I've read quite a bit here about XP. Mostly good, but I haven't seen much about the difficulties involved in loading on a second pc, or even a buddy's pc. From what I have heard you can't do this, or are required to get MS "permission". Will someone please elaborate on this or any other drawbacks to XP? Thanks!

Premaux

when you buy xp that copy is meant to go on one computer. After you install it you have to activate it and the activation number that MS gives you is generated after taking note of your hardware on your system. SO if you try to install and use it on a second computer it wont fly. They basically want a copy to be bought for every computer.

SO the OS is the Angel the activation requirement is the devil. }>

Garbru

Garbru, as you know our pc are changed all the time! New progs, hardware, crashe , and etc.. What then? Do I have to get "daddys" permission every time I have to reinstall? What about my networked pc?This alone is what has kept me from buying so far. Next thing you know we will have to get "permission" to copy our own cd's! (Has anyone found a way around this foolishness yet?):-).

Premaux

A simple reinstall will not require a new activation number. You can change up to 6 (or is it 10) pieces of hardware (and its certain listed hardware) and be fine.

Actually, you never were supposed to install windows on a second PC, much less a Buddy's PC, they're just finally coming up with the capability to enforce it for most users.

Randell

Does this really mean that after paying $200 for an OS I won't be able to instal it on my second pc

Premaux

It means as far as MS can control it, you can't.

Randell

Correct. You can do like I did for my second PC and get XP Home for $99.00. Windows was never allowed on more than one PC. Your auotomobile licence plate is only allowed on one car isn't it? The same principle has always applied to Windows.

Yeah, and everyone stuck by that rule huh . I can't express how much I think that sucks! I guess I'll just stick with 98/2k until some genius finds a way around that. It's not that I want to sell pirated copies! Or that MS is going to go under if we only give them $200!! C'mon! They had time-dated dvd's for a while. Whats next, non-copiable music cd's that explode after 10 uses?!

Premaux

>I can't express how much I think that sucks!

Ah C'mon, tell us what you really think.

BobGuy©
And the band played on.

XP also requires re-activation if certain hardware changes are made.

...and yet you can put your car's engine in any other vehicle you see fit. Some people never question God and do everything daddy tells them.

Can you put your licence plate on another car?

You sure can. I've had 2LTL TYM on at least 4 vehicle .

Premaux

Some people also think driving is a privilege because that's what they were told...so for them it is.

Just some basic facts you should be aware of. XP checks 10 major hardware characteristics of the computer it is installed into. Any six of these can be changed within a 120 day period without requiring re-activation. each 120 days the whole thing starts over again and you can change another six of the ten items without having to re-activate. Obviously it is unlikely most users would ever need to re-activate. If you do, as in you purchased a new computer, it takes a 30 second free phone call to Microsoft.

MS has no interest in restricting the legitimate use of your computers. Their interest is in reducing piracy. No MS operating system, since the earliest days of DOS, has been licensed to more than one machine. You do not own your copy of Windows, you license the right to use it within the terms you agree to when you install it. Installing it on more than one computer, whether its XP or W98, or W2k, is not fair use, it is stealing. If you do it at home you're just a thief, if you do it in your business you are additionally a fool. You could be audited at any time, all it takes is a phone call from a disgruntled employee, and your company will face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. and no company has ever beaten the rap in court.

Shelly

Makes me feel good that I payed for both OS's I have on my computer. It takes a lot of time and effort to create these things and I truly believe to pay for it, especially in a world that is moderated by money, is the highest form of thanks you can give to the developers of such products. It's not just 'Daddy' that is benefitting from the sale but goes all the way to the janitor that cleans up the paper trails left by the techs and engineers. It's called economic structure and without it we would still be in the dark ages (which might be ok). Even the developers of freeware, if there products is compatible with my needs, should be and are compensated by me. Each to his own, to pay or not to pay, but I myself believe my time is valuable and I don't work for free unless it is time donated of my own accord. MHO

Crazy

Stranger than life

I hear you. The programmers who do this work do deserve to get paid well for their hard labor. I personally have no ax to grind with any particular MS products but I do get mad when I think about how they get away with murder

I think there is lots of resentment ot there with MS and with their virtual monopoly on PC operating systems (supported by the Bush justice dept.with token penalties) that gives them the ability to continue to charge whatever they want and if you don't like it, tough. In addition we consumers test it and they offer fixes for their already defective products. Ya, lots of resentment.

