know what is.
Not taking sides, but is the article suggesting that there's only a $99 price difference between Macs and MS PCs running comparable hardware? I can assure you it's not remotely close to the case...
Maybe for the same quality, it is. Ultrabooks comparable to MacBook Air are only $100 cheaper, maybe $200 at most at the higher end, but I think they achieve that also by skimping on some stuff (display quality, SSD, etc).
It does, however, posit that the offset value of the difference in frustration between the experience of buying a new PC is sufficient to drive consumers to Apple though.
Nice play MS. That mean's everybody would think before(about losing $100) removing that crapware/MS trojan. So you actually lessen the probability of them re-installing some other OS on their computer.
If you have a brain that is properly functioning, you can do this yourself. It will at most take a day. Is it worthwhile for me to spend a day on this to save $99 dollars? Yes, it is.
It shouldn't take a day, just re-install the OS from scratch - its the best way. In fact many companies do this in the form of restoring HD images to make the process even faster.
I'm saying at most. Maybe you're new to this and need to read up on what partitions are and how the Windows installation process works? Maybe you need to do some reading to arrive at the conclusion that you need to re-install Windows in the first place!
It seems my assumption of a day was more extreme than I thought! Regardless, let's take two extreme cases and compare costs/benefits:
1. You don't know anything.
2. You are a power user who knows everything.
Case 1: Let's say you take the ENTIRE day. You have not only fixed your problem but you have learned a lot of things which will help you with a similar problem the next time. You save costs for your entire life on the expense of that one day.
Case 2: You get it done in an hour or so which isn't a big financial hit.
In a way, this demonstrates quite well how the premium of buying a Mac makes sense for a lot of people. The extra few hundred dollars aren't too significant if it genuinely saves them time.
Let's not forget how we got here. In the mid-1990s the OEMs were up in arms about how Microsoft was trying to control the Windows user experience; the OEMs said it was their customer and they would install any damn thing they wanted before delivery, thankyouverymuch.
The DOJ's 1994 consent decree with Microsoft [1] said "Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon ... the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-Microsoft product." It reinforced that Microsoft could sell Windows to OEMs but not dictate what else went into the box.
And thus began the crapware nightmare. It was all well intentioned, but it prevented Microsoft from taking an Apple-like role of "benevolent dictator" to keep the OS coherent. So instead, Microsoft is relegated to the role of curmudgeonly custodian, only able to arrive and do something after the mess is made. A Groundskeeper Willie if you will.
The installation media you receive with the OEM PC is not an authentic, original, pure unadulterated Windows installation - it's an OEM installation that, if you haven't guessed by now, comes with all the crapware.
Yes, you can buy a brand new Windows license for installing on your PC. But that'll cost you more than $99 this service costs.
How much is a Windows license these days? It seems to me it would be cheaper, or at least equal in price, to install a clean copy of Windows rather than go to the trouble of "decrapifying" your computer. I realize a lot of Windows users don't have this ability, but I don't see why MS couldn't do it themselves and save time.
Also, what's the legal status of using a clean install disk with my crapified computer's registration key? If I want to reinstall Windows, am I obliged to reinstall the crapware too?
If I could reinstall a clean OS for free, $99 is a racket. Someone with a Windows disk could make a pretty penny undercutting MS here. Of course, one of the reasons I use Linux is because dealing with Windows like this is a legal minefield.
48 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 69.7 ms ] threadWhen one considers setting up Live services as part of what Microsoft is offering, it's not a bad deal. Hell, 99 bucks would be a better use of my time walking her through the process.
But I think I'll just run Linux
Or just go to the Apple Store
"With great power comes great responsibility" and it's a pity MS doesn't OWN the user experience. Lock up the ability of OEM to preinstall stuff (like, only drivers and specific software)
(yes, several parts of Windows have worsened over time, like the Control Panel. Still, MS products UX is usually better than most UX out there)
Doing so would probably be illegal in the US, Europe and several other markets.
Ah, sounds familiar.
Sounds familiar.
In fact, they do: http://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msstore/cat/categoryID.4...
OEMs, not the user
Simple, I want to know what's been installed. With Linux or "Windows from MS" I know. With "Windows from OEM" I don't know.
Instead, Microsoft has invested in creating a variety of useful, free services via Live as an alternative - particularly Microsoft Security Essentials as consumer anti-malware packages have become primarily a means for tracking consumer behavior. Skydrive also comes to mind.
Blaming Microsoft for crapware is nonsense. Anti-trust regulators across the globe would be foaming at the mouth were Microsoft's licensing agreements with hardware manufacturer's to preclude the installation of third party software in lieu of their own offerings - they've been there and got the tee shirt.
Is $99 too much? Well, it's the same price as Apple's "One to One" and serves much of the same purpose - preserving your data during an OS install (though Microsoft offers the service any time and doesn't bundle it with a hardware purchase).
