Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Nina DiBoy" <nin@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:ej8qtf$1fi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Gregg Hill wrote:
<snip>
But that in no way justifies doing back to them. Two wrongs do not make a right.

So consumers should just let MS keep bending them over the table and take it, right?

Not at all. You completely ignore the fact that consumers have the CHOICE NOT TO USE Microsoft software at all. NO ONE is holding a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Use this software!" NO ONE is bending anyone over a table. If you feel you are over at table, then you are there because you chose to use Microsoft's product. Simple fix...NEVER use their products again, whether legally or not.
"Stealing money is against the law." Duh, but what you fail to comprehend is that the effect on the manufacturer of someone buying one license and installing it ten times

Who says I've done that?

I said "someone" does that. I did not say that YOU do that.

Below in this post, where you apologized, you said you thought I did it.

Well, gee, maybe it was where you stated, "No one is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand up for my fair use rights is not unethical." led me to believe you did it. It was an honest mistake. Did you notice the "or anyone else" part of the comment?
<snip>
Noone is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand up for my fair use rights is not unethical.

Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one computer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"United States v. Microsoft 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a court case filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales."

Here is the pertinent part:
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales"

Microsoft took away consumer choice by mishandling the "handling of OS sales" by forcing OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines.
The OEMs were not "forced" to sell only Windows. They **could have chosen** to sell only Linux and no Windows at all. The OEMs CHOSE to follow Microsoft's requirement, which I think was stupid in some respects, but at the same time a brilliant marketing decision on their part because of the massive desire for Windows. But they chose nonetheless. They were not forced.
IF this
had not happened, other OSes would be out there and available as an equal consumer choice because they would do everything that windows does. They would have full driver support, they would have a ton of games that run on them etc.

Other operating systems ARE out there. Use one if you have so much against MS. If they do not have full driver support, blame the writers of Linux, not Windows.
IF MS thinks they can do all of this and still bend consumers over the table with the overinflated pricing and buggy DRM, they are sorely mistaken.

That is what I call fair use.

Consumers are only being bent over a table that they put the table in place and then dropped there own pants voluntarily when they CHOSE to buy an MS product. They could have kept their pants up and used Linux. If one CHOOSES to use an MS product, who does that one have to blame? Only oneself.

<snip>
I laughed out loud, thank you!

Glad you had a chuckle. You are laughing at the process of a big. greedy, convicted corporation consistently stripping away the civil rights of consumers all over the world, yourself included.

I have the right to use other software. They have done nothing to strip my civil rights. They coul dhave built Windows only to run inside there own company, but htey chose to offer it to the world to anyone willing to pay for it. When you can CHOOSE to use it or not to use it, no one is taking any "rights" from you.

Here is a reply I made to someone else in this thread, but I think it helps illistrate why I feel like MS bends it's customers over the table:

HI Shenan. Consumers may have a choice, but it is not really a choice. Let me explain. For things that there is a choice for, I have at least been testing on Linux for years already. Such as media center, here we run MythTV on Fedora Core 5. On my linux machine, I can post to usenet, get email, browse the web, listen to music, and do all the basic things I can do on my Windows machine. But lets face it, depending on how much you use some applications/games that work only on Windows, Linux is not equal in all aspects.

If MS hadn't forced all the major OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines, we would have a real choice today (Like OS2Warp for example) which could run all the same apps and games as Windows without an emulator.

See what I mean?

<snip>
So then you admit that the EULA is unconscionable.
Where did I admit that? I said that, "You yourself claimed that the EULA is unconscionable." I said that, "Paying for one product license and using it multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more correctly, a lack thereof." That means that I think it unethical to use the product on more computers than you have licenses. I never said anything about the EULA being unconscionable to me.
Gregg
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Thoughts on Vista
    ... one of the biggest impediments to Linux 'taking over the desktop' ... Windows because consumers buy it. ... programmers write for it. ...
    (alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt)
  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... On my linux machine, I can post to usenet, get email, browse the web, listen to music, and do all the basic things I can do on my Windows machine. ... All of the manipulating MS has been doing over the years (IP theft, unfairly dominating and saturating the market with their OS, their Browser, and their other software as illegded in the multiple antitrust suits against them over the years) has cheated the consumers out of a fair choice of 3rd party products being developed over the years to do things as well or better than MS products. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Will Linux eventually take over the desktop market?
    ... in the way consumers chose to spend their money within the choices available ... parting with their hard earned dosh ... > Only if people start using it and quit using windows. ... > However, if schools and other public institutions start using only Linux, ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... You completely ignore the fact that consumers have the CHOICE NOT TO USE Microsoft software at all. ... Having the care to stand up for my fair use rights is not unethical." ... Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one computer? ... Microsoft took away consumer choice by mishandling the "handling of OS sales" by forcing OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
    ... You completely ignore the fact that consumers have the CHOICE ... Having the care to stand up for my fair use rights is not ... if you do in fact do use one license on more than one ... sales" by forcing OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)