A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old May 11th 05, 03:35 AM
VWWall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

T. Waters wrote:
VWWall wrote:

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Woody wrote:


from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
a major retreat from
earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .


No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.



If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.

Am I missing something here?



Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)


I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord. I
have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?

--
Virg Wall
Ads
  #47  
Old May 11th 05, 03:37 AM
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

T. Waters wrote:
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting.



Accepted.


In my mind, you sounded like some
orthodox practioners of religion I know.



For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding
in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical?
Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other -
even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition.


I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is infinitely more
important that people wash their hands after using the restroom than that
they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA., and I mean this seriously.





Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and
personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie to
you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a
Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract is
made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract concerns.
A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a person who
reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an "anonymous" corporate
entity - can be trusted to keep one with me; the reneger (is that a
word?) has clearly and irrefutably demonstrated his untrustworthiness.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
  #48  
Old May 11th 05, 03:37 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Leythos
wrote:

In article ,
says...
In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
documents call the Motherboard the defining component,


That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?


So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements, you
are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site that I've
already read concerning the definitions of terms before I sign my OEM
agreement?


No, why would you assime I'm saying that?

I'm saying those "documents on the OEM site that I've
already read... before I sign" are all there is. You cannot
have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
terms after that contract is made.



Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down off
the soap-box.


What you wrote could be misconstrued. I clarified my
opinion on it, and what I believe to be the legality
involved as well. If the EULA doesn't specify
"motherboard", MS can't later come back and claim it does.
on the other hand, if the EULA claims use of one OEM system,
one can't replace it all and then claim it's the same one
OEM system either after all but a power cord has been
changed.
  #49  
Old May 11th 05, 03:45 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:22:22 GMT, Leythos
wrote:


I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
Legal department.


No more good than MS getting an official statement from your
"legal department". Believe it or not I'm not trying to be
mundane or argumentative here, it's simply that one CANNOT
refer to the other party in a contract for what THEY deem a
contact to "mean" after they wrote it and further that point
in time of sale has passed. Their interpretation of it
after the fact is no more valid than anyone else's,
specifically a court's if we want to nit-pick.



I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
documents, and how I handle it myself.


I can appreciate that and I'm not necessarily trying to
convince you otherwise, but for the benefit of others it is
good to make it known that there is nothing that contacting
MS can do for them. What is not "clear" in a contact cannot
later be pointed out by one of the two parties involved and
be binding on the other.



Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
want.


I agree that in some circumstances those docs may cover
current licensing, when they're referred to in that license
agreement. I was never referred to those and I don't know
anyone who was when talking about single-OEM-system license.


  #50  
Old May 11th 05, 04:01 AM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

VWWall wrote:

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Woody wrote:


from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has been
saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the original
machine is no longer the original machine . definately a major retreat
from
earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .


No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
by Microsoft employees, has always been.


If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has been
offering, can I change anything on the original computer on which I
installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in the
hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.

Am I missing something here?

You just aren't understanding the bullsh*t marketing muscle of Big Brother
MickeyMouse. I've seen retailers allowing you to purchase OEM XP by simply
buying a case fan. Of course, when the case fan fails, you have to go and
purchase another copy of OEM XP I guess? Now you know why Bill Gates is the
richest man in the world.

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

  #51  
Old May 11th 05, 04:02 AM
kony
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:43:41 -0600, Bruce Chambers
wrote:


What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA,


At this point you're making a giant leap.
How many people do you know that reviewed and accepted the
EULA before there was any penalty involved in declining it?

Is that EULA even stated on the outside of the packing?
Myself and many others are aware of the need to review these
EULAs, but the average OEM system purchaser- I highly doubt
they agree to anything ahead of purchase time, except to pay
X amount for Y system.

That's not necessarily pointing blame at MS, nor the
customer, rather there is not a standardized mechanism in
place for acceptance of softwrae EULAs and a decline of that
EULA before the customer enters into the sale agreement.
Only prior customers buying same thing a second time may be
fully aware of the EULA, IF they can assume it hasn't
changed.



and then
subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
elsewhere.



