Vista Family Discount Keys Found Not Compatible 394
acousticiris writes "Many (if not all) users who took advantage of Microsoft's Vista Family Discount have been issued invalid installation keys and cannot install Windows Vista Home Premium. Microsoft says, 'There is no expected time period for a fix at this time.' According to the article, the keys are valid for something, just not Windows Vista. Perhaps it's just too simple to issue these folks new keys and send them on their way."
Wait.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd image such people at least somewhat competent when using a computer. Many non-technical computer users don't even know what Vista is, let alone that it has been released, and thus wouldn't be updating their systems so quickly. I'd expect such people would also be aware of how this sort of bullshit gets worse and worse with each release of Windows. Why do they accept being treated like criminals? Why do they accept being treated like nothing more than shit?
This is exactly the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Your really have to be stupid to do that.
No Timeframe? (Score:2, Insightful)
Known issue or not, get them working keys!
Re:Wait.... (Score:1, Insightful)
And half of those were waiting for a chance to say Vista sucks.
It wouldn't matter -what- Microsoft did.
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Upgrade does not include Vista Premium.. (Score:2, Insightful)
When you build something as incredibly convoluted and confusing as the fourteen different versions of Vista, you must accept at least partial blame when people get them mixed up. Most of these people probably don't even know what Windows Vista Ultimate is or whether they have it. Sure, this is partly their fault, but mostly MS's fault for building a confusing system and making strange requirements based on it.
Re:Unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
That depends. How far into the installation are these users before they discovered this? Is the former OS no longer bootable? IF that is the case a simple refund does nothing for the customer that was just left high and dry. As I recall, "upgrade" versions of Vista invalidate [gizmodo.com] the key [tailrank.com] used for previously installed version of Windows (thus making a reinstall a moot point).
Re:Wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Stick to what you're good at" - something companies know they must do, but can't, because of growth pressure.
I for one welcome our new uber-topic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:family values (Score:5, Insightful)
Just sayin'.
Re:This is exactly the reason (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they don't.
Not with Vista.
This is the first release of Windows that actually does less than the previous one. The people in the article didn't need it, I don't need it, and you don't need it.
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
To use an old truism: "the devil you know
Overblown MS bashing (Score:4, Insightful)
This wouldn't be unacceptable if you had a problem _installing_ vista and the sales guy at the store said, "I don't know why you're having a problem, we'll have to have a technical rep. get back to you". It just sounds horrible because it's something simple like a 'product key'. Well guess what - not everybody can make those.
They are probably under the tightest lock & key system microsoft has because you _don't_ want anybody, even most of your own employees, to be able to create valid keys.
I think the article's overzealous hatred of microsoft is apparent when the author says, " If Microsoft does not have this issue fixed very soon, they are going to have a lot of unhappy customers ". I'm sorry but I think Microsoft actually knows that, and so do I.
Don't insult our intelligence.
That whole anti-ms rant was written based on 1 phone call to a rep that sounded, surprise! reasonable.
---
surprise! [douginadress.com]
Re:Unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
and the OS works so well because it is tailor made for a know set of hardware. They could lose their wonderful reputation if people started trying to stick it on unknown boxes.
Re:family values (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:2, Insightful)
I say solutions because Macs are total computing solutions. Not some little box you can get and put on your PC.
That, and getting enough knowledge to be proficient in Linux would probably qualify you for college credit nowadays, Ubuntu or otherwise.
I think ignorance on most people's part is willful. There are those who choose the path less traveled, and are happier for it.
Re:Seriously, get a grip people (Score:3, Insightful)
You must be new here
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
<RAMBLE>
Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?
That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself. linux (IMO) is crippled by that lack of a standard GUI layer. It has almost everything else, I'm perfectly ready to concede. Be nice if it had a little bit smarter permissions - like being able to say that "this dir is read/write, but nothing can execute here" without having to set the dir up on its own partition, etc., but at least there is a workaround.
In fact, that's how I ended up with Apple's OSX. It's almost linux from my user / developer point of view, but it has a solid GUI I am under the impression I can count on, and I don't have to pay fees to use or get the user to try to download.
I'd like to see something more basic, though. I know these marvelous machines we have today would run like raped apes if we actually tried to make them do so, instead of trying to make them do "everything for everybody." Vista's gone and collected 10% or so of a modern CPU for itself, if the rumors I hear are correct; is that really where we want to be? Damn, 10% of a modern CPU is what, 100% of one five years ago?
Sometimes I write software to run in a shell in OSX or linux and just enjoy the zappiness of it all. I am heavily involved in AI experimentation, particularly in the multiply-associative memory area, and I always write that stuff for a text shell. A real linux text shell actually runnning in text mode... man that's fast. :)
</RAMBLE>
Re:I guess I made the right decision (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, maybe that's a signal we're looking at things incorrectly, then. Why not build a stable core - multitasking, networking, application sandboxing, list management, basic graphics with user-settable bitmaps and/or polygonal models -- the rest of the usual suspects like disk io and USB -- and then let the user decide if they want, for instance, to add a 3d desktop with voice and haptic features, widgets, zooming, 400 language compatibility (OSX carries a crapload of language stuff to your drive it doesn't really need to, for instance) and drivers for every printer ever known to man?
