Should Microsoft Protect Our Investment In Windows Software?

[Charlie Tame]

ulTRAX wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>> No, what we expect is for adults to behave as adults and think before
>> they act, and to accept responsibility for their own choices or lack of
>> forethought .
>
> I find your double standard hypocritical in the extreme. I don't see you
> applying it to MS itself. You want Microsoft to have made the decisions NOT
> to make software compatibility a priority... to release an OS before it was
> ready... yet deserve immunity from all criticism when consumers are stuck
> with hundreds of dollars of incompatible software DESIGNED TO RUN ON WINDOWS.
>
> So Spanky, if that’s your position… why not post here DEMANDING Microsoft
> NOT offer downgrade rights to consumers/businesses that find too many
> compatibility problems with Vista. Tell MS to tell these ingrates who got
> stuck with a goddamn beta version masquerading as a ready-for-market OS that
> it’s THEIR fault for not researching how fatally flawed Vista was before they
> bought it.
>


It's kinda hard to try before you buy though, no?

Yes I guess there's a refund policy, but in most cases we know where
that leads and if MS is the exception how is one to know that?

MS HAVE made concessions with regard to the extended availability of XP,
they HAVE made concessions to OEMs on the same lines. I take it that
this means MS acknowledge that many genuine users have genuine problems.
This is a very good sign considering their implementation of Genuine
Advantage and Product Activation both tend to imply that they regard you
as being non-genuine until you prove otherwise, so if MS recognize that
there is a problem you gotta wonder why we can't all accept that there
is a problem, that some information has been missed and attempt to find
a mutually agreeable solution

 

[Alias]

ulTRAX wrote:
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program: my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less recognizable ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost.
>

Reasons MS released the Vista Virus:

1. MS Greed
2. Hardware makers' greed
3. Software makers' greed
4. OEM computer makers like Dell and HP's greed

They do not, as is evidenced by your experience, WPA, WGA and DRM care
what you think nor how much money you lose.

Sick of the this crap? Ubuntu has all the programs you list above
(except Registry Mechanic, which isn't necessary) and more, all FREE,
including the operating system that you can install on as many computers
as you like. Go to www.ubuntu.com and download it and burn it to a CD
and run the CD to make sure it recognizes all your hardware. Or, you can
order the CD and they will pay the postage for you to get it.

Alias

 

[jdrobinsons@googlemail.com]

MS used be really good at backward compatibility. Now they have
forgotten the importance of it.

They very carefully migrated people from DOS, though Windows 3 to
95/98. It was quite an amazing achievement.

Now, when it's most dangerous competetitor of all is on the up-and-up,
it ain't bovvered!

 

[ulTRAX]

I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I actually wrote:
"One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
that there were going to be many problems with "older" software."

As for being of any help in my case? The advice has been pretty worthless
basically telling me who made the software I just failed to install and go
visit them. And I've yet to get the compatibility option to work with ANY of
the software what did actually install but failed to work.

So it raises again the question whether the Advisor is merely an admission
of a bigger incompatibility problem with Vista as opposed to a fix.

"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
> Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end user
> upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.

 

[ulTRAX]

"CB" wrote:
> I am not a fanboy or Microsoft apologist. However, you should direct
> your dissatisfaction toward the responsible parties.

If you read my original post I was posting a general question to the Vista
newsgroup. I merely asked before getting beat up by Vista Jihadists: "So is
it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our investments in
Windows software? Some here seem to think it's perfectly reasonable for
consumers to expect some of that investment to be lost." If not here... where
should have I asked this question? But if I’m going to get beat up by Vista
Jihadists who apparently think MS bears NO responsibility for this mess, and
consumers like myself are entirely to blame, then I WILL respond.

> Your investment in
> Windows software is protected by Microsoft updates and the ongoing research
> conducted by the software engineers.

I think it that investment would have been better protected by NOT releasing
a new OS before it was ready. It's clear from news reports going back to 05
that MS kept dropping features they once said would be in Vista. They were
under the gun to get Vista out... and it was clearly not ready even after
those new features had been dropped.


