technet plus subcription

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

does the technet plus subscription allow for vista ultimate download or do
you only get vista business thanks for any help in this matter

Neil Tonks
 
There is only one download for each platform. Your product keys determine
which editions you can install.
 
If you want to look at it that way, it would be cheaper.

--
Jason
Windows Vista RTM
MS Office 2007 RTM

so in answer to this question it would be cheaper to buy a technet plus
direct subscription for £230 and get vista ultimate download final iso full
edition not upgrade genuinely with genuine key and office etc etc which is a
saving of £130 or so on retail edition when available and also get office etc
included in price and also not have to wait until jan 30?
 
We are all evaluating and testing on our computers whether our hardwares
will work and testing whether the MS softwares are stable enough for our
continued daily use and testing whether the same holds true in a real life
environment.

Until ALL THE BUGS IN EVERY PIECE OF MS SOFTWARE ARE IRONED OUT, we are
always testing only.
 
Go to the TechNet subscriptions page and read the license. TechNet and MSDN
licenses are not for personal or productivity use. They are for
development, testing, training, and evaluation only. If you email, write
docs, surf the web, play games, etc (in other words day-to-day normal use)
you are in violation of the license.
 
"Until ALL THE BUGS IN EVERY PIECE OF MS SOFTWARE ARE IRONED OUT..."
That is an impossibility so it will never happen.
It is noted you specified "MS SOFTWARE", so apparently you hold others to a
lower standard.
While all software manufacturers strive for no bugs, all know such a goal is
impossible.
No manufacturer puts out software with "ALL THE BUGS" removed.

Also you should note some bugs take years to discover which is why bugs are
still being found in older operating systems.
Many of those are discovered by Microsoft critics determined to show how bad
the software is.
Instead they show how much time is needed to find bugs.
 
I used to investigate fraudulent unemployment insurance claims for my state
agency. I've heard them all.
 
Has Microsoft ever enforced this? Have they canceled someone's
subscription because they were in violation of the terms? Do they
cancel/blacklist the users keys? How would Microsoft know a user
had violated the terms? What constitutes a testing environment and
a non-testing environment? Slippery-slope.

If there's no actual enforcement, then the terms might as well be
taken out of the contract/license. In some states, oral sex is still
on the books as being against the law- but it's never enforced.
Besides being a thoroughly outdated law, it is almost impossible
to obtain the "evidence" that the law is being broken- you'd have
to violate a person's privacy to get/see the "evidence".

How would Microsoft obtain proof that you are using the software
in non-compliance? The only sure way I see- a users confession
or via a Sony root-kit scenario. Of course, Microsoft does have
their own root-kit, WGA.

Unless there is enforcement and then repercussions for violating the
terms of the contract- you guys are wasting your breath preaching
on the nauseating legalese of it all.



-Michael
 
Has Microsoft ever enforced this? Have they canceled someone's
subscription because they were in violation of the terms? Do they
cancel/blacklist the users keys? How would Microsoft know a user
had violated the terms? What constitutes a testing environment and
a non-testing environment? Slippery-slope.

If there's no actual enforcement, then the terms might as well be
taken out of the contract/license. In some states, oral pleasure is still
on the books as being against the law- but it's never enforced.
Besides being a thoroughly outdated law, it is almost impossible
to obtain the "evidence" that the law is being broken- you'd have
to violate a person's privacy to get/see the "evidence".

How would Microsoft obtain proof that you are using the software
in non-compliance? The only sure way I see- a users confession
or via a Sony root-kit scenario. Of course, Microsoft does have
their own root-kit, WGA.

Unless there is enforcement and then repercussions for violating the
terms of the contract- you guys are wasting your breath preaching
on the nauseating legalese of it all.



-Michael
 
A lot depends on the integrity of the user.
Those with little or no integrity have no problems violating an agreement
they have agreed.
 
Perhaps it all just comes down to a person's personal integrity. Do they
have a conscience or do they not? Is the value of their word important to
them or do they not care if they are liars and deceivers?

Your legal comparison has no relationship to the issue of acceptable use.
The legal argument you made represents something someone else told me that I
cannot do but I never agreed to it. When you purchase an item with specific
usage limitations and you know and understand those limitations, those
limitations are something you promised to accept of your own free will.

I don't need the fear of repercussions to keep me from breaking my word.
All I need is my own conscience.

Dale
 
That's great and all, we can blather on about integrity
and conscience all day- that wasn't my point. Without
some type of discovery, enforcement, and repercussions
it is useless to lecture folks on right and wrong- they should
already know. It's the reason we have police, courts, and
prisons- we don't just leave right and wrong up to a person's
conscience- there is enforcement and punishment.

How does Microsoft enforce this policy and punish those who
violate the terms? By what evidence? How do they gather
that "evidence"? Would Microsoft's obtaining such "evidence"
be a violation of privacy?


-Michael
 
I don't disagree with you, JJ.

I am really only interested in Microsoft's means
of discovery, enforcement, and actual punishment-
if there is any at all, or is just based on the "honor
system".


-Michael
 
The Genuine Windows initiative, which is well published, is a legitimate
means by which Microsoft can identify unlicensed Windows installations. I
have no problem with them going to court, obtaining a court order to trace
an IP address, and prosecuting someone for illegally using Windows.

If they were to discover that same illegitimate use surreptitiously and use
features of the OS to personally identify the user of a questionable
instance of Windows, then I would have a problem.

I have a problem with the RIAA's Congressionally-granted right to break into
your home, search your property, and steal from you anything they believe is
theirs with no court proceedings at all. I would not object to them
identifying music download sites, going to court to obtain a court order
granting them access to the records of that site, and using those records to
go back to court and obtain access to IP address logs to identify illegal
downloaders of music.

So, when it comes to enforcement, I agree that there is potential for
privacy violations. But there are also very legitimate means for owners of
intellectual property to identify and prosecute thieves. The problem is,
most thieves (and I am not implying you are in that category) also object to
the legitimate means by which copyright owners might identify and prosecute
those who steal their property. There is no right to anonymity on the
Internet.

Dale
 
Even thought this conversation topic has well expanded from what it was
originally meant to be for, i sort of agree with what Michael is saying. That
may be due to the fact that i believe that people who pay subscriptions to a
company to test their software with time-limits means that they nshould get
to test all aspects of the software, in order to create a full evaluation of
it, although my view may be slightlky biased based oin the fact that if i
were to get a technet subscription, i would more than likely (being honest)
violate the terms. Although the porbability of my getting a technet
subsciption is very small, as i have other things to think about. However, i
disagree with an aspect of what Dale is saying, in that he stated 'There is
no right to anonymity on the internet'- that styatement is completely wrong,
the internet was designed to be a place of free speech, as it remains today,
that is why it is unlikely that that laws will ever be placed on the content
of the internet (with disregard to china, who have heavy restrictions on
their internet usage). The content that is displayed on the internet is only
limited by people's morals. If a person wishes to access those websites, that
is their own choice, much like a person may wish to use a technet
subscription to test software completely, not just the aspects that they are
limited to
JP
 
The TechNet license clearly allows you to evaluate the product fully. But
you know when you're just using it and when you're evaluating it. Like I
have said, piracy comes down to conscience.

From the TechNet Direct license agreement:

"You may use the evaluation software only to evaluate it. You may not use it
in a live operating, in a staging environment or with data that has not been
sufficiently backed up. "

Dale
 
Back
Top