Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
requires validation.

WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
--
Tom Porterfield

Tom Porterfield wrote:
> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>
> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
> requires validation.
>
> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.


Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".

You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.

Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.

MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!

Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".


They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?

Something stinks here, badly.

Tom Porterfield wrote:
> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>
> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
> requires validation.
>
> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
My guess is that your invitation is a bit late. ;)

--
norm

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
<tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:

>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>
>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>requires validation.
>
>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
saying now, check back on Tuesday?

I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!

It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.

This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
Microsoft's fault.

Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>
wrote:

>Tom Porterfield wrote:
>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>
>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>> requires validation.
>>
>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>
>
>Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>
>You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>
>Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>
>MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>
>Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>
>
>They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?
>
>Something stinks here, badly.

If you already done it or need to do it.

See my "WGA temporary fix" post.

People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds
searching google.

Greg Rozelle


========Signature Line=========
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?certegy

You keep posting this but it will NOT work in this instance.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)


"Greg Rozelle" <invaild@invaild.com> wrote in message
news:Lo_zi.4457$Oo.2955@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net ...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>> requires validation.
>>>
>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>>
>>Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>>
>>You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>>yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>>preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>>
>>Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>>
>>MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>>
>>Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>>organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>>
>>
>>They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?
>>
>>Something stinks here, badly.
>
> If you already done it or need to do it.
>
> See my "WGA temporary fix" post.
>
> People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds
> searching google.
>
> Greg Rozelle
>
>
> ========Signature Line=========
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?certegy

Greg Rozelle wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>> requires validation.
>>>
>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>>
>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>>
>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>>
>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>>
>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>>
>>
>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No redundancy?
>>
>> Something stinks here, badly.
>
> If you already done it or need to do it.
>
> See my "WGA temporary fix" post.
>
> People need to look online for the fix. I found it in 3 seconds
> searching google.
>
> Greg Rozelle
>
>
> ========Signature Line=========
> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?certegy


So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in
an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)

Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for
millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software
responsible as being reliable for business use?

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>
>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>
>>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>requires validation.
>>
>>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>
> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>
> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>
> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>
> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
> Microsoft's fault.
>
> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>
>
>


It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.

They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist ..
perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all save a
message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured this
weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against perceived
violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for error][and
as this weekend has shown].

Saucy

Saucy wrote:
> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>> requires validation.
>>>
>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>
>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>
>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>
>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>> Microsoft's fault.
>>
>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>
> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>
> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist
> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all
> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has
> occured this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly
> against perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the
> room for error][and as this weekend has shown].
>
> Saucy


But here you are talking with people who

1. Know of the existence of these groups
2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.

Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
maybe more.

Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to
pay it, right?

The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
server went down.

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:OBMg7X05HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Greg Rozelle wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>> valid license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>
>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>> requires validation.
>>>>
>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>
>>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>>>
>>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>>>
>>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>>>
>>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>>>
>>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>>>
>>>
>>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No
>>> redundancy?
>>>
>>> Something stinks here, badly.
>>
>> If you already done it or need to do it.
>>
>> See my "WGA temporary fix" post. People need to look online for the
>> fix. I found it in 3 seconds
>> searching google.
>>
>> Greg Rozelle
>>
>>
>> ========Signature Line=========
>> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?certegy
>
>
> So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in
> an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)
>
> Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for
> millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software responsible
> as being reliable for business use?



Agreed to some extent. The validation scheme should preclude the odd server
collapse. There's should be a week's grace before anything more than a
messagebox appears.

Saucy

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
news:Opsusf05HHA.4584@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Saucy wrote:
>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>> news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>> valid
>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>
>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>> requires validation.
>>>>
>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>
>>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>>
>>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>>
>>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>>
>>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>>> Microsoft's fault.
>>>
>>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
>> reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.
>>
>> I *think* the problem is that after detecting a non-valid install [even
>> errorneously] reduced functionality kicks in.
>>
>> They shouldn't be so fast. A good substantial time period needs to exist
>> .. perhaps a month .. *but at least a week* .. before anything at all
>> save a message box occurs. This would preclude events such as has occured
>> this weekend. I'm very surprised validation works so quickly against
>> perceived violators. It works much too fast [considering all the room for
>> error][and as this weekend has shown].
>>
>> Saucy
>
>
> But here you are talking with people who
>
> 1. Know of the existence of these groups
> 2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
> 3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.
>
> Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
> and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
> system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
> yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
> fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
> from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
> fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
> reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
> small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
> maybe more.
>
> Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
> true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to pay
> it, right?
>
> The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
> server went down.



