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
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?
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.
I'm frustrated that XP SP3 hasn't been released yet. That's what we really need.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
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.