Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[caver1]

Nina,

Is Microsoft forcing consumers to buy or use their software? NO! They are
giving consumers the OPTION to use their software if they are willing to pay
for it. If the consumer is not willing to pay, then the consumer should use
something else.

There is absolutely no force involved. If you don't like the way the company
does business, don't buy their products. That is not rocket science.

Gregg Hill

That still does not make it right that they are trying to destroy fair use.

 

[caver1]

Give me a hint. Too much to wade through at this hour. My eyes are burning.

Anyway, if they are a monopoly or guilty of antitrust, one still CHOOSES
whether or not to use their products. If one CHOOSES to do so, that one
should quit complaining.

Gregg

I do applaud you for sticking with this and debating all of us.
And you still use gas and don't complain about the price?

 

[caver1]

Well, if you were capable of simple math, you would realize that there is
another possibility. Gosh, Gregg is one person being hit by many, he can't
type to save his life, and he can only answer one post at a time.

Apparently, that never occurred to you.

By the way, the Scotch was excellent! Just kidding...I don't touch alcohol,
for reasons you really don't want to know, so don't make any assumptions.

Gregg Hill

I agree. A debate is no place to berate a person.
You are doing well in keeping up with all of us. I also think that non
of us is going to change the others mind and I think we are going beyond
what this NG is for.

 

[caver1]

Not in Spain. A judge just rule that a man, who had downloaded over
90,000 songs, was merely exercising his fair use rights in the privacy
of his home. Some artists agree to protecting CDs, some don't. Bob
Dylan's new album, for example, has no protection. I have sent songs to
three people. All three went out and bought the album.

Alias

And not in the US until big money wanted more and destroyed the peons
rights.

 

[Alias]

If they can't figure out a free product, then there is value in PAYING for
Windows. That is all I ask. Pay for each one you install, or go learn
another OS.

Whether or not MS has a monopoly, consumers still have the CHOICE to buy
something else.

Gregg

Including a cracked version of XP that you can install on as many
computers as you like without calling home to the mother ship. Is that
what MS wants, everyone to use cracked versions if they can't figure out
Linux? Cause that's what's happening. For every anti piracy program that
MS forces down the throats of their customers, there's a crack for it
out the next day. For some reason, reasonable people don't like having
to prove they are not a thief to the company that have given their hard
earned money.

Welcome to reality, Gregg, not what you think things should be.

Alias

 

[Alias]

I do applaud you for sticking with this and debating all of us.
And you still use gas and don't complain about the price?

Or that the money went to some corrupt politician in Nigeria?

Alias

 

[Alias]

Wrong again. If you bought one license and installed it several times, you
would be stealing. Choosing not to buy it in the first place is not the same
thing.

If I go to a store and look around, then walk out. I have done nothing
wrong. If I go there and buy one shirt, then put two more into a bag and
walk out, I have done something wrong.

Gregg

You're hopeless. If you can't understand fair use, you are not the only
one that has been brainwashed by Big Business to not understand it. That
said, most of the people who swallow Big Business' definition of fair
use, unlike you, don't know the difference between OEM and retail or
what WPA, WGA, etc. is. They only find out when the Pakistani or Indian
phone operator tells them they have to buy another copy of Windows or
when the IPP software falsely triggers the kill switch and wastes an
entire day when they wanted to be *using* their computer, not
troubleshooting flawed anti piracy software.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was analyzed
by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned computer
magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux.
The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install
on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how
they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if
they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think not,
however. You cannot use the argument that if they had chose to sell
something other than Windows - that Windows would not be as large
because there is no way of proving that they would not have just gone
out of business or stayed in their small little niche market. Nor can
you say that another OS would have been larger than Windows if one of
the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices
to consumers - it just doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec
yourself a good computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do
it you know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.

That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything
could have happened. There were so many ways the market could have
gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something.
But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be
people complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The
names would have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if Macintosh
OS had become the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50% of the
marketplace - people would/would not be complaining now or if the price
points we now associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be
in existence.

It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to kill
DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to finish
the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling MSDOS into
Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright that
they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail OEMS
into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader out, or
otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to boot.

 

[Alias]

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at
my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft made it
lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux, or FreeBSD)
next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If you, as a PC OEM,
don't use the Windows boot manager or configure it to load Linux or
BeOS, you lose your Windows license and you're dead. That's why you
can't buy a multi-OS machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else
for that matter. (Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not
one that runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows OEMs
to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their machines: "We
end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's willing to challenge
the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard disk so the user can see it
when the computer is first booted, and the license is free. Help us
put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was analyzed
by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned computer
magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The answer
lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft maintains with
hardware vendors. More specifically, in the "Windows License"
agreed to by hardware vendors who want to include Windows on the
computers they sell. This is not the license you pretend to read
and click "I Accept" when installing Windows. This license is not
available online. This is a confidential license, seen only by
Microsoft and computer vendors. You and I can't read the license
because Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft operating
system must not also offer a non-Microsoft operating system as a
boot option. In other words, a computer that offers to boot into
Windows upon startup cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux.
The hardware vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install
on the machines they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's head?
Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor. Instead,
Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license to include
Windows on the machine if the bootloader license is violated.
Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware vendor can afford
to ship machines that don't include Windows alongside whatever
alternative they might want to offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on how
they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as huge if
they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I would think not,
however. You cannot use the argument that if they had chose to sell
something other than Windows - that Windows would not be as large
because there is no way of proving that they would not have just gone
out of business or stayed in their small little niche market. Nor can
you say that another OS would have been larger than Windows if one of
the "major" OEMs had chose to sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices
to consumers - it just doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec
yourself a good computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do
it you know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.

