Vista license agreement is a joke

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

Garrot wrote:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit
hard on that single issue alone

wrote:
> Garrot wrote:
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://
>
> I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit
> hard on that single issue alone
>


http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.

Mitch


"mls067" > wrote in message >
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote:

> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.
>
> Mitch

Yea, just lay down and take it up the arse like you always do.

Mitch_A wrote:

> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.

I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point
seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment
of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or
product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't
effect me so why do I care".

jason moyer wrote:
> Mitch_A wrote:
>
>> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.
>
> I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point
> seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment
> of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or
> product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't
> effect me so why do I care".

I don't think this article is relevant to most of us, but as you say to
the majority of Windows users who wouldn't know a graphics card from a
processor let alone open the machine up.

The article is correct for most users and any general hysteria about
Vista licensing is unfounded, although for those with the nouse to
update their hardware on a regular basis it may be a different story...

On 14 Oct 2006 11:09:09 -0700, jason moyer wrote:


> I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point
> seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment
> of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or
> product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't
> effect me so why do I care".

Email him and tell him what you think of his article, I did. The article is
BS anyway. Here is what the XP Retail EULA says. Where does it say XP is
tied to the first PC it is installed to? It clearly doesn't.

4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
completely remove the Product from the former Workstation
Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The
transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms.
No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
commercial hosting services to third parties with the
Product.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote:

> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.
>
> Mitch

Yea, like this article does. As I told you, Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft
shill. Smelling that coffee yet?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

Crispy Critter wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote:
>
>> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****.
>>
>> Mitch
>
> Yea, like this article does. As I told you, Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft
> shill. Smelling that coffee yet?
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

Hey, where did Mitch go ???