Windows Vista Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

[GorkusPuss]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:10:28 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
> <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> What is totally ludicious and gelastic is to assume by any stretch of
> wild imagination that Microsoft or any software company for licensing
> purposes gets to set a legal definition of what a "new machine" is.
> Microsoft sells software, not hardware. A "system" is what the owner
> says it is. If I at some point need to replace a power supply or
> motherboard, maybe both, that doesn't constitute a new machine. I'm
> simply repairing the old one. To think as some moronic dreebs do that
> Microsoft can/should demand you pay for a new license if this happens
> borders on insanity.

Agreed, also you can check the "I Agree" check box for the EULA, to enable the "Next >"
button (and press it) whist installing MS Vista (or XP, 2K, MSO2007 and any other version),
if your name is not on any contract (including EULA) and signed, they (MS) have buckley's
legal recourse over you.

> Like with all things the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
> One day, soon I hope a series of law suits with slap Microsoft in the
> face with all it's illegal activities and self-centered abusive
> practices like supporting DRM that they have attempted to force down
> user's throats through flowerily but clearly illegal language in EULA
> documents. I'll smugly smile and say I told you so when that day
> finally happens. It will be sooner then some think.

Disagreed, as long as there is more money than, sand grains on Earth + the stars in our
immediate universe involved, all MS legal punishments will be for the cameras only.

- GorkusPuss

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Sat, 24 May 2008 23:05:44 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
<orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:32:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:10:28 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
>><orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:29:52 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Not Me" <cargodZeroOne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3EAF3E8E-8F6D-4A5E-B81F-D3D382125922@microsoft.com...
>>>>> The other thing with OEM software is that it is tied to the first machine
>>>>> it is installed on and you can not (legally) use it on another system.
>>>>
>>>>I keep reading this but I'm wondering just how far you have to go before
>>>>it's "another system."
>>>>
>>>>I had a computer I'd built a couple of years back and installed Vista
>>>>Ultimate OEM on it around the beginning of 2007.
>>>>
>>>>During the summer of '07, I replace the motherboard, video and DVD drive.
>>>>Fired up and let Vista figure out the changes. Afterwards it said I needed
>>>>to activate, which I'd expected. I called them up, told them what I'd done.
>>>>They asked if I had another copy of Vista from this DVD running on another
>>>>computer, and I said "no." They phrased the question a different way, and I
>>>>still said "no." Next thing I know, he's giving me a new activation (or
>>>>whatever it is) number.
>>>>
>>>>In the sense that it's the same powers supply, case, and hard drive, I
>>>>suppose it's the same computer.
>>>>
>>>>What I wonder is, just how far could I have gone with replacing things
>>>>before they'd have given me a hard time about it? Or if they would? The
>>>>only thing he seemed concerned about was whether there was another instance
>>>>of Vista FROM THAT DVD running on another computer anywhere.
>>>>
>>>>So, as a practical matter, how far can you go before they tell you you've
>>>>got to get a new license?
>>>>
>>>> - Bill
>>>
>>>Microsoft has YET to clearly define just WHAT a "new machine" is IN
>>>ITS OEM EULA. Yet they make licensing decisions based on their
>>>INTERNAL definition of what constitutes a "new machine", rather than
>>>the OEM EULA language.
>>
>>What is totally ludicious and gelastic is to assume by any stretch of
>>wild imagination that Microsoft or any software company for licensing
>>purposes gets to set a legal definition of what a "new machine" is.
>>Microsoft sells software, not hardware. A "system" is what the owner
>>says it is. If I at some point need to replace a power supply or
>>motherboard, maybe both, that doesn't constitute a new machine. I'm
>>simply repairing the old one. To think as some moronic dreebs do that
>>Microsoft can/should demand you pay for a new license if this happens
>>borders on insanity.
>>
>>Like with all things the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
>>One day, soon I hope a series of law suits with slap Microsoft in the
>>face with all it's illegal activities and self-centered abusive
>>practices like supporting DRM that they have attempted to force down
>>user's throats through flowerily but clearly illegal language in EULA
>>documents. I'll smugly smile and say I told you so when that day
>>finally happens. It will be sooner then some think.
>>
>
>Adam, since I am not here for the purpose of defending (or attacking)
>DRM, I will try to be a little diplomatic.
>
>This is the way I think about DRM:
>
>1) Each artist should get paid for each time one of his works is used
>in Public.
>2) To insure that he is properly paid, such interested organizations
>as the MPAA, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild, the Academy of
>Motion Picture and Arts, the Actors' Guild, RIAA, and others exist.
>3) HOW he is paid is strictly up to the Artist, in partnership with
>his counsel and the Publisher or user of his work.
>4) Who is to be appointed as the commercial arbiter between the Artist
>and the user should be up to the People, not Hollywood agents subject
>to the big Cartels' financial control.
>5) For this reason, I suggest that a Federal Commission for the
>Performing Arts, Graphic and Digital Arts, and Folk Art be
>established, which will investigate what a fair price for the sale of
>a CD or DVD should be, and what the royalty for public display or
>performance of the work of an Artist should be.
>6) To do their jobs effectively, the members of this Commission will
>need the cooperation of those interested organizations mentioned
>above, as well as the trust and cooperation of the Artists, their
>representives, sponsors/patrons, and admiring audience, the People.
>7) Only the People, through referendum, or the Government, by enacting
>laws compelling its creation, can cause such a Commission to be
>formed.
>8)And only a Government can compel such a Commission's decisions to be
>respected and obeyed.
>
>All of this leads me to ask myself "HOW are such a Commission's edicts
>to be put into practice?" What is to guarantee that someone won't buy
>a single copy of a movie, for instance, and sell copies of it all over
>the Web to every "Tom, Dick, Harry, and Susan" WITHOUT paying the
>Author the royalty he certainly deserves?
>
>WE all know the answer to that one, Adam: SOME form of DRM is needed
>in this age of cheap and powerful computers, with small, cheap, and
>powerful storage devices -- so small, as much data may be put on a
>single 2GB Flash drive the size of half-a-stick of chewing gum, as
>formerly fit on three 720MB CDRs.
>
>Of all this I am sure you are aware.
>And I hope my faith is not misplaced in your sense of fair-play and
>decency when I insist that "some form" of DRM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
>in a "Laize Faire" economy... maybe in a world in which money played
>no part in daily life, we could put all our work where anyone could
>use it if he needed it, and if he never replaced it, someone else
>would replace it with something better. Such are the dreams of poets
>and anarchists.
>
>The Dutch say it best: "Taanstafl", being roughly translated,
>"There's no such thing as a free lunch."
>
>But I would rather see this field of Digital Entertainment regulated
>by a Government commission, rather than the Industry itself. At least
>the prices would stay low.
>
>Allowing the Industry to regulate itself would be tantamount to NO
>control over the greed of the Industry, and loss to the consumer.
>
>
>Donald L McDaniel
>Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
>========================================================

