Ridiculous Corporate Behavior

Does Microsoft intend to make a patch available to users of Entourage
v.X to make it compatible with the April 1 server upgrade? If not,
why not?

It is absolutely ridiculous that people who paid money to Microsoft to
purchase Office v.X, specifically to have a desktop email client that
interacts seamlessly with Hotmail, have now been denied use of their
Hotmail accounts using Entourage v.X, on a whim and without proper
notice. Though this type of repugnant corporate behavior is not new
to MSFT, in the past it has made it a point to make security patches
available even for email client software that it no longer supports or
that has been "end-of-lifed".

wsjessup
Sat Apr 28 16:36:38 CDT 2007

On Apr 28, 5:12 pm, ahbi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Does Microsoft intend to make a patch available to users of Entourage
> v.X to make it compatible with the April 1 server upgrade? If not,
> why not?
>
> It is absolutely ridiculous that people who paid money to Microsoft to
> purchase Office v.X, specifically to have a desktop email client that
> interacts seamlessly with Hotmail, have now been denied use of their
> Hotmail accounts using Entourage v.X, on a whim and without proper
> notice. Though this type of repugnant corporate behavior is not new
> to MSFT, in the past it has made it a point to make security patches
> available even for email client software that it no longer supports or
> that has been "end-of-lifed".

I have been sending all of my e-mail thru gmail since Microsoft made
their change to Hotmail/MSN.

And I have been looking for a rebate or other promotion that would
reduce the price of Office 2004. Office 2008 will be out by the end
of the year and I can't see spending over $200 for the 2004 upgrade
when it will be used for a few months and then upgraded to 2008. I
have checked eBay and there are few upgrade packages available at any
given time. The Office 2004 upgrades normally end up selling for $125
or more in used condition, I would rather pay $200 and not take a
chance with used software. But still, $200 is too much to pay for
software that I intend to use for about 7 months and then upgrade.

So, I am waiting for a Office promotion and in the meantime I am using
Google Mail.

W S Jessup

Diane
Sat Apr 28 16:40:04 CDT 2007

On 4/28/07 2:12 PM, in article
1177794737.169564.158860@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "ahbijef@hotmail.com"
<ahbijef@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Does Microsoft intend to make a patch available to users of Entourage
> v.X to make it compatible with the April 1 server upgrade? If not,
> why not?

No. Support for Office v. X (other than security updates) ended January 9,
2007, after 5 years. Support for 2001 ended long ago. Even though Apple
finally did provide an update for Panther, Entourage X and 2001 will NOT be
upgraded to support the change.

See this article "Is your Mac ready for Daylight Savings Time?"

<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/articles/daylight.html>

Unofficial Daylight Saving Time Workaround for Entourage X

<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/articles/unofficial_dst_workaround.html>

>
> It is absolutely ridiculous that people who paid money to Microsoft to
> purchase Office v.X, specifically to have a desktop email client that
> interacts seamlessly with Hotmail, have now been denied use of their
> Hotmail accounts using Entourage v.X, on a whim and without proper
> notice. Though this type of repugnant corporate behavior is not new
> to MSFT, in the past it has made it a point to make security patches
> available even for email client software that it no longer supports or
> that has been "end-of-lifed".
>
Contrary to popular opinion, the fix was not an easy one to implement. I
understand that it took months just to get 2004 upgraded. Remember this
problem could not be foreseen when Office X or 2004 was released.

Please note, I do not work for Microsoft.

--
Diane Ross, Microsoft Mac MVP
Entourage Help Page
<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>
One of the top five MS Entourage resources listed on the Entourage Blog.
<http://blogs.msdn.com/entourage/>

Barry
Sat Apr 28 16:48:09 CDT 2007

On 28/04/2007 22:12, in article
1177794737.169564.158860@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "ahbijef@hotmail.com"
<ahbijef@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Does Microsoft intend to make a patch available to users of Entourage
> v.X to make it compatible with the April 1 server upgrade? If not,
> why not?