Sure, there's Linux out there but if a business has already set up their system with Windows it's a momumental task to change over to a non-propritory system and MS knows that very well. That's the idea of having a monopoly. Now they are licensing companies for their software and only possible upgrades and updates during the time of the license.

Software still remains one of the only places where there are no warranties on how it performs and that's not right but it's not likely to change in the near future.

Please forgive the rant but I can get myself whipped up.

That's not a rant its ignorance. They (MS) cannot charge what they want, you and other consumers can refuse to buy. Literally hundreds of million of dollars are ripped off by unlicensed copies. Go to SE Asia I doubt anyone buys a legit copy in China, Honkong, Thailand to name a few. The consumer ultimately pays the price.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Most businesses buy legit copies in Thailand. I expect most individuals do as well (mostly because they are OEM installations).

I got into this discussion somewhat late so I won't make any idiotic
pronouncements that those who are wiser and more experienced than me
can easily refute!

However, I would like to simply ask a question for which the door
was opened in an earlier post, to wit:

"Software still remains one of the only places where there are no warranties on how it performs..."

Is this really true (and I think it is) shouldn't it be not true?
In other words shouldn't the software supplier have responsibilities
toward users (individuals as well as behemoths) in addition to the
privileges which they express and exercise in the EULA?

I can't think of many gracious exercises on the part of software
vendors toward us many harried individual users lately. One thing I have noticed is how quickly new software versions are brought out
and the users of a current version are disenfranchised by terminating
"support". This practice may be good for the software vendor's
bottom line, but when my system crashes precisely at 5:00 p.m. on Friday, and I need help, it's hard to get from software vendors.
Aelarson

aelarson

I appreciate and understand your points. However, I think it's important to think about terms and concepts offered by corporations such as MS and understand their intended meaning, before one embraces these edicts as if it's an old family friend. I can't think of another product one purchases with the intent to own whose operation is contingent on the forced purchase and/or licensing fee of a separate item for the operation of said product.

What does it mean when you pay for software but you're told you license the right to use that software instead of own it. What is the motive and thrust in using that language? "Control." That's where I have a problem. The implied assumption is made by MS from the start that the consumer's integrity is in question. As a consumer who is provided MS/OS without being asked or is required to purchase separately software necessary for the operation of the computer system, the last thing on any honest consumer's mind is to attempt to sell that software on the black market. As in gun control, MS is in effect, penalizing the law abiding citizen with the buyer having to actively participate in an on board continuous interactive security operation with the seller. The pirating and protection of their software is not my problem.

The MS/OS comes pre-loaded on most systems bought around the world. Few OS options are offered to the buyer and MS has made every attempt to monopolize their OS with pre-arranged and carefully negotiated deals with computer manufacturers; they have a vested interest in discouraging and suppressing the creation and availability of alternative OS's in the retail market. And I've heard that silly argument about having a choice. Tell me how Linux compares in ease of use in an MS world.

>> and yet you can put your car's engine in any other vehicle you see fit.

Just a minor point... an engine is hardware you buy and own. You can also transfer a HDD to another PC... because you own the HDD. You don't own software, you buy the use of it according to an agreement you make with the provider. A lot of folks may not like it, sometimes I don't, but it's a well-established fact.

Randell

Some of the analogies used in this thread to justify illegal activities are nothing short of moronic.
Sure, you can put your engine in another car, but can you have it in two cars at once?
Sure, you can transfer your licence plates to another car, but can you legally have them on two cars at once?
And non-copiable CDs are here already.
And, premaux, you would do well to go back and re-read the conditions you agreed to when you registered to post in this forum.

Insert text here

Sure, you can transfer your licence plates to another car, but can you legally have them on two cars at once?

That was my point. Am I being moronic? The question was not rhetorical.

Hey, I'm agreeing with you. Sorry if I worded it badly.

Insert text here

Thought so, but kinda looked a little funny so had to ask. The analogy is still a fairly good one.

"Some of the analogies used in this thread to justify illegal activities are nothing short of moronic."

Hey Paul:

Before you begin making accusations about the sinister use of analogies by others to justify illegal activity, I suggest you make a concerted effort to THINK and understand the intended meaning of those analogies, before you assume that the use of any analogy is used for anything other than the clarification of a concept.