My response is simple and to the point. It isn't the job of any
operating system to police end users. Period. That is what DRM
attempts to do ignoring the rights of people like you and me that may
only wish to make backup copies of copyrighted material (which is
perfectly legal) which often DRM won't allow or at the very least
interferes with.

While Microsoft won't admit it, it seems likely they have also
interwoven DRM into various system routines which is likely part of
the reason file copying has slowed to a crawl in Vista compared to XP.
If true, why should tens of millions of users every day put up with
slower file transfers simply to help the Hollywood crowd further line
their pockets chasing after every last penny?

What will be next?

Microsoft has already admitted they've let several government agencies
snoop at Windows code, (the threadbare national security excuse) so
will Microsoft willing help IRS sniff out tax cheats in the future? I
end where I started. DRM has no business being part of any OS. The
purpose of the operating system is to run the computer, not spy on
users.

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Sun, 25 May 2008 00:18:39 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
<orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 24 May 2008 19:23:29 -0400, "Spaceman"
><spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>news:73pg3413i89jhtj85vorjmk1c1sufkuco4@4ax.com...
>>> I'd like to know where all these millions of happy satisfied Vista
>>> users are. Nearly everyone I know that's installed Vista doesn't like
>>> it. <snipped anti-Vista/MS crap>
>>
>>Probably almost every one of them are not here and more than likely having
>>fun playing
>>with Vista in all sorts of ways and have no time/reason to come here
>>nor time/reason to find you to tell you about their non-problems with Vista.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I am an older man, but I do appreciate the younger generation's
>attitude toward work.
>
>Better they should "play" and have fun with what they are doing, than
>forcing themselves to stay on jobs which are dissatisfying, joyless,
>and empty, which is what we did from the '50s onward, until the onset
>of the Digital Information Age in the late '90s.

