Windows Return Policy exploit

[Potters Son]

Well, as bad as it sounds, I was thinking of taking up Microsoft on their offer to buy Windows 7 at their educational discount of 30 bucks. (Yeah, I know, but I need something that runs Google Sketchup. Wine just doesn't cut it for my Intel Integrated Graphics.)

I was glancing over the Terms and Conditions (http://windows7.digitalriver.com/DRHM/servlet/ControllerServlet?SiteID=mswpus&Action=ContentTheme&pbPage=Terms&ThemeID=8245600), when I found this passage (emphasis added):


7.1 Except as set out above or under any applicable Returns Policy and subject to any rights you have under applicable law that cannot be excluded or limited by these Conditions:

7.1.1 we shall not be liable and you shall not be entitled to reject Products or Services, except for:

. . .

(b) defects in Products (not being defects caused by any act, neglect or default on your part) notified in writing to us within 30 days of receipt of the Products.


Now, why didn't I do this with Vista? :lolflag:

[Dullstar]

I can imagine the letters:

Microsoft:

My product is defective. It crashed. Over and over again. And I got a virus... only by opening IE. This has occurred on several computers, with different copies of Windows.

[jthomsonmain]

I can imagine the letters:

Microsoft:

My product is defective. It crashed. Over and over again. And I got a virus... only by opening IE. This has occurred on several computers, with different copies of Windows.

Microsoft Tech: "Have you tried upgrading to the latest copy of Windows? This sounds more like a hardware issue than an issue with our OS, Your computer manufacturer can provide you with help in regards to this issue!"
Computer Manufacturer: "This sounds like a Windows Issue, you may want to contact Microsoft"
<Shoots Self>

](*,)

[Dullstar]

Microsoft has lame tech support!

USER: Windows crashed!

M$: Which one are you looking for?
Windows Vista rules.
Why Windows is better than Mac.
Why the GPL sucks.
Why if IE loses marketshare, it is worse than war.
Donate 2,000 dollars now for a free copy of Microsoft Word!

Only slightly exaggerated...

[ade234uk]

When I bought this laptop, it had Vista on it. The laptop ran like crap and I mean crap. I tried to burn some restore disks using the ACER software provided before installing Ubuntu, and it messed up 3 disks. I wasted about 2 hours. In the end I lost my rag, gave up and just installed Ubuntu over the whole lot.

Last week I noticed this new laptop acting up, so I need to send it back. I thought I better install Vista back on the machine because these manufacturers will use any excuse not to have to repair a machine.

I emailed ACER in the US and they want $19.99 for a set of restore disks, fair enough I thought. However I was told that I need to purchase them from ACER in the UK. I emailed them and they want £48.88 for a set of restore disks. Why the difference I asked? No one can answer this question.

I agree its my fault for not burning these off, however since I have already paid for a crappy Microsoft licence I should get these disks at heavily reduced rate. It's the principle of the matter, and I understand now why I moved to Ubuntu full time on my home machine in the first place.

Its just pay pay with Microsoft. Your correct, if a product is unsatisfactory you should be able to get your money back. However this would mean sending the laptop because these manufacturers will probably not refund you otherwise. This is where there needs to be some clarification. These manufacturers need to start offering their machines without an OS. I don't think it is correct that you are forced to buy the laptop with Windows already installed. We should have the choice. There is anti competitive behaviour and the EU should sort this out.

[speedwell68]

When I bought this laptop, it had Vista on it. The laptop ran like crap and I mean crap. I tried to burn some restore disks using the ACER software provided before installing Ubuntu, and it messed up 3 disks. I wasted about 2 hours. In the end I lost my rag, gave up and just installed Ubuntu over the whole lot.

Last week I noticed this new laptop acting up, so I need to send it back. I thought I better install Vista back on the machine because these manufacturers will use any excuse not to have to repair a machine.

I emailed ACER in the US and they want $19.99 for a set of restore disks, fair enough I thought. However I was told that I need to purchase them from ACER in the UK. I emailed them and they want £48.88 for a set of restore disks. Why the difference I asked? No one can answer this question.

I agree its my fault for not burning these off, however since I have already paid for a crappy Microsoft licence I should get these disks at heavily reduced rate. It's the principle of the matter, and I understand now why I moved to Ubuntu full time on my home machine in the first place.

Its just pay pay with Microsoft. Your correct, if a product is unsatisfactory you should be able to get your money back. However this would mean sending the laptop because these manufacturers will probably not refund you otherwise. This is where there needs to be some clarification. These manufacturers need to start offering their machines without an OS. I don't think it is correct that you are forced to buy the laptop with Windows already installed. We should have the choice. There is anti competitive behaviour and the EU should sort this out.

If you read Acer's terms and conditions you aren't paying for the OS, they provide it free of charge and without warranty. I have twice tried to get them to provide a refund for two different Vista licences. Also when you are paying for a recovery disk you aren't paying Microsoft for the new licence, you are paying Acer.

[ade234uk]

Do you think I can just send my laptop back to ACER with Ubuntu on it for repair.

I do not want to pay 48.88 for a set of recovery disks.

