Gene Fitz

> The fact is, Microsoft has absolutely NO RIGHT to "license what it does not
> own (I.E. My computer).

Microsoft may not have the right to liscense your property, but it does have
the right to determine how MICROSOFT software is liscensed. You simply have
the choice whether to accept it or not.

> The Windows license is NOT a license of the computer. It is a license to
> USE MIcrosoft's software, as the EULA plainly states (and which EVERY
> Microsoft OS EULA states).

Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are only
leasing the software.

> For Microsoft to actually think it can license OUR PROPERTY (our computers)
> is very arrogant. But I do not believe they are attemting to press this
> claim, since it is plainly legally ridiculous.
>
> Personally, I believe that YOU have misunderstood the terms of the License
> agreement. Have you even READ it? I seriously doubt it. Or you are
> simply unfamiliar with legalese, and should probably take the EULA to a
> lawyer and have HIM interpret it for you.

I fully understand the way it is layed out, I have read it a few times.
Legally, Microsoft can liscense their software that way, in the end, you have
the choice of whether to use it or not.

> The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the EULA being "laid out pretty
> bluntly". Microsoft has been INTENTIONALLY ambiguous in its language in
> the Vista EULA, because their legal department KNOWS there are idiots like
> you who will actually believe that Microsoft has the RIGHT to license our
> property.

Again, Microsoft is not liscensing YOUR computer, it is only liscensing the
Operating system.


> What Microsoft is ACTUALLY doing is making the normal Retail EULA an OEM
> EULA, since that is EXACTLY what this new license is: AN EULA license,
> with the addition of adding a clause which enables us to "transfer our
> license to a second machine ONE time", rather than "NEVER", as the OEM EULA
> license stated, then calling this obscenity a "Retail License".

Call it what you want. But if you want to install the program, you have to
agree to it. Whether you like it or not.

> If you have no problem with it, you are a very strange man. Under the XP
> OEM EULA, one has exactly the SAME rights, except the right to transfer the
> license to a SECOND machine ONE time.
>
> In the first place, the license is NEVER for the machine, and Microsoft
> KNOWS it. Anyone with even a smattering of 1st year Business Law knows
> this. Microsoft simply CAN'T license our property. PERIOD.

Actually, now it is. Microsoft says, if you lease the liscense, you can only
use it on one computer, and can only transfer it once. You may not like it,
but that's the breaks kid.

> This is why the XP license plainly states that the license is for HUMAN
> BEINGS to use Microsoft's software. PERIOD. In other words, WE are the
> "Licensee", NOT the Machine.
>
> >In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could use
> >the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using it
> >on one computer at a time.
> >The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only use
> >on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP, Gateway,
> >and other computer companies started making the restore function a partition
> >of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
> >that would only work on the computer it came with.
>
> IDIOT, can't you see that this "new license" is EXACTLY like the OEM
> license? And at RETAIL Prices, rather than OEM prices (which were over a
> $100 cheaper than retail prices)?
>
> Microsoft is STICKING IT TO YOU, stud.
>
> Wake up!!! Smell the coffee!!!

Again, old news.

>
>
> >This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer, which
> >changes the ball game.
>
> In other words, Microsoft is arrogantly claiming the ability to license OUR
> PROPERTY!!! I really don't believe even Microsoft is that arrogant.
> HOW could you be so BLIND!!!

Come on now, I just gave you the whole schpeel. I layed it out for you, no
confustion in what I said. I understand completely what I typed. I know the
stipulations, and since I don't expect to load the same software on several
different computers, it is not an issue for me.

> >t tells you that you can use it one one computer, but
> >you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another computer
> >only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
> >transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
> >the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
> >upgraded old computer"
>
> IDIOT!! That's not the issue AT ALL!!!
>
> >the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
> >etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
> >may constitute a new computer.
>
> How could a Hard drive be a "new computer"? What ignorance!!!
> How can a CPU by itself be a "new computer"? Apparently, you have NO IDEA
> just what DOES constitute a computer, much less a "new computer".
>
> In my computer classes, when I was in school, I was taught that a
> "computer" is composed of SEVERAL elements: 1) CPU 2) RAM (internal
> storage) 3) I/O and 4) External storage (HD). NONE of these by themselves
> constitute "a computer". Perhaps, you should take a few Computer Science
> classes. It will certainly be a revelation to you.

