No, it didn't. The purpose of sfc is not to remove viruses. And, as far as the purpose goes, running a program such as that in an infected environment generally gets you nowhere. There are malware products that won't allow antivirus or utility programs such as that to run. The ability of these programs to do what they want, including modifying permissions in the registry, should clue everyone in as to why so many feel the registry is a dismal failure (which has never been improved since day one). Fixing this type of problem, every day, has shown me that Microsoft isn't going to put their money into fixing this stuff. Listen, they released Vista and it was a horrible failure. Look at what they accomplished as far as protecting the customer from this type of software. Look at what they did to fix the OS to make it much more of what it supposed to do (offload repetitive tasks to the computer). Windows 7 didn't correct anything. I will give them credit for a better task bar and less annoying (and faster) UAC.
When it comes down to it, little was done for the consumer in either release and a lot was done for the content/copyright holders. I can't help feeling that if they'd just have ignored that and focused on the consumer we'd have had a much better product, significantly better all around. But hey, whos to say that the copyright holders aren't more important than the consumers?
Whether you violate someone's copyright is not the issue here. It's that the company you are often forced to use (and as per the UN report having internet access is a human rights right) violates the rule of law in order to protect their private interests, and are supported by a government that knows that the rule of law is the most sacred.
What the Whitehouse thinks about this isn't relevant. It's about due process and if push comes to shove there are many people/organizations out there willing to push this out while bringing greater awareness to the general public that their ISP is acting illegally to protect it's interest with an administration willing to give it the go ahead.
What he should mean is that all patents should be rejected outright upfront and only approved when the patent applicant can prove that the requested patent is really novel and there's no prior art. It should be up to the applicant to prove his patent not just submit the patent. He has to prove his process, like school kids are required to prove their work in long hand. Cheating the system and lying or deceiving should result in them being fined and their patent given to the public domain and all derivative patents also put into the public domain.
Your logic is fallable. The reason they used a stylus was to make them more precise due to the size of the screens (small due to manufacturing limitations of the day). When the screens became bigger and the resolution themselves more precise, the need for a stylus wasn't necessary. And again, Apple did not invent the screen nor the precision of use. They were only responsible for connecting the dots of pre-existing technology. Many people have shown how to use a vienna sausage to operate the touch screen of the iphone and other iOS devices.
Another OBVIOUS reason we would go away from a stylus was demonstrated by Palm Computing's use of a stylus. After a period of use you would begin to scratch the screen and other touch areas. So, to ensure that you did not scratch you would choose something softer and the only really usable soft touch device that didn't wear out and you didn't need to carry extra's with you were your fingers. Bottom line, the choices were obvious not unique or even an invention. And, again, Apple didn't invent the screens they just buy them from 3rd parties.
The fault in your logic is in believing that Apple invented the screen and that the natural progression to gesture based interface control would have not gone the same route.
Apple did not invent the touch screen nor do they manufacture them. Those are licensed technology and the screens are bought from various companies all that do similar touch technology.
As far as the gesture based system goes even an average person of average intelligence would tell you that moving your finger down should cause the contents of the screen to scroll down. Not only is that obvious to those skilled in the field, but the average person would consider it obvious.
The patent system is screwed up and it tends to grant for the sake of granting rather than granting because the implemented ideas are novel and non-obvious.
I couldn't disagree more. 25 years of PC watching it advance (or deteriorate in many ways) clearly demonstrates what are you saying is untrue, almost as if you are astroturfing for Microsoft.
All toolbars are activeX controls. Flash is an active X control under IE. Active X controls were there are the beginning of this insanity we call Windows insecurity. In fact, it is the major malware vector for the past 10 years. Malware is spread through many means and is not by far the greatest malware vector but it certainly is a major contributor and one of those technologies that lead us to this point..
It is also false that one must agree to install all active X controls and that trojans are installed in the same manner (only by permission). In fact, there was a time when the malware authors relied on the ignorance of people by placing you in a loop where you were not allowed out unless you answered yes to the question. Another method is through the concept of allowing malware authors to create media files with codecs that are nothing more than viruses.
You really need to learn more about the technology you are misleading others about. IE and Windows are infection machines. Maybe not intentionally so, but Microsoft has been negligent in so many ways. Seriously, you need to spend a couple years cleaning computers of viruses and then come back and try to say what you have with a straight face.