> It is your investment in third party
> software that should be protected and it seems these third party software
> vendors simply don't care enough about their customers to keep the software
> updated and compatible. These vendors had a very long time to make their
> products compatible with Windows Vista and they chose not to do so.

I tire of this one-sided finger pointing. Perhaps Vista was too big a change
to adapt to on MS's release schedule. I seem to recall reports of a lot of
OEM and vendor calls for MS to delay Vista or extend XP. You ignore the
possibility that the market was simply not ready for Vista when MS for its
own reasons decided it had to release it. Yet I think that is where the
evidence points to.

 

[ulTRAX]

"Alias" wrote:

> Reasons MS released the Vista Virus:
> 1. MS Greed
> 2. Hardware makers' greed
> 3. Software makers' greed
> 4. OEM computer makers like Dell and HP's greed

Not sure if all of those are correct. Reports are that OEMs were not happy
with Vista but MS forced it down their throats. But because of OEM pressure
MS agreed to extend the life of XP. And hasn't Dell started to sell Linux
PCs?

> They do not, as is evidenced by your experience, WPA, WGA and DRM care
> what you think nor how much money you lose.

I think WGA is scandalous. It assumes consumers are guilty of pirated copies
of Windows unless they proved themselves innocent. So to get people to allow
MS to spy on them, MS deliberately withholds parts of its OS like IE upgrades
that just a few years ago was saying was integral to Windows. And what was
the point of withholding its anti-spyware program unless one agreed to be
spied upon by the WGA servers? Wasn't MS getting enough black eyes over
security?

> Sick of the this crap? Ubuntu has all the programs you list above
> (except Registry Mechanic, which isn't necessary) and more, all FREE,
> including the operating system that you can install on as many computers
> as you like.

You're not saying Ubuntu will run those programs... only that there are
replacements? I certainly have more programs than what I listed such as
PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks... and I can't take any more chances
they won't work with even another OS. But I do wish such efforts all the best
luck. I really detest being stuck in a vendor lockin... ESPECIALLY when I can
no longer assume it will protect my sizable investment in software.

 

[Alias]

ulTRAX wrote:
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
>> Reasons MS released the Vista Virus:
>> 1. MS Greed
>> 2. Hardware makers' greed
>> 3. Software makers' greed
>> 4. OEM computer makers like Dell and HP's greed
>
> Not sure if all of those are correct. Reports are that OEMs were not happy
> with Vista but MS forced it down their throats. But because of OEM pressure
> MS agreed to extend the life of XP. And hasn't Dell started to sell Linux
> PCs?

OEMs are selling Vista installed computers. If they were against it,
they would have told MS to take a walk. Money and greed stopped them
from going up against MS.

>
>> They do not, as is evidenced by your experience, WPA, WGA and DRM care
>> what you think nor how much money you lose.
>
> I think WGA is scandalous. It assumes consumers are guilty of pirated copies
> of Windows unless they proved themselves innocent. So to get people to allow
> MS to spy on them, MS deliberately withholds parts of its OS like IE upgrades
> that just a few years ago was saying was integral to Windows. And what was
> the point of withholding its anti-spyware program unless one agreed to be
> spied upon by the WGA servers? Wasn't MS getting enough black eyes over
> security?

This so-called security is one of the reasons I am running Ubuntu.

>
>> Sick of the this crap? Ubuntu has all the programs you list above
>> (except Registry Mechanic, which isn't necessary) and more, all FREE,
>> including the operating system that you can install on as many computers
>> as you like.
>
> You're not saying Ubuntu will run those programs... only that there are
> replacements? I certainly have more programs than what I listed such as
> PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks... and I can't take any more chances
> they won't work with even another OS. But I do wish such efforts all the best
> luck. I really detest being stuck in a vendor lockin... ESPECIALLY when I can
> no longer assume it will protect my sizable investment in software.
>

So set up a dual boot with XP and see if Ubuntu's repository has the
programs you need. I do know that Gimp is a replacement for Photo Shop.
As I don't use the other programs you mention, I can't say if there's a
replacement.