Excuse me, what does and of the above or what followed now deleted
have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing. I was responding to a
typical smartass little puppy dog still wet behind the ears that as
usual tries to build a Strawman with the ludicrous argument he "works"
and others don't. It never ceases to amaze me how today's crop of
workers foolishly think they know everything there is to know about
computers when my generation was not only using them way longer, but
first developing them when they were still running around in diapers
or in many cases they weren't even born yet.

 

[Linux]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sat, 24 May 2008 23:05:44 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
> <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:32:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 12:10:28 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
>>> <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:29:52 -0400, "Bill Leary" <Bill_Leary@msn.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Not Me" <cargodZeroOne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3EAF3E8E-8F6D-4A5E-B81F-D3D382125922@microsoft.com...
>>>>>> The other thing with OEM software is that it is tied to the first machine
>>>>>> it is installed on and you can not (legally) use it on another system.
>>>>> I keep reading this but I'm wondering just how far you have to go before
>>>>> it's "another system."
>>>>>
>>>>> I had a computer I'd built a couple of years back and installed Vista
>>>>> Ultimate OEM on it around the beginning of 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> During the summer of '07, I replace the motherboard, video and DVD drive.
>>>>> Fired up and let Vista figure out the changes. Afterwards it said I needed
>>>>> to activate, which I'd expected. I called them up, told them what I'd done.
>>>>> They asked if I had another copy of Vista from this DVD running on another
>>>>> computer, and I said "no." They phrased the question a different way, and I
>>>>> still said "no." Next thing I know, he's giving me a new activation (or
>>>>> whatever it is) number.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sense that it's the same powers supply, case, and hard drive, I
>>>>> suppose it's the same computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I wonder is, just how far could I have gone with replacing things
>>>>> before they'd have given me a hard time about it? Or if they would? The
>>>>> only thing he seemed concerned about was whether there was another instance
>>>>> of Vista FROM THAT DVD running on another computer anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as a practical matter, how far can you go before they tell you you've
>>>>> got to get a new license?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Bill
>>>> Microsoft has YET to clearly define just WHAT a "new machine" is IN
>>>> ITS OEM EULA. Yet they make licensing decisions based on their
>>>> INTERNAL definition of what constitutes a "new machine", rather than
>>>> the OEM EULA language.
>>> What is totally ludicious and gelastic is to assume by any stretch of
>>> wild imagination that Microsoft or any software company for licensing
>>> purposes gets to set a legal definition of what a "new machine" is.
>>> Microsoft sells software, not hardware. A "system" is what the owner
>>> says it is. If I at some point need to replace a power supply or
>>> motherboard, maybe both, that doesn't constitute a new machine. I'm
>>> simply repairing the old one. To think as some moronic dreebs do that
>>> Microsoft can/should demand you pay for a new license if this happens
>>> borders on insanity.
>>>
>>> Like with all things the pendulum has swung too far in one direction.
>>> One day, soon I hope a series of law suits with slap Microsoft in the
>>> face with all it's illegal activities and self-centered abusive
>>> practices like supporting DRM that they have attempted to force down
>>> user's throats through flowerily but clearly illegal language in EULA
>>> documents. I'll smugly smile and say I told you so when that day
>>> finally happens. It will be sooner then some think.
>>>
>> Adam, since I am not here for the purpose of defending (or attacking)
>> DRM, I will try to be a little diplomatic.
>>
>> This is the way I think about DRM:
>>
>> 1) Each artist should get paid for each time one of his works is used
>> in Public.
>> 2) To insure that he is properly paid, such interested organizations
>> as the MPAA, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild, the Academy of
>> Motion Picture and Arts, the Actors' Guild, RIAA, and others exist.
>> 3) HOW he is paid is strictly up to the Artist, in partnership with
>> his counsel and the Publisher or user of his work.
>> 4) Who is to be appointed as the commercial arbiter between the Artist
>> and the user should be up to the People, not Hollywood agents subject
>> to the big Cartels' financial control.
>> 5) For this reason, I suggest that a Federal Commission for the
>> Performing Arts, Graphic and Digital Arts, and Folk Art be
>> established, which will investigate what a fair price for the sale of
>> a CD or DVD should be, and what the royalty for public display or
>> performance of the work of an Artist should be.
>> 6) To do their jobs effectively, the members of this Commission will
>> need the cooperation of those interested organizations mentioned
>> above, as well as the trust and cooperation of the Artists, their
>> representives, sponsors/patrons, and admiring audience, the People.
>> 7) Only the People, through referendum, or the Government, by enacting
>> laws compelling its creation, can cause such a Commission to be
>> formed.
>> 8)And only a Government can compel such a Commission's decisions to be
>> respected and obeyed.
>>
>> All of this leads me to ask myself "HOW are such a Commission's edicts
>> to be put into practice?" What is to guarantee that someone won't buy
>> a single copy of a movie, for instance, and sell copies of it all over
>> the Web to every "Tom, Dick, Harry, and Susan" WITHOUT paying the
>> Author the royalty he certainly deserves?
>>
>> WE all know the answer to that one, Adam: SOME form of DRM is needed
>> in this age of cheap and powerful computers, with small, cheap, and
>> powerful storage devices -- so small, as much data may be put on a
>> single 2GB Flash drive the size of half-a-stick of chewing gum, as
>> formerly fit on three 720MB CDRs.
>>
>> Of all this I am sure you are aware.
>> And I hope my faith is not misplaced in your sense of fair-play and
>> decency when I insist that "some form" of DRM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY
>> in a "Laize Faire" economy... maybe in a world in which money played
>> no part in daily life, we could put all our work where anyone could
>> use it if he needed it, and if he never replaced it, someone else
>> would replace it with something better. Such are the dreams of poets
>> and anarchists.
>>
>> The Dutch say it best: "Taanstafl", being roughly translated,
>> "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
>>
>> But I would rather see this field of Digital Entertainment regulated
>> by a Government commission, rather than the Industry itself. At least
>> the prices would stay low.
>>
>> Allowing the Industry to regulate itself would be tantamount to NO
>> control over the greed of the Industry, and loss to the consumer.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
>> ========================================================
>
> My response is simple and to the point. It isn't the job of any
> operating system to police end users. Period. That is what DRM
> attempts to do ignoring the rights of people like you and me that may
> only wish to make backup copies of copyrighted material (which is
> perfectly legal) which often DRM won't allow or at the very least
> interferes with.


