...from the people who buy the software. Mostly companies. Obviously, the $6.something billion did not come from pirated copies. That was, of course, from monies paid for whatever services or products Microsoft provided. Notice the 'buy' and 'paid' portion of the last sentences...I'm not sure if you caught it since I've noticed some people here don't like to read the full Monty... namely Mr. Programmer blunte up there...
Oh and by the way, those statistics about market share come from records of 'bought' copies and independent researchers who count the number of 'licensed' (i.e. paid-for) copies of particular software. Some people...
Ummm...obviously he DIDN'T read the release notes, because the release notes state that a person using this patch will have the 'issues' that he said he was having. If he did, in fact, read the release notes, he didn't make sure he understood them. Maybe you should do some research and go to the link he has in his post. Do that and you'll see what he did...
I'm an IT guy, and you are a person who is very wrong. If you would have read more in-depth about the patch, you would have noticed that it did, in fact, inform the reader that it would reduce funcionality. You should have left software patches to the IT Dept. in your company.
From http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q 262/6/31.ASP
"For more information about the update and how it may affect the functionality of Outlook, this article includes links to a known issues list, information for developers, information for administrators, and other information to consider before you apply the update."
Notice the part about reading this BEFORE applying the update. I could keep posting sections of that page here, but you can just read it carefully like you should have done in the first place. It specifically states that it will render certain attachment types inaccessible. As a Systems Administrator, I take things like this into consideration, and would only apply it to 'stupid' people's machines, because they like to open attachments from anyone.
As a side note on the whole 'their ILOVEYOU' virus, the functionality was built in with the mindset that the sort of scripting that ILOVEYOU incorporated was designed to increase customability. Microsoft released the patch because they realized that stupid users will open any attachment without knowing who it's from, or what it is. It could very well have been a.EXE file that deleted all their files, or a program called RealPlayer that sends usage data 'home' and it would've been blamed on Microsoft. (Wait, that latter example sounds familiar...)
My point is simply: Don't blame Microsoft because you're too stupid. (Either in not reading the full documentation for your patch, or for those users who actually opened the attachment without knowing what in the hell it was.
Post as many 'stories' as you want, and I won't waste my time replying again, but I'm sure most of them consist of typical end-users doing typical end-user things...like applying software patches when the software was 'all very good'.
Slashdot Mirror
...from the people who buy the software. Mostly companies. Obviously, the $6.something billion did not come from pirated copies. That was, of course, from monies paid for whatever services or products Microsoft provided. Notice the 'buy' and 'paid' portion of the last sentences...I'm not sure if you caught it since I've noticed some people here don't like to read the full Monty... namely Mr. Programmer blunte up there... Oh and by the way, those statistics about market share come from records of 'bought' copies and independent researchers who count the number of 'licensed' (i.e. paid-for) copies of particular software. Some people...
Ummm...obviously he DIDN'T read the release notes, because the release notes state that a person using this patch will have the 'issues' that he said he was having. If he did, in fact, read the release notes, he didn't make sure he understood them. Maybe you should do some research and go to the link he has in his post. Do that and you'll see what he did...
I'm an IT guy, and you are a person who is very wrong. If you would have read more in-depth about the patch, you would have noticed that it did, in fact, inform the reader that it would reduce funcionality. You should have left software patches to the IT Dept. in your company.
Q 262/6/31.ASP
.EXE file that deleted all their files, or a program called RealPlayer that sends usage data 'home' and it would've been blamed on Microsoft. (Wait, that latter example sounds familiar...)
From http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/
"For more information about the update and how it may affect the functionality of Outlook, this article includes links to a known issues list, information for developers, information for administrators, and other information to consider before you apply the update."
Notice the part about reading this BEFORE applying the update. I could keep posting sections of that page here, but you can just read it carefully like you should have done in the first place. It specifically states that it will render certain attachment types inaccessible. As a Systems Administrator, I take things like this into consideration, and would only apply it to 'stupid' people's machines, because they like to open attachments from anyone.
As a side note on the whole 'their ILOVEYOU' virus, the functionality was built in with the mindset that the sort of scripting that ILOVEYOU incorporated was designed to increase customability. Microsoft released the patch because they realized that stupid users will open any attachment without knowing who it's from, or what it is. It could very well have been a
My point is simply: Don't blame Microsoft because you're too stupid. (Either in not reading the full documentation for your patch, or for those users who actually opened the attachment without knowing what in the hell it was.
Post as many 'stories' as you want, and I won't waste my time replying again, but I'm sure most of them consist of typical end-users doing typical end-user things...like applying software patches when the software was 'all very good'.
Jason