"Tom Porterfield" wrote:

>

>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a valid

>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>> My recommendation is that you DO NOT do anything that would cause Vista

>> to attempt to validate, such as downloading software from MS that

>> requires validation.

>>

>> WGA critics, let's here what you have to say.

>> --

>> Tom Porterfield

>>

 

I don't anyone needs to say anything. I think WGA speaks for itself

quite clearly!

 

Thanks for sharing the info Tom.

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

> >> valid

> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

 

What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

<ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>

>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>> >> valid

>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

 

Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you haven't

been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us know EXACTLY what

caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed, an array. Who knows. All

that statement shows is that you are an MS hater, and didn't take the time

to find the underlying cause. I suppose if it had been any other OS besides

an MS one, you would have been the first in line to say it HAD to be a

hardware failure huh?

 

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

DarkSentinel wrote:

> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>

>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>> any

>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>> >> valid

>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>

> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you

> haven't been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us know

> EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed, an array.

> Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an MS hater, and

> didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I suppose if it had

> been any other OS besides an MS one, you would have been the first in

> line to say it HAD to be a hardware failure huh?

>

 

 

It's not the first time though is it?

 

Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a glitch

on "Your" machine by having a failure on your part actually lock down

"Their" machines is bad business practice, it has little to do with what

OS is on the machine. To be unable to use "That" machine for a time is

something we all can live with, being unable to use "My" machine because

some damned server quit is NOT ETHICAL, it is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and I

thought we were assured it would not happen again. So much for that

assurance then.

 

I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

hardware. Would people who support the behavior that causes a remote

machine to damage their machine react differently if the software

involved was something they consider spyware or malware? You bet they

would, so what's this doing if not the same thing?

> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

> hardware.

 

But unless it's a bunch of total incompetents for critical systems,

you have a backup server.

I can imagine air traffic control, "Our servers gone down, just

keep circling around, should be back in a couple of hours".

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

>> hardware.

>

> But unless it's a bunch of total incompetents for critical systems,

> you have a backup server.

> I can imagine air traffic control, "Our servers gone down, just

> keep circling around, should be back in a couple of hours".

 

 

Well that's right of course, I was only answering the remark that it was

an MS server which really does not make the difference, I find their

server software very reliable and not inferior to Linux or Solaris or

anything else. The difference is exactly as you state, for something

mission critical you have to expect any of them to fail at some point

for various reasons and be ready to deal with the problem, or ready to

live with it. I can live with any failure of any of my systems, or

better still maybe deal with any failure, but is it right that when my

system crashes it takes yours with it?

 

You know, I mean if it just took out some website and prevented you from

using that website (Which actually would still be disappointing for

Microsoft) that's one thing, but to stop you using your machine (And

possibly maintaining hundreds more you are responsible for while it is

down) that's something different again.

 

What people with responsibility for other systems are going to think is

what? I need a system this cannot happen to maybe? Look around, play

with Linux for a bit and realize that it is not so unlearnable, not so

unfriendly, costs nothing to try and you can remotely administer with it

just the same as with Windows. So if the IT pro switches his desktop to

Linux where does this trend stop?

 

And tell me an IT pro cannot learn Linux.

 

So I don't know, but the possibility of an avalanche like swing to

"Something else" seems to be aided by this so called anti piracy

measure. Don't be a pirate or be accused of being a pirate, install

Linux and steer developers to write equivalent software for your needs?

 

No of course this won't happen overnight, and many millions will never

switch, many, including me, like MS products but are not sure about

their attitude :) They (MS) do, as I have stated numerous times, have

every right to choose the methods they use to combat piracy as they wish

but in this case to me they seem to be sending the wrong message to

legitimate users, however carefully it is worded, and the cost as a

result may be greater than that of the piracy which is after all a form

of free advertising.

 

I'm afraid that "If" it blows up in their face it will be unstoppable

once it takes hold, and to be honest MS losing out big style would IMHO

be a very bad thing for the industry.

> I'm afraid that "If" it blows up in their face it will be unstoppable

> once it takes hold, and to be honest MS losing out big style would IMHO

> be a very bad thing for the industry.

 

I did hear a rumour that Gates has retired?

Perhaps it's a case of leaving a sinking ship.