[jacktar]

Take the hard disk out. Tell them you can't send it as it contains restricted/military data.

[MasterNetra]

When I bought this laptop, it had Vista on it. The laptop ran like crap and I mean crap. I tried to burn some restore disks using the ACER software provided before installing Ubuntu, and it messed up 3 disks. I wasted about 2 hours. In the end I lost my rag, gave up and just installed Ubuntu over the whole lot.

Last week I noticed this new laptop acting up, so I need to send it back. I thought I better install Vista back on the machine because these manufacturers will use any excuse not to have to repair a machine.

I emailed ACER in the US and they want $19.99 for a set of restore disks, fair enough I thought. However I was told that I need to purchase them from ACER in the UK. I emailed them and they want £48.88 for a set of restore disks. Why the difference I asked? No one can answer this question.

I agree its my fault for not burning these off, however since I have already paid for a crappy Microsoft licence I should get these disks at heavily reduced rate. It's the principle of the matter, and I understand now why I moved to Ubuntu full time on my home machine in the first place.

Its just pay pay with Microsoft. Your correct, if a product is unsatisfactory you should be able to get your money back. However this would mean sending the laptop because these manufacturers will probably not refund you otherwise. This is where there needs to be some clarification. These manufacturers need to start offering their machines without an OS. I don't think it is correct that you are forced to buy the laptop with Windows already installed. We should have the choice. There is anti competitive behaviour and the EU should sort this out.

Why the heck did you keep using Acer software to burn disks then when you could of gone to the web and found a decent free CD/DVD burning software. After all your not restricted to the pre-installed crap. I have a Dell and pretty much never use their default software.

[Grenage]

Take the hard disk out. Tell them you can't send it as it contains restricted/military data.

Wise words.

[gn2]

It might be difficult to get MS to accept that their OS has any defects, what many of us might consider defects, they probably consider to be "features".

[TyTiger]

It might be difficult to get MS to accept that their OS has any defects, what many of us might consider defects, they probably consider to be "features".

Lol so true..

Windows Refund day anyone? :D
http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/

[TyTiger]

Also, most Manufacturers do now offer a range of products with Linux on,
you just gotta look for it, don't expect to find them in PC-World because like every main stream computer shop M$ Has them eating crums of their boots.
Dell i know do it and they dotn make it as difficult to find as all the others, just Google the manufacturer with Linux in the phrase see what comes up.
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&l=en&cs=19

Also asus eeePC comes with a version of linux on despite MicroShafts efforts to threaten asus by revoking their OEM rights, (read that on linux magazine)

[Potters Son]

When I bought this laptop, it had Vista on it. The laptop ran like crap and I mean crap. I tried to burn some restore disks using the ACER software provided before installing Ubuntu, and it messed up 3 disks. I wasted about 2 hours. In the end I lost my rag, gave up and just installed Ubuntu over the whole lot.

Last week I noticed this new laptop acting up, so I need to send it back. I thought I better install Vista back on the machine because these manufacturers will use any excuse not to have to repair a machine.

I emailed ACER in the US and they want $19.99 for a set of restore disks, fair enough I thought. However I was told that I need to purchase them from ACER in the UK. I emailed them and they want £48.88 for a set of restore disks. Why the difference I asked? No one can answer this question.

I agree its my fault for not burning these off, however since I have already paid for a crappy Microsoft licence I should get these disks at heavily reduced rate. It's the principle of the matter, and I understand now why I moved to Ubuntu full time on my home machine in the first place.

Its just pay pay with Microsoft. Your correct, if a product is unsatisfactory you should be able to get your money back. However this would mean sending the laptop because these manufacturers will probably not refund you otherwise. This is where there needs to be some clarification. These manufacturers need to start offering their machines without an OS. I don't think it is correct that you are forced to buy the laptop with Windows already installed. We should have the choice. There is anti competitive behaviour and the EU should sort this out.

Actually, I found this loophole for purchasing Windows directly from Microsoft; I doubt that OEM versions have the same thing. Also, companies already offer computers without Windows -- only, they're only about $30 cheaper on average than their Windowed equivalents. IMO, it's worth it dto buy it with some version of Windows, if only because there are some programs which only run on Microsoft's OS.

[pookiebear]

Take the hard disk out. Tell them you can't send it as it contains restricted/military data.

bingo, I work at a shop. We do this all the time.

[NormanFLinux]

The computer manufacturer modifies Windows enough so its not good as it should be and the way to get back is to install a Windows upgrade from Microsoft - usually when the service pack is released.

[jthomsonmain]

TAKE YOUR HARD DRIVE OUT!!!! Sorry for the caps, but they will still repair your laptop no matter what is on your hard drive, its just the method they used that is bad. The computer manufacturer usually formats your hard drive and re-installs the base OS on it. I had an HP Laptop with a bad graphics card and got it back with Windows Vista. Just a warning to you. Not all computer manufacturers do this, but you never know! Keep your data safe!

[speedwell68]

I wouldn't take the drive out. I'd take a backup of your data and then format it and send it back blank and let them sort it from there.