Bought Vista Ultimate - big mistake!

Richard Dower

Pete, see here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055048594

projectmayhem

djmarkus wrote:

I think you'll find any of our posts arn't against the charter, post all about micro$oft in the unix forum if you want, thats your right.

never said you were breaking rules, simply said it's utterly annoying to discuss Windows and always have to deal with the nazi's that arrive with their linux links. the topic at hand, and indeed the forum here, is windows. in this case vista. why the eff does any other OS come into the equation? especially when you add nothing to the conversation bar a link to a website. no doubt most people who frequent the forum know of ubuntu and suse, or redhat and even osx. but this is the windows forum.... how about we discuss windows, without linking to other os' randomly?

telemachus

One specific retailer (Argos) extending returns beyond what the law requires of them in no way obligates any other retailer to follow suit. If you came accross as self righteously unpleasant as your account indicates I wouldn't have been surprised if the manager stuck to her legal rights and sent you on your way. You had no legal ground to stand on for being whimsical and failing to reaearch your (ridiculously expensive) purchase and were effectively asking for a favor on their part.

mick.fr

Reason why I always do my PC type purchase online, because you can always return stuffs within at least a 7 days timeframe at least.

No under Microsoft License, if an end user, as it was said already here, decline the license agreement after purchase, the MS product can be safely returned to the shop and it will be refunded.
I had an issue like that a while a go, the shop refused to refund me, called Microsoft and they spoke a few minutes and the shop refunded me. They are obilged to, even if the box is open.

And next time somebody calls you a Pirate, tell her if we would like to get free functionnal and cracked products we would go on Bittorent :-) and wont bother to lose petrol to go to the shop.

Sir Oxman

miju wrote:

eh you do realise that you were completely in the wrong here and that you weren't entitled to anything back if you simply change your mind or didnt like the support warranty ..... god people that i deal with like you irritate the hell out of me ...... consider yourself lucky you got a refund

I believe you are wrong.
If the man did not agree to the licence which should be readable before breaking any seals, he is entitled to a refund.

If you are in retail I want to know where so as I can avoid your hellpit of a store.

The 'manager' of that particular store was out of order and talking out of her arse.

Sir Oxman

miju wrote:

either way doesn't matter , under consumer goods act shop pcan tell you to go and ****e if theres no fault

de man says so

Is the Vista EULA visible from the outside of the box?

miju

firstly delah i dont work in retail , secondly can you tell me where in law it's written that if someone doesnt agree to the end users agreement they are entitled to a refund???

consumer law is fairly straight forward, he chagned his mind wasn't entitled to a refund simple as

Sir Oxman

Peteee wrote:

On the 64-bit issue, go here

It says they send you out the 64-bit media for a "You can order either of these alternate media for a minimal fee, including shipping and handling."

No idea how much this is.

Also, if he had wanted Linux he would have asked for it. Some people like having wireless networking out of the box!

Good call.:D

telemachus

Lolz, if I was in retail I would happily aid you in avoiding my store, fortunately i'm not.

Did he actually disagree (or read) any part of the EULA though, I was under the impression he'd simply had second thoughts, changed his mind and plumped on getting back some cash by going for the cheaper option, what part of the EULA specifically did he have a problem with?

Is the EULA for the home version he purchased massively more palatable than the one contained in the ultimate version, or are they as I strongly suspect, almost identical?

Sir Oxman

miju wrote:

firstly delah i dont work in retail , secondly can you tell me where in law it's written that if someone doesnt agree to the end users agreement they are entitled to a refund???

consumer law is fairly straight forward, he chagned his mind wasn't entitled to a refund simple as

Okay miju, apologies if I came over stroppy.

But (as far as I know) that particular purchase is governed by the EULA contained therein..
If the consumer does not agree with it's terms (by reading and breaking the seal) the contract is not erm, contracted.

That is besides PC World's own T&Cs which the OP has told us about, ie refunds within 7 days, exchange within 28.

Now that is pretty clear to me.

Richard Dowler, was the EULA, teh complete EULA visble to you on the outside box (I doubt it btw)

Sir Oxman

telemachus wrote:

Lolz, if I was in retail I would happily aid you in avoiding my store, fortunately i'm not.

