Re: Quay over-stepping the marK?

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by SlowLearner, Oct 16, 2008.

  1. SlowLearner

    SlowLearner Guest

    On Oct 16, 12:00 pm, Mark Robinson <2tod.net>
    wrote:
    > ~misfit~ wrote:
    > > "One of the guys at work was just asking me if I thought a scenario he'd
    > > just gone through with Quay Computers was a bit odd.  Basically, the the
    > > cooling in his graphics card had died and was causing his computer to
    > > shutdown.  Simple solution: replace graphics card with new card and install
    > > drivers.

    >
    > > What is odd to the both of us is that Quay decided to uninstall all the
    > > antispyware and antivirus software that he had on the computer (and had paid
    > > for) and replaced it with a trial version of a security suite.  When
    > > questioned, they replied that this was their policy and, by the way, the
    > > software they installed was vastly superior to what he had."

    >
    > > From:http://www.geekzone.co.nz/blog.asp?postid=5867

    >
    > > To my way of thinking that is completely unacceptable and I'd be billing
    > > Quay for the software removed (at the least).

    >
    > > What say you? Sounds like insidious and immoral marketing to me. I bet they
    > > get $xx for every machine they put the trial software on. Going by the sheer
    > > number of people I've known of who have paid for Norton Antivirus simply
    > > because a trial was installed on their machine when they bought it and then
    > > they were terrorised by predictions of doom if they didn't pay for another
    > > year.

    >
    > > Shame Geekzone don't mention the name of the "security suite" in this
    > > instance. I know that OEMs were paid to instal trials of Nortons, I wonder
    > > if this is Nortons or if some other company has adopted the same marketing
    > > model.

    >
    > > Either way, if I was ever going to buy from Quay, I won't now.

    >
    > Crimes Act 1961
    > Crimes involving computers
    >
    > 248 Interpretation
    > For the purposes of this section and sections 249 and 250,—
    >
    > access, in relation to any computer system, means instruct, communicate with,
    > store data in, receive data from, or otherwise make use of any of the resources
    > of the computer system
    >
    > computer system —
    >        (a) means—
    >              (i) a computer; or
    >              (ii) 2 or more interconnected computers; or
    >              (iii) any communication links between computers or to remote
    > terminals or another device; or
    >              (iv) 2 or more interconnected computers combined with any
    > communication links between computers or to remote terminals or any other
    > device; and
    >        (b) includes any part of the items described in paragraph (a) and all
    > related input, output, processing, storage, software, or communication
    > facilities, and stored data.
    >
    > 249 Accessing computer system for dishonest purpose
    >
    > (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who,
    > directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly
    > or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    >        (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    > benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    >        (b) causes loss to any other person.
    >
    > (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,
    > directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly
    > or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    >        (a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    > benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    >        (b) to cause loss to any other person.
    >
    > (3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).
    >
    > 250 Damaging or interfering with computer system
    >
    > (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who,
    > directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system and thereby, dishonestly
    > or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    >        (a) obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    > benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    >        (b) causes loss to any other person.
    >
    > (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who,
    > directly or indirectly, accesses any computer system with intent, dishonestly
    > or by deception, and without claim of right,—
    >        (a) to obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
    > benefit, or valuable consideration; or
    >        (b) to cause loss to any other person.
    >
    > (3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in section 240(2).
    >
    > 251 Making, selling, or distributing or possessing software for committing crime
    >
    > (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who
    > invites any other person to acquire from him or her, or offers or exposes for
    > sale or supply to any other person, or agrees to sell or supply or sells or
    > supplies to any other person, or has in his or her possession for the purpose
    > of sale or supply to any other person, any software or other information that
    > would enable another person to access a computer system without authorisation—
    >              (a) the sole or principal use of which he or she knows to be the
    > commission of a crime; or
    >              (b) that he or she promotes as being useful for the commission of
    > a crime (whether or not he or she also promotes it as being useful for any
    > other purpose), knowing or being reckless as to whether it will be used for the
    > commission of a crime.
    >
    > (2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who—
    >              (a) has in his or her possession any software or other information
    > that would enable him or her to access a computer system without authorisation; and
    >              (b) intends to use that software or other information to commit a
    > crime.
    >
    > 252 Accessing computer system without authorisation
    >
    > (1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years who
    > intentionally accesses, directly or indirectly, any computer system without
    > authorisation, knowing that he or she is not authorised to access that computer
    > system, or being reckless as to whether or not he or she is authorised to
    > access that computer system.
    >
    > (2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if a person who is authorised
    > to access a computer system accesses that computer system for a purpose other
    > than the one for which that person was given access.
    >
    > (3) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply if access to a computer
    > system is gained by a law enforcement agency—
    >              (a) under the execution of an interception warrant or search
    > warrant; or
    >              (b) under the authority of any Act or rule of the common law
    >
    > ...
    >
    > There's a bit of equivocation there but I reckon they are looking at jail..- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I haven;t been back to Quay for years now. When I was still a student
    I bought a PC with no OS (as I had a Win95 install CD from the old
    machine at home). Everything seemed to work fine except after about 10
    minutes the modem would just hang up. I tried all sort of stuff to get
    it working. We tried shifting the modem to a differnt PC (also win95)
    and it worked fine.