Alias

 

[Frank]

Alias wrote:

> ulTRAX wrote:
>
>>
>> "Alias" wrote:
>>
>>> Reasons MS released the Vista Virus:
>>> 1. MS Greed
>>> 2. Hardware makers' greed
>>> 3. Software makers' greed
>>> 4. OEM computer makers like Dell and HP's greed
>>
>>
>> Not sure if all of those are correct. Reports are that OEMs were not
>> happy with Vista but MS forced it down their throats. But because of
>> OEM pressure MS agreed to extend the life of XP. And hasn't Dell
>> started to sell Linux PCs?
>
>
> OEMs are selling Vista installed computers. If they were against it,
> they would have told MS to take a walk. Money and greed stopped them
> from going up against MS.
>
>>
>>
>>> They do not, as is evidenced by your experience, WPA, WGA and DRM
>>> care what you think nor how much money you lose.
>>
>>
>> I think WGA is scandalous. It assumes consumers are guilty of pirated
>> copies of Windows unless they proved themselves innocent. So to get
>> people to allow MS to spy on them, MS deliberately withholds parts of
>> its OS like IE upgrades that just a few years ago was saying was
>> integral to Windows. And what was the point of withholding its
>> anti-spyware program unless one agreed to be spied upon by the WGA
>> servers? Wasn't MS getting enough black eyes over security?
>
>
> This so-called security is one of the reasons I am running Ubuntu.
>
>>
>>
>>> Sick of the this crap? Ubuntu has all the programs you list above
>>> (except Registry Mechanic, which isn't necessary) and more, all FREE,
>>> including the operating system that you can install on as many
>>> computers as you like.
>>
>>
>> You're not saying Ubuntu will run those programs... only that there
>> are replacements? I certainly have more programs than what I listed
>> such as PhotoShop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Fireworks... and I can't take
>> any more chances they won't work with even another OS. But I do wish
>> such efforts all the best luck. I really detest being stuck in a
>> vendor lockin... ESPECIALLY when I can no longer assume it will
>> protect my sizable investment in software.
>
>
> So set up a dual boot with XP and see if Ubuntu's repository has the
> programs you need. I do know that Gimp is a replacement for Photo Shop.
> As I don't use the other programs you mention, I can't say if there's a
> replacement.
>
> Alias

Still pushing that POS childish toy os aren't you.
Get a fukkin life you lying loser.
Frank

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

A great deal of software and hardware is compatible with Windows
Vista.
The % of those compatible and not for a specific user varies by the
specifics of their uses.
100% backwards compatibility is not possible.
Some older software was poorly written to begin with causing stability
or security issues.
For these, there is little anyone can do unless the manufacturer fixes
the issue.
Fore some, the products are abandoned.
For others there are patches.
And still for others, there are newer versions.
Many felt Microsoft should have ignored backwards compatibility and
built windows vista from the ground up.
That would probably have made a leaner more efficient operating system
but there would have been far more compatibility issues forcing almost
all new hardware and software.
Many others felt not enough for compatibility was done.
More compatibility would take more time and almost certainly increase
the size of Windows Vista.
Where to draw the line?
All of us would probably draw the line in a different place.

Before upgrading anything, it is advisable to verify compatibility of
all essential hardware and software .
Only then can an informed decision about upgrading be made.
This applies to anything from any source, not just operating systems
or computers.

The windows Vista Upgrade Advisor is a great place to start:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...adeadvisor.mspx
It can not be all inclusive since there are just to many hardware and
software products and Microsoft has no control over those
manufacturers.
As the name implies, it is an advisor only, you still need to verify
according to your needs.

Why did you move to Windows vista?
You could have stayed with windows XP if that worked for you.
If you purchased a new computer, Dell, Toshiba and possibly others of
the major OEMs as well as nearly countless local shops will sell you a
computer with Windows XP or other operating systems.
You can return the computer as long as you are still in the return
period.

