License unfairness ? Rant...

[Slip Kid]

Last fall I bought a new machine. I came with XP Pro sans SP2 (OEM). I
upgraded it within a few weeks with SP2.

Since then I installed a new(er) version of XP (with SP2) for an older
machine.

But, I can't install the 'newer' version on the newer machine. Two
machines, two OS's - and the one that is six months old is 'useless' on
the newer machine?

See, my experience with W2k (original version) on a machine has me
anxious. When I've had to do a major OS repair or an upgrade of the
machine w/ W2k? It meant adding SP's and upgrading from IE5 (from the
original W2k).

So? As I understand it, I can't even use the 'new' XP Pro (with SP2) for
maintenance on the new machine (the one which as the XP Pro SP1 disc).

No, I have to use the six month old OEM disc on that box and jump
through all the hoops to make it current? (I had no complaints about
the SP2 install - - I'm glad I only had to do it once...)

I fully sympathize with the reason for a EULA and the strict
interpretations it concerns the commercial environment? It seems the
personal user is being penalized. A corporation (by following the
rules) gets a great discount, el cheapo multiple licenses (especially
when the multiple license is applied to large number of machines). One
doesn't have to do much number crunching to find a benefit for the
commercial user with not many installs!

I don't like the rationale for the strict confines that limit the use of
the newer version of an OS for the personal user with a couple of
machines and has multiple (though not of the same 'date') OS's. There
should be some leeway in allowing a bit more freedom in using the most
efficient (current) disc on both machines.

It isn't as though I'm making any monetary gain as a business would.
What is MS losing? I have two discs and as I understand it, since one
is six months 'newer' than the other it is 'worthless' to use on the
newer machine! That isn't right.

Am I missing something? I understand the potential for the financial
loss if there isn't a strict licensing policy in the commercial
environment. Yeah, dozens or hundreds of machines need to be regulated
as concerns use of software.

As many consumers have (at most) a couple or three machines, of varying
age, the 'multiple' purchase rule seems to be only benefit the
commercial user and is heavy handed against the personal user. EX: I
have a five year old laptop (which works great) which may be worth less
in $'s than an OS upgrade. Yeah, it's stuck with 98SE because I can't
justify spending more on the OS than the machine is worth (and could
fail at any time?)

I would much prefer a 'personal' use policy that allows one to pay an
annual fee and be issued a current version of an OS as long as it's
being supported. It seems as thought we are "owning" an OS that is
'viable' for an ever shorter period of time.

In a sense, it has been admitted that the original OS has a limited
lifespan and there are (automatic!) means to stay up to date for free.
Yes, the update system is fine as long as it's incremental - it matters
little when the 'upgrades' are on the drive and the drive needs to be
reformatted?

Yeah, I'm about ready to dump my wonderful W2k the next time it needs
major work. It just isn't worth the effort to bring it up to date -
the original disc is only about 20% of the effort required. I do an
re-install - and it means nothing. A couple of 'simple' repairs led
to more effort in bringing the OS up do date than may be worth it. A
great OS is out of date because the 'free' updates take more than is
reasonable to apply in one fell swoop. (Um, many swoops)

So, I know my 'legal' (and MS's activation limits) as concerns my
'newer' version of XP Pro. concerning an install. It's painful to look
at it sitting there and realize it's 'worthless' concerning my new
machine.

Yeah, I'm stuck in the same situation as I am with the W2k, (after only
a few months?) with the new machine which has the OEM SP1 disc. I'm
already looking at major a major effort if it fails, which increases as
time passes. Meanwhile, businesses have a minuscule fee and slap new
versions on vast numbers of machines at will.

 

[kurttrail]

Last fall I bought a new machine. I came with XP Pro sans SP2 (OEM).
I upgraded it within a few weeks with SP2.

Since then I installed a new(er) version of XP (with SP2) for an older
machine.

But, I can't install the 'newer' version on the newer machine. Two
machines, two OS's - and the one that is six months old is 'useless'
on the newer machine?

See, my experience with W2k (original version) on a machine has me
anxious. When I've had to do a major OS repair or an upgrade of the
machine w/ W2k? It meant adding SP's and upgrading from IE5 (from the
original W2k).

So? As I understand it, I can't even use the 'new' XP Pro (with SP2)
for maintenance on the new machine (the one which as the XP Pro SP1
disc).
No, I have to use the six month old OEM disc on that box and jump
through all the hoops to make it current? (I had no complaints about
the SP2 install - - I'm glad I only had to do it once...)

