ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?



Tim.T
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems incurred
doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to this even with an
OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or not it IS necessary. For
example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate it was
limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS should
realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just
because they do it often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin
pirate! Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the cause of
the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as the unlikely
event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS "XP compliant". Yes,
yes as long as you buy your stuff from the Windows Catalog lol

I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.

Tim

Martin
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
I guess you could do a clean install and then simply image the drive. Or
image it at any stage come to that.

--
Best Wishes from Martin

So many questions, so few answers.

PGP Key ID, 0x581E4CE1

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:
> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems incurred
> doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to this even with an
> OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or not it IS necessary. For
> example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate it was
> limited.


That would be because there is no such limit. There's no limit to the
number of times you can reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
the same PC. Nor is there ever a charge. Nor does a Product Key (so
long as it's not an evaluation license) ever expire. If it's been more
than 120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key,
you'll most likely be able to activate via the Internet without problem.
If it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone call.

Here are the facts pertaining to activation:

Piracy Basics - Microsoft Product Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Windows Product Activation (WPA)
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm



> I know this may be a precaution against piracy,


Not against true piracy, as such, but against the casual copying to
which so many people became accustomed when the earlier version of
Windows had no enforcement mechanism at all.


> but MS should
> realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just
> because they do it often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin
> pirate!


Microsoft does realize that. That's why there are instructions on how
to reinstall Windows in Microsoft's knowledge base. WPA doesn't
normally hinder the process.


> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
> for your pc!


How can reinstalling an OS blow dust out of the computer?


> This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the cause of
> the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc,


Wouldn't that actually be a problem with the device driver, then?
That's not a Windows issue, at all. Take this problem up with the
device manufacturer who supplied the poorly written driver.


> as well as the unlikely
> event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS "XP compliant".


Actually, you'd be awfully hard pressed to find a modern device driver
that isn't WinXP-compatible, assuming the device is intended for use
with WinXP.


>
> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>


Then you'll need to contact Microsoft directly, rather than simply
posting to a public news group.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Malke
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:

> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to this
> even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or not
> it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of times you
> could activate it was limited. I know this may be a precaution against
> piracy, but MS should realise that people have to reinstall their OS
> for many reasons, and just because they do it often or "too
> frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate! Sometimes a clean
> reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air for your pc! This
> may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the cause of the problem:
> refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as the unlikely event of
> you finding a driver for your hardware that IS "XP compliant". Yes,
> yes as long as you buy your stuff from the Windows Catalog lol
>
> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>
> Tim

You aren't speaking to MS tech support here. This a public newsgroup
hosted on a Microsoft server. Sometimes MS employees post here, but the
majority of people are volunteers who do not work for the company. If
you want an official answer, go to MS's website or call them.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/features/activation.mspx

There is no limit to the number of times you can activate Windows XP.

Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User

Uncle John
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
While what Malke says is true about activation for Windows XP, it is not
true for Office 2003 or later and Tim T. seemed to me to be talking about
activation for Microsoft products in general.

--
Uncle John

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:
> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
> not it IS necessary.

Yes for Retail

Maybe for OEM

No for VL

No for pirated

> For example, I didn't realise the number of
> times you could activate it was limited.

It's not limited. You can activate an infinite number of times.

> I know this may be a
> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!

MS doesn't care about people, except to collect money from them!

> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
> Windows Catalog lol
>
> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.

If one does then, it will be pure propaganda.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:
>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>> or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>> Windows Catalog lol
>>
>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>
>> Tim

Some copies of Windows XP balk after so many activations on the same PC
within 120 days. I had one copy of Home that balked after a few times .. yet
I had another that I could activate over and over again until the cows came
home .. Why one balked I don't know .. it might have been some reason with
my hardware .. maybe I inadvertently changed some bios configuration that
made it seem like a new set of hardware to the product activation algorithm.

However, technically, as long as you have a legitimate copy you can activate
it on the same set of hardware as many times as you want. If activating by
Internet ever fails then you need simply phone. Tell them the 50 digit
number necessary for activation - that's all they need know:

Microsoft's own words: "The only information required to activate is an
installation ID (and, for Office XP and Office XP family products such as
Visio 2002, the name of the country in which the product is being
installed.)"

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details

Windows Product Activation only exists to discourage casual copying by the
home and small business user. It doesn't stop dedicated pirates and it isn't
locked down .. heck after 120 days the thing resets so one could conceivably
install the copy on a second computer then and have it activate over the
Internet without a hitch.

Before all this, Microsoft operating system software was completely on the
honour system. Now it is 'sorta' on the honour system 'sorta' portected by
Windows Product Activation. I can't see why anyone would blame Microsoft too
much for providing some protection to their intellectual property.

Shenan Stanley
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:
> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
> not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realize the number of
> times you could activate it was limited.

It is? Not that I know of.

> I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS should
> realize that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons,
> and just because they do it often or "too frequently" DOESN'T
> mean they're a friggin pirate!

Nope - but I still don't know what the complaint is.. You can reinstall
your copy of Windows XP over and over on the same hardware and the worst
case scenario is a phone call to re-activate.

> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
> cause of the problem: refusal to recognize drivers, etc, as well as
> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
> Windows Catalog lol

I can say I agree and disagree here. Yes - sometimes I reinstall my OS on
my systems.. It's a cleaner fix than any other - but hardly ever a
necessary one. Sometimes it is faster to reinstall than figure out the
problem. I also can honestly say I have never looked at the "Windows
Catalog" for compatible hardware before buying something. I depend on the
hardware manufacturer, not Microsoft, to insure their component works with
my OS and advertise it if it does.

> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.

They may respond - but I am not sure what you expect.. Your information
about a "limited number of times" seems skewed at best - if not just
outright incorrect. There is no limited number of times you can install
(reinstall actually) the Windows XP OS (in any version) on a given machine
for which that license was intended and reactivate said install. Yeah -
there is some gray area where the OEM versions are concerned on what you can
change and still use that copy of Windows XP OEM on that machine (as per
license agreement, it is stuck to the fist computer you installed it on..) -
but for sure, if you did not change any hardware, you could install
(reinstall) and reactivate that copy of Windows XP on that machine once
every hour for years and other than it being a pain in the butt and not a
very high-paying career - it would just become monotonous.

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Stephen wrote:
> Tim.T wrote:
>>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>> or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>> Windows Catalog lol
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>
>>> Tim
>
> Some copies of Windows XP balk after so many activations on the same
> PC within 120 days. I had one copy of Home that balked after a few
> times .. yet I had another that I could activate over and over again
> until the cows came home .. Why one balked I don't know .. it might
> have been some reason with my hardware .. maybe I inadvertently
> changed some bios configuration that made it seem like a new set of
> hardware to the product activation algorithm.
>
> However, technically, as long as you have a legitimate copy you can
> activate it on the same set of hardware as many times as you want. If
> activating by Internet ever fails then you need simply phone. Tell
> them the 50 digit number necessary for activation - that's all they
> need know:
>
> Microsoft's own words: "The only information required to activate is
> an installation ID (and, for Office XP and Office XP family products
> such as Visio 2002, the name of the country in which the product is
> being installed.)"
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
>
> Windows Product Activation only exists to discourage casual copying
> by the home and small business user. It doesn't stop dedicated
> pirates and it isn't locked down .. heck after 120 days the thing
> resets so one could conceivably install the copy on a second computer
> then and have it activate over the Internet without a hitch.
>
> Before all this, Microsoft operating system software was completely
> on the honour system. Now it is 'sorta' on the honour system 'sorta'
> portected by Windows Product Activation. I can't see why anyone would
> blame Microsoft too much for providing some protection to their
> intellectual property.

LOL! What are you, a stockholder?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Richard Urban
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:ORbWatIZFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Tim.T wrote:
>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
>> not it IS necessary.
>
> Yes for Retail
>
> Maybe for OEM
>
> No for VL
>
> No for pirated
>
>> For example, I didn't realise the number of
>> times you could activate it was limited.
>
> It's not limited. You can activate an infinite number of times.
>
>> I know this may be a
>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>
> MS doesn't care about people, except to collect money from them!
>
>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>> Windows Catalog lol
>>
>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>
> If one does then, it will be pure propaganda.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

As opposed to YOUR propaganda! Please note 2 and 3 below!


Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for
propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over
missionary territories and related institutions
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping
or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause
or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect


--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Richard Urban wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:ORbWatIZFHA.228@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Tim.T wrote:
>>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>> or not it IS necessary.
>>
>> Yes for Retail
>>
>> Maybe for OEM
>>
>> No for VL
>>
>> No for pirated
>>
>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>> times you could activate it was limited.
>>
>> It's not limited. You can activate an infinite number of times.
>>
>>> I know this may be a
>>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>
>> MS doesn't care about people, except to collect money from them!
>>
>>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>> Windows Catalog lol
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>
>> If one does then, it will be pure propaganda.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>
>
> As opposed to YOUR propaganda! Please note 2 and 3 below!
>
>
> Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
> Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide
> Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by
> Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman
> curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related
> institutions 2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for
> the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a
> person 3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to
> further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public
> action having such an effect

LOL! The definition doesn't back up your accusation against me.

prop·a·gan·da n.
1.. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of
information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such
a doctrine or cause.
2.. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine
or cause: wartime propaganda.
3.. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia
that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of
establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering
Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized
hierarchy.
Pay attention to number 1.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> LOL! What are you, a stockholder?
>>


I wish I were.

Brian
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
Tim.T wrote:

> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
> not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
> times you could activate it was limited.

It's not limited, but after X (whatever X is) activations, MS will only
let you phone in to activate, instead of via the net. Firsthand experience.

valentin tihomirov
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
> There's no limit to the number of times you can
> reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
> the same PC.

What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does it mean I
event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
valentin tihomirov wrote:

>>There's no limit to the number of times you can
>>reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
>>the same PC.
>
>
> What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does it mean I
> event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?
>
>
You can change anything, although if you change too much, you'll have to
activate by phone. If that should happen, you are not required to give
them any more information than a number. If 120 days has passed, you
should be able to activate online. I changed my CPU, added more RAM,
replaced a defective NIC and added a video card, disabling the onboard
video card and, upon reboot, got a balloon to activate. Clicked on it
and activated online without problems.

MS is not clear what a "same PC" is because MS does recognize that
people upgrade their systems.

Alias

Ken Blake
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
In news:eZaoPoKZFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
valentin tihomirov <valentin_NOSPAM@abelectron.com> typed:

>> There's no limit to the number of times you can
>> reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
>> the same PC.
>
> What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does
> it mean
> I event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?


Exactly what constitutes the "same PC" is a frequent bone of
contention, and Microsoft's EULA does not spell this out. However
nobody has claimed that adding a sound card makes it a different
PC. I'm not sure what you mean by "closure."


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
In article <eZaoPoKZFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
valentin_NOSPAM@abelectron.com says...
> > There's no limit to the number of times you can
> > reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
> > the same PC.
>
> What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does it mean I
> event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?

Why not take a couple minutes and search the MS site for Product
Activation and learn how it really works?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
In article <ucAiBqIZFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
unclejohn@uselesnospam.com says...
> While what Malke says is true about activation for Windows XP, it is not
> true for Office 2003 or later and Tim T. seemed to me to be talking about
> activation for Microsoft products in general.

You can activate MS Office 2003, SBE or Prof, several times on the same
machines, and in fact, you can install it on a laptop and a desktop
(with certain restrictions) using the same key.

I've reinstalled Office 2003 many times using the same key, and under
120 days, and only had to call a couple times - always got a new key
after talking to the MS person.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Galen
07-10-2005, 12:50 AM
In news:MPG.1d0430275d77f5698983d@news-server.columbus.rr.com,
Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> had this to say:

My reply is at the bottom of your sent message:

> You can activate MS Office 2003, SBE or Prof, several times on the
> same machines, and in fact, you can install it on a laptop and a
> desktop (with certain restrictions) using the same key.
>
> I've reinstalled Office 2003 many times using the same key, and under
> 120 days, and only had to call a couple times - always got a new key
> after talking to the MS person.
>
> --

I can confirm that. I don't KNOW of any activation limit with Office 2k3 nor
any other Office product. I have one copy (I lose CDs and keys often) that I
can assure you I've installed too many times to count when the PCs that it
was on crashed. If there's a number of times that Office can be activated
and it's a limited amount there's something wrong with their system because
I've never even had to call.

Galen
--

"And that recommendation, with the exaggerated estimate of my ability
with which he prefaced it, was, if you will believe me, Watson, the
very first thing which ever made me feel that a profession might be
made out of what had up to that time been the merest hobby."

Sherlock Holmes

Lil' Dave
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:OfwcV$KZFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In news:eZaoPoKZFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> valentin tihomirov <valentin_NOSPAM@abelectron.com> typed:
>
> >> There's no limit to the number of times you can
> >> reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
> >> the same PC.
> >
> > What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does
> > it mean
> > I event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?
>
>
> Exactly what constitutes the "same PC" is a frequent bone of
> contention, and Microsoft's EULA does not spell this out. However
> nobody has claimed that adding a sound card makes it a different
> PC. I'm not sure what you mean by "closure."
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>

My immediate impression upon reading the reply was "closure" is enclosure.
Enclosure is the common term for the PC case.

Don't know why this was even mentioned as enclosures are not detectible
hardware, nor do they participate in any internal function of the PC.

bonio
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
> Tim.T wrote:
>
>>>I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>>incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>>this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>>or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>>times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>>precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>>reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>>often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>>Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>>for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>>cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>>the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>>"XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>>Windows Catalog lol
>>>
>>>I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>
>>>Tim
>
>
> Some copies of Windows XP balk after so many activations on the same PC
> within 120 days. I had one copy of Home that balked after a few times .. yet
> I had another that I could activate over and over again until the cows came
> home .. Why one balked I don't know .. it might have been some reason with
> my hardware .. maybe I inadvertently changed some bios configuration that
> made it seem like a new set of hardware to the product activation algorithm.
>
> However, technically, as long as you have a legitimate copy you can activate
> it on the same set of hardware as many times as you want. If activating by
> Internet ever fails then you need simply phone. Tell them the 50 digit
> number necessary for activation - that's all they need know:
>
> Microsoft's own words: "The only information required to activate is an
> installation ID (and, for Office XP and Office XP family products such as
> Visio 2002, the name of the country in which the product is being
> installed.)"

But what about this scenario:

I buy a blank whitebox PC and a retail copy of XP Pro.

I install XP Pro on the PC and activate it on the Internet.

A few weeks later, I buy a new blank whitebox PC.

I decide to wipe my copy of XP Pro off the first PC and install it on
the new one.

So now I have one copy of XP Pro installed on one machine - which is
perfectly OK according to the EULA.

However, if I try to activate the new install over the Internet, it will
fail because my copy of XP Pro is already activated on the old PC.

Now, if it's true that all I need to provide is the installation ID to
activate Windows over the phone, then presumably I'm under no obligation
to explain why I'm activating XP on another machine?

Now suppose I didn't wipe XP off the first machine. What's to stop me
from doing this and thus defeating the whole purpose of activation?

> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
>
> Windows Product Activation only exists to discourage casual copying by the
> home and small business user. It doesn't stop dedicated pirates and it isn't
> locked down .. heck after 120 days the thing resets so one could conceivably
> install the copy on a second computer then and have it activate over the
> Internet without a hitch.
>
> Before all this, Microsoft operating system software was completely on the
> honour system. Now it is 'sorta' on the honour system 'sorta' portected by
> Windows Product Activation. I can't see why anyone would blame Microsoft too
> much for providing some protection to their intellectual property.
>
>

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
bonio wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Tim.T wrote:
>>
>>>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>>> or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>>> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>>> Windows Catalog lol
>>>>
>>>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>>
>>>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> Some copies of Windows XP balk after so many activations on the same
>> PC within 120 days. I had one copy of Home that balked after a few
>> times .. yet I had another that I could activate over and over again
>> until the cows came home .. Why one balked I don't know .. it might
>> have been some reason with my hardware .. maybe I inadvertently
>> changed some bios configuration that made it seem like a new set of
>> hardware to the product activation algorithm.
>>
>> However, technically, as long as you have a legitimate copy you can
>> activate it on the same set of hardware as many times as you want. If
>> activating by Internet ever fails then you need simply phone. Tell
>> them the 50 digit number necessary for activation - that's all they
>> need know:
>>
>> Microsoft's own words: "The only information required to activate is
>> an installation ID (and, for Office XP and Office XP family products
>> such as Visio 2002, the name of the country in which the product is
>> being installed.)"
>
>
> But what about this scenario:
>
> I buy a blank whitebox PC and a retail copy of XP Pro.
>
> I install XP Pro on the PC and activate it on the Internet.
>
> A few weeks later, I buy a new blank whitebox PC.
>
> I decide to wipe my copy of XP Pro off the first PC and install it on
> the new one.
>
> So now I have one copy of XP Pro installed on one machine - which is
> perfectly OK according to the EULA.
>
> However, if I try to activate the new install over the Internet, it will
> fail because my copy of XP Pro is already activated on the old PC.
>
> Now, if it's true that all I need to provide is the installation ID to
> activate Windows over the phone, then presumably I'm under no obligation
> to explain why I'm activating XP on another machine?
>
> Now suppose I didn't wipe XP off the first machine. What's to stop me
> from doing this and thus defeating the whole purpose of activation?
>

Nothing, but the MS sychophants here will call you a thief.

Alias
>> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
>>
>> Windows Product Activation only exists to discourage casual copying by
>> the home and small business user. It doesn't stop dedicated pirates
>> and it isn't locked down .. heck after 120 days the thing resets so
>> one could conceivably install the copy on a second computer then and
>> have it activate over the Internet without a hitch.
>>
>> Before all this, Microsoft operating system software was completely on
>> the honour system. Now it is 'sorta' on the honour system 'sorta'
>> portected by Windows Product Activation. I can't see why anyone would
>> blame Microsoft too much for providing some protection to their
>> intellectual property.
>>

Michael Stevens
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
In news:eLojlXIZFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Tim.T <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> replied with a ;-)
> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
> not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
> Windows Catalog lol
>
> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>
> Tim

This is a peer support newsgroup and is not officially monitored by MSFT.
There is the occasional MSFT response, but they are posting on their free
time in a non-official status.
But did you really care, since you didn't bother to reply to any of the
viable replies you received.
You can install retail XP on the same hardware or new hardware as many times
as you want, all you need to do if prompted by a message it has been
installed too many times is to follow the on screen prompts and activated by
phone. Explain you have reinstalled XP in accordance with the EULA. Retail
XP has no restrictions on the number of times it can be installed as long as
it is installed to one computer at a time. The highly discounted OEM
versions have restrictions limiting transfer and the ability to only clean
install as would be expected of software half the cost of the unrestricted
retail versions.

Check the links below for more insight on the activation process.
How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously activated
XP?
#06 on the FAQ list
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html
OEM clarification.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm

Michael Stevens
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
In news:OWVxKuIZFHA.1412@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
Stephen <stephen@online.nospam> replied with a ;-)
> Tim.T wrote:
>>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>> or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>> Windows Catalog lol
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>
>>> Tim
>
> Some copies of Windows XP balk after so many activations on the same
> PC within 120 days. I had one copy of Home that balked after a few
> times .. yet I had another that I could activate over and over again
> until the cows came home .. Why one balked I don't know .. it might
> have been some reason with my hardware .. maybe I inadvertently
> changed some bios configuration that made it seem like a new set of
> hardware to the product activation algorithm.
>
> However, technically, as long as you have a legitimate copy you can
> activate it on the same set of hardware as many times as you want. If
> activating by Internet ever fails then you need simply phone. Tell
> them the 50 digit number necessary for activation - that's all they
> need know:
>
> Microsoft's own words: "The only information required to activate is
> an installation ID (and, for Office XP and Office XP family products
> such as Visio 2002, the name of the country in which the product is
> being installed.)"
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details
>
> Windows Product Activation only exists to discourage casual copying
> by the home and small business user. It doesn't stop dedicated
> pirates and it isn't locked down .. heck after 120 days the thing
> resets so one could conceivably install the copy on a second computer
> then and have it activate over the Internet without a hitch.
>
> Before all this, Microsoft operating system software was completely
> on the honour system. Now it is 'sorta' on the honour system 'sorta'
> portected by Windows Product Activation. I can't see why anyone would
> blame Microsoft too much for providing some protection to their
> intellectual property.

It can still be activated, because of the unusual pattern of frequent
activations, it was flagged for phone acttivation. It is still unlimited as
long as you are installing the retail version one time per Produict Key.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

Michael Stevens
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
In news:OfwcV$KZFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> replied with a ;-)
> In news:eZaoPoKZFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> valentin tihomirov <valentin_NOSPAM@abelectron.com> typed:
>
>>> There's no limit to the number of times you can
>>> reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
>>> the same PC.
>>
>> What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does
>> it mean
>> I event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?
>
>
> Exactly what constitutes the "same PC" is a frequent bone of
> contention, and Microsoft's EULA does not spell this out. However
> nobody has claimed that adding a sound card makes it a different
> PC. I'm not sure what you mean by "closure."

Actually on many OEM PC's with restore only disks, changing any hardware
component will render the restore media useless. eMachines are the best
example of this behavior with OEM restore media. The System would need to be
restored to it's original hardware configuration and then the hardware could
be upgraded as well as the OS and other software. The reasoning for the OEM
is to reduce costs incurred from support. If the system is modified from
the shipped state it is no longer supported and the use of the restore disks
will restore the computer to the original shipped state.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> LOL! What are you, a stockholder?
>>>
>
>
> I wish I were.

So you are just a sycophant.

"I can't see why anyone would blame Microsoft too much for providing
some protection to their intellectual property."

You can't see why someone having a problem using a copy of copy-protect
software would blame MS for the problem? Are you INSANE? The
"protection" doesn't work, as the only people that have to deal with it
are the paying customer. The pirates easily get around this so-called
protection.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:

This isn't a socio-political thing for me. If you dislike Microsoft choose
another software company. Unlike many would have you believe, there is
competition on the platform, lots of it, therefore plenty of competing
operating systems you can obtain to run you x86/64 computer(s).

Now that you know, I guess you won't be posting here any more. So, Bye.

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>>Stephen wrote:
>
>
> This isn't a socio-political thing for me. If you dislike Microsoft choose
> another software company.

There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech to
understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.

> Unlike many would have you believe, there is
> competition on the platform, lots of it, therefore plenty of competing
> operating systems you can obtain to run you x86/64 computer(s).

No, there isn't. 99% of computer users cannot install Linux without
problems. Few can afford a Mac.
>
> Now that you know, I guess you won't be posting here any more. So, Bye.

Yes, he will.

Alias

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:

>
> There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech to
> understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.
>

Never heard of Apple?






--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
bonio wrote:

>
> But what about this scenario:
>
> I buy a blank whitebox PC and a retail copy of XP Pro.
>
> I install XP Pro on the PC and activate it on the Internet.
>
> A few weeks later, I buy a new blank whitebox PC.
>
> I decide to wipe my copy of XP Pro off the first PC and install it on
> the new one.
>
> So now I have one copy of XP Pro installed on one machine - which is
> perfectly OK according to the EULA.
>
> However, if I try to activate the new install over the Internet, it will
> fail because my copy of XP Pro is already activated on the old PC.
>
> Now, if it's true that all I need to provide is the installation ID to
> activate Windows over the phone, then presumably I'm under no obligation
> to explain why I'm activating XP on another machine?
>
> Now suppose I didn't wipe XP off the first machine. What's to stop me
> from doing this and thus defeating the whole purpose of activation?
>


Nothing but your own integrity.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias

If you don't like the accolade, don't commit the crime..

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"Alias" <aka@[notme]maskedandanonymous.org> wrote in message
news:eIR3NHQZFHA.4088@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...

Nothing, but the MS sychophants here will call you a thief.

Alias
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#details

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>> There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech
>> to understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.
>>
>
> Never heard of Apple?
>

I wrote and you snipped:

"Few can afford a Mac."

Alias

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:

> Alias
>
> If you don't like the accolade, don't commit the crime..
>
I haven't committed any crime.

1. Copyright infringement is not a criminal act.

2. All my computers have original Windows XP on them. That doesn't mean
I am happy with that nor that I won't speak up against it.

Alias

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>
> This isn't a socio-political thing for me.

LOL! Sure it is. You were the one that said, "I can't see why anyone
would blame Microsoft too much for providing some protection to their
intellectual property."

Which started this sub-thread.

If you can't understand you fellow human beings point of view that have
problems with PA, and can only sympathize with MS wanting to protect its
copy-righted material from that that were LEGALLY sold a copy of it it,
then you are putting forward your socio-political opinion.

You are basically siding with the rights of the corporation OVER the
rights of the individual.

> If you dislike Microsoft
> choose another software company.

MS is a predatory monopoly. No other companies OS will run on my
computer, and believe me, I've tried!