This analogy of yours:

"Sure, you can put your engine in another car, but can you have it in two cars at once?"

Truly exemplifies a complete misunderstanding of the original analogy's intended meaning.

The originator of this thread clearly was attempting to verify whether or not it was possible to violate Microsoft's license agreement. When it was stated that Microsoft's intent was to thwart piracy, several forum members showed their lack of acceptance of the terms of this agreement.

Not agreeing with a contractual obligation does not make it legal to violate the contract. You have the option of not agreeing to the terms of the contract when installing the OS. This is not a moral or ethical issue, but merely one of legal obligation. Shelley and Paul D have stated the facts about as clearly as I have seen them posted.

Dave T.

The real issue is the premeditated, strategic and continued practice of attempts to eliminate choice for the purpose of creating a monopoly in a free market by hiding behind the cleverly constructed illusion of choice and suggesting that the proof of choice is manifest in the form of a freely signed contract.

It suggests that the consumer, after reviewing the plethora of other choices, has willfully made his choice and has decided of his own volition to abide by the terms of the contract whose conditions and terms are based on a legally sanctioned fabrication of logic in a manipulative capitalistic system that restricts access to the means of mass production and distribution of all products without sufficient capital--unreachable and unobtainable by most of it's members.

When enough critical mass is reached by the spirit of forces driven to exist in a free world, where creativity is embraced by all, not the ownership of creativity, a world void of the blindly celebrated technological tyranny and flag waving by uninformed consumers, MS and their paranoid, restrictive mob type contracts; will be the subject of much laughter and will be considered kings and thieves that once reigned in the dark ages.

See the Matrix.

HAL,

Have you ever worked to create anything that is considered intellectual property?

If so, you don't mind people stealing it?

Hey, I don't like any of this. I cancelled my subscription to XP and am now, even as we speak, writing my own OS to suit myself and I'll be the owner. Just today I bought a book on assembly and have learned a whole bunch of new words....like

LDA
MOV
LDB

stuff like that. It's gonna be a snap...,cupla questions tho...what's a debug thing? what's the command to kill debug? what kinda bug?

That's the true pioneer spirit I like to see.

Debug crawls in thru fresh air openings,and you have to install hardware called Raid,then ya gotta program it to give it a shot every four hours of operation.
This is what a debug program is.

LilJoe

OD, why not get Ryan to help you? His uncrashable OS should be about due for release now!

Smelly, it's not ready for prime time yet. He still has to open and close his refrigerator before it will boot properly.

Hope you succeed. I'll buy a copy

Paul, I don't recall agreeing that I would not express an opinion...?
I happen to agree with Hal9000 and Amuk.

Premaux

He didn't say you couldn't express your opinion. Just called yours "moronic". ball's in your court. }> }> }>

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Lol

No, actually I think he was inferring that I had violated something in the forum agreement by asking these questions. I don't want to "steal" anything from anyone. I know nothing about XP and was inquiring about the features we are discussing. End of story. With what I have learned here it is now my decision to buy XP and play by their rules, or stick with 98/2k. Even if I do buy XP, and use it legally, it does not mean I have to like it, agree with it, or not have an opinion about it. I still think it SUCKS

Premaux

..and that's exactly how I understood your meaning to be in your first post. And I might add that I also would never approve of or advocate the illegal use of software. I simply find the terms preposterous.

Hal, I have gathered from your other posts that you are very young.
I am probably considerably older than you. I have to say that I only wish I were HALF as articulate as you are. And some of the other posters in this forum as well, (but not all:-) ).

Premaux

premaux:

I just caught this post of yours and I appreciate very much what you said. And I agree with you, there are many very intelligent and articulate speakers in this forum.

I'm sure I could benefit from reading more and speaking less.

Regarding age--I love what Satchel Page said about age: How old would you be if you didn't know how old you were.

"I simply find the terms preposterous"

If there ever was a truer statement regarding 'restrictive' policy, I'm yet to come across it.



Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.

Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.

I personally think that it should be one copy per person, not per computer. It dosnt effect me at the moment. I only have one system but if I had 2 systems I really think I should be able to buy 1 copy and install it on 2 computers, but the product does belong to MS and they can make the rules. As somebody pointed out in this thread, nobody is foced to use their products. If I had 2 systems I would probably put an earlier version of windows like w2k as I have a legal copy but its not in use.


