If it wasn't important, why was he bothering to use it?
Just because a feature was not important enough to sway his decision on what kind of car to buy doesn't mean he should never use it. I didn't get my car because it has heated side mirrors, but I still turn them on when the mirrors are icy.
You might be surprised how much machine power Windows wastes.
I would not be surprised, I've seen what comparatively wimpy hardware will run the latest and most advanced Linux distributions without complaint or issue. And really really pathetically slow and outdated hardware will run something like Xubuntu. I've just never done development on Linux on a lower power machine. Maybe I should ask my boss if I can put Linux on this pathetically slow laptop...
This claim is describing online shopping, the ability to purchase something online and either download it directly or have it shipped to you.
Notice the claim says the goods are in digital format suitable for downloading and other format suitable for shipping. That doesn't describe any physical goods (you can't download socks, lawn chairs, or Tylenol), so it's considerably narrower than "online shopping".
They decided that because VCRs have "substantial non-infringing uses," it was OK to make them.
I think a product or service having substantial non-infringing uses is not the same thing as finding that a particular feature is integral to the (already determined as fair use) service, and is therefore OK. It would be more like the VCR being found as fair use, and deciding that a play button is integral to its use and is OK but a pause button is not, so the pause button may or may not be OK.