Oh woe is me?

[deebs]

Ok - summary swift:
- bought Windows XP Pro as an optional upgrade to computer bought in May
2005
- torn label install was compromised by supplied by not supplying
Microsoft media
- supplier goes out of business and calls in receivers (UK business
practice)
- contact receiver and after 3 months no joy in complying with MS policy
that torn label install should be supported by media
- contact credit card company and they say "Go sort it out deebs, we'll
pick up the bill. Don't worry about getting refunds we have ways to
deal with that" Besides, i paid 2% surcharge for using credit card
- update to a full retail pack of XP Pro and paid for by credit card company

Now part of the original OEM Suite MS Autoroute will not run. It asks
to be installed, i insert Disk 5 of the OEM suite and the MSI sulks most
emotionally.

! - why can't I transfer therights I have under OEM (botched) install to
my fully compliant retail install of XP Pro?

! - why does Autoroute 2005 decide to sulk so? can it possibly be that
a hidden component of botched OEM install is flagging faulty MSI when I
insert Disk 5 of Works Suite?

! - why do I have to pay 3 times for functional software?

Please post solutions post haste (I feel like a BSA report is about to
be drafted)

I can guess that there is an install conflict from OEM (botched) install
of XP Pro and immediately require full functionality of the stuff I paid
for.

I'd like to offer an opportunity for solution here before I formalise a
complaint

The next post will contain JPEG images of dialogue boxes. Dial up users
may care to avoid the next message (no text, just JPEGs)
Why ca

 

[Leythos]

The next post will contain JPEG images of dialogue boxes. Dial up users
may care to avoid the next message (no text, just JPEGs)
Why ca

Don't post ANY BINARY FILES to this group - it will violate your ISP's
AUP and also violates THIS GROUPS CHARTER.

If you have a OEM computer, and you bought a RETAIL copy of XP, just do
a repair/reinstall using the Retail CD.

 

[deebs]

Apologies for the binaries but they rather explain the point very well
or don't they?

Full retail install is in place (BTW - for anyone reading this I have no
hesitation in recommending a full retail OS over an OEM OS anyday but
that is another story)

My view is:
- purchased optional upgrade to OEM XP Pro (compromised and botched by
the supplier now no longer trading eg defunct)
- purchased OEM extra software bundle as an optional extra
- repaired botched & compromised OEM install of OEM XP Pro by grateful
intervention of credit card company which, of course, i contributed to
by a 2% surcharge, by installation of XP Pro

It would appear that my purchases to use fully licensed software has
been denied by some oversight constituting a denial of service attack?

Or maybe I am wrong?

 

[deebs]

Dear Leythos

Thank you for your reply - a formal complaint shall be sent to BSA

deebs

 

[deebs]

BTW: my complaint to BSA will be about a non-compliant install of an
operating system

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression. This is a great
NG/Forum?help! facility

I just wanted to voice my concerns to experts

Thank you all and please do keep up the good work!

 

[Joey]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Don't post ANY BINARY FILES to this group - it will violate your ISP's
AUP and also violates THIS GROUPS CHARTER.

I see no violation of posting Binaries on a MS server.

Rules of Conduct
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx

If I am wrong then please post a MS charter. I have seen many people post in
HTML and post pictures (binaries) and no one complains.

- --
Joey
Registered Machine #306114
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDdCmd/MZBS/kA/sURAlflAJ4yXcY7SWsVZ1rRCQyQKOGtcdsYhgCbBmjr
s5sdhUgDBONCjMOrBdt+I4o=
=LiC3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Leythos]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


I see no violation of posting Binaries on a MS server.

Rules of Conduct
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/conduct/default.mspx

If I am wrong then please post a MS charter. I have seen many people post in
HTML and post pictures (binaries) and no one complains.

Yes, you are right, it's not a violation of the charter at this time. I
had thought I had read that it was earlier this year, but I can't find
it at this time, I stand corrected. Posting binaries in a group not
marked as a binary groups has always been considered "in bad taste", but
many of the newer Usenet users don't know that before they start
posting. In most cases, unless asked to post a screen shot by someone,
they are completely unneeded in order to get help.