Do you think it has anything to do with Microsoft coercing them into not giving customers a real OS choice, or is it because manufacturers don't want to be bothered to do the least amount of effort to support Linux (even though most drivers should work by default)?
People buy computers to run software. Until recently, that meant Windows for most people. For laptops and desktops, that will probably never mean linux.
As to tablets, it's android or ios.
It's not a conspiracy. Linux is going to require more manufacturer resources to support consumers while producing less revenue - i.e. most people aren't going to choose Linux unless it is cheaper than Windows.
On the other hand, FreeDos is so simple and limited that hardware vendors don't need significant resources to support it, so it is more profitable than Linux.
You're not the only person to get this from the article, but I didn't read it that way at all. Maybe that's a sign that the article wasn't clear about the author's feelings, maybe it's a sign of defensiveness from MS fans, but I read it more as a critique on the absurdity of the situation.
Is the service "beneficial" to consumers? Sure. After the $99 service, they have a better OS install.
Is it Microsoft's "fault"? Of course not. They're not the ones installing the crapware, and they're powerless to do anything about it (thanks DOJ!).
The absurdity comes in the simple fact that MS finds themselves in a position where their best choice is to offer a service to de-crapify operating systems that are made crappy by their own customers (OEMs). It's not Microsoft's fault. They're not doing anything malicious here, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
"It could only be worse if the OEMs wanted payment to remove crapware."
Might at best, be considered damning Microsoft with faint praise. But it's clear that this article is intended as an indictment of Microsoft's practice:
"This isn’t an example of Microsoft benefiting at the expense of the hardware makers, it’s Microsoft benefiting at the expense of consumers"
It is actually possible to estimate the degree to which this is asinine:
If they actually get 40 customers per day per store and all that revenue is all pure profit, it represents 0.1% of Microsoft's 2011 Net operating revenue.If you ask me, the fact that Microsoft offers this service is a risky move on their part because it risks upsetting the OEMs. Charging $99 for the cost of labor is pretty reasonable since you get phone support with it - I can easily imagine troublesome customers racking up hours of support costs in those 90 days after paying for this service.
This is plain wrong. Microsoft dictates licensing with its customers and it certainly has the right to license on different terms to different customers.
And in fact they do exactly this with OEM's already.
MSFT is certainly within its rights and capabilities to include in their licensing dealings with OEM partners terms that prohibit pre-installing what they deem "crapware". And asking them to enforce this restriction (whether a good idea or not) is nonetheless reasonable.
Clickwrap is a blurry legal line, but you more or less are "signing" a license agreement by installing Windows.
And nonetheless the "OEM edition" that you get is potentially very different (license-wise) from the custom-negotiated contract that Dell is bound to when they order two hundred thousand licenses from Microsoft.
What do we expect Microsoft to do about it? Nothing, really. It'd be nice if OEMs took the high road, but they're not going to do that either. Does that mean we should all just shut up about it? Heh, that ain't happening' either.
MS is not charging to remove 'crapware' is some conspiracy with the OEMs.
MS is charging for a in-store service and product where they'll sit down and install a new OS and get someone to optimize everything for you while trying to keep all your data and whichever apps.
If you can't see the ridiculousness of the scenario, then I'm not sure what to tell you. OEMs install all this crap to the detriment of their customers, who then have to go back to the company who originally sold the OEM the operating system, just to get a decent experience. If that's not ridiculous, then I don't know what is.
It does, however, posit that the offset value of the difference in frustration between the experience of buying a new PC is sufficient to drive consumers to Apple though.
Case 1: Let's say you take the ENTIRE day. You have not only fixed your problem but you have learned a lot of things which will help you with a similar problem the next time. You save costs for your entire life on the expense of that one day.
Case 2: You get it done in an hour or so which isn't a big financial hit.
The DOJ's 1994 consent decree with Microsoft [1] said "Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement in which the terms of that agreement are expressly or impliedly conditioned upon ... the OEM not licensing, purchasing, using or distributing any non-Microsoft product." It reinforced that Microsoft could sell Windows to OEMs but not dictate what else went into the box.
And thus began the crapware nightmare. It was all well intentioned, but it prevented Microsoft from taking an Apple-like role of "benevolent dictator" to keep the OS coherent. So instead, Microsoft is relegated to the role of curmudgeonly custodian, only able to arrive and do something after the mess is made. A Groundskeeper Willie if you will.
[1] http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0047.htm
Yes, you can buy a brand new Windows license for installing on your PC. But that'll cost you more than $99 this service costs.
format c:
:)
Also, what's the legal status of using a clean install disk with my crapified computer's registration key? If I want to reinstall Windows, am I obliged to reinstall the crapware too?
If I could reinstall a clean OS for free, $99 is a racket. Someone with a Windows disk could make a pretty penny undercutting MS here. Of course, one of the reasons I use Linux is because dealing with Windows like this is a legal minefield.