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>>I'm afraid that "If" it blows up in their face it will be unstoppable

>>once it takes hold, and to be honest MS losing out big style would IMHO

>>be a very bad thing for the industry.

>

>

> I did hear a rumour that Gates has retired?

> Perhaps it's a case of leaving a sinking ship.

 

 

hehehe...it that what your delusional dreams are about...LOL!

Frank

In article <O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>

>I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

 

I don't agree with that at all. There's a world of difference

between windows, linux, solaris, aix, z/os, and even bsd. Then factor

in hardware platforms...

 

For instance, I wouldn't put a solaris box in a back-office

mail and file server role, I wouldn't chose windows for an anonymous

server farm, and I wouldn't use linux for high volume transaction processing.

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> DarkSentinel wrote:

>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>

>>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>> any

>>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>> >> valid

>>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>

>> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you

>> haven't been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us know

>> EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed, an array.

>> Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an MS hater, and

>> didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I suppose if it had

>> been any other OS besides an MS one, you would have been the first in

>> line to say it HAD to be a hardware failure huh?

>>

>

>

> It's not the first time though is it?

>

> Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a glitch on

> "Your" machine by having a failure on your part actually lock down "Their"

> machines is bad business practice, it has little to do with what OS is on

> the machine. To be unable to use "That" machine for a time is something we

> all can live with, being unable to use "My" machine because some damned

> server quit is NOT ETHICAL, it is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and I thought we were

> assured it would not happen again. So much for that assurance then.

>

> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

> hardware. Would people who support the behavior that causes a remote

> machine to damage their machine react differently if the software involved

> was something they consider spyware or malware? You bet they would, so

> what's this doing if not the same thing?

 

 

The point here was that he made a blatantly FALSE statement, not one based

on facts. The ONLY noted issue on the WGA servers was in August of 2007. Do

a Google and find out. Before commenting one should be SURE of the facts,

not just parrot the other smacktards.

 

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

<ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:478bced4$0$21096$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

>

>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

>> hardware.

>

> But unless it's a bunch of total incompetents for critical systems,

> you have a backup server.

> I can imagine air traffic control, "Our servers gone down, just

> keep circling around, should be back in a couple of hours".

 

Check your facts FIRST. Only mishap was in Aug of 2007.

 

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

DarkSentinel wrote:

> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:478bced4$0$21096$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

>>

>>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>>> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

>>> hardware.

>>

>> But unless it's a bunch of total incompetents for critical systems,

>> you have a backup server.

>> I can imagine air traffic control, "Our servers gone down, just

>> keep circling around, should be back in a couple of hours".

>

> Check your facts FIRST. Only mishap was in Aug of 2007.

>

 

So far.

 

Alias

Alias wrote:

> DarkSentinel wrote:

>

>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:478bced4$0$21096$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...

>>

>>>

>>>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>>>> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

>>>> hardware.

>>>

>>>

>>> But unless it's a bunch of total incompetents for critical systems,

>>> you have a backup server.

>>> I can imagine air traffic control, "Our servers gone down, just

>>> keep circling around, should be back in a couple of hours".

>>

>>

>> Check your facts FIRST. Only mishap was in Aug of 2007.

>>

>

> So far.

>

> Alias

 

hehehe...why not hold your breath as*hole while you wait for the next

event. That way we'll never hear from your sorry lying ass again.

Loser!

Frank

the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

> Charlie Tame <charlie@tames.net> wrote:

>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>

> I don't agree with that at all. There's a world of difference

> between windows, linux, solaris, aix, z/os, and even bsd. Then factor

> in hardware platforms...

>

> For instance, I wouldn't put a solaris box in a back-office

> mail and file server role, I wouldn't chose windows for an anonymous

> server farm, and I wouldn't use linux for high volume transaction processing.

>

 

 

Yes I can agree with that aspect, I simply meant that in terms of

"Something going wrong sometime" it will happen to all of them. IOW the

terms "Better" or "Worse" are really relative to a lot of things

including personal opinion.

DarkSentinel wrote:

>

>

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>>

>>>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>> any

>>>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>> >> valid

>>>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>

>>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>>

>>> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you

>>> haven't been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us know

>>> EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed, an

>>> array. Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an MS

>>> hater, and didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I

>>> suppose if it had been any other OS besides an MS one, you would have

>>> been the first in line to say it HAD to be a hardware failure huh?

