Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:44:49 -0800, Nebulon wrote:

arachnid wrote:
Microsoft's secret, ever-changing API's and standards rule out a Windows
clone.

Standards? What standards? You mean there are standards for Windows
behavior? Too bad nobody adheres to them, or maybe we wouldn't all be
drowning in buggy software and blue screens here in M$land.

To be honest, competition from Linux is probably to blame for many Windows
woes:

* The constant moving of goalposts means ever-changing standards and
API's, which of course means bugs and compatibility problems.

* All that DRM that Windows users have to put up with is the result of
Microsoft trying to keep Linux from being able to access popular media
formats.

* Virtual-machine technology caught MS off-guard. I think the VM
provisions in the Vista Home and Vista Business EULAs are designed to keep
Linux users from running Windows in a VM, which would ease the transition
to Linux. WGA(N) may well have been created just to enforce those
provisions. (The simulated hardware environments of virtual machines are
easy to detect. For example, the OEM string for the simulated VMware
graphics card is something like "VMware video graphics card")

arachnid wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:53:03 -0600, Shenan Stanley wrote:

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was analyzed
by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned computer
magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux.
The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install
on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how
they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if
they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think not,
however. You cannot use the argument that if they had chose to sell
something other than Windows - that Windows would not be as large
because there is no way of proving that they would not have just gone
out of business or stayed in their small little niche market. Nor can
you say that another OS would have been larger than Windows if one of
the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices
to consumers - it just doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec
yourself a good computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do
it you know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.

That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything
could have happened. There were so many ways the market could have
gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something.
But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be
people complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The
names would have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if Macintosh
OS had become the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50% of the
marketplace - people would/would not be complaining now or if the price
points we now associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be
in existence.

It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to kill
DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to finish
the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling MSDOS into
Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright that
they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail OEMS
into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader out, or
otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to boot.



Then after they had their competitors stopped MS started turning the
screws on everyone else.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Going beyond? Dude, we went beyond a LONG time back!

Gregg

At least you agree with something I said. Maybe you'll come around yet.

Gregg Hill wrote:
As I said, I never accused everyone of being a pirate, "...only those who
use one license to install on many computers, regardless of whether or not
they get caught, and whether or not anyone sees them click to agree to the
EULA.

A pirate is someone who profits from it. I agree. Anyone who installs it on
multiple computers with one license has not bought the other licenses, and
as far as their bank account is concerned, they have profited.

Gregg


MS defense on this is to stop pirates. In their own defense in court
cases that they have lost MS admits to doing the same thing but states
that it should be legal. You can't have it both ways. You cannot accuse
someone of being a thief for doing to you what you are doing to others
and state at the same time that it should be legal in your case.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Read the EULA. If it is OEM software, it is tied to the computer on which it
was first sold. They do that because the OEM version costs the consumer less
than the retail version. If you have the retail package, you can remove it
and install it on a new computer without it being illegal. You just
reactivate it. I have done that many times, and only rarely did it fail to
re-activate, at which point a 15-minute call to MS got me up and running.

That is one reason why I never buy an OEM server OS for my clients.

Gregg Hill


At the same time MS started out saying you could only reactivate Vista
once. Everybody started complaining MS change their mind and said they
would review that decision. So it does good to complain. You also notice
that MS only started limiting beyond reasonableness the number of
activations after they illegally destroyed their competition.

Shenan Stanley wrote:
arachnid wrote:
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:53:03 -0600, Shenan Stanley wrote:

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.
You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if
they had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows
would not be as large because there is no way of proving that they
would not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small
little niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have
been larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to
sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just
doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good
computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you
know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.
It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.

Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.

They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop you
like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince me it
was because of some agreement or threat.

They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an impact?
Yeah.. I think so.

Why didn't they (if the above is factual)?
Lack of saq or fear of having a hard time and not raking in as much money
from the other sheep?

