A
Alias~-
ML said:
Have you any proof that Vista will have a generic OEM version?
Alias
Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pl
Have you any proof that Vista will have a generic OEM version?
Alias
D
Donald L McDaniel
Actually, we AREN'T "leasing" the software. Our purchase of a copy of a
Windows OS is just that: A PURCHASE.
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.
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?
Idiot!!
There won't BE any "OEM Packages" of Vista!!!
Don't you get it yet???
Donald
-------------------------------------------
D
Donald L McDaniel
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.
As I keep trying to tell you people, there effectively WON'T be an "OEM"
version.
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
-------------------------------------------
D
Donald L McDaniel
"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
-------------------------------------------
A
Alias~-
Donald said:
Time will tell. The only certainty now is uncertainty.
Alias
M
ML
Actually, as soons as I saw the new Vista EULA, I began my testing of
Ubuntu.......
Ubuntu.......
D
Donald L McDaniel
At least I can always fall back on OS X, which is a TREMENDOUS OS, except
for its absolutely shitty 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
-------------------------------------------
G
Guest
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.
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.
D
Donald L McDaniel
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
-------------------------------------------
G
Guest
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
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
D
Donald L McDaniel
Microsoft has recently published its EULA's for Vista, publically. Once
they publish these, they seldom back down on them. So I have no doubts
that these are indeed the final form of the Vista EULA's.
This is just not so, Gene. I don't know about the U.K., but here in the
States, consumers have the right to disagree with the sales terms of
products. We can do this in a Public court of Law, even as high as our
Supreme Court.
This is rather arrogant of them, wouldn't you say? Are they really THAT
rich and powerful?
Remember King George III? He was extremely rich and powerful, yet we here
told him just exactly how little power he really had, once we made our
minds up.
This is a scenario which will play out in a court of Law, I am sure.
So Microsoft may have layed out the "options" ("Options"? What a
ridiculous word to use in this instance? WHAT "Options"? Use it or not?
Right.
Sorry, Gene, but this is not so. Even the XP EULA called a sale of the
software the sale of a LICENSE to use the software, and expressly stated
that Microsoft owned the software once.
This is a problem with ALL "shrink-wrap licenses", not just Microsoft's.
They deny the user "fair use".
Nor is it "fair" to ANYONE but Microsoft and its stockholders.
Not all OEM editions are sold with new machine, Gene. Haven't you ever
heard of "Generic OEM's"? These products may be sold with ANY "necessary"
piece of hardware, even a power chord or mouse, not just a complete system.
The facts are, Microsoft has just gotten EXTREMELY greedy this time, and
put it down in writing.
Nor am I a Mac Power-user. I have OS X on my Apple Intel PC for a simple
reason: IT is impossible to update the Apple firmware if OS X is not
installed on the HD. If it were possible to install the Apple firmware in
a way which would not require OS X's presence on the HD, I assure you,
Windows would be installed as my exclusive OS.
I doubt seriously whether there are any "hard feelings" against you, Gene.
Most who post to the Usenet are paper tigers, who forget what they posted
the minute they click on "Send". So don't feel as if you are being
attacked personally. I doubt that you are. I certainly am not attacking
you personally. I happen to disagree with your opinions of the
immutability of the Vista EULA. And I am certainly not alone. But we are
all adults here, my friend (hopefully). We can disagree peacefully, like
all mature adults, and still remain friends.
I am certainly not a "gung ho" Microsoft supporter. While I do like
Microsoft products (I also like their keyboards and mice) I do NOT like
Microsoft's business philosophy. How such a fine OS can come out of such
an evil corporation, I do not know. But it is a fact.
This is probably a result of living under a political system which is still
theoretically ruled by a group of autocrats. I certainly respect British
respect for Law. Americans also share that respect. But we also have a
rebellious streak a mile wide. And we have a history (as you well know) of
rebelling against unfair laws, either publically, or privately.
This is what you believe. Good. It is good to have beliefs. Faith is a
good thing to have. But only faith in God is immutable. Any other faith
can change.
Many are unhappy with Microsoft concerning this criminally greedy EULA.
Many will rebel against this EULA, and when hacks are available, which
allow them to have fair use of their legally purchased products, they will
rebel privately, to the further loss of respect for Law in the States.
Hopefully, a movement will begin to address this in a court of Law, where
the users may receive redress for their grievances, thus preserving a
healthy respect for Law, as is proper for civilized human beings (if that
is what we truly are.)
Donald
-------------------------------------------
G
Guest
Again Donald,
Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
product as they see fit. This is business.
I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
I signed when buying the land.
Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
that way because:
1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
terms.
Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
court over anything.
But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
it, why did you buy it?
End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
Explaination in a nutshell.
Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.
And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
table will most likely make up forthe losses.
But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.
Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post.
Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
product as they see fit. This is business.
I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
I signed when buying the land.
Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
that way because:
1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
terms.
Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
court over anything.
But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
it, why did you buy it?
End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
Explaination in a nutshell.
Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.
And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
table will most likely make up forthe losses.
But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.
Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post.
A
Alias
Gene said:Again Donald,
Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
product as they see fit. This is business.
I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
I signed when buying the land.
Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
that way because:
1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
terms.
Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
court over anything.
But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
it, why did you buy it?
End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
Explaination in a nutshell.
Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.
And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
table will most likely make up forthe losses.
But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.
Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post.
You've laid out what you think a company's rights are. Can you do the
same for consumers' rights when dealing with a de facto monopoly?
Using your "logic", prohibition would still be in place because the way
it was overturned was *breaking the law*.
Using, your "logic", the USA would still be a colony of England because
the revolutionaries *broke the law*.
Using your logic, blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus
because Rosa Parks *broke the law*.
It is time honored tradition in the USA to change laws by breaking them.
Alias
N
Nina DiBoy
Gene Fitz wrote:
Hi Gene.
Unless the license infringes upon a consumer's fair use rights or is
unconscionable.
What kind of choice do you have with a post shrink wrapped license?
Bad comparison because houses are not sold or leased under a post shrink
wrapped license.
But not before you purchase your shrink wrapped retail or (some) generic
oem copies of software.
It is done
You are not being informed of the license before you purchase the
software because the license is not on the outside of the box or package
where I can read it. Not everyone will know to go online for the
license before purchase.
They are not allowed to violate the consumers' fair use rights or civil
liberties with their license.
See above.
Hi Gene.
Unless the license infringes upon a consumer's fair use rights or is
unconscionable.
What kind of choice do you have with a post shrink wrapped license?
Bad comparison because houses are not sold or leased under a post shrink
wrapped license.
But not before you purchase your shrink wrapped retail or (some) generic
oem copies of software.
It is done
You are not being informed of the license before you purchase the
software because the license is not on the outside of the box or package
where I can read it. Not everyone will know to go online for the
license before purchase.
They are not allowed to violate the consumers' fair use rights or civil
liberties with their license.
See above.