>>>

>>

>>

>> It's not the first time though is it?

>>

>> Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a glitch

>> on "Your" machine by having a failure on your part actually lock down

>> "Their" machines is bad business practice, it has little to do with

>> what OS is on the machine. To be unable to use "That" machine for a

>> time is something we all can live with, being unable to use "My"

>> machine because some damned server quit is NOT ETHICAL, it is NOT GOOD

>> BUSINESS and I thought we were assured it would not happen again. So

>> much for that assurance then.

>>

>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server

>> systems, the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and

>> so does hardware. Would people who support the behavior that causes a

>> remote machine to damage their machine react differently if the

>> software involved was something they consider spyware or malware? You

>> bet they would, so what's this doing if not the same thing?

>

>

> The point here was that he made a blatantly FALSE statement, not one

> based on facts. The ONLY noted issue on the WGA servers was in August of

> 2007. Do a Google and find out. Before commenting one should be SURE of

> the facts, not just parrot the other smacktards.

>

 

 

As alias pointed out "So far", that is the concern. I have been denied

access a number of times for no apparent reason, including it seems new

drivers installed automatically. WGA / Activation are clearly related

and together if not individually are a "Kill" switch for much of the OS.

So no, it is NOT the "First" time, whether an official server issue or not.

"Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

news:#upPz#6VIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>> news:O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>>>

>>>>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>>> any

>>>>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>> >> valid

>>>>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>

>>>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>>>

>>>> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you

>>>> haven't been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us know

>>>> EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed, an array.

>>>> Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an MS hater, and

>>>> didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I suppose if it had

>>>> been any other OS besides an MS one, you would have been the first in

>>>> line to say it HAD to be a hardware failure huh?

>>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> It's not the first time though is it?

>>>

>>> Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a glitch

>>> on "Your" machine by having a failure on your part actually lock down

>>> "Their" machines is bad business practice, it has little to do with what

>>> OS is on the machine. To be unable to use "That" machine for a time is

>>> something we all can live with, being unable to use "My" machine because

>>> some damned server quit is NOT ETHICAL, it is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and I

>>> thought we were assured it would not happen again. So much for that

>>> assurance then.

>>>

>>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems,

>>> the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time and so does

>>> hardware. Would people who support the behavior that causes a remote

>>> machine to damage their machine react differently if the software

>>> involved was something they consider spyware or malware? You bet they

>>> would, so what's this doing if not the same thing?

>>

>>

>> The point here was that he made a blatantly FALSE statement, not one

>> based on facts. The ONLY noted issue on the WGA servers was in August of

>> 2007. Do a Google and find out. Before commenting one should be SURE of

>> the facts, not just parrot the other smacktards.

>>

>

>

> As alias pointed out "So far", that is the concern. I have been denied

> access a number of times for no apparent reason, including it seems new

> drivers installed automatically. WGA / Activation are clearly related and

> together if not individually are a "Kill" switch for much of the OS. So

> no, it is NOT the "First" time, whether an official server issue or not.

 

Well seeing as I have THAT smacktard firmly ensconced in my KF, I would have

no idea what he said, and even if I did, he has exactly ZERO credibility

from what I read before I put him there. I like many others have had exactly

zero problems validating. How do you explain that? As for the other problems

I have no idea what caused it. I DO however have experience that the

smacktards don't. I ran a 65 server, 240 seat network. I have built and

supported multiple OS servers and networks that supported MS, MS/Novell,

Linux, and Apple clients. I have setup web appliances that ran 2K/IIS,

RH/Inktomi, and Oracle/Solaris. And that is the tip of the iceberg. I have

worked for Unisys, DEC/Compaq/HP through the buyouts. I know damn well there

are crashes, hardware failures, and the like. Some caused by my dipsh*t

predecessors not knowing what the hell they were doing. Updates breaking the

software. I have compiled my own kernels, and seen what happens when you get

just ONE little thing wrong.

 

So in 26 years of doing this, I have seen just about every damn thing there

is to see. If I have learned NOTHING else, it is that where computer systems

are concerned, sh*t happens. How many lines of code are contained in Vista?