> Unlike many would have you believe,
> there is competition on the platform, lots of it, therefore plenty of
> competing operating systems you can obtain to run you x86/64
> computer(s).

Really? Linux is mainly a server OS, on the desktop PC is still has a
way to go. OSX won't run on IBM-compatible PCs.

There really is no competion in the Consumer multi-media PC arena.

> Now that you know, I guess you won't be posting here any more. So,
> Bye.

You leaving so soon?

Don't let the virtual door slam you on your ass on the way out!


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>> There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech
>> to understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.
>>
>
> Never heard of Apple?

OSX runs on Wintel PCs?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Alias
>
> If you don't like the accolade, don't commit the crime..

What crime? There is no "CRIME" involved in installing software on more
than one PC for one's private non-commercial use.

Please show what you are basing calling this a "CRIME!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> bonio wrote:
>
>>
>> But what about this scenario:
>>
>> I buy a blank whitebox PC and a retail copy of XP Pro.
>>
>> I install XP Pro on the PC and activate it on the Internet.
>>
>> A few weeks later, I buy a new blank whitebox PC.
>>
>> I decide to wipe my copy of XP Pro off the first PC and install it on
>> the new one.
>>
>> So now I have one copy of XP Pro installed on one machine - which is
>> perfectly OK according to the EULA.
>>
>> However, if I try to activate the new install over the Internet, it
>> will fail because my copy of XP Pro is already activated on the old
>> PC. Now, if it's true that all I need to provide is the installation
>> ID
>> to activate Windows over the phone, then presumably I'm under no
>> obligation to explain why I'm activating XP on another machine?
>>
>> Now suppose I didn't wipe XP off the first machine. What's to stop me
>> from doing this and thus defeating the whole purpose of activation?
>>
>
>
> Nothing but your own integrity.

My integrity would tell my there is nothing wrong with "fairly using" my
copy of software.

Just like the religious use there moral values to denegrate
homosexuality, you use your "corporate rights outweigh an individuals
rights" values to denegrate those that believe in "fair use."

Your "religion" of the almighty corporation is what is really lacking in
integrity, as supposedly you are a human being, not a corporation.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>
>
> My integrity would tell my there is nothing wrong with "fairly using" my
> copy of software.
>


Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an agreement
into which you've freely and voluntarily entered? I'm glad I will never
have to do business with you. Does your mortgage company know that you
feel this way about contracts? And don't try throw "fair use" into the
discussion; it's not even relevant.


> Just like the religious use there moral values to denegrate
> homosexuality, you use your "corporate rights outweigh an individuals
> rights" values to denegrate those that believe in "fair use."


I've never claimed that "corporate rights outweigh an individual's
rights." Why are you trying to change the subject? Can't you ever
stick to the point, instead of arguing semantics or throwing up weak
straw-man arguments? Again, "fair use" doesn't come into play. The
EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.
(But you already know that, and just use the term in another lame
attempt to change the subject.)


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Lighten up guys..

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation)

"A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or moral law.
In the narrow sense, a crime is a violation of the criminal law. For
example, most traffic violations or breach of contracts are not crimes in a
legal sense."

--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm





"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e$pM0KSZFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> Alias
>>
>> If you don't like the accolade, don't commit the crime..
>
> What crime? There is no "CRIME" involved in installing software on more
> than one PC for one's private non-commercial use.
>
> Please show what you are basing calling this a "CRIME!"
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>> My integrity would tell my there is nothing wrong with "fairly
>> using" my copy of software.
>
> Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an agreement
> into which you've freely and voluntarily entered?

No, contract law. There are perfectly valid and legal reasons to breech
a contract or certain term of a contract.

But you don't understand that, as your "corporate rights uber alles"
mentality sees a contract as a law unto itself, inviolable, whereas, in
reality, it is just contractual claims, and when disputed by the second
party, me, it is up to the first party, MS, to sue me and prove by the
preponderance of the evidence that my breech is damaging them in some
way.

In the over 13 years of knowing that individuals have disputed their One
Computer term, MS, nor any other colluding member of the BSA for that
FACT, has yet to sue, let alone convince a court to enforce the One
Computer term on one private non-commercial individual.

And as the Supreme Court said in the Betamax case, "Any individual may
reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does
not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

They didn't limit it to the narrow view of timeshifting in this
statement of FACT! The copyright owner {MS} doesn have the right to
limit my "fair use." And until there is some SUPREME COURT precedent
that says that a copyright owner can shrinkwrap license away my right to
"fair use, it is a matter of integrity for me to protect MY right to MY
copy of software in MY home!

> I'm glad I will
> never have to do business with you.

LOL! You're in business?!

> Does your mortgage company know
> that you feel this way about contracts?

If any term is unreasonable or unconscionable, I have every legal right
to breech it, under the law!

That is not my "feeling," it is the way contract law works in the US.

> And don't try throw "fair
> use" into the discussion; it's not even relevant.

LOL! If YOU say so! But that is all you do is say so, yet you do not
even try to demonstrate it.

But it is since you are the one that is saying it that it is a matter of
not valuing YOUR opinion of integrity for some one to "fairly use" their
copy of software.

>> Just like the religious use there moral values to denegrate
>> homosexuality, you use your "corporate rights outweigh an individuals
>> rights" values to denegrate those that believe in "fair use."
>
>
> I've never claimed that "corporate rights outweigh an individual's
> rights."

It is implicit in all of your arguments about MS and their EULA over
that of an individual's rights in their home with their copy of
copyrighted material!

> Why are you trying to change the subject?

I expanded it a bit, I didn't change it.

> Can't you ever
> stick to the point, instead of arguing semantics or throwing up weak
> straw-man arguments?

LOL! Look at you arguing earlier about the inviolability of the EULA.
It is not a law unto itself! One doesn't have to lack integrity to
breech terms one feels are unconscionable or violates the law!

In the case of ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case where a database shrinkwrap
license was breeched for a COMMERIAL USE, the judge even acknowledged
the FACT that contracts can be legally breeched!

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

"Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
(which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
subject for another day."

So the same judge also admits that contracts and licenses may be
different when it comes to copyright law. Which brings us to "fair
use!"

> Again, "fair use" doesn't come into play.

LOL! Again, if YOU say so! But you can not even explain why!
Repeating something over and over again as a means to convince others of
what you cannot honestly & logically convince them of is the Goebels
method of propaganda!

http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times
http://snipurl.com/4x5d - 87 times
http://snipurl.com/d81h - 137 times

It is you passion for repetition that earned you the title of MicroNazi
in my MVP Hall of Shame!

http://www.microscum.com/bruce/


And yes "fair use" does come into play, since the EULA's One Computer
rules is in effect a means to rewrite copyright law and Supreme Court
legal precedent!

The copyright owner is trying to limit my right to "fair use" after the
FACT of the sale!

> The
> EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.

"Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include -"

"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

Private non-commercial individual use.

"In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being
a primary indicator of fair use." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Of course public commercial use is sometimes legally allowable under
"fair use." Private non-commercial use in the home would be the most
flexible form of "fair use."

"(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"

"In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html

Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.

"(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and"

Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
entire
copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work."

Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a "fair
return" for the creative labor of the author(s).

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance
of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve
the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music,
and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to
secure a
fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is,
by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general
public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary
object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the
general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors' . . .
.. When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous,
the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

I have a right to my interpretation unless the copyright owner
disagrees, sues me, and wins, so the EULA is interfere with my perfectly
valid interpretation of "fair use," ESPECIALLY since MS introduced PA,
as a from of EULA control.

> (But you already know that, and just use the term in another lame
> attempt to change the subject.)

I KNOW no such thing, and I think I've explain why I don't know any such
thing! And you have NOT shown one credible shread of anything, other
than mere repetition, the "fair use" doesn't come into play when it
comes to MS's One Computer post-sale shrink-wrap license term!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> This isn't a socio-political thing for me. If you dislike Microsoft
>>> choose another software company.
>>
>> There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech
>> to understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.

Ignorance is not Mircosoft's fault. Besides it is free men and women who are
*choosing* Microsoft. It's what people want.

>>> Unlike many would have you believe, there is
>>> competition on the platform, lots of it, therefore plenty of
>>> competing operating systems you can obtain to run you x86/64
>>> computer(s).
>>
>> No, there isn't. 99% of computer users cannot install Linux without
>> problems.

Linux advocates woud claim otherwise - take it up with them.

>> Few can afford a Mac.

Tell that to Steve Jobs.

>>> Now that you know, I guess you won't be posting here any more. So,
>>> Bye.
>>
>> Yes, he will.
>>
>> Alias

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>

He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think it is an
issue of his integrity. He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the home] and
right to privacy verses your point of view which is how the law and and
business contracting server corporate profit and interest and how best to
defeat human "rights" should they interfere.

Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
respected, they should be revered.

Ken Blake
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
In news:%23u6rO7PZFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
Lil' Dave <spamyourself@virus.net> typed:

> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:OfwcV$KZFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> In news:eZaoPoKZFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
>> valentin tihomirov <valentin_NOSPAM@abelectron.com> typed:
>>
>>>> There's no limit to the number of times you can
>>>> reinstall and activate the same WinXP license on
>>>> the same PC.
>>>
>>> What is the notion "same PC"? PC is a set of components. Does
>>> it mean
>>> I event cannot change a closure or add a sound card?
>>
>>
>> Exactly what constitutes the "same PC" is a frequent bone of
>> contention, and Microsoft's EULA does not spell this out.
>> However
>> nobody has claimed that adding a sound card makes it a
>> different
>> PC. I'm not sure what you mean by "closure."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>>
>>
>
> My immediate impression upon reading the reply was "closure" is
> enclosure. Enclosure is the common term for the PC case.


Well, the word "enclosure" may occasionally be used for the case,
but it's not *the* common term.

But you're probably right. I can't think of what else he might
have meant.


> Don't know why this was even mentioned as enclosures are not
> detectible hardware, nor do they participate in any internal
> function
> of the PC.


All true, except that the requirement for an OEM system is to
affix the Certificate of Authenticity to the case. I'm not a
lawyer, but, absurd as it sounds, I think that requirement might
make it arguable in court that it's therefore the case that makes
it the same computer or not.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> Lighten up guys..
>>
>> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
>> for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation)
>>
>> "A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or
>> moral law. In the narrow sense, a crime is a violation of the
>> criminal law. For example, most traffic violations or breach of
>> contracts are not crimes in a legal sense."
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall
>> MVP - Windows Shell/User
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:e$pM0KSZFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> If you don't like the accolade, don't commit the crime..
>>>
>>> What crime? There is no "CRIME" involved in installing software on
>>> more than one PC for one's private non-commercial use.
>>>
>>> Please show what you are basing calling this a "CRIME!"
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

He's talking about crime in the narrow sense. e.g. In Canada, it is not a
crime nor even an offence to copy music CDs within the home and distribute
said copies to other members of the very same household - it's called "fair
use" here, regardless of any contract printed on the original CD's seal.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Lighten up guys..
>
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> for other uses please see Crime (disambiguation)
>
> "A crime in a broad sense is an act that violates a political or
> moral law. In the narrow sense, a crime is a violation of the
> criminal law. For example, most traffic violations or breach of
> contracts are not crimes in a legal sense."

I was talking in the narrow sense of the Law with a capital "L".
Installing software on more than one computer in NOT a crime under the
Law!

And if you had people calling you a thief, a pirate or a criminal,
without any proof or legal precedent at all, over and over again, for
just expressing your opinion, I doubt you'd be all that light about it
either, especially coming from someone you respect.

I saw nothing in your post that indicated that you were just making
light of it all, Mike. But then again, I didn't jump down your throat
either, I just emphasized the word you used, and ask you to explain
yourself, which you did.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
It is but one small step from distributing to family members in a household
to friends a block away, to sharing with persons unknown on a P2P service..

Allowing the mechanism to enable distribution to family leaves the door open
for distribution to anybody..

http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-69e83a09-4116-4e33-b1cd-3fd4329aa16e&News=Daily%20ITwire&title=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20Canada&lid=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20CanadaWhile we are not anything like as bad as people in Asia, the above showsthat a "ce ne fait rien" attitude by Canada goes some way to promotingpiracy in that it doesn't legislate effectively against it.. but the timewill come when Canada will..It is a situation similar to traffic speed limits.. if, when a limit wasimposed, everybody abided by it, the police would not have speed cameras,and we wouldn't get caught.. but life and people are never so simple, and asa result, we get caught..I have an issue with record and movie companies in that I don't see any harmin freely distributing material that the aforementioned companies have nointention of re-releasing.. where is the harm in that?.. it is unfortunate,however, that users of P2P services go well beyond that..The arguments for and against go on regardless, and as long as people chooseto ignore the morality issue, companies who have an issue with what they seeas piracy will continue to look for ways to stop it..--Mike HallMVP - Windows Shell/Userhttp://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm"Stephen" <stephen@online.nospam> wrote in messagenews:%23M$BniTZFHA.2756@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...>> He's talking about crime in the narrow sense. e.g. In Canada, it is not a> crime nor even an offence to copy music CDs within the home and distribute> said copies to other members of the very same household - it's called"fair> use" here, regardless of any contract printed on the original CD's seal.>>

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
>> It is but one small step from distributing to family members in a
>> household
>> to friends a block away, to sharing with persons unknown on a P2P
>> service..
>>
>> Allowing the mechanism to enable distribution to family leaves the
>> door open
>> for distribution to anybody..
>>

"Allowing" ?? It's not a matter of "allowing", it is a matter of rights. We
have the RIGHT to do that in our homes - it's called "fair use". And it *is*
a big step to go to sharing stuff *outside* the home because that infringes
on copyright here. A funny quirk in Canada is that while we have the right
to download as we will *into* our homes from P2P services, we *do not* have
the right to UPLOAD copyrighted material from our homes to P2P services.

So while I can make copies of a book, say, or some other piece of
copyrighted intellectual property and share it with members of my family
within my household, I do not have the right to make copies for people
outside the home nor the right to sell copies on the street or in a market.

There's a line drawn I guess, and it is the front door of the private home.
I think it is reasonable.

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
kurttrail wrote:

>>
>>Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an agreement
>>into which you've freely and voluntarily entered?
>
>
> No, contract law. There are perfectly valid and legal reasons to breech
> a contract or certain term of a contract.
>


Granted, but name a single court decision that has found found any
"valid and legal" reasons to void Microsoft's EULA. You can't.


> But you don't understand that, as your "corporate rights uber alles"
> mentality sees a contract as a law unto itself, inviolable, whereas, in
> reality, it is just contractual claims, and when disputed by the second
> party, me, it is up to the first party, MS, to sue me and prove by the
> preponderance of the evidence that my breech is damaging them in some
> way.
>
> In the over 13 years of knowing that individuals have disputed their One
> Computer term, MS, nor any other colluding member of the BSA for that
> FACT, has yet to sue, let alone convince a court to enforce the One
> Computer term on one private non-commercial individual.
>


Which is simply because doing so would be a PR nightmare for the
companies in question, and produce little or nothing of profit for them.
Remember, these are businesses; they're not particularly concerns with
the "principle of the matter," as you claim to be. Their concern is
their bottom line. If and when it becomes in their best interest to
prosecute individuals, they'll no doubt do so. Don't make the false
conclusion that just because they haven't done something yet, it means
that they can't or won't do so, at sometime in the future. That's very
poor logic, indeed.


> And as the Supreme Court said in the Betamax case, "Any individual may
> reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does
> not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
>

This case is no more relevant to software today, then it was the first
time you brought it up.


> They didn't limit it to the narrow view of timeshifting in this
> statement of FACT! The copyright owner {MS} doesn have the right to
> limit my "fair use." And until there is some SUPREME COURT precedent
> that says that a copyright owner can shrinkwrap license away my right to
> "fair use, it is a matter of integrity for me to protect MY right to MY
> copy of software in MY home!
>
>

And the EULA doesn't interfere with "fair use." Remember, *you*
voluntarily agreed to abide by the terms of the EULA when you installed
the software. If you don't like the terms, use something else.


>
>
>>Does your mortgage company know
>>that you feel this way about contracts?
>
>
> If any term is unreasonable or unconscionable, I have every legal right
> to breech it, under the law!
>

If you can prove in court that the terms are "unconscionable" or in
violation of other law, yes. "Unreasonable" doesn't really apply, I
don't think. Why would you sign a contract that you felt was
unreasonable? Or does it somehow magically turn unreasonable when you
no longer like the terms? You can't breech a contract just because
you've changed your mind; not without expecting consequences.


> That is not my "feeling," it is the way contract law works in the US.
>
>
>>And don't try throw "fair
>>use" into the discussion; it's not even relevant.
>
>
> LOL! If YOU say so! But that is all you do is say so, yet you do not
> even try to demonstrate it.
>

There's nothing to "demonstrate." I've repeatedly pointed out the
definition of fair use, as defined by copyright law. But for those who
haven't seen the facts pointed out to you before:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.

Just exactly where, in the above text, does it state that installing
multiple copies of a software product on multiple computers in one's
home is not an infringement of the copyright? In fact, an unauthorized
second installation would clearly fail the both the (1) and (3) test.
More reading:

Copyright & Fair Use Overview
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html


>>
>>
>>I've never claimed that "corporate rights outweigh an individual's
>>rights."
>
>
> It is implicit in all of your arguments about MS and their EULA over
> that of an individual's rights in their home with their copy of
> copyrighted material!
>
>

Not at all. Your inept and inaccurate inference notwithstanding, my
primary concern has always been about someone's voluntarily entering
into a contract and then reneging on it for no better reason than it's
convenient to do so. While I have no doubt that the current laws
support my position, I'm much more worried about a contract-breaker's
lack of integrity and trustworthiness. That fact that you find personal
integrity of so little value is just further evidence of the decline of
our culture.



>
>
> LOL! Look at you arguing earlier about the inviolability of the EULA.
> It is not a law unto itself!


Not so. You really should try arguing with what I've actually said,
rather than deliberately misinterpreting and then arguing with what you
imagine to be my position. I've never claimed that the EULA is a law.
I have pointed out that, until proven otherwise, it is a legally
enforceable contract. There's a vast difference.


> One doesn't have to lack integrity to
> breech terms one feels are unconscionable or violates the law!
>
> In the case of ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case where a database shrinkwrap
> license was breeched for a COMMERIAL USE, the judge even acknowledged
> the FACT that contracts can be legally breeched!
>
> "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
> objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
> example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
> unconscionable)." -
> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html
>

Once again, as you've done this before, thanks for supporting my
position by pointing out this decision.


> "Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and "licenses"
> (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a
> subject for another day."
>

And that day has yet to come. Until then, normal legal practice holds
that the contract is valid until proven otherwise. Had you the "courage
of your convictions," you'd challenge the EULA in court, just as a
matter of principle. Instead, you hide behind the "Microsoft has never
sued me, so I must be right" fallacy. You make a lot of defiant noise,
but only because you know your safe form the big, bad corporation that
doesn't take you seriously enough to bother with.


> So the same judge also admits that contracts and licenses may be
> different when it comes to copyright law. Which brings us to "fair
> use!"
>
>
>>Again, "fair use" doesn't come into play.
>
>
> LOL! Again, if YOU say so! But you can not even explain why!
> Repeating something over and over again as a means to convince others of
> what you cannot honestly & logically convince them of is the Goebels
> method of propaganda!
>

Actually, I've pointed it out repeatedly, but why disillusion you.

>
> It is you passion for repetition that earned you the title of MicroNazi
> in my MVP Hall of Shame!
>
> http://www.microscum.com/bruce/
>
>


Ah, yes. Your ultimate and invariable fall-back position. Whenever
you're proven wrong, the name-calling and personal attacks come out.
Once again, thanks for admitting defeat.


> And yes "fair use" does come into play, since the EULA's One Computer
> rules is in effect a means to rewrite copyright law and Supreme Court
> legal precedent!
>


No, it isn't. Reread Title 17:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Release date: 2004-04-30

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies.....

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 117

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

Release date: 2004-04-30

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

The EULA is, in fact, perfectly in compliance with the law, as written.


> The copyright owner is trying to limit my right to "fair use" after the
> FACT of the sale!
>

Not at all. First of all, there's no "fair use" limitation, as proven
above, and secondly, this doesn't happen "after the sale,", and thirdly,
even if it were "after the sale," it wouldn't matter. Reread *all* of
ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

>
>>The
>>EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.
>
>
> "Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"
>
> "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
> of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
> purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
> multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
> infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
> in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
> include -"
>
> "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
> of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"
>
> Private non-commercial individual use.
>

Non-commercial, but not non-profit. By installing the same license on
multiple computers, the computer user is "making a profit" in the sense
that he's not expending funds to buy additional licenses. Remember, "A
penny saved is a penny earned."

>
> "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
>
> "In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the material
> copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
>
> Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial product.
>

Relevance?


> "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
> the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
>
> Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
> entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
> entire
> copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html


Nonsense. You've continually failed to demonstrate how that old
Betamax case could possibly apply to computer software. An complete
copy of a copyrighted works for no other reason than financial gain is
clearly a not intended as allowable use.

>
> "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
> copyrighted work."
>
> Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by the
> indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a "fair
> return" for the creative labor of the author(s).
>

"Fair return" by whose definition? Which court has decided that a
software manufacturer need only be paid once, for a single copy?


> "The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
> the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
> balance
> of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
> encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve
> the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music,
> and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to
> secure a
> fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is,
> by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general
> public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary
> object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, 'lie in the
> general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors' . . .
> . When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous,
> the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
>

Be that as it may, you've failed to how it supports your position. I'd
say it does doesn't even come close. Hoping to distract people by throw
in tons of irrelevant material? Disagreements are decided upon the
merits, relevance, and quality of the arguments made, not on the sheer
bulk of irrelevant material added to pad the argument. Trying to wear
me down?


> "Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
> interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
> arbitration." -
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
>


All of which proves my point. Again. Thank you.


> I have a right to my interpretation unless the copyright owner
> disagrees, sues me, and wins, so the EULA is interfere with my perfectly
> valid interpretation of "fair use," ESPECIALLY since MS introduced PA,
> as a from of EULA control.
>
>

You have a right to your own opinion, certainly. And as much as I
dislike it, you also have a right to express that opinion, and to work
to over-turn a law you find unjust. That's not what you're doing,
however. You're misrepresenting the facts and laws of the matter, and
advising people to do as they please, without regard to the
consequences. I do and will continue to argue that you're not justified
in trying to get others to violate the law, just because you think it's
safe to do do. If you are going to advocate such actions, you should at
least tell people the complete truth, that they will be acting contrary
to current law, and that what you're advising them to do could, someday,
as unlikely as it is, put them at risk. I especially take umbrage at
your encouragement of the violating of agreements/contracts when you've
no better excuse than that the terms of the agreement are no longer
convenient.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> It is but one small step from distributing to family members in a
> household to friends a block away, to sharing with persons unknown on
> a P2P
> service..

LOL! And cigarettes is but one small step from smoking pot!

And smoking pot is one small step from smoking crack!

What a specious argument!

Owning a gun is one small step away from shooting someone!

See, in the US, owning a gun is legal, but shooting someone is not,
except it seems in Texas and Florida. And I live in Florida!

Terrible argument, Mike.

But in the US, we also have the concept of Free Public Libraries, which
are run by the local government for the expressed purpose of sharing
printed copyrighted material with the public. Hasn't hurt the
publishing industry one little bit.

While I agree that file-sharing is wrong, there is absolutely no
evidense that it hurts any copyrighted material market.

The Music industry was hurt more by a horrible 3 to five year period of
music releases just as file sharing was getting going.

Star War 3 (or 6 depending on relativity) was on file sharing from day
one of its release, and yet it opened to the biggest four day period in
movie history.

The Software piracy rate was much high in 1994 than it's been since
file-sharing hit the bigtime.

I still think its wrong under US Copyright Law, but I have yet to be
convinced that it is the biggest threat to the copyrighted material
industry. I'm more of the opinion that the industry is their own worst
enemy, by making it appear that their customers are their enemy!

>
> Allowing the mechanism to enable distribution to family leaves the
> door open for distribution to anybody..

Always has. I've shared books with friends, I made cassette tapes of my
records for friends when I was a kid! Public Libraries have yet to kill
the Publishing Industry!

The Internet has yet to kill off the local newspaper!

And MS still has its billions of dollars and has been killed of by
filesharing.

>
> http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-69e83a09-4116-4e33-b1cd-3fd4329aa16e&News=Daily%20ITwire&title=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20Canada&lid=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20CanadaWhile
> we are not anything like as bad as people in Asia, the above
> showsthat a "ce ne fait rien" attitude by Canada goes some way to
> promotingpiracy in that it doesn't legislate effectively against it..
> but the timewill come when Canada will..It is a situation similar to
> traffic speed limits.. if, when a limit wasimposed, everybody abided
> by it, the police would not have speed cameras,and we wouldn't get
> caught.. but life and people are never so simple, and asa result, we
> get caught..I have an issue with record and movie companies in that I
> don't see any harmin freely distributing material that the
> aforementioned companies have nointention of re-releasing.. where is
> the harm in that?.. it is unfortunate,however, that users of P2P
> services go well beyond that..The arguments for and against go on
> regardless, and as long as people chooseto ignore the morality issue,
> companies who have an issue with what they seeas piracy will continue
> to look for ways to stop it..

