Vista - New EULA for Retail Buyers

Ah,
That's fine.
And most people won't care; but what's happening here is indicative of a
major change in business;(and in society-in general-but that's for other
ng's-lol)
A change in attitude; a change in business practice; and yes; a
fundamental change in one's rights.
When it becomes the customer's responsibilty; to constantly prove that
they are NOT criminals; something is drastically wrong.
MSFT takes the position; with SPP; that their customer's are inherently
criminal.
And when it becomes mandatory;to do business with Microsoft;that one
must allow access; is the day they no longer get my business.
Which; it is doing with Vista.
Not XP yet; but if they do; bye bye; hello nix and that other "fruit". LOL

Jeff

"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:eZmR1Cw8GHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The Bubbles are very nice
>
> On the record I don't mind an OS (any OS) phoning in on startup or on
> login.
>
> I don't mind a teeny-weeny bit.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the support system built in seems so blinking fantastic!
>
> If the OS needs to phone-in to be sure my OS & software is legit and upto
> date well, that's absolutely fine by me.
>
> If it also means that hardware drivers are updated, fine-tuned and dress
> fitted that is equally fine by me.
>
> But there again, i don't think I am paranoid?
>
> (but do wear Paramo!)
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> LOL
>> Yup; every single boot-up-phonin home.
>> Ahh; and correct again; most people don't care.
>> Bubbles are nice though
>>
>> Jeff
>>

Yeh - but will it be encrypted data?

So, um, who's in control of the computer now?

"**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:XMKdnW-6T7YqNKvYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> I'm sure they'll work fine, but if they ever are connected to the
> internet, M$ will be one of, if not *the* first server contacted.
>
> -Mike
>
> "Me Jarhead" <MeJarhead@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2E3BD5FD-B5EC-4336-A70C-FA0DC9B4CFC6@microsoft.com...
>> And what of production computers that are not hooked up to a network.
>>
>> The security checks, if they can't be compleated, will the legal systems
>> still run ?
>>
>> I've got a few systems that are running 24/7 that are NOT allowed to talk
>> to
>> the internet due to the data on them.
>

Or so you believe?

Go for Linux - will it make a change

It is far, far better in my opinion to be open and realistic.

There again, many may prefer to be delusional.

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>operating system, right?
Yup
192.168.0.x


Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
IP, "y" of this machine.

You are responsible for your data

The OS copyright holders have their responsibilities to uphold.

Given the choice as a UK resident I'd rather purchase my OS direct from
MS and avoid any EU "fiddling" on my behalf

(I'd rather trust MS that any EU governmental organisation on the basis
that one respects meritocracy and the other knows not what it is. )


Eddy wrote:
> So, um, who's in control of the computer now?
>

Right now there acting as test equipment, Slave Boxes.
Computer A Talkes to the slave box over a GPIB Cable
Slave box talks to other equipment
Returns Finished Data back to Computer A

Repeat 24/7

Right now there primarly XP Pro boxes, but with Vista comming out soon, I've
go to start looking into what happens when we get new systmes in.


"Eddy" wrote:

> So, um, who's in control of the computer now?
>
> "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
> news:XMKdnW-6T7YqNKvYnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > I'm sure they'll work fine, but if they ever are connected to the
> > internet, M$ will be one of, if not *the* first server contacted.
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > "Me Jarhead" <MeJarhead@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:2E3BD5FD-B5EC-4336-A70C-FA0DC9B4CFC6@microsoft.com...
> >> And what of production computers that are not hooked up to a network.
> >>
> >> The security checks, if they can't be compleated, will the legal systems
> >> still run ?
> >>
> >> I've got a few systems that are running 24/7 that are NOT allowed to talk
> >> to
> >> the internet due to the data on them.
> >
>
>

Steve Urbach wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:16:59 -0700, "**__MIke__**" <Mike@NoSpam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The crappy new EULA aside, you *are* aware that your IP address *is*
>> included in *every* internet transmission made by your computer in any
>> operating system, right?
> Yup
> 192.168.0.x
>
>
> Stupid Remote assistance can't deal with NAT (routers).
> Duh? If IP is private range, Ask for the public IP (or better yet,
> snag it and instruct the user to have port "z" forwarded to the local
> IP, "y" of this machine.
So, you fool yourself and believe that the fooling is 100% effective?

Which part of the thread is this a reply too?

"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:eOGylWw8GHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Or so you believe?
>
> Go for Linux - will it make a change
>
> It is far, far better in my opinion to be open and realistic.
>
> There again, many may prefer to be delusional.

Forgive me Jeff - mea maxima culpa

I always assume intelligence on part of the reader

Jeff wrote:
> Which part of the thread is this a reply too?
>
> "deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
> news:eOGylWw8GHA.3552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Or so you believe?
>>
>> Go for Linux - will it make a change
>>
>> It is far, far better in my opinion to be open and realistic.
>>
>> There again, many may prefer to be delusional.
>