In the server and back end servers? MILLIONS. Say in all those lines there

is a 5 instead of a 6 somewhere, and it breaks everything. And don't even

try to say that is unacceptable. NO ONE is perfect. What if everyone tried

to hold YOU to that standard. You couldn't live up to it, no better than I

could. All the anti-MS smacktards need to get their heads out of their

collective asses, and look at the REAL world.

 

--

Sanity calms, but madness is more interesting.

http://www.lockergnome.com/darksentinel

Undo the munge to reply by email

In article <FFE3747F-A046-4C25-97F6-7D3C3CFF7B06@microsoft.com>,

DarkSentinel <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote:

>

>So in 26 years of doing this, I have seen just about every damn thing there

 

Ipse dixit, eh? But how do we know you don't have 1 year of

experience that you've simply repeated 26 times?

 

Allowing critical defects in the flagship product of the largest

software development company in the world to appear in released software

means their process is broken. Either they had bad requirements - having

the explorer work properly wasn't one of them so it never made it into the

test plan - or their test plan didn't adequately test the requirements,

or the tests were bad, or they actually discovered this and someone said

"We don't care. Shut up and ship it." The Ford Pinto approach to

software development.

 

Just another example of the failure of the free market.

>In the server and back end servers? MILLIONS. Say in all those lines there

>is a 5 instead of a 6 somewhere, and it breaks everything.

 

Ever heard the phrase "quality assurance"?

DarkSentinel wrote:

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:#upPz#6VIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>> news:O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>>>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is

>>>>>>> not a

>>>>>>> >> valid

>>>>>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>>>>

>>>>> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure,

>>>>> you haven't been in the business for very long. Do you or any of us

>>>>> know EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No? Drive could have failed,

>>>>> an array. Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an MS

>>>>> hater, and didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I

>>>>> suppose if it had been any other OS besides an MS one, you would

>>>>> have been the first in line to say it HAD to be a hardware failure

>>>>> huh?

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> It's not the first time though is it?

>>>>

>>>> Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a

>>>> glitch on "Your" machine by having a failure on your part actually

>>>> lock down "Their" machines is bad business practice, it has little

>>>> to do with what OS is on the machine. To be unable to use "That"

>>>> machine for a time is something we all can live with, being unable

>>>> to use "My" machine because some damned server quit is NOT ETHICAL,

>>>> it is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and I thought we were assured it would not

>>>> happen again. So much for that assurance then.

>>>>

>>>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server

>>>> systems, the simple fact is they all get broken from time to time

>>>> and so does hardware. Would people who support the behavior that

>>>> causes a remote machine to damage their machine react differently if

>>>> the software involved was something they consider spyware or

>>>> malware? You bet they would, so what's this doing if not the same

>>>> thing?

>>>

>>>

>>> The point here was that he made a blatantly FALSE statement, not one

>>> based on facts. The ONLY noted issue on the WGA servers was in August

>>> of 2007. Do a Google and find out. Before commenting one should be

>>> SURE of the facts, not just parrot the other smacktards.

>>>

>>

>>

>> As alias pointed out "So far", that is the concern. I have been denied

>> access a number of times for no apparent reason, including it seems

>> new drivers installed automatically. WGA / Activation are clearly

>> related and together if not individually are a "Kill" switch for much

>> of the OS. So no, it is NOT the "First" time, whether an official

>> server issue or not.

>

> Well seeing as I have THAT smacktard firmly ensconced in my KF, I would

> have no idea what he said, and even if I did, he has exactly ZERO

> credibility from what I read before I put him there. I like many others

> have had exactly zero problems validating. How do you explain that? As

> for the other problems I have no idea what caused it. I DO however have

> experience that the smacktards don't. I ran a 65 server, 240 seat

> network. I have built and supported multiple OS servers and networks

> that supported MS, MS/Novell, Linux, and Apple clients. I have setup web

> appliances that ran 2K/IIS, RH/Inktomi, and Oracle/Solaris. And that is

> the tip of the iceberg. I have worked for Unisys, DEC/Compaq/HP through

> the buyouts. I know damn well there are crashes, hardware failures, and

> the like. Some caused by my dipsh*t predecessors not knowing what the

> hell they were doing. Updates breaking the software. I have compiled my

> own kernels, and seen what happens when you get just ONE little thing

> wrong.

