Rant: Microsoft Windows Out of Box Experience Sucks
OK, rant mode on. This morning I spent over three hours running Windows Update on the cool Viliv S5 UMPC I am evaluating. Yes, I realize it runs the older Windows XP operating system, but even so Microsoft must make the out of box experience (OOBE) better than this. I have recently experienced this process with Vista too, and it’s no better than XP. It’s time that Microsoft fix this absolutely unbearable process.
The entire Windows Update process resulted in 5 reboots and took almost 3.5 hours. That is ridiculous in and of itself, but watching it closely (something you have to do as it requires user input at inopportune moments) really got me steamed, as I realized that Microsoft could easily fix this stupid process.
How can Microsoft make this more bearable for the end-user? Simple. Watching the update process made it clear that Microsoft supplied the OEM with Windows XP SP1. A large part of the update process was downloading and installing SP2, which has been out for years. The next pass of Windows Update then downloaded and installed SP3, which has also been out forever. Why the hell is Microsoft not supplying OEMs with the latest SP slipstreamed in the build image?
My fury didn’t end there, no siree. The update process also duly downloaded and installed .NET Framework 1.0. Then 1.1. Then 1.5. That is absolutely stupid on any level. Then came the core Microsoft applications that had to be “updated.” You may not believe it, but the update process had to download and install Internet Explorer 7, yes, that’s right 7, which is not even the current version available. Windows XP is still shipping with IE6 in the OEM image. Incredible.
That’s still not all. The update process had to download and install Windows Media Player 11 because the build image only contained WM9. Yes, version 9 even though WM11 has been out for a very long time.
Of course, once all of these “updates” were duly installed, then all of the security updates for each of them had to go through the same loop. I found myself getting more and more ticked off as this inane process dragged on.
I know that I’m going to start hearing that this isn’t even the latest version of Windows, like that’s a good excuse for Microsoft. Give me a break, Microsoft is still happy to sell XP to OEMs (and thus the consumer), so that’s no excuse for lousy support. All Microsoft has to do to end this stupid situation is to roll any update or upgrade that is distributed via Windows Update that is over six months old into the image provided to OEMs. That’s all it would take to end this goofy situation, and there will never be an excuse to not do this that I will accept. Take responsibility for your product, Microsoft.
I’m sure I’ll also hear that a lot of these updates are security related in nature and thus not Microsoft’s fault. I understand that, but I don’t care. As a consumer, I just want my stuff to work as easily out of the box as possible. As far as I’m concerned Microsoft could easily go a long way toward providing that experience if they would just do it.
OK, rant mode off, at least for now.
Although I agree the update process could be better, this is not ms fault. We regularly receive dell pcs with so and they already have sp3
those are known as service packs in windows speak, but yes, one can wonder…
I agree with Tom – is it Microsoft’s fault or the OEM? Seems to me if they want to provide a quality customer experience, they could easily install a patched OS.
James;
If a vendor can add all sorts of crapware to their build why can’t they add the latest updates and patches. It isn’t rocket science to slipstream service packs into a previous verions of XP in order to create an up to date build. If Microsoft is going to all the effort of trying to make updates available to end users I can’t see them preventing an OEM from providing the SPs in the build on these systems. It sounds more like laziness on the part of the OEM to me.
Maybe its time Microsoft took a page from Apple’s book and went into the hardware business and stopped selling their OS to OEMs. Then they could tightly control the customer experience by only making a very minimal set of systems available to users.
why dont you manually D/L SP 2/3 ONCE from MS & use them on all your XP PC’s?
its not the install process that takes so long, its D/L process.
So, Viliv did a crappy job of producing their OS image and this is somehow Microsoft’s fault?
I’m pretty sure this is the OEMs fault. All other systems I’ve received with XP recently had SP3, and none of the updates afterward required a reboot.
Microsoft has never been good at updating their products. Rather than fix the thousands of legacy bugs they want you to just buy the latest OS instead. Microsoft philosophy goes something like this: Release shiny new software and throw in over the wall. Immediately begin work on next shiny new release. Fix only the most annoying bugs in latest release (if we must) and throw it over the wall for the masses to enjoy. Repeat process for next shiny new release. They almost never ever fix the older bugs. Just look how long it took them to fix a bug in Windows 2.x calc program that still ships with all windows versions.
MS could also do what Apple does and provide a large Combo Updater with Windows Update. Then it won’t matter what OEMs are using, you just download all the latest core system files in one large update, apply, and restart once. Easy peasy.
