|
|
Posted by Donald McDaniel on 05/04/06 23:01
On Tue, 2 May 2006 12:28:13 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-4EE279.12281302052006@news.west.cox.net>):
> In article <0001HW.C07CF1720056A5A7F0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
> Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Yes. I buy computers to run useful applications for me, not to
>>>> indulge in OS flamewars.
>>
>> In the first place, one does not have to "spend $200", since XP
>> Professional can be purchased for much less.
>
> Professional lists for $299; you can get more than a third off? Home
> edition lists for $199, and the lowest I've seen it for sale has been in
> the 190s.
Michelle, since you've probably never purchased XP Pro, you wouldn't know,
being part of the "Mac Fanatics" club.
But a so-called "Full OEM" version of XP Pro can be purchased for the same
price as OS X (approx. $125). Unlike Apple, which will not allow its OS to
be distributed as an OEM, Microsoft DOES sell "third-party OEM" discs of XP
Pro. They are sold to system builders, who may distribute them with almost
any piece of necessary hardware (including a power cord).
The ONLY differences between a so-called "FULL RETAIL" disc and a "FULL OEM"
disc are :
1) A FULL RETAIL will do an IN-PLACE UPGRADE, and may be installed on any
Intel machine, at any time, as many times as are necessary (as long as it's
only "Activated" on one machine at once), while a "FULL OEM" may only be
installed on ONE machine, and only that one machine, as many times as are
necessary necessary, although it may be "Activated" as many times as
necessary.
2) To enforce the OEM license terms, the OEM disc will NOT perform an
IN-PLACE UPGRADE of an existing installation of a previous Windows 9x OS.
That is, it must be installed "clean" each time it is installed. It IS
possible to get around this IF an existing install of 9x is on the machine,
and the file system is at least FAT32 with a minimum of 3 GB (plus) free.
But it STILL must be installed "clean" each time it is installed, and ONLY on
the "original machine".
While the last version of the XP OEM EULA allowed ANY Hardware upgrades or
repairs necessary to keep the original machine in working order (including a
change of motherboards), and were very ambiguous about what constituted the
"original computer", or just what would make it a "new" one), the NEWEST
EULAS specifically state that a change of the original motherboard will make
the "original computer" a "new" one, and therefore, would not covered by the
original OEM License, thus necessitating a new license.
3) A FULL RETAIL license may be transferred to ANYONE (once), WITHOUT also
transferring the machine along with it, as long as all copies of the OS are
deleted from the machine(s) it is currently installed on, including all
archival copies of the Installation disc (which must be transferred to the
new owner or physically destroyed), while a FULL OEM license may ONLY be
transferred to another user IF it is transferred WITH the original computer
it was purchased for and originally installed on, as well as all existing
installations and archival copies of the Install disc.
>
>> And do NOT believe the "theory" that only a "Full Retail XP Pro" will
>> install and run via BootCamp on an Intel Mac. This is just FUD
>> from ignorant people, or nay-sayers in the Apple camp.
>
> Do you know this for a fact, or is just more of you're blowing smoke?
>
Having installed XP MANY, MANY times using both Retail and OEM copies since
its Beta days, I know for a FACT that as LONG as the OEM is a so-called "FULL
OEM", it WILL install on ANY Intel-based machine quite easily, as long as
there is at least 64MB memory and a CD/DVD drive is on the machine and the
drive is accessible and available, and there is at least 3 GB of free
(unallocated) HD space available. A few users have even done the
installation with LESS memory and HD space available. I never would even
attempt it, however, since such a machine would run XP VERY SLUGGISHLY.
By the way, Michelle, it should be "your smoke-blowing" (a possessive
pronoun), not "you're blowing smoke" (a verb phrase, meaning "you are
blowing smoke").
>>> That second sentence is totally unresponsive and irrelevant to my
>>> question.
>>
>> And how was his answer "totally unresponsive and irrelevant"?
>
> Because my question had nothing to do with OS wars.
Nor did his response have anything to do with "OS wars". By the way, if you
REALLY think they are "wars", you should be bombing XP users, rather than
complaining about them in a newsgroup where you want only your "friends" to
post.
Stay in "church", and your words will only reach the choir, but stand on a
street corner and shout them, and they will reach thousands in a day.
>
>> From my way of thinking, it makes perfect sense.
>
> I'm not surprised.
>
>> Buy a knife to cut things with, buy a computer to run the software
>> you want to run.
>
> He was advocating buying a chain saw where a butter knife would do.
>
>> But from my perspective, buying an over-priced computer (great as it
>> is) just to run OS X is just as "financially wasteful".
>
> Well, fortunately, the Mac is not overpriced, and furthermore, people
> buy it to actually do things, not just to run the OS.
>
Such an idiotic response is not deserving of a response from any rational
person, Michelle. I thought you were "better" than that. But, I guess not.
>>> I just can't see any newsreader being worth $229.
>>
>> You're right about one thing, Michelle. You just can't see another
>> person's point of view.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Which only means that you're completely without compassion,
>
> Wrong.
>
>> like the rest of the Mac fanatics.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> You're certainly in "good company", aren't you?.
>
> Yup, I am in good company. So why don't you go back to
> <news:alt.i-am-better-than-you-because-i-am-a-eastern-orthodox-christian.
> org> and peddle your vitriol there?
>
>
Michelle, if you think THAT was "vitriolic" (as you call it), why don't you
look again at YOUR response to my response to the OP?
Hypocrite!!!
At least I can recognize when I am being "vitriolic". Apparently, you and
other Mac fanatics can't (or don't want to).
However, I have YET to be intentionally vitriolic in ANY post of mine. Some
of them MIGHT "look vitriolic", but that is to be expected when I (or other)
Christians make statements contrary to what you want to hear.
Let's face it, Michelle: you and the rest of the Mac Fanatics are simply
anti-Christians, and anytime ANY of us make ANY statement about our faith (or
our personal likes or dislikes), YOU are going to call them "vitriolic", for
one reason or another, no matter WHAT we may say about ANYTHING.
I learned long ago that people are strange. They will love whom them will,
and they will hate whomever they choose to hate. So go right ahead and treat
me with hatred, my friend. If I can't endure your persecutions, I won't be
able to endure anyone else's. And if I can't love you as my sister, I won't
be able to love my Creator.
But I guarantee you, I will continue to speak the truth from my heart, as I
am commanded to by St. Paul, no matter what.
--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|