Primarily because the vast, vast majority of consumers lack the knowledge and, more importantly, the will, to do so.
Heck, *I* have zero interest in doing that sort of thing these days, and it wasn't that long ago I did the whole Linux-from-scratch thing, just for the hell of it. I'm more than happy to sacrifice some (dirt cheap) disk space and processor time, to save myself the effort of putting the whole thing together myself and subsequently having to keep it maintained. This is precisely the same reason I don't use Linux on my desktop - because it's more work to get everything going and keep it that way.
That almost sounds like a linux release, but the key thing missing in all linux versions is a stable and always-there set of GUI tools so applications can run on the OS itself.
Close. More important than the "set of GUI tools" is a standard, stable, "set of libraries" (I use the term "libraries", but I basically mean a stable, defined set of basic functionalities that will _always_ be present in a known form). This is a _huge_ feature than OS X (and Windows) has over Linux.
Hardware resources are _cheap_. My time - and developers' time - is _expensive_. Sacrificing hardware resources to get better software, quicker, is a more than reasonable tradeoff and, ultimately, the whole point of computers in the first place.
The point of software [like this] is not to use as little hardware resources as possible. The point of software is to make my life as easy as it possibly can and the hardware resources be damned.
What about in the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand making a mistake in key generation. Mistakes happen. But what makes me wary is the Vista enhanced authentication/validation process. We know Vista is designed to validate that key not just when it's installed but periodically thereafter. Microsoft knows they need to make a good impression right at product launch, and they still manage to stuff up the keys so they won't validate. My thought is this: if they can blow it now, what about 6 months or a year down the road when it isn't so blatantly critical for them to look good? Are they going to upgrade a server somewhere, blow it again and suddenly my key isn't on the valid list anymore? What confidence does this incident give me that this won't in fact happen?
Re:Paid customers getting the shaft? (Score:1, Insightful)
'Hacker' always involved mischief. Show me a "hacker" who never did anything "blackhat", and I'll show you a bad hacker. As far as I'm concerned, crackers are things you eat with some cottage cheese.
Not just MS, it's DRM, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you hit the nail on the head. But you need to look beyond Microsoft. The U.S. Government is -- or fancies itself, anyway -- much bigger than even the largest corporations. They're going to protect Microsoft, because they see MS as a modern U.S. Steel or General Motors; it's a huge part of the national industry.
Moreover, DRM in general is going to be pushed heavily by the USG, for the "national interest." Even though it will punish consumers here, it's a way of protecting one of the only things that the U.S. exports anymore: "intellectual property." We don't make stuff anymore; we "manufacture" IP. DRM is a way, in the minds of some folks in DC, of protecting that whole category of exports, and maintaining our dominance in one area, at least. Without DRM, the whole idea of commoditizing and selling "IP" on a retail-like market doesn't work; if you can't tie down information to physical artifacts, or make it behave conservatively (even though information is naturally nonconservative), then it's devilishly hard to sell multiple times. And if you can't take one Hollywood blockbuster and sell it 100 million times over, like it's some sort of aspirin tablet that you're turning out, how do you keep the economy going, when nobody wants to buy anything else we make here anymore?
Subject (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that would depend on the speed of your connection and the quality of your usenet provider.
For instance, on my rather slow connection I could have the 32- and 64-bit combo RTM DVD in about 6 hours if I actually wanted it, and about another 20-30 seconds for the Vista final activation crack.
So really, MS doesn't have to worry about a thing. The market will fix itself.
Re:Paid customers getting the shaft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft does not offer refunds for purchases made through their web site and they are sticking to that policy, leaving users like me who already paid them hundreds of dollars with no recourse and unable to affect the remedy to this horrible situation.
Does the US really have no laws protecting consumers from this sort of crap? You were sold a product that is defective, and the supplier has no acceptable substitute to replace it with. If you paid with a credit card, the credit card company should at least come down on them even if the law won't.
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I know I'm arguing both sides of the fence, but in Linux, it's not as "non-standard" as you think, and in Windows it's not as "standard" as you think.
Re:Why would they subject themselves to this? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're too young to have used any Athena based apps, an overview of it and derivatives [efalk.org] is available online.
OTOH, one could argue that Linux has two standard GUIs, Gnome and KDE (standard as being de facto standard since they're used by the majority). Of course as is usually the case with all things Linuxy, there are countless alternatives to pick from if one doesn't care for the mainstream stuff
uh huh (Score:3, Insightful)