No, but what is occuring AFAICT is that when Windows is "validated" it
flunks because the server went down. Perhaps a system that simply says
"Server unavailable" plus a week's grace period before anything happens.
Instead, suddenly, reduced functionality kicks in.

If there is a grace period of a good week and a message saying to check with
Microsoft later, then there'd be less of a problem, wouldn't there?

I was sort of wary over the idea of reducing functionality of a person's
computer .. especially doing so at knne-jerk speed .. and I think my
wariness has just been proven correct. There should be a grace period
always.

Saucy

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:30:47 -0400, "Saucy" <wow@now.brown.cow> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>news:8lr0d3dmm69dpuv2fsuq2tm9akql32bnos@4ax.com.. .
>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:54:40 -0400, Tom Porterfield
>> <tpporter@mvps.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid
>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>
>>>My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>requires validation.
>>>
>>>WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>
>> I hate to be one that says I told you so. Again, Microsoft proves to
>> the world that it is totally incompetent. For a company as large as
>> Microsoft considering WHAT their business is to have servers go down
>> and impact probably tens of millions if not more customers world wide
>> due to their lax security and utter stupidity and remain that way for
>> more than a few minutes is laughable in the extreme. What are they
>> saying now, check back on Tuesday?
>>
>> I have no idea where Billy G is in the world at the moment, rest
>> assured alarm bells are going off in Redmond and he's sweating bullets
>> and probably screaming his lungs off at somebody for this latest
>> disaster. This is one of if not the biggest blunders in Microsoft's
>> checkered history and it will cost them big time in lost creditability
>> and respect and surely will increase anger towards them AND IT SHOULD!
>>
>> It too should be the death knell for all kinds of half-ass activation
>> schemes that Microsoft and everybody else knows doesn't stop hackers
>> or pirates in the first place, but it won't be. As usual, it is Joe
>> six pack that suffers because of Microsoft arrogance and stupidity.
>>
>> This space reserved for idiots like Frank to squeal it isn't
>> Microsoft's fault.
>>
>> Reserved for Frank to make an ass of himself ====>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>It is a bit of an alarm bell. The activation strategy needs to be
>reconsidered, of course, but only to some degree.

The golden rule of programming is ASSUME NOTHING. Again we see that
Microsoft is so utterly incompetent that their remedy is to label
anyone who was unfortunate enough to have their computer "phone home"
in one of endless validation calls to big brother got promptly labeled
a thief. I'm writing my Congressman. Time to get some oversight of the
software industry and hit it where it hurts... the bottom line. Time
to fine rogue corporations that think they can do whatever the hell
they want and not be punished for it. If the standard $10,000 per
occurrence fine were in place you can bet **** sure no Microsoft
server would be down more than a few minutes or that the default
action would be to label everyone counterfeit. Also long past time to
outlaw ALL these half-ass activation schemes. They are lopped sided in
the extreme and give end users few if any rights. They violate long
established federal fair use laws already on the books for decades.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:45:50 -0400, "Saucy" <wow@now.brown.cow> wrote:

