Vista - Re: RTM = legal? RTM=Riches to MSFT and no Competent Recov Mech from OEM

RTM=Riches to MSFT and No Competent Recovery Mechanism from 300 OEM named
partners secondary to the pressure from one Scott Di Valerio and his
homeboys and girls --the CPA who has no engineering background whatsoever
who is ironically OEM VP--and it shows. There isn't an OEM system builder
on the planet who doesn't forget more about hardware and software than
Valerio has ever known in his life in an hour.

It's a real insult to system builders that someone with this poor of an IT
background is directing their program at MSFT, and it was a real insult to
them and a terrible reflection on MSFT when system builders asked why OEM
named partners and in fact Microsoft who pushes this policy aren't required
to provide all the code of the OS on media for repairing or recovering (any
word you want to use) the OS reliably and the smart assed reply was "when
you guys are selling 50, 000 machines we'll waive the requirement to provide
decent recovery media.

This came from a softie who of course works for Scott Di Valerio who did far
and away the most disjointed low quality presentation I've ever seen from a
Softie. Usually they're well done. Not from this parody of a speaker.

CH


"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:e6H$pajCHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> To directly answer your question - there's no way to tell (unless someone
> volunteers the information) whether someone running an RTM version is
> running it legally or not. There are channels other than MSDN and TechNet
> that have the RTM version of Vista available now, so simply using MSDN or
> TechNet as your criteria isn't enough.
>
> But yes, anyone running the RTM version of Vista that didn't get it, along
> with authorization from Microsoft to use it, is using it illegally.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
>
> "Tim Draper" <veehexx@NOSPAM_btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:455d8d55$0$8033$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>> is using RTM legal if your not on MSDN/technet/similar?
>>
>> from my understanding, RTM = release to manufacture = retail version, and
>> thus it should be paid for.
>> i'm seeing pleanty of people on the net reporting their using RTM but
>> since its not yet on MSDN and only available via torrents/similar then
>> no-one should legally have it?
>>
>> clarification please!
>> tim
>
>

Chad,
this is OT, but have a great Thanksgiving over there is in the US.
Thanks for your input to this ng.


"Chad Harris" <Vista RTM is really Beta 1.net> wrote in message
news:%23c3dvBaDHHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> RTM=Riches to MSFT and No Competent Recovery Mechanism from 300 OEM named
> partners secondary to the pressure from one Scott Di Valerio and his
> homeboys and girls --the CPA who has no engineering background whatsoever
> who is ironically OEM VP--and it shows. There isn't an OEM system builder
> on the planet who doesn't forget more about hardware and software than
> Valerio has ever known in his life in an hour.
>
> It's a real insult to system builders that someone with this poor of an IT
> background is directing their program at MSFT, and it was a real insult to
> them and a terrible reflection on MSFT when system builders asked why OEM
> named partners and in fact Microsoft who pushes this policy aren't
> required
> to provide all the code of the OS on media for repairing or recovering
> (any
> word you want to use) the OS reliably and the smart assed reply was "when
> you guys are selling 50, 000 machines we'll waive the requirement to
> provide
> decent recovery media.
>
> This came from a softie who of course works for Scott Di Valerio who did
> far
> and away the most disjointed low quality presentation I've ever seen from
> a
> Softie. Usually they're well done. Not from this parody of a speaker.
>
> CH
>
>
> "Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
> news:e6H$pajCHHA.4992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> To directly answer your question - there's no way to tell (unless someone
>> volunteers the information) whether someone running an RTM version is
>> running it legally or not. There are channels other than MSDN and
>> TechNet
>> that have the RTM version of Vista available now, so simply using MSDN or
>> TechNet as your criteria isn't enough.
>>
>> But yes, anyone running the RTM version of Vista that didn't get it,
>> along
>> with authorization from Microsoft to use it, is using it illegally.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
>> * NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>> "Tim Draper" <veehexx@NOSPAM_btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:455d8d55$0$8033$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> is using RTM legal if your not on MSDN/technet/similar?
>>>
>>> from my understanding, RTM = release to manufacture = retail version,
>>> and
>>> thus it should be paid for.
>>> i'm seeing pleanty of people on the net reporting their using RTM but
>>> since its not yet on MSDN and only available via torrents/similar then
>>> no-one should legally have it?
>>>
>>> clarification please!
>>> tim
>>
>>
>
>
>