UPGRADE OR FULL VERSION

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:51:26 -0800, wrote:

I cannot criticize your actions as I cannot know what I would do if I
were in your shoes. But I fail to see how you can deny that MS makes
and changes the rules as it sees fit to maximize their profits at the
expense of others. Without testing their decisions in court, but
simply by using its immense resources they have and will continue to
coerce businesses and individuals by using potential future harm
tactics. A common practice used by Gurus of all walks of life.

If you really what to know why I make the decisions on licensing that
I do, find someone in charge at a company that's been through a
licensing audit. The company I use to work for, before starting my
own, was audited about a year before I joined - they were fined more
than $350K for the unlicensed installs, and that was a reduced fine.
As it turns out, those types of things have been tested in court,
while the home users have not been to my knowledge.

Really? It is my understanding that the BSA coerces most to settle, as
the legal fees alone for a business would be larger than the settlement.


I done installations in 6 companies that were audited BEFORE we were
involved with them and I've seen the cost of fighting it, seen the
lost production time, seen the cost in people being fired for the
infractions.

And in those cases you are probably talking about VL licensing, not OEM
licensing.


It's not a fear of MS, heck, would I be posting that I'm a partner
and ISV while using a Linux box to do it if I were afraid of MS?
Actually, I'm just practical about it. It's kind of like Insurance
companies methods - sometimes it's cheaper to pay then to fight.
Sometimes you don't want to be a test case as you can't afford to
win, so it's better to comply and not lose.

In other words, Fear!


With what I've seen happen to businesses I'm not willing to take the
chance with personal either - sure, I don't really expect MS to ever
go after an individual as it would be very bad PR, but if they ever
do I won't want to be a target as their test case.

Don't worry. MS is too chicken to lose, when it comes to private
non-commercial use of software. And that is what PA is all about.
Trying to convince individuals that the EULA is the Law for their
computers, without having to actually prove that legally. Again, fear
is MS's motivation.


As an example, I just installed Server 2003 Std and Exchange 2003 Std
on a old 2GB RAM, Dual P3/1ghz system to act as a small email server.
I bought the 2003 licenses and the Exchange 2003 licenses even though
I already have paid for licenses in-house on another server. If I
were to follow Kurts path since I have already purchased both
products I could install them on my server for personal use and there
would be no harm/no foul. I'm not about to risk it.

One would suspect that you use that setup for your business purposes
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"

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:53:26 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 14:55:51 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:03:07 -0800, kurttrail wrote:

Lamethos.

There goes your button again - can't keep a proper conversation
going to you resort back to your childish manners. I can't really
believe you're more than a kid in high-school, you certainly fall
back to their typical trolling manners.

In other words, Lamethos has no "rational explanation as to why
[he] unrealistically believe[s] that some agreement exists between
the End User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New Rules,'"

I think I've clearly explained my position a great many times.

No. You have not given one rational explanation

Sorry, but rational to one person does not mean rational to another.
My ideals are my own, they don't have to be considered rational to
anyone by people I respect.

[snip]

OMG! You finally learned to show that you snipped! Too bad it just
shows how you have taken more of my words out of context!

unsnipped

"You have not given one rational explanation. . . . why and End User
should
follow extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules." You explained why you follow them as
a business man, for fear of Big Brother suing you, but you have yet
explained why a person using OEM XP should follow your advice to believe
that MS's password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA 'New
Rules' in the privacy of their own home."

So why should any individual believe your extra-SBL/EULA nonsense?

I've
also explained my position on why I will continue to license
products according to the licensing information available to
anyone, not limiting myself to the EULA.

No, it's not available to anyone unwilling to register for access to
the SB web site. As a somewhat intelligent human being, I don't go
around registering on web sites when I have no compelling reason to
access them.

And the EULA is not available to anyone unwilling to read it if you
want to take that path, you don't have any point here.

Sure it is available, it accompanies the product, registration is not
required to read it, and it is not password protected, and it is not
hidden away on some web site that is expressly for Microsoft-certified
System Builders.


I will not test the validity MS claims or licenses as it costs more
to be part of the test than the licenses.

But you have taken a side, and if it is ever tested in a court of
law, you may be financially responsible for the your admittingly
selling more licenses than necessary, if MS loses. And if tested,
MS stands a very good chance of losing, since what it says on its
web site is a direct contradiction to what is actually written in
the SBL concerning what makes up a computer.

I don't stand any chance of loss, as it's clearly explained by the
Vendor that provides the licensing - I don't approve or disapprove it.

LOL! Sounds to me like you are taking a chance if it is ever tested.
You are just unwilling to see it.


so he picks one word
out of my post to divert from explaining his erroneous opinion.

Nope, I pointed out how you can't discuss anything with out a
childish or snide part in your reply.

Your argument is about style to avoid substance.