You're back at again fool, from a long day the previous day fool.
>
> While Microsoft won't admit it, it seems likely they have also
> interwoven DRM into various system routines which is likely part of
> the reason file copying has slowed to a crawl in Vista compared to XP.
> If true, why should tens of millions of users every day put up with
> slower file transfers simply to help the Hollywood crowd further line
> their pockets chasing after every last penny?
>
> What will be next?

Another long day of your non-stop BS.
>
> Microsoft has already admitted they've let several government agencies
> snoop at Windows code, (the threadbare national security excuse) so
> will Microsoft willing help IRS sniff out tax cheats in the future? I
> end where I started. DRM has no business being part of any OS. The
> purpose of the operating system is to run the computer, not spy on
> users.
>

It's more BS from you, and you don't set the standards in Information
Technology, you at it all day long fool.

 

[Adam Albright]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:00:58 +1000, GorkusPuss <g_p@msnews.grp> wrote:

>
>Donald this opens a discussion greater than a U.N Charter. Albeit just as expensive and
>partially conclusive, but not to the favour of those it intends to serve.
>
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:32:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>> Adam, since I am not here for the purpose of defending (or attacking)
>> DRM, I will try to be a little diplomatic.
>>
>> This is the way I think about DRM:
>>
>> 1) Each artist should get paid for each time one of his works is used
>> in Public.
>
>Agreed, as long as 250+ people at 21st birthday party does not constitute public usage of an
>artists work.

