Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: "george" <anonymous@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 20:42:43 +0200
"Scott" <scott_conway2003@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:v39051191ihk6u5loh8if4bsg06jhkb7co@xxxxxxxxxx
>I have to agree with you on certain points and tried to make the point
> here before. One morning my computer would not boot
> up.."unmountable_boot_volume" bluescreen.
> I tried safemode..no go.
> I put my original xp disc (bought within 2 days of the system realease
> and updated faithfully) to do a repair. Get nice message.."the files
> on your computer are newer than those on disc" or words to that
> effect. Repair would not happen.
> I phone MS, they want 35 bucks to give support because I used up my
> free support during initial installation problems.
> After reformatting my HD, try to reinstall xp..gets to "windows is
> starting" and stayed there for an hour. No errors no nothing.
> Ended up putting on an old 98se from original machine. And here I sit.
>
> I have run tests on memory, upgraded all my bios, latest drivers,
> removed uneccessary hardware. Still cannot get xp to complete. I
> cannot "borrow a copy" of xp to try because that would defy the EULA
> if I did get it running with different copy, then I wouldn't be able
> to activate as it would be someone elses copy.
>
> So now have a legally purchased copy of xp that I cannot use, cannot
> find out why it won't go, and am stuck with an OS that is not nearly
> as satisfying graphically.
>
> The MVP's in this group are awesome, and do a wonderful job, but when
> I look at the number of posts to this group every day, it seems
> apparent that there are some problems with xp that aren't the fault of
> the user, some never seem to get solved and the user is stuck.
> A machine that is supposed to be fun to use and a hobby ends up being
> a full time job, antivirus, antispyware, antipop ups..system back
> ups..sheesh.
>
>
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 15:36:15 GMT, Slip Kid <G-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>>
>>
>
....and then there are some that would have you work with a 'real' OS (dare I
say ??nux or ??nix), make yourself dependant on someone in outer-suburbia on
some foreign continent to get some driver software for the new super dooper
device you just bought, spend another year or two to get some familiarity
with the stuff that is behind/underneath the GUI (just in case you run into
trouble and want to fix something), thereby contributing to the bigger
widespread of that OS, only to find that by the time that OS enjoys the same
level of widespread acceptance, it is equally attractive for those sickos
that produce spy-, mal- and otherwise crappy stuff to infect your box.
The only advantage you have by then is that (more than likely) the 'big
players' in this world will have found a reasoning why it is no longer 'free
for all' and you start paying trivial stuff like license fees.
Oops, that too is no longer an advantage then, hmmmmm
george
.
- References:
- License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: Slip Kid
- Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- From: Scott
- License unfairness ? Rant...
- Prev by Date: Re: Building a back up boot drive
- Next by Date: Drive icons and descriptions are mis-associated...
- Previous by thread: Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- Next by thread: Re: License unfairness ? Rant...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