My points stand. Microsoft is pointing a finger at a small issue so that the developers won't support it while their whole large ecosystem is so infested that it can only be viewed as insanity
Windows has significant security flaws. These flaws are extreme and cause hardship for others and costs the industry billions a year. It is estimated (as of a few years ago) that malware that gets in via security issues and other flaws costs the economy over $5 billion a year. These are pretty hard and known facts. IE with ActiveX is one of those technologies that has serious implications and has from the beginning. Microsoft wrote Windows and continues to progress that product line even with these facts so well known. It is still full of flaws and security holes, many of which are extremely serious. My question is: in comparison to the $5+ billion a year worth of very serious flaws in Windows and the design of products such as ActiveX, how serious is/are the flaw(s) in WebGL? Are we talking magnitudes larger for WebGL? Are we talking ease of access to things once you are able to exploit it? Or, are we talking a tiny fraction of the potential of the Windows flaws (past, present, and future)?
Asked differently, is Microsoft just showing buffoonery and are they just using FUD to try to destroy a solid competitor?
Granted security issues are serious and must be addressed. But it seems that if Microsoft (with all these flaws (some massively serious) in Windows) is taking pot shots at a much smaller issue and are getting press coverage just because they have such a loud voice then they are being very disingenuous, doing nothing more than shooting from the hip, calling the kettle black, throwing stones from their own glass houses.
My immediate thoughts were: What security experts? Where's the research? Who funded it?
It is not likely that Apple's iOS is even in the running for security. It's obscurity that keeps it out of the minds of most. A billion PCs is a much bigger target, by far.
I didn't see a thing that was interesting. They padded the front of the video by showcasing their wall. I wanted to see something other than blocks centered top to bottom, left to right. Blah. Nothing really impressive. Speed is an issue of something other than the touch capabilities.
Move on to android. I think that's the future. Let's all hope for a future free of lock ins and industry control.
I'm sure fruitful discussions had been taking place either with the new consortium of Skype members, or prior when E-Bay was reading it for sale, with conditional clauses indicating Y would occur within X period of time, and that since there's really no reason for dis-approval both parties would feel confident in initiating their plans. Otherwise, it's a lot of lost time. Since it would be the Skype people doing it, what would it matter when they started?
This is payback for them dropping support for the open source project "Asterisk"? Probably not, but it does give those people and businesses involved in Asterisk some sense of revenge.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, as part of the agreement, Microsoft likely told Skype that they had to drop support for Asterisk, an Open Source PBX project, so that they can favor their own project. There's word from Skype that they wanted to focus on SIP but that's silly as Asterisk has full support for SIP.
Who really knows what happened, but Microsoft does have a habit of dropping support for projects like this once they take it over. This is the same concern that everyone had when Microsoft was thinking about buying Yahoo regarding the open source Zimbra project, as it was felt that if the deal went through Microsoft would axe it too.
If Samsung is the company helping Apple design their product, and if Samsung is the one providing chips and layout internally, and if the design is sufficient in that the design matters, and Samsung is using this knowledge of pre-released products in their own products close enough to or before Apple's launch, then we have a matter for discussion, though there's likely no matter of legal issue as you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea.
Apple tried copyrighting the interface of the computer desktop and lost. They'll loose this too, certainly, without question. They are judging that Samsung will evaluate the potential loss from a broken relationship over this matter and that they will agree out of court to settle by terminating their product design efforts. If Samsung is realistic and future oriented they will not. They're size-ably larger than Apple overall. Their valuation is greater and their revenue is greater. Apple wants to set a precedent to others that they can and will fight in this territory, even if it is just a matter of keeping others out of the area of designs that are similar to Apple.
Apple has everything to loose and little to gain except if they can be successful with a "settlement" with Samsung. If Samsung does settle it will mean that most other companies will likely settle also.
Letting outside council look at the designs means that the outside council will have to "brief" Apple, and that ultimately the information gained will fall open in court, unless the Judge rules against Apple as a matter of law. Apple could easily have the case dismissed as the judge could still determine that this is a matter of law issue and that there no factual claims that need to be determined by the jury. If outside council states that the design is close enough to Apple's the judge probably will still rule in favor of Samsung as a matter of law as the judge knows that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it, and unless it is exact in every way that matters the judge will rule a matter of law that Apple has no claim.