I feel the average person does know this can't be done, that
their license is meant for one system only. They may not
realize it can't be transferred to another system though,
until they research it. This is part of the core problem,
that they weren't fully informed of this PRIOR to the sale.




This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted.


When did they give their word or sign the EULA?
I agree more than a little bit with your concept but in it's
application it's not a valid argument.

If
he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not
to break any other agreements.


Nonsense.
Somewhere there's somone who doesn't like some particular
thing _you_ do, and could make similar excuse for hassling
you... and it's just an excuse, people are still innocent
until proven guilty, and guilty of only that which they've
done, not that which you "assume" they might do because you
argue it into being some "remotely similar" thing.


  #52  
Old May 11th 05, 04:04 AM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

VWWall wrote:

T. Waters wrote:
VWWall wrote:

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Woody wrote:


from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
a major retreat from
earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .


No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.



If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.

Am I missing something here?



Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)


I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord. I
have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?

It's the power code that has a phone connection on the end of it, so that it
can phone home whenever it's replugged in and get activated again.

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

  #53  
Old May 11th 05, 04:23 AM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
component,

That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?

So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
sign my OEM agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound
by the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come
down off the soap-box.

If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet
paper I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
place in this thread!


It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing rules
or documents for the product they are activating.

I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good an
information source as you provide.


Since MS doesn't support OEM software and it is up to the OEM to support
MS software, it is only logical that it is up to the OEM to determine
when they'll stop support the software after upgrading the hardware.
Since I am my own OEM, my computer is never not my computer, no matter
how much I upgrade it.

I don't WANT OR NEED to have MS tell me what is right and wrong with my
copy of software on my hardware! They have absolutely no right to know
what I do in the privacy of MY home!

Yabut, remember when MickeyMouse made you agree to a new EULA when you
picked up a security patch? I don't imagine very many users read that sh*t
everytime a new patch or SP comes out, but be warned. It has happened and
will probably continue to happen. When MickeyMouse is finished with you,
you will have signed away ALL PRIVACY on your system to them. If you've got
your computer updated to the latest security patch, you've already given
MickeyMouse admin privileges to your box.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06...ch_eula_gives/



--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

  #54  
Old May 11th 05, 04:27 AM
beamish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



"Michael C" wrote:

Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
up!

I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
and will activate ok. Is that true?

Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
replaced items.
Interesting conversation.
Take Care.
beamish.

  #55  
Old May 11th 05, 04:33 AM
Michael C
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the OEM
license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then subsequently
reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license elsewhere. This
indicates quite clearly that this person's given word, or signature on a
contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. If he'll break the
agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not to break any
other agreements.


People don't want that degree of honesty. Most would never hire a 100%
honest tax agent, lawer, employee, whatever. They want someone who can bend
the rules just enough.

Michael


  #56  
Old May 11th 05, 04:35 AM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.

Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And
why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
enforceable.


What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your and
Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.

I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
thread.


You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
EULA.

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
delusions!

NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!

MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
AGREEMENT!


You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with the
bucks make the rules. You want to take MickeyMouse on legally? Good luck!
Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to MickeyMouse's illegal
activities. Gates has a war chest in the hundreds of millions of dollars to
do whatever he wants in the legal arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they
decide to slam a file sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.

The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers significant
enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the OS and thus force
the end-user to purchase a new license. So EULA at the end doesn't mean
squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of MickeyMouse you are forced
to play by MickeyMouse's rules. That's always the way it's been with MS and
always will be. Get over it! When you get fed up enough, you do have other
options.

Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
Microsoft tells you to go, period."

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

  #57  
Old May 11th 05, 04:45 AM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

NoStop wrote:
kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy
considering that additional MS documents call the Motherboard
the defining component,

That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?

