About Windows 8 (10) license (transferable license)

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:10:26 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 17:53, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:26:21 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 03:12, Paul wrote:
A VM is treated like a real, separate computer.
Ok, but I think you can still have 10 copies of Windows on one maching
if you just use one at a time, right? H

Yes, if you have a different license for each one. No, if it's a
single license.


not everybody is rich.... I am one of those. Am struggling to buy even
one license. Well, LInux is free... so nobody is forcing me to buy Win10
though...


I'm not even suggesting you do it, let alone forcing you. It's
entirely up to you.

But note that if you are running Windows 8, an update to 10 will be
free, if you do it the first year.


What am saying is that this makes peoples life difficult. I cannot
afford to buy multiple licenses.. but i need to have multiple copies of
my operating system definitely (like multiple backup copies in a case i
get virus and need to get back a virgin copy).


Backup copies are an entirely different issue. Simply back up to DVDs.
You can create as many backups as you want.

Also note that backing up to a VM on your hard drive is a very poor
way to backup. It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user
error, nearby lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the
computer, can cause the loss of everything on your drive. As has often
been said, it's not a matter of whether you will have such a problem,
but when.

Also note that it's seldom necessary to reinstall Windows if you get
infected with a virus. Most viruses can easily be removed with a good
antivirus program (and I see that you run Avast, which is a good one).


Also I need to run VM *on
top of my other operating system*. Does not make sense running Linux and
then Win10 on VM. I would like to use the same operating system on both.



I'm not sure what you are saying here, but you can run a VM that's
running Linux under Windows.


If I am going to folllow 100% that Microsoft rule, that might mean I
have to think about not buying Win10 but rather start learning Linux.
And that would mean Microsoft also would lose my money, plus possible
other windows softwares I was planning to buy, like Visual Studio.


Entirely up to you. I'm not Microsoft and I don't care what you run.


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


First, note that this isn't any kind of mail. It's a newsgroup
posting, which is an entirely different thing.

Second, note that nobody cares about what antivirus you run, and we
would almost all appreciate it if you would turn that message off on
your postings.

Third, note that although Avast *is* a good choice of an antivirus,
like all other antivirus programs it is not perfect, so such a message
is meaningless.

On 26/01/2015 19:35, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:10:26 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 17:53, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:26:21 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 03:12, Paul wrote:
A VM is treated like a real, separate computer.
Ok, but I think you can still have 10 copies of Windows on one maching
if you just use one at a time, right? H
Yes, if you have a different license for each one. No, if it's a
single license.

not everybody is rich.... I am one of those. Am struggling to buy even
one license. Well, LInux is free... so nobody is forcing me to buy Win10
though...

I'm not even suggesting you do it, let alone forcing you. It's
entirely up to you.

But note that if you are running Windows 8, an update to 10 will be
free, if you do it the first year.

That is fine and good....But that was not what I was talking about here.
I am talking about having multiple copies.

What am saying is that this makes peoples life difficult. I cannot
afford to buy multiple licenses.. but i need to have multiple copies of
my operating system definitely (like multiple backup copies in a case i
get virus and need to get back a virgin copy).

Backup copies are an entirely different issue. Simply back up to DVDs.

Ok, thats is a bit good. But it still does not solve the thing that I
want to have multiple Windows operating system setups: like "work
Windows", "test windows" (testing dangerous programs before trusting
them), "Music windows" etc. So been able to boot up with different set
ups is quite important. Its really strange is Microsoft tries to go
against this. Whats the point?

You can create as many backups as you want.

ok, 1 point from that. But it still does not solve the other problem.


Also note that backing up to a VM on your hard drive is a very poor
way to backup. It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user
error, nearby lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the
computer, can cause the loss of everything on your drive. As has often
been said, it's not a matter of whether you will have such a problem,
but when.

No, I dont use VM to backup things. I use it for example to test
dangrous programs (which might have viruses) and other stuff. Also
sometimes I need to run multiple operating system at the same time to do
my business (difficult to explain here... but I need it... certain
programs do work so that you can run only one instance... so I need VM
to be able to run 2 of them). And there are other reasons why one would
like to use VM. Why somebody uses anyway VM? There must be some
reasons why they exist, right?


