Re-installing Pocket PC 2003 and problem with Outlook 2002..

Why did you want the code? Was it to get Support from
Microsoft after entering your Product number etc?
My experience is that this post site is the only place you
get any real help. Microsoft doesnt appear to think it has
any professional online Support obligations to users with
Outlook 2002, even when the product is new. Instead it
refers you the hardware supplier, HP. HP's support is, so
far, hopeless..though that may depend on where you are.
I've found they that on the phone they keep you on hold
for ages and give out wrong information. On line,
their "instant" support goes for days unanswered. There
appears to be no "email" support. The experts who answer
your queries on this page may be your best bet. Other
users are pretty helpful too.


>-----Original Message-----
>On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:17:45 -0800, "BlueLobster"
><anonymous DeleteThis @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>I recently purchased an HP IPAQ pocket PC which came
with
>>a CD containing MS Active sync software which included
>>Outlook 2002. I had to re-install the software on my PC
>>due to virus/trojan horse. I'm getting the run around
from
>>HP as they can't give me the MS outlook product PC code
>>even though I have serial#'s and proof of purchase.
>>I damn will not pay MS for an on-line support call.
>>
>>HELP !!! HOW DO I GET THE 25 DIGIT MS OUTLOOK 2002
PRODUCT
>>CODE! WHO IN MS CAN HELP ME?
>>
>>Do I have to jointly sue MS & HP in small claims for
poor
>>documentation. The MS cerficate label pasted on my IPAQ
is
>>not a valid 25 digit product code for Outlook2002.
>
>No one can give you the code. It's a unique number that
allows you to
>activate the software. The code for Outlook is on a nice
bright yellow
>label that comes on the outside of the CD case (or on a
Microsoft
>Outlook Certificate of Authenticity plastered onto the CD
case) - it
>is not the Certificate of Authenticity code for Pocket PC
2002/Windows
>Mobile 2003.
>
>--
>Rob Borek
>Want *ONE ON ONE* support? http://www.pocketpcone2one.com
>.
>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:44:17 -0800, "join the ripped-off club"
<anonymous.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Why did you want the code? Was it to get Support from
>Microsoft after entering your Product number etc?
>My experience is that this post site is the only place you
>get any real help. Microsoft doesnt appear to think it has
>any professional online Support obligations to users with
>Outlook 2002, even when the product is new. Instead it
>refers you the hardware supplier, HP. HP's support is, so
>far, hopeless..though that may depend on where you are.
>I've found they that on the phone they keep you on hold
>for ages and give out wrong information. On line,
>their "instant" support goes for days unanswered. There
>appears to be no "email" support. The experts who answer
>your queries on this page may be your best bet. Other
>users are pretty helpful too.

Remember: Microsoft does not provide direct support for Mobile
Devices, except on a fee-for-use basis. This is because the OEM is
directly responsible for providing support for their device and for
the OS (if you purchase a new computer, it works the same way - the
OEM is responsible for providing support for Windows, not Microsoft as
this is the agreement for providing OEM copies to the manufacturer).
Your beef would actually be with HP et al. for providing lousy support
- and it is a definite beef, as I've heard the same thing from others.

Those of us "experts" in here (mainly myself and Chris De Herrera)
have years of experience on mobile devices (I had a Palm-size PC
before the Pocket PC came out, so I've been with the Pocket PC since
its inception - Chris has an even longer history with Windows CE-based
devices), and I doubt the support people (who are paid rather meagre
wages) have much experience (if any at all) with Pocket PCs.

