[THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:18:15 +0100
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lucas Boyken [mailto:lboyken@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 18:48
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: Rebooting Win2k Terminal servers
>
> Microsoft has become a slave not only to previous code they
> have written, but to a certain extent, the code that others
> write.
They will not be held accountable (either in a general sense, or a specific
one) for faults or flaws, that are due to bugs in other vendors' products.
Try it and see, if you don't believe me.
Whether some people ignorant of the facts and reality would over-generalise
and dispute it, or otherwise, the fact remains.
Sure, some CEO of a company may like to blame them, because that's the big
name he knows, but if the fault is due to some 3rd party code, it's due to
some 3rd party code.
> Sure, they have "standards" and certain procedures
> that are in place to help Application Manufactures to have a
> higher likelihood that their applications will run in many
> different scenarios. However, they are...like every other
> company in the free market society in which we
> live...somewhat controlled by what people want, desire, and
> demand. Customers demand things to work right, all the time,
> especially when their money is the money being spent.
Indeed.
They don't get into (in general) resolving other vendors' bugs.
If you want guaranteed reliability, there is an option there - but Microsoft
*don't* provide it directly.
That option is Datacenter (for Windows 2000). And it's provided by OEMs. How
would you imagine, they go about guarantees? What, would you imagine, they
do to ensure the stability of their platform?
> With this mantality, Free Market Economy customers also start
> to grey over the ownership of problems, especially when it
> comes to intellectual products such as programs.
It's not greyed at all - merely in some peoples' minds.
If you doubt it, you try getting Microsoft to respond and fix a problem, or
even accept responsibility for a fault due to the code in a 3rd party app -
go ahead and try it.
> Therefore,
> problems that occur...even if caused by an application
> problem, are related by these customers to the system on
> which they are operating. Microsoft, at this point, might be
> the cause of the customer's problems (in their mind) or it
> could be their computer manufacture (because the application
> and OS are running on a particular brand of equipment). As
> you can see, customers demand from manufactures unrealistic
> things at times.
Either you are most naive, or have a limited exposure to this.
I've worked for big businesses, that have used Microsoft products. If there
has been occasion where there has been instability problems, or faults
caused by 3rd party apps - Microsoft will assign blame correctly, regardless
of how high-up, or with what authority (either in ignorance, or arrogance)
the blame is obfuscated to be due to Microsoft's products.
I suspect they are not alone in this.
If you have a problem with an 3rd party application, and it's flaw is due to
an operating system issue - they, also, will assert the blame for the fault
in the right place, and won't accept responsibility, if it's something
outside of their control.
Ignorant perception of the masses may be one thing - "...if it's a PC, it's
a Microsoft problem...", or "...if it's Windows, it's a Microsoft
problem..." is one thing - but it'll fall on deaf ears, if it's not their
problem.
I'm not saying they won't be prepared to work *with* vendors, given the
right support options - but they certainly won't accept, or be held
accountable for faults or issues in other vendors code.
> These unrealistic demands drive the market place to produce
> better and better products. It is my contention,
> unfortunately, that Microsoft has not been living up to these
> demands by the customer.
If such demands are bogus - then it's an unreasonable expectation.
As a customer, in general, the principle applies - if the company does not
meet my expectations, they have gone astray - *unless* my expectations are
unreasonable.
Neil
***********************************************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential and are intended for
the above named recipient only. If this has come to you in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your
system. You must take no action based on this, nor must you copy or
disclose it or any part of its contents to any person or organisation.
Statements and opinions contained in this email may not necessarily
represent those of Littlewoods. Please note that email communications
may be monitored.
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its subsidiaries
is 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152
***********************************************************************
********************************************************
This weeks sponsor - Emergent Online 99Point9.com
Designed to facilitate efficient resolution of your technical server-based
questions, issues and incidents, technical support is a few mouse-clicks away:
you submit your incident-specific support requests via our online support
helpdesk, our certified engineers resolve them while you monitor the progress,
and your systems get back to 99.9% up-time in no time.
http://www.99point9.com
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thethin.net/links.cfm
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thethin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