>

> So in 26 years of doing this, I have seen just about every damn thing

> there is to see. If I have learned NOTHING else, it is that where

> computer systems are concerned, sh*t happens. How many lines of code are

> contained in Vista? In the server and back end servers? MILLIONS. Say in

> all those lines there is a 5 instead of a 6 somewhere, and it breaks

> everything. And don't even try to say that is unacceptable. NO ONE is

> perfect. What if everyone tried to hold YOU to that standard. You

> couldn't live up to it, no better than I could. All the anti-MS

> smacktards need to get their heads out of their collective asses, and

> look at the REAL world.

>

 

 

Right, and I am not anti MS or anything else, I simply feel that from my

personal experience they have made a bad decision business wise.

 

I don't have accurate numbers but I have had about 6 instances where a

perfectly good setup has suddenly become invalidated, 3 of them I recall

due to "Hardware changes" that never happened, the machine was simply

rebooted and suddenly I have made significant hardware changes - right.

 

At this time I don't administer any significant number of machines

except my own, but if I was doing so the kinds of numbers you speak of

then such a failure would be a real pain in the backside.

 

Since I have an MSDN subscription I do not know if the revalidation has

used the same license or used up another one, I don't know how that

would work, but if a retail customer or someone like my company that

buts OEM stuff from time to time has only one valid key what happens then?

 

Now, I am pleased you have not had problems, but I have to ask that if

MS phone support never deny reactivation what the hell is the point? How

does this stop piracy? If 20 of us copy a DVD and all use the same key

how do MS know which of us has the genuine copy? Over the years I am

sure we have ALL broken the EULA somehow by accident. I'm sure I have

but can't tell you how because if I did so it was accidental so I don't

know how I did it. Numerous times I have dual booted 2 copies of the

same OS simply for security purposes - same machine - only one can be

used at a time - but sometimes you need a backup system to repair the

first if something breaks it. Is that illegal? Hmm.

 

I could be entirely wrong, maybe this added inconvenience is doing some

good for MS, but if it is I can't see how.

"DarkSentinel" <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote in message

news:FFE3747F-A046-4C25-97F6-7D3C3CFF7B06@microsoft.com...

> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

> news:#upPz#6VIHA.5160@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>> "Charlie Tame" <charlie@tames.net> wrote in message

>>> news:O#Z7GZtVIHA.2368@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> DarkSentinel wrote:

>>>>> <ato_zee@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:47864ae2$0$13939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>>> >> valid

>>>>>>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>>>>

>>>>> Well if you think that any other server is not prone to failure, you haven't been in the

>>>>> business for very long. Do you or any of us know EXACTLY what caused it to fail? No?

>>>>> Drive could have failed, an array. Who knows. All that statement shows is that you are an

>>>>> MS hater, and didn't take the time to find the underlying cause. I suppose if it had been

>>>>> any other OS besides an MS one, you would have been the first in line to say it HAD to be

>>>>> a hardware failure huh?

>>>> It's not the first time though is it?

>>>>

>>>> Making potentially millions of paying customers vulnerable to a glitch on "Your" machine

>>>> by having a failure on your part actually lock down "Their" machines is bad business

>>>> practice, it has little to do with what OS is on the machine. To be unable to use "That"

>>>> machine for a time is something we all can live with, being unable to use "My" machine

>>>> because some damned server quit is NOT ETHICAL, it is NOT GOOD BUSINESS and I thought we

>>>> were assured it would not happen again. So much for that assurance then.

>>>>

>>>> I don't think there's a whole lot of difference between server systems, the simple fact is

>>>> they all get broken from time to time and so does hardware. Would people who support the

>>>> behavior that causes a remote machine to damage their machine react differently if the

>>>> software involved was something they consider spyware or malware? You bet they would, so

>>>> what's this doing if not the same thing?

>>> The point here was that he made a blatantly FALSE statement, not one based on facts. The

>>> ONLY noted issue on the WGA servers was in August of 2007. Do a Google and find out. Before

>>> commenting one should be SURE of the facts, not just parrot the other smacktards.

>> As alias pointed out "So far", that is the concern. I have been denied access a number of

>> times for no apparent reason, including it seems new drivers installed automatically. WGA /

>> Activation are clearly related and together if not individually are a "Kill" switch for much

>> of the OS. So no, it is NOT the "First" time, whether an official server issue or not.