Business Software Alliance (BSA) Global Software Piracy Rate:

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004*
49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36 35

* - 1st 2 years using IDC methodology.

Microsoft first introduced PA in 2000 with Microsoft Office 2000 Service
Pack 1. The piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more
PCs were sold to people for Home Use. And since Microsoft first
introduce PA the piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For
calculating the piracy rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so
that drop is a result of that change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations
manager for the BSA, at the time of the release of that report said,
"Right now we feel that piracy rates are on the up."

http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000002.php

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>
> He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think it is an
> issue of his integrity.


I'd have to disagree with that. He's taken the position that it's OK
for someone to freely and voluntarily enter into a contract, and then to
later renege on that contract merely because abiding by its terms is no
longer convenient. That is a matter of integrity.

> He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
> entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the home] and
> right to privacy


No, not really. He's just using that as a distraction. How can one's
"fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which one
voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is agreeing that
one's "fair use" isn't abridged.


> ... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
> business contracting server corporate profit and interest


My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my position.


> and how best to
> defeat human "rights" should they interfere.
>

Huh?


> Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
> doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
> especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
> respected, they should be revered.
>

And I'd certainly not argue with that. I simply don't see how it could
possibly be relevant. I can't understand how abiding by the terms of a
contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an attack on either
human rights or privacy. If you don't like the terms of a contract,
don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract accompanies
the use of software, simply use a software product with whose license
one agrees.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think
>>> it is an issue of his integrity.
>>
>>
>> I'd have to disagree with that. He's taken the position that it's OK
>> for someone to freely and voluntarily enter into a contract, and
>> then to later renege on that contract merely because abiding by its
>> terms is no longer convenient. That is a matter of integrity.
>>
>>> He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
>>> entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the
>>> home] and right to privacy
>>
>>
>> No, not really. He's just using that as a distraction. How can
>> one's "fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which
>> one voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is
>> agreeing that one's "fair use" isn't abridged.
>>
>>
>>> ... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
>>> business contracting server corporate profit and interest
>>
>>
>> My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
>> case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my
>> position.
>>
>>
>>> and how best to
>>> defeat human "rights" should they interfere.
>>>
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>
>>> Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and
>>> I'm only doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human
>>> rights, especially that of the individual in her or his home should
>>> be more than respected, they should be revered.
>>>
>>
>> And I'd certainly not argue with that. I simply don't see how it
>> could possibly be relevant. I can't understand how abiding by the
>> terms of a contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an
>> attack on either human rights or privacy. If you don't like the
>> terms of a contract,
>> don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract
>> accompanies the use of software, simply use a software product with
>> whose license
>> one agrees.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
>> having both at once. - RAH

But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer in the
home? I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no relevence and the
clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an expression of intent to honour
any contract because it all happens with copyrighted material *within* the
home.

Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite legally.
Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal have a
contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree.. blah blah ", it is
in no way binding should I break the seal nor is it an expression of my
intent to enter into a contract. I have fair use rights in my home to copy
and distribute freely within my home. I think that is reasonable and those
rights should be protected completely. I can't send copies outside the home,
I can't sell copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
sacrosanct regardless.

The powers that be should only be allowed to violate my home's privacy over
pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or running a theft
big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous crime. But over a matter such
as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted material etc. within a home, the state
or those using the power of the state should have no recourse. You agree
with that don't you?

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Ken Blake wrote:

> All true, except that the requirement for an OEM system is to
> affix the Certificate of Authenticity to the case. I'm not a
> lawyer, but, absurd as it sounds, I think that requirement might
> make it arguable in court that it's therefore the case that makes
> it the same computer or not.

Good reason to keep the sticker somewhere else or you can never change
your case unless, of course, you have no integrity or moral values and
change your case without asking MS!

Alias

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:
>
> But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer in the
> home?


Certainly it is. Does a dog cease to become a dog when it crosses the
threshold? The "home" is no magic sanctuary where all outside laws are
abnegated. It's just as illegal to commit murder inside one's home as
it is to do so on the side, is it not? (No, I'm not equating copyright
infringement with murder, just making a simple example.)


> I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
> the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no relevence and the
> clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an expression of intent to honour
> any contract because it all happens with copyrighted material *within* the
> home.
>

If you sign a contract to purchase a car, can you stop making payments
once you've parked the car in your garage, and still keep the car? If
you sign a contract for rent, but then don't pay it, can you continue to
live in that house indefinitely?


> Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite legally.


Remind me to never publish any books in Canada. If I expend the effort
to produce something like that, I'm not going to want it just given away
without recompense.


> Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal have a
> contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree.. blah blah ", it is
> in no way binding should I break the seal nor is it an expression of my
> intent to enter into a contract. I have fair use rights in my home to copy
> and distribute freely within my home. I think that is reasonable and those
> rights should be protected completely. I can't send copies outside the home,
> I can't sell copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
> sacrosanct regardless.
>
> The powers that be should only be allowed to violate my home's privacy over
> pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or running a theft
> big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous crime. But over a matter such
> as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted material etc. within a home, the state
> or those using the power of the state should have no recourse. You agree
> with that don't you?
>
>


In principle, yes, but not entirely, and certainly not without
qualification. You're oversimplifying. I would say that what an
individual does within the confines of his own home is his own business,
so long as no else is harmed, and no one else's rights are trampled
upon. By making and distributing copies of copyrighted materials,
rather than paying for them, you are, in affect, denying the copyright
holder the just "fruits of his labor." Are you employed? Do you work
for nothing, or do you expect to be paid for your efforts? Do you think
you're unreasonable because you expect a weekly paycheck?



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Stephen wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>
>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>kurttrail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This isn't a socio-political thing for me. If you dislike Microsoft
>>>>choose another software company.
>>>
>>>There aren't any for an OS that you don't need to be a computer tech
>>>to understand. Therefore, MS has a monopoly.
>
>
> Ignorance is not Mircosoft's fault. Besides it is free men and women who are
> *choosing* Microsoft. It's what people want.

Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them are
Linux boxes, right?

>
>
>>>>Unlike many would have you believe, there is
>>>>competition on the platform, lots of it, therefore plenty of
>>>>competing operating systems you can obtain to run you x86/64
>>>>computer(s).
>>>
>>>No, there isn't. 99% of computer users cannot install Linux without
>>>problems.
>
>
> Linux advocates woud claim otherwise - take it up with them.

They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long time
and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most people just
want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to use it.
>
>
>>>Few can afford a Mac.
>
>
> Tell that to Steve Jobs.

He won't return my calls ( :

Alias

Bruce Chambers
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Alias wrote:

>
>
> Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them are
> Linux boxes, right?
>

I don't know how *you* make your purchase decisions, but when I, or any
other adult that I've ever known, find a shop that doesn't sell what I'm
looking for, I simply take my business elsewhere. I invariably find a
business willing to provide the product and/or service that I want. Do
you always leave your purchasing decisions to the staff of the first
store you walk into?




>
>
> They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long time
> and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most people just
> want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to use it.
>


So it's Microsoft's fault that "most people," according to you, are
lazy? You're making no sense. Which is it? Are anonymous sales clerks
forcing people to buy Windows, or are consumers actually able to buy
something else, but just too lazy?



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:51 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:

>> Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer
>>> in the home?
>>
>>
>> Certainly it is. Does a dog cease to become a dog when it crosses
>> the threshold? The "home" is no magic sanctuary where all outside
>> laws are abnegated. It's just as illegal to commit murder inside
>> one's home as it is to do so on the side, is it not? (No, I'm not
>> equating copyright infringement with murder, just making a simple
>> example.)

Is a law a law if it is repealed? Is a contract a contract if it is usurped
by the householder's rights?

>>> I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
>>> the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no
>>> relevence and the clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an
>>> expression of intent to honour any contract because it all happens
>>> with copyrighted material *within* the home.
>>>
>>
>> If you sign a contract to purchase a car, can you stop making
>> payments once you've parked the car in your garage, and still keep
>> the car? If you sign a contract for rent, but then don't pay it,
>> can you continue to live in that house indefinitely?

For one thing, the EULA is not signed [ Actually, the householder, on the
other hand, usually has a SALES slip to prove PURCHASE]. And the
arrangements for the payment on the car are business arrangements one makes
with institutions outside the home. Once the car is in the backyard garage
the owner can do as she or he pleases with the darn thing as long as she or
he pays for it.

>>> Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite
>>> legally.
>>
>>
>> Remind me to never publish any books in Canada. If I expend the
>> effort to produce something like that, I'm not going to want it just
>> given away without recompense.

Your contract with the publisher may prevent you from disallowing them to
sell copies in Canada. Sharing among family members is not 'giving it away'
.... They bought a copy for themselves.

>>> Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal
>>> have a contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree..
>>> blah blah ", it is in no way binding should I break the seal nor is
>>> it an expression of my intent to enter into a contract. I have fair
>>> use rights in my home to copy and distribute freely within my home.
>>> I think that is reasonable and those rights should be protected
>>> completely. I can't send copies outside the home, I can't sell
>>> copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
>>> sacrosanct regardless.
>>>
>>> The powers that be should only be allowed to violate my home's
>>> privacy over pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or
>>> running a theft big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous
>>> crime. But over a matter such as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted
>>> material etc. within a home, the state or those using the power of
>>> the state should have no recourse. You agree with that don't you?
>>>
>>
>> In principle, yes, but not entirely, and certainly not without
>> qualification. You're oversimplifying. I would say that what an
>> individual does within the confines of his own home is his own
>> business, so long as no else is harmed, and no one else's rights are
>> trampled upon. By making and distributing copies of copyrighted
>> materials, rather than paying for them, you are, in affect, denying
>> the copyright holder the just "fruits of his labor." Are you
>> employed? Do you work for nothing, or do you expect to be paid for
>> your efforts? Do you think you're unreasonable because you expect a
>> weekly paycheck?
>>

Well, at least you agree with me in principle even though it is not
entirely.

Have a day Mr. Chambers. You can reply, but I'm deeking out of this thread.
Don't read anything into that other than I'm tired and should be getting on
to other things.

>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers

>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
>> having both at once, especially with DMCA laws out there.

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:

> Alias wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them
>> are Linux boxes, right?
>>
>
> I don't know how *you* make your purchase decisions, but when I, or
> any other adult that I've ever known, find a shop that doesn't sell what
> I'm looking for, I simply take my business elsewhere. I invariably find
> a business willing to provide the product and/or service that I want.
> Do you always leave your purchasing decisions to the staff of the first
> store you walk into?
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long
>> time and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most
>> people just want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to use it.
>>
>
>
> So it's Microsoft's fault that "most people," according to you, are
> lazy? You're making no sense. Which is it? Are anonymous sales clerks
> forcing people to buy Windows, or are consumers actually able to buy
> something else, but just too lazy?

Man, you're dense. IE had 95+% of the browser market. Now it has 62%
because someone developed Firefox that works better than IE and the
price is definitely right. And, there isn't much of a learning curve to
switch.

When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
monopoly. Do you understand that?

It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
software.

Alias
>
>
>

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Your "integrity" tells you that it's fine to renege upon an
>>> agreement into which you've freely and voluntarily entered?
>>
>>
>> No, contract law. There are perfectly valid and legal reasons to
>> breech a contract or certain term of a contract.
>>
>
>
> Granted, but name a single court decision that has found found any
> "valid and legal" reasons to void Microsoft's EULA. You can't.

When MS exercises its due diligence in protecting its EULA terms in a
court of law, then I will. It is not up to me, under contract law to
sue MS to invalidate its terms. The onus is on MS to sue to protect its
terms, and get a court to enforce them.

Just because MS doesn't have the balls to take me, or any other private
non-commercial user to court to enforce its rules, in no way means that
there terms are legally enforceable.

>
>
>> But you don't understand that, as your "corporate rights uber alles"
>> mentality sees a contract as a law unto itself, inviolable, whereas,
>> in reality, it is just contractual claims, and when disputed by the
>> second party, me, it is up to the first party, MS, to sue me and
>> prove by the preponderance of the evidence that my breech is
>> damaging them in some way.
>>
>> In the over 13 years of knowing that individuals have disputed their
>> One Computer term, MS, nor any other colluding member of the BSA for
>> that FACT, has yet to sue, let alone convince a court to enforce the
>> One Computer term on one private non-commercial individual.
>>
>
>
> Which is simply because doing so would be a PR nightmare for the
> companies in question, and produce little or nothing of profit for
> them.

Boo Hoo! Don't cry for me Redmontina!

Doesn't seem to be bothering the Music Industry all that much, suing
individuals over file-sharing.

> Remember, these are businesses; they're not particularly
> concerns with the "principle of the matter," as you claim to be.
> Their concern is
> their bottom line. If and when it becomes in their best interest to
> prosecute individuals, they'll no doubt do so. Don't make the false
> conclusion that just because they haven't done something yet, it means
> that they can't or won't do so, at sometime in the future. That's
> very poor logic, indeed.
A court would not accept that as a valid excuse for MS not exercising
its legal responsibility to exercise due diligence in enforcing its EULA
terms in a court of law.

And I suspect if they tried that tact a court would definitely rule in
favor of a motion of summary judgment to dismiss MS case against an
individual. That is, if MS ever grows the balls to live up to its due
diligence responsibilities under the law!

>> And as the Supreme Court said in the Betamax case, "Any individual
>> may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright
>> owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."
>>
>
> This case is no more relevant to software today, then it was the first
> time you brought it up.

It is relevant to all Copyrighted works! They could have narrowly said
that any individual can time-shift video content for a "fair use, that
no video content copyright owner possesses the exclusive right to such a
use. BUT THEY DIDN'T!

They said it that broadly because it was one of the main rationales for
why the VCR was an infringement.

Read it again! See how broadly the Supreme Court stated it!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

They could hardly have written that statement more broadly, more
all-encompassing!

>> They didn't limit it to the narrow view of timeshifting in this
>> statement of FACT! The copyright owner {MS} doesn have the right to
>> limit my "fair use." And until there is some SUPREME COURT precedent
>> that says that a copyright owner can shrinkwrap license away my
>> right to "fair use, it is a matter of integrity for me to protect MY
>> right to MY copy of software in MY home!
>>
>>
>
> And the EULA doesn't interfere with "fair use." Remember, *you*
> voluntarily agreed to abide by the terms of the EULA when you
> installed the software. If you don't like the terms, use something
> else.

No after I took the product home, long after the sale was done, I was
confronted with commercial use terms. Since I didn't purchase the
software for a commercial use, I feel no more bound by them than the Ten
Commandments prohibition on coveting.

>>> Does your mortgage company know
>>> that you feel this way about contracts?
>>
>>
>> If any term is unreasonable or unconscionable, I have every legal
>> right to breech it, under the law!
>>
>
> If you can prove in court that the terms are "unconscionable" or in
> violation of other law, yes. "Unreasonable" doesn't really apply, I
> don't think. Why would you sign a contract that you felt was
> unreasonable? Or does it somehow magically turn unreasonable when you
> no longer like the terms? You can't breech a contract just because
> you've changed your mind; not without expecting consequences.

The thing is, under contract law I don't have to prove ANYTHING unless
I'm sued by the contractor. All I need to do is breech the terms! Then
it is up to the contactor to sue me, and prove by the preponderance of
the evidence that I breech the terms, that they have lost something of
material value resulting from my breech. And then I can counter that,
by proving the unconscionability of the term or terms in my defense! If
I'm never sued, I just go on my merry way!

>
>
>> That is not my "feeling," it is the way contract law works in the US.
>>
>>
>>> And don't try throw "fair
>>> use" into the discussion; it's not even relevant.
>>
>>
>> LOL! If YOU say so! But that is all you do is say so, yet you do
>> not even try to demonstrate it.
>>
>
> There's nothing to "demonstrate." I've repeatedly pointed out the
> definition of fair use, as defined by copyright law. But for those
> who haven't seen the facts pointed out to you before:
>
> TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107
>
> § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
>
> Release date: 2004-04-30
>
> Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
> of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
> phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
> purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
> (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
> research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
> the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
> factors to be considered shall include—
> (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
> is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
> the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
> the copyrighted work.
> The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
> fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
> factors.
>
> Just exactly where, in the above text, does it state that installing
> multiple copies of a software product on multiple computers in one's
> home is not an infringement of the copyright? In fact, an
> unauthorized second installation would clearly fail the both the (1)
> and (3) test.

I already explained it to you at the bottom of my previous post. Unlike
you, I really don't like to repeat myself unnecessarily!

> More reading:
>
> Copyright & Fair Use Overview
> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/index.html

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've never claimed that "corporate rights outweigh an individual's
>>> rights."
>>
>>
>> It is implicit in all of your arguments about MS and their EULA over
>> that of an individual's rights in their home with their copy of
>> copyrighted material!
>>
>>
>
> Not at all.

LOL! If you say so! But I doubt any rational human being that isn't a
corporate suck up is believing you denial.

> Your inept and inaccurate inference notwithstanding, my
> primary concern has always been about someone's voluntarily entering
> into a contract and then reneging on it for no better reason than it's
> convenient to do so. While I have no doubt that the current laws
> support my position, I'm much more worried about a contract-breaker's
> lack of integrity and trustworthiness. That fact that you find
> personal integrity of so little value is just further evidence of the
> decline of our culture.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

What you can't comprehend is that there are perfectly valid reasons
under the law to breech the terms of a contract. That is why there is
NO LAW that makes breeching a contract illegal in and of itself!

>> LOL! Look at you arguing earlier about the inviolability of the
>> EULA. It is not a law unto itself!
>
>
> Not so. You really should try arguing with what I've actually said,
> rather than deliberately misinterpreting and then arguing with what
> you imagine to be my position. I've never claimed that the EULA is a
> law.

If you agree that it isn't then acceptance alone is not a valid reason
to say it lacks integrity to breech a term you disagree with. To me it
would be a matter of a lack of integrity to follow terms one believes
are unconscionable, just because you once agreed to it!

> I have pointed out that, until proven otherwise, it is a legally
> enforceable contract. There's a vast difference.

LOL! Only a court can determine to enforce a contract! That's why we
have courts to decide contract disputes! If MS decides not sue me when
they know I have breeched a EULA of theirs, then their contract is not
legally enforceable on me.

But there you go again, implying the inviolability of the EULA again! I
love it when you contradict yourself!

>
>
>> One doesn't have to lack integrity to
>> breech terms one feels are unconscionable or violates the law!
>>
>> In the case of ProCD v. Zeidenberg, a case where a database
>> shrinkwrap license was breeched for a COMMERIAL USE, the judge even
>> acknowledged the FACT that contracts can be legally breeched!
>>
>> "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
>> objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
>> example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
>> unconscionable)." -
>> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html
>>
>
> Once again, as you've done this before, thanks for supporting my
> position by pointing out this decision.

I didn't. I claim that MS's EULA is unconscionable. It is now up to MS
to sue me or shut up!

Don't you love the over 13 years of silence on MS's part?! Their
silence speaks volumes!

>> "Whether there are legal differences between "contracts" and
>> "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first
>> sale) is a subject for another day."
>>
>
> And that day has yet to come.

Because MS and the rest of the colluding members of the BSA Trust are
too chickensh*t to put the EULA's where their mouths are!

> Until then, normal legal practice holds
> that the contract is valid until proven otherwise.

The Zeidenberg decision doesn't say that. Only a court can decide if a
specific contract is enforceable.

> Had you the
> "courage of your convictions," you'd challenge the EULA in court,
> just as a matter of principle.

LOL! Then the burden of proof would be on me. And under the law, I
don't have to prove that my breech is legal, unless sued by the
contractor, and then they [MS] would bear most of the burden of proof.

> Instead, you hide behind the "Microsoft has
> never sued me, so I must be right" fallacy. You make a lot of
> defiant noise, but only because you know your safe form the big, bad
> corporation that doesn't take you seriously enough to bother with.

13 years and silence! All MS would have to do is sue one private
non-commercial individual over breech of the One Computer term, and
convince a court.

>
>
>> So the same judge also admits that contracts and licenses may be
>> different when it comes to copyright law. Which brings us to "fair
>> use!"
>>
>>
>>> Again, "fair use" doesn't come into play.
>>
>>
>> LOL! Again, if YOU say so! But you can not even explain why!
>> Repeating something over and over again as a means to convince
>> others of what you cannot honestly & logically convince them of is
>> the Goebels method of propaganda!
>>
>
> Actually, I've pointed it out repeatedly, but why disillusion you.

LOL! Please! I love it when you try to disillusion me with distorted
realities!

>
>>
>> It is you passion for repetition that earned you the title of
>> MicroNazi in my MVP Hall of Shame!
>>
>> http://www.microscum.com/bruce/
>>
>>
>
>
> Ah, yes. Your ultimate and invariable fall-back position. Whenever
> you're proven wrong, the name-calling and personal attacks come out.
> Once again, thanks for admitting defeat.

LOL! Just showing why you earned your dishonor. Repetition is your
best friend.

>
>
>> And yes "fair use" does come into play, since the EULA's One Computer
>> rules is in effect a means to rewrite copyright law and Supreme Court
>> legal precedent!
>>
>
>
> No, it isn't. Reread Title 17:
>
> TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 106
>
> § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
>
> Release date: 2004-04-30
>
> Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this
> title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the
> following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies.....

Sections 107 throught 122 would be all the LIMITATIONS that copyright
law places on the exclusive right of COPYRIGHT OWNERS, like MS!

Boy, are you dense or what?!


>
> TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 117
>
> § 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
>
> Release date: 2004-04-30
>
> (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—
> Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an
> infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or
> authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer
> program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created
> as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
> conjunction with a
> machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
> (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
> that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
> possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
>
> The EULA is, in fact, perfectly in compliance with the law, as
> written.

LOL! No, its not!

117 is saying it is not infringement install an ADDITIONAL copy of
softare on A machine. "A" meaning one thing not previously know.

That is say Additional adaptations presumes at least on previous
adaptation or in layman's term at least one previous adaption installed
on a computer that would already be a know machine!

But again, Section 117 is a LIMITATION on the COPYRIGHT OWNER, not the
owner of a copy of software.

But you have to confuse that fact totally!

http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times
http://snipurl.com/4x5d - 87 times
http://snipurl.com/d81h - 137 times

These are the number of times of you repeating total bullsh*t!

You have yet to show where it is a violation of Copyright Law to install
software on more than one computer. All you have is shown repeatedly
your purposeful misreading of the law.

>
>
>> The copyright owner is trying to limit my right to "fair use" after
>> the FACT of the sale!
>>
>
> Not at all. First of all, there's no "fair use" limitation, as proven
> above,

Repeated but not demonstrated.

> and secondly, this doesn't happen "after the sale,",

Sure does! EULA acceptance happens doing the install process, LONG
after the sale! Another example of you having to distort reality!

> and
> thirdly, even if it were "after the sale," it wouldn't matter. Reread
> *all* of ProCD v. Zeidenberg.


I did. It is about commercial use terms of a commercial database, not
about the private non-commercial use of copyrighted software! But had
Zeidneburg just made copies for his own use, instead of selling the
copies as his own product, I doubt the would have ever been a ProCD
case!

>
>>
>>> The
>>> EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.
>>
>>
>> "Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use"
>>
>> "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair
>> use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in
>> copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that
>> section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
>> teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
>> or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
>> whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use
>> the factors to be considered shall include -"
>>
>> "(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
>> use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
>> purposes;" Private non-commercial individual use.
>>
>
> Non-commercial, but not non-profit. By installing the same license on
> multiple computers, the computer user is "making a profit" in the
> sense that he's not expending funds to buy additional licenses.
> Remember, "A penny saved is a penny earned."

One making a profit, by buying buying software at the price of hundreds
of dollars! Twist reality! Where does Section 107 promise the
copyright owner to sell a copy of the copyrighted material for every
device it is used on?

>
>>
>> "(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;"
>>
>> "In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if the
>> material copied is from a published work than an unpublished work." -
>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-b.html
>>
>> Not only published, but sold in retail stores as a commercial
>> product.
>
> Relevance?

That I "have a stronger case of fair use if the material copied is from
a published work than an unpublished work."

>
>
>> "(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
>> the copyrighted work as a whole; and"
>>
>> Entire. The Supreme Court in 1984, when considering the taping of
>> entire movies on a VCR already concluded that individuals can copy an
>> entire
>> copyrighted work as a "fair use." -
>> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
>
>
> Nonsense. You've continually failed to demonstrate how that old
> Betamax case could possibly apply to computer software. An complete
> copy of a copyrighted works for no other reason than financial gain is
> clearly a not intended as allowable use.

Here I will repeat myself!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use."

