Posted by Donald McDaniel on 05/06/06 00:26

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.

I too purchased such a license from a third-party distributor. Since I'd
never installed Office on OS X before, I wouldn't know whether that license
can be used to upgrade Office on a Mac, and I submit to the authority of
users on this matter. Please accept my apology for being without knowledge
in this area, and I humbly beg everyone's forgiveness about this, in
sack-cloth and ashes.

>
>>
>> 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.

I had heard this rumour even while a Wintel user. However, I never really
believed it, having read the Office EULA in the past.

>
>>
>> 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.

This certainly is possible, knowing Microsoft.

>
>>
>> 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,

Something MUST have been changed in the box other than replacing the video
card (which is minus ONE point, not TEN, after which the machine IS required
to be activated) for the activation mechanism to trigger.

I too have installed the same license on the same machine many times, after
even a MOTHERBOARD change, and the mechanism never kicked in. Microsoft must
have made the activation servers more strict since the last time I activated
an XP license, if you are to believed.

But I have NEVER been asked to activate XP, unless I installed the OS
"clean", so your experience is certainly not mine.

By the way, licensees are allowed to activate the same license on the same
box as MANY TIMES as is necessary. The newest EULAs, however, require you to
purchase a new license when the motherboard (logic board to Apple users) is
changed out. Other than that, the activation software goes by the 10-point
system originally created for the license.


> 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.

OK, I will give you that. I admit to my confusion about this matter. I
guess my brother is not such a "Mac Maven" as he tries to make himself out to
be.

In addition, I do apologize for spreading "FUD" in this area. But I do not
admit that it was done malevolently, since it was done in ignorance. I do
tend to speak out rather quickly, without properly researching the matter.
This is one of my weaknesses, and for this I certainly apologize.

>
>> 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.

Well, I do remember ONCE when I bought a new motherboard (logic board to
Apple users), that I was not asked to activate via phone, but the activation
went normally via the Internet with no problems, within seconds (the usual
means of activation). I have no idea why this happened. I had always been
told that such an activation would trip the activation wizard, and I would
have to "phone home" to do the activation (this was the chatter in the
newsgroups I was accessing at the time). You know about "chatter" in
newsgroups, I am sure. Much of it is truly "FUD" and "idiocy", as you say.

>>
>>
>
> All I can say is that the mix of FUD and idiocy in the above segment is truly

> breathtaking.

NO, sir, every word I wrote about XP has been true in my OWN experience. I
can't speak about YOURS, but it has been mine.

However, I do admit to an amount of ignorance about OS X, since I've only
been using it about a year and a half. And I will admit to ignorance about
XP, since I've only been a user, and not a "system builder".

However, I have NEVER (that I can think of) intentionally spread FUD about
ANYTHING, and have ALWAYS attempted to share only my own personal experiences
with computers. But like all men, I fall short of my own expectations from
time to time. People like you really get me steamed, I admit, and if I get
steamed enough, there's no telling what will come from my keyboard. This
point has YET to be reached in any of these newsgroups.

NOW, HOW MANY Apple fanatics will speak in public with such honesty about
themselves?

Will YOU admit to ANY amount of ignorance about XP? And will YOU publicly
apologize for YOUR ignorance once you are convinced of it? For that matter,
will you publicly admit to ANY amount of ignorance about ANYTHING, at ANY
TIME?

I seriously doubt it. Please prove me wrong, sir, since St. Paul tells me
that love does not hold on to "evil" thoughts, and I certainly don't want to
hold any "evil" thoughts about my neighbors, one of which you are. If I have
them, I want to root them out totally. I firmly believe I've done the best I
am able to up till now to do this, and I will continue to do it until Christ
returns for His servants.

(By the way, I CANNOT divorce my Christianity from my behavior in the
so-called "real world", so your admonitions to the contrary will be wasted
and fruitless.)

Call me what what you will, sir, but NEVER call me a liar.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

[Back to original message]