Slashdot Mirror
TechNet Users Revolt Over Vista SP1 Unavailability
I Don't Believe in
Imaginary Property writes "There's a growing revolt among Microsoft TechNet & MSDN subscribers
who are frustrated that they can't yet get Vista SP1 and test their software on
it. This can't be good news for anyone hoping that SP1 will have better
compatibility. While SP1 has been released to manufacturing, and pirate copies are easy to
find, Microsoft is withholding it from subscribers until early March.
According to the article, some frustrated users are upset enough that they plan
to abandon TechNet entirely and turn to piracy." Update: 02/12 17:37
GMT by KD : Sean0michael
writes, "Aaccording to the Technet blog, they have pushed up the date to before the end
of February, though no exact date is mentioned."
How is Microsoft abusing its users still news?
I don't know if I'm just special or not, but if you go to Connect(.microsoft.com) and download the enabler for Service Pack 1 Refresh 2 and, well, enable it, you can get Windows Vista Service Pack 1 RTM. Microsoft has confirmed (I am pretty sure) that Refresh 2 == RTM: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/02/07/microsoft-confirms-vista-sp1-rc-refresh-2-rcr2-is-rtm-release/.
:)
I'm not even a technet subscriber or anything... just a beta tester.
MS doesn't want people giving SP1 bad reviews before it is released to the general public. That would damage Vista's reputation even more, and Microsoft most certainly doesn't want that.
Don't mind the extra X. Alex
My company is most likely in our last year of MSDN participation, but it has nothing to do with SP1.
The relationship between devs and MS has been deteriorating for some time. Off the top of my head I might point to the closing off of the IE development team from communication w/independents that occurred some time ago.
I am too jaded to sit here and detail all the problems that have been developing, so I will leave that to others. Needless to say it took quite some time before my partners were willing to consider looking away from MS as they have been developing with the Windows product line since 3.1.
MSDN subscribers, please remember that MSFT really cares about you:
...
developers, developers, developers,
developers, developers, developers,
developers, developers, developers,
I love this company!
Steve
Why bother?
Didn't you read the summary? Nobody's talking about switching to a better OS. They're switching to pirated Windows. That means they'll still be writing software that draws people to Windows, and they'll be opening themselves up to lawsuits.
It's sheer genius on Microsoft's part. They save money by not packaging the SP with MSDN, they have developers wooing users to their OS, and they get to sue the developers for way more than a regular license fee or MSDN price.
Maybe not
This definitely seems like molehill territory if SP1R2 is the same as the SP1 RTM. The developers themselves do seem to have one legitimate greivance amongst the whole thing: If they received the details at exactly the same time as the populace, what value does their TechNet or MSDN subscriptions truely have in the long run?
I'm not saying NONE i'm just saying less than they expected.
Not that big a deal though, cancel your technet or msdn if this really sets your face on fire.
Ice Cream has no bones.
This is a great example of a trend that has been building steam for several years now. The fact that pirate networks are more often than not, the easiest way to get what you need, whether you are a paying customer or not. Who cares if its a minor update. The fact is, the distribution chains of the data thieves, the pirates, the "underground", are more complete than legitimate commercial enterprises. Pirate networks can provide the product you want, when the company you PAY cannot.
The point of developers getting it first (through MSDN) is to make sure that any compatibility problems get resolved before your customers, who could very well be volume buyers, upgrade their systems. The article you cite seems to confirm that what developers are complaining about is in fact happening.
Maybe this is just a biased view(I certainly haven't seen it all); but it seems like the techies responsible for field work on MS stuff just have more pain and less fun than the *nix techies do. These guys are drinking, and paying for, the kool-aid and they can't even get a RTM copy ahead of the press flacks and pirates. Over in *nix land, you can play with pre-alpha or later any time you want. These are the people who advocate for, plan, install, and support MS's stuff on the corporate level. They are the people whose fairly cheap labor helps prop up all the TCO "get the facts" and MS won't even give them the release in time to help them do their jobs. This is not exactly "catch the devs on IRC channel foo on bar.org" territory.
