Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

WinExtra » What the hell are you doing Microsoft

WinExtra » What the hell are you doing Microsoft — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:40:33 GMT

Pingback from WinExtra » What the hell are you doing Microsoft

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Myron Johnson — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 23:55:28 GMT

This new Policy, if it is true, shows no Microsoft knowledge of how Small Business consultants work.

I need copies of past Microsoft desktop and server products to do business. Here's some real-world examples of my uses for "old versions" of MS software:

1) I recently helped a new client perform an emergency recovery of his corporate SQL database. He had a Windows Server 2000 computer. I was able to use my Action Pack Advanced Server 2000 license (installed in Virtual PC) to simulate the recovery method. Without the Action Pack copy of Server 2000, I'd have to somehow find a used copy on Ebay and buy it before I could even start helping my client.

2) Last year, I had to migrate an office from Server 2000 to SBS 2003. Nearly all of their client PCs had Windows 2000 Professional installed.

I don't own any Windows 2000 computers and since I have no Action Pack licenses for it, I don't have any Virtual PC images, either.

After the first Windows 2000 client was joined to the Domain, I discovered that Windows 2000 doesn't migrate profiles properly. I'd LIKE to have an improved migration technique for the next job. But I need to test it. It's tough to justify paying for a (likely "illegal") OEM copy of Windows 2000 on eBay. I HATE paying for pirated software.

3) I'd like to practice some Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2003 migrations. But I don't have an Action Pack license for Exchange 5.5, and it's really tough to justify spending hudnreds of dollars for an obsolete application that will only be used once for training.

4) ALL of my clients use XP and SBS 2003 or Server 2003. NONE use Vista or SBS 2003 R2 or Server 2003 R2. ALL of my clients use Office 2000, XP, or 2003. NONE use Office 2007.

I don't expect to see any SBS R2 or Vista or Office 2007 for another year. I'd appreciate being able to have usable copies of the software that my clients are running so I can support them properly.

If this new Policy actually happens, it's going to make the Action Pack pretty worthless to me.

MS presser partnere til å oppgradere sin hardware!

Dag Staale Jenssen — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:10:15 GMT

Bort med vekk og ned med alt! Viste du at når du nå får din nye action pack så kan du ikke lenger bruke MAPS Win XP? Hvis du gjør det bryter du lisensbestemmelsene! Du kan bruke eksisterende MAPS frem ...

MS presser partnere til å oppgradere sin hardware!

Dag Staale Jenssen — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:52:38 GMT

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Floyd Esparaz — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:52:34 GMT

Susan, thanks for the heads up on this issue. I emailed a Microsoft SBSC Partner Specialist who forwarded my email to MAPS North America and here's the response I got:

Hello Floyd,

Thank you for your email regarding the Microsoft Action Pack Subscription.

You are not required to upgrade to Windows Vista. As long as you keep your Action Pack Subscription current, you may continue to use Windows XP. Please understand that the Action Pack Subscription no longer supports Windows XP. That simply means that we cannot replace any software if it gets lost or damaged.

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Adnan Rafik — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:43:10 GMT

I'm totally agree with Susan. According to this statement seems there is no use for Action Pack except doing hands-on. Or in other words MS want us to buy TechNet susbcription?

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Bob Muir — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:08:03 GMT

Well, it looks like it's going to get even worse for the folks who want to be 100% legit. Eric has written a nice blog entry on this subject here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2007/01/14/microsoft-action-pack-too-much-too-little.aspx

According to the Action Pack instructions,

"How can I use the software provided in the subscription?

The software included with the subscription can be used for internal business use, testing, evaluation, demonstration, training, and education only. For example, you can use the Action Pack software to host your company's intranet, but it cannot be used to host a commercial website. This is considered a production environment that is outside the scope of the software's intended purpose."

I took that to mean that I couldn't open up a web store on SBS etc. But it can also be interpreted to mean that I can't host my SMB Consulting business website on SBS. Not that big a deal, we should use a 3rd party host anyway. But if we can't run our business website on the SBS, then that probably also means we can't send and receive email on our SBS since that would no longer be an "internal business use" and would become a "production environment". Yes?

Personally, all these years, I've been working based on the marketing speak that we could "run our business" on the Action Pack software. However, if you read the instructions explicitly, (as they did to say we cannot run WinXP), then we are NOT permitted to run the AP software in a "production" environment. Which of course means we cannot run our business on it.

This means that Action Pack is no better than TechNet+ except that it costs $100 more and has less functional software to train with.

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Tony Albans — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:46:19 GMT

While on the topic of "staying legal", the requirement for more Server licenses in MAPS remains unresolved! Hilton was doing a poll on the supply of Enterprise in MAPS, (so that we could benefit from the additional virtualisation rights that flow from Enterprise license).

What is sad, and indicative of lack of understanding of reality combined with unwillingness/inability to change, is that MAPS people have been aware of the Server license count issue since June 2005 (I have the email archives). You simply cannot be legal AND use MAPS in a real world scenario.

Humbly suggest that it is time that MAPS (in its entirety) is put under the microscope (by someone who understands real world needs of partners (big and small) in terms of product offering, usability, and legality flowing from the EULA.

What were they thinking?

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Tim Barrett — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:09:47 GMT

This isn't the first time this fiscal year Microsoft has messed with the Action Pack:

http://www.nogeekleftbehind.com/2006/10/09/bittersweet-october-2006-actionpack-update/

MAPS is losing value faster than a new car being driven off the dealer lot. I really wish they would stop making things more difficult for the Partners and just let us get back to work. So far I'm not digging the "New Day" very much.

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Bob Muir — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:55:40 GMT

While I'm not quite a cavalier as Nick, I do agree that even were MS to investigate me regarding my AP license, I seriously doubt they would have an issue with the fact that I have a workstation running XP after the "cutover" date.

Of course, that's why they should clarify the licensing verbage. I don't know what they're afraid of - that we're not going to eat the dog food?

Personally, I'm more ticked that we're not getting licenses to 100% install-from-scratch desktop OS's. (Thanks to all the non-partners out there buying up AP just so they can populate their business network on the cheap.)

I like rebuilding my computer each year or so from scratch. It forces me to be current with new hardware knowledge. Having to pay for an OEM license as well as an upgrade license, (from what I've read), when I'm already paying for Action Pack is just plain annoying!

It'll be interesting to see what shows up in the packet.

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

Andy — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 13:26:47 GMT

I absolutely agree with Susan on this one, it's crazy not to be allowed to run older software - especially if the action pack agreement ran out the day of (or after) Vista availability. Would it be realistic to suddenly have to migrate the action pack'ed pc's to Vista overnight? Running a small business I really have better things to do.

Susan's public post to Steve Ballmer regarding the new Action Pack EULA

Nick Whittome - "The Naked MVP" — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:19:38 GMT

Yesterday, I managed to "hit the right buttons" with Susan on this thread . I still stand by what I have

re: Dear Mr. Ballmer - I'd like to ask you to understand...

SBS Rocks — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:16:57 GMT

Ballmer,

How about we get to have a license for the current and the previous versions. Many of the VAPs are in the migration business. Shouldn't we learn to migrate from Exchange 2003 (even 2000) to the new 2007? How are we going to be able represent microsoft in a positive manner if we don't have the older bits to test and retrain new staff members. Test beds? etc.?

SBS Rocks !!!

Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » They Took ‘R Action Pack Rights

Vlad Mazek - Vladville Blog » Blog Archive » They Took ‘R Action Pack Rights — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 04:15:07 GMT

PingBack from http://www.vladville.com/2007/01/they-took-r-action-pack-rights.html