You can also return retail Windows Vista, easy in North America within
45 days of purchase.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"ulTRAX" wrote in message
news:B5BCBB52-2F12-4686-AAD5-762D357C3A75@microsoft.com...
> When I moved from ME... a dog of an OS if ever there was one… to XP
> which I
> thought highly of, I only had compatibility issues with one program:
> my OEM
> video player which worked fine using the backward compatibility
> mode.
>
> So it was shocking for me to make the move to Vista and find
> hundreds of
> dollars of my software was incompatible... Nero 7, WS_FTP Pro, Zone
> Alarm
> Pro, System Mechanic 6, Ghost Recon, and some other less
> recognizable ones.
> NONE of these work using backward compatibility settings. And since
> I’m not
> yet done reinstalling old software who knows what else won’t work.
>
> So is it reasonable for consumers to expect Microsoft to PROTECT our
> investments in Windows software? Some here seem to think it's
> perfectly
> reasonable for consumers to expect some of that investment to be
> lost.
>

 

[The poster formely known as 'The]

ulTRAX wrote:
> I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I actually wrote:
> "One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission on MS's part
> that there were going to be many problems with "older" software."

I've tried the upgrade advisor, and it found no compatibility issues
with my 3 yr old XP machine. Then when I did a clean install of vista
on it, my sound, my networking, and most of my old programs didn't work.
For those of you Vista experts out there, don't give me the 'you
should have done research before hand' because I did this as a test, I
was not making a full move to vista yet. I've come to the conclusion
that the Vista upgrade advisor is little more than a marketing tool.
Nothing beats good old fashioned research.

>
> As for being of any help in my case? The advice has been pretty worthless
> basically telling me who made the software I just failed to install and go
> visit them. And I've yet to get the compatibility option to work with ANY of
> the software what did actually install but failed to work.
>
> So it raises again the question whether the Advisor is merely an admission
> of a bigger incompatibility problem with Vista as opposed to a fix.
>
> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>> Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end user
>> upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.
>



--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"don't give me the 'you should have done research before hand"
Good you did it as a test.
Remember as the name implies it is an advisor, no more.
The phrase "will help you to determine" on the Upgrade Advisor site
make it clear that it will help and the word help implies you need to
do more.
Those using an advisor, any kind of advisor for anything, and not
looking further set themselves up for possible failure.

"as opposed to a fix"
Where is it said the Upgrade Advisor is a "fix"?
I may have missed it.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina
DiBoy'" wrote in message news:fhkoe6$be8$1@aioe.org...
> ulTRAX wrote:
>> I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I
>> actually wrote: "One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution
>> or admission on MS's part that there were going to be many problems
>> with "older" software."
>
> I've tried the upgrade advisor, and it found no compatibility issues
> with my 3 yr old XP machine. Then when I did a clean install of
> vista on it, my sound, my networking, and most of my old programs
> didn't work. For those of you Vista experts out there, don't give me
> the 'you should have done research before hand' because I did this
> as a test, I was not making a full move to vista yet. I've come to
> the conclusion that the Vista upgrade advisor is little more than a
> marketing tool. Nothing beats good old fashioned research.
>
>>
>> As for being of any help in my case? The advice has been pretty
>> worthless basically telling me who made the software I just failed
>> to install and go visit them. And I've yet to get the compatibility
>> option to work with ANY of the software what did actually install
>> but failed to work. So it raises again the question whether the
>> Advisor is merely an admission of a bigger incompatibility problem
>> with Vista as opposed to a fix. "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>>> Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end
>>> user upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
> Submit your nomination at the link below:
> http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
>
> "Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
> free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of
> the creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country.
> Consumer rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
> - Maura Corbett

 

[Charlie Tame]