I honestly don't know if they will or they won't. I do know that support for
Office vX ended on Jan 31st this year, so it is unlikely.
>
> It is absolutely ridiculous that people who paid money to Microsoft to
> purchase Office v.X, specifically to have a desktop email client that
> interacts seamlessly with Hotmail, have now been denied use of their
> Hotmail accounts using Entourage v.X, on a whim and without proper
> notice.

Well, Office vX is over 7 years old now, and has been superseded by Office
2004 for over 3 years - how long do you expect them to keep updating a
programme? Yes, you may have paid good money for it, but you have also
refused to update to the latest version. If your rant was about lack of
support for the latest version, I would feel more sympathetic.

> Though this type of repugnant corporate behavior is not new
> to MSFT, in the past it has made it a point to make security patches
> available even for email client software that it no longer supports or
> that has been "end-of-lifed".

Uh - sorry? Are you saying that it is repugnant of MS to make security
updates available for an eol'd product?

Yes, security issues get a higher priority than do feature
additions/updates. Surely, that's no bad thing? MS are often given a hard
time over perceived lack of security (although I have never noticed any
great failing in their mac products). Surely it is unfair to knock them for
updating even products that are officially eol where a user's security is
compromised.

>

--
Barry

Please use this email address only for beta testing related mail. For all
other communications, please use barry at barryw dot net.

Barry
Sat Apr 28 16:49:42 CDT 2007

On 28/04/2007 22:40, in article
C2590D44.52364%dross@nospam.mvps.org.invalid, "Diane Ross"
<dross@nospam.mvps.org.invalid> wrote:

> See this article "Is your Mac ready for Daylight Savings Time?"

The OP is referring to a Hotmail server upgrade, which broke connectivity to
Entourage vX.

--
Barry

Please use this email address only for beta testing related mail. For all
other communications, please use barry at barryw dot net.

ahbijef
Sat Apr 28 17:27:40 CDT 2007

On Apr 29, 5:48 am, "Barry Wainwright [MVP]" <b...@mvps.org.INVALID>
wrote:
> On 28/04/2007 22:12, in article
> 1177794737.169564.158...@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, "ahbi...@hotmail.com"

> Well, Office vX is over 7 years old now, and has been superseded by Office
> 2004 for over 3 years - how long do you expect them to keep updating a
> programme? Yes, you may have paid good money for it, but you have also
> refused to update to the latest version. If your rant was about lack of
> support for the latest version, I would feel more sympathetic.

Office v.X was officially released only in late 2001, barely over 5
years ago. In the past, MSFT has continued to release security
patches even for long-ago end-of-lifed products like Outlook Express
for OS 9 and Office for Mac 1998 and 2001. That was my original
point. And if the April 1 server upgrade was a security issue, why
isn't a patch being offered this time to v.X?

> Uh - sorry? Are you saying that it is repugnant of MS to make security
> updates available for an eol'd product?
>
> Yes, security issues get a higher priority than do feature
> additions/updates. Surely, that's no bad thing? MS are often given a hard
> time over perceived lack of security (although I have never noticed any
> great failing in their mac products). Surely it is unfair to knock them for
> updating even products that are officially eol where a user's security is
> compromised.

MSFT's behavior is repugnant not because it patched the security of
its servers. It is repugnant because it patched them in a way that,
as you say below, broke connectivity with all but the latest version
of Office for Mac, thereby forcing users who wish to maintain
connectivity either to upgrade or, as more sensible people are now
realizing, to switch to a free email service operated by a less
repugnant corporate entity.

William
Sun Apr 29 23:37:59 CDT 2007

In article <1177799260.219955.13040@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
ahbijef@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Well, Office vX is over 7 years old now, and has been superseded by Office
> > 2004 for over 3 years - how long do you expect them to keep updating a
> > programme? Yes, you may have paid good money for it, but you have also
> > refused to update to the latest version. If your rant was about lack of
> > support for the latest version, I would feel more sympathetic.
>
> Office v.X was officially released only in late 2001, barely over 5
> years ago. In the past, MSFT has continued to release security
> patches even for long-ago end-of-lifed products like Outlook Express
> for OS 9 and Office for Mac 1998 and 2001. That was my original
> point. And if the April 1 server upgrade was a security issue, why
> isn't a patch being offered this time to v.X?