It's not about following Google's move (to me). Their efforts seem disingenuous. The URL bar is fine and there's nothing wrong with it. The purpose behind the move? More screen real-estate, or just an effort to confuse the customer?
It it isn't broken do not fix it. It means that I'll have to put in extra effort on all the machines I repair to find and put back the URL bar for my customers.
My mistake. 4.5% of 100 million is 4,500,000 (haven't been feeling well this morning). It's still relative. The numbers I read were up from approx. 500,000 to 800,000 Macs. So, in reality my number for the Mac was grossly over estimated, but still it shows the relative numbers. I'm not a Windows fan as I use Linux and I love the Mac, I just don't fall for the fanboish extremes that drive this alleged success to exaggerated proportions.
It's like, more bicycles are sold than cars, but that doesn't mean that cars are going out of favor. Even if you have an increase in bicycles it doesn't mean there's a relative or even related drop in cars. Even if you sell more Mac into a business it doesn't mean the business is going Mac, it just means there's an interest. And given Microsoft's history of abuse of their monopoly and the relative enlightenment of the masses about that it's only natural people will seem to look for alternatives.
If Apple is selling more then good for them. I wish them success. But, if, and when, they migrate to a closed OS similar to iOS that'll be when business drops them like a hot potato, period. It's something Apple just can't comprehend--you can sell to granny who knows no better a walled garden. There's a big difference in selling that walled garden to business (and don't try the iPad walled garden success because it isn't a success in business even if some businesses have adopted them).
4.5% of 100,000,000 is 45,000,000. 66% of 10,000,000 is 6,600,000. My PC numbers are obviously low and my mac numbers exaggerated, but you get the point.
Factor up or down as you like, but 66% growth in Macs just isn't the same.
If you read the article and look at the charts, you'll see they state only percentages and no actual raw numbers to evaluate on our own.
I have no problems with my customers. I've been in this business for 25 years. I know how to talk with the customer and even though it takes much more time that could be used to produce profit I spend a great deal of time showing and explaining.
Please don't take a few pet paragraphs and feel you understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking at customers here. I'm talking at technical people who deal with non-technical people, and at the moron that wrote an article complaining about costs rather than fraud as if costs were the fraud. So what, he can produce his work for his friends cheap. It doesn't mean a for profit business needs to follow his example. If we did there'd be no repair shops and those reading this article would be fixing their family, friends, and neighbor's computers at little to no cost.
OK, after reading the article and then reading the thread here I've concluded that I've had enough. Yes, there is fraud. You get that in every field. It is also not very common as most repair folk would rather make a living--few people I know are out to take you for everything at the expense of their reputation which equals their livelihood. Besides, anyone with specialized knowledge could fraud anyone that doesn't have that knowledge. They could just cheat them. Their prices could be out of line with reality.
Everyone feels at least once that they were not given as good a deal as they think they should have. They feel that way about lawyers, from car repair shops, any type of shop that would repair or upgrade your property, anyone with specialized knowledge. Yeah, and even our government.
What this article does is 1) gives examples of a few of the tricks that some fraudsters pull. Anything from outright fraud to just exaggerating their labor. 2) It then goes on this diatribe about the costs associated with repairs as if they are the ones that are the best judge of the costs associated with parts and labor. Much of the article is about this one guy expressing his unhappiness with what he considers to be a fair cost for repair work. This is, frankly, irrelevant, as setting a cost for your services is not a fraud. Setting a fair price is just good business practice. But hell, look at designer jeans from manufacturer to another. Levi Jeans cost much more than the Walmart store brand. Cost is a matter for the owner of the business, not the judgement of some half-baked tech journalist. Long ago someone said to me that you get paid for what you know, not what you do. So, please, cry me a river if you don't like the charges. You can go elsewhere.
A good company will "estimate" up front what the charges are going to be and approximately how long it will take. Customers have addictions to their computers and they want it all done cheap and done yesterday. Let's get real, neither is likely to happen. Generally, the parts of a computer are worth more than the whole.
