Re: FIX for ZoneAlarm & KB951748 issue released
"Shenan Stanley" <newshelper@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OoOdedF5IHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> <snipped>
>
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> > So Windows must be compatible with ZA and any other third-party
> > application, not the other way around?
>
> V Green wrote:
> > Why not?
> >
> > ZA WORKED before the update. The update BROKE it.
> > So it's ZA's problem?
> >
> > Get real.
>
> Yes.
>
> Stay general and tell me how you can logically and reasonably say
> otherwise... Leave out any specific names.
>
> The original manufacturer of an original product released a patch/upgrade
> for their original product. The original product had been modified in this
> case by a third party product. The original manufacturer has no
> responsibility to test all the possible third party add-ons/changes you can
> perform on their product - because they simply would not have the resources
> or time to do so - nor is it probably logistically possible/plausible.
> Therefore - if a change (critical) is made to the original product and the
> third party product no longer functions as the third party vendor said it
> would - it is their responsibility to decide whether or not to make it
> right.
Sorry, but no. I don't screw over MY customer base that way.
If you choose to live life doing that sort of stuff, then
we must just agree to disagree.
And good luck with customer loyalty...wait a sec, Windows
is a monopoly. Happy Customers, what are those??? They don't
have a choice (go ahead and argue that if you wish, you KNOW
it's true and I won't respond to it) so what do we care about their "user
experience"?
>
> I responded like this in another location already - if you have someway to
> legitimately change that logic around - I would be glad to read. This is
> what I wrote earlier - it's repetative in many ways to what I wrote above -
> but perhaps seeing it described in a couple of ways will allow more people
> to understand the point... And if there is another side to it - perhaps be
> able to explain that point of view.
>
> ( begin repost )
>
> No offense meant below - honest question...
>
> You have a (potential) problem with an update for the original product you
> purchased because you have modified the original product with the addition
> of a third party product that has no relation with the manufacturer of the
> original product other than the fact they made their product to fit 'on top
> of' that original product - and your complaint is with the original product
> manufacturer?
>
> Wouldn't your complaint be better received if made to those who made the
> third party product you chose to replace the parts of the original product
> when you decided you wanted to modify it?
>
> P.S. - I couldn't care less that the specific complaint is about Microsoft,
> Chevrolet, Whirlpool or whomever - that is why I left out names in my actual
> query completely.
>
> It doesn't matter who made the original product in question - if you chose
> to modify it with some third party product and then some
> recall/update/upgrade comes out for the original product - do you honestly
> believe the manufacturer of the original product should find out every
> modification you *could have made* to their product is and make sure their
> upgrade/update for their product works with all of those possibilities? Or
> would it be more logical to place the responsibility of maintaining the
> third party modification to the makers of said modification?
>
> ( end repost )
>
> In the end - I believe one could more easily argue the point that it is the
> end-users responsibility more than anyone's - as they are the one who made
> the conscience choice to change the original product for 'supposed' more
> protection with a third party add-ons; and then, when the original product
> is changed in some way (by the original manufacturer) and that makes the
> original product fail unless the add-on is removed... well - who made the
> choice to utilize that product?
>
> But that's a completely different point of view than the one I originally
> presented - but one I could see someone taking and being able to defend.
>
> Please - present your point of view and back it up - I would actually like
> to hear it because I am finding it difficult to fathom it right now.
> Perhaps you have a generalized way of explaining it where I can see your
> point of view.
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
> --
> How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
>