So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM
agreements, you are saying that I should ignore the documents on
the OEM site that I've already read concerning the definitions of
terms before I sign my OEM agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound
by the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come
down off the soap-box.

If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet
paper I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has
any place in this thread!

It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing
rules or documents for the product they are activating.

I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good
an information source as you provide.


Since MS doesn't support OEM software and it is up to the OEM to
support MS software, it is only logical that it is up to the OEM to
determine when they'll stop support the software after upgrading the
hardware. Since I am my own OEM, my computer is never not my
computer, no matter how much I upgrade it.

I don't WANT OR NEED to have MS tell me what is right and wrong with
my copy of software on my hardware! They have absolutely no right
to know what I do in the privacy of MY home!

Yabut, remember when MickeyMouse made you agree to a new EULA when you
picked up a security patch? I don't imagine very many users read that
sh*t everytime a new patch or SP comes out, but be warned. It has
happened and will probably continue to happen. When MickeyMouse is
finished with you, you will have signed away ALL PRIVACY on your
system to them. If you've got your computer updated to the latest
security patch, you've already given MickeyMouse admin privileges to
your box.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06...ch_eula_gives/


LOL! Like MS is gonna sue me! They've had thirteen years to sue an
individual over their One Computer EULA term, and have yet to prove that
term is enforceable over an individuals right to "fair use." MS is all
FUD, deception, smoke & mirrors, and outright lies, when it comes to
them backing up the bullsh*t by legal means when it comes to private
non-commercial use.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #58  
Old May 11th 05, 04:57 AM
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when
the
original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that
computer
determines the rules as far as i read it .


Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me that the
OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
Motherboard is the "computer".

When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me


I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
If someone from the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain
to the mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer. If it's
upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If the computer is
sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new one is purchased then
it's time for a new license.

Kerry




  #59  
Old May 11th 05, 05:06 AM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

NoStop wrote:
kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
computer.

Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
enforceable.

What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.

I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
thread.


You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
EULA.

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
delusions!

NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!

MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
AGREEMENT!


You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
the bucks make the rules.


LOL! The Republicans control two out of the 3 branches of gov't, and
the third is centrist.

You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
Good luck!


I don't have to. It is up to them under both copyright law and contract
law to sue me. They don't sue me, my interpretation of the law is valid
for me.

Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.


That's because the RIAA have been very smart to only go after those that
distribute music over the web. They haven't gone after one person that
has only downloaded.

Distributing copyrighted material to others is a violation of copyright
law.


The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license.


They can't yet. All PA tells them that enough hardware has changed to
required activation, not what exact hardware has changed. MS can not
figure out if XP is on a totally different PC unless the person tells
the PA phone rep that it is a totally different computer.

So EULA at
the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules.


LOL! You are totally fooling yourself if you think I'm playing by MS's
rules.

That's
always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.


Yeah, disable some of my hardware, and neuter some others, and run
linux! Please! If I want to run a server I'll build a computer to run
linux, but right now I want my multimedia computer, run my games and not
castrate my system, so linux is not a realistic solution.


Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
Microsoft tells you to go, period."


LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
tyranny of the corporate elites.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #60  
Old May 11th 05, 05:27 AM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kurttrail wrote:


Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
Microsoft tells you to go, period."


LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
tyranny of the corporate elites.

I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer. Haven't
you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
hasn't changed its spots.


--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windows Messenger feature request: Conversation history Jeff Hodosko Microsoft Messenger 1 February 23rd 05 12:22 AM
Audio conversation Alan Foster Microsoft Messenger 1 February 1st 05 08:55 AM
Interesting Pagefile observation Steve N. General XP issues or comments 2 December 12th 04 06:23 PM
Audio conversation? Snoopy1985 Microsoft Messenger 1 October 18th 04 10:51 PM
Msn Messenger crash upon audio conversation Licantrop0 Microsoft Messenger 0 August 14th 04 07:43 PM






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.