License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: Slip Kid <G-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:36:15 GMT
Last fall I bought a new machine. I came with XP Pro sans SP2 (OEM). I upgraded it within a few weeks with SP2.
Since then I installed a new(er) version of XP (with SP2) for an older machine.
But, I can't install the 'newer' version on the newer machine. Two machines, two OS's - and the one that is six months old is 'useless' on the newer machine?
See, my experience with W2k (original version) on a machine has me anxious. When I've had to do a major OS repair or an upgrade of the machine w/ W2k? It meant adding SP's and upgrading from IE5 (from the original W2k).
So? As I understand it, I can't even use the 'new' XP Pro (with SP2) for maintenance on the new machine (the one which as the XP Pro SP1 disc).
No, I have to use the six month old OEM disc on that box and jump through all the hoops to make it current? (I had no complaints about the SP2 install - - I'm glad I only had to do it once...)
I fully sympathize with the reason for a EULA and the strict interpretations it concerns the commercial environment? It seems the personal user is being penalized. A corporation (by following the rules) gets a great discount, el cheapo multiple licenses (especially when the multiple license is applied to large number of machines). One doesn't have to do much number crunching to find a benefit for the commercial user with not many installs!
I don't like the rationale for the strict confines that limit the use of the newer version of an OS for the personal user with a couple of machines and has multiple (though not of the same 'date') OS's. There should be some leeway in allowing a bit more freedom in using the most efficient (current) disc on both machines.
It isn't as though I'm making any monetary gain as a business would. What is MS losing? I have two discs and as I understand it, since one is six months 'newer' than the other it is 'worthless' to use on the newer machine! That isn't right.
Am I missing something? I understand the potential for the financial loss if there isn't a strict licensing policy in the commercial environment. Yeah, dozens or hundreds of machines need to be regulated as concerns use of software.
As many consumers have (at most) a couple or three machines, of varying age, the 'multiple' purchase rule seems to be only benefit the commercial user and is heavy handed against the personal user. EX: I have a five year old laptop (which works great) which may be worth less in $'s than an OS upgrade. Yeah, it's stuck with 98SE because I can't justify spending more on the OS than the machine is worth (and could fail at any time?)
I would much prefer a 'personal' use policy that allows one to pay an annual fee and be issued a current version of an OS as long as it's being supported. It seems as thought we are "owning" an OS that is 'viable' for an ever shorter period of time.
In a sense, it has been admitted that the original OS has a limited lifespan and there are (automatic!) means to stay up to date for free. Yes, the update system is fine as long as it's incremental - it matters little when the 'upgrades' are on the drive and the drive needs to be reformatted?
Yeah, I'm about ready to dump my wonderful W2k the next time it needs major work. It just isn't worth the effort to bring it up to date - the original disc is only about 20% of the effort required. I do an re-install - and it means nothing. A couple of 'simple' repairs led to more effort in bringing the OS up do date than may be worth it. A great OS is out of date because the 'free' updates take more than is reasonable to apply in one fell swoop. (Um, many swoops)
So, I know my 'legal' (and MS's activation limits) as concerns my 'newer' version of XP Pro. concerning an install. It's painful to look at it sitting there and realize it's 'worthless' concerning my new machine.
Yeah, I'm stuck in the same situation as I am with the W2k, (after only a few months?) with the new machine which has the OEM SP1 disc. I'm already looking at major a major effort if it fails, which increases as time passes. Meanwhile, businesses have a minuscule fee and slap new versions on vast numbers of machines at will.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: Raymond J. Johnson Jr.
- Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: Scott
- Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: kurttrail
- Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- Prev by Date: Change Language from Regional and Language options
- Next by Date: RE: graphics card upgrade
- Previous by thread: Change Language from Regional and Language options
- Next by thread: Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