I fully sympathize with the reason for a EULA and the strict
interpretations it concerns the commercial environment? It seems the
personal user is being penalized. A corporation (by following the
rules) gets a great discount, el cheapo multiple licenses (especially
when the multiple license is applied to large number of machines). One
doesn't have to do much number crunching to find a benefit for the
commercial user with not many installs!

I don't like the rationale for the strict confines that limit the use
of the newer version of an OS for the personal user with a couple of
machines and has multiple (though not of the same 'date') OS's. There
should be some leeway in allowing a bit more freedom in using the most
efficient (current) disc on both machines.

It isn't as though I'm making any monetary gain as a business would.
What is MS losing? I have two discs and as I understand it, since one
is six months 'newer' than the other it is 'worthless' to use on the
newer machine! That isn't right.

Am I missing something? I understand the potential for the financial
loss if there isn't a strict licensing policy in the commercial
environment. Yeah, dozens or hundreds of machines need to be
regulated as concerns use of software.

As many consumers have (at most) a couple or three machines, of
varying age, the 'multiple' purchase rule seems to be only benefit the
commercial user and is heavy handed against the personal user. EX: I
have a five year old laptop (which works great) which may be worth
less in $'s than an OS upgrade. Yeah, it's stuck with 98SE because I
can't justify spending more on the OS than the machine is worth (and
could fail at any time?)

I would much prefer a 'personal' use policy that allows one to pay an
annual fee and be issued a current version of an OS as long as it's
being supported. It seems as thought we are "owning" an OS that is
'viable' for an ever shorter period of time.

In a sense, it has been admitted that the original OS has a limited
lifespan and there are (automatic!) means to stay up to date for free.
Yes, the update system is fine as long as it's incremental - it
matters little when the 'upgrades' are on the drive and the drive
needs to be reformatted?

Yeah, I'm about ready to dump my wonderful W2k the next time it needs
major work. It just isn't worth the effort to bring it up to date -
the original disc is only about 20% of the effort required. I do an
re-install - and it means nothing. A couple of 'simple' repairs led
to more effort in bringing the OS up do date than may be worth it. A
great OS is out of date because the 'free' updates take more than is
reasonable to apply in one fell swoop. (Um, many swoops)

So, I know my 'legal' (and MS's activation limits) as concerns my
'newer' version of XP Pro. concerning an install. It's painful to
look at it sitting there and realize it's 'worthless' concerning my
new machine.

Yeah, I'm stuck in the same situation as I am with the W2k, (after
only a few months?) with the new machine which has the OEM SP1 disc.
I'm already looking at major a major effort if it fails, which
increases as time passes. Meanwhile, businesses have a minuscule fee
and slap new versions on vast numbers of machines at will.

Just ignore MS's Licensing nonsense. An educated consumer knows how to
protect their rights to their copies of software.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

--
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"

 

[Slip Kid]

On or about %, kurttrail with due consideration, replied :

Just ignore MS's Licensing nonsense. An educated consumer knows how to
protect their rights to their copies of software.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

I'm not an attorney. Nor do I have the means to defend myself if I am
found to be in violation (by following your position). I don't doubt
that 'any' corporation would hesitate to make me or anyone an example,
dragging me through as many courts as necessary showing it isn't worth
the risk of winning. I don't have a staff of attorneys on my payroll.

My point was narrow. If I subscribe to the 'spirit' of EULA (which is
probably stricter than necessary for personal use) I still believe the
playing field is not level.

I have two complaints:

1. I believe there is a way for something that has the typical lifespan
of an OS (yet is becoming functionaly 'outdated' sooner than ever?) to
be offered with greater flexabilty for medium range updates. For a few
bucks one could get a current version, a new disc, of the OS they
already purchased (and anticipated being viable for at least a few
years). A disc that is less than a year old is of little value if it is
but the 'beginning' of the reinstall process. So, at the minimum an OS
should be allowed to be updated for far less than the 'update' price of
a newer version.

-----

I don't believe I am not, not educated. I understand the dilemma when
a company not only sells a product that is easily duplicated but sells
it to busineses that can copy it hundreds or thousands of times. It's
not a common situation with most products.

2. However? I see a distinction between the commercial use and personal
use of software. (If anything, the business is making a profit for use
of the product yet still has all the advantages?!)

