It's snowing:

Huzzah!   2 votes - 40 %
Meh.   1 vote - 20 %
Son of a BITCH!   2 votes - 40 %
5 Total Votes
Possible cause of error message by Herring (2.00 / 0) #1 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:46:25 AM EST
if (!expectedWindowsVersion() ) // WINE - fucking hippies

That's the only explanation I can think of. Otherwise it would be kind of pointless in a Widows PE file.

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

Not WINE by ReallyEvilCanine (2.00 / 0) #2 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 05:59:53 AM EST
A Windows-2000 compatible installation package may or may not be recognised by Windows 2003. To ensure it's recognised you must first set the compatibility mode. This only happens in some instances, and the error message thrown up gives you little indication that this is what happened.

Of course, over the past half hour, I got the suspicion that this may not be Microsoft's fault after all but could lie in our installer. I'll get Mini-Me to run ProcessExplorer and test it for me.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
Unsupported by squigs (2.00 / 0) #3 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 06:50:25 AM EST
Okay.  I get the eggs and milk principle, but I'm not sure how it works in practice.

Are people really not irritated that you've asked for pages of information, before pointing out something that should have been obvious to a 6 year old from their initial report? 

Or do you have a less glib response than "We don't support 2003"

Strangely, they're not irritated. by ReallyEvilCanine (4.00 / 1) #9 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:20:05 PM EST
You saw the linked entry, right? Since they didn't mention that they installed it on Win2K3 there was no way for us to know they in fact tried to do so. We have every right to expect they're using a supported platform. Only experience let me know that this had to be the problem. Paul's quick and he didn't spot it.

When they see we're asking for all sorts of shit, they know we're serious about solving their problems. If we weren't we wouldn't ask for all that. Get it? Once all of that shit comes in, Win2K3 has been identified and we then say, "Ah-HA!". They don't feel so foolish because we didn't know what the problem was immediately. They're very happy with the service because we were obviously ready to dive headfirst into deep water, not fucking around but doing things efficiently instead of asking them one dumb question, waiting for an update, then sending out another dumb question ad nauseum.

The perception of service is usually more important than the service itself.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]
you, sir, are CEO material by martingale (2.00 / 0) #10 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 02:29:31 PM EST
At least, that's what I believe after reading the current slashdot discussion on CEOs vs CIOs. Slashbots are so smart, and never wrong.
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
ERROR: E_FAIL (nt) by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #4 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 07:40:11 AM EST

[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
E_UNEXPECTED by crux (2.00 / 0) #5 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:17:32 AM EST
The bane of my existence these days.

[ Parent ]
ERROR: by alprazolam (2.00 / 0) #6 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 08:29:37 AM EST
Error code: -1002987562358

[ Parent ]
The HTTP SSL depends on the IIS admin service - by mrgoat (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 09:33:01 AM EST
which failed to start because of the following error:
The operation completed successfully.


Not a day goes by that Microsoft doesn't make my life more difficult.

--top hat--

I've seen that error by ReallyEvilCanine (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Jan 24, 2007 at 01:11:26 PM EST
Or something very much like it, another reason for the my-head-shaped-dent in front of my keyboard.

the internet: amplifier of stupidity -- discordia

[ Parent ]