Also note that it's seldom necessary to reinstall Windows if you get
infected with a virus. Most viruses can easily be removed with a good
antivirus program (and I see that you run Avast, which is a good one).

I do not always trust trust them (antivirus programs). If I get a
serious virus or dangerous program I definitely re-install a clean copy.
I do not think its true that virus programs can handle all viruses and
trojan horses etc keyloggers. Hackers need to see only once my passwords
and I am in trouble.




Also I need to run VM *on
top of my other operating system*. Does not make sense running Linux and
then Win10 on VM. I would like to use the same operating system on both.


I'm not sure what you are saying here, but you can run a VM that's
running Linux under Windows.

I am saying that I want to run Window 10 and on that Windows 10 I want
to run VM where I run another Windows 10. In windows10 I want to launch
VM where I run another windows10. So 2 windows10 programs running at the
same time.

On 26/01/2015 19:35, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:10:26 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

not everybody is rich.... I am one of those. Am struggling to buy even
one license. Well, LInux is free... so nobody is forcing me to buy Win10
though...

I'm not even suggesting you do it, let alone forcing you. It's
entirely up to you.

But note that if you are running Windows 8, an update to 10 will be
free, if you do it the first year.



I am running Windows XP currenly. I really have liked it. Linux is too
difficult to use ... so... this is one of those things I hate what
MIcrosoft is doing with their license policies, but I guess I do not
have choice again. Then I just have to run that one copy and suffer .

But it was good to know that I can take backup copies as much as I like.
Does it mean they must be on DVD those backup copies? Can I put them to
USB sticks as well? Why cannot I put them to hard drives or USB sticks?
They have to be on DVD s?? And I can make all type of backup copies,
like "100% virgin Win10", "All the drivers win10", "All the important
programs Win10" etc. So I can add my own programs like that as well?
There is no limitation what kind of backups they are and what programs I
install on them?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:53:58 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 19:35, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:10:26 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 17:53, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:26:21 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 03:12, Paul wrote:
A VM is treated like a real, separate computer.
Ok, but I think you can still have 10 copies of Windows on one maching
if you just use one at a time, right? H
Yes, if you have a different license for each one. No, if it's a
single license.

not everybody is rich.... I am one of those. Am struggling to buy even
one license. Well, LInux is free... so nobody is forcing me to buy Win10
though...

I'm not even suggesting you do it, let alone forcing you. It's
entirely up to you.

But note that if you are running Windows 8, an update to 10 will be
free, if you do it the first year.

That is fine and good....But that was not what I was talking about here.
I am talking about having multiple copies.

What am saying is that this makes peoples life difficult. I cannot
afford to buy multiple licenses.. but i need to have multiple copies of
my operating system definitely (like multiple backup copies in a case i
get virus and need to get back a virgin copy).

Backup copies are an entirely different issue. Simply back up to DVDs.

Ok, thats is a bit good. But it still does not solve the thing that I
want to have multiple Windows operating system setups: like "work
Windows", "test windows" (testing dangerous programs before trusting
them), "Music windows" etc. So been able to boot up with different set
ups is quite important. Its really strange is Microsoft tries to go
against this. Whats the point?


I at least partially understand your point, but please understand that
none of us here have anything to do with Microsoft's choices. What
they do and what rules they set are up to them.

What I don't understand is why you need separate work and home Windows
or why you need music Windows.

And most important, I don't understand why you want to test dangerous
programs. You should stay very far away from dangerous programs. And
if you're not sure whether a program is dangerous and you test it and
it passes your test, it could *still* be dangerous. Not all testing is
perfect.


You can create as many backups as you want.

ok, 1 point from that. But it still does not solve the other problem.


Also note that backing up to a VM on your hard drive is a very poor
way to backup. It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user
error, nearby lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the
computer, can cause the loss of everything on your drive. As has often
been said, it's not a matter of whether you will have such a problem,
but when.