I see no need to either agree or disagree with you. But going forward,
be aware of how Microsoft handles it support life-cycle for its products.

First, have a look at this link on Microsoft's website. You may wish to
print it if you feel this may be later modified unfairly.
<http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy>. Read the section about
Consumer products. Office for Mac falls under that category. It
essentially says:

1. Microsoft will support a product fully for a minimum of five years or
2. Microsoft will support a product fully for two years after a
successor product is released,
3. Whichever is -longer-.

Keep in mind that this isn't support for a minimum of five years after
-you- purchase the product but after the product is -released-.

Next, have a look at a second link on Microsoft's website. Again, you
may wish to print it if you feel this may be later modified unfairly.
<http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&p1=2490>

Notice that Office 2004 is slated for retirement (end-of-life) on
October 13, 2009. Since we already know that Office 2008 will be
released later this year (let's assume December as a worst case
scenario), we can deduce support will not last beyond December 2009,
because that will be two years after the successor product has been
released and later than October 13, 2009.

Office X was actually slated for end-of-life in October 2006 (five years
after release and longer than two years after Office 2004 was released),
but you'll notice that it was officially EOLed in January 2007.
<http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2532> That's a three month
extension of Microsoft's own policy.

Keep the above in mind when making your next Office for Mac purchase. If
you don't feel the support life-cycle is fair then you can opt not to
purchase Office, being more aware than the last time.

Hope this helps! bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows)

ahbijef
Wed May 16 11:32:05 CDT 2007

> I see no need to either agree or disagree with you. But going forward,
> be aware of how Microsoft handles it support life-cycle for its products.
>
> First, have a look at this link on Microsoft's website. You may wish to
> print it if you feel this may be later modified unfairly.
> <http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy>. Read the section about
> Consumer products. Office for Mac falls under that category. It
> essentially says:
>
> 1. Microsoft will support a product fully for a minimum of five years or
> 2. Microsoft will support a product fully for two years after a
> successor product is released,
> 3. Whichever is -longer-.
>
> Keep in mind that this isn't support for a minimum of five years after
> -you- purchase the product but after the product is -released-.
>
> Next, have a look at a second link on Microsoft's website. Again, you
> may wish to print it if you feel this may be later modified unfairly.
> <http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-us&x=12&y=13&p1=2490>
>
> Notice that Office 2004 is slated for retirement (end-of-life) on
> October 13, 2009. Since we already know that Office 2008 will be
> released later this year (let's assume December as a worst case
> scenario), we can deduce support will not last beyond December 2009,
> because that will be two years after the successor product has been
> released and later than October 13, 2009.
>
> Office X was actually slated for end-of-life in October 2006 (five years
> after release and longer than two years after Office 2004 was released),
> but you'll notice that it was officially EOLed in January 2007.
> <http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2532> That's a three month
> extension of Microsoft's own policy.
>
> Keep the above in mind when making your next Office for Mac purchase. If
> you don't feel the support life-cycle is fair then you can opt not to
> purchase Office, being more aware than the last time.
>
> Hope this helps! bill
> --
> William M. Smith
> (Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows)


Well, smartass, I've just downloaded MS's Office Open XML converter
(dated May 10, 2007). See this link (and let the anally retentive
putz in you print it out if you feel that YOU have been mistakenly
classified as repugnant):

<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/
mac/download/Office2004/
ConverterBeta.xml&secid=4&ssid=34&flgnosysreq=True>

This 150 MB update SPECIFICALLY supports versions of MS Office for Mac
BEFORE Office 2004.

Suck that (and be glad that I gave you the opportunity to do so).

And explain why MS is supporting Office <<2004 on XML but not therir
repugnant 4/1/07 server upgrade.

ahbijef
Wed May 16 11:40:40 CDT 2007

Will you then explain why MS has specifically made its Office Open XML
Converter (dayed May 10, 2007) specifically available to versions of
Office for Mac BEFORE 2004?

See this link (and feel free to print it out if you feel that you too
have been classified as a repugnant putz):

<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/
mac/download/Office2004/
ConverterBeta.xml&secid=4&ssid=34&flgnosysreq=True>

Jolly
Wed May 16 15:36:21 CDT 2007

On 2007-05-16 11:32:05 -0500, ahbijef@hotmail.com said:

> Suck that (and be glad that I gave you the opportunity to do so).

