Vista I will not be buying

[Peter A. Stavrakoglou]

And had Bush told congress the truth, the funds would have never been
approved. The so called "coallition" went to war based on a pack of lies.

Alias

So who was it that was doing the lying? Allow me to quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9,
1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e
means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use
force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that
a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat,
and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian
Gulf region."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United
Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the Security
Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American
people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the
Iraqi people."
Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003

 

[Alias]

So who was it that was doing the lying? Allow me to quote:

Who went to war based on these lies?

Clinton? No.

Bush? Yes.

I haven't much use for politicians who lie, be they republican, democrat or
whatever.

Fact is Bush went to war and now we have 65 dollar oil for which I am sure
that Bush's buddies in the oil business are thankful, just as the
Halliburton's of the world are thankful for the reconstruction contracts. We
now have over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dead and almost 2000
Americans. Iraq is no freer or safer now than it was under Hussein.

Alias

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great
deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of
a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and th! e means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is
in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to
use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a
threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the
Persian Gulf region."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have
always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity.
This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the
United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the
Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American
people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for
the Iraqi people."
Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003

 

[kurttrail]

Who cares? Iraq is the stupidest move by a President, since "Read My
Lips." It's even dumber than the stained blue dress since the only
person really hurt that didn't deserve it was Hillary.

While the President can order a small military action at will, he is
limited by the Budget for the Department of Offense [misnamed the DOD
or dept of defense].

Any long term involvement HAS to be financed by the us congress, ie
the body that controls spending. If congress did not approve the last
several 100 billion dollars to invade iraq, the invasion would not
have occured.

Yep. So that means that Iraq was the stupidest move done by a political
party.

--
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]

And had Bush told congress the truth, the funds would have never been
approved. The so called "coallition" went to war based on a pack of
lies. Alias

So who was it that was doing the lying? Allow me to quote:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will
use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies
is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including,
if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to
respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its
weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others,
Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

All of the above quotes, taken totally out of context, were in response
to Saddam kicking weapon inspector out of Iraq. Funny thing is, Bush
got weapon inspectors back into Iraq before the war, and they found
nothing.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and
nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems
and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to
develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States
and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

Again, these quotes are taken out of context, and were based on totally
bad intel.

"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his
hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of
our allies in the Persian Gulf region."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

And then Kerry went on to say, "I will vote yes because I believe it is
the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration,
I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last
option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in
concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against
Saddam Hussein."

Since Bush's weapons inspectors never found any real evidence of WMDs,
war was not the last option to address the threat.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear
weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we
have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in
development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D,
WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he
disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his
nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to
terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that
if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his
capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep
trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct
10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


"I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the
United Nations. I think we couldn’t let those who could veto in the
Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American
people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good
for the Iraqi people."
Sen. John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 13. 2003

A bunch of quotes taken out of context, and much of it based on the
faulty intel of Iraqi exiles that had very ulterior motives.

It was known long before the war that the Neocons in the Bush admin had
been drooling to invade Iraq for a long time. The difference is that
they convinced Bush to do it.

I know I was against it. And had he been alive, Yeshua would have been
against it too.

--
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]

However, blocks that constitute a copyright enforcement scheme

cannot be lawfully circumvented (unless each indvidual does it all by
himself with no help from anyone else) in the United States because of the
DMCA.

But Vista is supposed to be sold worldwide. What may be illegal according to
american law may be (and often is) considered fair use in other countries.

Is M$ going to sell different flavors of Vista? A restricted version in the
USA and a DRM-free version in countries with more liberal copyright laws, or
will Vista be used as a method to force american copyright laws upon the rest
of the planet?

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> 666

But Vista is supposed to be sold worldwide. What may be illegal according to
american law may be (and often is) considered fair use in other countries.

Is M$ going to sell different flavors of Vista? A restricted version in the
USA and a DRM-free version in countries with more liberal copyright laws, or
will Vista be used as a method to force american copyright laws upon the rest
of the planet?

Shhh... Don't tell the Americans that they aren't the whole world.

 

[Kelly]

We aren't?

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

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

In memory of those lost during Katrina &
Prayers and Hope for the remaining displaced.

 

[kurttrail]

We aren't?

You weren't supposed to be listening, Kelly.

--
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"

 

[Bob I]

Sounds like you want a copy of Vista N.

But Vista is supposed to be sold worldwide. What may be illegal according to
american law may be (and often is) considered fair use in other countries.

Is M$ going to sell different flavors of Vista? A restricted version in the
USA and a DRM-free version in countries with more liberal copyright laws, or
will Vista be used as a method to force american copyright laws upon the rest
of the planet?

 

[Guest]

Because it has nothing to do with Vista. Just because you "can do"
something doesn't mean it's legit.

An OS that's gonna be sold all over the planet should stay far away from
questions like 'is it legit?'

Things like DMCA and INDUCE are just local laws. Most copies of Vista are
gonna be sold outside the USA.