No, I dont use VM to backup things. I use it for example to test
dangrous programs (which might have viruses) and other stuff. Also
sometimes I need to run multiple operating system at the same time to do
my business (difficult to explain here... but I need it... certain
programs do work so that you can run only one instance... so I need VM
to be able to run 2 of them). And there are other reasons why one would
like to use VM. Why somebody uses anyway VM? There must be some
reasons why they exist, right?


Also note that it's seldom necessary to reinstall Windows if you get
infected with a virus. Most viruses can easily be removed with a good
antivirus program (and I see that you run Avast, which is a good one).

I do not always trust trust them (antivirus programs). If I get a
serious virus or dangerous program I definitely re-install a clean copy.
I do not think its true that virus programs can handle all viruses and
trojan horses etc keyloggers. Hackers need to see only once my passwords
and I am in trouble.


It is certainly not true, that "virus programs can handle all viruses
and trojan horses." I didn't say it was. I said it's "*seldom*
necessary to reinstall Windows if you get infected with a virus." Note
the emphasis added to the word "seldom."

Also note that if you run a firewall and excellent anti-virus and
anti-spyware programs and practice safe hex, the risk of getting
infected isn't zero, but it's very low. I've been extensively using
personal computers (several of them) since 1987, and I've never had an
infection.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:02:55 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

On 26/01/2015 19:35, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 19:10:26 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

not everybody is rich.... I am one of those. Am struggling to buy even
one license. Well, LInux is free... so nobody is forcing me to buy Win10
though...

I'm not even suggesting you do it, let alone forcing you. It's
entirely up to you.

But note that if you are running Windows 8, an update to 10 will be
free, if you do it the first year.



I am running Windows XP currenly.


OK, you pasted in a Windows 8 newsgroup, so I assumed that you were
running 8.

And by the way, if you are running XP, you may not be able to run
Windows 10 on such an old computer, since you may need drivers for
some components, and drivers for Windows 10 may not exist.

And even if you can get all the drivers you need, it's very likely
that such an old computer will not be able to run Windows 10 at an
acceptable speed.


But it was good to know that I can take backup copies as much as I like.
Does it mean they must be on DVD those backup copies?


No, that was just a suggestion.


Can I put them to
USB sticks as well?


Yes, but whether you can boot from a thumb drive or not depends on
your motherboard. With such an old computer, my guess is that it
can't.


Why cannot I put them to hard drives or USB sticks?
They have to be on DVD s?? And I can make all type of backup copies,
like "100% virgin Win10", "All the drivers win10", "All the important
programs Win10" etc. So I can add my own programs like that as well?
There is no limitation what kind of backups they are and what programs I
install on them?


With programs, it's not a matter of whether you *may*, it's a matter
of whether you *can*. Because programs have many components (entries
in the registry, etc.) all over the drive, a program is not just an
exe file, and a backup of that exe file is useless. There's an
occasional small program that's an exception to that, but there are so
few that it hardly matters. What you should have backup copies of (not
on the hard drive) are the installation files of those programs.

On 26/01/2015 21:45, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
I at least partially understand your point, but please understand that
none of us here have anything to do with Microsoft's choices. What
they do and what rules they set are up to them. What I don't
understand is why you need separate work and home Windows or why you
need music Windows.

With music windows you want to eliminate all kind of action in windows
so all the process power is in the music software. I did that with
Windows XP. There is a long list of settings you can tune with a music
studio. For example no internet, no virus programs running on the
background, no animations (so poor graphics is preferred so that speed
is maximixed and no interrupts) etc etc.

For professional level studios these are important things.

But I gave a music studio just an example. There could be hundreds of
other similar situations where you need a specific setting for the
windows. Also, in a recording setting you dont want to have many other
programs as they might slow things down. So only couple of programs
total there.

And most important, I don't understand why you want to test dangerous
programs. You should

Well, test any new program, like does it mess up things. Even non-virus
programs could mess some things up.