--
Rob Borek
Want *ONE ON ONE* support? http://www.pocketpcone2one.com

Rob,

That's an honest answer. It's a depressing one too about
HP. How do we make them improve their customer
support/service. I wrote but go no reply from the email
address supplied by their support department. Now there's
a surprise. Im not sure the "pass the buck" approach from
Microsoft is appropriate. If it was there software they
should either support themselves, or make sure the OEM has
properly trained, qualified support staff. If they dont
provide the necessary infrastructure, they shouldnt be
licenced to market the product. Microsoft should take a
much tougher stand on this. And in the final analysis it
should be there to help when the OEM doesnt.
This is no reflection on you guys..the "experts"..the term
is right, and there's a lot of demented people out here
are truly grateful. If it werent for you Ipaq would be
dealing with a big of heap of returns right now...
>-----Original Message-----
>On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 04:44:17 -0800, "join the ripped-off
club"
><anonymous.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>>Why did you want the code? Was it to get Support from
>>Microsoft after entering your Product number etc?
>>My experience is that this post site is the only place
you
>>get any real help. Microsoft doesnt appear to think it
has
>>any professional online Support obligations to users
with
>>Outlook 2002, even when the product is new. Instead it
>>refers you the hardware supplier, HP. HP's support is,
so
>>far, hopeless..though that may depend on where you are.
>>I've found they that on the phone they keep you on hold
>>for ages and give out wrong information. On line,
>>their "instant" support goes for days unanswered. There
>>appears to be no "email" support. The experts who answer
>>your queries on this page may be your best bet. Other
>>users are pretty helpful too.
>
>Remember: Microsoft does not provide direct support for
Mobile
>Devices, except on a fee-for-use basis. This is because
the OEM is
>directly responsible for providing support for their
device and for
>the OS (if you purchase a new computer, it works the same
way - the
>OEM is responsible for providing support for Windows, not
Microsoft as
>this is the agreement for providing OEM copies to the
manufacturer).
>Your beef would actually be with HP et al. for providing
lousy support
>- and it is a definite beef, as I've heard the same thing
from others.
>
>Those of us "experts" in here (mainly myself and Chris De
Herrera)
>have years of experience on mobile devices (I had a Palm-
size PC
>before the Pocket PC came out, so I've been with the
Pocket PC since
>its inception - Chris has an even longer history with
Windows CE-based
>devices), and I doubt the support people (who are paid
rather meagre
>wages) have much experience (if any at all) with Pocket
PCs.
>
>--
>Rob Borek
>Want *ONE ON ONE* support? http://www.pocketpcone2one.com
>.
>

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:03:37 -0800, "join the ripped off club"
<anonymous.TakeThisOut@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Rob,
>
>That's an honest answer. It's a depressing one too about
>HP. How do we make them improve their customer
>support/service. I wrote but go no reply from the email
>address supplied by their support department. Now there's
>a surprise. Im not sure the "pass the buck" approach from
>Microsoft is appropriate. If it was there software they
>should either support themselves, or make sure the OEM has
>properly trained, qualified support staff. If they dont
>provide the necessary infrastructure, they shouldnt be
>licenced to market the product. Microsoft should take a
>much tougher stand on this. And in the final analysis it
>should be there to help when the OEM doesnt.
>This is no reflection on you guys..the "experts"..the term
>is right, and there's a lot of demented people out here
>are truly grateful. If it werent for you Ipaq would be
>dealing with a big of heap of returns right now...

I agree that HP and the rest should provide better support. However,
it's hard to build this into licencing contracts, which are already
very complicated. What is the quantitative measure of "good support"?
What happens if they don't meet the criteria? The other problem is how
to get it into the contract - some of the licencing terms probably
don't allow for something like that to be inserted, and the OEMs will
no doubt balk (and if action is taken against them, blame Microsoft
for being the bully).

Also realize that each licencee is paying a shitload of money for the
licence up-front (speculation is that it's in the low six digits or
thereabouts - I have no idea on the exact cost, and terms and
conditions of the licence are confidential between each OEM), plus
money for stuff like testing, programming, hardware building and
testing... it takes a LOT of money to bring a device to market.

The one way you can show your disapproval (besides writing letters and
complaining)? Buy another company's product that provides better
support. Speak with your pocketbook. That's what many people are doing
with Toshiba, who refused to provide upgrades to Windows Mobile 2003
for all but their very new products (the popular e740 never got an
upgrade, and neither did the lower-end models).

--
Rob Borek
Want *ONE ON ONE* support? http://www.pocketpcone2one.com