    So I took it back and explained the problem. A few days later they
    call me to tell me its fixed. They wanted to charge me but backed down
    when I asked what was actually wrong and why it was not a warranttee
    claim. On, what we shall laughably refer to as the "repair" docket it
    said something like "Booted OK, modem works". Naievely I took the
    machine home, went on the internet and lo! 10 mintes later the modem
    hangs up. Bastards.

    At this stage I didn't have a car so back on thebus with a massive PC
    case i went.

    Explained the problem again, took great pains to empahsie the need to
    write down 10 minutes. Watched the "tech" not write 10 minutes down.
    Then I made him write it down on the problem report bit.

    Got a call from Quay. They had looked at it and apparently the problem
    was Win95. You see, it *needed* Win98 to work. I confirmed with them
    that that was the case as the modem had worked perfectly fine on a
    different Win95 PC. No, No, I was assured that Win98 would fix the
    problem. There would of course be a small upgrade fee and charge for
    installing Win98. Fine, if it fixes the problem. Oh yes it will.
    You'll test it before I pick it up, of course we will.

    I head down to the end of the Quay and get my PC and pay for the
    upgrade and some time. Guess what happened when I got home. Yeah. 10
    minutes of internet and then it hung up.

    Back on the bus. Got down there. Totally went ballistic.Pretty much
    called thier entire tech team a bunch of incompetents and then i got
    colourful. I almost feel sorry for the poor tech that was behind the
    counter. Don't know what they layout is now but at the time the tech
    area was just around corner from the main sales area so anyone in the
    shop could hear me trying to explain basic commonsense to the useless
    monkeys. Told them I had had it and wanted a full refund of both the
    machine and the Win98 upgrade etc.

    They took it back to have a look at. Thier final explanation was that
    it was the combination of that brand of modem and that brand of
    motherboard. Don't know how much of that is true or whether the
    finally tried connecting to the internet for more than 10 minutes and
    realised the modem was f**ked all along.

    Then they tried to charge me for the repair. Then I had to argue and
    make another scene until they'd refund the now totally unessessary
    Win98 they had loaded.

    In someways the worst thing about this whole experience was that it
    was *not* the same tech each time. I talked with at least 3 techs and
    one of the managers. Everytime I had explained the problem i had
    explained about the 10 minute lag before the modem hung up.

    Suffice to say I have never set foot in that store again. If you want
    a PC fixed you're better off giving your PC and a hammer to a 5 year
    old and letting them have at it. Quay were (and it seems still are)
    totally useless.
    SlowLearner, Oct 16, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob

    Need stepping ring help, 46mm--->52mm

    Bob, Jun 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    470
    Bob Salomon
    Jun 18, 2004
  2. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    Stephen Poley
    Oct 14, 2005
  3. ofn01
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    324
    Peter Huebner
    Jul 19, 2007
  4. ofn01
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,465
    Rob.S.
    Jul 21, 2007
  5. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    813
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page