entknwhw--
The problem with the Upgrade Advisor that is well intended is it's flat
wrong half the time. On box after box that has enough RAM to run Vista
perfectly, I've seen false messages saying drivers won't work that work
perfectly for Sound, that new IDE Controllers (Intel (R) 82801BA Ultra ATA
Controller) and new IEEE Serial Bus Host Controllers (VIA OCHI compliant
IEEE 1394 Controllers) and they are just flat wrong.
There is also the false message Vista gives on a number of boxes when they
try to dual boot running setup from XP from every since Build 5472 on up
that you cannot install Vista and Vista setup runs flawlessly as does Vista
on each of those machines after you restart and run setup from restart
(which will allow the bios to reassign your drive letters which can be
reghacked back to normal).
MSFT has been well aware of these bugs and done nothing whatsoever about it,
as is par for the course which will along with their new Windows Protection
that targets legitimate copies of Vista cause numerous sales losses and much
time spent after their PSS Convergys of Ohio contractors are incapable of
handling this by MSFT personnel. An example of how calls work when WGA
screws up is quoted on Ed Bott's blog including MSFT's head in the sand tail
between legs failure to respond to one of their long-time MVPs and the
author every OS of the MSFT Press book that is one of the leading references
books on the Windows Operating system--his Windows Vista Inside Out has sold
nearly a million pre pub copies:
Another Wave of WGA Failures
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?cat=12
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=142
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=144
Ed Bott Blog Readers Burned by WGA
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1370#comments
You can read Ed Bott's information and comments on the new SPP here:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/
From Ed Bott "We recognize the inconvenience." Is it really that hard to say
"We apologize"?
Apparently the egos at Redmond and the eggregious imperious attitude makes
it impossible to admit they make huge mistakes and impossible for them to
apologize. There is much in common with the disastrous West Wing policy and
MSFT's implementation of Vista and failure to correct Vista Bugs. "Stay the
Course" no matter how broken the program or feature seems to be the mantra
as the tin eared boys and girls get ready to party over broken Vista with
kegs and tents.
MSFT flat out refuses to fix the broken Upgrade Advisor because they want to
trick unsuspecting customers into buying hardware they don't need. MSFT
setup teams flat out refuse to fix the setup glitch on a dual boot when
setup is run from XP that has sprung up in every build including today's
build since 5472.
MSFT would rather protect their revenue stream than their customers who buy
legitimate Windows"
From Ed Bott author of Windows Vista Inside Out
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9361.asp
The book ought to be a great book if it incorporates the insights and
analysis in Ed Bott's two blogs and is always a must read for a Windows
enthusiast or someone who is teaching or administrating Windows operating
systems and servers:
See:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/
Ed Bott's Windows Expertise
Tips, tricks, news, and advice about Windows and Office
October 6, 2006
UAC good. SPP not so good.
"In the midst of a post about Microsoft's new viral marketing campaign for
Windows Vista (which I wrote about last night), Dwight Silverman tosses off
this aside:
Whether [the Demetri Martin campaign] will be enough to get consumers to
pony up the bucks for a Vista upgrade, and once they have it, make them
forget such irritants as the User Account Control and the Software
Protection Program, remains to be seen.
I just want to go on the record here with my thoughts that these two
features should not be mentioned in the same breath. UAC is without a doubt
a feature that was designed to provide a benefit to Windows users. We can
quibble about the way it works, but not about the goals behind it.
SPP, on the other hand, is the successor to Windows Genuine Advantage. Both
initiatives have in common a reliance on Orwellian language that appears to
be in the customer's benefit but is actually a horrible inconvenience and
potentially a nightmare. Despite Microsoft's attempts to spin the new
program, there's no advantage for the Windows customer, and the only thing
being protected is Microsoft's revenue stream.
By definition, security measures like UAC are inconvenient. But SPP goes
beyond being an irritant.
OK, rant over. Sorry to pick on a single offhand remark, Dwight."
Quote from link:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/
CH
