Vista license agreement is a joke

"Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message >
> Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have
> which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must
> have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades
> XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are
> only issues to people who are careless.
>
> I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months.
>
> Andrew McP
>


This is the issue for me. The only thing I need Windows for is to play
games. Anything else can be done perfectly well on Linux or even on a Mac.
Since games have pretty much become the same old thing just with different
graphics, I'm thinking of installing Ubuntu and going with that. I never
upgraded to XP because I had 2000 (which was the identical thing except that
certain upgrades were never made available for it), except for the laptop I
bought which came with it. I'm certainly not going for Vista, because I just
don't need it.

"Bill Worrel" > wrote in message
news:Nr2dnRiQWZtpz6zYnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
>
> The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC
> owners upgrade their own computers.


and how exactly did they even come up with that figure in the first place? I
expect it was sucked out of the corporate thumb, just like the amount they
supposedly lose through piracy.

Garrot wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
> Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail XP
> is tied to a single device. Why the **** would we buy retail copies of XP
> if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just backtracking
> and trying to confuse the issue.

they changed the agreement, we bought the os when it came out without
really knowing or understanding all the implications of the licence
agreement; then, as it turned out they changed details of the agreement
to further tighten their control over the os- the result was an
increase in piracy, so, with a billion $ invested in vista, ms has not
been too hardball about xp activation lately, because they realize they
need as many people to buy vista when it comes out, activation is the
poision pill you are buying when you buy vista- if they can fool you by
telling you it's no different than the m&m that came with xp, they will

Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant
bull**** spreading punk like the OP.



"Garrot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:
>
> Personally I trust the author
>> P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bull**** spreading punk like the
>> OP.
>
> Thurott is a shill you dumb ****.

On 14 Oct 2006 17:46:14 -0700, wrote:


>
> they changed the agreement, we bought the os when it came out without
> really knowing or understanding all the implications of the licence
> agreement; then, as it turned out they changed details of the agreement
> to further tighten their control over the os-

The only license I agreed to is the one that is contained on my pre SP1
retail XP disk so they can shove their changes up their arse's.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

> Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant
> bull**** spreading punk like the OP.

As if *anyone* gives a rat's arse what someone who trusts Starforce thinks.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

> Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant
> bull**** spreading punk like the OP.

I'll keep posting these until you wake up and smell the coffee. I give the
below site more credibility than a Microsoft shill site anyday.

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

LOL... Your *proof* first paragraph is an apology for being wrong the
first time and Im supposed to give credibility here? LOL.... I don't fn
think so junior...

Another layer of tinfoil might help.... Ill bet you could dig up plenty of
proof of UFO's and the grassy knoll and every other liberal ******
conspiracy theory ever dreamed up..

You are the classic case of BC bud gone wrong!


Mitch



"Garrot" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:
>
>> Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant
>> bull**** spreading punk like the OP.
>
> I'll keep posting these until you wake up and smell the coffee. I give the
> below site more credibility than a Microsoft shill site anyday.
>
> http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

Ooooooh a tough guy with an authority complex and no sense, what a
combination. Your mommy must be so proud...

You really shouldn't miss your regularly scheduled medications anymore ok.


Buh-Bye loser!

"Garrot" > spewed on himself in message >
> The only license I agreed to is the one that is contained on my pre SP1
> retail XP disk so they can shove their changes up their arse's.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:55 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

> LOL... Your *proof* first paragraph is an apology for being wrong the
> first time and Im supposed to give credibility here? LOL.... I don't fn
> think so junior...

At least they admit their mistake and make a correction. Paul's site just
spreads BS about the XP retail license and sticks to it. Then the tosser
follows it up by insulting computer enthusiasts. Screw him.


> You are the classic case of BC bud gone wrong!

Time for another doobie, thanks for reminding me.