Yes, the benefit of commercial licenses is more favorable by any measure
as compared to any product. Be it pencils or fuel.

No one argues there should not be a benefit if one is buying '500' of
anything versus three or four?

With OS's! It doesn't compare to any product that one buys in a
quantity of 500 versus three or four.

I checked the volume agreements? I don't believe the fee for 250
licenses are going to put a strain on any business that uses 250
machines relative to three or four units for residential use.

Simply put:

How does the purchase of 250 OS licenses compare to buying 250 cars or
250 desks versus three or four?

It begs the questin: Is the personal consumer in the same world
regarding software as a business uses it when compared to any other
product each may buy? Name a product that a business buys which is as
'cheap' compared to personal use?

Why?

Why not give the consumer a better break for a few units?

Is the personal consumer subsidising the OEM and business environment?

 

[kurttrail]

On or about %, kurttrail with due consideration, replied :



I'm not an attorney. Nor do I have the means to defend myself if I am
found to be in violation (by following your position). I don't doubt
that 'any' corporation would hesitate to make me or anyone an example,
dragging me through as many courts as necessary showing it isn't worth
the risk of winning. I don't have a staff of attorneys on my payroll.

My point was narrow. If I subscribe to the 'spirit' of EULA (which is
probably stricter than necessary for personal use) I still believe the
playing field is not level.

I have two complaints:

1. I believe there is a way for something that has the typical
lifespan of an OS (yet is becoming functionaly 'outdated' sooner than
ever?) to be offered with greater flexabilty for medium range
updates. For a few bucks one could get a current version, a new
disc, of the OS they already purchased (and anticipated being viable
for at least a few years). A disc that is less than a year old is of
little value if it is but the 'beginning' of the reinstall process.
So, at the minimum an OS should be allowed to be updated for far less
than the 'update' price of a newer version.

-----

I don't believe I am not, not educated. I understand the dilemma when
a company not only sells a product that is easily duplicated but sells
it to busineses that can copy it hundreds or thousands of times. It's
not a common situation with most products.

2. However? I see a distinction between the commercial use and
personal use of software. (If anything, the business is making a
profit for use of the product yet still has all the advantages?!)

Yes, the benefit of commercial licenses is more favorable by any
measure as compared to any product. Be it pencils or fuel.

No one argues there should not be a benefit if one is buying '500' of
anything versus three or four?

With OS's! It doesn't compare to any product that one buys in a
quantity of 500 versus three or four.

I checked the volume agreements? I don't believe the fee for 250
licenses are going to put a strain on any business that uses 250
machines relative to three or four units for residential use.

Simply put:

How does the purchase of 250 OS licenses compare to buying 250 cars or
250 desks versus three or four?

It begs the questin: Is the personal consumer in the same world
regarding software as a business uses it when compared to any other
product each may buy? Name a product that a business buys which is as
'cheap' compared to personal use?

Why?

Why not give the consumer a better break for a few units?

Is the personal consumer subsidising the OEM and business environment?

It's been 13 years since MS has added their One Computer term to their
OS EULA. MS is about as likely to pursue it now as I am likely to win
$500,000,000 in the lottery.

As besides that, MS has no way to figure out that you've install WinXP
on more than one computer, unless 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"

 

[Guest]

Have you forgotten the activation process, which was designed to prevent
casual copying of software?

 

[Scott]

I have to agree with you on certain points and tried to make the point
here before. One morning my computer would not boot
up.."unmountable_boot_volume" bluescreen.
I tried safemode..no go.
I put my original xp disc (bought within 2 days of the system realease
and updated faithfully) to do a repair. Get nice message.."the files
on your computer are newer than those on disc" or words to that
effect. Repair would not happen.
I phone MS, they want 35 bucks to give support because I used up my
free support during initial installation problems.
After reformatting my HD, try to reinstall xp..gets to "windows is
starting" and stayed there for an hour. No errors no nothing.
Ended up putting on an old 98se from original machine. And here I sit.

I have run tests on memory, upgraded all my bios, latest drivers,
removed uneccessary hardware. Still cannot get xp to complete. I
cannot "borrow a copy" of xp to try because that would defy the EULA
if I did get it running with different copy, then I wouldn't be able
to activate as it would be someone elses copy.

So now have a legally purchased copy of xp that I cannot use, cannot
find out why it won't go, and am stuck with an OS that is not nearly
as satisfying graphically.