No, I don't call your rudeness style, I call it what it is - a
complete lack of maturity that I would only expect from kids or the
mental. You don't have to act that way at all, and it does not help
your position.

But it does keep these monotonous conversations interesting. No one
would read me this long if I was little miss manners. And growing up in
New Jersey, I learned that any argument is a hell of a lot more fun for
the casual observer, if it is filled with invectives.

I do try to entertain as much as I try to inform.


Even when I complemented you on
not doing it earlier today you replied in your typical snide
fashion - which has given me a good understanding of your limited
communication range.

Buttons, dude! ;-)

I agree, and I've been pushing yours all day today.

Don't got none. I answer everything and avoid nothing. Unlike you,
Lamethos Little!


Thanks for pushing my button again, Lameboy! :-p

So, you going to continue to say I've not made my position clear,
you going to continue to act childishly in responses?

Again you explained you fear that motivates you personally as a
businessman, you have yet to give one compelling reason why any
individual should accept MS's extra-EULA terms, written for System
Builders not End Users, as the Gospel According to Sir Billy Gates of
Redmond.

As I explained to the other poster, which you seem to have parroted, I
have seen valid reasons to follow MS licensing information and not
just an interpretation by some Usenet poster. How many audits have
you been through, how many CIO's do you know that have been through
and audit? Fear would be something that may or may not be justified,
actual fines paid are not a fear thing, they are reality and if you
understand the licensing it's not a fear, it's just business.

Avoidance yet again noted. "Give one compelling reason why any
*individual* (that is not in business) should accept MS's extra-EULA
terms, written for System Builders not End Users, as the Gospel
According to Sir Billy Gates of Redmond."


Guess it's your button now.

Dude, I have no button. I just have you as a pratical demonstration
of how irrational MicroSycophants have to be in order to believe as
they do.

Thanks again for playing my game!

Your welcome, it's been more fun today than yesterday, and your
buttons have been pushed.

No buttons. You are the one that is doing all the avoiding!

"Give one compelling reason why any *individual* (that is not in
business) should accept MS's extra-EULA terms, written for System
Builders not End Users, as the Gospel According to Sir Billy Gates of
Redmond."

And that last quote will be my reply to you until you give one that is
not based on fear, but reality!

--
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"

"kurttrail" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:16:15 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Here is the parts you totally ignored, so I guess you are in
agreement with it!

And by the way, did anyone hear that button being pushed again? ;-)


I didn't reply to it because I already know your position and you
already know my position.

Yeah, my position reflects the agreements as they are agreed to and
yours is that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable on End Users, superceding what they
agreed to follow on the EULA.

My position is a rational reflection of contract law, and yours is some
delusional twisting of reality in a parrelell MicroWorld, where
everything that MS writes anyway is applicable to everyone and
everywhere throughout all eternity!

It serves no point in continuing to sound
off to each other on things that we each already understand that the
other is not going to change their view on. Did you miss that concept

somewhere?

LOL! No, I missed the part where you have a rational explanation for
insisting that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable to End Users! Just because you have
repeated that it is more than once is not a rational explanation.

Mine explanation of why MS's password-protected, registration-required,
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" aren't applicable is justified under
contract law. It is not up to IBM to just mindlessly accept SCO's
legally unsubstantiated claims about the UNIX License, it is up to SCO
to prove those claims are valid and legally enforceable under the law.

And MS's OEM customers are under no legal obligation to mindlessly
accept MS's password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA
"New Rules" just because MS and YOU, make that unsubstantiated claim.


I'm not ignoring it, I just didn't see any point in making the post
that much larger in order to restate how I feel after having already
restated it many times. Got it now?

Because you have yet to explain WHY you believe what you do, and leave
it up to me to ascribe your motivation.

Oh, and in case you missed it, lack of statement does not mean agree
or disagree - but, since you are the master of determining what an
agreement is I would have though you would already know that.

There is no agreement between the End User and MS to follow MS's
password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules,"
Lamethos. That is the point that YOU are totally unwilling to accept,
and you have yet to show any rational explanation as to why you
unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between the End User
and MS that justifies MS's password-protected, registration-required,
extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules."

I gave up on him with that, and now you expanded the details so far, that
you exposed lamethos as nothing but a bald faced liar. His constant claim to
me is, "that I didn't understand that Computer means Motherboards", and
"that it is my problem for not finding out what MS really means". This in
spite of the crappily written EULA, and the fact that he references what MS
means on a site, not mentioned in the EULA, nor referenced where the End
User needs to get further understanding of how MS wants to fool people to
buy more software they actually do not need LEGALLY!

"Leythos" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 11:38:08 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

There is no legal requirement that forces an End User to register for
the System Builders site,

Hey, careful, you are agreeing with me. I said the exact same thing -
nothing forcing anyone, legal or not, to read the information on the site,
and there's no legal issue keeping anyone from reading it - button.