Garbru

I happen to agree with you. But I don't make the rules for MS products, they do. So I am faced with the choice of being honest, or trading my self respect to save a few lousy dollars. I don't care to give up my honor that cheap.

Shelly

Well, we certainly seem to be an interesting bunch of anarchists, moralists, complainers (me), and philosophers. Out-and-out thieves, I doubt it.

I personally don't like the authorization thing in XP because I somehow feel like it's a lack of control on my part. I feel like it's BIG BROTHER MS in control and calling the shots and I dont't like it. I know it's a common hangup and really, so what.....I know I won't be diminished by installing and authorizing my copy of XP but I haven't done it yet. Sooner or later I'll give in and install it, of course, or I'll stay with W2k forever (not likely).

I really don't like any of this. Perhaps the whole thing would be more palatable if we changed the term "Buy a Copy" to "Lease a copy" or "Rent a Copy".

That would bring home the truth of the transaction. We are not really buying a copy of windows and if it's right out in front there might not be so much resentment......

In a real "Leasing Arrangement," the initial fee for use is significantly lower than the purchase price and one has the added option to upgrade to a newer product.

Other than tax write offs, the whole idea behind leasing is the opportunity to continually upgrade.

The intelligent decision would be to provide consumers with the choice to either own a copy of an OS or lease one.

As is always the case, the need to control for the purposes of greed will sooner or later represent a significant loss in the market share. Look what Japan did to the Big 3 in the 1970's and beyond.

Look what the federal government did to the Bell System in 1984. Up until that time you did not "own" their equipment or any of their services, but their rates were fair. That natural monopoly was brought down by the feds in concert with some special interest groups in the name of fair trade. What I don't understand is how does MS get away with what, for all intents and purposes, is a monopoly. Strange.

Yes, average long-distance rates, deregulated in 1984, decreased, but that reduction was made possible mostly by regulated cuts in access charges--the fee that regulated local phone companies on each end of an interstate call charge long-distance carriers to connect through the local equipment.

Now consider the US Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated all communications industries and enshrined the notion that the market should determine the future development of those industries which has played a significant role in shaping the present situation in the American media. It unleashed a round of mergers and acquisitions that helped lay the basis for the present concentrated media empires.

Deregulation really means privatization. Look what happen in California when they deregulated utilities. Utilities became privatized and a full blown energy crises took place spawned by the greed for corporate profit. The three California electric companies have lost billions to price-gouging wholesalers in a dysfunctional energy market. The utilities are seeking billions in a bailout from California taxpayers. So, private companies rip off the public in inflated energy costs and then consumers get ripped off again in having to bail out the utility companies with tax payer money. Same thing with the S&L bailout. These are the people that should be populating our prisons.

As corporations increase in their global expansion and influence--with the help of the WTO and IMF--separation between governments and transnational corporations decrease--global agendas for economic control erode any sense of state allegiance. The world's top 200 corporations now account for over a quarter of economic activity on the globe while employing less than one percent of its workforce. Of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are now corporations and 49 are countries.

From all the posts I've read so far, I haven't come across anyone condoning software piracy. The inherent tone seems to be that of MS' mistrust of the end user. I might also add that if anyone ever thought that MS' demise was imminent, they must surely be liing in a parallel dimension.

Planned Obsolesence: "The art of recycling an already sturated market environment"


Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.

}>

Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do.

"Trust yourself. You know more than you think you do."

True words of wisdom.

OK.

So, Microsoft is really selling a service when you buy a Windows XP CD. You buy the CD but it only enables you to use their service, which is the use of their software with a limited license. They're NOT selling a product, really.

Their service allows one to use that electronic box called a computer and to be able to do stuff with it. You can update your service on line with Windows Update. You can use the Microsoft Network as well to make the service more complete.

Hmm, seems like it could be a complete service company and also offer travel services, news, and who knows what else. Why not have embedded links in all their software that will connect you to their other services? Since they virtually own the PC market, with AOL having such hard times (they didn't make an operating system--too bad).

Wow, this link has led me to new insights about how to make a business plan and to take over the world! Wish I'd have thought of it first.