>
>> 2) To insure that he is properly paid, such interested organizations
>> as the MPAA, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild, the Academy of
>> Motion Picture and Arts, the Actors' Guild, RIAA, and others exist.

Most people have no idea what a greedy bunch of bastards the above
groups are. For example few people are aware that the little ditty
"Happy Birthday", we've all sung to family and friends actually enjoys
copyright protection. If sung in a public setting without paying
royalties, you are in violation of it's copyright. This is what
dreamers like Donald are defending by supporting DRM.

Think I'm kidding, Google the topic and see how intrusive current
copyright laws are regarding laughable "works" of art. For those that
forgot, the following actually enjoys copyright protection:

Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday to you,
Happy Birthday dear XXXXXXX
Happy Birthday to you!

Further what few people know is those of us wishing to LEGALLY use
some artist's work need to jump through multiple hoops just to ask
permission and often since multiple rights are involved, too complex a
topic to really get into in this thread, the "artists" are actually
preventing themselves from earning extra income.

 

[Linux]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

Adam Albright wrote:
> On Sun, 25 May 2008 00:18:39 -0700, Donald L McDaniel
> <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 19:23:29 -0400, "Spaceman"
>> <spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
>>> news:73pg3413i89jhtj85vorjmk1c1sufkuco4@4ax.com...
>>>> I'd like to know where all these millions of happy satisfied Vista
>>>> users are. Nearly everyone I know that's installed Vista doesn't like
>>>> it. <snipped anti-Vista/MS crap>
>>> Probably almost every one of them are not here and more than likely having
>>> fun playing
>>> with Vista in all sorts of ways and have no time/reason to come here
>>> nor time/reason to find you to tell you about their non-problems with Vista.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I am an older man, but I do appreciate the younger generation's
>> attitude toward work.
>>
>> Better they should "play" and have fun with what they are doing, than
>> forcing themselves to stay on jobs which are dissatisfying, joyless,
>> and empty, which is what we did from the '50s onward, until the onset
>> of the Digital Information Age in the late '90s.
>
> Excuse me, what does and of the above or what followed now deleted
> have to do with the subject at hand? Nothing. I was responding to a
> typical smartass little puppy dog still wet behind the ears that as
> usual tries to build a Strawman with the ludicrous argument he "works"
> and others don't. It never ceases to amaze me how today's crop of
> workers foolishly think they know everything there is to know about
> computers when my generation was not only using them way longer, but
> first developing them when they were still running around in diapers
> or in many cases they weren't even born yet.
>

What a smartass old fool dog you are, yes you are a dog, yapping Albright.

 

