Now it's our turn.

I think if all the unhappy users of Microsoft
Windows,98,2000,ME/Xp could somehow get their heads
together and file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft
because of their neglect of a system they've created
might wake them up a little. Since most of our problems
in the windows enviroment stems from them not listening
to our complaints and creating a working fix. I think the
american people who spent hard earned money for their
product should be entitled a 50% refund at least for all
the trouble we are having to go through to keep our
systems up and running. I just spent the last two days
restoring my system to "at least a working status"
because SP-2 crashed on install.... I think if all the
states could sue for breaches of one kind or another,
then I think that WE THE PEOPLE should be entitled to do
the same thing.

I'm not very happy with them from time to time, but to the best of my memory,
no one has ever put a gun to my head and said I HAD to buy a microsoft
product, or a computer system with a microsoft product installed on it.
Since I chose the microsoft route instead of Mac, Linux, etc.., I know that I
will have a certain amount of grief, especially since their track record goes
back quite a few years.

Suits are not always the best answer. Microsoft has too much money for
that. If you don't like their product don't buy it. That will make more of
an impression in the long run.


"James" wrote:

> I think if all the unhappy users of Microsoft
> Windows,98,2000,ME/Xp could somehow get their heads
> together and file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft
> because of their neglect of a system they've created
> might wake them up a little. Since most of our problems
> in the windows enviroment stems from them not listening
> to our complaints and creating a working fix. I think the
> american people who spent hard earned money for their
> product should be entitled a 50% refund at least for all
> the trouble we are having to go through to keep our
> systems up and running. I just spent the last two days
> restoring my system to "at least a working status"
> because SP-2 crashed on install.... I think if all the
> states could sue for breaches of one kind or another,
> then I think that WE THE PEOPLE should be entitled to do
> the same thing.
>

True, no gun but with the vast majority of business applications and other
software built around the MS OS the choices become quite limited. It's more
like a virtual gun ;-)

I don't think a class-action suit could work, however, it's obvious their Q/A
team absolutely sucks! Maybe if management focused on quality and not on
dead-lines. I dunno, makes for an interesting debate.
--
Toby Erkson
Oregon, USA
Excel 2002 in Windows XP

"lbus42" <> wrote in message
news:18B50869-368E-4DDC-8E1B-...
> I'm not very happy with them from time to time, but to the best of my
memory,
> no one has ever put a gun to my head and said I HAD to buy a microsoft
> product, or a computer system with a microsoft product installed on it.
> Since I chose the microsoft route instead of Mac, Linux, etc.., I know that
I
> will have a certain amount of grief, especially since their track record
goes
> back quite a few years.
>
> Suits are not always the best answer. Microsoft has too much money for
> that. If you don't like their product don't buy it. That will make more of
> an impression in the long run.

Oh, please....

Every time there's a problem with anything, the answer is SUE THEM.

How do you explain all of the systems that are running without problems?
Could your problem be caused by third-party software? Virus/adware/malware
on your PC? Hardware conflict?

Nobody made you buy any of these OS's, and nobody made you download and
install SP2. And BTW, you would not have spent 2 days getting your system
working if you had proper backups.

"James" <> wrote in message
news:0a7901c494f3$91f6f060$...
> I think if all the unhappy users of Microsoft
> Windows,98,2000,ME/Xp could somehow get their heads
> together and file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft
> because of their neglect of a system they've created
> might wake them up a little. Since most of our problems
> in the windows enviroment stems from them not listening
> to our complaints and creating a working fix. I think the
> american people who spent hard earned money for their
> product should be entitled a 50% refund at least for all
> the trouble we are having to go through to keep our
> systems up and running. I just spent the last two days
> restoring my system to "at least a working status"
> because SP-2 crashed on install.... I think if all the
> states could sue for breaches of one kind or another,
> then I think that WE THE PEOPLE should be entitled to do
> the same thing.

James;
If your computer crashed on installation, you are in the minority of
less then 10%.
If your computer was prepared for Windows XP, your % is even far
lower:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spackins.htm

Did you verify SP-2 compatibility of hardware and software in advance:
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"James" <> wrote in message
news:0a7901c494f3$91f6f060$...
>I think if all the unhappy users of Microsoft
> Windows,98,2000,ME/Xp could somehow get their heads
> together and file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft
> because of their neglect of a system they've created
> might wake them up a little. Since most of our problems
> in the windows enviroment stems from them not listening
> to our complaints and creating a working fix. I think the
> american people who spent hard earned money for their
> product should be entitled a 50% refund at least for all
> the trouble we are having to go through to keep our
> systems up and running. I just spent the last two days
> restoring my system to "at least a working status"
> because SP-2 crashed on install.... I think if all the
> states could sue for breaches of one kind or another,
> then I think that WE THE PEOPLE should be entitled to do
> the same thing.

Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:52:41 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> Did you verify SP-2 compatibility of hardware and software in advance:
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/xpsp2.htm

Don't you think, that it would be the task of the SP-setup to do this. Who,
if not MS, is really able to *verify* the compatibility for an update, that
is automatically done in standard configuration.

If really a not neglectable percentage of computers of home users is left
unusable after this update (or only leaves AU, which is essentiell for
most, no longer working) then you are talking of millions of customers
spending hours to get *their* hardware running again.

Norbert

Please explain how setup can check compatibility on all areas?
Compatibility is already done to a limited degree.

First start with the total number of computers in the world with
windows XP.
Then take into account that no two are identical.
How does Microsoft or anyone test for compatibility on all
combinations.

Microsoft and others have vast amounts of information on applications
and hardware that may have issues.
But something complete is impossible.

The typical home user makes few if any changes to their computer.
Those usually have no problems as long as no malware is installed.
Also the manufacturer could provide compatibility information.