I am not aware of any software program from any company that was ever sold to any consumer. Even for free software, the programmer or publisher retains ownership of the intellectual property involved.

The model some of you are advocating for the creation and distribution of intellectual property already exists. It is called Socialism.

Many people think that if a person builds something with their hands like a machine or a building, it is theirs to keep or sell, as they wish, for whatever terms they can negotiate. But if a person creates something with their mind, creates a concept, or an idea, ie intellectual property, they do not have the same property rights as the first person.

Microsoft spent ten years, and paid thousands of employees, millions, perhaps billions, of dollars, to create Windows XP, and some of you demand that Microsoft sell all rights to their property for maybe $5.00 a copy, and if the person wanting it can't afford the five bucks, let the poor guy steal it.

How naive! Why would anyone bother to create anything under those conditions? You have no right to have a computer. You have no right to have software. You have a right to pursue an education, find gainful employment, and purchase the things you want. You do not have a right to steal what you desire and can't afford.

If you want to live in a world where people work to create things that you can have at no personal cost. Where all medical care and services are free. where food is available without work or cost. I'm afraid you got off at the wrong planet.

Shelly

Just an extension of my friend Shelly's post #53. The fact is that in all reality ideas and inventions have been shared since the beginning of this races existance and shall continue to be shared due to the excitement that new ideas create in people. I don't see how an idea can truly be sold as it will always be the originators and theirs alone to share in what ever way they wish whether it be freely or for financial or monetary gain. As a form of gratitude for their sharing such knowledge I personally see it proper to grant their wishes for compensation. Maybe we could work with the originators of such desirable things on a more positive note to make it a more pleasing exchange for all. I know not all will see what I see in this and that is O.K. because if they do than I will know for sure that we have all been cloned and the Matrix is not just a movie. This has been an interesting discussion with many good points to ponder but in the end it is what it is; people will come up with great things and others will want them and there will always be a mix of emotions on the subject of proper trade. May we all make it through to the end and find the answers that we need to survive in our own individual worlds. Peace my friends.

Crazy

Stranger than life

The concept of ownership is indigenous to capitalism. The concept of ownership doesn't exist in a universal context. One cannot really own anything but themselves and their individuality. When someone writes a novel or a song, they can think of owning those creations but when they sell them they are merely sharing their thoughts for a price. Their creation takes on a life of its own. When one buys a painting; how much more valuable does its beauty become when you own it? You can't possess its beauty, but you can control its exposure and distribution and make a profit doing it--if you feel so inclined. In MS's case, their XP creation acts as a membrane to a device that can transport me to a digital world. I don't want to own that membrane, but once I pay a fee for it, I don't want to continue having to ask the owner for keys. The owner would like me to believe that my access to this digital world can forever and only be obtained through them--only through Christ is salvation.

Somewhat OT, but consider the recent dilemma over genetic ownership. When a chemist isolated a chemical in the periodic table in the age of chemistry we allowed them process patents but we certainly didn't allow them a product patent. Can you imagine saying, you were the first scientist to isolate helium, oxygen or aluminum, we're going to give you a patent, this is your invention. The patent laws are clear. These are discoveries of nature it doesn't make any difference how exhaustive your search was; you can't claim a product of nature as a human invention. The genes, the cells, the chromosomes, the organs, the tissues, they are all exactly analogous. It's a one to one comparison. Our government has been violating it's own statues for years by extending intellectual property rights to the genes and the proteins they code for.

Actually, the concept of ownership is not unique to capitilism. What is considered owned varies from cultures and economic systems, not the actual concept of ownership. As usual, Hal, you need to do more in-depth research before you illustrate your ignorance. Can you point to any society that did not understand and have the concept of ownership? Any at all?

If I am not mistaken, in early Chritianity (circa 0-100 AD), "...
they had all things in common". When a couple named Annanias and
Saphira tried to keep back some "property" as their "own", they were
struck down by the Spirit of God.

I don't know if this qualifies as a society that did not have a concept of property in the usual sense but it certainly was quite
different from the societies about them and those which were to follow.

By the way, I submitted a post earlier (#27)but no one seems to be
interested in it, i.e., the supplier's RESPONSIBILITY beyond merely
developing and providing software at a profit. I'd appreciate
comments on the matter

Aelarson

aelarson

>> When a couple named Annanias and
Saphira tried to keep back some "property" as their "own", they were
struck down by the Spirit of God.

