Ok, the plot gets thicker.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/
Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
And this sure as hell ain't what the License says!
-Larry
Ok, the plot gets thicker.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/
Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt.
And this sure as hell ain't what the License says!
-Larry
Larry wrote:
yeah, I think it's damage control by a low level spokesperson...if
those were the rules then I am fairly certain Ms would have cleared up
the vista activation outcry by clairifing things as said a while ago.
the licence aggreement is subject to chage at ms discretion so they can
do anything they want once they get enough people onboard with the new
os- but now I think it's too late, the cats out of the bag with regards
to their intentions and there are enough people who will be wary of
that to seriously affect vista sales, vista then could end up as
windows 2000 or ME and the market is prime for a competitive os, not
Linix, but probabally from apple, who have gained access to intel
processor architecture
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Ok, the plot gets thicker. > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ > > Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. > > And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! > > -LarryIt's still too early to know for sure but it seems MS is squirming a bit. I
hope it's along the lines mentioned in your article though because I can
live with 10 activations. I doubt Ive called MS for my own XP machine more
than 3 times in 4+ years and here we are on the doorstep of Vista. Between
disk imaging (have I recommended BartPE/DriveImage yet?) and 10 activations
even the most hardcore upgrader should be ok. Now, if you want to use the
same license on all of your computers then you will have problems (that
alone pisses many off lol). I know the guys here are all honest chaps and
would never consider stealing (and I have some ocean front property in
Arizona for sale) ;)
What you likely didn't know was the licensed Starforce code buried deep
within Vista/DX10 ;)
Mitch
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:f850h.211$[email hidden]...
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Ok, the plot gets thicker. > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ > > Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. > > And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! > > -Larry >I'm to the point that I am thinking.... "Who gives a shit," really? I
mean you seen the pricing vs the included versions (limitations)?
F#cking-bullcrap idea, that I would pay 200-300, for a less featured Vista
Business? 260 <upgrade> or 400 bucks for XP Pro equivalent for a "vista
ultimate" OS? I say, hell no.
Mitch_A enlightened us with:
Quoted text (28 lines)
> It's still too early to know for sure but it seems MS is squirming a > bit. I hope it's along the lines mentioned in your article though > because I can live with 10 activations. I doubt Ive called MS for my > own XP machine more than 3 times in 4+ years and here we are on the > doorstep of Vista. Between disk imaging (have I recommended > BartPE/DriveImage yet?) and 10 activations even the most hardcore > upgrader should be ok. Now, if you want to use the same license on > all of your computers then you will have problems (that alone pisses > many off lol). I know the guys here are all honest chaps and would > never consider stealing (and I have some ocean front property in > Arizona for sale) ;) > What you likely didn't know was the licensed Starforce code buried > deep within Vista/DX10 ;) > > Mitch > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:f850h.211$[email hidden]... >> Ok, the plot gets thicker. >> >> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ >> >> Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of >> salt. And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! >> >> -Larry Omitted the link I was using as the pricing guide...
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/002683.html
Plowboy enlightened us with:
Quoted text (37 lines)
> I'm to the point that I am thinking.... "Who gives a shit," really? > I mean you seen the pricing vs the included versions (limitations)? > F#cking-bullcrap idea, that I would pay 200-300, for a less featured > Vista Business? 260 <upgrade> or 400 bucks for XP Pro equivalent for > a "vista ultimate" OS? I say, hell no. > > > > Mitch_A enlightened us with: >> It's still too early to know for sure but it seems MS is squirming a >> bit. I hope it's along the lines mentioned in your article though >> because I can live with 10 activations. I doubt Ive called MS for my >> own XP machine more than 3 times in 4+ years and here we are on the >> doorstep of Vista. Between disk imaging (have I recommended >> BartPE/DriveImage yet?) and 10 activations even the most hardcore >> upgrader should be ok. Now, if you want to use the same license on >> all of your computers then you will have problems (that alone pisses >> many off lol). I know the guys here are all honest chaps and would >> never consider stealing (and I have some ocean front property in >> Arizona for sale) ;) >> What you likely didn't know was the licensed Starforce code buried >> deep within Vista/DX10 ;) >> >> Mitch >> >> >> >> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:f850h.211$[email hidden]... >>> Ok, the plot gets thicker. >>> >>> http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ >>> >>> Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of >>> salt. And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! >>> >>> -LarryOn Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:14:21 -0400, Larry wrote:
I don't buy OS's based on grey area hearsay. Spell it out in black and
white in the EULA or it's a no-sale for me.
Quoted text (9 lines)
> Ok, the plot gets thicker. > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ > > Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. > > And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! > > -Larry
"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:f850h.211$[email hidden]...
Is there any real reason to get Vista? XP works fine for me.
Alanb
Quoted text (10 lines)
> Ok, the plot gets thicker. > > http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/ > > Now, this is third-hand info, so it has to be taken with a grain of salt. > > And this sure as hell ain't what the License says! > > -Larry >Technically couldn't you run 98se then? I mean that's really a non argument
and more of a geek statement :)
Someday you may want DX10. Though that rumor about DX10 not being
compatible with XP may be more BS than truth.