>

> Well seeing as I have THAT smacktard firmly ensconced in my KF, I would have no idea what he

> said, and even if I did, he has exactly ZERO credibility from what I read before I put him

> there. I like many others have had exactly zero problems validating. How do you explain that?

> As for the other problems I have no idea what caused it. I DO however have experience that

> the smacktards don't. I ran a 65 server, 240 seat network. I have built and supported

> multiple OS servers and networks that supported MS, MS/Novell, Linux, and Apple clients. I

> have setup web appliances that ran 2K/IIS, RH/Inktomi, and Oracle/Solaris. And that is the

> tip of the iceberg. I have worked for Unisys, DEC/Compaq/HP through the buyouts. I know damn

> well there are crashes, hardware failures, and the like. Some caused by my dipsh*t

> predecessors not knowing what the hell they were doing. Updates breaking the software. I have

> compiled my own kernels, and seen what happens when you get just ONE little thing wrong.

>

> So in 26 years of doing this, I have seen just about every damn thing there is to see. If I

> have learned NOTHING else, it is that where computer systems are concerned, sh*t happens. How

> many lines of code are contained in Vista? In the server and back end servers? MILLIONS. Say

> in all those lines there is a 5 instead of a 6 somewhere, and it breaks everything. And don't

> even try to say that is unacceptable. NO ONE is perfect. What if everyone tried to hold YOU

> to that standard. You couldn't live up to it, no better than I could. All the anti-MS

> smacktards need to get their heads out of their collective asses, and look at the REAL world.

 

Just because some of us may not like something Microsoft does

and voice our dissatisfaction, does not make us "anti-Microsoft".

Yes, some do go overboard and some are here just to troll.

There are those of us who actually want a better Windows OS

and want Microsoft to be a better company. It has nothing to

do with hate or animosity.... we are simply expressing our opinions.

Change does not come by silence or inaction. Since the betas, there

have been a couple of things that Microsoft changed because of the

uproar created. They also recently changed their policy on Vista's "kill switch".

They redid and reworded part of the Vista license right before RTM, based

on the uproar created.... much of it created here in this forum by us beta testers.

 

I am amazed at how many folks get so defensive when Microsoft or

Windows are criticized or someone says they have a problem.... it's like

you insulted their mother. It's quite ridiculous, really.

 

I use Microsoft products everyday, and for the most part find them superior

to other offerings. Especially, the Office products. When I stopped using

WinXP for every day work, it was like losing a friend. Corny, I know. I still

have a laptop that has WinXP Pro and I keep it updated and do some stuff

on it. I will convert that to Vista at some point, I already have a license for

it. But, I know that will be the final goodbye to WinXP, so I hold on a bit.

 

With all that ramblin' said, if I feel Microsoft or Windows has a problem,

I will say so, and I will say it loud and clear. If that offends, too bad.

 

 

-Michael

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:42:02 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>

>> >> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>> >> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>> >> valid

>> >> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>

>What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

 

 

I'm surprised it will only take a week to recover if a MS OS is

involved.

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:42:02 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>

>

>>>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>valid

>>>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>

>>What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>

>

>

> I'm surprised it will only take a week to recover if a MS OS is

> involved.

 

Were you born this stupid or did you evolve into it?

Frank

Frank wrote:

> thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:42:02 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>>

>>

>>>>>> Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and

>>>>>> any

>>>>>> attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>> valid

>>>>>> license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>> What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>

>>

>>

>> I'm surprised it will only take a week to recover if a MS OS is

>> involved.

>

> Were you born this stupid or did you evolve into it?

> Frank

 

Speaking of stupidity, here are some of Frank's typical posts:

 

Who cares about what you like or dislike or support...you're a nobody.

Got it? You are a nobody...no one cares about your stupid life or your

bullsh*t diatribes about anything.

Get lost you jerk.

Frank, MPWVG, Dec 19, 2007

 

You're one sick lying fukk!!! No one...NO ONE believes you!!!

You are an admitted liar...a linux troll...an atheist and proly a commie

bastard and a real loser of a jerk.

Get lost!

Frank, MPWVG, Dec. 19, 2007

 

Of course it will. But then again, you don't have Vista so you don't

really know now do you mr liar, mr atheist, mr commie bastard.