…. or ubuntu, kubuntu … 9.04 or so.
A few things about .Net.
1; There is no 1.5 version. There is a v3.5, which is what I think you misrecalled as v1.5.
2; .Net frameworks 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 are not compatible with each other in the same way you have to install Visual Basic runtimes for version 3, 4, 5, and 6 in order to run a program that was compiled with each respective version of VB. Merely having VB6 runtimes will not allow you to run a program compiled in VB5, and in the same way, having .Net 2.0 installed will not allow you to run .Net 1.1 or 1.0 programs. Like VB runtimes, .Net runtimes can be installed side-by-side to allow programs of any version to run on that machine though. So the 1.0, 1.1, and 3.5 frameworks are installed on your machine to allow for the most compatibility and capability in running programs that were written for any version of the .Net platform.
There is an obvious inconsistency in why 3.5 was installed instead of 3.0 and 2.0 as well though. I won’t get into it here, but the 3.0 version of .Net IS capable of running 2.0 programs, and the 3.5 is capable of running both 3.0 and 2.0 programs. So the necessary .Net frameworks on any machine today to have the most compatibility are 1.0, 1.1, and 3.5.
+1 on Rant mode.
They don’t (MS)listen to us, maybe your rant will help!
Sounds like a combination of EOM and MS issues here. Perhaps the OEM does not want to spend the time updating its process to use the latest!!
“Why is Microsoft suppling the OEMS…”
Are the OEMs children ? Can _they_ not supply an image enhanced for _their_ product. Is it laziness on their part providing the same image that they provided a couple of years ago in the knowledge that the consumer can go download the updates themselves and save the vendor a few cent ?
Surely the product was designed and to take advantage of the latest / greatest drivers etc so why does the vendor supply out-of-date installation media ?
Viliv must bear responsibility for this – on their netbooks Samsung provided an up-to-date image.
This is just so silly. My Dell Mini 9 arrived last month with XP and required less than three minutes to add in latest security updates.
“Rant: Viliv Out of Box Experience Sucks”.
Fixed.
Sounds like you wen’t off half-cocked James, this is an OEM issue. Microsoft didn’t load XP on the UMPC, Viliv did.
OK, I knew what I was going to hear when I wrote this. I firmly believe that MS should take responsibility for the experience no matter what. Why is such an important part of the OS left to the OEM or anybody else? There should be a starting build that MS insists that all OEMs start with, OK?
I don’t want the OEM to have control over how old the installed image is, no exceptions. This is a MS product after all and they should assume ownership of it. That’s what I’m saying here.
Microsoft has very little control over the product that Viliv ships. If you don’t think Viliv is to blame maybe you should consider the DOJ.
If you knew what to expect I think you should have been more careful before posting. As many people have pointed out already this is clearly a problem with Viliv rather than Microsoft. Windows XP with SP3 is currently available on MSDN and I presume that it’s therefore available to partners as well.
It seems like you are just looking for another excuse to bash Microsoft for something that isn’t their fault and is totally beyond their control.
I love how everyone wants to blame the OEM when Microsoft clearly is at fault since they provide the disks NOT the OEM. Just get over the fact that you settled for Microsoft.
You honestly believe that if an OEM rang MS to request a disk for distribution they would send an XP SP1 disk, an OS configuration they don’t even support anymore?!
Even our Software Assurance licensing has MS sending us XP SP3 and Vista SP1 disks.
This is like blaming MS because your new PC comes with an AOL 30 day trial already installed when you didn’t want it.
It’s nothing to do with MS and I’m sure they would get moaned to death by OEMS if they told them all OEM products must ship with an image of their OS with completely updated OS installs. OEMs would have to keep updating their images AND they would have to keep testing them to make sure a driver wasn’t broken by an update, or that the OS didn’t become increasingly unstable.
In an ideal world the OS would be up to date, but in the real world this is Vilivs fault.
do NOT mix up OS and thirdparty software. MS claims the licence and control over it – nobody else – that’s why resposability lays with them. the OEM merely is a distrubutor of licences.
If MS forced an OEM to use a particular release of their software we would all be complaining about the evil empire using too much control. The only answer is for Viliv (in this case) to take ownership. I think the fact that they shipped the operating system in the state they did is disappointing.