The MVP's in this group are awesome, and do a wonderful job, but when
I look at the number of posts to this group every day, it seems
apparent that there are some problems with xp that aren't the fault of
the user, some never seem to get solved and the user is stuck.
A machine that is supposed to be fun to use and a hobby ends up being
a full time job, antivirus, antispyware, antipop ups..system back
ups..sheesh.

 

[kurttrail]

Have you forgotten the activation process, which was designed to
prevent casual copying of software?

Have you forgotten that the activation process is anonymous, and that
hardware hash that is sent during the activation process cannot be
backwards calculated?

"Microsoft Product Activation is completely anonymous, and no personally
identifiable information is collected." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

"Microsoft Product Activation detects the hardware configuration on
which the product is being installed and creates hash values for that
configuration. A hash is a value mathematically derived from another
value - in this case hardware configuration values. Product Activation
does not scan the customer's hard drive, detect any personal
information, or determine the make, model or manufacturer of the PC or
its components. Microsoft uses hash values out of respect for users'
privacy. A hash value cannot be backwards calculated to determine the
original value. In addition, Microsoft only uses a portion of the
original hash values. Together, these hash values become the complete
hardware hash that is included in the installation ID." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

--
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"

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Last fall I bought a new machine. I came with XP Pro sans SP2 (OEM). I
upgraded it within a few weeks with SP2.

Since then I installed a new(er) version of XP (with SP2) for an older
machine.

But, I can't install the 'newer' version on the newer machine. Two
machines, two OS's - and the one that is six months old is 'useless' on
the newer machine?

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

 

[george]

I have to agree with you on certain points and tried to make the point
here before. One morning my computer would not boot
up.."unmountable_boot_volume" bluescreen.
I tried safemode..no go.
I put my original xp disc (bought within 2 days of the system realease
and updated faithfully) to do a repair. Get nice message.."the files
on your computer are newer than those on disc" or words to that
effect. Repair would not happen.
I phone MS, they want 35 bucks to give support because I used up my
free support during initial installation problems.
After reformatting my HD, try to reinstall xp..gets to "windows is
starting" and stayed there for an hour. No errors no nothing.
Ended up putting on an old 98se from original machine. And here I sit.

I have run tests on memory, upgraded all my bios, latest drivers,
removed uneccessary hardware. Still cannot get xp to complete. I
cannot "borrow a copy" of xp to try because that would defy the EULA
if I did get it running with different copy, then I wouldn't be able
to activate as it would be someone elses copy.

So now have a legally purchased copy of xp that I cannot use, cannot
find out why it won't go, and am stuck with an OS that is not nearly
as satisfying graphically.

The MVP's in this group are awesome, and do a wonderful job, but when
I look at the number of posts to this group every day, it seems
apparent that there are some problems with xp that aren't the fault of
the user, some never seem to get solved and the user is stuck.
A machine that is supposed to be fun to use and a hobby ends up being
a full time job, antivirus, antispyware, antipop ups..system back
ups..sheesh.

....and then there are some that would have you work with a 'real' OS (dare I
say ??nux or ??nix), make yourself dependant on someone in outer-suburbia on
some foreign continent to get some driver software for the new super dooper
device you just bought, spend another year or two to get some familiarity
with the stuff that is behind/underneath the GUI (just in case you run into
trouble and want to fix something), thereby contributing to the bigger
widespread of that OS, only to find that by the time that OS enjoys the same
level of widespread acceptance, it is equally attractive for those sickos
that produce spy-, mal- and otherwise crappy stuff to infect your box.
The only advantage you have by then is that (more than likely) the 'big
players' in this world will have found a reasoning why it is no longer 'free
for all' and you start paying trivial stuff like license fees.
Oops, that too is no longer an advantage then, hmmmmm

george

 

[T. Waters]

Good news. The statement below is false!
"Still cannot get xp to complete. I cannot "borrow a copy" of xp to try
because that would defy the EULA if I did get it running with different
copy, then I wouldn't be able to activate as it would be someone elses
copy."
If the copy you borrow has all the attributes of your copy (i.e., home vs
pro, retail vs oem, sp1 vs sp2 vs no sp, then the DISK is identical. Use
your own Product Key to activate; there will be no problem regarding
activation.

 

[T. Waters]

The spirit of the EULA is "don't do a copyright violation." You have two
copies of XP and two machines. You are 9 x 10^999 (big number) times more
likely to be sued by an employee for sexual harassment (big judgment) than
to be bothered by MS over this. It hasn't happened yet in a case like yours,
and never will. Just think of the bad PR for MS...

