Vista Family Discount Keys Found Not Compatible

acousticiris writes "Many (if not all) users who took advantage of Microsoft's Vista Family Discount have been issued invalid installation keys and cannot install Windows Vista Home Premium. Microsoft says, 'There is no expected time period for a fix at this time.' According to the article, the keys are valid for something, just not Windows Vista. Perhaps it's just too simple to issue these folks new keys and send them on their way."

Comments

Why would they subject themselves to this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to ask myself what sort of people would subject themselves to this sort of abuse. It has just been getting worse since the days of Windows 95. Every new release of Windows comes with some new anti-piracy hassle, and every time it seems to cause major problems.

I'd image such people at least somewhat competent when using a computer. Many non-technical computer users don't even know what Vista is, let alone that it has been released, and thus wouldn't be updating their systems so quickly. I'd expect such people would also be aware of how this sort of bullshit gets worse and worse with each release of Windows. Why do they accept being treated like criminals? Why do they accept being treated like nothing more than shit?

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[whoever57]

I have to ask myself what sort of people would subject themselves to this sort of abuse. It has just been getting worse since the days of Windows 95. Every new release of Windows comes with some new anti-piracy hassle, and every time it seems to cause major problems.

They just don't think there is an alternative. They are so used to Windows that they think a Mac would be difficult to use, and as for Linux: "it's just for hackers and geeks isn't it?"

To use an old truism: "the devil you know ...."

Re:Why would they subject themselves to this?

[fyngyrz]

All major OSes get some bloat as they grow.

<RAMBLE>

Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?

That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself. linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer. It has almost everything else, I'm perfectly ready to concede. Be nice if it had a little bit smarter permissions - like being able to say that "this dir is read/write, but nothing can execute here" without having to set the dir up on its own partition, etc., but at least there is a workaround.

In fact, that's how I ended up with Apple's OSX. It's almost linux from my user / developer point of view, but it has a solid GUI I am under the impression I can count on, and I don't have to pay fees to use or get the user to try to download.

I'd like to see something more basic, though. I know these marvelous machines we have today would run like raped apes if we actually tried to make them do so, instead of trying to make them do "everything for everybody." Vista's gone and collected 10% or so of a modern CPU for itself, if the rumors I hear are correct; is that really where we want to be? Damn, 10% of a modern CPU is what, 100% of one five years ago?

Sometimes I write software to run in a shell in OSX or linux and just enjoy the zappiness of it all. I am heavily involved in AI experimentation, particularly in the multiply-associative memory area, and I always write that stuff for a text shell. A real linux text shell actually runnning in text mode... man that's fast. :)

</RAMBLE>

This is exactly the reason

[geekoid]

for not installing something as critical as an OS as soon as it comes out.

Your really have to be stupid to do that.

Re:Unacceptable

[geekoid]

Not when the intall of said products isn't reversable.

Re:Unacceptable

[TheLinuxSRC]

"They offered to refund people's money. Is that not an acceptable response for a product that doesn't work?

That depends. How far into the installation are these users before they discovered this? Is the former OS no longer bootable? IF that is the case a simple refund does nothing for the customer that was just left high and dry. As I recall, "upgrade" versions of Vista invalidate the key used for previously installed version of Windows (thus making a reinstall a moot point).

Re:Wait....

[vought]

It's plain to us non-apologists that Microsoft is in need of new, more focussed management. By trying to address so many different markets at once, they're letting their core businesses suffer - and I predict that we will see the same with Apple within five years for the same reasons - although not to the same degree. It happened to HP and IBM.

"Stick to what you're good at" - something companies know they must do, but can't, because of growth pressure.

Re:family values

[vought]

Thankfully for those of us with several Macs, Apple doesn't require activation or serialization of the Mac OS X family pack.

Just sayin'.

Re:family values

[clontzman]

They do, however, require that your hardware have a shiny Apple logo on the outside, so let's not get too excited.