Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer"
From: Tom (noway_at_nothere.com)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Tom: "Re: Installing new motherboard"
- Previous message: Tim Slattery: "Re: Memory Leaks?"
- In reply to: Jim Byrd: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 12:24:34 -0500
"Jim Byrd" <jrbyrd@spamlessadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:%23Z$5S6UHFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi - Well, I've followed this thread with some interest (until it decended
> into ad hominem attacks anyway), and I'd like to make a comment or two to
> see if I can bring a little rationality to what's being said here.
>
> First, back to basics for a moment. A computer (or at least the Von
> Neumann
> architecture digital single user personal computers (PC's) that are the
> primary subjects of this discussion) consists of a Central Processing Unit
> (CPU) (in the case of PC's this is usually a microprocessor), Input
> components, Output components and Memory (usually a heirarchy of different
> types and speeds).
>
> _All_ of these hardware elements are necessary (but _not_ sufficient) to
> have a working " Personal Computer _System_". In addition to these
> hardware
> elements, software which is stored in Memory executes on the CPU operating
> on data which is stored in memory after having been Input or computed and
> which returns the results of its execution to Memory or to an Output
> component. Such software is usually broadly categorized as Operating
> Systems (OS) and Applications (and some others not critical to this
> discussion).
>
> The OS performs two major functions within a PC System - It manages the
> hardware and software resources of the system such as microprocessor
> bandwidth, input/output, random access memory (RAM) and disk space, and it
> provides a (actually several) layer(s) of abstraction between the system's
> resources/components and the Application software being executed on the
> system. This present standardized interfaces to Applications which allows
> them to be portable between different machines.
>
>
> With the foregoing in mind, I believe that the wrong question is being
> (rather too hotly) debated. The question isn't what constitues a
> "computer". It's rather what hardware elements has Microsoft specifically
> designated as the one(s) to which its licensing functionally for its OS's
> will be attached. They've specified a combination of such hardware
> elements
> consisting of the CPU, the fundamental hardware Input/Output interfaces
> and
> a first level of RAM Memory - the four basic hardware elements of a PC -
> which are usually embodied in a single component, the motherboard in most
> modern day machines, as being the single most probably stable hardware
> component over time. Given the OS functions which I mentioned above which
> are intimately related to these hardware elements, this appears to me to
> make good sense.
>
>
> Some may not like it, but I expect they _probably_ will have to live with
> it. One can try and present an argument based on a reading of the EULA
> for
> a specific MS OS, but I think MS's intent here is quite clear and
> unambiguous, and I don't believe they'll get very far with it unless MS
> choses to extend some grace. Because of the increase in piracy, MS is
> imposing some pretty severe restrictions on the transportation of licenses
> starting in Mar. I personally disagree with the approach they're taking
> to
> address the piracy problem because I think it will create some fairly
> serious difficulties for users, small OEM's and ISV's particularly, and I
> feel that it might have been solved some other ways, but they didn't ask
> me,
> did they? It's not clear yet (at least to me) what degree of flexibility,
> if any, they may continue to allow the home user such as they have in the
> past as my fellow MVP Michael Stevens has already pointed out earlier in
> this thread.
>
MS should clarify what they mean by Computer in the EULA, regardless of what
their OEM site states. They would be the ones bearing the onus in a court
proving what they mean by Hardware, and Computer, since so many things can
be sold with an OEM license. That said, one would then be able to challenge
MS's marketing schemes and sales tactics to increase their sales of Windows
through such terms, because it seems like (it can be) such a good thing to
the consumer.
MS would NOT want to have to change the wording as such, knowing this *may*
cause a drop in sales, though they want to make rules apply what is clear to
them, underlying in the agreement, and as explained elsewhere outside that
the agreement (EULA), that means something to them not truly defined in the
EULA for the consumer. A consumer wouldn't pay anything in court fines, and
MS would be forced to change their wording if they continue making amends to
stopping what they consider piracy, by making technical changes for
implementing and using Windows without real definition.
If they really want for their products to be as they say, they sould state
in no uncertain clear terms as to what defines (in this case) a Comupter,
and hardware, else they have a hard time going after people becasue they
don't want to take those *they know* actually have violated their agreement,
however it is explained on another source outside of the EULA that one
agreed to when installing the software.
- Next message: Tom: "Re: Installing new motherboard"
- Previous message: Tim Slattery: "Re: Memory Leaks?"
- In reply to: Jim Byrd: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Reply:(deleted message) Leythos: "Re: Installing new motherboard - What constitutes a "Computer""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