 

[Scott]

Guess part of what I am trying to say is; I should be able to contact
MS and get a replacement disc with all the SP's and updates, at no
cost to me by just giving them the ligit product key from my cd so
that I can repair existing older version that has been updated. The
way it is my disc was useless for repair.

 

[BBUNNY]

kurttrail wrote:
| Slip Kid wrote:
|| On or about %, kurttrail with due consideration, replied :
||
|| <Snipped>
||
||
||| Just ignore MS's Licensing nonsense. An educated consumer knows how
||| to protect their rights to their copies of software.
|||
||| http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
|||
||
|| I'm not an attorney. Nor do I have the means to defend myself if I
|| am found to be in violation (by following your position). I don't
|| doubt that 'any' corporation would hesitate to make me or anyone an
|| example, dragging me through as many courts as necessary showing it
|| isn't worth the risk of winning. I don't have a staff of attorneys
|| on my payroll.
||
|| My point was narrow. If I subscribe to the 'spirit' of EULA (which
|| is probably stricter than necessary for personal use) I still
|| believe the playing field is not level.
||
|| I have two complaints:
||
|| 1. I believe there is a way for something that has the typical
|| lifespan of an OS (yet is becoming functionaly 'outdated' sooner than
|| ever?) to be offered with greater flexabilty for medium range
|| updates. For a few bucks one could get a current version, a new
|| disc, of the OS they already purchased (and anticipated being viable
|| for at least a few years). A disc that is less than a year old is of
|| little value if it is but the 'beginning' of the reinstall process.
|| So, at the minimum an OS should be allowed to be updated for far less
|| than the 'update' price of a newer version.
||
|| -----
||
|| I don't believe I am not, not educated. I understand the dilemma
|| when a company not only sells a product that is easily duplicated
|| but sells it to busineses that can copy it hundreds or thousands of
|| times. It's not a common situation with most products.
||
|| 2. However? I see a distinction between the commercial use and
|| personal use of software. (If anything, the business is making a
|| profit for use of the product yet still has all the advantages?!)
||
|| Yes, the benefit of commercial licenses is more favorable by any
|| measure as compared to any product. Be it pencils or fuel.
||
|| No one argues there should not be a benefit if one is buying '500' of
|| anything versus three or four?
||
|| With OS's! It doesn't compare to any product that one buys in a
|| quantity of 500 versus three or four.
||
|| I checked the volume agreements? I don't believe the fee for 250
|| licenses are going to put a strain on any business that uses 250
|| machines relative to three or four units for residential use.
||
|| Simply put:
||
|| How does the purchase of 250 OS licenses compare to buying 250 cars
|| or 250 desks versus three or four?
||
|| It begs the questin: Is the personal consumer in the same world
|| regarding software as a business uses it when compared to any other
|| product each may buy? Name a product that a business buys which is
|| as 'cheap' compared to personal use?
||
|| Why?
||
|| Why not give the consumer a better break for a few units?
||
|| Is the personal consumer subsidising the OEM and business
|| environment?
|
| It's been 13 years since MS has added their One Computer term to their
| OS EULA. MS is about as likely to pursue it now as I am likely to win
| $500,000,000 in the lottery.
|
| As besides that, MS has no way to figure out that you've install WinXP
| on more than one computer, unless YOU tell them.

Kurt I believe that you are missing the core of the OP's rant.
_Big money corporations over joe sixpack and granny with her
pictures of the grandkids._

 

[kurttrail]

Kurt I believe that you are missing the core of the OP's rant.
_Big money corporations over joe sixpack and granny with her
pictures of the grandkids._

And joe sixpack and granny can only get screwed if they let themselves
get screwed by the Big money corporations.

--
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"

 

[Kelly]

Hey, Kelly who? )

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[Leythos]

And joe sixpack and granny can only get screwed if they let themselves
get screwed by the Big money corporations.

And neither the OP, Joe Sixpack or the Granny are forced to run Windows
(any version) in order to do the average home user things that most every
home user does. There are free, install as many times as you want,
operating systems that come with all the standard tools that most home
users would ever need.

If someone doesn't like the licensing agreement for Windows products, they
can always switch to a non-windows platform.

I wonder, other than FREE OS's, what OS permits the user to install the OS
on as many machines as they want without purchasing additional licenses
for those additional installs? I can't think of any, outside of the
FREE/Linux variants - which makes me wonder why people bitch about Windows
licensing so much.