In this statement of FACT, the Supreme Court stated it as broadly as
possible. Why was that Bruce? Because they saw the FACT as the main
foundation as to why a VCR was a legal device since its main purpose was
to allow people to copy TV programs.

By saying "COPYRIGHTED WORK" they weren't just limiting this fact to a
specific kind of copyrighted work.

“They could hardly have written that statement more broadly, more
all-encompassing!”

>
>>
>> "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
>> the copyrighted work."
>>
>> Non-existent since copyright owner was paid for the original copy by
>> the indivdiual, thereby the copyright owner has already gotten a
>> "fair return" for the creative labor of the author(s).
>>
>
> "Fair return" by whose definition? Which court has decided that a
> software manufacturer need only be paid once, for a single copy?

"Fair return" as in it would be easy to prove, by normal business
standards, that MS has gotten way more than a "fair return" on its
Windows monopoly!

>
>
>> "The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
>> the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution,
>> reflects a balance
>> of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be
>> encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve
>> the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
>> music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright
>> law is to secure a
>> fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim
>> is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the
>> general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and the
>> primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
>> 'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors
>> of authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its
>> literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in
>> light of this basic purpose." -
>> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
>
> Be that as it may, you've failed to how it supports your position. I'd
> say it does doesn't even come close.

Luckily you aren't a judge.

> Hoping to distract people
> by throw in tons of irrelevant material? Disagreements are decided
> upon the merits, relevance, and quality of the arguments made, not on
> the sheer bulk of irrelevant material added to pad the argument.
> Trying to wear me down?


Just because you don't understand its relevance only shows that you and
too dense to see reality.

>
>
>> "Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
>> interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
>> arbitration." -
>> http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html
>>
>
>
> All of which proves my point. Again. Thank you.


LOL! I'm still waiting for the copyright owner to disagree with me by
suing me!


>
>
>> I have a right to my interpretation unless the copyright owner
>> disagrees, sues me, and wins, so the EULA is interfere with my
>> perfectly valid interpretation of "fair use," ESPECIALLY since MS
>> introduced PA, as a from of EULA control.
>>
>>
>
> You have a right to your own opinion, certainly. And as much as I
> dislike it, you also have a right to express that opinion, and to work
> to over-turn a law you find unjust. That's not what you're doing,
> however. You're misrepresenting the facts and laws of the matter, and
> advising people to do as they please, without regard to the
> consequences. I do and will continue to argue that you're not
> justified in trying to get others to violate the law, just because
> you think it's safe to do do. If you are going to advocate such
> actions, you should at least tell people the complete truth, that
> they will be acting contrary to current law, and that what you're
> advising them to do could,
> someday, as unlikely as it is, put them at risk. I especially take
> umbrage at your encouragement of the violating of agreements/contracts
> when
> you've no better excuse than that the terms of the agreement are no
> longer
> convenient.

BLAH! BLAH ! BLAH!

You accuse me of doing what I have clearly demonstrated that you have!

You twist reality by calling limitations on the copyright owner actual
limitations on the owner of a copy!

You twist reality by assuming that under "fair use" MS is guaranteed to
sell a copy of software for every device it is used on!

You twist reality by trying to shift the legal burden of proof onto me,
when under the law it is up to the contractor and/or the copyright
owner!

You twist reality when you say you imply that the Supreme Court means a
specific type of copyrighted material when it says so unspecifically a
“COPYRIGHTED WORK!”

You twist reality when you say that MS’s EULA terms are not post sale
terms!

You distort reality when you say that a specific EULA term is
enforceable, when it was meant that generally a contract is enforceable,
and then gives exceptions to that general rule. It is in the exceptions
where a court is needed to decided every specific contract dispute!

You distort so much, that I can’t keep up with it all!

But I’ll leave you on this note.

SCO CLAIMS IBM has breeched its UNIX license. Is it enforceable just
because SCO CLAIMS IBM breeched the UNIX license, or is it up to SCO to
prove the breech by the preponderance of the evidence in a court of law?

Unless you can say that it is enforceable based on SCO’s claims only,
then like IBM, I wait for my opportunity to defend myself against the
Licensors claims in a REAL COURT OF LAW!

And IF MS had on ounce of integrity, then they would exercise their
responsibility under due diligence try to enforce their ONE COMPUTER
EULA CLAIM in a REAL court of law.

But we all know MS’s integrity record! Proven Predatory Monopoly!
Proven Patent Infringer! Proven Copyright Infringer!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Alias wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure they are. The go to a store to buy a computer and most of them
>>>> are Linux boxes, right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know how *you* make your purchase decisions, but when
>>> I, or any other adult that I've ever known, find a shop that
>>> doesn't sell what I'm looking for, I simply take my business
>>> elsewhere. I invariably find a business willing to provide the
>>> product and/or service that I want. Do you always leave your
>>> purchasing decisions to the staff of the first store you walk into?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They're wrong. Also, most people have been using Windows for a long
>>>> time and aren't interested in embarking on a learning curve. Most
>>>> people just want to use their computers, not figure out *how* to
>>>> use it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So it's Microsoft's fault that "most people," according to you,
>>> are lazy? You're making no sense. Which is it? Are anonymous
>>> sales clerks forcing people to buy Windows, or are consumers
>>> actually able to buy something else, but just too lazy?
>>
>> Man, you're dense. IE had 95+% of the browser market. Now it has 62%
>> because someone developed Firefox that works better than IE and the
>> price is definitely right. And, there isn't much of a learning curve
>> to switch.
>>
>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through
>> and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS
>> has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>
>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
>> pirate their software.
>>
>> Alias

The Linux advocates say Mandrake is easier to install than Windows. If you
find Linux too difficult, take it up with them - it's not Microsoft's
problem. Neither can you hold Microsoft accountable becuase Apple charges
too much while at the same time refuses to open its platform.

The real monopolists - Linux with its monopolizing GPL [GNU Public Licence
which takes defacto ownership of any software anyone produces under it] and
Apple with its completely closed OS/hardware platform - don't do as well as
Microsoft which is built on open systems and offers open APIs for
development. But that's not Microsoft's fault nor responsiblity.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>
>> He's coming at it from a different angle than you - I don't think it
>> is an issue of his integrity.
>
>
> I'd have to disagree with that. He's taken the position that it's OK
> for someone to freely and voluntarily enter into a contract, and then
> to later renege on that contract merely because abiding by its terms
> is no longer convenient. That is a matter of integrity.

I agree. It is a matter of integrity for me not to blindly follow
contractual terms that I find to be unconscionable!

>
>> He's staking out some rights he thinks he is
>> entitled to - you know, fair use rights [especially within the home]
>> and right to privacy
>
>
> No, not really. He's just using that as a distraction. How can one's
> "fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which one
> voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is agreeing that
> one's "fair use" isn't abridged.

LOL! Show me where in the EULA it says that!


>
>
>> ... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
>> business contracting server corporate profit and interest
>
>
> My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
> case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my
> position.

LOL! Only if you twist a limitation of the rights of a copyright owner
into a limitation on the owner of a copy of a computer program!

And that twisting show how much you really care about integrity! Not
one iota!

>
>
>> and how best to
>> defeat human "rights" should they interfere.
>>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>> Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and
>> I'm only doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human
>> rights, especially that of the individual in her or his home should
>> be more than respected, they should be revered.
>>
>
> And I'd certainly not argue with that. I simply don't see how it
> could possibly be relevant. I can't understand how abiding by the
> terms of a contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an
> attack on either human rights or privacy. If you don't like the
> terms of a contract, don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If
> the contract
> accompanies the use of software, simply use a software product with
> whose license one agrees.

LOL! If there was a viable choice otherwise, you might have a point,
but Linux don't run on my computer hardware, and it is still more of a
server OS than a multimedia consumer OS, and OSX won't run on my
computer system by its very design!

By your argument, I have the choice of using MS's OS, or letting my
computer system collect dust! I doubt any court would accept your
specious argument that I have any real choice but to use a MS OS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>>
>> But is the EULA a contract when it is installed on a home computer
>> in the home?
>
>
> Certainly it is. Does a dog cease to become a dog when it crosses the
> threshold?

Yes, it becomes a Bruce!

Is a dog a copyrighted work, Bruce?

> The "home" is no magic sanctuary where all outside laws
> are abnegated.

One does have the expectation of privacy. A cable company can't come
into your home without your permission, except with a legal warrent
issued by a judge, just because they have a local monopoly on the cable
service.

Hell, the music industry doesn't even have the right to get your name
from an ISP until a court decides otherwise!

> It's just as illegal to commit murder inside one's
> home as it is to do so on the side, is it not? (No, I'm not equating
> copyright infringement with murder, just making a simple example.)

Murder is a criminal offence. AT MOST, installing software is a civil
matter.

The really wrong thing under copyright law isn't the copying of
copyrighted material, it is in the distribution of those copies to other
people or organizations, Bruce.

>> I think that is his point. Sure it looks like a contract and has all
>> the wording, but within the home it may have absolutely no relevence
>> and the clicking OK is absolutely not binding nor an expression of
>> intent to honour any contract because it all happens with
>> copyrighted material *within* the home.
>
> If you sign a contract to purchase a car, can you stop making payments
> once you've parked the car in your garage, and still keep the car?

A copy of software is paid for all at once. Poor analogy. As a matter
of FACT, a copy of software is SOLD before any terms are agreed upon!

> If
> you sign a contract for rent, but then don't pay it, can you continue
> to live in that house indefinitely?

Again, you are renting software. The copy of software was sold to you
by the previous owner of that copy of software, and payment was made in
full!

>> Here, I can copy books and distrubute them to family members quite
>> legally.
>
> Remind me to never publish any books in Canada. If I expend the
> effort to produce something like that, I'm not going to want it just
> given away without recompense.

You are f*$king delusional. That is "fair use" even here in the States!
And haven't you heard of the nasty evil book-sharing institution, THE
FREE PUBLIC LIBRARY?!

Let's throw all librarians in JAIL! Hey, wasn't Laura Bush a librarian!
Let's start with her!

>> Should a music CD come in a sealed jewel case and should that seal
>> have a contract on it saying "If you break this seal you agree..
>> blah blah ", it is in no way binding should I break the seal nor is
>> it an expression of my intent to enter into a contract. I have fair
>> use rights in my home to copy and distribute freely within my home.
>> I think that is reasonable and those rights should be protected
>> completely. I can't send copies outside the home, I can't sell
>> copies at the market. But my home is, or at least should be,
>> sacrosanct regardless. The powers that be should only be allowed to
>> violate my home's
>> privacy over pressing issues, say I'm holding a person hostage or
>> running a theft big-screen TV theft ring or something grievous
>> crime. But over a matter such as sharing retail stuff, copyrighted
>> material etc. within a home, the state or those using the power of
>> the state should have no recourse. You agree with that don't you?
>
> In principle, yes, but not entirely, and certainly not without
> qualification. You're oversimplifying. I would say that what an
> individual does within the confines of his own home is his own
> business, so long as no else is harmed, and no one else's rights are
> trampled upon.

MS has no rights in my home, and there is not any legal precedent to
argue otherwise.

> By making and distributing copies of copyrighted
> materials, rather than paying for them, you are, in affect, denying
> the copyright holder the just "fruits of his labor."

I don't distribute software to others. I use software for my own
private non-commercial use. "Fair Use."

> Are you
> employed? Do you work for nothing, or do you expect to be paid for
> your efforts? Do you think you're unreasonable because you expect a
> weekly paycheck?


Yet another specious anology. MS has been more than fairly compensated
for the creative labor of its employees. And no one in their right mind
could agrue otherwise. So what's that tell you about your mind, Bruce?
You are not right in the head, that's what!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Mike Hall \(MS-MVP\)
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Kurt

> LOL! And cigarettes is but one small step from smoking pot!
>
> And smoking pot is one small step from smoking crack!
>
> What a specious argument!
>
> Owning a gun is one small step away from shooting someone!
>
> See, in the US, owning a gun is legal, but shooting someone is not, except
> it seems in Texas and Florida. And I live in Florida!

Your statements are true, but we each make the choice of whether to take
each step or demonstrate some common sense..

> But in the US, we also have the concept of Free Public Libraries, which
> are run by the local government for the expressed purpose of sharing
> printed copyrighted material with the public. Hasn't hurt the publishing
> industry one little bit.

Free public libraries do NOT have immediate access to every newly published
book..

> While I agree that file-sharing is wrong, there is absolutely no evidence
> that it hurts any copyrighted material market..

I agree on the second point here.. file copying puts 'whatever' out to a
broader base than the industries in question would have if they just relied
on sales of records (45, 33, 78).. however, I see no problem in exchanging
material that is no longer on sale or ever likely to be on sale.. I
contacted a record producer to find out if I could get an old movie
soundtrack from years ago.. they laughed at me.. and they wonder why people
use P2P?..

> The Music industry was hurt more by a horrible 3 to five year period of
> music releases just as file sharing was getting going.

Three to five year period?.. nothing good has come out of the industry since
the early eighties.. lol..

> Star War 3 (or 6 depending on relativity) was on file sharing from day one
> of its release, and yet it opened to the biggest four day period in movie
> history.

And they think that people who downloaded it would have paid more than $10
to see it at a theatre or buy the video tape for $25?.. they must have
started by smoking cigarettes for sure.. lol..

> The Software piracy rate was much high in 1994 than it's been since
> file-sharing hit the big-time.
>
> I still think its wrong under US Copyright Law, but I have yet to be
> convinced that it is the biggest threat to the copyrighted material
> industry. I'm more of the opinion that the industry is their own worst
> enemy, by making it appear that their customers are their enemy!

They go after file sharers because it is easier than going after virus
authors or closet users of Linux.. :-)

> Always has. I've shared books with friends, I made cassette tapes of my
> records for friends when I was a kid! Public Libraries have yet to kill
> the Publishing Industry!

Then you were a very naughty boy.. :-)

> The Internet has yet to kill off the local newspaper!

Newspapers box clever though.. they put the type of content onto the net
that you may only glance over, and you still have to go out and buy the
overpriced rag to see how the local team fared in their last game..


> And MS still has its billions of dollars and has been killed of by
> filesharing.

True enough.. I would have thought that most piracy in Western Europe and
North America would be music, movies and games anyway.. with many systems
being purchased complete with OS, one would expect to see a reduction in OS
piracy, and this is reflected in statistics..


--
Mike Hall
MVP - Windows Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm








>
>

>

>
>>
>
>
>>
>> http://www.itworldcanada.com/Pages/Docbase/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=idgml-69e83a09-4116-4e33-b1cd-3fd4329aa16e&News=Daily%20ITwire&title=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20Canada&lid=Software%20piracy%20sails%20on%20in%20CanadaWhile
>> we are not anything like as bad as people in Asia, the above
>> showsthat a "ce ne fait rien" attitude by Canada goes some way to
>> promotingpiracy in that it doesn't legislate effectively against it..
>> but the timewill come when Canada will..It is a situation similar to
>> traffic speed limits.. if, when a limit wasimposed, everybody abided
>> by it, the police would not have speed cameras,and we wouldn't get
>> caught.. but life and people are never so simple, and asa result, we
>> get caught..I have an issue with record and movie companies in that I
>> don't see any harmin freely distributing material that the
>> aforementioned companies have nointention of re-releasing.. where is
>> the harm in that?.. it is unfortunate,however, that users of P2P
>> services go well beyond that..The arguments for and against go on
>> regardless, and as long as people chooseto ignore the morality issue,
>> companies who have an issue with what they seeas piracy will continue
>> to look for ways to stop it..
>
> Business Software Alliance (BSA) Global Software Piracy Rate:
>
> 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003* 2004*
> 49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36 35
>
> * - 1st 2 years using IDC methodology.
>
> Microsoft first introduced PA in 2000 with Microsoft Office 2000 Service
> Pack 1. The piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more PCs
> were sold to people for Home Use. And since Microsoft first introduce PA
> the piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For calculating the piracy
> rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so that drop is a result of
> that change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations manager for the BSA, at the
> time of the release of that report said, "Right now we feel that piracy
> rates are on the up."
>
> http://www.kurttrail.com/kblog/kblogarch/00000002.php
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
Mike Hall (MS-MVP) wrote:
> Kurt
>
>> LOL! And cigarettes is but one small step from smoking pot!
>>
>> And smoking pot is one small step from smoking crack!
>>
>> What a specious argument!
>>
>> Owning a gun is one small step away from shooting someone!
>>
>> See, in the US, owning a gun is legal, but shooting someone is not,
>> except it seems in Texas and Florida. And I live in Florida!
>
> Your statements are true, but we each make the choice of whether to
> take each step or demonstrate some common sense..

Exactly. We don't need to shoot people just because we own a gun. That
why in the US, Gun ownership is legal.

Just because I have a CD burner doesn't mean I'll go making copies of my
copies of software for those outside of my household. Hell, that is
part of the reasoning behind the betamax case. Just because the vcr can
be used as an infrigement tool doesn't mean we have to ban vcr's.

I'm sorry, but I've been grown up "fairly using" the copyright software
I buy. I was making mixed tapes on 8track tapes! It's gonna take a
major rewrite of US copyright law, before I'll accept that "fair use" is
my right in my home. And then I'm moving to Canada!

>> But in the US, we also have the concept of Free Public Libraries,
>> which are run by the local government for the expressed purpose of
>> sharing printed copyrighted material with the public. Hasn't hurt
>> the publishing industry one little bit.
>
> Free public libraries do NOT have immediate access to every newly
> published book..

No, just the one's the librarian chooses to purchase within her budget
limitations. And is a city like New York more of the latest books are
bought, than East Bumfuk, Iowa.

>
>> While I agree that file-sharing is wrong, there is absolutely no
>> evidence that it hurts any copyrighted material market..
>
> I agree on the second point here.. file copying puts 'whatever' out
> to a broader base than the industries in question would have if they
> just relied on sales of records (45, 33, 78).. however, I see no
> problem in exchanging material that is no longer on sale or ever
> likely to be on sale.. I contacted a record producer to find out if I
> could get an old movie soundtrack from years ago.. they laughed at
> me.. and they wonder why people use P2P?..
>
>> The Music industry was hurt more by a horrible 3 to five year period
>> of music releases just as file sharing was getting going.
>
> Three to five year period?.. nothing good has come out of the
> industry since the early eighties.. lol..

I agree, but we're showing our age by saying that! :)

>
>> Star War 3 (or 6 depending on relativity) was on file sharing from
>> day one of its release, and yet it opened to the biggest four day
>> period in movie history.
>
> And they think that people who downloaded it would have paid more
> than $10 to see it at a theatre or buy the video tape for $25?.. they
> must have started by smoking cigarettes for sure.. lol..
>
>> The Software piracy rate was much high in 1994 than it's been since
>> file-sharing hit the big-time.
>>
>> I still think its wrong under US Copyright Law, but I have yet to be
>> convinced that it is the biggest threat to the copyrighted material
>> industry. I'm more of the opinion that the industry is their own
>> worst enemy, by making it appear that their customers are their
>> enemy!
>
> They go after file sharers because it is easier than going after virus
> authors or closet users of Linux.. :-)

And again, I see the distribution of copyrighted material to others as
wrong under Copyright Law. The way I see it, making copies isn't bad,
unless you are distributing them to someone else, outside of your home.

>
>> Always has. I've shared books with friends, I made cassette tapes
>> of my records for friends when I was a kid! Public Libraries have
>> yet to kill the Publishing Industry!
>
> Then you were a very naughty boy.. :-)

Yeah, It is a "causal infringement." My born-again christian mother
shares her books with friends, even the christian titles!

It is something that copyright owners have had to live with ever since
the dawn of copyrighted material. And the corporate copyright elite of
this generation are raking in more money than they ever have!

>
>> The Internet has yet to kill off the local newspaper!
>
> Newspapers box clever though.. they put the type of content onto the
> net that you may only glance over, and you still have to go out and
> buy the overpriced rag to see how the local team fared in their last
> game..

I have no trouble keeping up with my favorite American Football teams.
And when it comes to soccer, I only like watching the World Cups, and I
prefer watching the women over the men.

And I love google news for giving me access to the same story but from
news outlets around the world! As far as I'm concerned, it has killed
all but killed off a lot of my 24hr cable news viewing, except for major
live news events.

>> And MS still has its billions of dollars and has been killed of by
>> filesharing.
>
> True enough.. I would have thought that most piracy in Western Europe
> and North America would be music, movies and games anyway.. with many
> systems being purchased complete with OS, one would expect to see a
> reduction in OS piracy, and this is reflected in statistics..

Yep. The copyright elite better be very careful about their sky is
falling pronouncements about piracy. It is getting to a point, where no
one is believing them, because the facts and their fat wallets don't
jibe with their crying Wolf all the time.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Gerhard Fiedler
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
On 5/30/05 11:38:22, Bruce Chambers wrote:

> The EULA in no way interferes with "fair use," as it is defined by law.

I'm not so sure at all about the value of a EULA. I never had one that was
signed both by me and the seller before the purchase. EULAs are something
like unilateral suggestions for contracts. I can have my own suggestion for
a contract, and claim that by selling me software, the seller accepted my
version... The same way you can say that I don't have to buy the software
if I don't like their suggestions for the licensing terms I can say that
they don't have to sell me software if they don't like my suggestions for
the licensing terms.

Just because seller's EULAs are so much more common than buyer's LAs
doesn't make this any different. By the time the EULA comes into play, the
purchase has already been completed, in most cases. Which makes the
seller's EULA not much more valid than my buyer's LA.

That may not be exactly where the current interpretation of the law stands,
but that again is a different issue. Law and its interpretation is always
changing, and sometimes it is quite a few steps behind.

Gerhard

Donald McDaniel
07-10-2005, 12:52 AM
On Mon, 30 May 2005 12:17:06 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
><snip>
> How can one's "fair use" possibly be threatened by an agreement into which one
>voluntarily enters. By agreeing to the contract, one is agreeing that
>one's "fair use" isn't abridged.

Not so, Mr. Chambers. Even Microsoft does not require in its EULAs
for a customer to agree that his "fair use" rights are not being
abridged. There is no clause in the EULA which states that one who
installs the software MUST abrogate his right to disagree that his
"fair use" rights are abridged. Such a contract would be
UNENFORCEABLE, since it would be the same as abrogating his rights to
integrity of thought and mind. Of course, I'm sure some Microsoft
synchopants would LIKE to see such a clause in the United States
Constitution, and in the Microsoft EULAs. I won't say who they are.
Everyone who posts in these newsgroups know who they are already.

Very specious reasoning, Mr. Chambers. It is perfectly possible to
agree to a contract, for convenience sake, and STILL hold on to a
belief that "fair use" is being abridged. No contract on the face of
the Earth can abridge a man's innate right to the integrity of his own
mind and thoughts (except maybe in N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and other
anti-democratic nations). In fact, most Microsoft EULAs have a clause
in them (if I'm not mistaken) which state very plainly that the terms
of the EULA do not apply where such terms would be applied in the case
of a law or statue which disagrees with the terms. We believe that
the EULA disagrees with the law (established plainly by the U.S.
Supreme Court) concerning "fair use". Many of us came to this
conclusion AFTER agreeing to the terms of the EULA (an agreement we
reached AFTER purchasing the product, since the EULA is NOT published
on the outside of the product packaging). For years, I agreed to
Microsoft's EULA sight unseen. Believe me, I now ALWAYS read my EULA
after purchasing and beginning the installation of a Microsoft
Product. And I agree (sometimes with reservations) to the EULA by
installing the product, because the other options are unacceptable to
me because of price or features.

On the matter of an individual no longer agreeing with the EULA and
abrogating it: Microsoft itself has abrogated its EULA as far as XP
OEM software is concerned by beginning to no longer allow Internet
Activation of XP OEM AFTER both parties have agreed to the EULA, which
PLAINLY states that an individual may, under the EULA, activate his
software EITHER via the Internet OR via the phone. Since Microsoft
has abrogated its own EULA, I believe the individual customer is NO
LONGER bound by the XP OEM EULA.
>
>
>> ... verses your point of view which is how the law and and
>> business contracting server corporate profit and interest
>
>
> My primary concern is the integrity involved in the matter. In this
>case, it just happens that currently existing the laws support my position.

Law in the United States at the current time is contradictory in many
cases, from state to state. Such an argument is useless, since a good
lawyer can establish the rights of his clients(either public or
private) under almost ANY circumstances, if he goes to the right state
or jurisdiction.
>
>
>> and how best to
>> defeat human "rights" should they interfere.

Why do you enclose the term human "rights" in quotes, as if to show
that such "rights" don't really exist? Maybe I'm misunderstanding
something here.

But as far as "human rights" are concerned, both the United States
Constitution's Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence of
the first Constitutional Congress, have ENTHRONED forever the basic
human "rights" of an individual. Trying to get a man to abrogate
these "rights" is evil and criminal, as far as I am concerned. How
can basic human rights interfere in ANYTHING? The Declaration of
Independence tells us that these rights are GOD-GIVEN. To try to take
these rights away from a Man is to try to defeat God Himself. This
will NEVER be possible.

