FBI, Pentagon Quiz Microsoft on XP

dailynews.yahoo.com ^

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

OR SCREAM THEM like they are a micrsoft shrill or something.Me see's now some are way to defensively serious about this to be objective.

[itsahoot]

We have to be careful in how we define defective. If I make
specific claims that are untrue then yes, that is selling a
defective product.

Windows XP is advertized as the most secure operating system
ever, when obviously they knew it was not.

They were informed privately of this serious flaw, a week
later the public was informed, 4 weeks later a patch was
announced.

You one of them M$ zealots? :)

[tje]

All software is buggy. All software is shipped with known problems. The severity of those bugs is subjective and design groups have lots of sessions to attempt to assign a severity number on a bug. This is usually based on expected number of people the bug will effect and what the consequences of the bug are. Is is cosmetic or is there loss of data? These sort of things.

I believe that this bug was unknown by Microsoft until they were told about it. This was not a deferred defect.

[tje]

Are you suggesting that we should allow companies to sell products they know to be defective?

Every computer in the world is sold with defects. Everyone, whether it's a Dell, a Compaq, or an HP. Even Macs have known defects. Known by the company that is.

You have unreasonable expectations.

[Balding_Eagle]

who will tell the feds all they can when the FBI comes around asking.

I'm as concerned about the police state that we are in slide towards as much as anyone. And there are things in the works at MS that have me deeply concerned, and which I won't be participating in. XP is hardly that.

Frankly though, if I were involved in something seriously self incriminating I sure wouldn't be using my computer in the fashion that I am. Relax a little, there are things to be concerned about, this isn't one.

[Dominic Harr]

I believe that this bug was unknown by Microsoft until they were told about it.

Did you read the reports?

MS was told about this defect 5 weeks ago. They continued to sell XP during that time without informing customers of the product defect they knew existed.

They could have informed customers to just turn the feature off. But doing so -- admitting XP had defects -- would have hurt MS's sales.

So to benefit MS's sales, they refused to warn consumers of a known defect in the XP product.

Can we allow a manufacturer to act this way? That's illegal.

[Dominic Harr]

You have unreasonable expectations.

Expecting MS to obey the law is 'unreasonable'?

[Brad C.]

No, I am not now, nor will I ever be a MS employee. As for the section you just posted, the consumer has every right to return the product if he finds a defect within 90 days, so I would say there is no problem here.

[Dominic Harr]

As for the section you just posted, the consumer has every right to return the product if he finds a defect within 90 days, so I would say there is no problem here.

And punishment for a company who *knowingly* hides a product defect?

You wouldn't allow any other company to knowingly sell a defective product . . .

Does the law apply to MS?

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh some folks act as if people are upset because they saw the WINDOWS XP commercial with the person flying in tune to the Madonna song- and they tried to fly themselves into their computer screen (without taking any hits of acid) after using XP and they got injured when their head was bleeding from hitting the computer screen and now want to sue.

[Dominic Harr]

If a company knowingly hides a product defect to avoid loss of sales, they have committed a crime.

MS did this.

Is MS above the law?

[Dominic Harr]

I didn't understand your point, I'm sorry.

Would you say that 'product liability' laws are important?

Should it be legal for a company to hide a known product defect to increase sales of that product?

Forgive me if my aggressiveness puts people off. But the point seems in-arguable.

[tje]

Dominic I think the problem here is with your definition of defect. A software bug and, let's keep in mind, an unexploited bug, is hard to call a defect.

Is there one reported incident of any person encountering this defect other than some hackers? Was anyone harmed by it?

I stand by my statement, your expectations are unreasonable. I do not care for MS, but I think they've handled this well.

[itsahoot]

I like the feature, as I've said before, MS has made my life
simpler. I suspect that posters like DH have some sort of axe
to grind.

I have a Sony Vaio Desktop setting right next to my Mac. If you could see a comparison of how MicroSoft's stuff looks on the PC and the Mac, maybe you would catch on. Internet Explorer is much nicer on the Mac, so is Office.

I have the PC because M$ continually breaks web pages, so when I run into those, I view it on the PC, don't like it but I use it. By the way about the only thing that crashes on my Mac is OutLook Express, can usually do a force quit with out rebooting, so I live with it.

I still use Classic OS 9 for most of what I do, I have OS X installed, but haven't made the full time plunge yet, mostly because it is very similar to XP. I decided to use XP for a while, since they look a lot alike.

[Moridin]

In your browser (IE) under Tools is Windows Update. Check it periodically and you will be offered to download and install all updates--critical or whatever.

[Brad C.]

I don't think that what you is obvious at all in regards to that section. By the way, I did not format it, I just copied it from an earlier post.

I believe the sentence that talks about "the ability or inability to use the product covers part of this discussion. If a user cannot figure out that he has a responsibility to secure his machine, then why should MS be responsible for that. That said, I just found out that this problem also affects the ME version, which I happen to be running on two of my machines, so I have to patch them up.

Picture a theft of personal items from a motor vehicle. When the theft is reported to the insurance agent, the first question will be "Was the vehicle locked?" and if the answer is no, then the theft will probably not be covered.

[supercat]

... if the retailer refuses to accept a return on the opened software package?

Quote from an old girlfriend: become familiar with the store's return policy before making a purchase.

Suppose someone buys a piece of software with the intention of using it on two computers (but with him being the sole individual using it, and with him only actually using one copy at a time). General copyright law has no problem with this, and many companies' license agreements allow for it as well.

If this person spends $400 on this piece of software, takes it home, goes to install it, and discovers that the license forbids such installation, what is he supposed to do?

If the software can be returned in such case with the purchaser receiving full reimbursement for any monetary costs incurred in its purchase and return, the license might be enforceable. But if it cannot, the license is void.

[Dominic Harr]

Dominic I think the problem here is with your definition of defect. A software bug and, let's keep in mind, an unexploited bug, is hard to call a defect.

Legally, a 'product defect' is significant if it would affect the decision to buy.

Bottom line -- do you think companies ought to be legally required to tell you of anything that they know would cause you not to buy the product?

Do you think companies can be allowed to hide known defects they know will hurt sales?

[Moridin]

Bugs are a given with software. Windows offers Windows Update to fix the bugs. Take a valium.

[itsahoot]

At least two, and as many as five (for the full-up
A-10/Thrustmaster experience).

Or maybe one 22 inch Apple Digital Display, nothing like it.