The others users are the ones building their own computers or at least
making more changes from the original.
This group is more prone to failure because of customizations.
This group is also more capable of researching individual components
for compatibility.
This group needs to do more to verify compatibility.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"JonS" <> wrote in message
news:2C6FEFC8-460E-4069-8A39-...
>I agree. It should be part of the setup to do this.
>
> "Norbert Hoffmann" wrote:
>
>> Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:52:41 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP]:
>> Don't you think, that it would be the task of the SP-setup to do
>> this. Who,
>> if not MS, is really able to *verify* the compatibility for an
>> update, that
>> is automatically done in standard configuration.
>>
>> If really a not neglectable percentage of computers of home users
>> is left
>> unusable after this update (or only leaves AU, which is essentiell
>> for
>> most, no longer working) then you are talking of millions of
>> customers
>> spending hours to get *their* hardware running again.
>>
>> Norbert

Norbert;
Nice idea but with the large number of Windows XP computers and no two
identical.
Please define "standard configuration".
Do you mean default installation of Windows XP?
How many leave it that way?
Or do you mean a typical computer, referring to hardware and
software...no such thing since no two are identical.

"Who, if not MS"
Easy, the manufacturers of the hardware and software.
Not even Microsoft can verify compatibility of all hardware and
software combinations.
See my other post.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Norbert Hoffmann" <> wrote in message
> Don't you think, that it would be the task of the SP-setup to do
> this. Who,
> if not MS, is really able to *verify* the compatibility for an
> update, that
> is automatically done in standard configuration.
>
> If really a not neglectable percentage of computers of home users is
> left
> unusable after this update (or only leaves AU, which is essentiell
> for
> most, no longer working) then you are talking of millions of
> customers
> spending hours to get *their* hardware running again.
>
> Norbert

Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:33:32 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP]:

> Please define "standard configuration".
> Do you mean default installation of Windows XP?

Yep, IIRC default for AU was "don't ask". And this necessary for most users
that would not get any security updates otherwise.

> How many leave it that way?

Most users I know (in my private life) are using their computers as tools.
They are using office programs and mail. What happens in the background is
not of any interest for them. Maybe they change the desktop background -
but not the "internals".

You and me are interested in the "things behind". If there is a new version
of WU/AU we look into the logfile to see what happens. We know that there
must be an update and look for an error if it is not coming. Most users
don't know this and don't even care. Their computers will stay unprotected
from now on (and we will have the next virus sent by them in our
mailboxes).

What I really don't like with this latest updates is, that it could leave
*more* computers unprotected in the future. (How often do we read here:
"Disable your firewall, then WU/AU will work"? What I want to hear is: "MS
is working with the manufacturers of the FW to correct this *bug*". Better:
"There is no problem because MS had done this before".)

Norbert (and a ICF that silently in the background enables file and print
sharing from parts of the "outside" is unacceptable)

Microsoft doesn't sell computers. (Yet?) The Apple is pretty much a closed
system.
Compare the available Apple software to the vast heap of garbage that's
available for the PC. One piece of shareware or Sierra crap could keep your
windows-based computer from ever working right.

Also consider the vast array of hardware used by OEMs to put together these
PCs. How much of this is MS responsible for? What about hardware drivers?
How about all the extra crap that OEMs install in their computers? The last
Dell I saw had so much Bloatware loaded on it I'm surprised it would boot at
all. Apple computers with Apple hardware running on Apple busses and using
Apple software are pretty easy to check for compatability. They made the
hardware, the software, and the OS. The fact that Apple has what - 2% market
share? - also means that nobody is putting much effort into spyware,
viruses, and the like.


"JonS" <> wrote in message
news:51C3FFFC-5526-4AFD-973F-...
> I don't know how. But, it seems that Apple, for example never has the vast
> problems that Windows has in its updates. I have always been happy with
their
> update process. I have never had to do the very extensive checking that
> Windows requires. I know that the MacOS is not problem free, but the
update
> process for them is certainly very superior to the process for Windows.
>
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote:
>
> > Please explain how setup can check compatibility on all areas?
> > Compatibility is already done to a limited degree.
> >
> > First start with the total number of computers in the world with
> > windows XP.
> > Then take into account that no two are identical.
> > How does Microsoft or anyone test for compatibility on all
> > combinations.
> >
> > Microsoft and others have vast amounts of information on applications
> > and hardware that may have issues.
> > But something complete is impossible.
> >
> > The typical home user makes few if any changes to their computer.
> > Those usually have no problems as long as no malware is installed.
> > Also the manufacturer could provide compatibility information.
> >
> > The others users are the ones building their own computers or at least
> > making more changes from the original.
> > This group is more prone to failure because of customizations.
> > This group is also more capable of researching individual components
> > for compatibility.
> > This group needs to do more to verify compatibility.
> >
> > --
> > Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> > http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/
> >
> >
> > "JonS" <> wrote in message
> > news:2C6FEFC8-460E-4069-8A39-...
> > >I agree. It should be part of the setup to do this.
> > >
> > > "Norbert Hoffmann" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Tue, 7 Sep 2004 11:52:41 -0600, Jupiter Jones [MVP]:
> > >> Don't you think, that it would be the task of the SP-setup to do
> > >> this. Who,
> > >> if not MS, is really able to *verify* the compatibility for an
> > >> update, that
> > >> is automatically done in standard configuration.
> > >>
> > >> If really a not neglectable percentage of computers of home users
> > >> is left
> > >> unusable after this update (or only leaves AU, which is essentiell
> > >> for
> > >> most, no longer working) then you are talking of millions of
> > >> customers
> > >> spending hours to get *their* hardware running again.
> > >>
> > >> Norbert
> >
> >
> >