[norm]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:19:01 -0400, "C.B."
> <notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Nijmegen" <Nijmegen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3EF75FBD-1F93-46B3-9272-308CF6419B00@microsoft.com...
>>> ...or is it also for users, who don't run a comapny?
>>>
>>> I have bought a Windows VISTA DVD and when I received it, it had "OEM
>>> System
>>> Builder Pack" written on it.
>>>
>>> It also says: "EXCLUSIVELY for system builders."
>>>
>>> And after some research on the Wikipedia I see that COMPANIES that sell
>>> PCs
>>> normally buy OEM licenced software.
>>>
>>> I gues users should buy a "retail" version. (NOT OEM versions)
>>>
>>> Am I right?
>>>
>>> Or is it OK to install it?
>>>
>>> Because Wikipedia says the requirements are:"The requirements include:
>>> automated methods of installation of the product; customization of the
>>> installation to identify the OEM; first level technical support of the
>>> product..etc."
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_equipment_manufacturer)
>>>
>>> I want to install it because there's NO 64-bit Vista Ultimate in my
>>> language...excepting this OEM version. But I don't know what the
>>> consequences
>>> might be...(I mean, I can't add info about customer support, my company's
>>> name, etc....Because I'm just a user, not a manufacturer!)
>> Nijmegen,
>> I'm not an attorney, MVP or Microsoft employee and as such I am not
>> familiar with the legalese of System Builder OEM licenses.
>> I do know that OEM licenses are for sale on many websites as a
>> standalone product but I don't know if the versions being sold are "System
>> Builder" copies. It's my understanding that "System Builder" OEM licenses
>> are to be sold as part of and already installed on a machine when offered
>> for sale. Of course, I could be wrong.
>> When you purchase a computer with a Microsoft Windows OS preinstalled
>> you are receiving an OEM copy of Windows, which is much cheaper than the
>> retail edition and as such can only be used on the computer it came
>> preinstalled on. It cannot be transferred to another machine regardless of
>> the reason. It is tied to the motherboard of the machine it came with.
>> However, you can replace many hardware components of the original machine
>> and reactivate the license, provided Microsoft decides that you haven't
>> replaced so many hardware components that you in effect have created a "new"
>> computer. The decision is made by Microsoft.
>> My advice is to purchase a retail license if you decide to do an
>> upgrade as a retail license can be used on any computer you desire so long
>> as it is used on only one machine at a time. There is no time limit on the
>> license. When you purchase a retail Windows OS the support for the product
>> is provided by Microsoft, but only for a short period. When you purchase a
>> computer with an OEM edition of Windows preinstalled the support for the OS
>> is provided by the computer vendor and in most cases is for the length of
>> your warranty period on the computer. If you purchase a computer with the
>> OEM Windows OS preinstalled, and then decide to do a retail upgrade
>> (purchased from another company) during the warranty period, you may or may
>> not void the computer warranty. At the very least, you will not receive any
>> support from the computer vendor for the upgraded OS. If you purchase and
>> install a retail Windows OS upgrade from the computer vendor during the
>> warranty period you may or may not void the warranty and/or receive support
>>from them for the upgraded OS. You would have to contact the computer vendor
>> prior to purchasing the retail upgrade to determine your rights. The same
>> applies for an OEM upgrade purchased from the computer vendor to be used on
>> the vendor's computer that was sold to you. If your computer is still under
>> warranty, always check with the vendor prior to purchasing another OS to be
>> used on the computer.
>> You did not state whether this OEM "System Builder" OS is to be used on
>> an existing machine that already has a Windows OS installed on it or if it
>> is to be used on a new computer you purchased that currently has no OS
>> installed on it or if you built a new computer yourself and wish to install
>> its first OS.
>> If you are going to install Vista on a computer you have had for some
>> time, chances are you don't have the necessary hardware to properly run
>> Vista. In this case, you may end up paying more for the necessary hardware
>> than you would pay for a new, Vista capable computer. Keep in mind that a
>> computer that is capable of running Vista Home basic may not be capable of
>> running the other editions of Vista effectively.
>> I'm certain you will receive more relevant answers from more
>> knowledgeable people once they have read your post.
>>
>> C.B.
>
> More to the point, anyone may purchase and use a "System Builder Kit",
> as long as he also buys a "necessary" hardware item. But it's not
> necessary to buy a full system to be able to buy and use such a
> License.
Donald, just as a point of interest, both newegg and tigerdirect (among
others), previously required multiple hardware purchases or proof of
such recent purchases when purchasing xp oem. There were no such
requirements for vista oem. Looking at the sites today, there is no
requirement for ANY hardware purchase for either. The hardware purchase
requirement has been on and off for xp oem on many sites over the past
year, at least, based on my usage of such sites. I have never seen such
a hardware requirement for vista oem based on my usage of the sites.

>
> I suggest that the user compromise, and purchase a retail "UPGRADE"
> edition of his chosen OS. This will give him the transferrability of
> a retail license, and the lower price for the Upgrade media (and which
> is fairly close to the price of OEM media, anyway.)
>
> HOWEVER, this will not be expedient if he has no previous copy of XP
> or Win2k. If that's the case, I suggest that the user purchase a
> System Builder Kit, along with a new HD or some other piece of needed
> hardware -- even a power cord or mouse will do to satisfy the License
> terms, and he will be able to install the License on any machine using
> Windows.
>
> There really is no reason to purchase a Full Retail copy of Windows.
> The odds of the user losing the original installation media and CD key
> are low enough to not need a "Full Retail" copy. And few users today
> do not have a previous copy of XP or 2k hanging around somewhere.
>
> If the user plans on going through MANY computers in his lifetime, he
> SHOULD purchase Full Retail Windows installation media, since it would
> be a better value in that case.
>
> Remember, however, that all support will devolve on the user's own
> shoulders when using OEM software should something go wrong with his
> OS, since as the builder of the machine upon which it is installed (or
> the Installer of the OS), the user himself becomes the responsible
> "System Builder" or "OEM".
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================