Untrue... folks weren't being required to give their property, it was a choice. That particular couple ran afoul of the Spirit of God because they represented themselves as giving the whole, when in fact they were holding back a part... a lie to the Holy Spirit, as it were.

Randell

>> By the way, I submitted a post earlier (#27)but no one seems to be interested in it, i.e., the supplier's RESPONSIBILITY beyond merely developing and providing software at a profit.

Yes... I for one would have to agree with you on that. It seems software developers have become increasingly lax in their responsibility for insuring the performance of their product after the sale, and that should be addressed in some obligatory manner. The emphasis is of course on the new upcoming version at additional cost, rather than valuable time spent on refining(or fixing) the previous version, and providing reasonable support.

This whole subject in general has a lot of gray areas, and there's a certain amount of truth(at least in theory) to much that is posted on both sides... but there's a lot of inclination in man to rationalize. We have a strong tendency to figure 'since they're underpaying me at work, I'm entitled to sneak things home I can use, just to balance things out... it's actually not theft, it's justified since they don't really pay me enough.' I suppose we all have to determine where our integrity level stands occasionally, especially when our wallet is concerned... and when we can find fault with the other party to help us decide.

Randell

I should have said private ownership of capital.

Tell me, did you ponder my ignorance before or after you studied a map of Africa.

LOL**

A flawed concept can be expounded in a very articulate manner, and it makes for impressive reading(if that's the intention)... but that doesn't validate the concept itself at all.

Randell

You've essentially said nothing. If you care to discuss something, explain yourself.

>> You've essentially said nothing. If you care to discuss something, explain yourself.

Seems reasonably self-explanatory. Perhaps I should have said: your apparent desire to educate and tutor everyone on almost everything you can think of doesn't mean your views on all the concepts you expound are necessarily valid. Your manner seems to indicate anything that might be contrary to those views couldn't possibly be of any consequence.

Take care... Randell

Agreed

That's why I've always been fond of Al

I've read many of your posts and have laughed at your quick wit and been impressed with your intelligence.

You do seem to have an engaging manner to go along with your ability of articulate expression. Whether or not I agree with all your views, your posts make for interesting reading. Matter of fact... I don't always agree with all my views on everything.

All the best... Randell

"Matter of fact... I don't always agree with all my views on everything."

Lol, now that's true objectivity.

I wouldn't call 2-300 dollars "no cost", and no one mentioned $5...?

Premaux

You're overreacting. No one is challenging one's right of ownership to intellectual property--the issue is one's right to its legal unrestricted use! No honest consumer cares to own the concept of XP, anymore than they would care to own rights any other interface required for the operation of a technological device. I don't want to own the software in a transponder, I just want to be beamed up without having to contact some paranoid software manufacturer for permission to come aboard when I need to make necessary adjustments for the galaxy I'm in--talk about socialism. Consumers should able to legally use any software without security restrictions that imply the end user is constantly on the threshold of the illicit use of that software just by being legally in possession of that software-- that's way beyond socialism, it's called tyranny.

did you read this: http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020117S0002

Shelly, I don't see this thread, necessarily, as people wanting something for free and rationalizing the theft of that which they don't want to purchase.

I'm a stockholder in MS and I think the company has the ability to do well on it's own without even worrying about protecting their property rights with Win XP authorization. God knows China hasn't bankrupted MS with their wholesale cracking and pirating of software. The faiure here is with our government which won't put enough pressure on China to stop the wholesale piracy (we want them as customers --but will they really buy stuff or just pirate it? Ask Qualcomm about that one.). The individuals who use unauthorized MS services (like one license on two PCs) are really small potatoes.


I do think there is something wrong with monopolies, however, and there are laws to protect the welfare of the public at large from companies that (not because of the excellance of the product) use business practices to further dominate and control the market. Teddy Roosevelt tackled this issue over a hundred years ago.
At this time MS has been convicted of just that crime and they have been let off with token gestures like the new "Set Program Access and Defaults" feature rather than the more stringent ones that were originally put forth.

No, we don't have unalienable rights to have PCs and we should pay for what we use. I and, I think, most of us feel that way.

