Reader Comments

I couldn't agree more! The first thing that I do when I get a new PC is remove all the "craplets" that are on it. Most of them are so bloated, un-necessary or cut-down that they are of very little use anyway. If only there was a way to stop them from being pre-installed. How about Microsoft do a Dell, sell PC's on-line? Then they can do what they want.

But I thought "closed systems" were bad? At least Microsoft learned its lesson (albeit too late) with the Zune. The "Microsoft Ecosystem" is a mess.

Ugh. Paul: This news is nearly a week old. It was reported last Wednesday AND it was CBC not CBS: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/10/tech-microsoft.html Get it straight man.

this is a good move. does anybody remember that Dell had partnered with MyWay, makers of the infamous MyWay Search Assistant spyware/adware toolbar awhile back? nice! start up your PC for the first time and already a spyware/advertising company has their greasy fingerprints all over your computer. (that's a play on Dell's new advertising campaign btw) XP

Good move. I've seen some positive steps, with Dell actually giving you the choice of whether some software should be installed or not. Since I deal with mainly business class PC's, this is also a boon, but not because the crapware is bad. Most of the time the crapware does serve some purpose. But with more of this stuff built in to Vista already, the need for much of this crapware goes away. lotsa, what are talking about with a closed system? This is not closed, since the 3rd party developers can link in to do what they need to do. Nothing closed about this.

lotsa, what have you been smoking, man?

I would pay more to get a Dell or HP PC without the crapware pre-installed and with an installation disk which I presumably paid for and did not get. Also I would like all my hard disk without some of it partitioned to make doofus support easier.

I agree with you dj. They should start a new PC department ans sell it online. They would make a lot of money...

@lotsa: "But I thought "closed systems" were bad?" I've always maintained the one benefit Apple has is they control everything from start to finish. Very easy to make an OS when you don't need to worry about thousands of hardware components you have no control over.

"I agree with you dj. They should start a new PC department ans sell it online. They would make a lot of money..." Then they would be just like Apple. You guys don't want that now, do you?

@sticknick I certainly don't! If MS starts doing what Apple is doing with their completely closed systems, I will move to Linux. Part of what makes Windows great is that you can assemble different components to make a computer, and Windows will run just fine.

These days you just never know what crap the OEM "support" apps and/or the third-party crapware have set up. Uninstalling crapware isn't enough to be assured it's gone. Reinstalling Windows yourself (or through a computer-literate family member) is the only way. Rules when buying a Windows PC from an OEM: 1. Never buy a Windows PC from an OEM that refuses to include a Windows CD. I don't care how much you like the PC/bundle. No CD, no sale. 2. After you purchase the Windows PC, make sure you have all the drivers for the machine handy (a driver CD, downloads from the OEM's site, etc) and then repartition and install Windows from the CD. (Repartitioning kills off little 30MB OEM partitions for EULAs and hidden crap.) Or just buy a Mac and drag any unwanted apps to the trash before running them for the first time.

Well this is an unequivocally good move by Microsoft. No arguing that. Although I don't think the Vista logo needed to be killed from the boot screen. All that really needs to go is the endless copyright and TM notices and the information dump from the BIOS. The Windows logo should show up as soon as the screen comes alive. A small progress bar should fill up as the boot proceeds and when it hits full, the desktop should be 100% ready to go. The loading should be completely done. In my opinion, even Apple doesn't do this quite right because they dump you to the desktop while stuff is still loading. They are, obviously, far ahead in terms of not showing useless info during boot.

@bdk: A lot of newer systems do simply show a logo (normally the OEM & the motherboard manufacturer) with a status bar and a message for the appropriate keystroke to access messages or the BIOS. However I do agree that the boot-up process could be cleaned up even more.

