Vista - Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased

ML wrote:
> Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>
> 1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
> 2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
> XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
> hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).
>
> And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.

Have you any proof that Vista will have a generic OEM version?

Alias
>
> This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey, you
> didn't have to shell out as much initially either........
>
> "Robert Robinson" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:%23vi0MVw9GHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We make a point of trying to keep up with new technology and have
>> installed and tested all of the MSDN available beta releases of Vista
>> including #5744. Vista currently runs reliably, but I have yet to see that
>> it has any advantages over XP/Windows 2003 Server.
>> There are many obvious disadvantages:
>> 1. It is a large and inefficient operating system that requires high
>> performance computer hardware.
>> 2. The "security features" are a major blunder. Their only purpose appears
>> to be the creation of a maximum amount of user annoyance.
>> 3. Microsoft has made still another change in driver software
>> specifications. It may be a long time, if ever, that compatible drivers
>> are available for many devices. This is especially true for some of the
>> more exotic, professional level devices; for example, high quality sound
>> converters.
>> 4. Vista contains a significant amount of what qualifies as spyware. I
>> strongly object to any software that "calls home". Regardless of the
>> claims of Microsoft and other software vendors that their eavesdropping is
>> harmless, this process always has the potential for considerable abuse.
>> 5. Automated updating, especially if it is forced on a consumer, is not
>> wise because of the well known problem that "software fixes" frequently
>> cause unintended problems.
>> 6. Microsoft appears to have gone overboard in meeting the desires of the
>> MPAA and RIAA as opposed to supporting flexible, state of the art, user
>> friendly technology.
>> 7. The End User License Agreement places burdensome and unnecessary
>> restrictions on the consumer.
>>
>>
>
>

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:59:01 -0700, Gene Fitz
<GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>
>> 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.

Actually, we AREN'T "leasing" the software. Our purchase of a copy of a
Windows OS is just that: A PURCHASE.

>
>> 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!

This, sir is NOT about an operating system. It is about the fact that
Microsoft is attempting to usurp governmental powers, which it does NOT
have, to license OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY. Don't be deceived, sir.

>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.

In the first place, Microsoft does not make corporate law. The Government
does. For them to attempt to make such law is vile and criminal.

I will NOT be complaining to THEM, sir. That is like the hen trying to
complain to the council of foxes about the foxes who are invading their
henhouse every night.

I will be complaining to my Senators and Congressmen, as well as to the
State Attorney Generals' Office, and the U.S. Attorney's Office.

And I will be complaining to the American Public for their failure to stop
this criminal behaviour. We are ultimately responsible for Microsoft's
criminal behavior. If people like you let them get away with this, who
knows what crimes they will try to commit against us?

> 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.

Idiot!!
There won't BE any "OEM Packages" of Vista!!!
Don't you get it yet???

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:41:55 +0800, "ML" <ml@ml.ml> wrote:

>Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>
>1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
>2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
>XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
>hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).

Don't you get it yet? There won't BE any "OEM versions", for all intents
and purposes, since the new Vista "Retail" License is EXACTLY the same as
the old OEM License for XP, with the addition of the Licensee's ability to
move the software to a single new computer without breaking the terms of
the EULA.


>
>And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.

As I keep trying to tell you people, there effectively WON'T be an "OEM"
version.

>This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey, you
>didn't have to shell out as much initially either........

You haven't seen "expensive" yet, till you try to move your "Retail" copy
of Vista Ultimate to a SECOND new machine.

You will be sorry then that you were complacent now.

But don't complain that you weren't warned in advance.

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

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:29 +0200, Alias~- <notever@aolhell.net> wrote:

>ML wrote:
>> Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>>
>> 1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
>> 2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
>> XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
>> hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).
>>
>> And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.
>
>Have you any proof that Vista will have a generic OEM version?
>
>Alias

"Generic OEM License" for Vista? How laughable.
The NEW Vista "RETAIL" license is EXACTLY like the OLD "Generic OEM"
license of XP, with the exception of being able to move the software to a
SINGLE new machine, which was not allowed under the OLD "Generic OEM XP"
license.

So Microsoft is certainly NOT giving us any reason to purchase a Retail
version, since even an OEM (if one is even issued) can install the OS on a
machine without an existing OS, other than the possibility that ONLY RETAIL
licenses will be available, and we will HAVE to purchase a Retail license,
since there will be NO OTHER type of license for the general public.

Personally, I believe Microsoft is attempting to do away with so-called
"Generic OEM" licenses, and require the sale of ONLY "Retail" licenses.

Hopefully, I am wrong, and Microsoft WILL issue a Generic OEM license with
the OLD EULA, at a greatly-reduced price. But I seriously doubt this.

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

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:49:29 +0200, Alias~- <notever@aolhell.net> wrote:
>
>> ML wrote:
>>> Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>>>
>>> 1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
>>> 2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
>>> XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
>>> hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).
>>>
>>> And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.
>> Have you any proof that Vista will have a generic OEM version?
>>
>> Alias
>
> "Generic OEM License" for Vista? How laughable.
> The NEW Vista "RETAIL" license is EXACTLY like the OLD "Generic OEM"
> license of XP, with the exception of being able to move the software to a
> SINGLE new machine, which was not allowed under the OLD "Generic OEM XP"
> license.
>
> So Microsoft is certainly NOT giving us any reason to purchase a Retail
> version, since even an OEM (if one is even issued) can install the OS on a
> machine without an existing OS, other than the possibility that ONLY RETAIL
> licenses will be available, and we will HAVE to purchase a Retail license,
> since there will be NO OTHER type of license for the general public.
>
> Personally, I believe Microsoft is attempting to do away with so-called
> "Generic OEM" licenses, and require the sale of ONLY "Retail" licenses.
>
> Hopefully, I am wrong, and Microsoft WILL issue a Generic OEM license with
> the OLD EULA, at a greatly-reduced price. But I seriously doubt this.
>
> Donald
> -------------------------------------------

Time will tell. The only certainty now is uncertainty.