Consider a fair cost of around $90 to get an OS re-installed on a netbook that might have cost $250. Adding a replacement HDD plus re-installing the OS on a netbook can come close to the value of the book. You don't really expect the repair technician to sell you the hard drive and then toss the OS install in for free, do you? Re-installing the OS can be a time intensive task. Most netbook manufacturers don't make it easy to remove the old and install the new HDDs (sometimes its even difficult to install RAM in those)--time adds up and time is money. Consider then that on top of that your customer wants you to transfer the data from that old defective HDD to the new one--how much labor is involved in trying to get it to be recognized by the OS (clicking, missing partitions, etc), to access the files, to copy those files to an intermediary device and then back onto the new install). Do you really think that it is out of line to have costs nearing the original cost of the netbook? You bought cheap. Don't expect the technician to fix it cheap due to your cheapness.
The technician needs to be clear on what is going to happen. Try to explain it to the customer. The problem is that the customer is often a closed mind. They don't want to hear an explanation. They just want it working again. How many times have I tried to explain to my customers precisely why their computer is slow (they are running XP and have 256mb of RAM and have all the updates done from Microsoft along with a slew of other software products that load at start up eating away at valuable resources). Or try to explain to them that their HDD is failing. That the diagnosis indicates the drive has tons of bad sectors and they screwed up their computer because they had viruses, bad sectors, and they tried to defragment it. Or explain that their nephew wiped out their hard drive by installing a version of Vista that they didn't have a license f
I've been running my shop for over 7 years now. A primary job I do for people is to remove malware. I've seen just about everything. Windows 7 is getting owned because they are doing more damage and getting past a serious protection mechanism and making it look easy. They are owning the machine as if there's no protection at all, even with heavy duty malware protection, firewalls, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it didn't. The purpose of sfc is not to remove viruses. And, as far as the purpose goes, running a program such as that in an infected environment generally gets you nowhere. There are malware products that won't allow antivirus or utility programs such as that to run. The ability of these programs to do what they want, including modifying permissions in the registry, should clue everyone in as to why so many feel the registry is a dismal failure (which has never been improved since day one). Fixing this type of problem, every day, has shown me that Microsoft isn't going to put their money into fixing this stuff. Listen, they released Vista and it was a horrible failure. Look at what they accomplished as far as protecting the customer from this type of software. Look at what they did to fix the OS to make it much more of what it supposed to do (offload repetitive tasks to the computer). Windows 7 didn't correct anything. I will give them credit for a better task bar and less annoying (and faster) UAC.
When it comes down to it, little was done for the consumer in either release and a lot was done for the content/copyright holders. I can't help feeling that if they'd just have ignored that and focused on the consumer we'd have had a much better product, significantly better all around. But hey, whos to say that the copyright holders aren't more important than the consumers?
Whether you violate someone's copyright is not the issue here. It's that the company you are often forced to use (and as per the UN report having internet access is a human rights right) violates the rule of law in order to protect their private interests, and are supported by a government that knows that the rule of law is the most sacred.
What the Whitehouse thinks about this isn't relevant. It's about due process and if push comes to shove there are many people/organizations out there willing to push this out while bringing greater awareness to the general public that their ISP is acting illegally to protect it's interest with an administration willing to give it the go ahead.
What he should mean is that all patents should be rejected outright upfront and only approved when the patent applicant can prove that the requested patent is really novel and there's no prior art. It should be up to the applicant to prove his patent not just submit the patent. He has to prove his process, like school kids are required to prove their work in long hand. Cheating the system and lying or deceiving should result in them being fined and their patent given to the public domain and all derivative patents also put into the public domain.
Your logic is fallable. The reason they used a stylus was to make them more precise due to the size of the screens (small due to manufacturing limitations of the day). When the screens became bigger and the resolution themselves more precise, the need for a stylus wasn't necessary. And again, Apple did not invent the screen nor the precision of use. They were only responsible for connecting the dots of pre-existing technology. Many people have shown how to use a vienna sausage to operate the touch screen of the iphone and other iOS devices.
