|
|
Posted by Donald McDaniel on 05/05/06 23:29
On Fri, 5 May 2006 04:35:08 -0700, J.J. O'Shea wrote
(in article <0001HW.C080B0AC01D2779FF0386530@news1.news.adelphia.net>):
> 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.
>
>
--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|