The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:
> ulTRAX wrote:
>> I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I actually
>> wrote: "One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or
>> admission on MS's part that there were going to be many problems with
>> "older" software."
>
> I've tried the upgrade advisor, and it found no compatibility issues
> with my 3 yr old XP machine. Then when I did a clean install of vista
> on it, my sound, my networking, and most of my old programs didn't work.
> For those of you Vista experts out there, don't give me the 'you should
> have done research before hand' because I did this as a test, I was not
> making a full move to vista yet. I've come to the conclusion that the
> Vista upgrade advisor is little more than a marketing tool. Nothing
> beats good old fashioned research.
>
>>
>> As for being of any help in my case? The advice has been pretty
>> worthless basically telling me who made the software I just failed to
>> install and go visit them. And I've yet to get the compatibility
>> option to work with ANY of the software what did actually install but
>> failed to work.
>> So it raises again the question whether the Advisor is merely an
>> admission of a bigger incompatibility problem with Vista as opposed to
>> a fix.
>> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>>> Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end
>>> user upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.

And my findings were the same. True I have a limited number of machines
to test and only 2 "Might" have been capable. Both said yes, both failed
during install, 2/2 wrong.

I then took 3 brand new machines, not a single one installed without
problems and some new hardware had to be replaced. Go figure. Had any of
these been my "Work" machine I'd have been well inconvenienced.

Then when I fitted the new hardware, because I'd done what most people
would do and allowed the default "Activate as soon as installed" option,
I had to reactivate. Sorry but that default option is not "On" by
accident, it is "On" by default so you don't notice it and MS get to
evaluate your machine before you do

I mean just having one spare machine is an advantage a lot of people
won't have, an outage is a big deal to many people, didn't bother me
much at all but that's not the point, the point is that from most
ordinary users' point of view is the creek without a paddle. It is not
fair to berate them for lack of knowledge when it is not their
specialty, nor is it fair to berate them for not using tools when the
darned tools don't work.

 

[dennis@home]

"The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'"
wrote in message news:fhkoe6$be8$1@aioe.org...
> ulTRAX wrote:
>> I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I actually
>> wrote: "One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or admission
>> on MS's part that there were going to be many problems with "older"
>> software."
>
> I've tried the upgrade advisor, and it found no compatibility issues with
> my 3 yr old XP machine.

You misunderstand what the advisor can do.
It can look at your system and identify a problem.
It can't look at every possible application and piece of hardware.

 

[The poster formely known as 'The]

Charlie Tame wrote:
> The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
> wrote:
>> ulTRAX wrote:
>>> I didn't say Upgrade Advisor was an "excuse". Here's what I actually
>>> wrote: "One wonders if the Upgrade Advisor is the solution or
>>> admission on MS's part that there were going to be many problems with
>>> "older" software."
>>
>> I've tried the upgrade advisor, and it found no compatibility issues
>> with my 3 yr old XP machine. Then when I did a clean install of vista
>> on it, my sound, my networking, and most of my old programs didn't
>> work. For those of you Vista experts out there, don't give me the
>> 'you should have done research before hand' because I did this as a
>> test, I was not making a full move to vista yet. I've come to the
>> conclusion that the Vista upgrade advisor is little more than a
>> marketing tool. Nothing beats good old fashioned research.
>>
>>>
>>> As for being of any help in my case? The advice has been pretty
>>> worthless basically telling me who made the software I just failed to
>>> install and go visit them. And I've yet to get the compatibility
>>> option to work with ANY of the software what did actually install but
>>> failed to work.
>>> So it raises again the question whether the Advisor is merely an
>>> admission of a bigger incompatibility problem with Vista as opposed
>>> to a fix.
>>> "Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" wrote:
>>>> Upgrade Advisor is not an excuse, its essential in helping the end
>>>> user upgrade or migrate to Windows Vista smoothly.
>
> And my findings were the same. True I have a limited number of machines
> to test and only 2 "Might" have been capable. Both said yes, both failed
> during install, 2/2 wrong.

I at least had successful installs (one on second partition of my
desktop machine, one in a virtual machine). Sounds like I got lucky.
>
> I then took 3 brand new machines, not a single one installed without
> problems and some new hardware had to be replaced. Go figure. Had any of
> these been my "Work" machine I'd have been well inconvenienced.
>
> Then when I fitted the new hardware, because I'd done what most people
> would do and allowed the default "Activate as soon as installed" option,
> I had to reactivate. Sorry but that default option is not "On" by
> accident, it is "On" by default so you don't notice it and MS get to
> evaluate your machine before you do

I'm surprised. I have 2 licenses for Vista Business retail and neither
of them activated as soon as installed. I never noticed an option for
it during the install (if there even is one), I just knew I wasn't going
to activate until everything is working.