 

[kurttrail]

And neither the OP, Joe Sixpack or the Granny are forced to run
Windows (any version) in order to do the average home user things
that most every home user does. There are free, install as many times
as you want, operating systems that come with all the standard tools
that most home users would ever need.

If someone doesn't like the licensing agreement for Windows products,
they can always switch to a non-windows platform.

I wonder, other than FREE OS's, what OS permits the user to install
the OS on as many machines as they want without purchasing additional
licenses for those additional installs? I can't think of any, outside
of the FREE/Linux variants - which makes me wonder why people bitch
about Windows licensing so much.

Well joe sixpack and granny might be forced into it or have to spend
alot of money and time switching hardware, software, and what little
computer knowledge they have.

Linux is not ready for them, YET.

--
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"

 

[Slip Kid]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....

I waited for the predictable responses. 3-2-1...(Shhh, don't wake up Ray)

Oh to have Raymond's luxury. To have the time to post his little cartoon
caption? Well Jr, sorry I had to wake you...You are either wealthy or a
toady - but proof Usenet is among the last bastions of freedom.
Otherwise you'd probably get the shit beat out of you. Or maybe you
did/do get knocked around and this is your form of courage.

Rayboy? You are a coward. Or stupid.

The other responses varied from the lunatic fringes of the issue with a
couple of insightful responses that seemed to address the financial
burden the home user faces. (A business appears to feel no pain as the
deep discount makes multiple licenses an inconsequential financial choice.)

First, I am a loyal MS user. Never used another OS. I have no ax to
grind.

But, I never bought into any dogma. An OS is a tool, not a lifestyle or
a religion. Let's leave faith and proselytizing out of it? From both
sides. I don't believe a solution is 'love it or leave it'. Well, I'd
prefer to not be given that choice...

There is an unfair compromise offered to the home user because we bear
an unfair financial burden for two or three 'units' -- The choice need
not be between abandoning the platform or taking questionable legal
means to install an OS on a secondary box at less than full retail.

No, the current response to 'piracy' is not proportionate.

The personal user with two or three machines is not being allowed
anywhere near the benefit of a business with 250 machines. Something
between a tiny fraction of retail and full retail is fair.

My guess? The second or third 'unit' in a home was not considered by
MS. It was not a given a thought. If they considerd it they would
care, if they cared -- I would not be posting.

They came up with a price of a single unit and a 'close to free' offer
for several hundred units. There was no 'in between'.

No one appeared to think about the 'what if' impact of the second or
third 'unit' for the personal user.

But wait!

What's a few hundred (more) dollars to a guy's who have billions? When
was the last time the top brass ever contemplated a $100 purchase? A
hundred bucks? That's brunch. A bottle of wine?

Why should it be taken into account that a new OS's disc is outdated
during the first year or so? I'm sure the cult worries about access to
a current version...

---

I'll survive and I'm not Joe Six Pack or Granny or seeking a
Constitutional test case or so unhappy I'll abandon a platform which as
served me well. But open source is probably inevitable if the trend
continues. Everyone has a limit.

I raised legitimate concerns.

I can see why one might find my points baseless. Yes, one can believe
it is fair for a consumer to pay full retail for three units while a
business pays a fraction of that amount. Or, it is reasonable that the
lifespan of a disc is as short as is has gotten to be.

If you don't see inconguity there? You're in a dream world. Or, maybe
there is another reason?

Hey, my casual relationship with another software company suggests... -
Well, at least I'm candid enough to admit they 'took care of me' and I
wouldn't complain as I didn't pay for any of their software! Yep, I
take the opinions here with some caution.

Beyond the concrete technical issues I expect to see a conflict of
interest. Check the 'name' of the group...the affiliation of the OP.

So, while some understood or agreed, it was more interesting to see the
vitriol at both ends of the spectrum.

That simply adds to the paranoia which supports draconian responses to
piracy. Plus, it lends comfort to a policy which is unfair to the
personal user. "It is not worth addressing in the first place. We end up
looking like a bunch of ingrates or criminals or people who are ready to
jump ship."

No, I'm a guy who would be happy enough if my second or third unit was
not full retail and the disc didn't only solve 20% of my problem when I
re-installed in later years.

Of course, that's asking too much.

So, thanks for confirming. My suspicions why this is the case, were
correct.