G
Grinder
TeGGeR® said:
Kudos to that supplier for put you first.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kudos to that supplier for put you first.
T
TeGGeR®
Kudos to that supplier for put you first.
Did he ever. But I paid well for that: $400 Cdn.
At least I cam claim it as a business expense. And it beats $8,000 for the
brand-new version of the program.
S
SMS
TeGGeR® said:Did he ever. But I paid well for that: $400 Cdn.
At least I cam claim it as a business expense. And it beats $8,000 for the
brand-new version of the program.
Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it is.
When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada (do
you have that there?).
I
Ian Singer
SMS said:Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it is.
When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada (do
you have that there?).
What would he use as grounds?
Remembering you do not buy software but a license to use it and no one
guarantees compatibility with hardware that had not been invented yet.
Ian Singer
--
=========================================================================
See my homepage at http://www.iansinger.com
hosted on http://www.1and1.com/?k_id=10623894
All genealogy is stored in TMG from http://www.whollygenes.com
Charts and searching using TNG from http://www.tngsitebuilding.com
I am near Toronto Canada, can I tell where you are from your reply?
=========================================================================
S
SMS
CBFalconer said:The IBM T30 Thinkpad is available certified used at IBM.com for
about $500. It has both serial and parallel ports.
The used IBM T30 only comes with a three month warranty, as well as
being out of stock because it's so popular.
I bought a used Dell D610 that has both ports and it came with two years
left on the three year warranty. These are very popular with Linux
users, and users of applications and peripherals that require those
ports. Not built as well as a Thinkpad though.
The original poster needed an AMD based machine.
R
Rod Speed
Ian Singer said:SMS wrote
What would he use as grounds?
That their stupid protection scheme had produced
goods that arent of merchantable quality.
Remembering you do not buy software but a license to use it
That is just plain wrong, whatever they claim.
and no one guarantees compatibility with hardware that had not been invented yet.
Irrelevant to their stupid protection scheme.
They can obviously provide a mechanism to remove that.
T
TeGGeR®
Send an invoice for the $400 CDN to the company whose CAD program it
is.
When they refuse to pay, sue them in small claims court in Canada (do
you have that there?).
Yes, we have the same sorts of courts you have in the States, albeit known
by different names.
However, the CAD program maker never guaranteed the program would work with
hardware that might be designed ten years hence, so I think my case here
might be a little thin...
S
SMS
TeGGeR® said:Yes, we have the same sorts of courts you have in the States, albeit known
by different names.
However, the CAD program maker never guaranteed the program would work with
hardware that might be designed ten years hence, so I think my case here
might be a little thin...
Doesn't matter, no one from the CAD program company is going to show up
in Canada to contest your claim. They guaranteed it would work on a
machine running DOS, with a parallel port.
R
Rod Speed
TeGGeR® said:Yes, we have the same sorts of courts you have in the States, albeit
known by different names.
However, the CAD program maker never guaranteed the program would
work with hardware that might be designed ten years hence, so I think
my case here might be a little thin...
Nope, not when their stupid protection scheme is such a collosal kludge.
They should have replaced the stupid protection scheme when it
became clear that the kludge they were using was just that and if
they arent prepared to do that, they get to pay for getting that done.
T
TeGGeR®
TeGGeR® wrote:
Doesn't matter, no one from the CAD program company is going to show
up in Canada to contest your claim. They guaranteed it would work on a
machine running DOS, with a parallel port.
Doth not the Oracle at Redmond aver that Windows XP is *not* DOS?
In any case, it does in fact run fine under WinXP (with AMD processor), so
long as you use an actual LPT port and not a CardBus controller with an LPT
port on top of it.
K
kony
That their stupid protection scheme had produced
goods that arent of merchantable quality.
That is just plain wrong, whatever they claim.
Irrelevant to their stupid protection scheme.
They can obviously provide a mechanism to remove that.
It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.
K
kony
Nope, not when their stupid protection scheme is such a collosal kludge.
They should have replaced the stupid protection scheme when it
became clear that the kludge they were using was just that and if
they arent prepared to do that, they get to pay for getting that done.
If only it were that simple, but by those standards half the
software out there would be recalled, including Windows.
I'm not suggesting it's ok though, but rather such standards
have to be applied equally, not just at the convenience or
expense of one but not the rest.
R
Rod Speed
kony said:It might be a stupid and short-sighted scheme, but if they
clearly disclosed the hardware requirement prior to or at
the time of purchase, they're off the hook.
Nope.
In spades with Canada where they are very unlikely to bother to show
up in Canada and the court is likely to just enter a default judgement
against them given the realtively small amount of money in dispute.
R
Rod Speed
If only it were that simple,
It is when the small claims court action is in Canada and they
are very bloody unlikely indeed to bother to front the court
when such a relatively small amount of money is involved.
but by those standards half the software out
there would be recalled, including Windows.
Mindlessly silly. MS particularly does update their OSs to handle stuff like this.
I'm not suggesting it's ok though, but rather such standards have to be
applied equally, not just at the convenience or expense of one but not the rest.
Wrong with a small claims court action where the vendor
isnt going to bother to defend the claim in a foreign country
with such a relatively small amount of money in dispure.
T
TeGGeR®
Nope.
In spades with Canada where they are very unlikely to bother to show
up in Canada
They have a local presence here.
R
Rod Speed
They have a local presence here.
Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.
And I bet the small claims court shafts them even if they do.
T
TeGGeR®
Bet they wont bother to show up in the small claims court
with such a relatively small amount of money involved.
What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?
R
Rod Speed
TeGGeR® said:What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?
Irrelevant.
N
Noozer
TeGGeR® said:What if I personally know the company rep and am friends with him?
The bottom line is that if someone purchases software that requires a
dongle, they are IN FAVOUR of that company and it's practices. If you don't
want dongles, don't buy their software!!!
C
CBFalconer
TeGGeR® said:Yes, we have the same sorts of courts you have in the States, albeit
known by different names.
However, the CAD program maker never guaranteed the program would
work with hardware that might be designed ten years hence, so I
think my case here might be a little thin...
However you have just proved that it does work on modern hardware.
So that is a non-issue.