I am well aware of how a computer works. I have not only worked on computers
since my cute little Tandy basic, but I have had PCs since the days of the
386sx. I have upgraded, built, and re-built many computers. What exactly a
computer consists of is no secret to me. And correct, changing a hard drive
may not constitute a new computer, however, if you have ever had to change
hard drives in XP, you may have noticet the requirement to re-activate. Even
XP sees it as enough of a hardware change to require it. NOW that being said,
Microsoft may be laxed on that idea.
But make no mistake, if you upgrade you main board and processor, that is no
longer the computer you originally loaded windows on to. Don't fool yourself.
You are running a different computer. for all intents and purposes, you may
as well loaded it onto another complete computer. Again, you just have a new
computer in an old case.
If you loaded XP on a P2, and upgrade to a Pentium D board and processor,
guess what? It is not the computer you loaded XP onto. I understand that it
may look the same, but it is not.
>
> >I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
> >200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update to a
> >Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and a
> >PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is it
> >still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
> >but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
> >Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
> >situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
> >computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.
>
> All of this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
> Which is, ONLY GOVERNMENTS have the right to "license our property".
>
> Now, in the U.K, one must get a license for each television he owns. But
> the license is NOT issued by a manufacturer. It is licensed by the
> GOVERNMENT.
> >Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are starting
> >to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
> >It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80% or
> >more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages.
>
> Have you EVER bought an OEM license before? it is over a HUNDRED DOLLARS
> CHEAPER than the Retail license. IN the case of XP professional, one may
> purchase an OEM copy of XP professional for less than $140, while a Retail
> copy costs $299. So that's a $150 difference in price.
>
> Yet Microsoft has INCREASED the price of its Retail license, and
> additionally, made the terms of the Retail license the SAME as the OEM
> license formerly was, and additionally tried to CHANGE the meaning of the
> license itself. NEVER has a manufacturer attempted to LICENSE our private
> property. Yet THIS IS EXACTLY what Microsoft is trying to do, if you are
> correct.
>
> How can you stand by and let this happen?
>
> > knowing this, that
> >80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation. You
> >will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the restore
> >system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
> >anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be, for
> >the most, a transparent change.
>
> Sir, not all of us can afford to "Buy a new computer loaded with Vista".
> Many (more than you think) build our own machines. (UNLIKE YOU, we DO know
> a little about computers).
>
> So Microsoft just leaves the poor out in the cold? I feel sorry for you,
> sir. You have no compassion, no concern for your fellow human being. I'm
> sure Microsoft loves people like you. You'll just shell it out, and shell
> it out, never asking a question, never considering what you are doing to
> legal precedent in the United States.

Look, I have an OEM computer right now. I payed the price for it. It isn't a
screamer, but it runs vista well.
Now look, building a computer yourself is admirable. I have done it, and I
will be upgrading this one before all is said and done. the difference is
that I have a plan, and I know how to get to the point where I am ready to
load the new OS. Using the RC Version of Vista, I am setting my goal at a
minimum 4.5 or 5.0 experience index.
Before I buy Vista, I will be at that index. See, the beauty of doing that,
is that this way, I know I am well within the Vista standards, and well above
the grade. Any upgrades I need after that will be small things like memory,
or possibly video.
This way, even as poor as I am, I will be able to put vista on my computer,
and not have to worry about not having enough processor, or main board to
handle what I need to.

>
> >People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..
>
> MOLE HILL? The usurpation of our basic HUMAN RIGHTS a "MOLE HILL"? How
> sad, sir. How sad for you and those like you.
>
> And HOW DARE YOU?
>
> Donald
> -------------------------------------------
Donald, bottom line, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE! Load it, don't load it! No one is
putting a gun to your head, no one is twisting you arm. If you want to play
the Microsoft game, you have to play it by the Microsoft rules. The Bright
side is that if you are running XP, they will still be supporting XP, from
what I understand SP3 will be coming out in 2008, maybe even 2007. You are
not completely out of options.
The Microsoft lawyers have written the contract, whether you choose to
accept it or not is all you bro. But they seem to have put the foot down.
Accept it or not. Complain if you want, but complain to them. I know the
rules, and I like the OS. I am willing to play by them. and if I decide that
I no longer like the rules, I still have XP on a partition ready to restore.
Kind of a win/win for me.
But I will spend the money, I will load it on this computer and this
computer only like the EULa stipulates. I don't forsee myself getting another
computer any time soon, but if I do, I will probably just get an OEM package
that already has Vista on it.