That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS, anything
could have happened. There were so many ways the market could have
gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS XXII or something.
But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say that there wouldn't be
people complaining in the same manner as they are now if it had. The
names would have changed, perhaps - but no one can say that if Macintosh
OS had become the dominate OS and had gotten to rule over 50% of the
marketplace - people would/would not be complaining now or if the price
points we now associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be
in existence.

It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had planned
to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by bundling IE for
"free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail, forbidding OEMs to
remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows to kill
DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS. Then to finish
the job they did the same thing they did to Netscape, bundling MSDOS into
Windows so that nobody needed to buy DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks, Microsoft
threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has stated outright that
they decided not to license OS/2 after all because of Microsoft's
intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to blackmail OEMS
into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its bootloader out, or
otherwise making it invisible and difficult for consumers to boot.

Yeah, real nice guys, those Microsoft Boys.

Alias

 

[arachnid]

What you view as kicking my tail, I view as your stubborn refusal to
accept the simple concept of fairness to the maker of a product.

You failed to refute my points and you can't/won't defend yours. Sorry,
you lose.

 

[arachnid]

You're hopeless.

Most trolls are. /

 

[Gregg Hill]

Going beyond? Dude, we went beyond a LONG time back!

Gregg

 

[arachnid]

I agree. A debate is no place to berate a person.

A debate is where each side defends their view and challenges
the other's. All this is, is Gregg making accusation and, when challenged,
disappearing from that subthread only to pop up somewhere else saying the
same thing all over again. The rest of us are having some interesting
exchanges, but Gregg is just sitting there with his mouth running
and his fingers in his ears.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Read the EULA. If it is OEM software, it is tied to the computer on which it
was first sold. They do that because the OEM version costs the consumer less
than the retail version. If you have the retail package, you can remove it
and install it on a new computer without it being illegal. You just
reactivate it. I have done that many times, and only rarely did it fail to
re-activate, at which point a 15-minute call to MS got me up and running.

That is one reason why I never buy an OEM server OS for my clients.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

As I said, I never accused everyone of being a pirate, "...only those who
use one license to install on many computers, regardless of whether or not
they get caught, and whether or not anyone sees them click to agree to the
EULA.

A pirate is someone who profits from it. I agree. Anyone who installs it on
multiple computers with one license has not bought the other licenses, and
as far as their bank account is concerned, they have profited.

Gregg

 

[Shenan Stanley]

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if
they had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows
would not be as large because there is no way of proving that they
would not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small
little niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have
been larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to
sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just
doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good
computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you
know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.

That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.

It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.

Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.

They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop you
like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince me it
was because of some agreement or threat.

They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an impact?
Yeah.. I think so.

Why didn't they (if the above is factual)?
Lack of saq or fear of having a hard time and not raking in as much money
from the other sheep?

If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other entities
with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want instead of
letting others decide for them or because it is the easy way out/in and they
can make a bunch of money.

How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there. Until
someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their belief is
100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay the way it is.
Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles being quoted. 2001?
With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome to the end of 2006. 'Go Go
Gadget Change!'

Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if anything
posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer exist or are
in Dutch - I think...) does nothing for any cause other than prove that most
are greedy sheep that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and
those who may not fall into that category are willing to sit around and chat
about it for years instead of actually doing anything (beyond chatting about
it for years.)

 

[Gregg Hill]

Whose "fair" use? What is "fair" to the manufacturer about buying one
license and installing it multiple times?

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

I do use gas and I don't complain about the price. Heck, I stopped looking
at the total on the pump when I am finished. It is just too depressing! Just
because I don't complain doesn't mean that I like it. We are a two-SUV
family. Trust me, I feel the pain.

At least 80% of it is a tax write-off on the business for my truck.

Housing costs in California are through the roof (ha, ha!) too, but I don't
complain. I just keep working, hoping that some day my efforts and some good
investing will allow me to buy a house.

Gregg Hill

 

[Gregg Hill]

I have no control over how the money is spent, just as I have no control
where my tax dollars go.

My taxes may go to help a war, or "my" dollars may go to help build new
hospitals. No way to tell, but I still obey the law pay the tax.

Gregg

 

[Gregg Hill]

If I am hopeless for not agreeing with you, then you are just as hopeless
for not understanding that you DO gain by not paying.. Was it not you who
claimed the "fair use" applied ONLY if there was no financial gain?

When you fail to pay for the additional products you use, you HAVE gained
financially by NOT having the money taken out of your account. If you don't
think that is a financial gain, then **why not** pay for each installation?
The ONLY reason for one NOT to pay for each installation is so that one can
KEEP THEIR MONEY, which as far as your bank account is concerned, is a gain.

If one XP costs $200 and you install it four times, you come out ahead by
$600. That is a financial gain, and nullifies your "fair use" argument.

Gregg Hill