If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other entities
with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want instead of
letting others decide for them or because it is the easy way out/in and they
can make a bunch of money.

How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there. Until
someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their belief is
100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay the way it is.
Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles being quoted. 2001?
With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome to the end of 2006. 'Go Go
Gadget Change!'

Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if anything
posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer exist or are
in Dutch - I think...) does nothing for any cause other than prove that most
are greedy sheep that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and
those who may not fall into that category are willing to sit around and chat
about it for years instead of actually doing anything (beyond chatting about
it for years.)


It seems to me the US gov't was doing something about it until old GWB
was elected and made the justice dept drop it.
And yes I am using Linux for all the above stated reasons. Yes I do
think that MS has good products. No I don't think that MS is the only
unethical company around. There is middle ground that's why fair use was
approved be the courts. It wasn't the courts that have been whittling
away at fair use.

Gregg Hill wrote:
If I am hopeless for not agreeing with you, then you are just as hopeless
for not understanding that you DO gain by not paying.. Was it not you who
claimed the "fair use" applied ONLY if there was no financial gain?

When you fail to pay for the additional products you use, you HAVE gained
financially by NOT having the money taken out of your account. If you don't
think that is a financial gain, then **why not** pay for each installation?
The ONLY reason for one NOT to pay for each installation is so that one can
KEEP THEIR MONEY, which as far as your bank account is concerned, is a gain.

If one XP costs $200 and you install it four times, you come out ahead by
$600. That is a financial gain, and nullifies your "fair use" argument.

Gregg Hill

I don't totally agree with alais either. Apple found some middle ground
that is evidently working. Single 159, Family(5) 199, as I am told.
MS single is (fill in amount) family of 5 is 5 times that. and Apple is
still making money.
The reason Apple is not as big is because they wouldn't let in clones in
on their operating system. MS realized that letting clones in was the
way to dominate the market. Once they did that they then wanted to stop
their competitors to maximize their profit. There is an ethical way and
unethical way to do this. MS over all has taken the unethical way.

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:31:47 +0000, caver1 wrote:

It seems to me the US gov't was doing something about it until old GWB was
elected and made the justice dept drop it.

Things may change a little with the Democrats in power:

: http://news.com.com/What+the+Democra...3-6133833.html
:
: What the Democrats' win means for tech
:
: On a wealth of topics--Net neutrality, digital copyright, merger
: approval, data retention, Internet censorship--a Capitol Hill
: controlled by Democrats should yield a shift in priorities on
: technology-related legislation.

And yes I am using Linux for all the above stated reasons. Yes I do
think that MS has good products.

MS can do good work when there's a gun to their head, but they slack off
soon as the pressure's off. Look at all the heavy work on IE until they'd
killed Netscape. Then IE development and features essentially came to a
halt for about 6 years, until FireFox started taking away IE's market
share.

I think MS could be very good if placed in a competitive situation,
not allowed to ply their usual dirty tricks, and forced to compete on
software quality alone. Many have said that Bush didn't do them any favor
by letting them off the hook in the DOJ antitrust trial.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:
Did anyone who is arguing "fair use" in this thread ever give their
definition?
(May have - might have missed it - the thread has gotten a bit - just
a tad - long.)
One that is cited on a few pages (a FEW - not a single web page
floating out there in cyberspace - but a few)?

I'd be curious as to compare the idea of fair use in different areas
of the world as defined by different sets of laws. To see the
similarities and dive deeper in to the differences and why they might
exist in one place but not another.

Throw some out there. I did a search and found some interesting
discussions on the subject - some in great length. But as that seems
to have become more of a focus here - I think it would be only fair to
compare and contrast actual accepted definitions.