You should really seek help with your anger issues.

--
JR

Diane
Wed May 16 21:19:25 CDT 2007

On 5/16/07 9:32 AM, in article
1179333124.944744.206960@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "ahbijef@hotmail.com"
<ahbijef@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Well, smartass, I've just downloaded MS's Office Open XML converter
> (dated May 10, 2007). See this link (and let the anally retentive
> putz in you print it out if you feel that YOU have been mistakenly
> classified as repugnant):
>
> <http://www.microsoft.com/mac/downloads.aspx?pid=download&location=/
> mac/download/Office2004/
> ConverterBeta.xml&secid=4&ssid=34&flgnosysreq=True>
>
> This 150 MB update SPECIFICALLY supports versions of MS Office for Mac
> BEFORE Office 2004.
>
> Suck that (and be glad that I gave you the opportunity to do so).
>
> And explain why MS is supporting Office <<2004 on XML but not therir
> repugnant 4/1/07 server upgrade.
>

This is totally unacceptable behavior. You¹ve come on a list where people
are volunteering their time and then insult them using vulgar language.
Shame on you!

Do expect anyone to every try to help you with that kind of behavior?

--
Diane Ross, Microsoft Mac MVP
Entourage Help Page
<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>
One of the top five MS Entourage resources listed on the Entourage Blog.
<http://blogs.msdn.com/entourage/>

JE
Wed May 16 21:27:14 CDT 2007

In article <1179333124.944744.206960@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
ahbijef@hotmail.com wrote:

> Well, smartass,

<plonk!>

(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Corentin_Cras-M=E9neur?=)
Thu May 17 11:39:46 CDT 2007

Diane Ross <dross@nospam.mvps.org.invalid> wrote:

> This is totally unacceptable behavior. You've come on a list where people
> are volunteering their time and then insult them using vulgar language.
> Shame on you!

I could not have said it better.

> Do expect anyone to every try to help you with that kind of behavior?

I sure won't!

Corentin

--
--- Mac:MS MVP (Francophone) http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ ---
http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS
Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire

ahbijef
Thu May 17 14:26:44 CDT 2007

On May 17, 10:19 am, Diane Ross <d...@nospam.mvps.org.invalid> wrote:
> This is totally unacceptable behavior. You=B9ve come on a list where peop=
le
> are volunteering their time and then insult them using vulgar language.
> Shame on you!
>
> Do expect anyone to every try to help you with that kind of behavior?
>
> --
> Diane Ross, Microsoft Mac MVP
> Entourage Help Page
> <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>
> One of the top five MS Entourage resources listed on the Entourage Blog.
> <http://blogs.msdn.com/entourage/>

Well, actually, it seems that I have come on to a newsgroup where
people GO OUT OF THEIR way to spread MISINFORMATION regarding the
blamelessness of Microsoft and GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to defend its
atrocious, uncompetitve, and REPUGNANT behavior.

To wit, BARRY WAINWRIGHT above, spreads misinformation about the
actual age of MS Office For Mac v.X:

"Well, Office vX is over 7 years old now, and has been superseded by
Office
2004 for over 3 years - how long do you expect them to keep updating
a
programme? Yes, you may have paid good money for it, but you have
also
refused to update to the latest version. If your rant was about lack
of
support for the latest version, I would feel more sympathetic."

As I have already pointed out, v.X was only released in late 2001.
Wainwright has NOT retracted his false assertions or made any attempts
to correct the misperceptions that he has, for whatever reason known
only to him and Microsoft, decided to spread on this newsgroup.

Secondly, as I have already pointed out, MS has in the past supported
its Mac software for more than 5 years, specifically email clients for
security patches. AND the latest Open Office XML Converter further
proves that point that MS is repugnantly and irresponsibly being
selective in its approach. If v.X was EOL'd, as the failure to patch
April 1 suggests, then why bother to make OOXML available to any
version of Office for Mac before 2004.

