Phone Home

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1

--
Andrew

On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
<> wrote:

>http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1

Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
becomes completely unrecognizable.

The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
defend himself and repeatedly fails.

"Andrew" <> wrote in message
news:hm9vaq$mjf$...
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
> --
> Andrew

<yawn> Old news.

>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>
> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted any
> verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?

And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either, so
what's your point.

Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.

I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and repeated
by him.

DanS <> wrote in
news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:

>
>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>
> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
> so what's your point.
>
> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>
> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he is
> passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
> repeated by him.

And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is *EXACTLY*
what happened.

Bott was called a shill and he responded.....

"Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
answers.

That's called reporting."

Andrew wrote:

> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>
I'm afraid that my simple mind doesn't follow the logic behind this exercise
by Microsoft.

If it is possible to decline to take the WAT update, then those running
hacked copies if Win7, (and those with privacy/false positive concerns)
will simply not install it.

The vast majority of users will have Win 7 pre-installed on their machines
by the OEM. A small percentage of users such as myself, may have been
sufficiently impressed by the beta to purchase an upgrade from a reputable
supplier.

So who is Microsoft targeting with this exercise?
I guess it is those who have unwittingly purchased a pirate copy and will
find out to their cost in the near future.
But is this such a huge number as to make it worthwile risking bad publicity
and causing disquiet among their user base?

--
John Aldred

"SC Tom" <> wrote in message
news:Ix8in.57593$...
>
> "Andrew" <> wrote in message
> news:hm9vaq$mjf$...
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> --
>> Andrew
>
> <yawn> Old news.

Yeah the news is old, it was this take on it I wanted to share.

--
Andrew

Frank <> wrote in news::

> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>> DanS<> wrote in
>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>
>>>
>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>
>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>
>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>> so what's your point.
>>>
>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>
>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>> repeated by him.
>>
>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>
>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>
>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>> answers.
>>
>> That's called reporting."
>>
>>
>>
> And you problem with getting the facts is?

They are not facts !!!!!!

Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
some product.

Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.

Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the floor-
mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
coverup, and blah, blah, blah......

But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.

There won't be any *facts* about the WAT functionality until after it's
released and inspected by third-parties.

"DanS" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9D2C7A4EF78C2thisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131...
> Frank <> wrote in news::
>
>> On 2/27/2010 6:48 AM, DanS wrote:
>>> DanS<> wrote in
>>> news:Xns9D2C6227E630Fthisnthatroadrunnern@216.196.97.131:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries
>>>>>> to defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one, not you, nor any the responders to his article, has posted
>>>>> any verifiable empirical data to factually refute what he posted.
>>>>> If you can, post a factual refute that is verifiable ok?
>>>>
>>>> And there is no factual data that everything he says is true either,
>>>> so what's your point.
>>>>
>>>> Until the update is released, and the WAT process is picked apart by
>>>> others, no one really knows except the team that designed WAT.
>>>>
>>>> I'm fairly certain Bott wasn't on that team, and the information he
>>>> is passing along is nothing more than information released by MS and
>>>> repeated by him.
>>>
>>> And actually, after further reading that linked article, that is
>>> *EXACTLY* what happened.
>>>
>>> Bott was called a shill and he responded.....
>>>
>>> "Actually, I called them. I had questions, so I called them and got
>>> answers.
>>>
>>> That's called reporting."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you problem with getting the facts is?
>
> They are not facts !!!!!!
>
> Those were statements made by a manufacturer of a product when asked about
> some product.
>
> Months ago Toyota, on multiple occasions, released statements saying that
> there were no probems with the braking systems on several cars and the
> issue was with the floor mats....those were the 'facts'.
>
> Fast-forward several months, and it comes to light that it's not the
> floor-
> mats, further testing by third-parties show that there are problems in the
> design of the 'drive-by-wire' throttle system, and there's evidence of a
> coverup, and blah, blah, blah......
>
> But, several months ago, the facts were: It's the floormats.

Actually, on several models like the Tacoma, and the 90's Camrys it still
*is* floormats according to Toyota.


--
Andrew

"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalido> wrote in message
news:hmas0p$op4$...
> Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:16:43 -0800, "Andrew"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1788&tag=wrapper;col1
>>
>> Wow, that is some serious spin Ed Bott has going there. He redefines
>> the concept of "phone home", stretching it to the point where it
>> becomes completely unrecognizable.
>>
>> The comments are interesting, too, especially where Mr. Bott tries to
>> defend himself and repeatedly fails.
>>
>
> That article is only full of lies and whole lot of ass kissing on the part
> of Mr. Bott. If it phones home, it's spyware.
>
It doesn't send any personal information. It just checks to see if the OS
is valid. If you are running a valid OS then no big deal. Except for
thieves like yourself who are worried.

If my copy phones home I don't give a rats ass.