"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any of the
above discussion. (It isn't even relevant, in this particular discussion.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html



As an example MS vs. AT&T (ongoing now and there are many references
online to this if you would research) MS states that software should not
be patentable only should be able to copywrite it. Fair use does not
apply to patents only copywrites. Then they state that the copies they
caused to be made outside of the US should not be legally covered by US
copywrite law. In which case they lost in a previous case. I believe
that was Elosa ( I'm not sure of the spelling.)
In the past the US courts have stated in reference to music that it was
fair use and not copywrite infringement for an individual to make a copy
, of a legal original, and use it, or share it with others.
If US copywrite laws shouldn't be enforceable outside the US then how
can MS complain about the billions of dollars they are losing in China?
That is my point MS only wants copywrites defended if it benefits them
and if that is the case they cannot complain if the same thing is done
to them. Cooperations are no more ethical that the individuals of the
society from which they came.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:37:40 -0700, Bruce Chambers wrote:

Shenan Stanley wrote:
Did anyone who is arguing "fair use" in this thread ever give their
definition?
(May have - might have missed it - the thread has gotten a bit - just a
tad - long.)
One that is cited on a few pages (a FEW - not a single web page floating
out there in cyberspace - but a few)?

I'd be curious as to compare the idea of fair use in different areas of
the world as defined by different sets of laws. To see the similarities
and dive deeper in to the differences and why they might exist in one
place but not another.

Throw some out there. I did a search and found some interesting
discussions on the subject - some in great length. But as that seems to
have become more of a focus here - I think it would be only fair to
compare and contrast actual accepted definitions.



"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any of the above
discussion. (It isn't even relevant, in this particular discussion.)

I already posted about this somewhere in this same brawl. In the European
countries, the right to make extra copies for personal use is lumped under
"Fair use". In the USA, it's covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

The European convention has become commonplace in American speech though
not in law. I think it's because 'fair use' accurately describes what
people want, and this then gets confused with 'Fair Use'.

After takin' a swig o' grog, Shenan Stanley belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Linonut wrote:
Thanks Linonut.
I'm not sure this thread needed another example to iterate my point:

snip

Linonut wrote:
You're not a greedy sheep, are you, MVP boy?

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP

Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

--
Windows Vista -- Because you want to use your CPU as a toaster

Linonut wrote:
Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

If I had intended to, I would have.
I stated that I was including the rest of the thread so far so you could
participate instead of iterating one of my points.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

Shenan Stanley wrote:

Linonut wrote:
Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

If I had intended to, I would have.
I stated that I was including the rest of the thread so far so you could
participate instead of iterating one of my points.


So you assumed everyone else would be as brain-dead as you are?
Why do you think there even /exists/ something like a "thread"?
Right, so that everyone can just simply recall what was written before

That extremely simple concept was obviously way too complicated to grasp for
you.
But then you are a "MVP". Rarely one gets to meet more worthless cretins
than those. Then they are called "MCSE"
--
If you had any brains, you'd be dangerous.

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Shenan Stanley wrote:

Linonut wrote:
Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

If I had intended to, I would have.
I stated that I was including the rest of the thread so far so you
could participate instead of iterating one of my points.


So you assumed everyone else would be as brain-dead as you are?
Why do you think there even /exists/ something like a "thread"?
Right, so that everyone can just simply recall what was written
before

That extremely simple concept was obviously way too complicated to
grasp for you.
But then you are a "MVP". Rarely one gets to meet more worthless
cretins than those. Then they are called "MCSE"

See - iterations of my point continue.
Instead of anything useful, you decide to attack and attempt to belittle.

Conversations/discussions seem to be something foreign to many people
without personally attacking those they seemingly (in their own minds
usually) have a disagreement with.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

In Shenan Stanley wrote:

If you purchase something from a
company that is easily 'copied' so that you could use it in multiple
places, but said company infers (or directly states) as part of using
that single item, if you want to use it again elsewhere - you will
have to buy another, but you choose to ignore that agreement and use
it multiple times - you are denying the company the income from said
item you are getting use out of.

It's a strange irony that Microsoft with its draconian anti-piracy
schemes has built its entire foundation on software of dubious legality.

--

Peter