"In my opinion, even Apple doesn't do this quite right because they dump you to the desktop while stuff is still loading." you should know that this is something that Microsoft started tinkering with in Windows ME. in comparison, Windows 98 loads much more before the desktop is available. they decided that for quicker access to applications, they moved the Explorer shell ahead in priority in Windows ME so that you could launch applications sooner (albeit not faster). good or bad - you decide. one of the most noticeable changes in Windows ME is the TCP/IP stack. Windows 98 loads that during the splash screen. Windows ME's TCP/IP stack loads after Explorer, and automatic private-IP detection happens much quicker (but not nearly as quick as in XP). despite what upgraders would say, a properly installed Windows ME installation WILL run faster than Windows 98[SE], but then who really upgrades O/S's anyway? this is especially true on systems with more than 64MB of RAM. many systems do have rapid BIOS's though that start the boot process within 1 or 2 seconds. tip: to decrease boot time a couple seconds, boot directly off your hard drive, and only use your F8/F12 key (whichever one your system uses) to choose other devices when the need arises rather than defaulting to CD/Floppy boot. how many times do you really boot off a CD or Floppy anyway? oh, and Microsoft partnering [and even competing] with different companies is good for the consumer. choice and competition are what drive the channel and the market and ultimately lowers prices. it's just another thing that Apple and it's customer-base loses out on. too bad! XP

Actually, removing the boot screen picture has nothing to do with making the boot process faster. From what I heard, they scrapped it because boot screens are limited in how many colors they can use (because at that point, graphics drivers haven't been loaded yet), thus the screen would have low visual quality. They decided, for better or worse, that a black screen with a simple progress bar is better than a screen with a dithered, low-color Windows logo.

@bdk Have you used Vista RTM? There is hardly any "TM" or "(C)" signs. MS took them out. In fact, I dare you to install Vista RTM via Bootcamp and try it out for a month. Don't use Parallels, as the Aero interface will not work. I think you might be surprised. Vista RTM is a *lot* faster than the betas. You can install Vista legally without a product key, and try it out free for the 30-day activation period. Count the "TM" and (C) signs(or lack thereof). Also, don't wait for the desktop to load, start using it right away.

This article....well wow, old news and useless. Removing the boot screen doesn't accomplish zip in load time. Partners drive the market: Lol.....well that really is true so will somebody clue Microsoft in???? It's like piracy, which is a wash for Microsoft because it means one less Linux on the desktop; even if they lost a couple hundred. In the end, they better get the crap off the Vista loaded pcs.........Vista is bad enough on its own and the over rated Office 2007 running along side (cute and pretty as it is) won't help.

"In the end, they better get the crap off the Vista loaded pcs.........Vista is bad enough on its own and the over rated Office 2007 running along side (cute and pretty as it is) won't help." Have you tried Vista, treeorc? Or are you just venting what you have heard? Have you tried Office 2007? If so, I _highly_ doubt you would be saying such a statement. As a power user of both, I can say that Vista is thousands of lightyears ahead of XP in every way. After using Office 2007 since _Beta1_, I am not going back. The incredible ease of use, the amazing development tools (the ease of customizing the Ribbon is _stunning_), and the updated graphics engine makes it a must-have. About the so-called issue of Vista hogging the memory, how many times do I have to clear up the FUD? Vista itself does not require that much memory; it is simply loading your most commonly used programs in memory so that they will load faster. By using more memory, Vista is actually *faster* than if it used less memory. Treeorc, you can download and install Vista legally without a product key for 30 days. Try it out before you criticize it.

I've got Beta 2 TR office and IMO it's the only office suite that beats out 2003Pro. I think MS's focus is more on the 'craplet' side and not as much the bundleware. For example, some places use the bundled motherboard software as included when you buy a PC. I sincerely doubt Intel's TAT software is on MS's hitlist. But the major problem are those little gui-hell 'things' like eudora-email and BS that was written as a what-not-to-do example in a highschool programming class. Programs like these, that people have en-masse all over their PC are what cause the stigma that windows and x86 is a slow decrepit architecture. If Vista can enforce software quality standards on 3rd party developers, more power to them. I'm sorry Tommy Codesalot, you can't scream that MS is exploiting its monopoly to crush your software house if your alarm clock uses 100% cpu for 35 seconds just to initialize the program, then has 20% usage in constant polling.