This is not an isolated case. I review a LOT of systems and get them in just this condition. Like I said it’s such an important part of the consumer’s perception that MS does indeed need to insist that the latest build is what MUST get preinstalled. The OS is not like trial software, it’s the guts that runs everything and it comes from MS, nowhere else.
James, I think I agree with you that MS must control what’s released, but I wonder if you are receiving a pre-production model of some sort. It’s not shipping quite yet, except in lots of 100, and not to the U.S. at this point.
I would agree with to some extent that the OEM should hear about this, as well, because they surely share control and responsibility, as well.
All true but in their defense how often does the average punter have to unbox a new computer?
As an installer of midrange systems we allocate days – not hours – to install and configure an OS. Often is is hours but I suppose my point is that MS is not alone in this and for you and I the experience comes far more often than for you man in the street, maybe once every three or four yesrs? Large corporations have their own image so it does not really affect them.
I am not saying they cannot or should not make it better -0 just that there is not such a big payoff for most people.
There’s no right answer. MS relies on a partner model for all their hardware. The OEMs are responsible for installing the OS and provide OS support, which is part of their agreement with MS as an OEM partner. The OEMs are allowed to make any additions to the OS Image without changing any of the code, and they typically don’t update them until a major service pack is released, and even then, you will have inventory on the shelf with the older image. They won’t recall them just because MS ships a new SP. Even systems that are built to order and imaged right away may not get the latest OS patches.
I do agree that the overall experience should be better via the Update program, but since there are so many moving parts, it’s hard to get it right. It forces you to do some incremental updates before it lowers the boom and installs the all encompassing SP. Also, if you have Office preinstalled, there are a number of updates that will be installed as well, thus adding additional complications.
I don’t think there’s one silver bullet that will solve this experience, but they are listening.
So James, you had a bad experience with a system, and nowhere in your rant are there any words for the actual culprits here, the manufacturers of the device, the ones who sent you a system with a tears-old OS on it.
What did you write?
“Watching the update process made it clear that Microsoft supplied the OEM with Windows XP SP1”
They did?
Why don’t you ask the OEM what build they got from Microsoft?
Moreover, go back and check the OS builds installed on UMPCs you have received over the past year.
Then rewrite the post, squarely excoriating the OEM for placing a system with an old OS build in the channel.
John, I handle a lot of new systems and this experience is far from the exception. Like I said in the article, I don’t care who’s at fault. The fact of the matter is that MS has created a system, an ecosystem if you will, that allows this sort of thing to happen.
I don’t care what build the OEM got from MS. I just want my experience to be better and if MS is content to let this sort of thing happen ALL THE TIME then they’d better be prepared to bear the brunt of my anger over it. Period.
This happens with Vista too BTW as witnessed by what I recently wrote about a brand-new Sony system I reviewed:
“That fun came at a price when I first got the VAIO P and the sad fact is it doesn’t need to be this way. The VAIO P is running Windows Vista Home Premium so I had to go through that whole new computer with the Vista process, which is always aggravating. You know what I mean, first there is the initial Windows Update you have to do to bring the imaged OS up to the current level. This involved 50+ updates, which took a good while. Once that was done things got better as I settled down to the fun stuff.
That fun only lasted until the next day when I fired up the Sony in the morning and found additional updates that needed to be installed. Off I went again and finally was able to play when done. The third day with the VAIO P I fired up the computer (from sleep) only to find there were 72 updates that needed to be applied! This iterative process is frankly idiotic and completely ruins the new computer euphoria that should be rampant. This huge update took two full hours to complete which derailed my plans for that day with the Sony. Why the hell is this necessary? There is no scenario I can imagine that requires Vista to do major updates three days in a row. It was a blatant reminder of how important the out-of-box experience is and how Windows still fails miserably at that. I sure hope Microsoft gets this fixed in Windows 7.”
This happens far too frequently and MS is the only entity that can bear responsibility for it and take whatever actions are needed to keep this from happening. That’s my take on it anyway.
… that’s always the beginning of the illness of MS systems: a blown up, badly maintained registry from the beginning, lots of corpses of installs filling up the hard disk, last not least a cluttered compartment of split up files ….. and the system becomes slower, bulkier, faulty
Every month or two at work I am faced with building a new image to either update/replace an existing image or to create a new one for a new hardware model.
