Re: Is this true?

["Norm" <normanmo@clark.net>]

  On Fri, 14 Nov 1997 00:27:46 -0500 (EST), John N Bryan wrote:
  
  >> Not anti-Microsoft, but PRO-DOS.
  >>Those of us who prefer to work with DOS programs like the fact that
  >>WE control the program not the program controling us and what is done
  >>with and to our computers.
  >> FYI, did you know that if you are running W95 and you use it to dial-up
  >>the Microsoft Network, that the first thing it does is to transmit to
  >>Microsoft a complete listing of ALL files on your system.
  >> If you want to test this, dial them up. But first run a TSR program
  >>that will record in a Log-file all disk access. After contacting MSN,
  >>check the Log-file and you'll see that your FAT was transmitted to MSN.
  >> To this day, no-one has been able to get Microsoft to say WHY they are
  >>doing this.
  >>
  >>
  >>******
  >
  >Yes it is true.  I can't vouch for the specifics of it
  >being limited to connecting to MSN, but at least there
  >is involved the transmission of names and versions of what
  >is installed on your system, including non-MS products.
  >to Microsoft.
  >
  >I had some information on this from two years ago
  >when W95 came out, and I will have to dig for it.
  >Ah!!  Found it!!
  >
  >It is called "Inside the Windows 95 Registration Wizard"
  >dated September 11, 1995, by Andrew Schulman (speaking
  >at AM this week!), Senior Editor, O'reilly & Associates.
  >
  >Clip:
  >"Of special concern is RegWiz's ability to collect information on
  >applications (both Microsoft and non-Microsoft) that a user has installed on
  >their hard disk, and to send this information back to Microsoft via the
  >Microsoft Network (MSN). As explained below, the internal name for this
  >process is "Product Inventory": it is a feature of the PRODINV.DLL module
  >included with Win95."
  
  
       At first M$ tried to deny this and claimed they didn't do it, it was
  only after they'd been caught red handed several times did they finally
  admit what was happening...but the lies continued.  After being forced to
  admit that in fact they were collecting data on what their customers had
  on their HDs (another in the vast number of reasons I don't use M$
  products) they put the spin on it that they needed the data in order to
  be able to handle support calls better.  Their reasoning was that since
  some support calls could be related to what applications the customer was
  running M$ needed the data in order to be able to support its' customers,
  they even went as far as to claim that this was in fact a great "feature"
  and with it their customer support would be even that much better (I hope
  everyone's wearing hi-top boots by now).
  
       It gets better.  In vintage M$ form it turned out that the support
  "feature" claims were nothing but lies too.  When customers needed to
  call M$ for support they soon found out that M$ support didn't have a
  clue about what was on their machines.  So why did M$ "need" to collect
  data from their machines when customers still needed to tell M$ support
  people everything about their systems???  Well as it turns out all the
  data collected from customer's HDs didn't even make it to the support
  department, it seems that "somehow" it got diverted to M$'s marketing
  department...that's right, M$ collected all that information from their
  customer's machines so they could use it for marketing.  Just another in
  the never ending litany of examples for why anyone who says we should
  trust M$ is either a fool or a liar...albeit I guess they could be both,
  but there's no way they're neither.
  
   ...Cheers,
  
   ...Norm
  
  ***********************************************
  * Brought to you by OS/2 Warp v4.0 and PMMail *
  * For a copy of my PGP key send me a message  *
  * with "send pub_key" in the subject          *	
  ***********************************************
  
  PGP Public Key Fingerprint = D3 E9 37 E3 FB 86 1F DF  BC BA 12 B5 D2 26 70 8E