>>
>
> Huh?
>
>
>> Yes, I worded it to sound a bit nasty - but it's not personal and I'm only
>> doing it to press a point; but it is my opinion that human rights,
>> especially that of the individual in her or his home should be more than
>> respected, they should be revered.
>>
>
> And I'd certainly not argue with that.

Then WHY are you arguing with "that", if you'd "certainly not argue
with that."

> I simply don't see how it could
>possibly be relevant.

How can you not see that ensuring that basic human rights are
inviolable is truly relevant to all contracts? It is in the very
SPIRIT of Law. If you can't see that, you are like the Pharisees of
Jesus' day, who kept the LETTER of the Law, but failed to abide by the
SPIRIT of the Law. And the lawyers of Microsoft are like the Scribes
of the Pharisees, who interpreted the Law in such a way that the
spirit of theLaw was abrogated by the Pharisees, who used the Scribes
to re-write the Law according to THEIR evil, selfish understanding of
it. This allowed them to persecute the righteous, and oppress the
poor, and still pat themselves on the back, and tell each other "You
keep the Law, but they don't".

>I can't understand how abiding by the terms of a
>contract into which one freely enters can be seen as an attack on either
>human rights or privacy.

If you can't see that, you're as blind as a bat. If one keeps the
terms of an evil contract, one becomes evil himself.

The Nazis in Germany made many laws, which enabled them to steal the
possessions of anyone they wanted "legally". And the population sat
back and "kept the Law" (or closed their eyes to the evil which was
going on). Abiding by the "Law" in that case led the nation to utter
ruin. Evil starts small, Mr. Chambers. Mr. Gates has grown grossly
wealthy by stealing the money of his customers with Microsoft's
spurious interpretation of the "fair use" laws. No wonder he is
giving some of it away to good causes. He probably feels guilty.
This is good. But maybe in addition, he should give some of it back
to his customers by lowering the prices of his products, and by
replacing his evil EULAs with ones which include basic human rights,
and a true interpretation of "fair use" law.


>If you don't like the terms of a contract,
>don't agree to it. It's as simple as that. If the contract accompanies
>the use of software, simply use a software product with whose license
>one agrees.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Michael Stevens wrote:

> In news:eLojlXIZFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> Tim.T <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> replied with a ;-)
>
>>I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether or
>>not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>"XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>Windows Catalog lol
>>
>>I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>
>>Tim
>
>
> This is a peer support newsgroup and is not officially monitored by MSFT.
> There is the occasional MSFT response, but they are posting on their free
> time in a non-official status.
> But did you really care, since you didn't bother to reply to any of the
> viable replies you received.
> You can install retail XP on the same hardware or new hardware as many times
> as you want, all you need to do if prompted by a message it has been
> installed too many times is to follow the on screen prompts and activated by
> phone. Explain you have reinstalled XP in accordance with the EULA. Retail
> XP has no restrictions on the number of times it can be installed as long as
> it is installed to one computer at a time. The highly discounted OEM
> versions have restrictions limiting transfer and the ability to only clean
> install as would be expected of software half the cost of the unrestricted
> retail versions.

Michael, a minor correction - a Full OEM CD (not a factory restore CD)
can indeed be used to do a repair install, I believe what it cannot do
is an upgrade install over a previous version of Windows.

Steve

>
> Check the links below for more insight on the activation process.
> How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously activated
> XP?
> #06 on the FAQ list
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html
> OEM clarification.
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
>
>

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
> no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
> cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
> monopoly. Do you understand that?
>
> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
> users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
> makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
> software.

Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.

I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through
>> and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS
>> has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>
>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
>> pirate their software.
>
> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
> create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
> for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
>
> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>
> --

Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.

While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
or need a lot of retraining.

I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Steve N. wrote:
> Michael Stevens wrote:
>
>> In news:eLojlXIZFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
>> Tim.T <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> replied with a ;-)
>>
>>> I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>> incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>> this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>> or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>> times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>> precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>> reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>> often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>> Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>> for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>> cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>> the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>> "XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>> Windows Catalog lol
>>>
>>> I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>>
>> This is a peer support newsgroup and is not officially monitored by
>> MSFT. There is the occasional MSFT response, but they are posting on
>> their free time in a non-official status.
>> But did you really care, since you didn't bother to reply to any of
>> the viable replies you received.
>> You can install retail XP on the same hardware or new hardware as
>> many times as you want, all you need to do if prompted by a message
>> it has been installed too many times is to follow the on screen
>> prompts and activated by phone. Explain you have reinstalled XP in
>> accordance with the EULA. Retail XP has no restrictions on the
>> number of times it can be installed as long as it is installed to
>> one computer at a time. The highly discounted OEM versions have
>> restrictions limiting transfer and the ability to only clean install
>> as would be expected of software half the cost of the unrestricted
>> retail versions.
>
> Michael, a minor correction - a Full OEM CD (not a factory restore CD)
> can indeed be used to do a repair install, I believe what it cannot do
> is an upgrade install over a previous version of Windows.
>
> Steve
>
>>
>> Check the links below for more insight on the activation process.
>> How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously
>> activated XP?
>> #06 on the FAQ list
>> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html
>> OEM clarification.
>> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm

So did we clear anything up with this thread, Steve?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
> >> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through
> >> and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS
> >> has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >>
> >> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
> >> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
> >> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
> >> pirate their software.
> >
> > Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> > comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
> > create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
> > for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
> >
> > I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> > without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
> >
> > --
>
> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
>
> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
> if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
> or need a lot of retraining.
>
> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
> when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.

And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with email/web
without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word document that
he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box and email it back
to himself (for school work).

While I agree that there are some things that still present a challenge
for some small groups of users - multimedia is not as fully supported as
it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the general public that
buys computers from chain stores.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
kurttrail wrote:

> Steve N. wrote:
>
>>Michael Stevens wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In news:eLojlXIZFHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
>>>Tim.T <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> replied with a ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've read one thread about Product Activation and the problems
>>>>incurred doing it a limited number of times. I myself have had to
>>>>this even with an OEM version of XP. So I'm confused about whether
>>>>or not it IS necessary. For example, I didn't realise the number of
>>>>times you could activate it was limited. I know this may be a
>>>>precaution against piracy, but MS should realise that people have to
>>>>reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just because they do it
>>>>often or "too frequently" DOESN'T mean they're a friggin pirate!
>>>>Sometimes a clean reinstall of the OS is like a breath of fresh air
>>>>for your pc! This may come as a shock, but sometimes the OS is the
>>>>cause of the problem: refusal to recognise drivers, etc, as well as
>>>>the unlikely event of you finding a driver for your hardware that IS
>>>>"XP compliant". Yes, yes as long as you buy your stuff from the
>>>>Windows Catalog lol
>>>>
>>>>I'd appreciate responses directly from MS-reps, if possible.
>>>>
>>>>Tim
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a peer support newsgroup and is not officially monitored by
>>>MSFT. There is the occasional MSFT response, but they are posting on
>>>their free time in a non-official status.
>>>But did you really care, since you didn't bother to reply to any of
>>>the viable replies you received.
>>>You can install retail XP on the same hardware or new hardware as
>>>many times as you want, all you need to do if prompted by a message
>>>it has been installed too many times is to follow the on screen
>>>prompts and activated by phone. Explain you have reinstalled XP in
>>>accordance with the EULA. Retail XP has no restrictions on the
>>>number of times it can be installed as long as it is installed to
>>>one computer at a time. The highly discounted OEM versions have
>>>restrictions limiting transfer and the ability to only clean install
>>>as would be expected of software half the cost of the unrestricted
>>>retail versions.
>>
>>Michael, a minor correction - a Full OEM CD (not a factory restore CD)
>>can indeed be used to do a repair install, I believe what it cannot do
>>is an upgrade install over a previous version of Windows.
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>>Check the links below for more insight on the activation process.
>>>How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously
>>>activated XP?
>>> #06 on the FAQ list
>>>http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html
>>>OEM clarification.
>>>http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
>
>
> So did we clear anything up with this thread, Steve?
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>

Not that I can see.

Steve

Donald McDaniel
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:19:02 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>> > In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> >> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>> >> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through
>> >> and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS
>> >> has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>> >>
>> >> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>> >> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
>> >> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
>> >> pirate their software.
>> >
>> > Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
>> > comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
>> > create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
>> > for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
>> >
>> > I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
>> > without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>> >
>> > --
>>
>> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
>>
>> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
>> if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
>> or need a lot of retraining.
>>
>> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
>> when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.
>
>And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
>knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with email/web
>without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word document that
>he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box and email it back
>to himself (for school work).
>
>While I agree that there are some things that still present a challenge
>for some small groups of users - multimedia is not as fully supported as
>it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the general public that
>buys computers from chain stores.

I disagree, since MOST users of Windows use it for its ease in doing
multimedia operations and in using the hardware they want

Those who use Linux all the time, as a general rule, either have an
axe to grind with Microsoft or just love to make little adjustments in
obscure text files over and over.

The ones who use Linux all the time usually love to take apart clocks
to see how they work. The general public does not: they just want the
clocks they bought working every day.

The fact is, Linux will not be ready for the general public until it
makes it very easy to work with multimedia files and hardware.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
>> no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
>> cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
>> monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>
>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
>> users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
>> makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
>> software.
>
> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
> create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
> for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.

I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so dumb. I
can install XP no problems.

> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
> having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.

I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous claim. Most
computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.

Alias

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
>>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
>>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
>>>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
>>>> pirate their software.
>>>
>>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
>>> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents,
>>> even create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook
>>> (Evolution) for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange
>>> servers.
>>>
>>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
>>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
>>
>> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores,
>> most if not all distros means that people have to give up some
>> functionality, or need a lot of retraining.
>>
>> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so
>> easy, when it has been decades since they have been an average
>> computer user.
>
> And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
> knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with
> email/web without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word
> document that he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box
> and email it back to himself (for school work).

Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux compatible
to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as easily. And they
would still have a whole bunch of software that they purchased over the
years that would be totally useless.

Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your fictitious
son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.

> While I agree that there are some things that still present a
> challenge for some small groups of users

You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.

> - multimedia is not as fully
> supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
> general public that buys computers from chain stores.

LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me about
buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <b18p915jvd4bkufn55a059hknmu2g15d44@4ax.com>, dlmcdaniel2005
@yahoo.com says...
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 17:19:02 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> >dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >> > In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> >> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> >> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
> >> >> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through
> >> >> and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS
> >> >> has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >> >>
> >> >> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
> >> >> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
> >> >> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
> >> >> pirate their software.
> >> >
> >> > Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> >> > comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
> >> > create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
> >> > for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
> >> >
> >> > I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> >> > without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >>
> >> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
> >>
> >> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores, most
> >> if not all distros means that people have to give up some functionality,
> >> or need a lot of retraining.
> >>
> >> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so easy,
> >> when it has been decades since they have been an average computer user.
> >
> >And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
> >knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with email/web
> >without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word document that
> >he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box and email it back
> >to himself (for school work).
> >
> >While I agree that there are some things that still present a challenge
> >for some small groups of users - multimedia is not as fully supported as
> >it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the general public that
> >buys computers from chain stores.
>
> I disagree, since MOST users of Windows use it for its ease in doing
> multimedia operations and in using the hardware they want

Multimedia is not easy on Windows, unless all of your multimedia
experience is based on MediaPlayer. There are countless products out
that support playing VCD's, DVD's, making them and such - most of which
is not supported by Windows OS directly.

With Linux, it comes with the basic Windows like multimedia tools, and
like Windows you have to download the rest - most of which are free,
which is unlike Windows apps.

The only real issue is hardware support on Linux vs Windows, with
Windows having a larger driver vendor base right now.

> Those who use Linux all the time, as a general rule, either have an
> axe to grind with Microsoft or just love to make little adjustments in
> obscure text files over and over.
>
> The ones who use Linux all the time usually love to take apart clocks
> to see how they work. The general public does not: they just want the
> clocks they bought working every day.

That was true in the old day, as long as a year ago, but since you
apparently have not tried any of the newer versions, I'm sure not FC3
based on your presumptions, you are missing a lot and carry no
credibility in the subject.

> The fact is, Linux will not be ready for the general public until it
> makes it very easy to work with multimedia files and hardware.

I got news for you, multimedia, more than just playing a movie or
burning a cd, is not something embraced by the world on a PC. Sure,
there are people like myself that can do everything on a PC with video,
audio, etc... but I can do it all on a Linux box too, and other than
having to read a little or find the proper product, it's not any
different than on my Windows boxes.

If you want to keep thinking that Linux is not ready, go on and think
it, you may wake up one day and see that the world left you behind. As
an IT manager I can't afford to miss what's happening the world.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <ujNxlmgZFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
> >> no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
> >> cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
> >> monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >>
> >> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
> >> users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
> >> makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
> >> software.
> >
> > Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> > comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
> > create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
> > for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
>
> I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so dumb. I
> can install XP no problems.

I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you must be
able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.

> > I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
> > having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>
> I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous claim. Most
> computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.

If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on everything
from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <u9p1fGhZFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> >>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
> >>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
> >>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
> >>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
> >>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
> >>>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
> >>>> pirate their software.
> >>>
> >>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> >>> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents,
> >>> even create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook
> >>> (Evolution) for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange
> >>> servers.
> >>>
> >>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> >>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
> >>
> >> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores,
> >> most if not all distros means that people have to give up some
> >> functionality, or need a lot of retraining.
> >>
> >> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so
> >> easy, when it has been decades since they have been an average
> >> computer user.
> >
> > And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
> > knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with
> > email/web without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word
> > document that he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box
> > and email it back to himself (for school work).
>
> Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
> right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux compatible
> to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as easily. And they
> would still have a whole bunch of software that they purchased over the
> years that would be totally useless.

Actually, it was a small Optiplex that had been running Windows XP SP1,
single HD, CDRW, ATI Video, and 256MB RAM. The drive was new,
unformatted, and I installed the drive hardware and gave him the
machine.....

> Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
> way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
> because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your fictitious
> son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.

And it would have worked as easily for those people you mention, it was
so simple that anyone able to post in this group could do it.

> > While I agree that there are some things that still present a
> > challenge for some small groups of users
>
> You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
> Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.

If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience in
front of identical hardware systems, running each OS, they would not
have any more problem with the Linux box than with the Windows box.

> > - multimedia is not as fully
> > supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
> > general public that buys computers from chain stores.
>
> LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me about
> buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.

Careful, if we agree on to many things (like the chain store item),
people might get the idea that we're really room-mates :)


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <ujNxlmgZFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
>>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
>>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>>>
>>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
>>>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
>>>> pirate their software.
>>>
>>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
>>> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents,
>>> even create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook
>>> (Evolution) for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange
>>> servers.
>>
>> I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so
>> dumb. I can install XP no problems.
>
> I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you must
> be able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.

LOL! Why? Did he get the age of your son wrong like you did?

I've tried many distros this year, and none will install on my PC. On
other PCs in my home, it will install but become a nightmare to
optimizing the video card, or getting the sound card running. Almost
every computer that I have managed to install Linux on has some sort of
compatibility problem, and I'm smarter than the average bear, when it
comes to PCs. Most of the average users I know wouldn't use the
computer if challenged as much by an OS.

>
>>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
>>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>>
>> I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous
>> claim. Most computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.
>
> If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on everything
> from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.

Yeah, I can probably strip out all my hardware cards and run the
on-board intel video chip set, and get linux install. By WHY WOULD I
WANT TO USE MY COMPUTER AFTER DOING THAT? Why would I want to give up
my digital sound system? Why would I want to give up my HDTV? Why
would I want to give up playing my games on my x800 xl? Why would I
want to slow down my harddrive access speed by disabling my RAID setup?
WHY? Why would I want to spend more money buying hardware to get me
back SOME but NOT ALL of that? WHY?!!!!!

Just so I can say I lobotomized my computer system to run Linux?

Linux still has a ways to go, and if you can't admit that, then that
shows where you are really coming from. DelusionLand!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <u9p1fGhZFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>>>>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
>>>>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
>>>>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>>>>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to
>>>>>> choose from and makes people who are normally honest want to
>>>>>> screw MS and pirate their software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP
>>>>> and comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create
>>>>> documents, even create web sites and connections that look like
>>>>> MS Outlook (Evolution) for use with people that connect to
>>>>> corporate Exchange servers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
>>>>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
>>>>
>>>> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores,
>>>> most if not all distros means that people have to give up some
>>>> functionality, or need a lot of retraining.
>>>>
>>>> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so
>>>> easy, when it has been decades since they have been an average
>>>> computer user.
>>>
>>> And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
>>> knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with
>>> email/web without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word
>>> document that he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box
>>> and email it back to himself (for school work).
>>
>> Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
>> right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux
>> compatible to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as
>> easily. And they would still have a whole bunch of software that
>> they purchased over the years that would be totally useless.
>
> Actually, it was a small Optiplex that had been running Windows XP
> SP1, single HD, CDRW, ATI Video, and 256MB RAM. The drive was new,
> unformatted, and I installed the drive hardware and gave him the
> machine.....

A motherboard with a processor, an old ATI card or onboard chipset, and
a CDRW. LOL!

>
>> Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
>> way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
>> because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your
>> fictitious son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.
>
> And it would have worked as easily for those people you mention, it
> was so simple that anyone able to post in this group could do it.

Really, was it set up to boot to CD by default, because if it wasn't
most people I know wouldn't know how to set up their computer to boot to
CD.

And most of the average users I know can't setup their email without
help, and wouldn't know how to access the USENET if their kids life
depended on it!

And don't even try to lie that the CDO losers could do it!

>
>>> While I agree that there are some things that still present a
>>> challenge for some small groups of users
>>
>> You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
>> Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.
>
> If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience
> in front of identical hardware systems, running each OS, they would
> not have any more problem with the Linux box than with the Windows
> box.

Ah! You have to go to the third world to find people like that. Most
in the US that can afford a computer have had one for a few years now,
and expect to do thing the Windows way. You throw linux at such a user,
they wouldn't know how to navigate their harddrive to find their files.

>>> - multimedia is not as fully
>>> supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
>>> general public that buys computers from chain stores.
>>
>> LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me
>> about buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.
>
> Careful, if we agree on to many things (like the chain store item),
> people might get the idea that we're really room-mates :)

I doubt it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#WymZihZFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <ujNxlmgZFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>
> >> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> >>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> >>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
> >>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
> >>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
> >>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >>>>
> >>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
> >>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose
> >>>> from and makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and
> >>>> pirate their software.
> >>>
> >>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
> >>> comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents,
> >>> even create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook
> >>> (Evolution) for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange
> >>> servers.
> >>
> >> I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so
> >> dumb. I can install XP no problems.
> >
> > I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you must
> > be able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.
>
> LOL! Why? Did he get the age of your son wrong like you did?
>
> I've tried many distros this year, and none will install on my PC. On
> other PCs in my home, it will install but become a nightmare to
> optimizing the video card, or getting the sound card running. Almost
> every computer that I have managed to install Linux on has some sort of
> compatibility problem, and I'm smarter than the average bear, when it
> comes to PCs. Most of the average users I know wouldn't use the
> computer if challenged as much by an OS.

And that would make your case one of the lessening minority in the Linux
world - it's getting better, but I did say that hardware drivers was the
one area where MS wins hands down.

> >>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> >>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
> >>
> >> I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous
> >> claim. Most computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.
> >
> > If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on everything
> > from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.
>
> Yeah, I can probably strip out all my hardware cards and run the
> on-board intel video chip set, and get linux install. By WHY WOULD I
> WANT TO USE MY COMPUTER AFTER DOING THAT? Why would I want to give up
> my digital sound system? Why would I want to give up my HDTV? Why
> would I want to give up playing my games on my x800 xl? Why would I
> want to slow down my harddrive access speed by disabling my RAID setup?
> WHY? Why would I want to spend more money buying hardware to get me
> back SOME but NOT ALL of that? WHY?!!!!!

I can count the number of people that have HDTV and true multimedia
systems that I know on one hand, the rest just have good sound cards and
good video cards. For the vast majority of typical Windows users (and
HDTV is not typical), it would work just fine. Oh, RAID us supported on
most linux platforms, but there are cheap RAID chipsets/controllers that
have not been coded for.

> Just so I can say I lobotomized my computer system to run Linux?

No, you're computer is not typical for most home users, so you would not
be a good fit, but, for the vast majority of the ignorant masses, linux
would be just fine from a fresh install.

> Linux still has a ways to go, and if you can't admit that, then that
> shows where you are really coming from. DelusionLand!

I'm not the one that can't setup a simple computer and I'm not the one
that thinks a HDTV setup makes their computer typical of the home users
systems in the majority of installed base.

I think that Linux has a large way to go when it comes to drivers, but
that's the only area that is currently suffering right now - the
interface and apps are fine for anyone that gets past the driver issues.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#9B68phZFHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <u9p1fGhZFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> In article <O8GdTQgZFHA.1448@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> >>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >>>> Leythos wrote:
> >>>>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> >>>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>>>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
> >>>>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
> >>>>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
> >>>>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
> >>>>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to
> >>>>>> choose from and makes people who are normally honest want to
> >>>>>> screw MS and pirate their software.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP
> >>>>> and comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create
> >>>>> documents, even create web sites and connections that look like
> >>>>> MS Outlook (Evolution) for use with people that connect to
> >>>>> corporate Exchange servers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
> >>>>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>> Fedora is a development OS. Basically a never ending beta.
> >>>>
> >>>> While Linux is capable of doing most of the simple computer chores,
> >>>> most if not all distros means that people have to give up some
> >>>> functionality, or need a lot of retraining.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm always amazed at how people OVER-state things like Linux is so
> >>>> easy, when it has been decades since they have been an average
> >>>> computer user.
> >>>
> >>> And my son, with no technical assistance and now real computer
> >>> knowledge, was able to get it up and running and on-line with
> >>> email/web without any problem - in fact he was able to get a MS Word
> >>> document that he had emailed to himself and edit it on the Linux box
> >>> and email it back to himself (for school work).
> >>
> >> Not that I believe a word you say about a son whose age you can't get
> >> right, but dear old dad probably got him a box that was linux
> >> compatible to begin with! Not everyones hardware will set up as
> >> easily. And they would still have a whole bunch of software that
> >> they purchased over the years that would be totally useless.
> >
> > Actually, it was a small Optiplex that had been running Windows XP
> > SP1, single HD, CDRW, ATI Video, and 256MB RAM. The drive was new,
> > unformatted, and I installed the drive hardware and gave him the
> > machine.....
>
> A motherboard with a processor, an old ATI card or onboard chipset, and
> a CDRW. LOL!

Poor assumption, but that's your choice.

> >> Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I know
> >> way too many people that start menu is larger than their screens, all
> >> because they don't know how to manage their start menu. Your
> >> fictitious son obviouly has more technical expertise than that.
> >
> > And it would have worked as easily for those people you mention, it
> > was so simple that anyone able to post in this group could do it.
>
> Really, was it set up to boot to CD by default, because if it wasn't
> most people I know wouldn't know how to set up their computer to boot to
> CD.

Yes, it was setup, by default, to boot to CD. Every machine I've
purchased in the last 3 years comes set to boot to CD if present.

> And most of the average users I know can't setup their email without
> help, and wouldn't know how to access the USENET if their kids life
> depended on it!

He has the same information that any other internet user would have -
email address, pop/smtp server names, password... fairly easy, even for
people that don't know what pop means.

> And don't even try to lie that the CDO losers could do it!
>
> >
> >>> While I agree that there are some things that still present a
> >>> challenge for some small groups of users
> >>
> >> You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged using
> >> Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.
> >
> > If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience
> > in front of identical hardware systems, running each OS, they would
> > not have any more problem with the Linux box than with the Windows
> > box.
>
> Ah! You have to go to the third world to find people like that. Most
> in the US that can afford a computer have had one for a few years now,
> and expect to do thing the Windows way. You throw linux at such a user,
> they wouldn't know how to navigate their harddrive to find their files.

Nopw, I know people that have had computers for more than 5 years that
don't have a clue about using them - email, web, print from MS Works....
Many of them use Web based email since they don't know what Outlook
Express is or how to set it up. Right here in the USA, tons of people
like that.

> >>> - multimedia is not as fully
> >>> supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
> >>> general public that buys computers from chain stores.
> >>
> >> LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me
> >> about buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.
> >
> > Careful, if we agree on to many things (like the chain store item),
> > people might get the idea that we're really room-mates :)
>
> I doubt it.