So, then how is that enforceable on the END User, since there is no mention
in the FINAL agreement (the EULA that the End user clicks on), that more
terms to the agreement are applicable to MS's SBL website concerning what a
Computer is?

I know you'll come back and say that it is my fault for not understanding
what Computer means to MS, but you always evade actually showing how the
EULA is legally bound to the SBL site as further terms that the End User has
to agreed to in an agreement, which makes no mentions, nor has any direction
to such amendments, or addendums.

"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you, Michael,
completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was also completely
over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you were
exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised in ego
that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse kurt of
replying.

"Linda B" wrote in message
...
**** off, you little freak. You started throwing "ad hominem" around

Bwahahahaha!

Tom wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in message
oups.com...

Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:16:15 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Here is the parts you totally ignored, so I guess you are in
agreement with it!

And by the way, did anyone hear that button being pushed again? ;-)


I didn't reply to it because I already know your position and you
already know my position.

Yeah, my position reflects the agreements as they are agreed to and
yours is that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable on End Users, superceding what
they agreed to follow on the EULA.

My position is a rational reflection of contract law, and yours is
some delusional twisting of reality in a parrelell MicroWorld, where
everything that MS writes anyway is applicable to everyone and
everywhere throughout all eternity!

It serves no point in continuing to sound
off to each other on things that we each already understand that the
other is not going to change their view on. Did you miss that
concept

somewhere?

LOL! No, I missed the part where you have a rational explanation for
insisting that MS's password-protected, registration-required System
Builder "New Rules" are applicable to End Users! Just because you
have repeated that it is more than once is not a rational
explanation. Mine explanation of why MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules" aren't applicable
is justified under contract law. It is not up to IBM to just
mindlessly accept SCO's legally unsubstantiated claims about the
UNIX License, it is up to SCO to prove those claims are valid and
legally enforceable under the law. And MS's OEM customers are under
no legal obligation to mindlessly
accept MS's password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA
"New Rules" just because MS and YOU, make that unsubstantiated claim.


I'm not ignoring it, I just didn't see any point in making the post
that much larger in order to restate how I feel after having already
restated it many times. Got it now?

Because you have yet to explain WHY you believe what you do, and
leave it up to me to ascribe your motivation.

Oh, and in case you missed it, lack of statement does not mean agree
or disagree - but, since you are the master of determining what an
agreement is I would have though you would already know that.

There is no agreement between the End User and MS to follow MS's
password-protected, registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA "New
Rules," Lamethos. That is the point that YOU are totally unwilling
to accept, and you have yet to show any rational explanation as to
why you unrealistically believe that some agreement exists between
the End User and MS that justifies MS's password-protected,
registration-required, extra-SBL/EULA "New Rules."

I gave up on him with that, and now you expanded the details so far,
that you exposed lamethos as nothing but a bald faced liar. His
constant claim to me is, "that I didn't understand that Computer
means Motherboards", and "that it is my problem for not finding out
what MS really means". This in spite of the crappily written EULA,
and the fact that he references what MS means on a site, not
mentioned in the EULA, nor referenced where the End User needs to get
further understanding of how MS wants to fool people to buy more
software they actually do not need LEGALLY!

There are certain question Lameboy avoids like it has the plague,
because it would expose him to the fact that MS words are not the Law.
And what he doesn't understand he that he is a willing co-conspirator in
MS's deceptive business practices to the detriment of his fellow human
beings.

Lameboy would rather look like a chicken with its head cut off, than
expose his beliefs to the sunshine of reality.

--
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"

"kurttrail" wrote
Leythos wrote:
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:40:19 +0100, Alias wrote:

"Linda B" wrote I'm a little saddened to
see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.

No need. It's obvious you confuse lies and ad hominem attacks with
"satire".

Oh, heck, come on, if your not one of Kurt's disciples it was dang
funny.

Yes, it was funny, except it exposed more about Linda, than it did about
me.

--
Peace!
Kurt

A lot more.

Alias

In ,
Linda B respectfully replied ;-)
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire,

Next time you should add that explanation, because it sure lacked any tell
tell sign it was satiric. A smiley here and there, a W, G, etc.

but it was also
completely over your head.

I doubt it. I am saddened you think so. 8-)

I won't bother explaining.

Not necessary.

BTW, could you change your email alias to something other than
? It messes up my OE filters, only MSFT people use the
@microsoft.com alias. You should never use a real alias anyway it should
always be munged.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm

Tom wrote:
"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you were
exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised in
ego that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse kurt
of replying.


Not seen in that same way by all, be sure...

Satire or no, I think it nailed Kurty pretty well.

Nice to know you know more about one than oneself does. Sleep at a Holiday
Inn Express last night?