Did he actually disagree (or read) any part of the EULA though, I was under the impression he'd simply had second thoughts, changed his mind and plumped on getting back some cash by going for the cheaper option, what part of the EULA specifically did he have a problem with?

Dunno wehat you mean by the first line of your post.
If it relates to me, you'd be losing out on a lot of dosh. Hopefully you're not a businessman/woman.

Second part, the EULA must be agreed to before by opening/clicking etc.

He didn't agree plus PC Worlds own refund/exchange policy 7/28 days puts it to rest.

The guy is entitled to his refund/exchange without being made out to be a fcuking criminal by some nobhead 'manager' in a shop that can't even put stciky labels on their goods.

CiaranC

EULAs arent worth the paper they are written on here.

Sir Oxman

CiaranC wrote:

EULAs arent worth the paper they are written on here.

All well and good.
I'll moan about MS till the cows come home but they are entitled to protect their goods.
If I click their EULA to get me to the next screen and install, I accept.
(Really, none of the EULA's are worth squat??)<--I don't believe that.

Richard Dower

There is no EULA outside the box, it's inside...you have to break the seal, and by doing so you automatically accept the EULA. Quote "you must accept the enclosed licence terms before you can use this software......"

If i'd broken the seal i would not be allowed to return the software for a refund, that's PC World policy...or so i was told yesterday. But today that changed, because the female manager told me i could have broken the seal and copied the DVD, in essence pirated/stolen.

This was not true and was insulted she would make the accusation, belive me if i'm wrong..i'm wrong, and will go back and aplogise to the female store manager. But i don't think i am, and EVEN if PC World software policy is not to accept software back no matter what, is it right to be accused of being a thief/pirate?

telemachus

delah wrote:

Dunno wehat you mean by the first line of your post.
If it relates to me, you'd be losing out on a lot of dosh. Hopefully you're not a businessman/woman.

Bugger , and I was planning on interesting you in my Cat-helmet venture(they climb trees sometimes you see, TALL TREES), I am the premier purveyor of Cat-helmets in Ireland and all. I promise I wouldn't make you feel like a criminal, not even a petty criminal .

Sir Oxman

Richard Dower wrote:

There is no EULA outside the box, it's inside...you have to break the seal, and by doing so you automatically accept the EULA. Quote "you must accept the enclosed licence terms before you can use this software......"

If i'd broken the seal i would not be allowed to return the software for a refund, that's PC World policy...or so i was told yesterday. But today that changed, because the female manager told me i could have broken the seal and copied the DVD, in essence pirated/stolen.

This was not true and was insulted she would make the accusation, belive me if i'm wrong..i'm wrong, and will go back and aplogise to the female store manager. But i don't think i am, and EVEN if PC World software policy is not to accept software back no matter what, is it right to be accused of being a thief/pirate?

Richard, you are correct and don't let one or two on here tell you otherwise even if you are a mad fcuker paying that moolah for an MS product (couldn't resist slagging your initial purchase!)

This is more about the retail sector than MS - and it's geared AGINST the customer unless you have balls and known your rights.

I'm sick of hearing about people being made feel like criminals after purchasing something in this country. It's endemic.

Sir Oxman

telemachus wrote:

Bugger , and I was planning on interesting you in my Cat-helmet venture(they climb trees sometimes you see, TALL TREES), I am the premier purveyor of Cat-helmets in Ireland and all. I promise I wouldn't make you feel like a criminal, not even a petty criminal .

LOl. ya bastid.;)

seamus

delah wrote:

(Really, none of the EULA's are worth squat??)<--I don't believe that.

It's never been tested here. Probably because no-one of sound mind has the testicles to take on Microsoft on matters of copyright law.
Theoretically EULA's cannot be enforced, but in order to establish that a test case would need to be taken by MS against someone who breaks the EULA. So for all intents and purposes, the EULA is enforceable unless you fancy a trip to court versus someone with an endless bankroll who will take it to the Supreme court if necessary.

This was not true and was insulted she would make the accusation, belive me if i'm wrong..i'm wrong, and will go back and aplogise to the female store manager. But i don't think i am, and EVEN if PC World software policy is not to accept software back no matter what, is it right to be accused of being a thief/pirate?