The same type of issue (though more serious) exists in prescription drugs now. The drug companies want to charge what they want (after all they made the stuff!) and if you don't want to pay the price then you are free to suffer and die without medication. We don't have price controls on drugs like other countries because of of the fear of socialism. I admit this is taking things to extremes (no one will die without his PC--though I'd sure feel bad without mine), but here I'm ranting again.

"Shelly, I don't see this thread, necessarily, as people wanting something for free and rationalizing the theft of that which they don't want to purchase."

To One and All:

The original post was inquiring as to the difficulty of installing XP on more than one PC or on a buddy's PC. This is as clear a discussion of theft and violation of the licensing agreement as I can imagine. What I don't understand is the mindset of anyone who feels any animosity towards Microsoft with regards to their licensing practices. Microsoft is not the only solution and does not in any sense control a monopoly. You are free to choose an OS that will run on your Intel chip from any vendor you choose. Why not pick one that subscribes to your individual philosophies.

I run a large number of Operating Systems (Windows 95, Windows 98SE,
Windows ME, Windows XP Pro, Windows 2000 Pro, QNX 2, QNX 4, QNX RTP, Linux Mandrake 8.2, DOS 6.2), each being used for it's best features. I have business software that I have written as long ago as the mid 80's running on most of these systems and performing serious work and earning their keep. You can access the internet from almost any system, can enjoy multimedia, games, business software and sophisticated multi-user, multi-tasking solutions from other than Microsoft.

This constant justification for what amounts to stealing of another's "intellectual property", or feeling a need to claim rights of some sort to the same doesn't even have a solid base. I haven't even touched on the alternate choices to the one everyone loves to hate, and anyone with the interest in checking them out will soon realize that Microsoft is just another player in a large game. They control the bulk of the consumer market, but it is the same consumers that put them there. No matter what anyone will try to say to refute these facts, we all have choices. Why don't we exercise them?

Dave T.

Hi, Dave:
And on that note it is probably best to end my participation in this particular thread. I, and many others disagree with you about whether or not MS is a monopoly or not. The judicial system found them to be one.

But on the other hand, many do agree with you. Whether it makes a difference or not (either way), I don't know. I'll probably keep my MS stock and keep on using MS stuff, regardless.

This thread has served to stimulate some of my brain cells and I guess that is at least part of the reason this forum exists.

With good will to all...

AMUK

I've read all the posts. And finally think I have a better understanding of the rules and regulations of XP. In term that are more on my level though, let's see if I'm right. XP is like some real good rolls of toilet paper(TP). It's was very expensive because it's state of art and took many years to develope(very soft yet durable and reliable,years and years of trial and error research went into it's conception). When I bought my new and improved TP it was understood that I could only use in my toilet. Even though my neighbor may want to borrow my new TP when he runs out or out of pure curiosity, they can't if they put it down their water closet it will just clog their whole system. I can't even use it in my other bathroom as it will do the same. From time to time to many foreign items may be added to the sanitary system if I add to many in 120 day period I have to call the manufacturer and they will send me the special auger that will free my system and get it to run smoothly again.If I want remodel the bathroom and pull the toilet I may/or may not be screwed and have to buy a whole new roll just for that toilet. And I can't even sneak the toilet from the upstairs and put downstairs to try to use it without looking like some kind of theif or TP Pirate Thanks all I'm going out and get some I have to try this stuff.......Or maybe I'll just wait till I remodel
PLUMMER

"I've read all the posts. And finally think I have a better understanding of the rules and regulations of XP."

That is exactly the reason I posted this question! It was inferred that I was everything from curious to a moron to a thief, which is ok with me because I am too old to have an identity problem. PLUS, now I know all I need to know about XP; and after all isn't the purpose of this forum to educate?

Premaux

"It was inferred that I was everything from curious to a moron to a thief."

Yes, Isn't that interesting. Revelations by many, beyond XP.

>> I am too old to have an identity problem

If you want to keep your identity from being openly identified on this forum, you need to keep to your initial post, and no more than a very short one(better be cautious on that). You make too long a post, or even worse, two, and we'll nail it. Tell you more about yourself and your real intentions than your mother could.

Randell

I had to think twice on that one Randell:-). With all the misinterpretations going on here...
Thank you, Hal, Amuk, and all the rest who responed, (yes even Shelly):-).

Premaux