XP license to 2nd computer legal?

Wrong my friend. I bought this laptop used. For the hardware alone it
was a good price. But it also included, FREE, at no additional cost to
me, a legal copy of XP to install on it. Note I said FREE.

Unfortunately, though, it's not actually free. The estimates
I've seen for the cost of OEM licenses are $50-80 US.
(Apparently MS won't publicly disclose the cost, so analysts
have to estimate it.) Presumably I could buy a new Compaq
for about $250 if I could buy it without XP.

Awhile back (maybe 2-3 years ago?)
theRegister ran a series of articles about how Microsoft was
threatening independent PC makers, asserting that any shop
allowing people to buy an empty machine was essentially taking
part in piracy....because Windows was undoubtedly going onto
that machine. (MS not only disregards Linux in taking that
position; they also disregard the existence of their own full license
customers.)

****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

Ohhh, lookie lookie:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...a_phones_home/

Now, tell me again why I should trust MS?

I think it's very telling that Microsoft even offers
a defense on that:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...opiracy_1.html

They define spyware as something that only small
companies do. Corporate spyware, such as XP
and an increasing number of corporate products
(Sony, Symantec, etc.), is by definition OK from Microsoft's
point of view.

They've demonstrated time and again that they really don't
think it's your machine in the first place. Case in point, the
WGA license, which in part says that you agree you have no
right to uninstall WGA. (People are asked to click the EULA
agreement when the WGA bug is installed, posing as
an important update.)

http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2...a393.html#a393

mayayana writes:

Unfortunately, though, it's not actually free. The estimates
I've seen for the cost of OEM licenses are $50-80 US.
(Apparently MS won't publicly disclose the cost, so analysts
have to estimate it.)

The cost is negotiable. But even in a computer store you can get OEM
copies for $80 or less.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

wrote:
****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

All the more reason to use open source software.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
wrote:
****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

All the more reason to use open source software.



No. all the more reason to see a doctor.............can't treat a mental
disorder with xinux............

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:32:38 GMT, "mayayana"
wrote:


Wrong my friend. I bought this laptop used. For the hardware alone it
was a good price. But it also included, FREE, at no additional cost to
me, a legal copy of XP to install on it. Note I said FREE.

Unfortunately, though, it's not actually free. The estimates
I've seen for the cost of OEM licenses are $50-80 US.
(Apparently MS won't publicly disclose the cost, so analysts
have to estimate it.) Presumably I could buy a new Compaq
for about $250 if I could buy it without XP.

True. But what I was meaning in this case was that the price I paid
was what I considered quite reasonable for the hardware alone.
Therefore, in this case, XP was *effectivley* free.

Awhile back (maybe 2-3 years ago?)
theRegister ran a series of articles about how Microsoft was
threatening independent PC makers, asserting that any shop
allowing people to buy an empty machine was essentially taking
part in piracy....because Windows was undoubtedly going onto

I remember that well.

that machine. (MS not only disregards Linux in taking that
position; they also disregard the existence of their own full license
customers.)

Yup. And people accepted it and thus they determined it was good
tactics.

****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

Ohhh, lookie lookie:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...a_phones_home/

Now, tell me again why I should trust MS?

I think it's very telling that Microsoft even offers
a defense on that:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...opiracy_1.html

They define spyware as something that only small
companies do. Corporate spyware, such as XP
and an increasing number of corporate products
(Sony, Symantec, etc.), is by definition OK from Microsoft's
point of view.

And why not? If people don't complain and just accept it they'd be
fools if they didn't continue doing it.

But why not some info straight from the horses mouth?

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/secu.../analysis.mspx

If it wraps:

http://snipurl.com/rl4l

They've demonstrated time and again that they really don't
think it's your machine in the first place. Case in point, the
WGA license, which in part says that you agree you have no
right to uninstall WGA. (People are asked to click the EULA
agreement when the WGA bug is installed, posing as
an important update.)

http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2...a393.html#a393

And compare that to the criteria Windows Defender uses to identify
spyware. Hmmm. Pot? Kettle? Black?

You have, of course, heard about one of the amazing new features in
WMP11?

"MTV Urge, the new "better than iTunes" music service that Microsoft
is offering as a key feature of Windows Media Player 11."

What's it about?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?p=62
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=3178

And the sad thing is that, in spite of the information out there, the
Geek wannabe's and Gates Towel Boys will be standing in line at
midnight for the honour of being the first to buy Vista when it comes
out. Sigh.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:18:33 -0400, Jim wrote:

wrote:
****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

All the more reason to use open source software.

Or software recommended at SOS's or the Pricelessware site.
Unfortunately it's all Windows stuff.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:46:50 -0700, "JAD"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message ...
wrote:
****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

All the more reason to use open source software.



No. all the more reason to see a doctor.............can't treat a mental
disorder with xinux............


And once again JAD dazzles us with brilliant wit. Well, I'm half
right.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:46:50 -0700, "JAD"
wrote:


"Jim" wrote in message
...
wrote:
****************************************
*Because I do not trust Microsoft*
****************************************

All the more reason to use open source software.



No. all the more reason to see a doctor.............can't treat a mental
disorder with xinux............


And once again JAD dazzles us with brilliant wit. Well, I'm half
right.

Half RIGHT? Nope I think your extreme Right....you Religiously Paranoid
Zealot you.

Thanks for those links. I hadn't been aware
of them. Media Player, of course, has been spyware
for a long time. But I suppose that if people are going
to accept DRM and accept spying on the music
they listen to then ....well, you can lead the horse
to civility, but....

The MS Windows Defender spyware definitions
were something I hadn't seen. They'd be comical if
they weren't so cynical. And Media Player is one
of the best examples to fit their definitions. It conforms
to nearly every indicator of spyware that MS sets forth!

Runs without permission, collects and communicates
information without consent, re-installs without
permission, attempts to circumvent security features...

"Initiates an outbound connection (modem, Internet, etc.)
without user consent."

That one seems to include most corporate software
these days.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:10:10 GMT, "mayayana"
wrote:

Thanks for those links. I hadn't been aware
of them. Media Player, of course, has been spyware

You're welcome. As I mentioned earlier I had a number of links but it
was too much bother to post for those afflicted with scotomisation.

they weren't so cynical. And Media Player is one
of the best examples to fit their definitions. It conforms
to nearly every indicator of spyware that MS sets forth!

That's why I run Real and Quicktime alternative on the Windows box. No
more nags or spying.

Runs without permission, collects and communicates
information without consent, re-installs without
permission, attempts to circumvent security features...

Which is why I run ZA on the Windows box and *every* program has to
ask permission to call out.