[clug-talk] Why is Software Assurance so bad.
gustin at echostar.ca
Wed May 24 16:48:44 PDT 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I am not going to say the Software Assurance is bad, as it has its place.
Honestly the best place to look is on the Microsoft Site. NO where does
it guarantee backwards hardware computability, and sheer complexity of
this program should scare most people. Just flipping through the
"Software Assurance Benefits Comparison Chart" is mind numbing. Have
the client be explicit about which license he wants (Software Assurance
is vague and ambiguous term).
There is nothing to say that he won't still want it, though he will
likely want to blame someone (likely you) when it doesn't give him what
To illustrate the concept, imagine if airlines told us what really
happens. We strap ourselves into a pressurized metal tube, then we set
fire to a large amount of explosive liquid, the net result is that we
fling ourselves around the face of the planet, as safely as can be expected.
Makes me really look forward to my flight to Germany :)
Roy Souther wrote:
> I need help. This guy I work with is trying to spend tons of money to
> buy M$ Software Assurance in the hope that some how Vista will run on
> systems that can barely run XP.
> I need URL's for real reason not to buy M$ Software Assurance. As most
> of us already know, M$ is only trying to get more money out of people
> with this.
> _Royce Souther <mailto:roy at SiliconTao.com>_
> _www.SiliconTao.com <http://www.SiliconTao.com>_
> Let Open Source help your business move beyond.
> For security this message is digitally authenticated by _GnuPG
> clug-talk mailing list
> clug-talk at clug.ca
> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php)
> **Please remove these lines when replying
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the clug-talk