I meant programs which I think are ok but am not 100% sure. I just
recently got a bad Omega almost-a-virus type of thing as I was
isntalling one program which I used before with no problems and should
be fine.

YOu know sometimes even good programs can be hacked by scammers. Like
OpenOffice containing a trojan horse if a hacker has changed it.

stay very far away from dangerous programs. And if you're not sure
whether a program is dangerous and you test it and it passes your
test, it could *still* be dangerous. Not all testing is perfect.

I use many programs which I just trust because they seem to be a product
of a bigger company or something. But even with them you can never be
100% sure. Like some of them can install malware stuff.

You can create as many backups as you want.
ok, 1 point from that. But it still does not solve the other problem.

Also note that backing up to a VM on your hard drive is a very poor
way to backup. It is always possible that a hard drive crash, user
error, nearby lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the
computer, can cause the loss of everything on your drive. As has often
been said, it's not a matter of whether you will have such a problem,
but when.
No, I dont use VM to backup things. I use it for example to test
dangrous programs (which might have viruses) and other stuff. Also
sometimes I need to run multiple operating system at the same time to do
my business (difficult to explain here... but I need it... certain
programs do work so that you can run only one instance... so I need VM
to be able to run 2 of them). And there are other reasons why one would
like to use VM. Why somebody uses anyway VM? There must be some
reasons why they exist, right?

Also note that it's seldom necessary to reinstall Windows if you get
infected with a virus. Most viruses can easily be removed with a good
antivirus program (and I see that you run Avast, which is a good one).
I do not always trust trust them (antivirus programs). If I get a
serious virus or dangerous program I definitely re-install a clean copy.
I do not think its true that virus programs can handle all viruses and
trojan horses etc keyloggers. Hackers need to see only once my passwords
and I am in trouble.

It is certainly not true, that "virus programs can handle all viruses
and trojan horses." I didn't say it was. I said it's "*seldom*
necessary to reinstall Windows if you get infected with a virus." Note
the emphasis added to the word "seldom."

yes seldom, but it has happened to me several times before.


Also note that if you run a firewall and excellent anti-virus and
anti-spyware programs and practice safe hex, the risk of getting
infected isn't zero, but it's very low. I've been extensively using
personal computers (several of them) since 1987, and I've never had an
infection.

I got one couple of days ago when installing a program which should have
been ok (I installed it before with no problems) and surely has been a
good program at least before.

On 26/01/2015 21:59, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 20:02:55 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

I am running Windows XP currenly.

OK, you pasted in a Windows 8 newsgroup, so I assumed that you were
running 8.

And by the way, if you are running XP, you may not be able to run
Windows 10 on such an old computer, since you may need drivers for
some components, and drivers for Windows 10 may not exist.

And even if you can get all the drivers you need, it's very likely
that such an old computer will not be able to run Windows 10 at an
acceptable speed.

no, I am planning to buy a new computer



But it was good to know that I can take backup copies as much as I like.
Does it mean they must be on DVD those backup copies?

No, that was just a suggestion.

ok so if its regarded as a "backup copy" it can be anywhere and contain
anything.

Why cannot I put them to hard drives or USB sticks?
They have to be on DVD s?? And I can make all type of backup copies,
like "100% virgin Win10", "All the drivers win10", "All the important
programs Win10" etc. So I can add my own programs like that as well?
There is no limitation what kind of backups they are and what programs I
install on them?

With programs, it's not a matter of whether you *may*, it's a matter
of whether you *can*. Because programs have many components (entries
in the registry, etc.) all over the drive, a program is not just an
exe file, and a backup of that exe file is useless. There's an
occasional small program that's an exception to that, but there are so
few that it hardly matters. What you should have backup copies of (not
on the hard drive) are the installation files of those programs.

not sure what you mean... If I make a full image of my current windows
partition and then later on install that image, then surely it works all
fine. I take a full image, thats what I meant.