TO THOSE OF YOU WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ARE INCLINED TO SUPPORT
MICROSOFT BY SPREADING MISINFORMATION, GET A LIFE AND GET A CLUE. AND
GIVE AN OBJECTIVE RESPONSE TO WHY THERE'S v.X SUPPORT IN OOXML BUT NOT
APRIL 1.

To the rest of you who are following this newsgroup, feel free chip in
if you feel that Microsoft's arrogant and repugnant behavior should be
directly challenged in forums like this to let it really be known how
disgusting their corporate actions are.

ahbijef
Thu May 17 14:48:28 CDT 2007

On May 17, 4:36 am, Jolly Roger <jollyro...@null.org> wrote:
> On 2007-05-16 11:32:05 -0500, ahbi...@hotmail.com said:
>
> > Suck that (and be glad that I gave you the opportunity to do so).
>
> You should really seek help with your anger issues.
>
> --
> JR

Yes, I'm very ANGRY and here's the reason why:

MSFT has provided no help on April 1. It didn't even serve notice
when the Hotmail servers were upgraded and broke connectivity with
Entourage v.X, Outlook Express for OS 9, etc.

And I have received NO help in this newsgroup eithe;, only a bunch of
sycophantic musings about MSFT policy (which, as I have shown, has
been inconsistently applied over the years) and, in some cases, **
deliberate misrepresentations ** that give people the impression that
MSFT is a blameless good corporate citizen.

Will people please wake up and stop listening to the sycophants and
spreaders of falsehoods about MSFT? This newsgroup is not intended
for a bunch of hacks to defend MSFT's repugnant behavior but to point
it out and to challenge it very directly and openly (try doing that on
any of MSFT's own user forums) on matters where it is cowering behind
its corporate veil and denying services to its PAYING customers.

Repugnant and making me even more ANGRY, especially when the
sycophants come to work.

Barry
Thu May 17 15:07:08 CDT 2007

On 17/05/2007 20:26, in article
1179430004.071223.45770@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "ahbijef@hotmail.com"
<ahbijef@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As I have already pointed out, v.X was only released in late 2001.
> Wainwright has NOT retracted his false assertions or made any attempts
> to correct the misperceptions that he has, for whatever reason known
> only to him and Microsoft, decided to spread on this newsgroup.

It was actually released November 19th, 2001. From today, that's 5 and a
half years ago. However, the feature set would have been fixed long, long
before the release date, and that is what I refer to in my '7 years old'
comment. It may be a month or two out (either way), is that such a serious
issue? If it was for you, then I wholeheartedly apologise to you and to
anyone else who feels badly misled by my statement.

It hardly deserves the level of invective you seem to be burdened with.

> AND the latest Open Office XML Converter further
> proves that point that MS is repugnantly and irresponsibly being
> selective in its approach. If v.X was EOL'd, as the failure to patch
> April 1 suggests, then why bother to make OOXML available to any
> version of Office for Mac before 2004.

I'm sorry? Are you complaining that they AREN'T supporting Office X, or that
they ARE? I'm a little confused at what your complaint is, at this point.

In any case, the 'support' for Office vX comes about because the converter
works as a standalone app, converting .docx files to RTF files. The fact
that Word 2004, Word vX, Word 98, SimpleText and many other applications can
read this format is somewhat fortuitous.

> To the rest of you who are following this newsgroup, feel free chip in
> if you feel that Microsoft's arrogant and repugnant behavior should be
> directly challenged in forums like this to let it really be known how
> disgusting their corporate actions are.

Well, let's see how many people chip in in support. I doubt there will be
many. You seem to hold such an extreme viewpoint that I suspect you will
find yourself somewhat isolated.

This is certainly my last post in this thread. I find your attitude,
language and inferences insulting and distasteful. I will not be responding
any more.