Another OBVIOUS reason we would go away from a stylus was demonstrated by Palm Computing's use of a stylus. After a period of use you would begin to scratch the screen and other touch areas. So, to ensure that you did not scratch you would choose something softer and the only really usable soft touch device that didn't wear out and you didn't need to carry extra's with you were your fingers. Bottom line, the choices were obvious not unique or even an invention. And, again, Apple didn't invent the screens they just buy them from 3rd parties.
The fault in your logic is in believing that Apple invented the screen and that the natural progression to gesture based interface control would have not gone the same route.
Apple did not invent the touch screen nor do they manufacture them. Those are licensed technology and the screens are bought from various companies all that do similar touch technology.
As far as the gesture based system goes even an average person of average intelligence would tell you that moving your finger down should cause the contents of the screen to scroll down. Not only is that obvious to those skilled in the field, but the average person would consider it obvious.
The patent system is screwed up and it tends to grant for the sake of granting rather than granting because the implemented ideas are novel and non-obvious.
I couldn't disagree more. 25 years of PC watching it advance (or deteriorate in many ways) clearly demonstrates what are you saying is untrue, almost as if you are astroturfing for Microsoft.
All toolbars are activeX controls. Flash is an active X control under IE. Active X controls were there are the beginning of this insanity we call Windows insecurity. In fact, it is the major malware vector for the past 10 years. Malware is spread through many means and is not by far the greatest malware vector but it certainly is a major contributor and one of those technologies that lead us to this point..
It is also false that one must agree to install all active X controls and that trojans are installed in the same manner (only by permission). In fact, there was a time when the malware authors relied on the ignorance of people by placing you in a loop where you were not allowed out unless you answered yes to the question. Another method is through the concept of allowing malware authors to create media files with codecs that are nothing more than viruses.
You really need to learn more about the technology you are misleading others about. IE and Windows are infection machines. Maybe not intentionally so, but Microsoft has been negligent in so many ways. Seriously, you need to spend a couple years cleaning computers of viruses and then come back and try to say what you have with a straight face.
My points stand. Microsoft is pointing a finger at a small issue so that the developers won't support it while their whole large ecosystem is so infested that it can only be viewed as insanity
Windows has significant security flaws. These flaws are extreme and cause hardship for others and costs the industry billions a year. It is estimated (as of a few years ago) that malware that gets in via security issues and other flaws costs the economy over $5 billion a year. These are pretty hard and known facts. IE with ActiveX is one of those technologies that has serious implications and has from the beginning. Microsoft wrote Windows and continues to progress that product line even with these facts so well known. It is still full of flaws and security holes, many of which are extremely serious. My question is: in comparison to the $5+ billion a year worth of very serious flaws in Windows and the design of products such as ActiveX, how serious is/are the flaw(s) in WebGL? Are we talking magnitudes larger for WebGL? Are we talking ease of access to things once you are able to exploit it? Or, are we talking a tiny fraction of the potential of the Windows flaws (past, present, and future)?
Asked differently, is Microsoft just showing buffoonery and are they just using FUD to try to destroy a solid competitor?
Granted security issues are serious and must be addressed. But it seems that if Microsoft (with all these flaws (some massively serious) in Windows) is taking pot shots at a much smaller issue and are getting press coverage just because they have such a loud voice then they are being very disingenuous, doing nothing more than shooting from the hip, calling the kettle black, throwing stones from their own glass houses.
Running unsigned code is not the same as running insecure or malicious code, though neither is mutually exclusve.
I'll call your bluff. Bogus!!
My immediate thoughts were: What security experts? Where's the research? Who funded it?
It is not likely that Apple's iOS is even in the running for security. It's obscurity that keeps it out of the minds of most. A billion PCs is a much bigger target, by far.
I didn't see a thing that was interesting. They padded the front of the video by showcasing their wall. I wanted to see something other than blocks centered top to bottom, left to right. Blah. Nothing really impressive. Speed is an issue of something other than the touch capabilities.
Move on to android. I think that's the future. Let's all hope for a future free of lock ins and industry control.
I'm sure fruitful discussions had been taking place either with the new consortium of Skype members, or prior when E-Bay was reading it for sale, with conditional clauses indicating Y would occur within X period of time, and that since there's really no reason for dis-approval both parties would feel confident in initiating their plans. Otherwise, it's a lot of lost time. Since it would be the Skype people doing it, what would it matter when they started?