Well, at least we agree that your machine is not typical of a home users
machine.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#WymZihZFHA.3032@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <ujNxlmgZFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>
>>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>>>>> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>>> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS,
>>>>>> needs no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump
>>>>>> through and cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial
>>>>>> Window. Now MS has a monopoly. Do you understand that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of
>>>>>> Windows users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to
>>>>>> choose from and makes people who are normally honest want to
>>>>>> screw MS and pirate their software.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP
>>>>> and comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create
>>>>> documents, even create web sites and connections that look like
>>>>> MS Outlook (Evolution) for use with people that connect to
>>>>> corporate Exchange servers.
>>>>
>>>> I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so
>>>> dumb. I can install XP no problems.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you
>>> must be able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.
>>
>> LOL! Why? Did he get the age of your son wrong like you did?
>>
>> I've tried many distros this year, and none will install on my PC.
>> On other PCs in my home, it will install but become a nightmare to
>> optimizing the video card, or getting the sound card running. Almost
>> every computer that I have managed to install Linux on has some sort
>> of compatibility problem, and I'm smarter than the average bear,
>> when it comes to PCs. Most of the average users I know wouldn't use
>> the computer if challenged as much by an OS.
>
> And that would make your case one of the lessening minority in the
> Linux world - it's getting better, but I did say that hardware
> drivers was the one area where MS wins hands down.

And yet you don't believe Alias may have a computer that Linux won't
install on!

And it is in the hardware support that people would give up on Linux if
they tried. Right now Linux is not ready for prime time for those
already using windows, they are bound to be disappointed and go back to
windows, and may never try linux again. And that is why I don't
advocate that people try linux YET. One day soon it will be ready for
the MASSES, it ain't there yet.

>
>>>>> I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard
>>>>> without having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>>>>
>>>> I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous
>>>> claim. Most computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.
>>>
>>> If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on
>>> everything from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.
>>
>> Yeah, I can probably strip out all my hardware cards and run the
>> on-board intel video chip set, and get linux install. By WHY WOULD I
>> WANT TO USE MY COMPUTER AFTER DOING THAT? Why would I want to give
>> up my digital sound system? Why would I want to give up my HDTV?
>> Why would I want to give up playing my games on my x800 xl? Why
>> would I want to slow down my harddrive access speed by disabling my
>> RAID setup? WHY? Why would I want to spend more money buying
>> hardware to get me back SOME but NOT ALL of that? WHY?!!!!!
>
> I can count the number of people that have HDTV and true multimedia
> systems that I know on one hand, the rest just have good sound cards
> and good video cards.

Again people have all kinds of different hardware setups, and ANY
hardware problem becomes a total nightmare for the average user! By
saying that Linux is ready for the average user you are setting MOST of
them to have a bad linux experience from which they may never try again.

> For the vast majority of typical Windows users
> (and HDTV is not typical), it would work just fine. Oh, RAID us
> supported on most linux platforms, but there are cheap RAID
> chipsets/controllers that have not been coded for.
>
>> Just so I can say I lobotomized my computer system to run Linux?
>
> No, you're computer is not typical for most home users, so you would
> not be a good fit, but, for the vast majority of the ignorant masses,
> linux would be just fine from a fresh install.

LOL! NO! Most of them couldn't install WINDOWS let alone LINUX!

Are you effin' insane?!

(Don't bother answering, it is a rhetorical question, that we all know
the answer to! YOU ARE EFFIN' INSANE!)


>
>> Linux still has a ways to go, and if you can't admit that, then that
>> shows where you are really coming from. DelusionLand!
>
> I'm not the one that can't setup a simple computer and I'm not the one
> that thinks a HDTV setup makes their computer typical of the home
> users systems in the majority of installed base.
>
> I think that Linux has a large way to go when it comes to drivers, but
> that's the only area that is currently suffering right now - the
> interface and apps are fine for anyone that gets past the driver
> issues.

I now suspect you are trying to get many people to try Linux just so
they will become disillusioned by Linux to the point that they will
never try it again!

You are so full of sh*t, that I am totally effin' amazed that someone
can hold so much sh*t in one body! Linux is NOT ready for most of the
masses, that CANNOT install and setup any OS including WINDOWS!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <eTv0P1hZFHA.1404@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> I now suspect you are trying to get many people to try Linux just so
> they will become disillusioned by Linux to the point that they will
> never try it again!

You're funny some times, and this is one of them. I've seen noobs using
/ installing Linux and you don't seem to believe it since you couldn't
do it (or Alias wither). I've seen people that could not install either
Windows or Linux also, never seen anyone that could not install Linux
that could install Windows.

> You are so full of sh*t, that I am totally effin' amazed that someone
> can hold so much sh*t in one body! Linux is NOT ready for most of the
> masses, that CANNOT install and setup any OS including WINDOWS!

I think your so set in one mind set that you just can't work any other
way or even imagine anything other than what your limited experience
lets you comprehend - many people that are not mind-set locked have no
problems with either OS.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#9B68phZFHA.1512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> A motherboard with a processor, an old ATI card or onboard chipset,
>> and a CDRW. LOL!
>
> Poor assumption, but that's your choice.

I notice you didn't tell us what kind of ATI video. Be a little more
specific, but it sure sounds like a barebones system to me.

>
>>>> Most average users can't even uninstall a program in Windows. I
>>>> know way too many people that start menu is larger than their
>>>> screens, all because they don't know how to manage their start
>>>> menu. Your fictitious son obviouly has more technical expertise
>>>> than that.
>>>
>>> And it would have worked as easily for those people you mention, it
>>> was so simple that anyone able to post in this group could do it.
>>
>> Really, was it set up to boot to CD by default, because if it wasn't
>> most people I know wouldn't know how to set up their computer to
>> boot to CD.
>
> Yes, it was setup, by default, to boot to CD. Every machine I've
> purchased in the last 3 years comes set to boot to CD if present.

And MOST of the people I know have computers AT least that old.

>
>> And most of the average users I know can't setup their email without
>> help, and wouldn't know how to access the USENET if their kids life
>> depended on it!
>
> He has the same information that any other internet user would have -
> email address, pop/smtp server names, password... fairly easy, even
> for people that don't know what pop means.


LOL! Your fictitious kid is much more knowledgable that the average
slubs I know.

>
>> And don't even try to lie that the CDO losers could do it!
>>
>>>
>>>>> While I agree that there are some things that still present a
>>>>> challenge for some small groups of users
>>>>
>>>> You are out of touch. Most of the users I know are challenged
>>>> using Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual
>>>> lions den.
>>>
>>> If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience
>>> in front of identical hardware systems, running each OS, they would
>>> not have any more problem with the Linux box than with the Windows
>>> box.
>>
>> Ah! You have to go to the third world to find people like that.
>> Most in the US that can afford a computer have had one for a few
>> years now, and expect to do thing the Windows way. You throw linux
>> at such a user, they wouldn't know how to navigate their harddrive
>> to find their files.
>
> Nopw, I know people that have had computers for more than 5 years that
> don't have a clue about using them - email, web, print from MS
> Works.... Many of them use Web based email since they don't know what
> Outlook Express is or how to set it up. Right here in the USA, tons
> of people like that.


"If you put two non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience" -
Douchethos

"Ah! You have to go to the third world to find people like that." -
kurttrail

"Nopw, I know people that have had computers for more than 5 years that
don't have a clue about using them" - Douchethos

If they have five years of experience on windows, then they aren't
"non-technical users, with no Windows/Linus experience"

>
>>>>> - multimedia is not as fully
>>>>> supported as it is under Windows, it's more than ready for the
>>>>> general public that buys computers from chain stores.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! That is like the first thing I tell people when they ask me
>>>> about buying computers is don't buy them from chain stores.
>>>
>>> Careful, if we agree on to many things (like the chain store item),
>>> people might get the idea that we're really room-mates :)
>>
>> I doubt it.
>
> Well, at least we agree that your machine is not typical of a home
> users machine.

I don't know how you got that from my reply.

But nearly everybody has an atypical machine. That is the biggest part
of the problem! The is no such thing as a typical machine!

And most people can't install any OS at all. And You want to start them
off by installing Linux! You are totally INSANE! Most people would be
lucky to start and complete a Windows Upgrade from within Windows! Most
could not do a Clean install of windows, and definitely not Linux!

Saying that the average user could do a clean install of ANY OS is just
showing how out of touch with reality you really are!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#p3$p9hZFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
[snip the part that doesn't really need a reply based on the below]
> Saying that the average user could do a clean install of ANY OS is just
> showing how out of touch with reality you really are!

And assuming that everyone is really like you imagine they are, since
you don't have real-world, daily contact, with noobs and the like, is
really showing how little you know about reality.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#U4mrGiZFHA.3572@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Blow me, Douchethos. You are insane. The average computer user of
> today is not ready to do a clean install of any OS on their own. And
> you just demonstrate how full of SH*T you are by saying that they can.

Seems to me that you already resort to being foul when you get boxed
into a corner. Even my mother-inlaw, the lady that inserted a 5.25"
Floppy into her very old 286 in those days, was able to install FC3
without any help on her Dell 2400 series computer - the only help she
got was me installing a new (out of the retail box) hard drive so that
she would not have to use her current drive for the test.

Face it, people, even simple ones, can install Linux and you're just
sore that you couldn't! Heck, you would have the same trouble with
Windows if Alias didn't show you how to install it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#p3$p9hZFHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> [snip the part that doesn't really need a reply based on the below]
>> Saying that the average user could do a clean install of ANY OS is
>> just showing how out of touch with reality you really are!
>
> And assuming that everyone is really like you imagine they are, since
> you don't have real-world, daily contact, with noobs and the like, is
> really showing how little you know about reality.

LOL! I have plenty of real-world contact with noobs. I wish I had a
hell of a lot less contact with them, but there are so many of them.

And if they can install ANY OS and set it up properly, then they are not
really noobs.

A noob in real life would be someone that can't tie their own shoes. In
the virtual world, a noob is someone that is damned lucky to
consistently hit to right button to just to turn on the PC, let alone be
able to install and setup an OS successfully.

Most of the average users I know wouldn't know how to begin to upgrade
an OS, let alone, do a clean install of an OS. So I would suggest it is
you that is over-blowing the computer competence of the average computer
user.


--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#U4mrGiZFHA.3572@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Blow me, Douchethos. You are insane. The average computer user of
>> today is not ready to do a clean install of any OS on their own. And
>> you just demonstrate how full of SH*T you are by saying that they
>> can.
>
> Seems to me that you already resort to being foul when you get boxed
> into a corner.

LOL! No, I start to curse with the totally dense and delusional.
Anyone capable of a rational discussion, emphasis on RATIONAL, I only
curse when joking around. I am trying to beat the round peg of reason
into your thick square-holed skull of yours with a sledge hammer,
because it is quite obvious that you are totally beyond all reason!

> Even my mother-inlaw, the lady that inserted a 5.25"
> Floppy into her very old 286 in those days, was able to install FC3
> without any help on her Dell 2400 series computer - the only help she
> got was me installing a new (out of the retail box) hard drive so that
> she would not have to use her current drive for the test.

Now your fictitious son is an old lady! The average user wouldn't know
what a 5.25" floppy or a 286 is! If she was using a computer over a
dozen years ago, then she is NOT the average user, Douchethos!

And this just clearly demonstrates you have NO F*&KING IDEA WHAT AN
AVERAGE COMPUTER USER IS!

>
> Face it, people, even simple ones, can install Linux and you're just
> sore that you couldn't! Heck, you would have the same trouble with
> Windows if Alias didn't show you how to install it.

Face it, Douchethos, you are totally out of your effin' gord! And you
clearly have demonstrated it! A woman that has been using a computer
since the 286 days is anexample of an average computer user! Totally
out of your mind, Douchthos!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>>
>> <clip> Most of the users I know are challenged using
>> Windows. Linux would be like throwing them in a virtual lions den.
>>

I very much agree with that statement.

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d06833b7c0cc20598984c@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <ujNxlmgZFHA.2496@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
> maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1d0661ad301f9d42989846@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <#pqMvTWZFHA.3712@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, aka@[notme]
>> > maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> >> When someone comes up with an OS that is as user friendly as MS, needs
>> >> no activation/validation/you are a thief hoops to jump through and
>> >> cheaper, Windows will go right out the proverbial Window. Now MS has a
>> >> monopoly. Do you understand that?
>> >>
>> >> It's not a matter of "lazy". Linux is too difficult for 99% of Windows
>> >> users. Mac is too expensive. That leaves NOTHING to choose from and
>> >> makes people who are normally honest want to screw MS and pirate their
>> >> software.
>> >
>> > Fredora Core 3 from Red Hat is easier to install that Windows XP and
>> > comes with all the tools needed to communicate, create documents, even
>> > create web sites and connections that look like MS Outlook (Evolution)
>> > for use with people that connect to corporate Exchange servers.
>>
>> I tried to install it. I couldn't understand how to do it I am so dumb. I
>> can install XP no problems.
>
> I don't believe you, I've seem you copy Kurt's positions, so you must be
> able to press/click a mouse, that's all it takes.

You don't believe me? You're calling me a liar?
>
>> > I'm always amazed at how people state things like Linux is hard without
>> > having worked with the top 5 in the prior 6 months.
>>
>> I tried it about a month ago when you first made this erroneous claim.
>> Most
>> computer users aren't as clever and smart as you are.
>
> If you tried you would have succeeded, it's quite simple on everything
> from simple P3's to Dual Xeon machines in my own testing.

For you, maybe, but not everyone is as clever, tech savvy and smart as you
are.

Alias

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <ud9U6siZFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> > Even my mother-inlaw, the lady that inserted a 5.25"
> > Floppy into her very old 286 in those days, was able to install FC3
> > without any help on her Dell 2400 series computer - the only help she
> > got was me installing a new (out of the retail box) hard drive so that
> > she would not have to use her current drive for the test.
>
> Now your fictitious son is an old lady! The average user wouldn't know
> what a 5.25" floppy or a 286 is! If she was using a computer over a
> dozen years ago, then she is NOT the average user, Douchethos!

Just goes again to show how little you understand. A user that's old
enough and has experience with a 286 could still easily be a complete
noob with a computer - especially when it comes to installing an OS.
Using Word/Outlook and IE (now FireFox) does not make one knowledgeable
about how computers work or how to install an OS. You seem to be the one
that's delusional.

It's nice to see you resorting to being abusive again - Old Lady/Son,
what part did you miss about two tests? So, when you can't reply with
any real content that's on track, or when you get backed into a corner
were you are showing your incompetence, you resort to being abusive.

Heck, I know people that were using 586's that have never used a Floppy
disk and don't know they have write protect tabs on them.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <ud9U6siZFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> Even my mother-inlaw, the lady that inserted a 5.25"
>>> Floppy into her very old 286 in those days, was able to install FC3
>>> without any help on her Dell 2400 series computer - the only help
>>> she got was me installing a new (out of the retail box) hard drive
>>> so that she would not have to use her current drive for the test.
>>
>> Now your fictitious son is an old lady! The average user wouldn't
>> know what a 5.25" floppy or a 286 is! If she was using a computer
>> over a dozen years ago, then she is NOT the average user, Douchethos!
>
> Just goes again to show how little you understand. A user that's old
> enough and has experience with a 286 could still easily be a complete
> noob with a computer - especially when it comes to installing an OS.
> Using Word/Outlook and IE (now FireFox) does not make one
> knowledgeable about how computers work or how to install an OS. You
> seem to be the one that's delusional.

286, that would mean using DOS, which is an average user today knows
nothing about.

>
> It's nice to see you resorting to being abusive again - Old Lady/Son,
> what part did you miss about two tests?

You are dense. You don't listen to reason, so I'll shove it down you
effin' throat!

> So, when you can't reply with
> any real content that's on track, or when you get backed into a corner
> were you are showing your incompetence, you resort to being abusive.


Blah, Blah, Blah!

The average user today started using computers at the tail end of the 9x
era. Your fictitious mother-in-law is NOT an average user, Doucheboy!

I use my mother as my example of an average user. She does not know how
to install an OS, nor does she EVER want to install an OS! And most of
the average users I know don't know how, and wouldn't want to try. If
you don't understand that average computer user mentality, then you are
clearly demonstrating your total ignorance of the average computer user.

> Heck, I know people that were using 586's that have never used a
> Floppy disk and don't know they have write protect tabs on them.

But they can do a clean install and setup of Linux on their own! You
are totally and completely full of SH*T!

That is why you have so few friends here. No one wants to buddy around
with an irrational fool.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:53 AM
In article <#MAZu3jZFHA.2788@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <ud9U6siZFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >>> Even my mother-inlaw, the lady that inserted a 5.25"
> >>> Floppy into her very old 286 in those days, was able to install FC3
> >>> without any help on her Dell 2400 series computer - the only help
> >>> she got was me installing a new (out of the retail box) hard drive
> >>> so that she would not have to use her current drive for the test.
> >>
> >> Now your fictitious son is an old lady! The average user wouldn't
> >> know what a 5.25" floppy or a 286 is! If she was using a computer
> >> over a dozen years ago, then she is NOT the average user, Douchethos!
> >
> > Just goes again to show how little you understand. A user that's old
> > enough and has experience with a 286 could still easily be a complete
> > noob with a computer - especially when it comes to installing an OS.
> > Using Word/Outlook and IE (now FireFox) does not make one
> > knowledgeable about how computers work or how to install an OS. You
> > seem to be the one that's delusional.
>
> 286, that would mean using DOS, which is an average user today knows
> nothing about.
>
> >
> > It's nice to see you resorting to being abusive again - Old Lady/Son,
> > what part did you miss about two tests?
>
> You are dense. You don't listen to reason, so I'll shove it down you
> effin' throat!
>
> > So, when you can't reply with
> > any real content that's on track, or when you get backed into a corner
> > were you are showing your incompetence, you resort to being abusive.
>
>
> Blah, Blah, Blah!
>
> The average user today started using computers at the tail end of the 9x
> era. Your fictitious mother-in-law is NOT an average user, Doucheboy!

It's seems that you don't understand much about people - there are many
users that know nothing about the technical aspects of computers, don't
know about backups, don't know the difference between the CASE and the
processor, don't know the difference between the Computer and the hard-
drive, don't know what USB is, etc.... They all use their computers
without any problem every day, but they don't care to or need to
understand anything other than how to log-on, open email, use
Word/Excel, and browse the web - all of which requires little more than
the ability to click an icon. Those types are noobs that most often know
nothing about installing anything, always take the defaults, never know
where the files are on the drive (or that they actually have a drive),
etc...

> I use my mother as my example of an average user. She does not know how
> to install an OS, nor does she EVER want to install an OS! And most of
> the average users I know don't know how, and wouldn't want to try. If
> you don't understand that average computer user mentality, then you are
> clearly demonstrating your total ignorance of the average computer user.

You don't give the typical older mother any credit, most, if you tell
them to put the CD in the drive and reboot the computer, can follow the
simple directions to install Windows and Linux. The only complication is
if they have a cheap computer than wasn't setup to boot to CD if
present.

> > Heck, I know people that were using 586's that have never used a
> > Floppy disk and don't know they have write protect tabs on them.
>
> But they can do a clean install and setup of Linux on their own! You
> are totally and completely full of SH*T!

You really don't know much about people or computers if you stand with
that idea.

It really appears that you have not installed RedHat FC3 ever, that
you've also not tried any of the current (up to 1 year old) distros of
the major players - the only thing the user has to know is what name
they want to call their computer. For the most part, even the distros
that don't work well will partition, format, and install everything with
just a couple clicks. FC3 only asks what you want to use the computer
for, and explains each pre-packaged solution. It's so simple that even
you could do it.

> That is why you have so few friends here. No one wants to buddy around
> with an irrational fool.

I didn't come here to be popular, but I've got a lot of emails from
people warning me about your postings, people that didn't already know
that I completely understand your methods and motivation. They were all
nice emails, at least the part about me, can't say the same about you.

So, what are you going to do now that you're backed into a corner and
have proven that you don't know anything about Linux or even what
typical home non-technical users are capable of?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Mtimerding
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:

> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate it
> was
> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS should
> realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just
> because they do it often

I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to his
post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well, Not on one,
but
three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3 different
copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this machine has
PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better to
to but play around on these computers and try different things, and as
I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just format, reload
Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it again) and reformat, start
all over ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three
times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on
this copy of Windows' message when trying to activate. This last time,
there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a different
method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product key from
another/different copy of windows xp, and no other options. Fortunately, for

me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not being used
.... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that copy, and activated
it. But,
in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware computer
that
would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times since I
got this
computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks ago,
before
having to reformat again a week later.

Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows cd.

I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for the
kid to use.

It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up, when
trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week period.

I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for it's WPA,
but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on this group
and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system, with
OEM or Retail.

Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE MOST
DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got your
XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3 different
machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently isnt all that
rare.)

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Mtimerding wrote:
> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate
>> it was
>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>
> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well, Not
> on one, but
> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3 different
> copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this machine has
> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better
> to
> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and as
> I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just format,
> reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it again) and
> reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last
> 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded
> number of allowed activations on this copy of Windows' message when
> trying to activate. This last time, there was no phone number given
> or opportunity to activate via a different method. It just popped up
> a window telling me to enter a Product key from another/different
> copy of windows xp, and no other options. Fortunately, for
>
> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
> copy, and activated it. But,
> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
> computer that
> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
> since I got this
> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
> ago, before
> having to reformat again a week later.
>
> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
> cd.
>
> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
> the
> kid to use.
>
> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up, when
> trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week period.
>
> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
> this group
> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
> with OEM or Retail.
>
> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
> your
> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
> isnt all that rare.)

There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious. And
Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo, or flashed
with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate it.

I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you got
something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.

What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
In article <uruk9HAaFHA.3328@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious. And
> Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo, or flashed
> with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate it.

I've got a lot of Dell machines, the OEM installed OS doesn't require
activation, but, if you take the Windows XP CD that ships with them,
wipe the drive and do a new install, you will be asked to activate. I've
seen this on Dell 2400 and 8100 and 1100 series machines. In fact, I
just restored a laptop with a new drive (the old HD died) and used the
included Dell CD and had to activate it, which worked fine.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Shenan Stanley
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Tim.T wrote:
> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate
> it was limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
> reasons, and just because they do it often

Mtimerding wrote:
> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well, Not
> on one, but > three different computers I own, 3 different vendors,
> with 3 different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and
> this machine has PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus
> have nothing better to do but play around on these computers and
> try different things, and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am
> trying, I tend to just format, reload Windows, and all my
> applications (until I blow it again) and reformat, start all over
> ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three
> times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed
> activations on this copy of Windows' message when trying to
> activate. This last time, there was no phone
> number given or opportunity to activate via a different method. It
> just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product key from
> another/different copy of windows xp, and no other options.
> Fortunately, for me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro
> laying here, not being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled
> using that copy, and activated it. But,
> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
> computer that would not activate again. (But, it had activated at
> least 5 times since I got this computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had
> just reactivated it two weeks ago, before having to reformat again
> week later.
>
> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
> cd.
>
> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
> the kid to use.
>
> It seems to me, that the 'toomany activations' message pops up,
> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
> period.
> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
> this group and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
> system, with OEM or Retail.
>
> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
> your XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
> isnt all that rare.)

kurttrail wrote:
> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious. And
> Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo, or
> flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate it.
>
> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you got
> something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>
> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?

There is no limit to number of activations of a licensed copy of Windows XP.
None.

Yes, there is a 120 day limit in Internet Activations.. Meaning you may have
to make a phone call to reactivate instead of being able to do it
automagically over the Internet *if* you had previously activated and now
are reinstalling/attempting to activate in less than 120 days. (There may
even be a 3 times in 90 days limit in there too, but that is resolved with
the same phone call and only limits automagic Internet activation.)

So.. Tim T. - No limit in number of times you can reactivate.

Mtimerding - No limit in number of times you can reactivate and invest in
some imaging software and an external hard drive to use for the images.
Speed up those frequent reinstalls. Listen to Kurt.. He's the last one to
give Microsoft slack. heh

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> Mtimerding wrote:
>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>> activate it was
>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
>>> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well,
>>> Not on one, but
>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>> machine has
>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better
>>> to
>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and
>>> as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just
>>> format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it
>>> again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th
>>> system, in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run
>>> into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this copy of
>>> Windows' message when trying to activate. This last time, there was
>>> no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a different
>>> method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product
>>> key from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>> options. Fortunately, for
>>>
>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>>> computer that
>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>>> since I got this
>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
>>> ago, before
>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>
>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
>>> cd.
>>>
>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
>>> the
>>> kid to use.
>>>
>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>>> period.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
>>> this group
>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
>>> with OEM or Retail.
>>>
>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
>>> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
>>> your
>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
>>> isnt all that rare.)
>>
>> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious.
>> And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo, or
>> flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate it.
>>
>> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you got
>> something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>
>> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times" Internet
activation limit. It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA. I don't know
what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of 'three times in 90 days'.
I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft, because for one copy of mine
which quickly reached that limit I phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate
over the Internet like there was no tomorrow as if some magic button had
been pushed in their database for my product key .

I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few complications
built in... or bugs!