Well, without being there I doubt she accused you of being a thief. You're probably one of those people who twists the other person's words when they attempt to defend themselves.
In your own words:

But then she said that it's not their policy due to copyright, i ask her to explain this, then she said i could have opened the box and copied the DVD

That's not an accusation of piracy, that's an explanation of store policy. You can be as irate as you like, but I very much doubt that she thought you had copied the DVD. Rather there was a very clear company policy on returning software, and she was simply attempting to enforce this line.

www.pcworld.ie doesn't say anything about a no-quibbles 7-day returns policy, but it's not a great site so I wouldn't trust it.

Store policy isn't legally enforceable. So even if they say 7 days no quibbles, then technically it doesn't allow you 7 days no-quibbles. However, if challenged, a court would probably slap them hard for misleading advertising and generally being bastards.

The law provides no case where you may return an item if you realise you don't want/need it after you've bought it.

Sir Oxman

seamus wrote:

It's never been tested here. Probably because no-one of sound mind has the testicles to take on Microsoft on matters of copyright law.
Theoretically EULA's cannot be enforced, but in order to establish that a test case would need to be taken by MS against someone who breaks the EULA. So for all intents and purposes, the EULA is enforceable unless you fancy a trip to court versus someone with an endless bankroll who will take it to the Supreme court if necessary.

Thanks for that seamus.
I sort of gathered EULAs were a grey area especailly in Europe.
However, would it be unreasonable if someone clicked their agreement that there is therefore an agreement in place (obv the terms of agreement must be reasonable - maybe this is where EULAs fall down?) EULAs are so convolued and incomrehensible most of the time.
For instance, no-omne knows for certain what the latest Vista EULAs for retail, oem and upgrades actually mean as they are couched in such ****ty legalese.

However, everyone has the choice to not agree...

yer man's case in PC World, I can well believe what he had to face - and I believe his account of what the so-called manager said too, I've had that before. They'll try and browbeat you and if you cave they'll do it again and gain and gain.
Thier site is crap but they do have the policies the OP stated.

He said the disc was unopened therefore how could he have copied it.

Richard Dower

seamus wrote:

Well, without being there I doubt she accused you of being a thief. You're probably one of those people who twists the other person's words when they attempt to defend themselves.

It was definately implied, i wouldn't have reacted the way i did if i did not take her words to mean something other then an accusation of piracy, her words were not spoken in a manner to explain their policy but to explain why i would not be entitled to a refund.

In essence the accusation, impled or otherwise, was a valid reason for her to refuse my refund request, moreso i feel she said that as a reaction to what she perceived agressive tone from me.

But my aggressive tone came about from their words to me in regards one day being entitled to a refund and the next day not. I did not rush in with a foul defensive attitude looking for a fight, that came about because of their attitude toward me when i requested a refund/replacement.

No matter what, she was wrong to imply or otherwise that i had copied the DVD, you don't have to say "you're a pirate and thief!" to know what people are really saying.

BostonB

seamus wrote:

Well from time to time, Microsoft do release hotfixes and patches which they don't make available to the general public. These patches are for very specific software/compatibility problems, and so MS don't want people installing them willy-nilly. Usually they're distributed to volume licence customers when it's determined that they're needed, or people who pay €75 for a support call. ...

The only occurrence of that I've seen with something like that, they eventually rolled into a w2k service pack. As you say anyone with something so critical is likely to be a volume licence holder or someone with a MSDN subscription, like a development house.

Why has this thread turned into a monologue about PC World? :cool:

seamus

Richard Dower wrote:

But my aggressive tone came about from their words to me in regards one day being entitled to a refund and the next day not. I did not rush in with a foul defensive attitude looking for a fight, that came about because of their attitude toward me when i requested a refund/replacement.

This is a pain in the ass, and I think everyone's encountered it at one time or another. I think the best thing to do is to not take the monkeys at their word, and instead rely on store signage or an otherwise written confirmation. The guys at the lowest rung often get it wrong for any of five million reasons, and "operator error" would probably be the business's excuse in any case.

No matter what, she was wrong to imply or otherwise that i had copied the DVD, you don't have to say "you're a pirate and thief!" to know what people are really saying.

Well as I say I wasn't there. If I had heard her say it, perhaps my opinion would be different.

jesus_thats_gre

kerbdog wrote:

So the diff between that OEM and the retail one he bought is what?
Does OEM meana that you can just use that version of windows with the machine you register it with. If the machine dies, the license for the OEM of vista dies?