--
Barry Wainwright
Microsoft MVP (see http://mvp.support.microsoft.com for details)
For hints, tips and troubleshooting go to the Entourage User's WebLog
<http://www.barryw.net/weblog/>

Ivar
Fri May 18 14:56:27 CDT 2007

On 5/17/07 10:07 PM, in article C272747C.5DF50%barry@mvps.org.INVALID,
"Barry Wainwright [MVP]" <barry@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote:

> On 17/05/2007 20:26, in article
> 1179430004.071223.45770@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, "ahbijef@hotmail.com"
> <ahbijef@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I have already pointed out, v.X was only released in late 2001.
>> Wainwright has NOT retracted his false assertions or made any attempts
>> to correct the misperceptions that he has, for whatever reason known
>> only to him and Microsoft, decided to spread on this newsgroup.
>
> It was actually released November 19th, 2001. From today, that's 5 and a
> half years ago. However, the feature set would have been fixed long, long
> before the release date, and that is what I refer to in my '7 years old'
> comment. It may be a month or two out (either way), is that such a serious
> issue? If it was for you, then I wholeheartedly apologise to you and to
> anyone else who feels badly misled by my statement.
>
> It hardly deserves the level of invective you seem to be burdened with.
>
>> AND the latest Open Office XML Converter further
>> proves that point that MS is repugnantly and irresponsibly being
>> selective in its approach. If v.X was EOL'd, as the failure to patch
>> April 1 suggests, then why bother to make OOXML available to any
>> version of Office for Mac before 2004.
>
> I'm sorry? Are you complaining that they AREN'T supporting Office X, or that
> they ARE? I'm a little confused at what your complaint is, at this point.
>
> In any case, the 'support' for Office vX comes about because the converter
> works as a standalone app, converting .docx files to RTF files. The fact
> that Word 2004, Word vX, Word 98, SimpleText and many other applications can
> read this format is somewhat fortuitous.
>
>> To the rest of you who are following this newsgroup, feel free chip in
>> if you feel that Microsoft's arrogant and repugnant behavior should be
>> directly challenged in forums like this to let it really be known how
>> disgusting their corporate actions are.
>
> Well, let's see how many people chip in in support. I doubt there will be
> many. You seem to hold such an extreme viewpoint that I suspect you will
> find yourself somewhat isolated.
>
> This is certainly my last post in this thread. I find your attitude,
> language and inferences insulting and distasteful. I will not be responding
> any more.

Dear All,

Maybe enough has been said, maybe not. Let me make it very clear to all
seeking help that if it was not for the very kind and fast and enduring
(read the issue on exchange from Corentin ie) help of the MVP's, a lot of us
would not know where to turn for help.

Some seem to forget that they are only awarded the honor and nothing else
for their precious time and input. Some also seem to mistakingly confuse
them for MS employees. They are not. The are voluntairy helpers.

Whether you feel betrayed by MS or not should not make a difference, if so,
just stop buying their products. The fact that we all are more or less on a
Mac proves that we already have a choice.

I wish to take this opportunity to apologize for the misbehaviour of some
and to thank all MVP's for their time and effort.

Thanks MVP's an have a great weekend!

Peace.

Ivar Klaas
The Netherlands

Diane
Fri May 18 17:42:55 CDT 2007

On 5/18/07 12:56 PM, in article C273D18B.499E%iklaas@mac.com, "Ivar Klaas"
<iklaas@mac.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Maybe enough has been said, maybe not. Let me make it very clear to all
> seeking help that if it was not for the very kind and fast and enduring
> (read the issue on exchange from Corentin ie) help of the MVP's, a lot of us
> would not know where to turn for help.
>
> Some seem to forget that they are only awarded the honor and nothing else
> for their precious time and input. Some also seem to mistakingly confuse
> them for MS employees. They are not. The are voluntairy helpers.
>
> Whether you feel betrayed by MS or not should not make a difference, if so,
> just stop buying their products. The fact that we all are more or less on a
> Mac proves that we already have a choice.
>
> I wish to take this opportunity to apologize for the misbehaviour of some
> and to thank all MVP's for their time and effort.
>
> Thanks MVP's an have a great weekend!


