XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop
<nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:


>I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
>the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
>'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
>to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
>have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
>you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that.

There is no reason a win98 system can't be secure today.
One is not required nor dependant on MS, and better off not
waiting on them to fix things. Security is about holes and
eliminating them does not require non-MS OS, though
admittedly it may be easier that way. The problem is the
defaults MS set up on their OS, but given the concern about
security one CAN still make changes. When the day comes
that this is no longer possible I too will avoid windows
like the plague.


>And as
>long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
>beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
>option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
>have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
>the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.

Independence is choosing one way or the other. There are
good arguments TO use MS OS, for example the huge software
base and hardware support. That's not an argument FOR MS,
per se, as it's a bit disgusting that they only have this
advantage due to their desktop monopoly, but rather it's a
recognition of reality, that the way things stand for many
uses a system would be crippled without a MS OS... not all
uses require it but the intelligent user will decide what
compromise to make if they only have one system.



>Haven't
>you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
>exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
>version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
>article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
>hasn't changed its spots.

I agree that MS seems not-so-eager to fix obvious flaws in
their OS, especially considering the resources they have
available to them. On the other hand their philosophy seems
to be to enable the most features possible (which is good)
but without fully securing those features yet (the bad).
One thing to remember is that although WIndows includes
browser and email client, you're not forced to use them.

Anyone who considers an alternative OS can also consider
similar if not same alternative browser and email client,
and suddenly "Windows" insecurity has dropped by an order of
magnitude. While it would still be the most popular target
for exploits among OS, the most popular apps are no longer
in use.

NoStop wrote:
> VWWall wrote:
>
>> T. Waters wrote:
>>> VWWall wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Woody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster ,
>>>>>> has been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine
>>>>>> when the original machine is no longer the original machine .
>>>>>> definately a major retreat from
>>>>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>>>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>>>> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>>>> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>>>
>>>> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>>>> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something here?
>>>
>>>
>>> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
>>> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
>>> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord.
>> I have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
>> original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?
>>
> It's the power code that has a phone connection on the end of it, so
> that it can phone home whenever it's replugged in and get activated
> again.

LOL!
I like that!

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> T. Waters wrote:
>> Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting.
>
>
> Accepted.
>
>
>> In my mind, you sounded like some
>> orthodox practioners of religion I know.
>
>
> For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding
> in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical?
> Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other -
> even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition.
>
>
>> I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is
>> infinitely more important that people wash their hands after using
>> the restroom than that they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA.,
>> and I mean this seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and
> personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie
> to you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a
> Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
> matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract
> is made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract
> concerns. A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a
> person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an
> "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;
> the reneger (is that a word?) has clearly and irrefutably
> demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

Actually, the orthodox practitioners of religion I know are not hypocrites,
but they spend what amounts to excessive time (IMO) "making God happy" when
it seems to me he might not really care if, say, they turned on a light at
the wrong time.

As to the EULA, if I lend my car to a friend, and tell them not to park it
in the bad part of town because of the risk of breakins, and they do park my
car there while a gas attendant (Oregon) is filling the gas tank, I do not
feel that my trust has been violated. They respected the spirit of my
request, and that is what is important. On the other hand, if they parked my
car and left it in the safe part of town, but on a street with, say, junkies
hanging out on it, they would be abusing my generosity. Intent is
everything.

"I don't see how a person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even
an "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;"

I can see how Waters interpreted Chambers as "religious". Chambers writes
radical views.

Trust involves information. Anonymity involves misinformation. The word
"renege" is medieval latin. It is a poor choice of words. Bounce a check,
void the OS?!? Microsoft is obviously a monopolizing conglomerate above
regulation. Its asexual. To compare it with a human action is wrong.
Especially when it refers to humans as end users... End of what?
Humanitiy I say.

NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
>>>> point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>>>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
>>>> And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>>>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>>>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>>>> enforceable.
>>>
>>> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
>>> and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>>>
>>> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
>> EULA.
>>
>> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
>> delusions!
>>
>> NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!
>>
>> MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
>> AGREEMENT!
>>
>
> You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
> the bucks make the rules. You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
> Good luck! Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
> MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
> arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
> sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.
>
> The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
> significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
> OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license. So EULA at
> the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
> MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules. That's
> always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
> When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.
>
> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_7.html
>
> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
> Microsoft tells you to go, period."

NoStop, thanks for the link to Frank's article. He has amassed so much
information on the workings of MS, and presented it in a well-written and
organized fashion. I learned more than I wanted to, that's for sure.

In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> You cannot
> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
> terms after that contract is made.

Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.

What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.

So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
software.

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

In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
tems.c*a*m says...
> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said that
> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
> will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in event.
> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware
> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a computer.
> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
> and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?

The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:37:14 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:

this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
>matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract is
>made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract concerns.
>A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a person who
>reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an "anonymous" corporate
>entity - can be trusted to keep one with me; the reneger (is that a
>word?) has clearly and irrefutably demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

You are being over simple-minded....

The fact that a person has or has not lied and/or broken an agreement
says very little about that person's trustworthiness. Trustworthiness
is also a matter of context and not only one of mere fact.

During the Second World War there were Germans who put their lives on
the line to disobey and/or circumvent direct orders that would have
resulted in the death of innocent people. They accepted orders that
they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been.
They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".

Are you seriously saying that if such a person was now, say, my
neighbor that because of his "dishonesty" 60 years ago, under
conditions of life or death, that such a person is not now deserving
of my trust?

Beowulf

"T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
news:eFGjU5cVFHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> VWWall wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> Woody wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>>> the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>>> a major retreat from
>>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>
>>>
>> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>
>> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>
>> Am I missing something here?
>
> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)

You are incorrectly assuming that one has to buy hardware to buy a copy of
Windows XP OEM. I have three installed that I bought without hardware. In
the *USA*, one has to buy hardware. In Europe, one does not and in Spain,
where I live, you will be very hard pressed to even be able to *find* a full
retail copy. It would seem to me that instead of saying that an OEM can only
be installed on one computer -- without defining what "one computer" is --
they should say it should not be installed on two computers simultaneously,
although for private use, it's monopolistic and a rip off to expect that a
family should have to buy a diffeent OEM for each computer.

Alias

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bp53811tk2sbc0h4cuhksi7cm7ab90550l@4ax.com...
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence
>>and
>>that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
>>for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.
>>
>>Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
>>266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
>>faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
>>another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first
>>OEM
>>was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
>>people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
>>motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them
>>the
>>number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal
>>but
>>as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced
>>to
>>buy something I already have again!
>>
>>Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>>"casual". I am all ears.
>>
>
> Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
> this discussion:
>
> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
their computers?
>
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
and OEMs.

Alias
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm