OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.

The theme: OEM installations
OEM installs are usually subject to:
BIOS restrictions
hard disk restrictions
imaging transfer anomalies
and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist

Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.

IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
additonals)

I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
restrictions were made known beforehand.

On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
those restrictions and additionalities.

In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
demonstrate integrity and fidelity.

Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.

What say you?

From: "deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus>

| OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
|
| The theme: OEM installations
| OEM installs are usually subject to:
| BIOS restrictions
| hard disk restrictions
| imaging transfer anomalies
| and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
|
| Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
|
| IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
| equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
| additonals)
|
| I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
| operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
| variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
| restrictions were made known beforehand.
|
| On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
| were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
| those restrictions and additionalities.
|
| In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
| demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
|
| Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
| provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
|
| What say you?

Talk to a lawyer :-)

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus>
>
> | OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
> |
> | The theme: OEM installations
> | OEM installs are usually subject to:
> | BIOS restrictions
> | hard disk restrictions
> | imaging transfer anomalies
> | and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
> |
> | Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
> |
> | IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
> | equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
> | additonals)
> |
> | I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
> | operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
> | variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
> | restrictions were made known beforehand.
> |
> | On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
> | were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
> | those restrictions and additionalities.
> |
> | In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
> | demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
> |
> | Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
> | provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
> |
> | What say you?
>
> Talk to a lawyer :-)
>
I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
within the industry

What was the result?
***

"deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
news:uenDLVT8FHA.3380@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> From: "deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus>
>>
>> | OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
>> |
>> | The theme: OEM installations
>> | OEM installs are usually subject to:
>> | BIOS restrictions
>> | hard disk restrictions
>> | imaging transfer anomalies
>> | and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
>> |
>> | Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
>> |
>> | IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
>> | equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
>> | additonals)
>> |
>> | I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
>> | operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
>> | variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
>> | restrictions were made known beforehand.
>> |
>> | On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
>> | were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
>> | those restrictions and additionalities.
>> |
>> | In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
>> | demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
>> |
>> | Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
>> | provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
>> |
>> | What say you?
>>
>> Talk to a lawyer :-)
>>
> I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
> within the industry

Fitz wrote:
> What was the result?
> ***
>
With the BSA?

One never knows. It's all
"Shh, don't acknowledge"

However, i hope to raise the ante by virtue of good practice: OEM
installed OSs should come with a health warning

deebs wrote:
> OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
>
> The theme: OEM installations
> OEM installs are usually subject to:
> BIOS restrictions
> hard disk restrictions
> imaging transfer anomalies


Please specify an instance.


> and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
>

Again, a serious accusation. What specific company(ies) partake in
such activity? If you can name one, and back it up with independent
documentation, fine.

> Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
>


Not made aware to whom? Someone whose spent the last several years in
a cave in outer Slovakia? The limitations of OEM software licensing
have been very well known for several years, now. There have even been
well-publicized court cases, some upholding OEM licensing, and some
invalidating some terms of some OEM licenses.


> IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
> equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
> additonals)
>

You mean, expecting adults to look after themselves, do their own
advance product research, and be responsible for the consequences of
their own actions strikes you as unreasonable? How much hand-holding do
you need or want, to get through life? When you go shopping for
anything, does the salesman brag about the limitations of the product,
or does he instead emphasize the positive aspects? Why would you expect
computer sales people to behave any differently? As always, it is the
responsibility of the consumer to ensure that the product he's buying
meets his needs. If it doesn't, then the consumer can easily take his
business elsewhere. Anyone with a lick of sense makes sure that he
knows exactly what he's getting for his money _before_ concluding the
purchase. "Caveat Emptor," and all that. I've absolutely no sympathy
for the intellectually lazy purchaser who always fall back on the "But I
didn't know.... No one told me...." excuse, when confronted with the
less pleasant consequences of his choice.



> I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
> operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
> variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
> restrictions were made known beforehand.
>


Ah..., the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. You assumptions are
absurd, so your conclusion is utter nonsense.


> On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
> were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
> those restrictions and additionalities.
>


Which they are...