Alias

Actually, as soons as I saw the new Vista EULA, I began my testing of
Ubuntu.......
"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
news:2nnsj2p16j08rlj903mg2mbvg379danj3p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:41:55 +0800, "ML" <ml@ml.ml> wrote:
>
>>Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>>
>>1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
>>2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version
>>of
>>XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
>>hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).
>
> Don't you get it yet? There won't BE any "OEM versions", for all intents
> and purposes, since the new Vista "Retail" License is EXACTLY the same as
> the old OEM License for XP, with the addition of the Licensee's ability to
> move the software to a single new computer without breaking the terms of
> the EULA.
>
>
>>
>>And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.
>
> As I keep trying to tell you people, there effectively WON'T be an "OEM"
> version.
>
>>This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey,
>>you
>>didn't have to shell out as much initially either........
>
> You haven't seen "expensive" yet, till you try to move your "Retail" copy
> of Vista Ultimate to a SECOND new machine.
>
> You will be sorry then that you were complacent now.
>
> But don't complain that you weren't warned in advance.
>
> Donald
> -------------------------------------------

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:00:15 +0800, "ML" <ml@ml.ml> wrote:

>Actually, as soons as I saw the new Vista EULA, I began my testing of
>Ubuntu.......
>"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@wildblue.invalid> wrote in message
>news:2nnsj2p16j08rlj903mg2mbvg379danj3p@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:41:55 +0800, "ML" <ml@ml.ml> wrote:
>>
>>>Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as
>>>
>>>1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
>>>2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version
>>>of
>>>XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
>>>hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).
>>
>> Don't you get it yet? There won't BE any "OEM versions", for all intents
>> and purposes, since the new Vista "Retail" License is EXACTLY the same as
>> the old OEM License for XP, with the addition of the Licensee's ability to
>> move the software to a single new computer without breaking the terms of
>> the EULA.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.
>>
>> As I keep trying to tell you people, there effectively WON'T be an "OEM"
>> version.
>>
>>>This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey,
>>>you
>>>didn't have to shell out as much initially either........
>>
>> You haven't seen "expensive" yet, till you try to move your "Retail" copy
>> of Vista Ultimate to a SECOND new machine.
>>
>> You will be sorry then that you were complacent now.
>>
>> But don't complain that you weren't warned in advance.
>>
>> Donald
>> -------------------------------------------
>

At least I can always fall back on OS X, which is a TREMENDOUS OS, except
for its absolutely ****ty GUI.

But my machine is an Apple Intel PC (iMac 17"), and I can use pretty much
whichever OS I want to on it, from OS X, to Windows XP (or Vista), to
various flavors of Unix, Linux, or Sun's offerings.

Most Windows users are going to be FORCED by necessity to use Vista's
"Retail" license which is actually an "OEM" license, but renamed "Retail".

I can't however, use Mac OS 9 or a previous version of the Mac OS.

Too bad.

At least it had a decent GUI.

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

Then please use MAC OS9, use Ubuntu, I can give you links to Suse, Slack, and
about a half dozen other Linux Distros. they work well, I have Ubuntu on one
of my PCs.
You can rock the linux and the OS9 all day. Me, I will still have my beloved
linux unit but for the real stuff, I will stick with Vista. :-)

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:43:02 -0700, Gene Fitz
<GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Then please use MAC OS9, use Ubuntu, I can give you links to Suse, Slack, and
>about a half dozen other Linux Distros. they work well, I have Ubuntu on one
>of my PCs.
>You can rock the linux and the OS9 all day. Me, I will still have my beloved
>linux unit but for the real stuff, I will stick with Vista. :-)
>

I love Vista, my friend, and will more than probably purchase a Retail
Upgrade copy of Vista Ultimate, since I have a full version of XP Pro.

This will save me at least a hundred bucks off Microsoft's inflated Retail
price for Vista Ultimate.

If I don't have that kind of money immediately, and a Generic OEM edition
is released, I will purchase that, if it's less than the price of a Retail
Upgrade edition..

By the way, Linux is a poor excuse for a desktop OS.
AS are Mac OS9 and OS X.

The fact is, I am a confirmed user of Windows, and have used every version
of Windows since Windows 1.0. Before that, I used MS DOS (as well as IBM
DOS), from 1.0 on up till it was discontinued. Before that, I used CP/M,
and IBM JCL on an IBM 360. I've used Geos, Atari OS, Commodore 128 Basic,
Commodore 64 Basic, Commodore Vic 20 Basic (8k Basic), Adam TOS, 4k Basic,
IBM ROM Basic, Tandy OS, etc. I've installed and used several versions of
Linux.

And I have all the links to various Linux distro's that I need, thank you
very much, as well as more than a few copies of various Linux distros, as
well as copies of OS 9 and OS X..

Thanks for your advice, though...

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

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.
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.
Right now, they are making the rules, and the stand is "If you don't like it,
don't buy it."
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.
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 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.
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.
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. 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 know I have been labeled in the news groups as a "Gung ho
Microsoft supporter," and in some instances I may be. 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. And I am
trying to point out that all complaints aside this is the way it will be.

Very Respectfully
Gene