I can understand why MS plays hard and mean on licensing, format lock-in, and the like. That is just good(if unpleasant) business. I don't understand this, though. It would cost them basically nothing to throw the people who eat their shit 9 to 5 a bone. And they don't. Why?
Wow Apple software not running properly on a Windows OS, say it isn't so...
Apple's software development for Windows is like a Toyota dealer fixing your Ferrari. It took Apple 10 years to get a QuickTime installer for WIndows that didn't try to lock the UI, because that is how they always did it on Macs, even though Windows users hadn't seen it since the Win3.1 days.
At least when MS develops Apple software, they get real Mac user and real developers and products like Office are some of the most polished applications for Macs. Apple could at least hire a team of 10 people that use or 'get' Windows at the very least, instead of this cross platform inferior designed crap that barely runs.
Well since it seems to have support for about 5% of my apps and about 75% of my hardware, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree.
Please cut the crap with the "Just replace Windows with Linux it's better!" thing. This kind of crap will actually hurt Linux adoption overall. Linux is an alternative to Windows that is viable for some people, however it isn't a drop in replacement. If you market it as such, people are going to be pissed when they find out you are lying. Using Linux involves tradeoffs. Now that can be ok for many people, however you need to be up front about them and let people make their own choice. To try and pretend that it is just like Windows but better is rather dishonest, and counterproductive.
Those of us who have TechNet Plus subscriptions also get lots of licenses (i.e. install keys) to run the various Microsoft products, not just download the software. Also, I have been running SP1 RTM since last week, and I downloaded it from Windows Update. Those who participate in the Betas (the connect site) get the ability to test SP1 RTM early. If you want that ability, then participate in the Betas.
I'm frustrated that XP SP3 hasn't been released yet. That's what we really need.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Seriously, I downloaded the Safari for Windows beta thing to use as a KHTML test platform for web development but was immediately turned off by the OS X window stylings and behaviors, as well as the extra font smoothing that went beyond the built in smoothing to make everything look really blurry and ugly. From what I've seen, iTunes on Windows is the same way although I have never installed that piece of junk on my computer. In contrast, whenever I've used Office for Mac at school it acts just like any other Mac application, and sometimes I even preferred it over the Windows version. Now, I'm going to conjecture wildly and say it's Apple's arrogance that causes it to completely disregard all Windows GUI conventions. Most of my dislike of Apple stems from this arrogant vibe that everything should be done either their way or not at all.
All your base are belong to Wii.
If you look at the timing of the original article, you'll find that it was posted on Friday. Basically, Microsoft caved in to pressure from that base. It was not something that was planned and the article is correct about the details when it was written. The link you provided is pointing to a timeframe after the first article was written.
Microsoft did not plan on releasing SP1 early to technet. The debate is accurately described and attributed. Microsoft's stance as described in the article is also accurate as of the time the article was written and posted. That Microsoft later reversed its position is something to be noted, but it is not "trivial or misleading" to post an *accurate* rundown of the argument which led to Microsoft's reversal. (Which had not even happened at the time the article was written).
Unless you can show that Microsoft had planned on an early release for this base, I think you might want to rethink your position. It was articles like the Computerworld article which led to the release, not any policy decision by Microsoft before there was a lot of backlash.
Here is the official announcement on the board that started the whole thing:
http://blogs.technet.com/technetplussubscriptions/archive/2008/02/04/technet-plus-sp1-availability-plan-of-record.aspx
"Now that we've made Windows Server 2008 available to all TechNet Plus subscribers there is a firestorm of questions about when will SP1 also be available for subscribers.
The current plan is that it will be available in mid-March, if that changes I'll let you know. In the meantime, please check out Mike Nash's blog post to learn more about SP1 and the timing of the availability.
Have Feedback? Leave a comment - I looking forward to hearing from you.