If I purchased a product, and the papers were signed, I'd have no problem setting down directives, even if I hadn't taken over operations yet.
This is payback for them dropping support for the open source project "Asterisk"? Probably not, but it does give those people and businesses involved in Asterisk some sense of revenge.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, as part of the agreement, Microsoft likely told Skype that they had to drop support for Asterisk, an Open Source PBX project, so that they can favor their own project. There's word from Skype that they wanted to focus on SIP but that's silly as Asterisk has full support for SIP.
Who really knows what happened, but Microsoft does have a habit of dropping support for projects like this once they take it over. This is the same concern that everyone had when Microsoft was thinking about buying Yahoo regarding the open source Zimbra project, as it was felt that if the deal went through Microsoft would axe it too.
If Samsung is the company helping Apple design their product, and if Samsung is the one providing chips and layout internally, and if the design is sufficient in that the design matters, and Samsung is using this knowledge of pre-released products in their own products close enough to or before Apple's launch, then we have a matter for discussion, though there's likely no matter of legal issue as you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of that idea.
Apple tried copyrighting the interface of the computer desktop and lost. They'll loose this too, certainly, without question. They are judging that Samsung will evaluate the potential loss from a broken relationship over this matter and that they will agree out of court to settle by terminating their product design efforts. If Samsung is realistic and future oriented they will not. They're size-ably larger than Apple overall. Their valuation is greater and their revenue is greater. Apple wants to set a precedent to others that they can and will fight in this territory, even if it is just a matter of keeping others out of the area of designs that are similar to Apple.
Apple has everything to loose and little to gain except if they can be successful with a "settlement" with Samsung. If Samsung does settle it will mean that most other companies will likely settle also.
Letting outside council look at the designs means that the outside council will have to "brief" Apple, and that ultimately the information gained will fall open in court, unless the Judge rules against Apple as a matter of law. Apple could easily have the case dismissed as the judge could still determine that this is a matter of law issue and that there no factual claims that need to be determined by the jury. If outside council states that the design is close enough to Apple's the judge probably will still rule in favor of Samsung as a matter of law as the judge knows that you can't copyright an idea, only the expression of it, and unless it is exact in every way that matters the judge will rule a matter of law that Apple has no claim.
It's not about following Google's move (to me). Their efforts seem disingenuous. The URL bar is fine and there's nothing wrong with it. The purpose behind the move? More screen real-estate, or just an effort to confuse the customer?
It it isn't broken do not fix it. It means that I'll have to put in extra effort on all the machines I repair to find and put back the URL bar for my customers.
Seriously, they need to rethink their purpose.
I chose Linux for my business over Mac and Windows, though I have a few each of those too.
I agree, Apple is coddling his fortune 20 company where it would just leave most others wanting.
Oriented means predominately. It means your focus in oriented toward consumers not business. I think he knew that oriented didn't mean exclusively.
My mistake. 4.5% of 100 million is 4,500,000 (haven't been feeling well this morning). It's still relative. The numbers I read were up from approx. 500,000 to 800,000 Macs. So, in reality my number for the Mac was grossly over estimated, but still it shows the relative numbers. I'm not a Windows fan as I use Linux and I love the Mac, I just don't fall for the fanboish extremes that drive this alleged success to exaggerated proportions.
It's like, more bicycles are sold than cars, but that doesn't mean that cars are going out of favor. Even if you have an increase in bicycles it doesn't mean there's a relative or even related drop in cars. Even if you sell more Mac into a business it doesn't mean the business is going Mac, it just means there's an interest. And given Microsoft's history of abuse of their monopoly and the relative enlightenment of the masses about that it's only natural people will seem to look for alternatives.
If Apple is selling more then good for them. I wish them success. But, if, and when, they migrate to a closed OS similar to iOS that'll be when business drops them like a hot potato, period. It's something Apple just can't comprehend--you can sell to granny who knows no better a walled garden. There's a big difference in selling that walled garden to business (and don't try the iPad walled garden success because it isn't a success in business even if some businesses have adopted them).
4.5% of 100,000,000 is 45,000,000. 66% of 10,000,000 is 6,600,000. My PC numbers are obviously low and my mac numbers exaggerated, but you get the point.