>
> I mean just having one spare machine is an advantage a lot of people
> won't have, an outage is a big deal to many people, didn't bother me
> much at all but that's not the point, the point is that from most
> ordinary users' point of view is the creek without a paddle. It is not
> fair to berate them for lack of knowledge when it is not their
> specialty, nor is it fair to berate them for not using tools when the
> darned tools don't work.
>

Esp. when said tools are buggy!
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-new...560&tag=nl.e019

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -
Submit your nomination at the link below:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Bruce Chambers]

ulTRAX wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>> No, what we expect is for adults to behave as adults and think before
>> they act, and to accept responsibility for their own choices or lack of
>> forethought .
>
> I find your double standard hypocritical in the extreme.


There's no double standard, so your findings are hallucinatory.


> I don't see you
> applying it to MS itself. You want Microsoft to have made the decisions NOT
> to make software compatibility a priority... to release an OS before it was
> ready..yet deserve immunity from all criticism when consumers are stuck
> with hundreds of dollars of incompatible software DESIGNED TO RUN ON WINDOWS.
>


"Designed to run" on which specific version of Windows? If they
weren't specifically designed for Vista by their makers, or designed to
the same standards that Microsoft published years ago for WinXP, then
you've no rational reason to expect them to work on Vista.

Are you having compatibility issues with Microsoft applications? If
so, you've so far utterly failed to mention any. You identified only
proprietary 3rd party applications. How could Microsoft possibly have
built-in backwards compatibility with these, short of violating
licensing and trademark laws by reverse-engineering other companies'
products? Are you really that out-of-touch with reality?


> So Spanky, if that’s your position… why not post here DEMANDING Microsoft
> NOT offer downgrade rights to consumers/businesses that find too many
> compatibility problems with Vista.


If Microsoft wishes to unnecessarily but very generously offer
downgrade rights to those incapable of planning, it's their choice.


> Tell MS to tell these ingrates who got
> stuck with a goddamn beta version masquerading as a ready-for-market OS that
> it’s THEIR fault for not researching how fatally flawed Vista was before they
> bought it.
>


No, I'd rather tell the "ingrates" to grow up and learn to accept
responsibility, rather than seeking to blame someone else for their own
failings.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Charlie Tame]

The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy' wrote:
> Charlie Tame wrote:
>> The poster formely known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'

>> And my findings were the same. True I have a limited number of
>> machines to test and only 2 "Might" have been capable. Both said yes,
>> both failed during install, 2/2 wrong.
>
> I at least had successful installs (one on second partition of my
> desktop machine, one in a virtual machine). Sounds like I got lucky.


It has been faultless on VirtualBox but of course the GFX are down.


>> I then took 3 brand new machines, not a single one installed without
>> problems and some new hardware had to be replaced. Go figure. Had any
>> of these been my "Work" machine I'd have been well inconvenienced.
>>
>> Then when I fitted the new hardware, because I'd done what most people
>> would do and allowed the default "Activate as soon as installed"
>> option, I had to reactivate. Sorry but that default option is not "On"
>> by accident, it is "On" by default so you don't notice it and MS get
>> to evaluate your machine before you do

>
> I'm surprised. I have 2 licenses for Vista Business retail and neither
> of them activated as soon as installed. I never noticed an option for
> it during the install (if there even is one), I just knew I wasn't going
> to activate until everything is working.


My MSDN copy is supposedly the same as retail. There is a checkmark
right at the start of the install that askes "Shall we activate as soon
as we have a connection" or something to that effect. It is very easy to
miss and quite honestly even easier the first time around if you are a
bit anxious to get the job underway, as many people might be.


