MS .... this is a joke, right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tx2
  • Start date Start date
T

Tx2

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/

Norton Personal Firewall 2002 edition?????

I 'accidentally' found this page after the SP2 update inserted a link on
my "Links" toolbar in IE6.

I don't use IE these days, preferring Firefox, but was just 'cleaning
up' after installing SP2 on my system when i noticed this.

Does Symantec even support 2002 on the firewall? They don't support NAV
2002 anymore.
 
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/catalog/

Norton Personal Firewall 2002 edition?????

I 'accidentally' found this page after the SP2 update inserted a link on
my "Links" toolbar in IE6.

I don't use IE these days, preferring Firefox, but was just 'cleaning
up' after installing SP2 on my system when i noticed this.

Does Symantec even support 2002 on the firewall? They don't support NAV
2002 anymore.
Click to expand...

That was the version that was available when XP was released and the first
version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP ready as
well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two from the
vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to by a
current version instead of an older one.
 
That was the version that was available when XP was released and the first
version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP ready as
well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two from the
vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to by a
current version instead of an older one.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is
not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why on
earth are MS *still* recommending it?

The stupidity of the situation is that MS will be 'forcing' users of SP2
to that web site with the inclusion of the new link i described, and
then the 'uninformed' will be requesting "a copy of Norton Personal
Firewall 2002 please" from their local store.

After all, it is what MS suggest they do ...

If you actually click the "Featured Product" link to the NPF2002 page,
you will find MS then mention "securing your PC with NPF2002" when they
have recently been making so much noise about the one built into XP.

The new, uneducated, or misinformed user doesn't stand a chance of
getting clue!

If they [MS] must have a web site recommending ware such as Norton or
Jasc Paint Shop Pro, they could at least have the courtesy to keep it
current.
 
MS don't support it. Norton paid to have it TESTED. It obviously still passes the testing. Complain to symantec.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
'Not happy John! Defending our democracy',
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/29/1088392635123.html

Tx2 said:
That was the version that was available when XP was released and the first
version that was "XP ready." Any subsequent versions would be XP ready as
well. Older versions of any XP product may need an update or two from the
vendor. If currently shopping for software, it would be prudent to by a
current version instead of an older one.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is
not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why on
earth are MS *still* recommending it?

The stupidity of the situation is that MS will be 'forcing' users of SP2
to that web site with the inclusion of the new link i described, and
then the 'uninformed' will be requesting "a copy of Norton Personal
Firewall 2002 please" from their local store.

After all, it is what MS suggest they do ...

If you actually click the "Featured Product" link to the NPF2002 page,
you will find MS then mention "securing your PC with NPF2002" when they
have recently been making so much noise about the one built into XP.

The new, uneducated, or misinformed user doesn't stand a chance of
getting clue!

If they [MS] must have a web site recommending ware such as Norton or
Jasc Paint Shop Pro, they could at least have the courtesy to keep it
current.
Click to expand...
 
No I don't, you do. Norton paid to have it there. They need to say they don't want it anymore.
 
Greetings --

No, we get the point: you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake,
and couldn't wait to do a little bashing. News flash: Microsoft
employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes. Just like the
rest of us.

Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
 
No, we get the point: you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake,
and couldn't wait to do a little bashing. News flash: Microsoft
employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes. Just like the
rest of us.
Click to expand...


Firstly .... i don't do "bashing" ... that is for people who wish to
waste time.

My life revolves around supporting MS Products, and dealing the fallout
from idiots who create havoc by writing viruses and malware.

I actually *like* and *enjoy* using a lot of MS products, so please,
don't even suggest i would waste my time "bashing" such a monolithic
organisation. To what end would it achieve?

Microsoft need to attend to a little more detail to maintaining
*current* information, and not recommending 2 year old products via a
link that has been placed on my machine by a *new* service pack.

And yes, we all make mistakes, i acknowledge that. So what do we do?
Ignore them, or learn from them?
 
[email protected] said:
No I don't, you do. Norton paid to have it there.
They need to say they don't want it anymore
Click to expand...

Which isn't what you said in your first reply ...

Doesn't anyone at MS know how to compose an email, or pick up the phone
and say to Symantec "excuse me but we are advertising a very old product
of yours on our web site ...."

I never said MS support the product. I never mentioned anything about
anyone paying to have it tested, or whether it passes tests to warrant
being there.

Again, you missed the point entirely AFAIC ...
 
That is why there are disclaimers. From the bottom of the page:

The product pictures and descriptions are provided by the manufacturers of the products. The Windows Catalog is provided for informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no representations and warranties, either expressed, implied, or statutory, regarding the products, manufacturers, compatibility of the products available within, or the Windows Catalog. Information within the Windows Catalog, including products listed and compatibility data, is subject to change without notice. This program testing in no way guarantees compatibility between data, systems, or software and in no way replaces the necessity of full testing of the products listed in the Windows Catalog. Actual end user compatibility may vary. The inclusion of a product or manufacturer does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the product or manufacturer.


The links in this catalog will let you leave Microsoft's site. These sites are not under the control of Microsoft and Microsoft is not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites. Microsoft is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of transmission received from any linked site. Microsoft is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the site or the products contained therein.