Vista RTM is a phenomenal OS, I'll defiantly be Boot Camping this in the time being until I build a new PC. I'll be waiting a few years to build a new PC though. I figure once the cost comes down for DirectX 10 hardware and we see more games out there on the market (Crysis and Alan Wake are the two ones I'm looking at currently.)

remember awhile back you guys were complaining that Expression Web wasn't available to MSDN or TechNet subscribers? is that still true? cuz i just got word that the January Action Pack is including 10 licenses of it! https://partner.microsoft.com/40013779 something that's curiously missing is Exchange 2007, but there have been typos before.... also curiously, there is no more OEM demonstration copies available for separate order anymore. apparently they have phased that part of the program out. it's clear that Microsoft want's a clean install of Windows but would rather have OEM's only include download links via the Welcome Center, as they've stated time-and-time-again on their own website. they've done the same with Windows Live services - only including download links to Windows Live Mail Desktop, and Windows Live Messenger, rather than bundling them. they would rather leave the decision up to the end-user since Microsoft receives a lot of unwarranted grief from uninformed end-users who complain directly to them that a bunch of garbage 3rd-party apps are bundled with the O/S when it's really just the fault of the OEM. XP

@Reflections Ya, I will be building a new PC later this year, when both quad-core and DX 10 cards come down a bit in price. The DX 10 games look *incredible.* I agree with you about Vista 100%!

watch for Core 2 Quad's (mainstream quad-cores), and newer Core 2 Duo's with faster FSB's in the new year. Core 2 Extreme's will also drop in price, and Intel is also hinting at an 8-core Extreme chip that may see the light of day before the end of next year. by that time, expect the platform to stray from Socket 775 though. also expect an Intel-made SLI32X-compatible chipset by the end of this year. NVIDIA has announced that DirectX10 mainstream and budget parts will be widely available on cards before the end of March. on a side note, another big-time developer has panned Sony for developer support. Gabe Newell, of Valve Software, is another that has voiced his complete disapproval of Sony's PS3. tinyurl.com/yg4yr3 add him to the list that already includes John Carmack, and we see a continually-building developer relations nightmare for Sony. XP

MS simply wants to CONTROL everything. So naturally, since vendors, and customers, wants freedom of choice, and that's antithetical to monopolistic thinking, MS must twist the issues to their benefit. What better way than to claim "craplets" somehow muck up their "crapware" ? People are friggin' blind...

Whoa! Where'd this guy (Joe789) come from? He's obviously never looked at a Gateway.

"PC makers are typically paid a per-PC fee by application makers eager to place their wares in front of as many potential customers as possible" Isn't this how Microsoft used to license the hardware builders - they had to pay Microsoft a fee per computer sold, whether it had Windows on it or not?

when I get a computer, I reformat the hard drive, remove the extra partitions, and install Windows from scratch. Dell included a trial version of Norton Ghost, complete with a 20GB partition. I see that as 20GB of wasted space.

Nate: I took your challenge, but I used Paul's screenshots of the RTM. I stopped counting TM and C symbols when I got to 80. Then I went to Microsoft's website and stopped counting when I got to 30. It took me about 3 minutes to find 30 useless symbols strewn after every logo and title. I do, however, grant that the state of things is better than it ever has been before in Windows. Still, that's not saying much.

ummm Nate, Yeah, I have been right on top of Vista and Office 2007 so don't assume anything. Also, I never stated anything about memory here so I am not sure what flavor your puff is. As for Vista in general, whether good or bad depending on the perception, I don't care for it and initially I liked Office 2007. In fact I am exploring Office 2007 at this time and starting with Outlook 2007 which is a real dud. If you want details on what I have found just say so and I'll spill the unfortunate beans. But the bottom line is that I stand by my previous statements that I can do anything Vista does with less hardware, less memory, and less expense. Yes, I can't play a few games unless I use WINE or some other emulator, but I could care less. I produce both video and music of a much higher quality using Linux. That's just the way it is......I don't need the proprietary crap from Apple or Microsoft to function, nor the over expensive and over bloated software from vendors who support Microsoft and/or Apple......and suddenly, I have a more user friendly and more secure system....it's called Linux.....like it or not.....but please note Nate, that I never have once mentioned the memory issue you speak of...perhaps some other ranter like myself around here?