No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck of a lot.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> Mtimerding wrote:
>>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>> activate it was
>>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies
>>>> to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as
>>>> well, Not on one, but
>>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>> machine has
>>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>> better to
>>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and
>>>> as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just
>>>> format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it
>>>> again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th
>>>> system, in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run
>>>> into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this copy of
>>>> Windows' message when trying to activate. This last time, there was
>>>> no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a different
>>>> method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product
>>>> key from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>>> options. Fortunately, for
>>>>
>>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>>>> computer that
>>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>>>> since I got this
>>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
>>>> ago, before
>>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>
>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>> windows cd.
>>>>
>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
>>>> the
>>>> kid to use.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>>>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>>>> period.
>>>>
>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>>>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post
>>>> on this group
>>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
>>>> with OEM or Retail.
>>>>
>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
>>>> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you
>>>> got your
>>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>>>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
>>>> isnt all that rare.)
>>>
>>> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious.
>>> And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo, or
>>> flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate it.
>>>
>>> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you got
>>> something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>
>>> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
> A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times" Internet
> activation limit.

The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the number
of times you can activate.

> It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.

Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is on
the blink.

> I
> don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of 'three
> times in 90 days'.

FUD.

> I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
> because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
> phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like there
> was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in their
> database for my product key .
>
> I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
> complications built in... or bugs!

Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple. It is
a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there really is no
limit to the number of times you can activate. You may have to phone up
MS to activate, and that is a pain in the ass, but there is no limit to
the amount of times you can do that either.

> No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck of a
> lot.

And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies there
really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for your own
"fair use."

There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of that
option.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Donald McDaniel
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:44:06 GMT, "Mtimerding"
<Mtimerding*LeaveMeAlone*@fuse.net> wrote:

>
>On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could activate it
>> was
>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS should
>> realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many reasons, and just
>> because they do it often
>
> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to his
>post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well, Not on one,
>but
>three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3 different
>copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this machine has
>PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better to
>to but play around on these computers and try different things, and as
>I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just format, reload
>Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it again) and reformat, start
>all over ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three
>times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on
>this copy of Windows' message when trying to activate.

You will almost only get this error IF the CD key used to install XP
on that machine was used previously on ANOTHER machine and that
installation was activated. I have installed and activated both
Retail Upgrade CDs and so-called "FULL OEM" CDs many, many times,
sometimes in the same day.. But I have NEVER been denied an
activation of the installation.

>This last time,
>there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a different
>method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product key from
>another/different copy of windows xp, and no other options. Fortunately, for
>
>me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not being used
>... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that copy, and activated
>it. But,
>in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware computer
>that
>would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times since I
>got this
>computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks ago,
>before
>having to reformat again a week later.
>
> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows cd.
>
> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for the
>kid to use.
>
> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up, when
>trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week period.
>
> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for it's WPA,
>but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on this group
>and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system, with
>OEM or Retail.

Disagree all you want. But you won't change the facts of Activation:
Under the conditions of the XP EULA, you will ALWAYS be allowed an
activation IF the CD key is used according to the EULA. You won't
always be allowed an Internet activation, but you will ALWAYS be
allowed an activation via the phone, IF you have kept the terms of the
EULA.

>
> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE MOST
>DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got your
>XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3 different
>machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently isnt all that
>rare.)

IF you were unable to activate via the phone, it is because you
MISUSED one or more CD keys, or one or more CD keys were illegitimate.

More probably, you used one CD key to install and activate on one
machine, then used the same CD key to install and attempt to activate
on a second one. Under those circumstances, you will get the error.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Donald McDaniel wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:44:06 GMT, "Mtimerding"
> <Mtimerding*LeaveMeAlone*@fuse.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>> activate it was
>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>
>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
>> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well,
>> Not on one, but
>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>> machine has
>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better
>> to
>> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and
>> as
>> I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just
>> format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it
>> again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th system,
>> in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run into the
>> 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this copy of Windows'
>> message when trying to activate.
>
> You will almost only get this error IF the CD key used to install XP
> on that machine was used previously on ANOTHER machine and that
> installation was activated. I have installed and activated both
> Retail Upgrade CDs and so-called "FULL OEM" CDs many, many times,
> sometimes in the same day.. But I have NEVER been denied an
> activation of the installation.
>
>> This last time,
>> there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a
>> different method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a
>> Product key from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>> options. Fortunately, for
>>
>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>> copy, and activated it. But,
>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>> computer that
>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>> since I got this
>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
>> ago, before
>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>
>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
>> cd.
>>
>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
>> the kid to use.
>>
>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>> period.
>>
>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
>> this group
>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
>> with OEM or Retail.
>
> Disagree all you want. But you won't change the facts of Activation:
> Under the conditions of the XP EULA, you will ALWAYS be allowed an
> activation IF the CD key is used according to the EULA. You won't
> always be allowed an Internet activation, but you will ALWAYS be
> allowed an activation via the phone, IF you have kept the terms of the
> EULA.
>
>>
>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
>> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
>> your
>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
>> isnt all that rare.)
>
> IF you were unable to activate via the phone, it is because you
> MISUSED one or more CD keys, or one or more CD keys were illegitimate.
>
> More probably, you used one CD key to install and activate on one
> machine, then used the same CD key to install and attempt to activate
> on a second one. Under those circumstances, you will get the error.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original thread
> so that others may be instructed or informed
> ============================================

MS has no idea what actual computer XP is installed on. They only way
they know something has be "misused" is if you tell them.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Donald McDaniel
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:16:36 -0400, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>Donald McDaniel wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:44:06 GMT, "Mtimerding"
>> <Mtimerding*LeaveMeAlone*@fuse.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>> activate it was
>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
>>> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well,
>>> Not on one, but
>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>> machine has
>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better
>>> to
>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and
>>> as
>>> I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just
>>> format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it
>>> again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th system,
>>> in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run into the
>>> 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this copy of Windows'
>>> message when trying to activate.
>>
>> You will almost only get this error IF the CD key used to install XP
>> on that machine was used previously on ANOTHER machine and that
>> installation was activated. I have installed and activated both
>> Retail Upgrade CDs and so-called "FULL OEM" CDs many, many times,
>> sometimes in the same day.. But I have NEVER been denied an
>> activation of the installation.
>>
>>> This last time,
>>> there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a
>>> different method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a
>>> Product key from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>> options. Fortunately, for
>>>
>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>>> computer that
>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>>> since I got this
>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
>>> ago, before
>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>
>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
>>> cd.
>>>
>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
>>> the kid to use.
>>>
>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>>> period.
>>>
>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
>>> this group
>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
>>> with OEM or Retail.
>>
>> Disagree all you want. But you won't change the facts of Activation:
>> Under the conditions of the XP EULA, you will ALWAYS be allowed an
>> activation IF the CD key is used according to the EULA. You won't
>> always be allowed an Internet activation, but you will ALWAYS be
>> allowed an activation via the phone, IF you have kept the terms of the
>> EULA.
>>
>>>
>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
>>> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
>>> your
>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
>>> isnt all that rare.)
>>
>> IF you were unable to activate via the phone, it is because you
>> MISUSED one or more CD keys, or one or more CD keys were illegitimate.
>>
>> More probably, you used one CD key to install and activate on one
>> machine, then used the same CD key to install and attempt to activate
>> on a second one. Under those circumstances, you will get the error.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the original thread
>> so that others may be instructed or informed
>> ============================================
>
>MS has no idea what actual computer XP is installed on. They only way
>they know something has be "misused" is if you tell them.

Microsoft CAN tell if a particular CD key has been previously used to
activate the OS, obviously. Many of these errors are being caused by
the users themselves, when they install the OS using a single CD key
on more than one machine, which almost always returns the "Installed
too many times" error, and which would keep them from activating one
or more of the multiple installations via the Internet.

It seems that many of the complaints of not being able to activate via
the Internet after receiving the "Too many times..." error happen with
those who have more than one machine, and who attempt to install XP on
2 or more of the machines using the same CD key.

So Microsoft CAN detect INDIRECTLY if a CD key is being abused (either
intentionally or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the EULA).
Microsoft just can't detect the MOTIVES of those who apparently misuse
their CD keys.

Let's face it: Microsoft absolutely NEEDS to start putting the EULA on
the OUTSIDE PACKAGING in an EASILY-READABLE typeface. If they do,
they will have fewer people running up against the walls of the
Windows Activation mechanism, because more people will understand the
limitations of their licenses BEFORE attempting to install the OS.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
so that others may be instructed or informed
============================================

Alias
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
<Donald McDaniel> wrote in message
news:r621a1l81il93a9aia7m1hi7kljb4kvpl6@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 12:16:36 -0400, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>>Donald McDaniel wrote:
>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 04:44:06 GMT, "Mtimerding"
>>> <Mtimerding*LeaveMeAlone*@fuse.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>> activate it was
>>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>
>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies to
>>>> his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as well,
>>>> Not on one, but
>>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>> machine has
>>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing better
>>>> to
>>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things, and
>>>> as
>>>> I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to just
>>>> format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I blow it
>>>> again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my 5th system,
>>>> in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have run into the
>>>> 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this copy of Windows'
>>>> message when trying to activate.
>>>
>>> You will almost only get this error IF the CD key used to install XP
>>> on that machine was used previously on ANOTHER machine and that
>>> installation was activated. I have installed and activated both
>>> Retail Upgrade CDs and so-called "FULL OEM" CDs many, many times,
>>> sometimes in the same day.. But I have NEVER been denied an
>>> activation of the installation.
>>>
>>>> This last time,
>>>> there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate via a
>>>> different method. It just popped up a window telling me to enter a
>>>> Product key from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>>> options. Fortunately, for
>>>>
>>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>>>> computer that
>>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>>>> since I got this
>>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two weeks
>>>> ago, before
>>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>
>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM windows
>>>> cd.
>>>>
>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs for
>>>> the kid to use.
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>>>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>>>> period.
>>>>
>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>>>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post on
>>>> this group
>>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same system,
>>>> with OEM or Retail.
>>>
>>> Disagree all you want. But you won't change the facts of Activation:
>>> Under the conditions of the XP EULA, you will ALWAYS be allowed an
>>> activation IF the CD key is used according to the EULA. You won't
>>> always be allowed an Internet activation, but you will ALWAYS be
>>> allowed an activation via the phone, IF you have kept the terms of the
>>> EULA.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned, THERE
>>>> MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what OEM you got
>>>> your
>>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>>>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it apparently
>>>> isnt all that rare.)
>>>
>>> IF you were unable to activate via the phone, it is because you
>>> MISUSED one or more CD keys, or one or more CD keys were illegitimate.
>>>
>>> More probably, you used one CD key to install and activate on one
>>> machine, then used the same CD key to install and attempt to activate
>>> on a second one. Under those circumstances, you will get the error.
>>>
>>>
>>> Donald L McDaniel
>>> Please reply to the original thread
>>> so that others may be instructed or informed
>>> ============================================
>>
>>MS has no idea what actual computer XP is installed on. They only way
>>they know something has be "misused" is if you tell them.
>
> Microsoft CAN tell if a particular CD key has been previously used to
> activate the OS, obviously. Many of these errors are being caused by
> the users themselves, when they install the OS using a single CD key
> on more than one machine, which almost always returns the "Installed
> too many times" error, and which would keep them from activating one
> or more of the multiple installations via the Internet.
>
> It seems that many of the complaints of not being able to activate via
> the Internet after receiving the "Too many times..." error happen with
> those who have more than one machine, and who attempt to install XP on
> 2 or more of the machines using the same CD key.
>
> So Microsoft CAN detect INDIRECTLY if a CD key is being abused (either
> intentionally or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the EULA).
> Microsoft just can't detect the MOTIVES of those who apparently misuse
> their CD keys.
>
> Let's face it: Microsoft absolutely NEEDS to start putting the EULA on
> the OUTSIDE PACKAGING in an EASILY-READABLE typeface. If they do,
> they will have fewer people running up against the walls of the
> Windows Activation mechanism, because more people will understand the
> limitations of their licenses BEFORE attempting to install the OS.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel

Not only that, people would be able to read the EULA before making a non
refundable purchase. That said, activation only affects paying customers and
should be abolished.

Alias

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Donald McDaniel wrote:

> Microsoft CAN tell if a particular CD key has been previously used to
> activate the OS, obviously.

No the can tell when a specific Product Key has been previousl
activated. That in NO WAY means that that PK was used on a totally
different computer.

When you activate you send to MS an Installation ID. The Installation
ID is unique to each product and comprises two components:
1.) Product ID. Unique to the product key used during installation
2.) Hardware hash. Non-unique representation of the PC

Not only is the hardware hash value is a nonunique representation of the
PC on which the software was installed. It also has no direct
correlation to the PC and cannot be backward-calculated to figure what
actual hardware the PK has been used with.

> Many of these errors are being caused by
> the users themselves, when they install the OS using a single CD key
> on more than one machine, which almost always returns the "Installed
> too many times" error, and which would keep them from activating one
> or more of the multiple installations via the Internet.

As long as it has been less than 120 days since XP was last activated.
And then all one has to do is phone up MS and explain the a hardware
upgrade necessitated the reactivation.

> It seems that many of the complaints of not being able to activate via
> the Internet after receiving the "Too many times..." error happen with
> those who have more than one machine, and who attempt to install XP on
> 2 or more of the machines using the same CD key.

I doesn't seem that way to me. To me it is people that are continually
changing components in their PCs that see this message the most.

> So Microsoft CAN detect INDIRECTLY if a CD key is being abused (either
> intentionally or through ignorance or misunderstanding of the EULA).

By guess work only! MS cannot tell what hardware XP is actually
installed on. All PA tells them is that enough hardware has changed to
require phone activation.

Unless Microsoft is lying. Are you suggesting that MS is lying?

> Microsoft just can't detect the MOTIVES of those who apparently misuse
> their CD keys.

They cannot detect misuse, unless the person on the phone tells them.
UNLESS MS IS LYING ABOUT HOW PA WORKS! DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT MS
IS LYING?

>
> Let's face it: Microsoft absolutely NEEDS to start putting the EULA on
> the OUTSIDE PACKAGING in an EASILY-READABLE typeface.

No, they got to start acknowledging that their EULA is a commercial use
contact, and the for private non-commercial use in the home they really
have no business knowing how software is being use, let alone dictating
actual usage terms!

> If they do,
> they will have fewer people running up against the walls of the
> Windows Activation mechanism, because more people will understand the
> limitations of their licenses BEFORE attempting to install the OS.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Copy-protection is just a waste of time. It mostly stops legitimate
use, not illicit use.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Stephen
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
kurttrail wrote:
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>> Mtimerding wrote:
>>>>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>>>> activate it was
>>>>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the replies
>>>>>> to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation limit' as
>>>>>> well, Not on one, but
>>>>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>>>> machine has
>>>>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>>>> better to
>>>>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things,
>>>>>> and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to
>>>>>> just format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I
>>>>>> blow it again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my
>>>>>> 5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have
>>>>>> run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this
>>>>>> copy of Windows' message when trying to activate. This last
>>>>>> time, there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate
>>>>>> via a different method. It just popped up a window telling me to
>>>>>> enter a Product key from another/different copy of windows xp,
>>>>>> and no other options. Fortunately, for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>>>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>>>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>>>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this Alienware
>>>>>> computer that
>>>>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5 times
>>>>>> since I got this
>>>>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two
>>>>>> weeks ago, before
>>>>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>>>> windows cd.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs
>>>>>> for the
>>>>>> kid to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops up,
>>>>>> when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a two week
>>>>>> period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft for
>>>>>> it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people who post
>>>>>> on this group
>>>>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
>>>>>> system, with OEM or Retail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned,
>>>>>> THERE MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what
>>>>>> OEM you got your
>>>>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on 3
>>>>>> different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it
>>>>>> apparently isnt all that rare.)
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just fallacious.
>>>>> And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you change the mobo,
>>>>> or flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should never need to activate
>>>>> it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you
>>>>> got something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>>>
>>>>> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peace!
>>>>> Kurt
>>>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>
>>> A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times"
>>> Internet activation limit.
>>
>> The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
>> think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the
>> number of times you can activate.
>>
>>> It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.
>>
>> Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is on
>> the blink.
>>
>>> I
>>> don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of 'three
>>> times in 90 days'.
>>
>> FUD.
>>
>>> I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
>>> because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
>>> phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like there
>>> was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in their
>>> database for my product key .
>>>
>>> I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
>>> complications built in... or bugs!
>>
>> Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple.
>> It is a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there
>> really is no limit to the number of times you can activate. You may
>> have to phone up MS to activate, and that is a pain in the ass, but
>> there is no limit to the amount of times you can do that either.
>>
>>> No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck of a
>>> lot.
>>
>> And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies there
>> really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for your own
>> "fair use."
>>
>> There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of that
>> option.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Well, in another thread I suggest a change in BIOS settings might somehow
trigger a WPA event.

There is definitely a WPA message that one has exceeded how many times one
may activate. Perhaps you have not seen it but it is there. It is not a
virus, and people, including me, have experienced it. I realize it is a
bogus message as far as actual activation .. but it does block further
attempts at activating over the Internet. A phone call, of course, 'fixes'
it.

In other words, I don't know how it works but I know what I saw and it told
me I had exceeded my numerical limit. These guys aren't saying it happened
for nothing - they actually got that message.

Yes, there are ways around WPA. For instance one can get MSDN copies of
Windows through a subscription. Since I program now I got a MSDN
Professional subscription. You can get an MSDN Operating Systems
subscription for less than the Pro - and although you don't get all the
Visual Studio stuff, for some people that doesn't matter. Plus you get
access to all sorts of Microsoft operating systems:

e.g. Win98SE/Millennium Win2000 - checked uncheck with and without SP4,
Pro, Server, Enterprise etc. WinXPH/P checked and unchecked builds with and
with service packs, all sorts of languages, WinXPMedia, WinXPTablet, all the
Server 2003 stuff [save Data Centre and Small Business] both checked and
unchecked builds, service packs and no service packs, Standard, Enterprise,
Web, in various languages, and so on and on .. tons of "stuff".

I use Server 2003 std. SP1 as my desktop. These copies have endless
activation on innumberable machines. And the grace persiod is sixty days.
The licence says you cannot spread it around - these are for your own use as
you do your business testing etc. You can't give them away else you'd be in
copyright offence. And remember the product keys are tied to an account and
mailing address. But it is absolutely great for someone who tinkers with
Windows. For the cost of server you get it all.

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:57 AM
Stephen wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>> Mtimerding wrote:
>>>>>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>>>>> activate it was
>>>>>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>>>>>> should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>>>>>> reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the
>>>>>>> replies to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation
>>>>>>> limit' as well, Not on one, but
>>>>>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>>>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>>>>> machine has
>>>>>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>> to but play around on these computers and try different things,
>>>>>>> and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to
>>>>>>> just format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I
>>>>>>> blow it again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my
>>>>>>> 5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have
>>>>>>> run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this
>>>>>>> copy of Windows' message when trying to activate. This last
>>>>>>> time, there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate
>>>>>>> via a different method. It just popped up a window telling me to
>>>>>>> enter a Product key from another/different copy of windows xp,
>>>>>>> and no other options. Fortunately, for
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>>>>>> being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>>>>>> copy, and activated it. But,
>>>>>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this
>>>>>>> Alienware computer that
>>>>>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5
>>>>>>> times since I got this
>>>>>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two
>>>>>>> weeks ago, before
>>>>>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>>>>> windows cd.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs
>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>> kid to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops
>>>>>>> up, when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a
>>>>>>> two week period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft
>>>>>>> for it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people
>>>>>>> who post on this group
>>>>>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
>>>>>>> system, with OEM or Retail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned,
>>>>>>> THERE MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what
>>>>>>> OEM you got your
>>>>>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on
>>>>>>> 3 different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it
>>>>>>> apparently isnt all that rare.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just
>>>>>> fallacious. And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you
>>>>>> change the mobo, or flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should
>>>>>> never need to activate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you
>>>>>> got something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Peace!
>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>>
>>>> A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times"
>>>> Internet activation limit.
>>>
>>> The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I
>>> personally think it is done on purpose, but there really is no
>>> limit to the number of times you can activate.
>>>
>>>> It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.
>>>
>>> Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is
>>> on the blink.
>>>
>>>> I
>>>> don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of 'three
>>>> times in 90 days'.
>>>
>>> FUD.
>>>
>>>> I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
>>>> because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
>>>> phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like
>>>> there was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in
>>>> their database for my product key .
>>>>
>>>> I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
>>>> complications built in... or bugs!
>>>
>>> Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple.
>>> It is a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there
>>> really is no limit to the number of times you can activate. You may
>>> have to phone up MS to activate, and that is a pain in the ass, but
>>> there is no limit to the amount of times you can do that either.
>>>
>>>> No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck of
>>>> a lot.
>>>
>>> And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies there
>>> really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for your own
>>> "fair use."
>>>
>>> There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of that
>>> option.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>
> Well, in another thread I suggest a change in BIOS settings might
> somehow trigger a WPA event.

Yep, and sometimes driver changes too.

>
> There is definitely a WPA message that one has exceeded how many
> times one may activate.

"The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the number
of times you can activate."

> Perhaps you have not seen it but it is there.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Can you quote me saying the
message doesn't exist?

THE MESSAGE IS WRONG! DECEPTIVE! ERRONEOUS! FALLACIOUS!

> It is not a virus, and people, including me, have experienced it.

I said that to one person, as a possiblility.

> I
> realize it is a bogus message as far as actual activation .. but it
> does block further attempts at activating over the Internet. A phone
> call, of course, 'fixes' it.
>
> In other words, I don't know how it works but I know what I saw and
> it told me I had exceeded my numerical limit. These guys aren't
> saying it happened for nothing - they actually got that message.

I understand that, and even some of the most fervent pro-PA MVPs in this
group would agree that the message does exist, but is very poorly
written, and doesn't accurately reflect MS's PA policy.

The message should read something like "You have installed this copy on
a computer that has substantially different hardware than your previous
activation. Please call 800-555-5555 to explain this difference and
activate by phone."

My personal opinion is that MS has left the message with its deceptive
word to get the uneducated consumer to buy another copy of software. I
can't prove this FRAUD, but I suspect it because this wording has been a
part of WIN XP since before it was released to the public, and MS knows
its misleading at best and has had 2 subsequent Service Packs to reword
it, and hasn't.

It is my opinion that this fraudulent behavior is nothing new to MS. It
is a proven predatory monopoly and a proven patent and copyright
infringer.

MS is not to be trusted.

> Yes, there are ways around WPA. For instance one can get MSDN copies
> of Windows through a subscription. Since I program now I got a MSDN
> Professional subscription. You can get an MSDN Operating Systems
> subscription for less than the Pro - and although you don't get all
> the Visual Studio stuff, for some people that doesn't matter. Plus
> you get access to all sorts of Microsoft operating systems:
>
> e.g. Win98SE/Millennium Win2000 - checked uncheck with and without
> SP4, Pro, Server, Enterprise etc. WinXPH/P checked and unchecked
> builds with and with service packs, all sorts of languages,
> WinXPMedia, WinXPTablet, all the Server 2003 stuff [save Data Centre
> and Small Business] both checked and unchecked builds, service packs
> and no service packs, Standard, Enterprise, Web, in various
> languages, and so on and on .. tons of "stuff".
>
> I use Server 2003 std. SP1 as my desktop. These copies have endless
> activation on innumberable machines. And the grace persiod is sixty
> days. The licence says you cannot spread it around - these are for
> your own use as you do your business testing etc. You can't give them
> away else you'd be in copyright offence. And remember the product
> keys are tied to an account and mailing address. But it is absolutely
> great for someone who tinkers with Windows. For the cost of server
> you get it all.