Im enjoying Vista RC2 myself. It includes many nice features but most
importantly it is really the first version of Windows to focus on security
more than backward compatibility. Its fast looks great is stable and should
help stem the tide of internet threats. The price is steep (greedy
bastards) but if you go with the upgrade version of Home Ultimate or Basic
for $99-150 it not that bad. Well worth it if you have a DX10 capable video
card (of which I don't know any) but not really before then I guess.
Mitch
"Alan Bernardo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> Is there any real reason to get Vista? XP works fine for me.
>
> Alanb
>
Mitch_A wrote:
. The price is steep (greedy
> bastards) but if you go with the upgrade version of Home Ultimate or Basic
> for $99-150 it not that bad. Well worth it if you have a DX10 capable video
> card (of which I don't know any) but not really before then I guess.
>
I disaggree with your well worth it statement; maybe if it was $40 a
copy, but when driver updates or the inevitable hardware upgrade
triggers reactivation leaving you with no activations left the value of
vista really becomes a question of how much money do you have to throw
away
Alan Bernardo wrote:
> Is there any real reason to get Vista?
If you wish to enjoy DX10-based PC games, which will eventually be all
of them, sure.
On 2 Nov 2006 09:10:47 -0800, [email hidden] wrote:
> I disaggree with your well worth it statement; maybe if it was $40 a
> copy, but when driver updates or the inevitable hardware upgrade
> triggers reactivation leaving you with no activations left the value of
> vista really becomes a question of how much money do you have to throw
> away
Ignore MitchA, he's just an ignorant buffoon. The Vista EULA has been
reversed because of all the bitching.
http://news.zdnet.com/Microsoft+backtracks+on+Vista+transfer+limits/2100-3513_22-6131900.html?part=netscape-zdnet&tag=mynetscape&subj=technews
Ignore MitchA, he's just an ignorant buffoon. The Vista EULA has been
reversed because of all the ***ing.
[link lost in import: /+backtracks+on+Vista+transfer+limits/2]
I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that DX10 would
eventually be made for XP. The installed base of XP is to much to be
ignored.
jason moyer wrote:
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Alan Bernardo wrote: > >> Is there any real reason to get Vista? > > If you wish to enjoy DX10-based PC games, which will eventually be all > of them, sure. >On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:22:27 GMT, Zed wrote:
> I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that DX10 would
> eventually be made for XP. The installed base of XP is to much to be
> ignored.
No, it won't. That rumour came about because The Inquirer put out
misinforamtion. If you want DX10 then you will need Vista.
Considering console games are $60 I'd say $40 for Vista is pretty bad
estimate based on cost/complexity ratios. I guess even at $40 with the
sheer volume they would still get rich but in any case I see it as a worthy
successor to XP for $150 when I do my next system upg.. YMMV.
It's good to see MS clarify the activation situation in our favor (unlimited
reactivations). As I said all along based on the evidence publicly
available the Vista activation mechanism will be no different than XP and
low n behold guess what..... It is the same...
Screamers like Trev and Critter are usually wrong and this episode of "The
days of RAS" once again highlights their ignorance at the expense of reason
and wisdom.
Mitch
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
Quoted text (7 lines)
> > I disaggree with your well worth it statement; maybe if it was $40 a > copy, but when driver updates or the inevitable hardware upgrade > triggers reactivation leaving you with no activations left the value of > vista really becomes a question of how much money do you have to throw > away >All the bullshit that crosses your lips is misinformation Critter. You are
CONSTANTLY WRONG yet you still show up making an ass of yourself daily.
What a fn fool.
And you know this how?
Just crawl back into your tinfoil infested hole already you sad little
retarded fuckwit...
Mitch
"Crispy Critter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > No, it won't. That
rumour came about because The Inquirer put out
> misinforamtion. If you want DX10 then you will need Vista.
Mitch_A wrote:
Then why did they say they *changed* it back to how it was in XP? Forget
it. It's too complicated for you.
Quoted text (15 lines)
> Considering console games are $60 I'd say $40 for Vista is pretty bad > estimate based on cost/complexity ratios. I guess even at $40 with the > sheer volume they would still get rich but in any case I see it as a worthy > successor to XP for $150 when I do my next system upg.. YMMV. > > It's good to see MS clarify the activation situation in our favor (unlimited > reactivations). As I said all along based on the evidence publicly > available the Vista activation mechanism will be no different than XP and > low n behold guess what..... It is the same... > > Screamers like Trev and Critter are usually wrong and this episode of "The > days of RAS" once again highlights their ignorance at the expense of reason > and wisdom. > > MitchOn Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:44:41 GMT, Mitch_A wrote:
> Screamers like Trev and Critter are usually wrong and this episode of "The
> days of RAS" once again highlights their ignorance at the expense of reason
> and wisdom.
It was only changed because of all the bitching, twat.