That made my day. Thanks!!
--
Diane Ross, Microsoft Mac MVP
Entourage Help Page
<http://www.entourage.mvps.org/>
One of the top five MS Entourage resources listed on the Entourage Blog.
<http://blogs.msdn.com/entourage/>

William
Fri May 18 21:55:04 CDT 2007

In article <C27379FF.5428D%dross@nospam.mvps.org.invalid>,
Diane Ross <dross@nospam.mvps.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 5/18/07 12:56 PM, in article C273D18B.499E%iklaas@mac.com, "Ivar Klaas"
> <iklaas@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Maybe enough has been said, maybe not. Let me make it very clear to all
> > seeking help that if it was not for the very kind and fast and enduring
> > (read the issue on exchange from Corentin ie) help of the MVP's, a lot of us
> > would not know where to turn for help.
> >
> > Some seem to forget that they are only awarded the honor and nothing else
> > for their precious time and input. Some also seem to mistakingly confuse
> > them for MS employees. They are not. The are voluntairy helpers.
> >
> > Whether you feel betrayed by MS or not should not make a difference, if so,
> > just stop buying their products. The fact that we all are more or less on a
> > Mac proves that we already have a choice.
> >
> > I wish to take this opportunity to apologize for the misbehaviour of some
> > and to thank all MVP's for their time and effort.
> >
> > Thanks MVP's an have a great weekend!
>
>
> That made my day. Thanks!!

Thank you, Ivar! This is a nice way to end a week. :-)

bill
--
William M. Smith
(Microsoft Interop MVP - Mac/Windows)

Daiya
Sat May 19 13:02:05 CDT 2007

ahbijef@hotmail.com wrote:
> This newsgroup is not intended
> for a bunch of hacks to defend MSFT's repugnant behavior but to point
> it out and to challenge it very directly and openly (try doing that on
> any of MSFT's own user forums) on matters where it is cowering behind
> its corporate veil and denying services to its PAYING customers.
>

Side note--actually, this *is* an MS user forum. I don't know how you
are accessing the forum or where you think you are, but you are posting
to the newsgroup microsoft.public.mac.office.entourage, which is hosted
on servers paid for and controlled by MS--that's why the direct server
address is msnews.microsoft.com in a newsreader. Any website you may be
using is simply pulling the threads from the group, or perhaps your news
server is mirroring the MS server. I don't see any cross-posting happening.

And the sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is to
allow people who use MS software to help other people use MS software
more easily. Everything else is simply a side effect.

Full disclosure--I'm also an MVP.

JE
Sat May 19 15:06:15 CDT 2007

In article <#Bn9Q$jmHHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
Daiya Mitchell <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote:

> Side note--actually, this *is* an MS user forum. I don't know how you
> are accessing the forum or where you think you are, but you are posting
> to the newsgroup microsoft.public.mac.office.entourage, which is hosted
> on servers paid for and controlled by MS--that's why the direct server
> address is msnews.microsoft.com in a newsreader. Any website you may be
> using is simply pulling the threads from the group, or perhaps your news
> server is mirroring the MS server. I don't see any cross-posting happening.

That's not really the way Usenet works. Yes, MS does provide a server
farm to host the newsgroups, and it's quick and easy to connect there,
but there's nothing inherently special about using the MS servers. I
could use my ISP's news server, and my posts would eventually (from
seconds to hours) get distributed to the other news servers all over the
world, including MS's.

If MS's news server farm went away (as it does from time to time), it
causes barely a blip in the rest of usenet - I can still post to and
read from m.p.mac.office* on my ISP's server, and it will be seen on
other servers, including Google Groups, though perhaps not as quickly.
When MS's farm comes back on line, it will sync with other servers out
there so that my post gets sucked in.

The advantage to connecting to the MS server farm directly is that it's
a primary node - many of the other major news servers will directly suck
from and dump to the MS servers, so the response time is relatively
fast. It's also the first news server that the web interface dumps into.

But posts to googlegroups are immediately available on googlegroups,
even if they take some time to migrate to MS's farm (several years ago,
it often took hours for a googlegroups post to show up at msnews). Which
server a particular web interface pulls from is speculative, at best -
they certainly don't HAVE to go directly to msnews.

ahbijef isn't using the ms servers directly - he's coming in through
googlegroups, which routed his message through giganews, prodigy, and
cwix before his post ever hit the MS servers.

> And the sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is to
> allow people who use MS software to help other people use MS software
> more easily. Everything else is simply a side effect.

The sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is
whatever the posters choose to post.

Yes, by netiquette, posters should try to pick a newsgroup that's
relevant to their topic, but there's no enforcement body.

Even MS's evident filtering of spam/inappropriate commercial posts only
applies to its own servers - MS doesn't have the right (or the ability)
to filter other servers.

Daiya
Sun May 20 12:48:18 CDT 2007

JE McGimpsey wrote:
> That's not really the way Usenet works. Yes, MS does provide a server
> farm to host the newsgroups, and it's quick and easy to connect there,
> but there's nothing inherently special about using the MS servers. I
> could use my ISP's news server, and my posts would eventually (from
> seconds to hours) get distributed to the other news servers all over the
> world, including MS's.
>

Thanks, JE--but if the MS servers went away forever, or never had been
established, would the group still exist? MS questions would be handled
in the general comp hierarchy somewhere, I assume? (as they often are)

>> And the sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is to
>> allow people who use MS software to help other people use MS software
>> more easily. Everything else is simply a side effect.
>>
>
> The sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is
> whatever the posters choose to post.
>

The reason it was *started*. What other people choose to post is a side
effect--the group certainly develops into more, but Abijah's
construction that this is some third-party forum designed to challenge
MS is just nonsense.
> Yes, by netiquette, posters should try to pick a newsgroup that's
> relevant to their topic, but there's no enforcement body.
>

I very carefully did not say there was. :)

Daiya

JE
Sun May 20 17:12:06 CDT 2007

In article <#YUxNcwmHHA.2596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
Daiya Mitchell <daiyaNOSPAM@mvps.org.INVALID> wrote:

> Thanks, JE--but if the MS servers went away forever, or never had been
> established, would the group still exist? MS questions would be handled
> in the general comp hierarchy somewhere, I assume? (as they often are)

If the MS servers went away forever, the ms newsgroups would continue as
long as people posted to them - they'd just have to get them from a
different news server (just as most do now).

msnews is a specialty server farm, since it ONLY carries ms newsgroups.
But it's not correct to say that the msnews server is "the" host of
those newsgroups. It's simply "a" host. My ISP hosts ms newsgroups, as
well as 50,000 others.

Once a newsgroup is started, it's exceedingly difficult to kill. That's
why MS keeps carrying deprecated groups - better to monitor them and
provide a filtered feed than to let them go feral.


> >> And the sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is to
> >> allow people who use MS software to help other people use MS software
> >> more easily. Everything else is simply a side effect.

> The reason it was *started*. What other people choose to post is a side
> effect--the group certainly develops into more, but Abijah's
> construction that this is some third-party forum designed to challenge
> MS is just nonsense.

Absolutely!

Daiya
Mon May 21 09:58:35 CDT 2007

JE McGimpsey wrote:
>
> If the MS servers went away forever, the ms newsgroups would continue as
> long as people posted to them - they'd just have to get them from a
> different news server (just as most do now).
>

Thanks, JE, for the education.

Daiya
>
>>>> And the sole intention and reason for existence of this newsgroup is to
>>>> allow people who use MS software to help other people use MS software
>>>> more easily. Everything else is simply a side effect.
>>>>
>
>
>> The reason it was *started*. What other people choose to post is a side
>> effect--the group certainly develops into more, but Abijah's
>> construction that this is some third-party forum designed to challenge
>> MS is just nonsense.
>>
>
> Absolutely!
>

(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Corentin_Cras-M=E9neur?=)
Mon May 21 12:39:29 CDT 2007

JE McGimpsey <jemcgimpsey@mvps.org> wrote:

> If the MS servers went away forever, the ms newsgroups would continue as
> long as people posted to them - they'd just have to get them from a
> different news server (just as most do now).

I also access these groups through news.free.fr. The newsgroups are
relayed (mirrored) on multiple servers.

Corentin

--
--- Mac:MS MVP (Francophone) http://www.cortig.net/wordpress/ ---
http://www.mvps.org - http://mvp.support.microsoft.com
MVPs are not MS employees - Les MVP ne travaillent pas pour MS
Remove "NoSpam" to e-mail me - Retirez "NoSpam" pour m'écrire