>> I mean just having one spare machine is an advantage a lot of people
>> won't have, an outage is a big deal to many people, didn't bother me
>> much at all but that's not the point, the point is that from most
>> ordinary users' point of view is the creek without a paddle. It is not
>> fair to berate them for lack of knowledge when it is not their
>> specialty, nor is it fair to berate them for not using tools when the
>> darned tools don't work.
>>
>
> Esp. when said tools are buggy!
> http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/tech-new...560&tag=nl.e019


Well common sense dictates that a 6 year old machine is likely to fail,
but the Advisor said okay so who am I (or common sense) to argue. You
know I get the SW "free" so I believe there is an element of "Duty" to
at least give it some honest review - I tend to approach this as a
normal user (is there such a thing) in a domestic situation with no
great reserve in terms of cash or equipment. A sort of "How would I feel
if" scenario.

Results were "Not happy" in some cases, to say the least. I don't think
it fair to deny Microsoft this important feedback.

 

[ulTRAX]

"Bruce Chambers" wrote:

> No, I'd rather tell the "ingrates" to grow up and learn to accept
> responsibility, rather than seeking to blame someone else for their own
> failings.

Thanks for proving my point Bruce... that the Vista Jihadists here hold
everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft.

 

[Charlie Tame]

ulTRAX wrote:
>
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>
>> No, I'd rather tell the "ingrates" to grow up and learn to accept
>> responsibility, rather than seeking to blame someone else for their own
>> failings.
>
> Thanks for proving my point Bruce... that the Vista Jihadists here hold
> everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft.
>
>


Ingrates?

We should show "Gratitude" for the fact that MS have extended the "Life"
of an OS which WE have already paid for because their more recent
release which WE have also paid for doesn't work to expectations?


How about some apologists accepting responsibility for the failings of
the product they refuse to accept has failings when the supplier admits
and is currently working to correct said failings?

You don't issue a service pack or a multitude of "Updates" to correct
non-failings.

MS have shown good sense in addressing "Some" of the problems, more
sense is needed but a start has been made... this is welcome but not a
cause for "Gratitude".

Unbelievable.

 

[ulTRAX]

""Alias" wrote:

ulTRAX wrote:
> > Not sure if all of those are correct. Reports are that OEMs were not happy
> > with Vista but MS forced it down their throats. But because of OEM pressure
> > MS agreed to extend the life of XP. And hasn't Dell started to sell Linux
> > PCs?
>
> OEMs are selling Vista installed computers. If they were against it,
> they would have told MS to take a walk. Money and greed stopped them
> from going up against MS.

Think of the dynamic between MS and the OEM PC makers. They might not have
liked Vista but after MS spent a half BILLION on pumping up the public for an
OS that got lukewarm reviews... can that OEM maker NOT initially offer what
seems to be the newest Windows? Without knowing all the problems with Vista,
the Public would just go to the OEM who was selling splashy new Vista PCs. In
the meantime MS has let OEMs know that XP would not be licensed for sale
beyond Jan 08 so the clock was ticking.

In this equation MS is really the elephant in the room pushing the market to
adopt it's new product. Otherwise how could it begin to recoup the reported
$6 billion MS spent developing Vista? After repeatedly downgrading
expectations for Vista and long delays, MS had to just go for a release date
when it served their purposes. If the market wasn’t ready, and there were
massive hardware and software incompatibility problems, too bad. As we see
here, Vista Jihadists eagerly cast the blame everywhere but MS. Of course its
not THEIR money being pissed away rectifying such incompatibilities.

 

[Frank]

ulTRAX wrote:

>
> "Bruce Chambers" wrote:
>
>
>>No, I'd rather tell the "ingrates" to grow up and learn to accept
>>responsibility, rather than seeking to blame someone else for their own
>>failings.
>
>
> Thanks for proving my point Bruce... that the Vista Jihadists here hold
> everyone else responsible for Vista's problems EXECPT Microsoft.
>
>

You need to shove a copy of urbutto up your stupid ignorant arse.
It'll make your day you loser troll...lol!
Frank