Thanks,
Kathy Dixon
TechNet Plus subscriptions"
It was not until the 11th - today - that a new policy was mentioned. Your own counterargument is based on a post made this morning - several days after the article you say is misleading was posted. How was the Computerworld article misleading? It was 100% accurate when written and anyone can follow the link provided in the article and verify that. How could they know that Microsoft was going to change their policy? It was a stupid policy and led to a backlash and that was the story. The story is now that Microsoft needed to be pressured to do what they should have done in the first place.
You know, I generally enjoy /. However, every so often one of these stories comes up (it seems to be more frequently these days) that is just complete bullshit (Disclosure: I've been an MSDN subscriber for years). I don't know anyone who is complaining about SP availability. There will always be some who complain, but that's more than likely a very small minority. For those testing compatibility, the betas and RCs have been out for quite a while for the sole purpose of testing applications. I haven't worked with them personally, but a conservative guess would be 95% of functionality can be testing on the RCs.
What gets me though is that over the weekend a much more impactful event occurred: the Windows 2008 RTM. Not only that, but Windows 2008 IS available on MSDN (all English flavors at least, and most likely TechNet as well, but I don't know for sure). Windows 2008 is a much more important release than SP 1, but, alas, that gets no coverage on /.
How are they revolting? Are they heading over to the Apple Store and buying MacBooks? If they really wanted to revolt, they would install Linux or FreeBSD or buy a Macintosh and never look back. TechNet users are particularly hard core Windows lovers, masochistic, really. I bet they tough this one out. They are not revolting. They are reveling in their delicious pain.
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
Most Windows uses I know are quite revolting, actually. (someone had to say it, if it hasn't already)
Most of the stuff on
In the Action Pack, we only received Vista Business, but we could upgrade it to Ultimate for $150.
Now to obtain (or retain) the Action Pack you have to take online assessments. I have had my Action Pack for several years now, and I felt rather insulted.
You see, Microsoft is fighting terror^H^H^H^H^H^H piracy by forcing these assessments on Action Pack subscribers. This move is intended to "keep the Action Pack out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it." In other words, people who pay $300 per year and let their friends use five licenses of Office and Windows XP. But what Microsoft does not understand is that making MAPS more difficult to obtain just increases the likelihood that the software will be pirated.
I am really too busy installing its software in Virtual PC or on a real workstation, testing, and learning how to use the software so I can sell to and support my customers. Too busy to read all the marketing horse shit they shove down my throat. Let me tell you how sick and damned tired I was of reading their Truth About Linux (or whatever the hell it was called) materials. I was done with that after the first brochure.
But overall, Microsoft is just pushing us away: the system builders, the techs, the developers. We all slaved away to get Microsoft where it is today, and it needs us no more.
Wanna hear something really stupid? How about that a system builder is not allowed to give a customer a copy of the OEM installation CD of Office 2007. Nope. We are supposed to provide the customer with a way of restoring the installation. Microsoft's recommendation: Ghost, or something similar. What? So if my customer's Office 2007 installation blows up and has to be reinstalled, they get to lose ALL of their data in favor of a Ghost restore.
More hoops. Maybe this is what they want all along, but with the exception of Windows XP and Vista, I no longer sell OEM software with my machines. Server 2003? Retail. Office 2007? Retail. Why? Because it is less of a heartache and wallet-ache when the times comes.
Need to upgrade your server hardware? Copy the installation to a new machine? Bzzzt! Nope, technically the SBS 2003 install and 75 CALs are locked to the original hardware.
Bought Office 2003 Basic Edition and want to upgrade to Professional? Just install the Professional upgrade? Bzzzt! Sorry, this just isn't your day. Basic Edition, as an OEM only edition, does not qualify for the upgrade to Office Professional. However, every version of Office back to 95, even the Works Suites, DO qualify.
Wowsers. Really, Microsoft does not need us anymore. Really. If I wanted to screw your sister I would become your best pal. But now I am screwing your sister I no longer need you as a friend, so piss off.