--
Just my 2¢ worth,
Jeff
__________in response to__________
| In article <[email protected]>,
| (e-mail address removed), a.k.a Bruce Chambers says...
|
|
| > No, we get the point: you caught Microsoft in a trivial mistake,
| > and couldn't wait to do a little bashing. News flash: Microsoft
| > employees are human - they sometimes make mistakes. Just like the
| > rest of us.
|
|
| Firstly .... i don't do "bashing" ... that is for people who wish to
| waste time.
|
| My life revolves around supporting MS Products, and dealing the fallout
| from idiots who create havoc by writing viruses and malware.
|
| I actually *like* and *enjoy* using a lot of MS products, so please,
| don't even suggest i would waste my time "bashing" such a monolithic
| organisation. To what end would it achieve?
|
| Microsoft need to attend to a little more detail to maintaining
| *current* information, and not recommending 2 year old products via a
| link that has been placed on my machine by a *new* service pack.
|
| And yes, we all make mistakes, i acknowledge that. So what do we do?
| Ignore them, or learn from them?
 
You miss the point *entirely*
Click to expand...

I think the point was that you don't understand the document.

People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, just
because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the
fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still use
old version of Norton 200X on their machines.
 
Doesn't anyone at MS know how to compose an email, or pick up the phone
and say to Symantec "excuse me but we are advertising a very old product
of yours on our web site ...."
Click to expand...

Let see, a vendor asks a reseller or other to post a notice/link to a
product on their site. They pay for the link, and may pay for a period
of time. The reseller (or web host) is under no obligation to determine
if the product is still available, still meaningful, etc...

Maybe you, a concerned reader, should contact Symantec and let them know
that they (Symantec) forgot to end the notification on MS's web site for
a product they no longer provide.

On the other hand, since it clearly shows that Norton is supported, it
could be that future products are supported and it's a good (cheap) way
to continue to market the product (at no additional cost). Look at all
the free press it's getting in this group because of it :)
 
I appreciate that it may well have been an XP Ready version, but it is
not current, and i don't believe it is now supported by Symantec. Why on
earth are MS *still* recommending it?
Click to expand...

Think of the listing more as a "minimum version" (similar to a minimum
system requirement). There is no recommendation on those pages. The
"designed for XP Pro" is a qualification that has to be met on the vendor's
side of things.

The blurb explaining the "designed for Windows (insert version here)"
insignia doesn't go into great depth but this kind of rating has been
around since at least Win95. "Old time" Windows users will recognize what's
going on with this page but (and I think this is what you're trying to say)
it could be confusing to new users.
 
» mrtee « said:
That is why there are disclaimers. From the bottom of the page:

The product pictures and descriptions are provided by the
manufacturers of the products. The Windows Catalog is provided for
informational purposes only and Microsoft makes no representations
and warranties, either expressed, implied, or statutory, regarding
the products, manufacturers, compatibility of the products available
within, or the Windows Catalog. Information within the Windows
Catalog, including products listed and compatibility data, is subject
to change without notice. This program testing in no way guarantees
compatibility between data, systems, or software and in no way
replaces the necessity of full testing of the products listed in the
Windows Catalog. Actual end user compatibility may vary. The
inclusion of a product or manufacturer does not imply endorsement of
Microsoft of the product or manufacturer.

The links in this catalog will let you leave Microsoft's site.
These sites are not under the control of Microsoft and Microsoft is
not responsible for the contents of any linked site or any link
contained in a linked site, or any changes or updates to such sites.
Microsoft is not responsible for webcasting or any other form of
transmission received from any linked site. Microsoft is providing
these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any
link does not imply endorsement of Microsoft of the site or the
products contained therein.
Click to expand...

Hmm..
I would think that covers it pretty well.
 
a.k.a says... said:
That is why there are disclaimers. From the bottom of the page:
Click to expand...

oh goodie, that excuses MS from a complete **** up of a web site which
recommends 2 year old software as a security solution ...

****ing comical that anyone with an ounce of sense would agree with it.

Are the majority of posters here of american nationality btw?
 
I think the point was that you don't understand the document.
Click to expand...

I have no problem understanding a recommendationn for an out of date
product brought to my attention via an up-to-date SP install ...
People pay to have their apps certified as being Windows compliant, just
because they don't sell the product any longer it doesn't change the
fact that it's still a compliant product. I know people that still use
old version of Norton 200X on their machines.
Click to expand...

It's no longer supported by Symantec, yet MS offer it as a link
installed with the latest service pack ....

Either MS, Symantec or you are stupid ... which is it?
 
Shenan Stanley says...
Hmm..
I would think that covers it pretty well.
Click to expand...
So, as an MS arse sucking advertiser, you'd be happy to advertise
something that is 2 years out of date?
Click to expand...

Is this what you are calling Symantec?
Because if they are interested in getting it changed, they surely would.
If Microsoft was interested in changing it, they surely would.

If you are interested in changing it so much, perhaps you should do
something about it other than complain on a public newsgroup where Microsoft
employees hardly ever respond in comparison to other users like yourself?
 
Back
Top