Donald L McDaniel

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:31:01 -0800, Gene Fitz
<GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Donald,
>
> First of all, I have to apologise to you. Many times, I get frustrated
>with a topic, and say mean things. It really isn't my intention to offend.
> As I have read through these posts, and as I have heard the complaints,
>my replies, I know may sound un-sympathetic. That is really not my intent
>either.
> I understand the complaints. I understand that the new rules and
>regulations can be more than just annoying, they can seem down right unfair.
>I do sympathize with you on that. This will be a step back for many power
>users. I can only pray that if the Microsoft rule makers read these posts and
>that they change their EULA stipulations to a base that is more "twiget
>friendly."
> I do, however believe that though the game may be in the later stages,
>it isn't over yet, there may still be changes made.

Microsoft has recently published its EULA's for Vista, publically. Once
they publish these, they seldom back down on them. So I have no doubts
that these are indeed the final form of the Vista EULA's.

> But as it looks right now, as the EULA reads now, Microsoft has layed
>the rules down, and whether we agree with their intent or now, if we are to
>use the program, we have to do it on their terms, for better, or for worse.

This is just not so, Gene. I don't know about the U.K., but here in the
States, consumers have the right to disagree with the sales terms of
products. We can do this in a Public court of Law, even as high as our
Supreme Court.

>Right now, they are making the rules, and the stand is "If you don't like it,
>don't buy it."

This is rather arrogant of them, wouldn't you say? Are they really THAT
rich and powerful?

Remember King George III? He was extremely rich and powerful, yet we here
told him just exactly how little power he really had, once we made our
minds up.

> I know I have said that over and over, but it isn't because I am trying
>to fight with you, or anyone else, but because those are the options
>Microsoft has layed out before us.

This is a scenario which will play out in a court of Law, I am sure.
So Microsoft may have layed out the "options" ("Options"? What a
ridiculous word to use in this instance? WHAT "Options"? Use it or not?

Right.

> For the record, I do agree with you. I do believe that XP's
>stipulations were better, because you could keep the program as yours

Sorry, Gene, but this is not so. Even the XP EULA called a sale of the
software the sale of a LICENSE to use the software, and expressly stated
that Microsoft owned the software once.

This is a problem with ALL "shrink-wrap licenses", not just Microsoft's.
They deny the user "fair use".

>and and use it on what ever computer you are using. It was easier to do major
>upgrades and system changes under XP. I agree with you, and many other
>computer information sources like ZDNET who claims that the new EULA will
>alienate many power users and "twigets," who, honestly are the life blood of
>the computer technology companies (Gamers and computer enthusiasts). The new
>EULA is not fair to them.

Nor is it "fair" to ANYONE but Microsoft and its stockholders.

> As I understand that for most, users, the OEM users, the "My computer
>came ready to go with Vista pre-loaded." It will be a transparent change. And
>I do believe that Microsoft, with Vista, has catered more to these people
>than the people who would rather spend the money for custom built systems and
>personal touch performance.

Not all OEM editions are sold with new machine, Gene. Haven't you ever
heard of "Generic OEM's"? These products may be sold with ANY "necessary"
piece of hardware, even a power chord or mouse, not just a complete system.

The facts are, Microsoft has just gotten EXTREMELY greedy this time, and
put it down in writing.

> As far as the Linux and OSX statement, that was kind of rude of me. As
>a Linux user myself, honestly, I wouldn't want to throw Linux on someone who
>isn't an experienced linux user. Windows, love it or hate it, is more user
>friendly. Which is why it is the most popular OS for PC based systems. I
>can't really talk about Windows on MAC, because I am not a Mac Power user.

Nor am I a Mac Power-user. I have OS X on my Apple Intel PC for a simple
reason: IT is impossible to update the Apple firmware if OS X is not
installed on the HD. If it were possible to install the Apple firmware in
a way which would not require OS X's presence on the HD, I assure you,
Windows would be installed as my exclusive OS.

>I
>only use a MAC in the studio, and it is only used for Pro-tools.
> I just get a little frustrated with all the "linux props" thrown into a
>Windows news group. Some of these guys seem like they should be getting
>advertisement money for the mentions. But hey, that's just me.
> Donald, I think my point is that I am not trying to create hard
>feelings.

I doubt seriously whether there are any "hard feelings" against you, Gene.
Most who post to the Usenet are paper tigers, who forget what they posted
the minute they click on "Send". So don't feel as if you are being
attacked personally. I doubt that you are. I certainly am not attacking
you personally. I happen to disagree with your opinions of the
immutability of the Vista EULA. And I am certainly not alone. But we are
all adults here, my friend (hopefully). We can disagree peacefully, like
all mature adults, and still remain friends.


>I know I have been labeled in the news groups as a "Gung ho
>Microsoft supporter," and in some instances I may be.

I am certainly not a "gung ho" Microsoft supporter. While I do like
Microsoft products (I also like their keyboards and mice) I do NOT like
Microsoft's business philosophy. How such a fine OS can come out of such
an evil corporation, I do not know. But it is a fact.

>But please understand
>that it isn't always that I agree with everything that is layed out on the
>EULA. It is just that I understand that these are the rules they have layed
>out and if I am going to use Vista, I have to do it by their rules.

This is probably a result of living under a political system which is still
theoretically ruled by a group of autocrats. I certainly respect British
respect for Law. Americans also share that respect. But we also have a
rebellious streak a mile wide. And we have a history (as you well know) of
rebelling against unfair laws, either publically, or privately.

>And I am trying to point out that all complaints aside this is the way it will be.

This is what you believe. Good. It is good to have beliefs. Faith is a
good thing to have. But only faith in God is immutable. Any other faith
can change.

Many are unhappy with Microsoft concerning this criminally greedy EULA.

Many will rebel against this EULA, and when hacks are available, which
allow them to have fair use of their legally purchased products, they will
rebel privately, to the further loss of respect for Law in the States.

Hopefully, a movement will begin to address this in a court of Law, where
the users may receive redress for their grievances, thus preserving a
healthy respect for Law, as is proper for civilized human beings (if that
is what we truly are.)

>Very Respectfully
>Gene


Donald
-------------------------------------------