LOL!!!

Frank, MPWVG, Dec. 20, 2007

 

What a childishly immature POS lying as*hole you are.

Frank, MPWVG, Dec. 23, 2007

 

jake wrote:

 

 

....just his usual delusional bullsh*t from some unknown blogger.

Get a real life you idiot!

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 2, 2008

 

You're infested with Vista demons capin' crunch. Is that a result of not

taking your meds or are you just naturally that fukkin stupid?

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 2, 2008

 

Who the fukk do you think you are...mr liar, mr atheist, mr commie

bastard....

Go screw yourself!

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 1, 2008

 

flambe wrote:

 

....nothing but a bunch of uninformed lies and bullsh*t.

Grow up as*hole and face the fact that you're STUPID!

Frank, MPWVG, Dec 31, 2007

 

Wrong again you POS lying linux loser.

Get a life you moron.

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 1, 2008

 

You need to stop making a fool out of yourself mr liar.

You are a known troll and a pathological liar.

Get lost you stupid POS moron loser.

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 2, 2008

 

Ahahaha...of all the people who post to ng's...of all the lunies,

wackos, morons, idiots and just plain'o losers...you my friend are at the

very top of that heap of sh*theads...LOL!

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 5, 2008

 

....FUKK!!! You're so full of sh*t I can almost smell you thru the Internet!

Get a life you stupid POS moron idiot!

Frank, MPWVG, Jan 7, 2008

 

 

hehehe...never...and I mean never...admit in public that our are an

idiot...something that you've just done.

Use XP until the hell freezes over.

Frank MPWVG, Jan 10, 2008

 

 

Alias

the wharf rat wrote:

> In article <FFE3747F-A046-4C25-97F6-7D3C3CFF7B06@microsoft.com>,

> DarkSentinel <darkmungesentinel@munge.charter.munge.net> wrote:

>> So in 26 years of doing this, I have seen just about every damn thing there

>

> Ipse dixit, eh? But how do we know you don't have 1 year of

> experience that you've simply repeated 26 times?

>

> Allowing critical defects in the flagship product of the largest

> software development company in the world to appear in released software

> means their process is broken. Either they had bad requirements - having

> the explorer work properly wasn't one of them so it never made it into the

> test plan - or their test plan didn't adequately test the requirements,

> or the tests were bad, or they actually discovered this and someone said

> "We don't care. Shut up and ship it." The Ford Pinto approach to

> software development.

 

It appears he's neglected to learn that he doesn't know everything yet.

So DS can get off his high and mighty soapbox now.

>

> Just another example of the failure of the free market.

>

>> In the server and back end servers? MILLIONS. Say in all those lines there

>> is a 5 instead of a 6 somewhere, and it breaks everything.

>

> Ever heard the phrase "quality assurance"?

>

 

 

--

Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group -

Submit your nomination at the link below:

http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

 

View nominations already submitted:

http://htmlgear.tripod.com/guest/control.guest?u=protectfreedom&i=1&a=view

 

"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on

free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the

creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer

rights in the digital age are not frivolous."

- Maura Corbett

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:16:23 -0800, Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote:

>thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:42:02 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>>

>>

>>>>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>>valid

>>>>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>

>>>What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>

>>

>>

>> I'm surprised it will only take a week to recover if a MS OS is

>> involved.

>

>Were you born this stupid or did you evolve into it?

>Frank

 

Yo tard, it were Linux it would not be down for a week.

thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:16:23 -0800, Frank <fb@spamm.nrz> wrote:

>

>

>>thetruthhurts @homail.com wrote:

>>

>>>On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:42:02 GMT, ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>>>>>Reported here and elsewhere, it appears the WGA server is down and any

>>>>>>>attempts to validate will fail, leading Vista to think it is not a

>>>>>>>valid

>>>>>>>license and disable a number of features in the OS include Aero.

>>>>

>>>>What do you expect from a server running an MS OS?

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>I'm surprised it will only take a week to recover if a MS OS is

>>>involved.

>>

>>Were you born this stupid or did you evolve into it?

>>Frank

>

>

> Yo tard, it were Linux it would not be down for a week.

 

Yo as*hole, try getting your facts straight or just continue to make a

complete retarded fool out of yourself.

Loser!

Frank