When I do this, I install Windows XP with SP2 slipstreamed (since this is what OEM’s ship with the system, although as a tech-savvy user I keep a disc with SP3 slipstreamed for my own use). I already have SP3 downloaded on a flash drive along with the IE7 (and now IE8) and Windows Media Player 11 installers. I install SP3 first, then WMP11, and IE7/8 so that there are exactly 2 reboots required. I also install .NET Framework 3.5, because it includes ALL of the other .NET Framework packs automatically.
It doesn’t require a reboot as long as you’re not multitasking during the install and install it using the obscenely large standalone installer. So once it’s done, I go straight to Windows Update and run a Custom install and pretty much “Select All” and then uncheck any specific optional updates I don’t want (right now, I exclude Windows Live Essentials and Office Live to install separately). Reboot, run Windows Update once more for any follow-up updates.
This minimizes download times and reboots.
That said, you’re right that it’s an obscenely ridiculous process. Why can’t they release monthly update packs that allow the user to customize the components? Better still if every 4-6 months they release cumulative update packs! But I’ve suggested this on various forums for at least 5-6 years now, and it’s never happened.
My ideal experience:
Install SP3
Install Internet Pack (IE8 + Updates)
Install Multimedia Pack (WMP11 + Updates)
Install Cumulative Roll-Up Pack (Bundles ALL released critical/important/high priority updates since SP3)
(Optional) Install “Optional Updates” from Windows Updates (including Windows Live, Office Live, etc)
And yes, the OEM’s should be shipping system recovery images that include updates up to the month prior to shipping (to compensate timing and testing needs).
I agree that the OEM should get some of the blame, but give me a break, MS install process stinks. I can load Ubuntu and several other off the shelf Linux distros including the most recent updates and a host of programs in less than 15 minutes. Recently I had to load XP on a system so I could run ITunes for my iphone and it took me several hours. All I had available for Linux was an old Ubuntu distro and even upgrading everything including Open office and Firefox took me less than 12 minutes.
It’s time again for Microsoft to take a page from Linux, Ubuntu will download what I need and rarely force be to reboot, and if I do it will only be once. Yes that is correct Microsoft. ONCE!!!
This is where if I purcahse a Viliv S5 I would be tempted to download a copy of XP sp3 from a torrent site (not illegal as I own the XP copy) it would be easier and slipstream everything I need plus more.
Sad when I can rely on the hackers more then the actual company.
As the saying goes – you get what you pay for. $599 for the S5 with XP SP1??? Maybe they didn’t want to charge US buyers $699 for the updated version…
Seriously though, I think James you need to consider that your unit is a preliminary REVIEW unit, and as such, may not contain the software or OS image with which the manufacturer intends to supply their RETAIL units. If I were you I might forward a question back to Viliv about your issue, but my gut feeling says they’ll just give you the same response as I have: the hardware you received is a review unit only.
That being said, I don’t see why there is any distinction between an EVAL unit vs. a RETAIL unit. Any reputable manufacturer should be able to provide for review a unit identical to what is being marketed and sold to the end consumer. Did Viliv short change you here? It’s possible.
This is also EXACTLY the reason why I never review loaner, demo, evaluation or early prototype units – every hardware you see mentioned on my blog is the retail unit, same as what you would buy in store, with full warranty. The last thing you want to read is a tainted or misleading review because the stuff you see getting all the hype (or in this case negativity) ain’t exactly the same as what they’re actually selling in stores and having folks take home.
Your take on the issue, while somewhat valid, still gives the actual culprits a pass, IMO.
A really undeserved pass!
That sort of control by Microsoft lead to the antitrust problems they have paid dearly for, and for the continuing oversight and nonsense from the drones at the EU even as of today.
Simply put, Microsoft does not have that sort of control over OEMs anymore, and in the foreseeable future, leastways as far as Windows, in any form is concerned.
If they tried to do so, they would be descended on by lawyers from all sides.
Since that is the case, and a legal fact, then we cannot offload OOBE angst at Microsoft, but at the companies that send us the products that arrive dated.
In this case, the Viliv guys and their entire ecosystem, including their PR company.
My takeaway from this: while the Viliv product may be nice, the company is SO NOT ready for prime time, if what they send out, in April of 2009, is a product running Windows XP SP1!
For goodness sakes, that is the build they send out for review?
I understand that the anti-trust situation MS faces causes some unfortunate situations but again, I don’t care. They should still be able to require SP3 of a product be shipped months (or years) after it is released rather than SP1 for example. That’s just good business.