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:59 AM
kurttrail wrote:

> Stephen wrote:
>
>>kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mtimerding wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>>>>>>activate it was
>>>>>>>>>limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but MS
>>>>>>>>>should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for many
>>>>>>>>>reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the
>>>>>>>>replies to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation
>>>>>>>>limit' as well, Not on one, but
>>>>>>>>three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>>>>>>different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>>>>>>machine has
>>>>>>>>PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>>>>>>better to
>>>>>>>>to but play around on these computers and try different things,
>>>>>>>>and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying, I tend to
>>>>>>>>just format, reload Windows, and all my applications (until I
>>>>>>>>blow it again) and reformat, start all over ....(Currently on my
>>>>>>>>5th system, in the last 7 years) ... and three times now, I have
>>>>>>>>run into the 'Exceeded number of allowed activations on this
>>>>>>>>copy of Windows' message when trying to activate. This last
>>>>>>>>time, there was no phone number given or opportunity to activate
>>>>>>>>via a different method. It just popped up a window telling me to
>>>>>>>>enter a Product key from another/different copy of windows xp,
>>>>>>>>and no other options. Fortunately, for
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>me I had another (legal) copy of Windows XP Pro laying here, not
>>>>>>>>being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled using that
>>>>>>>>copy, and activated it. But,
>>>>>>>>in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this
>>>>>>>>Alienware computer that
>>>>>>>>would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5
>>>>>>>>times since I got this
>>>>>>>>computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two
>>>>>>>>weeks ago, before
>>>>>>>>having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>>>>>>windows cd.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs
>>>>>>>>for the
>>>>>>>>kid to use.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops
>>>>>>>>up, when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a
>>>>>>>>two week period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft
>>>>>>>>for it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people
>>>>>>>>who post on this group
>>>>>>>>and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
>>>>>>>>system, with OEM or Retail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned,
>>>>>>>>THERE MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what
>>>>>>>>OEM you got your
>>>>>>>>XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me on
>>>>>>>>3 different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it
>>>>>>>>apparently isnt all that rare.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There is no limit. The wording of the message is just
>>>>>>>fallacious. And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you
>>>>>>>change the mobo, or flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should
>>>>>>>never need to activate it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like you
>>>>>>>got something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What were you doing to get these computers to ask for activation?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>--
>>>>>>>Peace!
>>>>>>>Kurt
>>>>>>>Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>>>>microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>>>>http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>>>>"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>>>>"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>>>
>>>>>A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times"
>>>>>Internet activation limit.
>>>>
>>>>The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I
>>>>personally think it is done on purpose, but there really is no
>>>>limit to the number of times you can activate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.
>>>>
>>>>Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is
>>>>on the blink.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I
>>>>>don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of 'three
>>>>>times in 90 days'.
>>>>
>>>>FUD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
>>>>>because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
>>>>>phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like
>>>>>there was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in
>>>>>their database for my product key .
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
>>>>>complications built in... or bugs!
>>>>
>>>>Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple.
>>>>It is a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there
>>>>really is no limit to the number of times you can activate. You may
>>>>have to phone up MS to activate, and that is a pain in the ass, but
>>>>there is no limit to the amount of times you can do that either.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck of
>>>>>a lot.
>>>>
>>>>And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies there
>>>>really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for your own
>>>>"fair use."
>>>>
>>>>There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of that
>>>>option.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Peace!
>>>>Kurt
>>>>Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>
>>Well, in another thread I suggest a change in BIOS settings might
>>somehow trigger a WPA event.
>
>
> Yep, and sometimes driver changes too.
>
>
>>There is definitely a WPA message that one has exceeded how many
>>times one may activate.
>
>
> "The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
> think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the number
> of times you can activate."
>
>
>>Perhaps you have not seen it but it is there.
>
>
> How many times do I have to repeat myself? Can you quote me saying the
> message doesn't exist?
>
> THE MESSAGE IS WRONG! DECEPTIVE! ERRONEOUS! FALLACIOUS!
>
>
>>It is not a virus, and people, including me, have experienced it.
>
>
> I said that to one person, as a possiblility.
>
>
>>I
>>realize it is a bogus message as far as actual activation .. but it
>>does block further attempts at activating over the Internet. A phone
>>call, of course, 'fixes' it.
>>
>>In other words, I don't know how it works but I know what I saw and
>>it told me I had exceeded my numerical limit. These guys aren't
>>saying it happened for nothing - they actually got that message.
>
>
> I understand that, and even some of the most fervent pro-PA MVPs in this
> group would agree that the message does exist, but is very poorly
> written, and doesn't accurately reflect MS's PA policy.
>
> The message should read something like "You have installed this copy on
> a computer that has substantially different hardware than your previous
> activation. Please call 800-555-5555 to explain this difference and
> activate by phone."
>
> My personal opinion is that MS has left the message with its deceptive
> word to get the uneducated consumer to buy another copy of software. I
> can't prove this FRAUD, but I suspect it because this wording has been a
> part of WIN XP since before it was released to the public, and MS knows
> its misleading at best and has had 2 subsequent Service Packs to reword
> it, and hasn't.

Three, if you count SP1, SP1a and SP2. Interestingly they chose to
change the startup splash screen from displaying Windows xp Professional
and Windows xp Home to just Windows xp with SP2. What is the purpose in
that? Why would they go to the trouble of changing that and not
something more meaningful and so potentially misleading, such as the
"installed too many times" horsecrap message?

BTW & FWIW, I have very recently installed OEM Pro SP1 and SP2 on the
same exact hardware using the same OEM key no less than six times in
less than a week and it has never failed to activate online. However,
some months back I installed using the same key and installation media
on the same hardware, replaced the HDD and did a clean install within
two weeks and got the "installed too many times" horsecrap message, shut
down, went to bed, started up in the morning and it activate online with
no problem.

>
> It is my opinion that this fraudulent behavior is nothing new to MS.
> It
> is a proven predatory monopoly and a proven patent and copyright
> infringer.

Monopoly, yes, but patent and copyright infringement suits were settled
out of court as I recall.

>
> MS is not to be trusted.

Maybe not, but WPA is definitely not to be trusted. You'd think that the
maker of the world's most used software would be able to make their
stinking WPA technology more consitent, reliable and accurate.

Steve

>
>
>>Yes, there are ways around WPA. For instance one can get MSDN copies
>>of Windows through a subscription. Since I program now I got a MSDN
>>Professional subscription. You can get an MSDN Operating Systems
>>subscription for less than the Pro - and although you don't get all
>>the Visual Studio stuff, for some people that doesn't matter. Plus
>>you get access to all sorts of Microsoft operating systems:
>>
>>e.g. Win98SE/Millennium Win2000 - checked uncheck with and without
>>SP4, Pro, Server, Enterprise etc. WinXPH/P checked and unchecked
>>builds with and with service packs, all sorts of languages,
>>WinXPMedia, WinXPTablet, all the Server 2003 stuff [save Data Centre
>>and Small Business] both checked and unchecked builds, service packs
>>and no service packs, Standard, Enterprise, Web, in various
>>languages, and so on and on .. tons of "stuff".
>>
>>I use Server 2003 std. SP1 as my desktop. These copies have endless
>>activation on innumberable machines. And the grace persiod is sixty
>>days. The licence says you cannot spread it around - these are for
>>your own use as you do your business testing etc. You can't give them
>>away else you'd be in copyright offence. And remember the product
>>keys are tied to an account and mailing address. But it is absolutely
>>great for someone who tinkers with Windows. For the cost of server
>>you get it all.
>
>
>
>

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 12:59 AM
Steve N. wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mtimerding wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>>>>>>> activate it was
>>>>>>>>>> limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but
>>>>>>>>>> MS should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for
>>>>>>>>>> many reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the
>>>>>>>>> replies to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation
>>>>>>>>> limit' as well, Not on one, but
>>>>>>>>> three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>>>>>>> different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>>>>>>> machine has
>>>>>>>>> PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>>>>>>> better to
>>>>>>>>> to but play around on these computers and try different
>>>>>>>>> things, and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying,
>>>>>>>>> I tend to just format, reload Windows, and all my
>>>>>>>>> applications (until I blow it again) and reformat, start all
>>>>>>>>> over ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last 7 years)
>>>>>>>>> ... and three times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded number
>>>>>>>>> of allowed activations on this copy of Windows' message when
>>>>>>>>> trying to activate. This last time, there was no phone number
>>>>>>>>> given or opportunity to activate via a different method. It
>>>>>>>>> just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product key
>>>>>>>>> from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>>>>>>>> options. Fortunately, for me I had another (legal) copy of
>>>>>>>>> Windows XP Pro laying here,
>>>>>>>>> not being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled
>>>>>>>>> using that copy, and activated it. But,
>>>>>>>>> in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this
>>>>>>>>> Alienware computer that
>>>>>>>>> would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5
>>>>>>>>> times since I got this
>>>>>>>>> computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two
>>>>>>>>> weeks ago, before
>>>>>>>>> having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>>>>>>> windows cd.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs
>>>>>>>>> for the
>>>>>>>>> kid to use.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops
>>>>>>>>> up, when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a
>>>>>>>>> two week period.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft
>>>>>>>>> for it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people
>>>>>>>>> who post on this group
>>>>>>>>> and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
>>>>>>>>> system, with OEM or Retail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned,
>>>>>>>>> THERE MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what
>>>>>>>>> OEM you got your
>>>>>>>>> XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me
>>>>>>>>> on 3 different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it
>>>>>>>>> apparently isnt all that rare.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no limit. The wording of the message is just
>>>>>>>> fallacious. And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you
>>>>>>>> change the mobo, or flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should
>>>>>>>> never need to activate it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like
>>>>>>>> you got something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What were you doing to get these computers to ask for
>>>>>>>> activation? --
>>>>>>>> Peace!
>>>>>>>> Kurt
>>>>>>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>>>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>>>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>>>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>>>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times"
>>>>>> Internet activation limit.
>>>>>
>>>>> The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I
>>>>> personally think it is done on purpose, but there really is no
>>>>> limit to the number of times you can activate.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is
>>>>> on the blink.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of
>>>>>> 'three times in 90 days'.
>>>>>
>>>>> FUD.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
>>>>>> because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
>>>>>> phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like
>>>>>> there was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in
>>>>>> their database for my product key .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
>>>>>> complications built in... or bugs!
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple.
>>>>> It is a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there
>>>>> really is no limit to the number of times you can activate. You
>>>>> may have to phone up MS to activate, and that is a pain in the
>>>>> ass, but there is no limit to the amount of times you can do that
>>>>> either.
>>>>>> No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck
>>>>>> of a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies
>>>>> there really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for
>>>>> your own "fair use."
>>>>>
>>>>> There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of
>>>>> that option.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Peace!
>>>>> Kurt
>>>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>
>>> Well, in another thread I suggest a change in BIOS settings might
>>> somehow trigger a WPA event.
>>
>>
>> Yep, and sometimes driver changes too.
>>
>>
>>> There is definitely a WPA message that one has exceeded how many
>>> times one may activate.
>>
>>
>> "The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
>> think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the
>> number of times you can activate."
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps you have not seen it but it is there.
>>
>>
>> How many times do I have to repeat myself? Can you quote me saying
>> the message doesn't exist?
>>
>> THE MESSAGE IS WRONG! DECEPTIVE! ERRONEOUS! FALLACIOUS!
>>
>>
>>> It is not a virus, and people, including me, have experienced it.
>>
>>
>> I said that to one person, as a possiblility.
>>
>>
>>> I
>>> realize it is a bogus message as far as actual activation .. but it
>>> does block further attempts at activating over the Internet. A phone
>>> call, of course, 'fixes' it.
>>>
>>> In other words, I don't know how it works but I know what I saw and
>>> it told me I had exceeded my numerical limit. These guys aren't
>>> saying it happened for nothing - they actually got that message.
>>
>>
>> I understand that, and even some of the most fervent pro-PA MVPs in
>> this group would agree that the message does exist, but is very
>> poorly written, and doesn't accurately reflect MS's PA policy.
>>
>> The message should read something like "You have installed this copy
>> on a computer that has substantially different hardware than your
>> previous activation. Please call 800-555-5555 to explain this
>> difference and activate by phone."
>>
>> My personal opinion is that MS has left the message with its
>> deceptive word to get the uneducated consumer to buy another copy of
>> software. I can't prove this FRAUD, but I suspect it because this
>> wording has been a part of WIN XP since before it was released to
>> the public, and MS knows its misleading at best and has had 2
>> subsequent Service Packs to reword it, and hasn't.
>
> Three, if you count SP1, SP1a and SP2. Interestingly they chose to
> change the startup splash screen from displaying Windows xp
> Professional and Windows xp Home to just Windows xp with SP2. What is
> the purpose in that? Why would they go to the trouble of changing
> that and not something more meaningful and so potentially misleading,
> such as the "installed too many times" horsecrap message?
>
> BTW & FWIW, I have very recently installed OEM Pro SP1 and SP2 on the
> same exact hardware using the same OEM key no less than six times in
> less than a week and it has never failed to activate online. However,
> some months back I installed using the same key and installation media
> on the same hardware, replaced the HDD and did a clean install within
> two weeks and got the "installed too many times" horsecrap message,
> shut down, went to bed, started up in the morning and it activate
> online with no problem.
>
>>
>> It is my opinion that this fraudulent behavior is nothing new to MS.
>> It
>> is a proven predatory monopoly and a proven patent and copyright
>> infringer.
>
> Monopoly, yes, but patent and copyright infringement suits were
> settled out of court as I recall.

http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/HNorder_1.html

And the Eolas case is still in appeal, but the did lose that.

As for copyright infringement, I haven't found it yet but I'm fairly
certain they have lost at least one case.

>
>>
>> MS is not to be trusted.
>
> Maybe not, but WPA is definitely not to be trusted. You'd think that
> the maker of the world's most used software would be able to make
> their stinking WPA technology more consitent, reliable and accurate.
>
> Steve

Its like the Auto Industry is capable of building a car that will run
for a million miles, but why should they if you are willing to by a new
one every 100,000 miles.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Steve N.
07-10-2005, 12:59 AM
kurttrail wrote:

> Steve N. wrote:
>
>>kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>kurttrail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mtimerding wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On 30-May-2005, "Tim.T" <timatee@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>For example, I didn't realise the number of times you could
>>>>>>>>>>>activate it was
>>>>>>>>>>>limited. I know this may be a precaution against piracy, but
>>>>>>>>>>>MS should realise that people have to reinstall their OS for
>>>>>>>>>>>many reasons, and just because they do it often
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to agree with Tim T, and disagree with all the
>>>>>>>>>>replies to his post .... I too have run into the 'activation
>>>>>>>>>>limit' as well, Not on one, but
>>>>>>>>>>three different computers I own, 3 different vendors, with 3
>>>>>>>>>>different copies of Windows XP. (2 have HOME on them, and this
>>>>>>>>>>machine has
>>>>>>>>>>PRO) ... As I am retired, and disabled, and thus have nothing
>>>>>>>>>>better to
>>>>>>>>>>to but play around on these computers and try different
>>>>>>>>>>things, and as I usually screw up whatever it is I am trying,
>>>>>>>>>>I tend to just format, reload Windows, and all my
>>>>>>>>>>applications (until I blow it again) and reformat, start all
>>>>>>>>>>over ....(Currently on my 5th system, in the last 7 years)
>>>>>>>>>>... and three times now, I have run into the 'Exceeded number
>>>>>>>>>>of allowed activations on this copy of Windows' message when
>>>>>>>>>>trying to activate. This last time, there was no phone number
>>>>>>>>>>given or opportunity to activate via a different method. It
>>>>>>>>>>just popped up a window telling me to enter a Product key
>>>>>>>>>>from another/different copy of windows xp, and no other
>>>>>>>>>>options. Fortunately, for me I had another (legal) copy of
>>>>>>>>>>Windows XP Pro laying here,
>>>>>>>>>>not being used ... so I just formatted again, reinstalled
>>>>>>>>>>using that copy, and activated it. But,
>>>>>>>>>>in this case, it was the copy of XP that came with this
>>>>>>>>>>Alienware computer that
>>>>>>>>>>would not activate again. (But, it had activated at least 5
>>>>>>>>>>times since I got this
>>>>>>>>>>computer 2 years ago) In fact, I had just reactivated it two
>>>>>>>>>>weeks ago, before
>>>>>>>>>>having to reformat again a week later.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Before this, it occured on a Micron computer, with it's OEM
>>>>>>>>>>windows cd.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I also have a DELL system, with its copy of XP home downstairs
>>>>>>>>>>for the
>>>>>>>>>>kid to use.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me, that the 'to many activations' message pops
>>>>>>>>>>up, when trying to activate it somewhere around 3 times in a
>>>>>>>>>>two week period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am not arguing it is right or wrong, or bashing Microsoft
>>>>>>>>>>for it's WPA, but I am just disagreeing with the MANY people
>>>>>>>>>>who post on this group
>>>>>>>>>>and others that there is NO limit to activating on the same
>>>>>>>>>>system, with OEM or Retail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Because I know for a fact, as the original poster learned,
>>>>>>>>>>THERE MOST DEFINATELY IS A LIMIT. (maybe it is imposed on what
>>>>>>>>>>OEM you got your
>>>>>>>>>>XP from, I don't know ...but the fact that it happened to me
>>>>>>>>>>on 3 different machines from 3 different vendors tells me it
>>>>>>>>>>apparently isnt all that rare.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There is no limit. The wording of the message is just
>>>>>>>>>fallacious. And Dell systems are BIOS-Locked, so unless you
>>>>>>>>>change the mobo, or flashed with a non-Dell BIOS you should
>>>>>>>>>never need to activate it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I'm not one to give MS any slack over PA, but it should like
>>>>>>>>>you got something else going on, virus, or virus-like, maybe.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What were you doing to get these computers to ask for
>>>>>>>>>activation? --
>>>>>>>>>Peace!
>>>>>>>>>Kurt
>>>>>>>>>Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>>>>>>microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>>>>>>http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>>>>>>"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>>>>>>"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A copy of my WinXP Home got caught up in an "number of times"
>>>>>>>Internet activation limit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I
>>>>>>personally think it is done on purpose, but there really is no
>>>>>>limit to the number of times you can activate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It isn't a virus .. it's some routine in WPA.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a virus, then maybe you got a flakey BIOS, or hardware that is
>>>>>>on the blink.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I
>>>>>>>don't know what triggers it .. someone suggests some sort of
>>>>>>>'three times in 90 days'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>FUD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I wonder if they have a button at Microsoft,
>>>>>>>because for one copy of mine which quickly reached that limit I
>>>>>>>phoned in. Thereafter, I could activate over the Internet like
>>>>>>>there was no tomorrow as if some magic button had been pushed in
>>>>>>>their database for my product key .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't think WPA is 'simple'. I think the software has a few
>>>>>>>complications built in... or bugs!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Certainly aren't quoting me. I don't think activation is simple.
>>>>>>It is a pain in the ass. It can be buggy and flakey, but there
>>>>>>really is no limit to the number of times you can activate. You
>>>>>>may have to phone up MS to activate, and that is a pain in the
>>>>>>ass, but there is no limit to the amount of times you can do that
>>>>>>either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, I'm not pirating, I was tinkering alot, reinstalling a heck
>>>>>>>of a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And I know how that is, and as long as you paid for you copies
>>>>>>there really is little legal problem for you to circumvent PA for
>>>>>>your own "fair use."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are ways around PA, and in your boat I'd avail myself of
>>>>>>that option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Peace!
>>>>>>Kurt
>>>>>>Self-anointed Moderator
>>>>>>microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>>>>>http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>>>>>"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>>>>>"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>>
>>>>Well, in another thread I suggest a change in BIOS settings might
>>>>somehow trigger a WPA event.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yep, and sometimes driver changes too.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There is definitely a WPA message that one has exceeded how many
>>>>times one may activate.
>>>
>>>
>>>"The message that pops up is a horribly written message. I personally
>>>think it is done on purpose, but there really is no limit to the
>>>number of times you can activate."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Perhaps you have not seen it but it is there.
>>>
>>>
>>>How many times do I have to repeat myself? Can you quote me saying
>>>the message doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>THE MESSAGE IS WRONG! DECEPTIVE! ERRONEOUS! FALLACIOUS!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>It is not a virus, and people, including me, have experienced it.
>>>
>>>
>>>I said that to one person, as a possiblility.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I
>>>>realize it is a bogus message as far as actual activation .. but it
>>>>does block further attempts at activating over the Internet. A phone
>>>>call, of course, 'fixes' it.
>>>>
>>>>In other words, I don't know how it works but I know what I saw and
>>>>it told me I had exceeded my numerical limit. These guys aren't
>>>>saying it happened for nothing - they actually got that message.
>>>
>>>
>>>I understand that, and even some of the most fervent pro-PA MVPs in
>>>this group would agree that the message does exist, but is very
>>>poorly written, and doesn't accurately reflect MS's PA policy.
>>>
>>>The message should read something like "You have installed this copy
>>>on a computer that has substantially different hardware than your
>>>previous activation. Please call 800-555-5555 to explain this
>>>difference and activate by phone."
>>>
>>>My personal opinion is that MS has left the message with its
>>>deceptive word to get the uneducated consumer to buy another copy of
>>>software. I can't prove this FRAUD, but I suspect it because this
>>>wording has been a part of WIN XP since before it was released to
>>>the public, and MS knows its misleading at best and has had 2
>>>subsequent Service Packs to reword it, and hasn't.
>>
>>Three, if you count SP1, SP1a and SP2. Interestingly they chose to
>>change the startup splash screen from displaying Windows xp
>>Professional and Windows xp Home to just Windows xp with SP2. What is
>>the purpose in that? Why would they go to the trouble of changing
>>that and not something more meaningful and so potentially misleading,
>>such as the "installed too many times" horsecrap message?
>>
>>BTW & FWIW, I have very recently installed OEM Pro SP1 and SP2 on the
>>same exact hardware using the same OEM key no less than six times in
>>less than a week and it has never failed to activate online. However,
>>some months back I installed using the same key and installation media
>>on the same hardware, replaced the HDD and did a clean install within
>>two weeks and got the "installed too many times" horsecrap message,
>>shut down, went to bed, started up in the morning and it activate
>>online with no problem.
>>
>>
>>>It is my opinion that this fraudulent behavior is nothing new to MS.
>>>It
>>>is a proven predatory monopoly and a proven patent and copyright
>>>infringer.
>>
>>Monopoly, yes, but patent and copyright infringement suits were
>>settled out of court as I recall.
>
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/11/14/HNorder_1.html

Got it. Yep, patent infringement. I forgot about that. 62 Megabucks!

>
> And the Eolas case is still in appeal, but the did lose that.

I don't recall that one.

>
> As for copyright infringement, I haven't found it yet but I'm fairly
> certain they have lost at least one case.
>

I'm fuzzy on it too.

>
>>>MS is not to be trusted.
>>
>>Maybe not, but WPA is definitely not to be trusted. You'd think that
>>the maker of the world's most used software would be able to make
>>their stinking WPA technology more consitent, reliable and accurate.
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Its like the Auto Industry is capable of building a car that will run
> for a million miles, but why should they if you are willing to by a new
> one every 100,000 miles.
>

Hell, I can't afford to but a car that doesn't have at *least* 100,000
miles on it!

LOL!

Steve

Gerhard Fiedler
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
On 6/4/05 13:20:38, Steve N. wrote:

> You'd think that the maker of the world's most used software would be
> able to make their stinking WPA technology more consitent, reliable and
> accurate.

Consistency, reliability and accuracy were never strongholds of Microsoft
products. They're in the market because of other qualities (that appeal
more to the general public).

Gerhard

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 01:00 AM
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> On 6/4/05 13:20:38, Steve N. wrote:
>
>> You'd think that the maker of the world's most used software would be
>> able to make their stinking WPA technology more consitent, reliable
>> and accurate.
>
> Consistency, reliability and accuracy were never strongholds of
> Microsoft products. They're in the market because of other qualities
> (that appeal more to the general public).
>
> Gerhard

Yeah. Like being pre-installed of the overwhelming majority of OEM
computers!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Gerhard Fiedler
07-10-2005, 01:01 AM
On 6/5/05 14:04:05, kurttrail wrote:

> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>> Consistency, reliability and accuracy were never strongholds of
>> Microsoft products. They're in the market because of other qualities
>> (that appeal more to the general public).

> Yeah. Like being pre-installed of the overwhelming majority of OEM
> computers!

I see that more of a consequence. I'm old enough to remember the time when
MS Office was not the only contender on the market, and most computer
outlets offered a choice of similar packages for pre-installation -- with
MS not having been the cheapest one, AFAIR. Yet most people chose MS
Office, it seems. Which then made the other commercial office suites
disappear slowly (and therefore MS Office the one single choice for
pre-installation).

Somehow they managed to create that "you can't get fired for choosing MS"
mentality -- but not through consistency, reliability or accuracy (in the
behavior of their applications, that is :)

Gerhard

kurttrail
07-10-2005, 01:01 AM
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> On 6/5/05 14:04:05, kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>>> Consistency, reliability and accuracy were never strongholds of
>>> Microsoft products. They're in the market because of other qualities
>>> (that appeal more to the general public).
>
>> Yeah. Like being pre-installed of the overwhelming majority of OEM
>> computers!
>
> I see that more of a consequence. I'm old enough to remember the time
> when MS Office was not the only contender on the market, and most
> computer outlets offered a choice of similar packages for
> pre-installation -- with MS not having been the cheapest one, AFAIR.
> Yet most people chose MS Office, it seems. Which then made the other
> commercial office suites disappear slowly (and therefore MS Office
> the one single choice for pre-installation).
>
> Somehow they managed to create that "you can't get fired for choosing
> MS" mentality -- but not through consistency, reliability or accuracy
> (in the behavior of their applications, that is :)
>

LOL! I didn't know we were talking about Office in this Windows group,
however which came first MS Office becoming the #1 Office suite, or MS
pressuring OEMs to pre-install MS Office? It's only been since the US
Anti-Trust case that US OEMs started to preinstall other Office suite
options again.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


ok, let's clear this up MS - is Product Activation really restricted?