🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> First, a meta-comment on USENET and flamers:
> ...
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ...
> I discussed the issue of buying an item from an OEM, and the responsibilty
> to the end buyer on the part of companies that supplied parts to that
> OEM.  ...
> 
>   If Fujitsu doesn't
> listen to your complaints, or doesn't offer you the update, then thats
> their failing.  We listen to them and update them, pronto.  ...
> 
  [loads of material on Audi repairs omitted]

  That was a nice response.
  I still have two questions about Microsoft's behavior:
1)This must happen to Microsoft often - why doesn't Microsoft have a
nice form letter (as well written as your response) which explains
the situation.  (I personally sympathize with the poor guy who is being
told by each of two companies that the other one is responsible.  I
know that I get furious when that happens to me.)  Even better would be
to offer a way out of the difficulty.  Hence, -
2)Why not let people in this situation purchase the upgrade (particularly
if the other company, here Fujitsu) isn't selling it?  Even if the other
company is selling it, Microsoft might want to make a sale and gain a
satisfied customer.  (Unless Microsoft agreed in the contract with the
other company to refrain from selling to such customers -- unlikely?)
  My main point is that this guy is getting the run around at both
ends.  Even if Microsoft is acting in a legally justified way -- they
are not *helping* him, even though this could be done with no more
effort than it took to refuse to help him.
--henry schaffer
#include <standard_disclaimer & affirmation of naivete>