"that doesn't mean that you are not using, and loving, Linux"
Many MVPs do.
There is nothing exclusive about either one and many are both.
Agreed and not intended to put you on the spot or anything.
"If MS were to ofeer Office 97 to anyone and everyone for $10.00..."
There are laws governing merchantability.
This would not necessarily apply to OEMs unless they also distribute
unsupported software.
That may come into play if Microsoft chose to sell older software such
as unsupported Office 97.
Since it is no longer supported or sold, there is no requirement that
updates be issued even if a new major vulnerability is discovered.
That may need to change if Microsoft continued to sell unsupported
products.
If you sell something, you should support it.
But that was the beauty of my idea, cheap meant no support except
whatever is online already. MS COULD provide a forum, or reopen those
old ones, but that would be the one caveat to selling older software,
no tech support or updates provided. The one other thing it provides,
in a round about kind of way, is an upgrade path for those that want
it. If someone were to purchase Office 97 for $25.00 and then want to
upgrade to Office 2007, they would be able to. More money coming in
for MS but less money expended by the end user. Less money than those
have no upgrade path, but still who wouldn't chose to save money? It
wouldn't even be necessary to install 97, just prove your license is
valid.
Anyway this all started because MS is requiring the phone calls, or
whatever, for revalidation too often, IMO. I do understand the idea
and principal behind the current method, at least basicly. But to
require a phone call when MS pushes out an update is absolutely
uncalled for, and detrimental to the whole idea. And to prevent some
of the calls maybe MS needs to monitor their software and not the
total hardware on the system. When I add memory or swap out the cpu I
should not be penalized with a phone call. And yes I understand that
is not enough 'points' to require one, but throw in a motherboard
update and it would be. Aren't I entitled to move the software from
any one machine I own to any other machine I own, as long as it is
only on ONE machine? Not in MS's opinion. And that is where the open
source ideal of Linux comes in. I can buy any parts I want and Linux
will happily enjoy the upgrades. I can even buy a new barebones box
and have some friend come in and move the whole shebang over to the
new box and Linux says 'okay, next'. MS says 'thief, thief! And that
is the problem. Maybe if MS were a bit mroe protective of the number I
amrequired to put in when installing the software that would solve the
problem. Yes I understand about stealing, but MS should be able to
solve that with all of their expertise. Maybe holding businesses more
responsible for the numbers they use.