Administrator sign-on

There is nothing wrong with Norton that a good dose of FDISK won't solve.



Seriously, a lot of home users soldier-on with it simply because it (and a
ton of other foisted software) was preinstalled, and thus they've never seen
the performance their computer is actually capable of.

It's time a stop was put to these forced-sales practices. If I buy a car I
don't expect to be forced to sign-up with a specified insurance broker, or
else to have to strip the car's instrument-panel down and rebuild it to stop
the nag-messages for Acme Insurance, Inc. appearing on the dash every two
miles.

What is worse about the PC software forced-sales situation is that the
foisted items are almost always of poor quality, with even the free
alternatives being better products. Perhaps this is not so surprising, after
all it's a captive market, and one in which they buyer has no opportunity to
do a quality comparison.

I suspect that in part, the Vista debacle was down-to foisted software.
While Vista's performance is not brilliant, it is acceptable for most
purposes with a clean install. But, put a ton of junkware onto it and it
totally crawls. The user then formats and installs XP, which -having no
junkware- flies. Vista gets the blame of course, and gets badmouthed across
every forum on the planet even if it's not entirely responsible for the poor
performance. Thus, if Microsoft had taken the bull by the horns and banned
preinstallation of trial software, who knows, Vista might not have flopped
they way it did.

Anyway, my thoughts for tonight. Purely an opinion, of course.

"Daave" wrote:

> Personally, I hate Norton. Although I understand the lastest version
> isn't necessarily too resource-hungry, I still wouldn't recommend it
> from past experience and knowing how intrusive it can be. But like you
> said, if someone's happy with it, they're happy.

"Anteaus" <Anteaus.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:81EFFFA4-E1E6-4FD1-ACDD-132EC55F7849@microsoft.com...
> There is nothing wrong with Norton that a good dose of FDISK won't solve.
>
>
>
> Seriously, a lot of home users soldier-on with it simply because it (and a
> ton of other foisted software) was preinstalled, and thus they've never
> seen
> the performance their computer is actually capable of.
>
> It's time a stop was put to these forced-sales practices. If I buy a car I
> don't expect to be forced to sign-up with a specified insurance broker, or
> else to have to strip the car's instrument-panel down and rebuild it to
> stop
> the nag-messages for Acme Insurance, Inc. appearing on the dash every two
> miles.
>
> What is worse about the PC software forced-sales situation is that the
> foisted items are almost always of poor quality, with even the free
> alternatives being better products. Perhaps this is not so surprising,
> after
> all it's a captive market, and one in which they buyer has no opportunity
> to
> do a quality comparison.
>
> I suspect that in part, the Vista debacle was down-to foisted software.
> While Vista's performance is not brilliant, it is acceptable for most
> purposes with a clean install. But, put a ton of junkware onto it and it
> totally crawls. The user then formats and installs XP, which -having no
> junkware- flies. Vista gets the blame of course, and gets badmouthed
> across
> every forum on the planet even if it's not entirely responsible for the
> poor
> performance. Thus, if Microsoft had taken the bull by the horns and banned
> preinstallation of trial software, who knows, Vista might not have flopped
> they way it did.
>
> Anyway, my thoughts for tonight. Purely an opinion, of course.
>
> "Daave" wrote:
>

I have clean installed Vista without the junkware. I can tell you thay
Vista still crawls relative to XP. It's also a resource hog and heavyweight
applications just won't run properly under it because they cannot get the
resources that they require.