Again this is not an isolated case. I have seen this over and over again from several different OEMs so this is not about Viliv, it’s about how broken the entire system is.
Far be it from me to defend Microsoft, but this is not Microsoft’s fault. The OEM needs to put SP2 or SP3 on the device. Linux isn’t good here either unless you know what your doing enough to do a respin. If I installed Ubuntu 8.10, I would have to load every update since it came out 6 month ago.
I agree totally so since it’s MS’ product they should have processes in place that makes sure this is what happens. No one else can police the Windows ecosystem other than MS.
There are obviously some problems with windows update for XP. Clearly it is not completely efficient.
But why should they bother with the XP update system? Vista has been around for 2 years. XP deserves security updates but nothing more.
If you have a new XP system because your hardware isn’t good enough to run software that 2-year old computers run perfectly well, you shouldn’t be complaining. People who buy this system are looking for basic functionality for cheap and updates taking a few hours and restarts doesn’t change that. If you are not in this class of user you’ve made a mistake with your purchase.
If you want to evaluate software from any company you should use their latest software. You should change your title to reflect the fact that you are using old software.
Not relevant, MS is happy to continue to license XP to users. Doesn’t matter how old it is. The reason that consumers (with their wallets) are forcing MS to continue to license XP is because Vista doesn’t run well on netbook-like devices. Doesn’t matter that Vista is the latest and greatest, it won’t handle the huge market segment the netbook defines.
From my hands-on experience, Windows 7, unreleased, handles this hardware fine so the “old equipment” argument is not valid. The REAL latest and greatest handles it just fine.
All of this digresses from the issue discussed here which is how bad the OOBE Windows continually provides. Finger pointing aside it’s abysmal.
It may be abysmal but you should test this with Vista and, for the forward-looking, Win 7. XP is many years old. Just because it’s possible to buy doens’t mean it’s current; MS even had to be forced to sell it.
Everyone knows that MS is not not going to update the OS significantly apart from security updates and MS is quite clear about that I think. You can’t expect MS to put on a new update system for an old OS.
The problem is the ecosystem that is in place that allows this type of thing to happen. This is not, I repeat, an isolated case. This is the norm. I understand about the anti-trust situation but frankly that’s not my problem nor should it be. MS needs to have processes in place to insure this doesn’t happen. Period.
This Viliv unit was a factory sealed unit, nothing special. As I’ve said repeatedly, this is not an isolated case, I see this all the time.
Sorry James, but the statements of the “this is the norm” kind are simply untrue. You are not the only one who gets lots of machines going through his hands – my colleagues evaluate wide variety of computers and this is most certainly not the norm.
I believe this is up to the OEM – if they choose to run with an older version who is to stop them? That is not necessarily a wrong approach either, sadly there are software solutions out there that will not work with more recent versions of software. And one can (as you could) choose not to install all the updates – if you spend your day in the browser you can certainly get by without the .NET framework 3.5 for example.
Microsoft does provide the OS in any released version. Microsoft does not force the OEMs to choose a particular version, that is true. If they did, I fear that bloggers would be the first one to cry havoc.
I understand what you’re saying and yes, MS should allow partners to install older versions of the OS if it’s needed to support their software. Different rules should apply for consumer products, however, there is never a good reason to put older versions on products to be sold at market.
Just noticed it’s a handheld not a netbook. That’s a class where Vista might be difficult; probably waiting for Windows 7 is best for this category of computer.
James, my question here is, after all these updates, is the Viliv still as fast? Is the “ON” from sleep still ~2 seconds? Can you still watch videos? … Basically has the experience changed on the Viliv?
Has not changed, still good.
while i agree that this is clearly the OEM’s fault for not updating their system with the newest patches, i think there’s another important viewpoint here:
the irrational average user, Joe Sixpack.
do you think Joe cares about OEMs or the windows ecosystem? assuming Joe is even able to figure out that he should update windows, who is he going to blame?
the answer is that he will blame MS. Joe sixpack doesn’t think about computers being HP, Lenovo, Dell, or whatnot. Joe sees only a “windows computer.” who does he blame? MS and windows.
MS and windows take the blame for everything. good or bad, that’s how it is. it would be wise for them to step up and ensure or enforce a better user experience, for the sake of their own reputation and their sales.
readers of this blog can see that, in this case, the OEM is at fault–but none of us are Joe Sixpack, average user.