"they had to pay Microsoft a fee per computer sold, whether it had Windows on it or not?" no that is not so! "Direct OEM's" (as Microsoft calls the big PC makers ie. Dell, HP, etc) pay Microsoft a contract price for a minimum order of XXXX amount of licenses for a specified timeframe (usually per month or per annual quarter). Direct OEM's do not get per-license media/discs with their contract and have to manufacture their own (often OEM's will use recovery discs or hard drive images for ease of image reployment). purchase amounts have to be forecast ahead of time as is stated in each contract. these contracts are often done on a case-by-case basis that are determined by many factors including the OEM's previous history with Microsoft. the terms are not altogether that much different between OEM's, though, and are based mainly on volume of sales. --extrapolated from many sources of information about Direct OEM's via the Microsoft OEM System Builder website. if, however, an OEM starts a contract with Microsoft stating that they will build systems only on Microsoft's platforms, and they decide to start including other platforms, then YES it is a breach of contract and Microsoft can take actions against the company including reevaluating contractual obligations from both sides. in the Volume Licensing realm of things, Microsoft has an option called "Company-Wide" which includes the obligation for a company to standardize on Microsoft platform software ie. Windows, Office, Windows Server, etc. there are purchase discounts and benefits to this option, but it IS only an option and a business wishing to take advantage of those benefits has to agree to standardize the use of Microsoft platform software in their organization. --from Microsoft Product Licensing 101 and the Microsoft Licensing Handbook in other words, just ask a Microsoft Partner. XP

"they had to pay Microsoft a fee per computer sold, whether it had Windows on it or not?" no that is not so! "Direct OEM's" (as Microsoft calls the big PC makers ie. Dell, HP, etc) pay Microsoft a contract price for a minimum order of XXXX amount of licenses for a specified timeframe (usually per month or per annual quarter). Direct OEM's do not get per-license media/discs with their contract and have to manufacture their own (often OEM's will use recovery discs or hard drive images for ease of image reployment). purchase amounts have to be forecast ahead of time as is stated in each contract. these contracts are often done on a case-by-case basis that are determined by many factors including the OEM's previous history with Microsoft. the terms are not altogether that much different between OEM's, though, and are based mainly on volume of sales. --extrapolated from many sources of information about Direct OEM's via the Microsoft OEM System Builder website. if, however, an OEM starts a contract with Microsoft stating that they will build systems only on Microsoft's platforms, and they decide to start including other platforms, then YES it is a breach of contract and Microsoft can take actions against the company including reevaluating contractual obligations from both sides. in the Volume Licensing realm of things, Microsoft has an option called "Company-Wide" which includes the obligation for a company to standardize on Microsoft platform software ie. Windows, Office, Windows Server, etc. there are purchase discounts and benefits to this option, but it IS only an option and a business wishing to take advantage of those benefits has to agree to standardize the use of Microsoft platform software in their organization. --from Microsoft Product Licensing 101 and the Microsoft Licensing Handbook in other words, just ask a Microsoft Partner. XP

um...."reployment" = redeployment typing with "Thumbs of Fury" on a Pocket PC sometimes has its disadvantages. XP

Wirth's law: Software is decelerating faster than hardware is accelerating. And Vista is the OS which proofs that just fine...

"Software is decelerating" as is the average IQ of Mackie's XP

yep, buy the hardware just so you can find your "ultimate backward pace".... it's a no brainer.... Vista is a dud.....I'd fell better if they'd have just called it XP SP3.....even then it is a clunker.....the worst offering from Microsoft since Window ME... ugh....

actually i had better luck with Windows ME than with Windows 98[SE], but then i knew how to properly set it up. the biggest problem people faced with Windows ME are caused by either a) when they upgraded from 98, or b) they didn't get WDM drivers for hardware and used Windows 95/98 VxD drivers. Windows ME was a very fast switch from the 9x line into the driver world that Windows 2000 introduced at the time, and for many users with hardware vendors slow to adopt the new driver model, they ended up being left in the dumpster. no, real OEM's were picking up Windows ME as soon as it was released, to replace Windows 98SE. it was the not the OEM's that were crying foul, but upgraders and self-installers that found troubles because, although they didn't know it at the time, their hardware components just didn't get the support for the new OS that they deserved. many consumer hardware vendors didn't write drivers for Windows 2000 because they felt that support wasn't warranted for a business OS, so that translated into MIA WDM's drivers, and some hardware that never even saw compatibility from 9x to XP for the consumer. when i was building computers at the time, the Windows Hardware Compatibility List became a wealth of information for getting incompatibilities sorted out. blame hardware vendors for not supporting the first 32-bit drivers on the consumer side of Windows. XP