Factor up or down as you like, but 66% growth in Macs just isn't the same.
If you read the article and look at the charts, you'll see they state only percentages and no actual raw numbers to evaluate on our own.
I'll reply to all the comments at once.
I have no problems with my customers. I've been in this business for 25 years. I know how to talk with the customer and even though it takes much more time that could be used to produce profit I spend a great deal of time showing and explaining.
Please don't take a few pet paragraphs and feel you understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking at customers here. I'm talking at technical people who deal with non-technical people, and at the moron that wrote an article complaining about costs rather than fraud as if costs were the fraud. So what, he can produce his work for his friends cheap. It doesn't mean a for profit business needs to follow his example. If we did there'd be no repair shops and those reading this article would be fixing their family, friends, and neighbor's computers at little to no cost.
OK, after reading the article and then reading the thread here I've concluded that I've had enough. Yes, there is fraud. You get that in every field. It is also not very common as most repair folk would rather make a living--few people I know are out to take you for everything at the expense of their reputation which equals their livelihood. Besides, anyone with specialized knowledge could fraud anyone that doesn't have that knowledge. They could just cheat them. Their prices could be out of line with reality.
Everyone feels at least once that they were not given as good a deal as they think they should have. They feel that way about lawyers, from car repair shops, any type of shop that would repair or upgrade your property, anyone with specialized knowledge. Yeah, and even our government.
What this article does is 1) gives examples of a few of the tricks that some fraudsters pull. Anything from outright fraud to just exaggerating their labor. 2) It then goes on this diatribe about the costs associated with repairs as if they are the ones that are the best judge of the costs associated with parts and labor. Much of the article is about this one guy expressing his unhappiness with what he considers to be a fair cost for repair work. This is, frankly, irrelevant, as setting a cost for your services is not a fraud. Setting a fair price is just good business practice. But hell, look at designer jeans from manufacturer to another. Levi Jeans cost much more than the Walmart store brand. Cost is a matter for the owner of the business, not the judgement of some half-baked tech journalist. Long ago someone said to me that you get paid for what you know, not what you do. So, please, cry me a river if you don't like the charges. You can go elsewhere.
A good company will "estimate" up front what the charges are going to be and approximately how long it will take. Customers have addictions to their computers and they want it all done cheap and done yesterday. Let's get real, neither is likely to happen. Generally, the parts of a computer are worth more than the whole.
Consider a fair cost of around $90 to get an OS re-installed on a netbook that might have cost $250. Adding a replacement HDD plus re-installing the OS on a netbook can come close to the value of the book. You don't really expect the repair technician to sell you the hard drive and then toss the OS install in for free, do you? Re-installing the OS can be a time intensive task. Most netbook manufacturers don't make it easy to remove the old and install the new HDDs (sometimes its even difficult to install RAM in those)--time adds up and time is money. Consider then that on top of that your customer wants you to transfer the data from that old defective HDD to the new one--how much labor is involved in trying to get it to be recognized by the OS (clicking, missing partitions, etc), to access the files, to copy those files to an intermediary device and then back onto the new install). Do you really think that it is out of line to have costs nearing the original cost of the netbook? You bought cheap. Don't expect the technician to fix it cheap due to your cheapness.
The technician needs to be clear on what is going to happen. Try to explain it to the customer. The problem is that the customer is often a closed mind. They don't want to hear an explanation. They just want it working again. How many times have I tried to explain to my customers precisely why their computer is slow (they are running XP and have 256mb of RAM and have all the updates done from Microsoft along with a slew of other software products that load at start up eating away at valuable resources). Or try to explain to them that their HDD is failing. That the diagnosis indicates the drive has tons of bad sectors and they screwed up their computer because they had viruses, bad sectors, and they tried to defragment it. Or explain that their nephew wiped out their hard drive by installing a version of Vista that they didn't have a license f
I've been running my shop for over 7 years now. A primary job I do for people is to remove malware. I've seen just about everything. Windows 7 is getting owned because they are doing more damage and getting past a serious protection mechanism and making it look easy. They are owning the machine as if there's no protection at all, even with heavy duty malware protection, firewalls, etc.
It will only get worse.
It is NOT a 1/3 increase. It is a 1 in 1000 increase.