>
> What say you?


Do you always have your Mommy and Daddy make all of your decisions for you?


--

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

Fitz wrote:

>>>
>>
>>I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>within the industry
>
>
>

They're still laughing.


--

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

Why don't you e-mail your feelings to the major O.E.M. vendors so they know
what you are talking about. What we think is of no consequence to the issue.
They make the rules they play by.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
news:eX3KbHT8FHA.1280@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
>
> The theme: OEM installations
> OEM installs are usually subject to:
> BIOS restrictions
> hard disk restrictions
> imaging transfer anomalies
> and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
>
> Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
>
> IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as equivalent
> to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or additonals)
>
> I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an operating
> system is due full support equivalent to the full retail variant of the
> operating system by the OEM merchant unless these restrictions were made
> known beforehand.
>
> On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
> were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of those
> restrictions and additionalities.
>
> In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
> demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
>
> Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
> provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
>
> What say you?

deebs <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote:

>OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
>
>The theme: OEM installations
>OEM installs are usually subject to:
>BIOS restrictions
>hard disk restrictions
>imaging transfer anomalies
>and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they insist
>
>Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
>
>IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
>equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
>additonals)
>
>I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
>operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
>variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
>restrictions were made known beforehand.
>
>On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
>were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
>those restrictions and additionalities.
>
>In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties to
>demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
>
>Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM will
>provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
>
>What say you?

See http://onlinehelp.bc.ca/oem_software.htm for some detailed
information about OEM software.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

deebs wrote:
> OK - I am going to go contraversial here but i think it is important.
>
> The theme: OEM installations
> OEM installs are usually subject to:
> BIOS restrictions
> hard disk restrictions
> imaging transfer anomalies
> and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they
> insist
> Yet these restrictions are not made aware pre-purchase.
>
> IMO this constitutes sharp practice (trading an OEM install as
> equivalent to a full retail install without mentioning limitations or
> additonals)
>
> I conclude: anyone whom may have purchased an OEM variant of an
> operating system is due full support equivalent to the full retail
> variant of the operating system by the OEM merchant unless these
> restrictions were made known beforehand.
>
> On the other hand, if the OEM variant restrictions and additionalities
> were made known pre-purchase then the OEM support is to the level of
> those restrictions and additionalities.
>
> In the world of EULAs and OEMs it is incumbent (IMHO) on all parties
> to demonstrate integrity and fidelity.
>
> Where there are any shortcomings it has to be assumed that the OEM
> will provide support equivalent to a full rtetail product.
>
> What say you?

You need to do some more research. Only some of your points are true and
even then only some of the time. How can you say the end user is not aware?
If the OEM XP is installed according to Microsoft's specifications to the
OEM then the end user gets a chance to read the EULA. If they don't agree
they can return the computer. As for the rest of your points:

"OEM installs are usually subject to:
BIOS restrictions"

Only some large OEM's, might be half the market but I haven't seen
statistics to that effect.

"hard disk restrictions"

No idea what you are talking about. I don't know of any OEM installations
that are restricted to a particular hard disk. or that can'r be transferred
to a different disk.

"imaging transfer anomalies"

Again no idea what you are talking about. Some OEM installs have a hidden
restore partition that you have to know about but you can certainly image
it.

"and may include the odd bit of adware or spyware or more if they
insist "

A company is free to put any software they have a license to distribute on a
computer they manufacture. I agree that some large OEMs install what I call
spyware on their systems. I have installed a few brand new HPs and Dells for
customers. The EULAs for software application were always available. I doubt
many people read them but they are there. In all cases I was able to
uninstall anything they didn't want. There was nothing that was locked in so
the pc wouldn't run without it.

Kerry

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Fitz wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>> within the industry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> They're still laughing.
>
>
Yes, do you speak for BSA?

If not why claim that you do?

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Fitz wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>> within the industry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> They're still laughing.
>
>
As a ps - it is fraudulent to make claims on behalf of an organisation
if you do not have the authority to do so.