JiiPee wrote:
On 26/01/2015 08:38, . . .winston wrote:
JiiPee wrote:

And always recognize that MSFT licenses the software for use and all
licenses are for a single device (e.g. on a hard drive or VM, but not
both at the same time)


Thanks for the info. Good to know.
I still think its a bit sad its like that.... because it just makes
peoples life difficult...its much easier to operate having them in both
at the same time, and the thing is that not everybody has the money to
buy many licenses even if they wanted (to people who say "well, then why
dont you buy 5 licenses...?"). Not everybody is rich. Many people are
actually poor, like students/young people. So its kind of making peoples
life jjust difficult. But its not your fault.. . Just saying...

And its also not really logical: Windows is a certain kind of program (a
program which does not need operating system, but a program anyway)... a
very complex one. But for example Word or Visual Studio is also a
program. Can I run multiple copies of Visual Studio or Word at the same
time? Yes i can! I can open 10 Word documents and I dont think Microsoft
is against it. So why cannot I open 10 Windows 8.1 also the same way ??
There you go... If somebody has a good explanation why 10 Words can be
run at the same time but 10 Win8.1 cannot, am interested to know. I mean
what is logically speaking different there. I dont see any difference.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

Not apples to apples.

Opening more than one file in licensed software (e.g. Word) is not the
same. A closer analogy would be opening ten Windows Explorer folders at
the same time. As you noted...MSFT doesn't care if you do that either.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

JiiPee wrote:
On 26/01/2015 14:36, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:22:54 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

I understand somebody using 100 separate shoes needs to pay all
shoes, but that is a different issue as each shoe costs .... but
100 Windows programs do not cost any more than 1.
You're confusing cost with price. Are you an engineer?

Not sure what you mean. But I meant that if I buy 100 shoes, then it
costs to the manufacturer to create all those shoes. It might cost £10
to the manufacturer to make one pair of shoes. So it is logical that if
I buy 3 shoes instead of 1 shoes I should pay 3 times more money. But it
does not cost anything to Microsoft if I install one extra Windows on my
computer. It costs £0 to them. Because bytes are free! Microsoft does
not need to pay anything for me to install an extra Windows.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


Doesn't matter...once Windows is installed the user agreed to the
license constraints. Cost of that license is no longer applicable.

Same rationale...if you want another one (like another pair of shoes)
you pony up and buy it.



--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

JiiPee wrote:

If I am going to folllow 100% that Microsoft rule, that might mean I
have to think about not buying Win10 but rather start learning Linux.
And that would mean Microsoft also would lose my money, plus possible
other windows softwares I was planning to buy, like Visual Studio.

Microsoft would most likely be willing to take that risk.
- learn Linux

You're argument is an age-old one and the answers have been the same for
some time. One licensed copy per device.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:17:49 -0500, . . .winston
wrote:

JiiPee wrote:

If I am going to folllow 100% that Microsoft rule, that might mean I
have to think about not buying Win10 but rather start learning Linux.
And that would mean Microsoft also would lose my money, plus possible
other windows softwares I was planning to buy, like Visual Studio.

Microsoft would most likely be willing to take that risk.
- learn Linux

You're argument is an age-old one and the answers have been the same for
some time. One licensed copy per device.

Before he learns GNU/Linux, he might want to try it. It's free after all.

Paying for a Windows 10 license won't seem so bad if you've used GNU/Linux
and accepted it as the alternative. Once you're experienced the absolute
mediocrity first-hand, you're more than willing to pay whatever price
Microsoft charges.

--
Slimer
OpenMedia, GreenPeace Supporter & SPCA Paw Partner
D*:

In memory of those whose lives were shattered by the mediocrity of
open-source.
__
_ / |
| \ \/_/
\_\| / __
\/_/__\ .--='/~\
____,__/__,_____,______)/ /{~}}}
-,-----,--\--,-----,---,\'-' {{~}}
__/\_ '--=.\}/
/_/ |\\
\/

On 26/01/2015 23:12, . . .winston wrote:
JiiPee wrote:
On 26/01/2015 14:36, mechanic wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 07:22:54 +0000, JiiPee wrote:

I understand somebody using 100 separate shoes needs to pay all
shoes, but that is a different issue as each shoe costs .... but
100 Windows programs do not cost any more than 1.
You're confusing cost with price. Are you an engineer?

