My point being noone is in charge of anything at MS. You just generate
shoddy work. If you look at your title (I'm beginning to think you may be a
janitor with a silly title like you have) note you keep refering to it as a
platform. Those days are passed. It no longer is a platform. It is the end
product. But a very poor one. People use Windows not applications that run
on Windows.
I'm forced to use crap products like adobe's acrobat - a non windows
program.
It should work and it should work the same way (my solution is to prevent
acrobat from running on any windows machine - it will soon become a non
standard).
Lets take an example of MS coding with Autocomplete.
Start - Run, double clicking the box does not open the list.
Search Pane, double clicking the box does not open the list.
Forms on web pages, dbl clicking the list does open the list as it should.
While Start - Run is older than dbl clicking edit boxes on web page noone
bothered to go back and fix Explorer or edit boxes generally. Search Pane is
the same age. Noone bothered to apply the same UI standards to Search as web
forms.
It's this attitude of total contempt for the user. It was MS's idea to turn
Windows from a platform to a complete product with your built in My Pics, My
Music, and WMP (among other features). You pander to OEMs at your end users
expense (unable to repair install etc) and pander to developers also at your
end users expense (acrobat having wierd menu placements, toolbar icons, MDI
interface). Remember underlying technology is unimportant - the UI is all
that matters (if Linux ever learns this you are in trouble but they are even
more incompetant than MS and it's a matter of pride for them to be that
way).
I don't have a problem with PA. Remember our relationship soured after Tony
Hynes manipulated me to move from ME groups to XP groups and all I did was
correct incorrect information about PA. Especially after an engineer from
the s3 graphic corp stalked me. It's your PA not mine. But MS is too
cowardly to stand up for themselves. You have the legal teams to cope with
hostile companies, why push it off on to me.
Now many of the above paragraphs had to be typed many times as the keyboard
is shit. Every post I make takes several attempts to type.
Mike Brannigan said:
David Candy said:
They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
(which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
goal
of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office
in
Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
regular payments).
Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
MSNs or whatever ends up working.
MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
OEM
Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
she
could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
boring).
MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
strategic executive).
Exactly how am I misleading anyone here ?
Kurt and you are the ones spreading FUD here.
As regards your last comment about me, if you bothered to do any research
you could have found my biog on any number of online sessions at
Microsoft.com etc where you would see that I'm an Enterprise Strategy and
Senior Consultant, in the Windows Platform Infrastructure Delivery Group.
--
Regards,
Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights
Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
David Candy said:
They don't care about piracy. It is not about valid licensing. It is about
blurring the line between MS and you so you need to pay MS regular money
(which is what they care about - the regular part). This is a long term
goal
of MS (well over 10 years) and most of their efforts have failed. Some are
Application servers (they still perserve I saw a trial program using this
technology), MSN (was not the internet at first), yearly rental of Office
in
Australia (cancelled last year), Windows update, PA, and WPA. They seem to
have taken a long term approach of training consumers (Symantec watched MS
and did do it - one has to pay symantec regular sums of money to use their
product, but the products are different and MS don't naturally lead to
regular payments).
Think of the phone system. If you buy a phone it's absolutely useless
without wires and exchanges. MS wants your computer to be useless without
MSNs or whatever ends up working.
MS regards OEM software as leased software (last time I saw figures OEM
sales were over 90% of of total sales). They can't get consumers to
regularly pay them so they tie it to the life of the hardware (Source MS
OEM
Product Manager for OSs in Australia at the Christmas do in 2003 - they
bribed people to come with free Office XP Professional, I took me mum so
she
could get a $1200 product for free as well - she found OEM ranting
boring).
MS intends to own you. Mike Brannigan is actually misleading people here,
maybe inadvertantly as he is probably quite junior (I doubt he is a
strategic executive).
Steve N. said:
Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
message
Winux P wrote:
Compulsory WGA??? What! Who are these people? For what purpose would
this be for? Speed up downloads? Wouldn't it take download time + get
an authenicated check? Rather than just download time?
Who and what would WGA stop from downloading\updating anyway? My
windows is already WGA'd, I thought this happened when MS activated
it.
It is for nothing but MS flexing its muscles over its paying customers.
WGA is separate from WPA. The former know as Validation, and the
latter
as Activation. And they ar both separate and distinct from Registration.
And MS expects all its paying customers to learn the difference,
learn
the
differing rules of each, and to fetch when MS tell them to. It's getting
to the point where the OS is technically easier to use, than knowing
and
complying with all of MS rules & policies surrounding its copy-protection
schemes!
--
Kurt the customers don't need to know or understand anything in particular,
activation can be one click and once they have the control installed then
WGA will be invisible to them too.
Only those not using genuine licensed product will have an issue.
Mike, of course MS has the right to ensure that installations of their
software are legitimate before providing support (product updates are
support), and that justifies the use of PA and WGA, however there are
many documented cases where these mechanisms have failed to identify
legitimately licensed installations, leaving legitimately licensed users
in a lurch.
What, if anything, is MS doing to correct these flaws? So far all I've
seen MS do is make it more difficult, particularly with regard to OEM
installations and "unauthorized" product keys. It no longer only applies
to major OEMs, either. Every OEM pre-install I have seen lately that is
not pre-activated encounters this.
And while we're at it, please print the keys on the COA in a font large
enough to read without a magnifying glass and quit using character
strings like "8B3B8".
Steve
