|
|
Posted by J.J. O'Shea on 05/05/06 14:35
On Thu, 4 May 2006 19:26:29 -0400, Donald McDaniel wrote
(in article <0001HW.C07FDBB500490C8BF0488530@news.wildblue.net>):
> On Tue, 2 May 2006 23:26:43 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
> (in article <michelle-539027.23264302052006@news.west.cox.net>):
>
>> In article <0001HW.C07D748A0004D7B5F0407600@news.sasktel.net>,
>> Ruddell <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> You are referring to the so-called "FULL RETAIL" distribution of Pro and
> Home, Michelle, and apparently you are under the impression that these are
> the ONLY types of licenses Microsoft sells.
</shock! horror!> he's actually right about something. </shock! horror!>
There are other licenses available... if you qualify. For example, you can
get XP Pro for $7.50 legally... if you're a student, can prove you're a
student, and haven't already bought a license at that price.
>
> This is simply because of your lack of knowledge about Windows XP in general
> (not uncommon among both camps -- that is, knowledge of the "competing OS".)
> Many XP users are just as ignorant of OS X, which makes both sides pretty
> ignorant when it comes to the competition.
Dude, you're not the only one who knows Windows. Why, a few of us have, for
our sins, Comptia's A+ and Network+ certs or even have (bow down before me,
peons) the mighty MSCE. This does not necessarily make us love Mickeysoft any
more than we did before.
>
>>>
>>> Educational and corporate discount programs mean that some people can
>>> get the software/OS for as little as twenty five dollars...
>
>>
>> If someone were eligible for any of those discounts, very good for them.
>> Many of us aren't.
>
> How many OS X users are "eligible for those discounts" when they purchase
> Office:Mac Academic Licenses for its low price as compared with a "full
> Office:Mac" distribution because few sellers check for proof of eligibility,
> and they would otherwise be ineligible for the discount?
A Mac Office Student & Teachers version _is_ a full version, except that it
can't be upgraded. And anyone who has a student (any level, k-12 and up to
post doc) or a teacher or anyone associated with education down to and
including a school janitor in the household is eligible. This covers just
about anyone who isn't single and in a non-education job.
>
> But of course, OS X users are NEVER hypocrites, are they.
>
> Obviously, neither Mr. Jobs or his sycophants seem to have any concerns about
> user eligibility for Microsoft products.
It's Mickeysoft who doesn't care. They're the ones who speced the eligibility
rules... and who told Apple to not bother enforcing even those lax rules.
>
> Why would you suddenly be concerned, Michelle? Maybe because it calls your
> own so-called "ethics" into question?
>
> But just to be fair, Microsoft does not normally allow any of its
> distributors to fail to check for eligibility for discounts. At least for
> Windows.
I know this. However, they make an exception for Mac Office, 'cause they want
the market share.
>
> But where sales to Apple owners are concerned, Mr. Gates and his sycophants
> seems to forget their own sense of ethics as well as Mr. Jobs and his
> sycophants.
>
> So in this area, one camp is just as "unethical" as the other.
>
> I call it a "draw" on ethics.
I don't.
>
> But back to your comment, Michelle...
>
> Well, do what other XP users with limited budgets do, and purchase a
> so-called generic "FULL OEM" distribution of XP Pro for as little as $125
> (about the same price as OS X, and possibly a little cheaper), or simply use
> a previous non-Upgrade disk of XP which you might possess (as long it is not
> a so-called "pull" which was purchased from a small system builder, which
> will not be able to be Activated with little trouble.
>
> Hint: Use ANY XP non-Upgrade install disk containing SP2 which has not been
> activated for a minimum of 120 days. (120 days is the period during which
> Microsoft Activation servers keep the Activation record, after which it is
> DELETED.)
Gee. So, when I installed XP Pro on my hand-built WinBox and it asked for
activation, and then, when after nine months (that's 270 days) I updated my
video card, and on booting XP Pro screamed that this was a new machine and
demanded to be activated, and I connected to Mickeysoft and activated,
Mickeysoft did _not_ compare my old activation to my new one? Can I expect
Steve 'Monkey Boy' Ballmer to arrive at my house bearing writs 'cause I've
exceeded the number of activations for that license. (Yes, I know, two
activations is okay. This machine was the _second_ activation... and now it's
been activated twice. That's three activations. And, come to think of it, the
first machine has been activated three times. That's _five_. Monkey Boy
Ballmer will be bouncing all over the room.)
>
> However, both OSes have relative faults in at least this area, since the OSX
> edition Retail edition will only install on an Apple with an existing Apple
> OS on it,
Bullshit. I, personally, have installed OS X retail on Macs which I,
personally, have done a complete and total erase of the hard disk. I,
personally, have installed OS X retail on Macs containing hard disks
liberated from WinBoxes, which were NTFS formatted (and therefore had to be
formatted HFS+ before the OS could install) and _never_ had Mac anything on
'em. I, personally, have installed OS X retail on Macs containing hard disks
which I, personally, have removed from their packaging and were brand new,
straight from the store. You're utter, completely, boneheadedly, WRONG on
this.
> and the XP Pro generic, or "FULL OEM" will only install on a PC
> which has NO OS on it (at least that's what they (Microsoft) try to tell us,
> and what many PC (by this I mean not only "Personal Computer", or "IBM
> clone", but I also mean "Politically Correct") commentators try to tell us.
> This is certainly not true in the "real world", since it is a simple matter
> to install ANY XP Pro generic "FULL OEM" disk on any PC which has the
> necessary hardware, or even with an existing XP OS on it, without hacking the
> Install disk in any way, as long as the XP installation has not been
> re-activated during the 120 days before the record is deleted from the
> Activation server. Reinstalling the same CD key will only cause the
> Activation Server to re-create the same record, as long as it is the same
> hardware it was installed on the last time it was activated. However,
> changing the motherboard WILL cause the Activation server to demand that you
> activate the OS via phone, rather than over the Net. If you cannot show the
> Activation support person that your install was allowed under the EULA, they
> will REFUSE to Activate the OS, which will cause you to only be able to run
> the OS In "Safe Mode" once the initial 30 day grace period during which the
> OS can be run normally without activation, effectively making your
> installation pretty worthless.
>
>
All I can say is that the mix of FUD and idiocy in the above segment is truly
breathtaking.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|