>"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message
>news:OBMg7X05HHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Greg Rozelle wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:04:24 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom Porterfield wrote:
>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any
>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a
>>>>> valid license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.
>>>>>
>>>>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista
>>>>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that
>>>>> requires validation.
>>>>>
>>>>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing much, it wasn't "If" but "When".
>>>>
>>>> You might add turn off auto updating completely, thereby leaving
>>>> yourself vulnerable to any zero day exploits, but of course (Hopefully)
>>>> preventing Microsoft's own zero day exploit.
>>>>
>>>> Do NOT turn your machine off at all if you don't have to.
>>>>
>>>> MS CANNOT MANAGE ONE SERVER!
>>>>
>>>> Why in hell would anyone entrust their business to such a ramshackle
>>>> organization that cannot fix one server "Until Monday".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have no backups? No system for on the fly replacement? No
>>>> redundancy?
>>>>
>>>> Something stinks here, badly.
>>>
>>> If you already done it or need to do it.
>>>
>>> See my "WGA temporary fix" post. People need to look online for the
>>> fix. I found it in 3 seconds
>>> searching google.
>>>
>>> Greg Rozelle
>>>
>>>
>>> ========Signature Line=========
>>> http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_pe...ed.cgi?certegy
>>
>>
>> So basically what you are saying is it's fine for Microsoft to behave in
>> an incompetent manner as long as Google doesn't :)
>>
>> Why should any MS user need a temporary fix for something MS broke for
>> millions of people when MS actually MAKE and SELL the software responsible
>> as being reliable for business use?
>
>
>
>Agreed to some extent. The validation scheme should preclude the odd server
>collapse. There's should be a week's grace before anything more than a
>messagebox appears.
>
>Saucy

The point is there is NO legal basis for what Microsoft did. They have
their big fat corporate ass exposed to the air for anyone wanting to
take a stick to.

It isn't the user's fault a Microsoft server crashes. Worse, the
action taken, mark everyone counterfeit is so extreme in nature it
obviously violates the license agreement. It isn't a one way street.
Microsoft MUST legally live up to their end of the license as well.
Clearly this is a very juicy loophole you can drive a truck through.
Heads are going to roll in Redmond for whoever screwed this up.

This could be a tipping point. All depends how many millions of people
are affected and how fast Microsoft fixes the problem and apologies
profusely for such a major blunder. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is at
least a 8 or 9 and there is going to be hell to pay. On the scale of
things I view it almost as bad as Arthur Andersen once one of the big
5 CPA firms signing off on Enron's financial statements.* The big
boys, starting with Gates are going to have to eat crow on this one.

In case your curious what happened to them:

Arthur Andersen voluntarily surrendered its licenses to practice as
Certified Public Accountants in the U.S. pending the result of
prosecution by the Department of Justice over the firm's handling of
the auditing of Enron. The Andersen firm was convicted of obstruction
of justice for shredding documents related to its audit of Enron.
Since the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not allow
convicted felons to audit public companies, the firm agreed to
surrender its licenses. This effectively ended the company's
operations that once generated billions in yearly revenue.

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:44:07 -0500, Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>But here you are talking with people who
>
>1. Know of the existence of these groups
>2. Are computer literate enough to think of checking on Google etc
>3. Are not likely to be thrown into a panic.
>
>Windows is used by the less well educated, the disabled and the elderly
>and by businesses that depend on things working. This kind of thing has
>system admins on the run for hours before it is known what caused it,
>yesterday out system at work died because someone in Alabama dug up a
>fiber optic cable. Our IT people not only had to field dozens of calls
>from facilities that were prevented from working they had to spend hours
>fixing problems that users had caused trying to fix things themselves in
>reports that were half way done before the trouble hit. We are a very
>small corporation but nonetheless you are talking hundreds of man hours,
>maybe more.
>
>Multiply this by the thousands in the country as a whole and you see the
>true price of this folly, but that's alright, Microsoft won't have to
>pay it, right?
>
>The problem didn't start in a month, or a week, it started right as the
>server went down.

I'm just curious as to how many errors and problems existed with pencils and
type writers compared to the PROGRESS we now enjoy, spending 75% of the time
keeping the OS from self destructing ?
At worst a pencil sharpener or 2nd pencil would keep work from coming to a 3
day stand still while someone finds another box of pencils.
--
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

Adam he likes the boys and he is a salad tosser wrote:


> The point is there is NO legal basis for what Microsoft did. They have
> their big fat corporate ass exposed to the air for anyone wanting to
> take a stick to.
>

<Translation: I am an old freak, I like the *boys*, because they can
satisfy my nasty un-safe fetish. I am a nasty dirty old man, necked in
the basement on the floor and with a stick keyboard and mouse. I want my
salad tossed.>