Ok so I haven’t read all the comments so someone might have already covered this. You receive a lot of Dynamism hardware. Is it possible they wiped the drive with its Korean Windows XP and installed an English copy? I would like to hear from Dynamism to hear how they handle the licensing.
This unit was shipped direct from Viliv in Korea. Please note that this was by no means the only time I’ve seen this. I am speaking in general, not specifically to this case.
I worked for Circuit City in 2005 and we installed all kinds of machines from cheap e-machines to high end Sony machines. All of them shipped with SP2.
I have a similar rant with MS.
They put a 1 day embargo on autoupdates!!??
If you do not believe me, then on the
morning of May 12, check for updates via IE,
but don’t download them. Keep checking
the status by running IE update manually.
You will see that the autoupdate gets
downloaded/installed on May 13.
And, it makes no difference when during
the day you have specified to autoupdate.
And it makes no difference if you reboot
every hour.
Did I miss a memo?
You are absolutely right. Six months after switching to Macs for our business, I had to update a relative’s PC. What a nightmare! Several hours of teeth-grinding, jargon-deciphering, multiple-iteration frustration. When finished, I had to play with the Mac just to calm down!
I am not a “geek” like most of those commenting on this but as a “regular” person, the initialization process is extremely frustrating. It would be great if MS (or other OS manufacturers) would provide a stripped down “starter package” with a new system. The starter package would provide just enough resources to get on the MS or the OEM’s web site to download the latest greatest. At that point the site would recognize our hardware and download only the required resources. As the system is being updated, it would be wonderful if the site would let the user know which new pieces of software were essential, leaving all the crapware off. Additionally, it would be wonderful for MS to provide software that protects us from all the evil people who are trying to cripple us with worms, viruses, etc.. This is 2009 afterall and having to deal with these kinds of issues should have been made history years ago.
Yes. You shouldn’t have to go to a manufacturer’s site to download drivers; they should all be on windows update. I don’t know if this is something Microsoft can fix or just needs the hardware makers to use the windows update system.
I simply do not bother with .net frame work. It takes up huge amount of space. And for some reason its slower to download .net files.
.net, java they are garbage. I also avoid direct-x plugin if i can help it. If a crappy website has to resort to java to offer extra functionality in this days of age, I simply find a better website.
1, Microsoft are busily bashing Apple whilst trying to (lamely) push Windoze…
2. Microsoft do NOT make hardware – they are pushing software?
3. The educated assumes MS have a record/control of OEM licenses..?
If MS want to reinforce points 1-2 and 3 is an accurate assumption, then they MUST ensure that their OEMs have the latest builds, updates? Kevin has a valid point, I hope MS gets it? If they don’t then maybe point 3 is lacking? Perhaps in their haste to control the world and the departure of Bill, some minor points were overlooked?
Microsoft is pathetic. I’ve used Windows computers for years. I’m jumping ship to Apple as soon as I can afford to, even though I’ll have to repurchase much of my imaging software. I’m sick to death of registry corruptions, peripherals becoming suddenly invisible, constant update prompts, and the endless crashes, freezes and reboots.
Even their latest Vista and SP upgrades are absolute garbage.
MS Windows defenders are either blind, or professional computer programmers who have the time to deal with bug-fixing rather than productivity. I need to work, not fart around debugging their so-called operating system.
Its crazy, there are tons of users that have no problems. It sounds like there is a group that knows how to use it and then there is another group.
I do hate all the update prompts, so I just set it to check every two weeks.
I don’t see how folk can be having such problems. None of my pcs has had registry corruption but maybe because that’s a result of not installing every piece of rubbish software in the world.
I let my pcs auto update but I’ve learned from experience to let my iMac wait for a while before applying the frequent updates as they seem to cause problems when first released – it’s best to wait for rev.2 !
Well the OEMs are being shafted here – they’re the ones being overcharged for a product they don’t really care about. Why should they spend even more money trying to get it to work whilst M$ gets all the profits? Even at $5 a pop XP would essentially be 100% profit at this point. What margins are manufacturers working on?
And as a customer (or should I say, `consumer’ – a pejorative term implying that all you do is consume and not produce), if you’re going to put up with this abuse you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself.
I just laugh at that guy who has `streamlined’ is `image’ install to only 5 or so steps (only once a month!). That’s really a joke right?
… Right?
I guess its all how you look at it. I see it as an OEM that doesn’t care about its product enough to spend a few hours making sure their product is the best experience out of the box it can be.
When should businesses start handing out their product for free?