Not sure what you mean. But I meant that if I buy 100 shoes, then it
costs to the manufacturer to create all those shoes. It might cost £10
to the manufacturer to make one pair of shoes. So it is logical that if
I buy 3 shoes instead of 1 shoes I should pay 3 times more money. But it
does not cost anything to Microsoft if I install one extra Windows on my
computer. It costs £0 to them. Because bytes are free! Microsoft does
not need to pay anything for me to install an extra Windows.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


Doesn't matter...once Windows is installed the user agreed to the
license constraints.

Yes. But still applies that if I secredly install 1000 Windows10 s after
that without paying Microsoft, then Microsoft would still not lose any
money.


Cost of that license is no longer applicable.


Same rationale...if you want another one (like another pair of shoes)
you pony up and buy it.




But there is a difference between these two things though: If I steal
shoes from the shop it costs real money to the shop keeper (or the shoe
maker) because of the loss of material. But if I install a second Win10
it will not take any money from Microsofts pocket obviously. Also so
that if I install 1000000000 Windows10 s after that, also none of them
will cost Microsoft a penny, because I am the only one working there
(doing installations). If Microsoft did the installations, then it would
be different story and we could compare it to shoe-example. If I on the
other hand steal 10000 shoes from a shop, that shop would lose a
signifant amount of money. You get my point???

So I dont think you can compare shoes and Windows installations to each
others as the other one has raw material which costs and the ohter one
does not have anything really.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:08:36 +0000, JiiPee wrote:


Also note that if you run a firewall and excellent anti-virus and
anti-spyware programs and practice safe hex, the risk of getting
infected isn't zero, but it's very low. I've been extensively using
personal computers (several of them) since 1987, and I've never had an
infection.

I got one couple of days ago when installing a program which should have
been ok (I installed it before with no problems) and surely has been a
good program at least before.


What program and what virus? From where did you download it?

On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 22:14:21 +0000, JiiPee wrote:


With programs, it's not a matter of whether you *may*, it's a matter
of whether you *can*. Because programs have many components (entries
in the registry, etc.) all over the drive, a program is not just an
exe file, and a backup of that exe file is useless. There's an
occasional small program that's an exception to that, but there are so
few that it hardly matters. What you should have backup copies of (not
on the hard drive) are the installation files of those programs.

not sure what you mean... If I make a full image of my current windows
partition and then later on install that image, then surely it works all
fine. I take a full image, thats what I meant.



OK, then my comment above isn't applicable to you.

On 26/01/2015 23:43, Slimer wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 18:17:49 -0500, . . .winston
wrote:

JiiPee wrote:

If I am going to folllow 100% that Microsoft rule, that might mean I
have to think about not buying Win10 but rather start learning Linux.
And that would mean Microsoft also would lose my money, plus possible
other windows softwares I was planning to buy, like Visual Studio.

Microsoft would most likely be willing to take that risk.
- learn Linux

You're argument is an age-old one and the answers have been the same
for some time. One licensed copy per device.

Before he learns GNU/Linux, he might want to try it. It's free after all.

Linux is still difficult to use. like installations.
But... it is what it is. I just have to buy the Win10. There are some
good points also, like free ugrade from 8.1 to 10 and can make backup
copies. I just have to find that version which can be transfered from pc
to another pc.



Paying for a Windows 10 license won't seem so bad if you've used
GNU/Linux and accepted it as the alternative. Once you're experienced
the absolute mediocrity first-hand, you're more than willing to pay
whatever price Microsoft charges.


I am not. The reason am not buying Visual Studio is that it is so
expensive and VC++ is not separated and have the same price. I would
like to buy it, but only if it has a reasonable price tag (which I think
earlier versions of VC++ used to have). So am using free versions and
they are good enough, cannot even complain. But if VS was reasonable
priced I might change to use it.