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Don Burnette wrote:
Tom wrote:
"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you were
exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised in
ego that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse kurt
of replying.


Not seen in that same way by all, be sure...

LOL! Only by those of you that cannot accept that people like me have
every right to our opinions in oppostion to that of MS, and its goons,
and have every right to express it.

Hey, I'm not perfect. I am abrasive. Big Deal! Grow some balls and
explain your opinions in as much detail as I do and don't avoid the
tough questions that I pose. I respect those kinds of people, even if
they don't agree with my opinion. What I don't respect is little boys
with no balls that only use one line trolls, like you, or disengenuous
fleabags like Lameboy that spout MS's word as if they came done Mt.
Sinai in the hands of Moses, and the run and hide from any question they
perceive to be heresy.

Satire or no, I think it nailed Kurty pretty well.

Then you are even more moronic than I even give you credit for.

Nice to know you know more about one than oneself does. Sleep at a
Holiday Inn Express last night?

It's just a hotel, who is marketing to morons that want to feel smarter,
any way that they can. You should know how that feels.

--
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"

"Don Burnette" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:
"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you were
exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised in
ego that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse kurt
of replying.


Not seen in that same way by all, be sure...

Satire or no, I think it nailed Kurty pretty well.

Nice to know you know more about one than oneself does. Sleep at a Holiday
Inn Express last night?


As you so state whilst peering out from the windows of the Redmond Temple!

Now go b(l)ow down to your god!

Bruce Chambers wrote:
MSS wrote:
I have XP Pro Version 5.1 running but I do not have the original XP
disk. I tried to install the various upgrades via download as well
as with a service pack 2 disc. I get an error message that I have
an unregistered copy of XP & therefore can't do the upgrades. Can
I purchase & install XP PRO as an upgrade or do I have to buy the
full program? Also, what if I want to but a lower version of
Windows rather than XP Pro.


If you are trying to install a WinXP Service Pack and getting the
following:

The Product Key Used to Install Windows Is Invalid
http://support.microsoft.com/default...;en-us;Q326904

You need to purchase and use a _legitimate_ full retail copy of
WinXP Pro to perform a repair (a.k.a. in-place upgrade) installation,
using the new CD and Product Key.

How to Perform an In-Place Upgrade of Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directo...;EN-US;Q315341

Of course, you still have the option of performing a clean install of a
legitimate copy of XP. I suggest that those who have pirated copies, and
who want to go "legal", purchase a Retail Upgrade copy of XP instead of a
Full Retail copy, and do a clean install, since a Retail Upgrade copy can do
a clean install as well as an upgrade install.

Especially if you're tight for money, since a Full Retail copy is over a
hundred dollars more than the Retail Upgrade. This presupposes that you
have a full CD of another version of Windows 9x laying around somewhere.

Right now, Amazon is offering the Retail Upgrade of XP Professional for
$159.00, with free SuperSaver shipping thrown in. Compare that with the
$299.00 retail price for the Full Retail CD. Although I did find the Full
Retail for $259. Personally I would rather save a hundred and forty bucks.
After all, food and rent is expensive nowadays. Why give it away to
Microsoft?


--
Donald L McDaniel
=================================

Tom wrote:
"Don Burnette" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:
"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you
were exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised
in ego that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse
kurt of replying.


Not seen in that same way by all, be sure...

Satire or no, I think it nailed Kurty pretty well.

Nice to know you know more about one than oneself does. Sleep at a
Holiday Inn Express last night?


As you so state whilst peering out from the windows of the Redmond
Temple!
Now go b(l)ow down to your god!


How is that?
You are the one with the blinders on.
Kurty has been exposed for what he/she is. Period.
Now go back to sleep.



--
Don Burnette

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."

Does this not apply about winning arguments about EULAs.

--=20
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
"Don Burnette" wrote in message =
...
Tom wrote:
"Don Burnette" wrote in message
...
Tom wrote:
"Linda B" wrote in message
...
I'm a little saddened to see that so many people, including you,
Michael, completely missed the point. It was satire, but it was
also completely over
your head. I won't bother explaining.


You can't explain, and this is a cop out on your part, while you
were exposed, hmmm!

You aren't saddened be cause a few disagreed with you, but bruised
in ego that your harsh replies were seen in the same way you accuse
kurt of replying.


Not seen in that same way by all, be sure...

Satire or no, I think it nailed Kurty pretty well.

Nice to know you know more about one than oneself does. Sleep at a
Holiday Inn Express last night?


As you so state whilst peering out from the windows of the Redmond
Temple!
Now go b(l)ow down to your god!
=20
=20
How is that?
You are the one with the blinders on.
Kurty has been exposed for what he/she is. Period.
Now go back to sleep.
=20
=20
=20
--=20
Don Burnette
=20
"When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the
way of the man that's doing it."
=20