You can transfer the license to another hardware set if the original hardware goes faulty. Otherwise, the OEM and Retail versions are pretty much identical.


Ordered me copy of the OEM 32 bit Home Premiun edition yesterday. Am all proud of myself too

Cabaal

djmarkus wrote:

I think you'll find any of our posts arn't against the charter, post all about micro$oft in the unix forum if you want, thats your right.

yes it is against the charter - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=47980
Its nice that you've read it

No Off-Topic Advocacy: When someone asks a question about their current browser/mailer/etc, either answer the question or don't post. If they want an alternative, they'll ask for it. Off-topic advocacy will be sent to the Recycle Bin.

This topic is about Windows Vista, Richard Dower posted about Vista and he didn't request for anything to do with MacOSX, Unix or any Linux distro that may be available.

I've slightly edited the charter to make it more clear for future ref

No Off-Topic Advocacy: When someone asks a question in relation to their current OS/browser/mailer/etc, either answer the question or don't post. If they want an alternative, they'll ask for it. Off-topic advocacy will be sent to the Recycle Bin and repeat offenders may be banned.

miju

BostonB wrote:

Why has this thread turned into a monologue about PC World? :cool:

cos they are a load of kack

garthv

miju wrote:

firstly delah i dont work in retail , secondly can you tell me where in law it's written that if someone doesnt agree to the end users agreement they are entitled to a refund???

*ahem*

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/98163/dell-refunds-linux-users-who-ditch-xp.html

Oracle

It's true you don't have a "right" to return goods but it's in the retailers interest to cooperate with customers; most businesses want to gain more customers and want satisfied customers, not unhappy ones. PC World Limerick have just lost a customer who was prepared to spend €549 on one piece of software; a premium customer by any standards and a customer most companies selling software would want.
There's a saying about "winning the battle" but "losing the war" Every business is trying to win more customers not lose them. Unfortunately strict inflexible adherenece to policies can lose companies customers, not to mention the bad "word of mouth" and damage to their reputation. Reading the OP's experience I know I won't be buying software at PC World Limerick.

ressem

Originally Posted by miju
secondly can you tell me where in law it's written that if someone doesnt agree to the end users agreement they are entitled to a refund???

Microsoft's Eula
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
first page
"
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund
there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s
refund policies.
"

mick.fr

ressem wrote:

Microsoft's Eula
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
first page
"
By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund
there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoft’s
refund policies.
"

Yeah that's exactly what I said in my previous post, pointing out the EULA, but people did not bother to read it and continued to say it was not true.
Thank you, I feel less lonely now.

Anyway 515 euros is extremelly expensive for an OS which does not have any application, only gadgets.

The thing is in the US, public price for Vista Ultimate (Retail box) is about 350 USD (Full version on DVD, not the OEM one). Well maybe this is the OEM version but I can not find any reference to that ?
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Vista-Ultimate-VERSION/dp/B000HCTYTE/ref=acc_glance_sw_ai_2_title/002-2830835-5786466

So I am bit confused about the retail price here in Europe ?
It looks the best way to get Vista Ultimate (Or other) is in OEM mode.
You can buy it online, in France Vista Ultimate costs 208 euros. And this is a full version on DVD.
http://www.rueducommerce.fr/Logiciels/Systemes-d-exploitation/Windows-Vista/MICROSOFT/397432-Windows-Vista-Edition-Integrale-32Bit-OEM-DVD.htm

I am sure other links provided in previous posts to get Vista in UK will be around the same price as in France.


This only thing is that you are supposed to install it on a new PC, but technically nothing blocks you of installing it on a used PC.
Microsoft does not provide phone support for OEM versions, but you still get the Windows updates of course, technically it is supposed to be the company who sold you the PC that should support your Vista. So if you do not need technical support, you should go for the OEM version.

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder - microsoft don't sell software. They sell licenses. If you buy a license and agree to the terms you can use their software. New terms can be imposed when you apply patches.

AFAIK leglislation that covers goods and services doesn't apply to software licenses - especially stuff like "fit for purpose"

Almost all software vendors will replace the physical media if it's defective (in the physical sense) when purchased.