Talk:Microsoft Software Assurance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

List of Upgrades that Software Assurance Provided

This list is kind of stupid, as what was provided by SA depended on both what product you had covered, and how long you had SA on it. For instance if you bought SQL Server 2000 in 2002 with Software Assurance on Open License, then you would not have recieved SQL Server 2005 unless you'd renewed your SA. However if you'd bought on the same program in 2004 then you would. Ultimately, every upgrade was potentially available through SA, but it depends on when you had coverage...... However, with the release of Windows Vista, there will be at least one MS product ONLY available through SA - Windows Vista Enterprise. --Brecker 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this list is pointless. Also, as Microsoft further moves the focus of SA from the upgrade benefit, it's even less relevant. 71.91.218.178 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value

Thinking more about this, this part's dodgy as well - it very much depends on what scheme you pruchased through as SA can be either 2 or 3 years in length, and can be renewed. --Brecker 12:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatant public relations nonsense.

Can't Microsoft keep this garbage on their own server?