104456--you can read the licence agreement without breaking the seal, even in fact without buying the product--
here ya go http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
Printable View
104456--you can read the licence agreement without breaking the seal, even in fact without buying the product--
here ya go http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
If you already own an operating system and had an on-line connection that would be true but MS as do other software manufacturers do not normally let you read the license until after either breaking the seal or installing the software.Quote:
Originally Posted by dneilson
I'll be building my new PC this winter. As of right now I'm leaning toward installing Ubuntu Linux ver. 6.06 or 6.10. only. I've messed with Linux for a number of years and finally found a distro that can stand toe to toe with Windows. I'm using Ubuntu almost exclusively now, kicking over to Windows only to do my financial stuff. Sometime ago Microsoft made a statement about joining alliance with hardware manufacturers to make their hardware proprietary effectively killing Linux. But I think the threat of yet another anti-trust suit might have made them re-think that. Atleast I hope so. So, I don't think I'll be going to Vista anytime soon.
I've been noodling about with Ubuntu myself, and I like it too. I just have to learn more about it so I can make it my main OS eventually. M$ will never have a lock on hardware from any manufacturer, unless M$ buys the mfr.; the loss of extra sales to Linux and other users would be felt I'm sure. I'm glad there are significant numbers of corporate Linux users out there!
Now that I have built my new rig I'll be using my old one as my very first Linux box :cool:
Tried most distros on VMware, but this way I can experiment with them a bit more.
A nice setup indeed!
I just feel that if you pay a very high sum of money for a piece of retail software then it is perfectly reasonable that you should be able to use it for as long as you want. I am astounded that people will accept buying more than one license for there own personal use.
I realise that I'm in the minority here, but mark my words if you find Microsoft reasonable then next time you wont even be able to buy a license, you will be renting it.
YES! I do! I like the bloat.....because it feels so good turning off the useless "services" and other features. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by maxximilian
bistro....
Isn't that like the old joke.....I like banging my head on the wall because it feels so good when I stop...... :D
I'm sure you are not wrong, but I feel that Microsoft have a Monopoly and we all need to buy their software if we want to be able to use our computers normally. I'd say that just because they have a license this doesn't make it fair, imagine if you bought a music CD and you could only play it on one CD player, when that player dies you then have to replace your entire music collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by anne
The bottom line is companies like Microsoft want to make as much money as possible and they will push their license terms to ensure this, it is our jobs not to lie down and take it but make our feelings heard.
I'd imagine that Microsoft will be fighting some court cases on their license issues it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.
I agree with everything said by Philgo. Its very simple to say that "if you don't like it, don't buy it". But as Philgo said, MS is a monopoly and there is basically no real alternative to Windows in most cases. There have to be fair rules of conduct from MS, otherwise they will be taking advantage of their monopoly which I believe is illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philgo
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061030-8104.html
Another article...
Quote:
"Validation will fail if the software detects a substantially different hardware configuration," the spokesperson said. "At that point, the customer is able to use the one reassignment for the new device. If, after using its one reassignment right, a customer again exceeds the tolerance for updated components, the customer can purchase an additional license or seek remediation through Microsoft’s support services."
I guess I'll have to put MS in my speed dial.Quote:
For those reading between the lines, Microsoft's response is telling. The option of seeking remediation through Microsoft support is a sign that the company has left a giant "safety net" in place, much as they did with Windows XP.
Sorry, but M$ is not a monopoly. They are successful because their product is purchased by so many people. There are other alternatives out there, but people choose to buy Microsoft. When someone comes up with something better, that will change the market. General Motors used to sell more than half of all cars made in the world, not so long ago, and people whined about them too; real competition changed that also. Sometimes, the simplest answer is the best answer! If you don't like it, don't buy it. I have no sympathy for someone who buys something he doesn't want or like. If you want MS to change their policy, buy some of their stock and make your voice heard.
Thay have a huge market advantage because windows comes already intergrated on 99%+ of ready built PCs so thier market share is nigh guaranteed in this deparment.
Whilst hardware manufacturers have to compete on both specification and overheads are slim so much so that hardware prices have slumped over the last few years.Microsfoft on the other hand having no viable contender, makes it a one horse race.They can set thier own agenda on price structure there is no market force as they do not have to compete with anyone of note.
We've had this discussion before, about whether MS is a monopoly or not, can't find the thread though. Lets remember that a monopoly does not mean 100% market share.
On an official note, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson (United States v. Microsoft May 18, 1998) held that:
* Microsoft has a monopoly of PC operating systems,
* Microsoft harmed consumers through its use of its monopoly powers, and
* several of Microsoft's contracts had anti-competitive effects.
On a personal and unofficial note, I believe that MS is a monopoly for the simple fact that myself and millions of others rely too much on MS at this moment in time to be able to give it up. You cannot simply say that if you don't want to use it, don't buy it. But what if I don't have a feasible alternative? What if MS decides to charge $1000 for their OS? A lot of us would be in big trouble. On the one hand, it would be too much money to pay and on the other, we would not have a choice.
IMO, that makes MS a monopoly both on an official level, and a personal level.
United States vs. Microsoft