In my country (the Netherlands, Europe) I can legally copy any CD or DVD for
personal purposes. It doesn't even have to be my own disk. I can borrow my
friends CDs (or just get them from the library, or the video rental store),
make copies for myself, return the original disks, and keep the copies.
That's all allowed by the Dutch Copyright Act from 1912 (and never ever
updated).

I can even legally break any encryption method if I need to do so to make
protected audio files compatible with my hardware, like an mp3 player that
doesn't support DRM.

And my local electronic store sells DVD players without region locks without
breaking any law.

If Vista comes with code that locks the owner out o parts of his own
computer, there should be localized versions to cater for local laws. Of
course this will make OS-embedded DRM useless, because people in more
restrictive countries can simply buy foreign copies of Vista.

I'm looking forward to an EU ruling that requires M$ to strip its TC from
the OS, just like the european courts forced M$ to strip Windows Media Player
from XP.

 

[Kelly]

My bad, but you live in the US too. )

--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

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

In memory of those lost during Katrina &
Prayers and Hope for the remaining displaced.

 

[kurttrail]

My bad, but you live in the US too. )

Yeah, but I'm just a first generation American on my fathers side, so
knowing that the US isn't the whole world hasn't been genetically
removed entirely.

--
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"

 

[Bob]

And that's the strange part, he despises it so much...why
does he stick around and suffer?

 

[kurttrail]

And that's the strange part, he despises it so much...why
does he stick around and suffer?

Ah, you must be a Republican that believes that anyone that believes
that in liberty and justice for ALL hates America. Anyone that believes
in the freedom to choose is a commie. Anyone that believes in human
rights is a evil liberal!

I hate nothing. I dislike have a President that is a Mis-Leader when it
comes to war, and much prefer having a President that is a Mis-Leader
about cumming on a blue dress.

--
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"

 

[Bill Turner]

In message <[email protected]>

I have never bought an illegal piece of software in my life. I paid for a
legal copy of Windows 95. Windows 98SE, and just bought a new system with
XP SP2 pre-installed. I purposely did not buy a Linux machine, even though
Linux has been my 'OS of choice' for many years now. I wanted to at least
take a look at XP before just going on about my business with Linux again.
I will never buy another MS product.

I have had my system less than 3 months. I have had to 'start from scratch'
no fewer than 3 times already. God only knows why. At least I had my
backups on CD to start from or I would have just chucked XP completely.
Every time I have had to go through the same 'product activation' as if I
had just installed XP for the first time. There is no CD with XP on it.
They have seen fit instead to take up an entire 5GB 'hidden' partition with
the OEM version of XP.

Is Microsoft so damned poor that they can not afford a CD for an OS that
costs around $300 - if you pay full retail?? Come on Billy G. Get on the
clue train bro...

And I really do not care about piracy that may or may not be going on in
China or God-only-knows-where.

The salt in the wound is that Microsoft does not even try to have a 'secure'
environment. Things that they have known about for years are still there,
big gaping security holes you could drive a Mack truck through and never hit
the side.

What I do not understand is why the CIO's of places that get hit with the
latest email worm or whatever, that takes their systems down all over the
world, just shrug their shoulders, install a patch that usually makes things
worse instead of better, and continue to pay MS outrageous license fees
without batting an eye.

Has the whole world gone mad??

Simple consumers are treated like criminals by Microsoft. And they wonder
why people are leaving in droves to run Linux...

Soon as my download of SuSE 10 finishes I will be joining them. Back to my
'OS of Choice' where I don't have to feel like I am some sort of a
criminal...

laterzzz

 

[Bob I]

Hello Bill,
The fact there is no "CD provided" is due to the PC manufactures
decision to not provide one. It has NADA to do with Microsoft, Bill G,
retail copies or the price of tea in china. Please lose the rant and
place the "blame" on the two people it belongs with. The uninformed
purchaser and the cheap customer.

 

[kurttrail]

Hello Bill,
The fact there is no "CD provided" is due to the PC manufactures
decision to not provide one. It has NADA to do with Microsoft, Bill G,
retail copies or the price of tea in china. Please lose the rant and
place the "blame" on the two people it belongs with. The uninformed
purchaser and the cheap customer.

MS could very easily make it part of their OEM System Builders agreement
that OEMs supply Install CDs to all customers, but MS doesn't. Instead
MS has been pressuring OEMs not to supply Install CDs, so MS does
deserve most of the blame why OEMs don't supply Install CDs.

--
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"

 

[Shenan Stanley]

MS could very easily make it part of their OEM System Builders
agreement that OEMs supply Install CDs to all customers, but MS
doesn't. Instead MS has been pressuring OEMs not to supply Install
CDs, so MS does deserve most of the blame why OEMs don't supply
Install CDs.

So.. What you are saying is that since OEM System Builders were given a
choice to give a CD and they didn't - so it is Microsoft's fault for not
requiring that free enterprise businesses provide a proper installation CD?

I actually cannot speak for the pressure from Microsoft of "not providing
CDs" - honestly the first I heard of that - I mean - $.05/CD to make a copy
of the OEM CD before selling it to the customer and I cannot see that
Microsoft would know any different - "pressure" or not.