For the benefit of the wider audience would you like to be more specific
and elaborate upon the position of authority you claim to have to be
speaking on behalf of BSA?

Indeed, you may have PR responsibilities for them (BSA I mean) in which
case I will take my report further.

To Kerry's points: (post has gone off my viewer)

Thank you! I am always pleased to see intelligence and integrity
anywhere and everywhere.

My account is:
In the last couple of years I purchased 3 computers for personal use.
On each occasion I asked what is the difference between OEM Windows and
non-OEM.

The answer?
None! You just have to pay more that's all (summarised and condensed)

Now it may be that the sales staff I asked may be without the
wherewithall to provide specific technical answers accordingly. In
which case it is incumbent upon the retailer to make sure that employees
are fully conversant with the differences in order to make a meaningful
reply.

Why, just a few weeks ago I contacted an OEM to ask what the difference
is and was told: None - you just have to buy a bit of hardware, a mouse
will do and we supply it within the cost of an OEM disk.

To put it colloquially: who's telling porkies? Or are they just
misinformed?

Where did Bruce claim he speaks for BSA?
***

"deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
news:OB1cxGe8FHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Fitz wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>>> within the industry
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They're still laughing.
>>
>>
> Yes, do you speak for BSA?
>
> If not why claim that you do?

Fitz wrote:
> Where did Bruce claim he speaks for BSA?
> ***
>
> "deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
> news:OB1cxGe8FHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
>>Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>>Fitz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>>>>within the industry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> They're still laughing.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yes, do you speak for BSA?
>>
>>If not why claim that you do?
>
>
>
Figure it out Fitz.

Please use a modicum of analysis and let's get the thread on track
again. Please?

You asked the question. I read the post and didn't see what you claimed
that's why I inquired.

>>>Yes, do you speak for BSA?
>>>
>>>If not why claim that you do?

I still don't see where he claimed to speak for BSA. Let's be a bit more
precise.
***

"deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
news:eOFEn3e8FHA.636@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Fitz wrote:
>> Where did Bruce claim he speaks for BSA?
>> ***
>>
>> "deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
>> news:OB1cxGe8FHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>
>>>>Fitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I did, or rather I didn't, a report sent to BSA based on malpractice
>>>>>>within the industry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> They're still laughing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, do you speak for BSA?
>>>
>>>If not why claim that you do?
>>
>>
>>
> Figure it out Fitz.
>
> Please use a modicum of analysis and let's get the thread on track again.
> Please?

"deebs" <deebs@xyzlaernot999.bogus> wrote in message
news:%23muGGTe8FHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> To Kerry's points: (post has gone off my viewer)
>
> Thank you! I am always pleased to see intelligence and integrity anywhere
> and everywhere.
>
> My account is:
> In the last couple of years I purchased 3 computers for personal use. On
> each occasion I asked what is the difference between OEM Windows and
> non-OEM.
>
> The answer?
> None! You just have to pay more that's all (summarised and condensed)
>
> Now it may be that the sales staff I asked may be without the wherewithall
> to provide specific technical answers accordingly. In which case it is
> incumbent upon the retailer to make sure that employees are fully
> conversant with the differences in order to make a meaningful reply.
>
> Why, just a few weeks ago I contacted an OEM to ask what the difference is
> and was told: None - you just have to buy a bit of hardware, a mouse will
> do and we supply it within the cost of an OEM disk.
>
> To put it colloquially: who's telling porkies? Or are they just
> misinformed?

Sales people in any industry are remarkably uninformed. Try asking a car
salesman a technical question or a detailed question about warranty policy
and see if you get the right answer. Same with a TV salesman. If a salesman
misinformed you then the fault is the salesman's, possibly also partially
the employer's for not properly training their staff, but not Microsoft's
and usually not the OEM unless it is a direct sales OEM like Dell. I have
many issues with Dell sales staff. For fun phone up and try to order one of
their cheapest systems from a newspaper ad. They will tell you absolute bs
to get you to buy overpriced upgrades. It is almost impossible to get them
to ship you the base system only. Thinking that they will admit to any OEM
software restrictions is being very naive.

Kerry