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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!
-- Carey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Microsoft Newsgroups Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies: http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu...xp/choose.mspx ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "T. Waters" wrote: | | Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening | You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. So I | found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with | a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to | another computer. They are not violating the MS intent of freeing the OEM | from supporting an OS on a computer the OEM did not build! Are you devoutly | religious, by any chance? --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005 Tested on: 5/10/2005 8:21:27 PM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com |
Ads |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- -- remove 999 in order to email me |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
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! -- 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" |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:42:05 GMT, Leythos wrote: Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining licensing. No, you quite specifically cannot do this. It is not binding to add terms and not legal to try to enfore them. Of all possible avenues, MS cannot supply you with "Further" details about a license that weren't already part of that license. If someone simply can't find their EULA then they might be SOL. 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? while others look at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS legal what they mean. No reasonable person will conclude the power cord is a defining component, UNLESS the license was purchased with that cord, if the EULA allows it. It is NOT "what you are comfortable with until you ask MS legal". MS legal cannot add, subtract, or redefine a EULA after the sale. Amen! -- 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" |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Leythos wrote:
In article , says... Those of us that ain't MS partners and have absolutely no conflict of interest when it comes to having business dealings with MS have never agree, and most have never even seen the password protected web site of FUD about the mobo is the computer and bill gates is god! And I stated that he (actually anyone) could do what they want on a personal level. I never stated that anyone has to follow anything. You are remembering and making more out of it this time than I said - I DID NOT TAKE SIDES OR A STANCE ON IT THIS TIME. I EVEN SUGGESTED IT WAS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL. Your personal delusions about the motherboard are off-topic. MS's System Builder site is NOT for END USERS. NO ONE EVER AGREED TO ANYTHING SAID THERE. IT IS TOTALLY NONSENSE, AND IS NOT WORTH MENTIONING, EXCEPT IN YOUR WET DREAMS ABOUT BILLY G! -- 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" |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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! -- 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" |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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. -- -- remove 999 in order to email me |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
T. Waters wrote:
Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. Thank you. So I found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to another computer. 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. Are you devoutly religious, by any chance? No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all founded on self-delusion. -- 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest! This is like having OJ say that Tony Blake is "100% not guilty" too! -- 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" |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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 Wall |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting. In my mind, you sounded like some
orthodox practioners of religion I know. 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. Bruce Chambers wrote: T. Waters wrote: Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. Thank you. So I found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to another computer. 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. Are you devoutly religious, by any chance? No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all founded on self-delusion. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
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." (;-) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
says... 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? The vendor I purchase OEM software through sells all MS OEM products and only requires a hardware purchase, a MS Mouse is about $14, so it's cheap enough to not really count. -- -- remove 999 in order to email me |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
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? Yeah, your are expecting sh*t about software licensing to be logical, and it is as logical as software companies complaing about software piracy when the piracy rate is lower now than it was before almost every home had a computer, in 1994 Actually since MS introduced copy-protection in 2000 with MSO2KSP1, the piracy rate stopped its steady downward trend. The Business Software Alliance Global Software Piracy Rate: 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36 * - 1st year using IDC methodology. See the piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more PCs were sold to people for Home Use. And since MS first introduce PA the piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For calculating the piracy rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so that drop is a result of the change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations manager for the BSA, at the time of the release of that year's report said, "Right now we feel that piracy rates are on the up." PA isn't about PIRACY and never has been. It is about behavior modification and getting you to accept the bogus rules of soul-less corporate software copyright owners in the privacy of your home! While the EULA is a perfectly acceptable commercial use license, it has NEVER been proven to also be a legally enforceable private use licence. And so all these rules, policies and copy protection is about anything except FUDing the individual consumer into believeing that the corporate elite words are the law, without actually having to prove it! -- 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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Windows Messenger feature request: Conversation history | Jeff Hodosko | Microsoft Messenger | 1 | February 22nd 05 11:22 PM |
Audio conversation | Alan Foster | Microsoft Messenger | 1 | February 1st 05 07:55 AM |
Interesting Pagefile observation | Steve N. | General XP issues or comments | 2 | December 12th 04 05:23 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 |