 

[kurttrail]

So.. What you are saying is that since OEM System Builders were given
a choice to give a CD and they didn't - so it is Microsoft's fault
for not requiring that free enterprise businesses provide a proper
installation CD?

No what I'm saying is the MS is using pressure to on OEMs to influence
their choice.

I actually cannot speak for the pressure from Microsoft of "not
providing CDs" - honestly the first I heard of that - I mean -
$.05/CD to make a copy of the OEM CD before selling it to the
customer and I cannot see that Microsoft would know any different -
"pressure" or not.

It not about the cost of the CD. OEMs are contractually forced by MS to
provide some sort of OS recovery. MS just prefers it is images linked
to certain hardware, not true reinstall CDs.

MS could VERY EASILY make the OEM contractual obligation to supply true
Install CDs, but they don't, so in my book, MS deserves most of the
blame why OEMs don't supply true Install CDs.

You have every right to disagree, but I think most people would tend to
believe that MS is at the very least partially at fault as to why OEMs
don't supply true Install CDs.

--
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"

 

[Shenan Stanley]

MS could very easily make it part of their OEM System Builders
agreement that OEMs supply Install CDs to all customers, but MS
doesn't. Instead MS has been pressuring OEMs not to supply Install
CDs, so MS does deserve most of the blame why OEMs don't supply
Install CDs.

So.. What you are saying is that since OEM System Builders were given
a choice to give a CD and they didn't - so it is Microsoft's fault
for not requiring that free enterprise businesses provide a proper
installation CD?

What pressure? I'm askig this as a curiousity - not an argument. I really
want to know.

It not about the cost of the CD. OEMs are contractually forced by MS
to provide some sort of OS recovery. MS just prefers it is images
linked to certain hardware, not true reinstall CDs.

MS could VERY EASILY make the OEM contractual obligation to supply
true Install CDs, but they don't, so in my book, MS deserves most of
the blame why OEMs don't supply true Install CDs.

You have every right to disagree, but I think most people would tend
to believe that MS is at the very least partially at fault as to why
OEMs don't supply true Install CDs.

Yes - but everything you said still points to "in the end - the OEM could
take the extra effort needed (if any) to provide a CD with the product if
they so desired."

What Microsoft "pressures" the OEMs to do really isn't relevant. Get an OEM
CD - copy it hundreds/thousands/more times onto cheap blank CDs (or use the
OEM CD Microsoft can provide) and when selling to your customers - even if
your install is a little different in terms of overlaying software - provide
the OEM Windows XP CD along with the sale of the computer - they paid for
that after all. You could still make the system recoverable/installed by
you in whatever way is most cost effective - and in the end when the
customer comes here asking about a reinstall because Microsoft Windows XP is
messed up because of some Microsoft patch that didn't agree with
software/hardware on their system - at least they will not get the response
of, "Well, it looks like your OEM did not provide a true Windows
installation CD.." and the OEM will likely keep a customer and get
recommendations because they did the extra nickels worth of effort.

The whole "Microsoft Pressures" thing is a joke in my opinion. Your parents
likely "pressured" you into not doing a lot of things - some of which you
did despite the pressure. Friends, family, etc - all day long doing the
same thing. There's no "pressure" for the OEM System Builder NOT to provide
the nickel CD.. By that I mean even if some wording exists that makes it
seem like they SHOULD NOT do that - Microsoft isn't in the room with them
when they sell the computer - isn't in the room with them when they take the
troubleshooting call - isn't in the room with them when their customer comes
back asking for a CD to reinstall Windows. Business Sense says to give the
nickel CD out to customers - even if it is just "another" way to install
Windows XP over the normal weak-effort hard drive image method normally
given to a customer to restore to the "purchased" state.

It's still a decision - pressure or not. Don't smoke, don't drink, wear
your seatbelt, etc.. It's a choice the business person in the end has to
make. They can do whatever they choose. When I sold computer system I
always gave the customer three choices when it came to the OS and recovery:
OEM CDs (less expensive), Retail CDs or they could go buy their own OS and
do the installation themselves. I never lost a single customer from that -
they usually appreciated the choices.

Is Microsoft to blame because people submit to any pressure? Just because
the mountain is there doesn't mean you HAVE to climb it. Just because the
alcohol is sold doesn't mean you have to drink it. Just because the cigar
was offered to you doesn't mean you have to smoke it.

Sure - I will go as far as to say that *if* there is some wording somewhere
that URGES OEM System Builders NOT to provide restoration CDs with their
systems (that they sell) - then Microsoft shares the blame. *If* there is
wording somewhere that does more than URGES such a thing, then Microsoft can
have all the blame. Just like other advertisers and such sell products -
they are "somewhat" to blame for the consumption of those products.. But if
there is no "Do it this way or you cannot use/sell the product" - in the
end - the PEOPLE SELLING the system who chose to do it one way or the other
are the ones to blame on how their system was sold and the methods they
chose to put in place.

And any argument that the hard drive image method is easier/cheaper.. hah -
that's funny. I have a blind aunt who can copy CDs.
(Didn't say you said it - but just thought of counterpoints..)