--
norm

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Sun, 25 May 2008 09:03:12 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 25 May 2008 18:00:58 +1000, GorkusPuss <g_p@msnews.grp> wrote:
>
>>
>>Donald this opens a discussion greater than a U.N Charter. Albeit just as expensive and
>>partially conclusive, but not to the favour of those it intends to serve.
>>
>>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 May 2008 14:32:48 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>>> Adam, since I am not here for the purpose of defending (or attacking)
>>> DRM, I will try to be a little diplomatic.
>>>
>>> This is the way I think about DRM:
>>>
>>> 1) Each artist should get paid for each time one of his works is used
>>> in Public.
>>
>>Agreed, as long as 250+ people at 21st birthday party does not constitute public usage of an
>>artists work.
>
>>
>>> 2) To insure that he is properly paid, such interested organizations
>>> as the MPAA, the Authors Guild, the Directors Guild, the Academy of
>>> Motion Picture and Arts, the Actors' Guild, RIAA, and others exist.

Making this claim is NOT the same as "supporting their sense of ethics
and fair-play." While these groups may or may not be greedier than
most other groups which supposedly support the producers and authors
of popular media, they WERE originally formed for just that purpose.

That they've wandered from that good purpose has nothing to do with
the fact that they DID help artists at one time or another. Their
wandering from their original purposes is a story for another time and
place.

>Most people have no idea what a greedy bunch of bastards the above
>groups are. For example few people are aware that the little ditty
>"Happy Birthday", we've all sung to family and friends actually enjoys
>copyright protection. If sung in a public setting without paying
>royalties, you are in violation of it's copyright. This is what
>dreamers like Donald are defending by supporting DRM.

Actually, Adam, I was not necessarily "supporting DRM" in my post. I
WAS supporting the idea that all artists should be paid fairly for
their work, like all others. I was also supporting the idea that
users shouldn't ask for, or expect to get for FREE, what cost others
their time, money, and energy to produce.

>
>Think I'm kidding, Google the topic and see how intrusive current
>copyright laws are regarding laughable "works" of art. For those that
>forgot, the following actually enjoys copyright protection:
>
>Happy Birthday to you,
>Happy Birthday to you,
>Happy Birthday dear XXXXXXX
>Happy Birthday to you!
>
>Further what few people know is those of us wishing to LEGALLY use
>some artist's work need to jump through multiple hoops just to ask
>permission and often since multiple rights are involved, too complex a
>topic to really get into in this thread, the "artists" are actually
>preventing themselves from earning extra income.

Maybe they need to get away from their "counselors", Adam. Some have,
and have prospered because of it.

Anyway, to end this, join the Communist Party, Adam, and be a high-up
"apparatchik". You will never need to worry about Digital Rights
again. Unless, of course, you get stood up against a wall and shot
through the head during one of the many purges for which they were
famous.

Or, be an anarchist, and go on rampages through the streets blocking
traffic, breaking windows, and stealing what you would otherwise have
to pay for while you "PROTEST" "government excesses".

Anarchism is an irrational political philosophy, and is not practical
in a world inhabited by 6 Billions of other human beings.

There HAVE to be laws and licenses, and such. They help to keep us
from becoming nations full of thieves and murderers.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Sun, 25 May 2008 12:33:38 -0400, norm <noone@nowhere.net> wrote:

>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:19:01 -0400, "C.B."
>> <notreallyc.b.mullen@windowslive.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Nijmegen" <Nijmegen@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:3EF75FBD-1F93-46B3-9272-308CF6419B00@microsoft.com...
>>>> ...or is it also for users, who don't run a comapny?
>>>>
>>>> I have bought a Windows VISTA DVD and when I received it, it had "OEM
>>>> System
>>>> Builder Pack" written on it.
>>>>
>>>> It also says: "EXCLUSIVELY for system builders."
>>>>
>>>> And after some research on the Wikipedia I see that COMPANIES that sell
>>>> PCs
>>>> normally buy OEM licenced software.
>>>>
>>>> I gues users should buy a "retail" version. (NOT OEM versions)
>>>>
>>>> Am I right?
>>>>
>>>> Or is it OK to install it?
>>>>
>>>> Because Wikipedia says the requirements are:"The requirements include:
>>>> automated methods of installation of the product; customization of the
>>>> installation to identify the OEM; first level technical support of the
>>>> product..etc."
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_equipment_manufacturer)
>>>>
>>>> I want to install it because there's NO 64-bit Vista Ultimate in my
>>>> language...excepting this OEM version. But I don't know what the
>>>> consequences
>>>> might be...(I mean, I can't add info about customer support, my company's
>>>> name, etc....Because I'm just a user, not a manufacturer!)
>>> Nijmegen,
>>> I'm not an attorney, MVP or Microsoft employee and as such I am not
>>> familiar with the legalese of System Builder OEM licenses.
>>> I do know that OEM licenses are for sale on many websites as a
>>> standalone product but I don't know if the versions being sold are "System
>>> Builder" copies. It's my understanding that "System Builder" OEM licenses
>>> are to be sold as part of and already installed on a machine when offered
>>> for sale. Of course, I could be wrong.

Anyone may purchase one of these, as long as the requirements of the
System Builder License are abided by. AFIK, there is no requirement to
purchase an entire System to be able to use this license.

>>> When you purchase a computer with a Microsoft Windows OS preinstalled
>>> you are receiving an OEM copy of Windows, which is much cheaper than the
>>> retail edition and as such can only be used on the computer it came
>>> preinstalled on. It cannot be transferred to another machine regardless of
>>> the reason. It is tied to the motherboard of the machine it came with.

This is just not so (that it is tied to the motherboard). Read an XP
OEM EULA, for instance. In fact, it is tied to the ENTIRE machine,
not just the motherboard, and one of the conditions which must be met
when transferring such a license are that the original machine must
also be transferred along with the license. IF it were tied JUST TO
THE MOTHERBOARD, only the motherboard would be required to be
transferred.

>>> However, you can replace many hardware components of the original machine
>>> and reactivate the license, provided Microsoft decides

Actually, it is not "Microsoft" which usually makes this decision to
reactiveate such licenses. Individual Activation techs make this
decision. Whether they follow Microsoft's directions in doing it, I
do not know. All I know is that as far as reactivating an OEM license
is concerned, they are the same as "god".


>>> that you haven't replaced so many hardware components that you in
>>> effect have created a "new" computer. The decision is made by Microsoft.

Again, I disagree. While this is "technically" true, in practice,
such decisions are made by people in a call-center somewhere.

>>> My advice is to purchase a retail license if you decide to do an
>>> upgrade as a retail license can be used on any computer you desire so long
>>> as it is used on only one machine at a time. There is no time limit on the
>>> license.

Actually, there is no time limit on ANY Microsoft license, whether OEM
or Retail.

>>> When you purchase a retail Windows OS the support for the product
>>> is provided by Microsoft, but only for a short period.

Actually, Microsoft provides support for one of its OSes till their
"End of Life". Some support is not freely givern, however.

>>>When you purchase a
>>> computer with an OEM edition of Windows preinstalled the support for the OS
>>> is provided by the computer vendor and in most cases is for the length of
>>> your warranty period on the computer. If you purchase a computer with the
>>> OEM Windows OS preinstalled, and then decide to do a retail upgrade
>>> (purchased from another company) during the warranty period, you may or may
>>> not void the computer warranty. At the very least, you will not receive any
>>> support from the computer vendor for the upgraded OS. If you purchase and
>>> install a retail Windows OS upgrade from the computer vendor during the
>>> warranty period you may or may not void the warranty and/or receive support
>>>from them for the upgraded OS. You would have to contact the computer vendor
>>> prior to purchasing the retail upgrade to determine your rights. The same

Since all "Retail Upgrade" editions of Windows are FULLY SUPPORTED BY
MICROSOFT, NOT the OEM, the OEM never enters the picture.


>>> applies for an OEM upgrade

Again, there is no such thing as an "OEM UPGRADE".

>>> purchased from the computer vendor to be used on
>>> the vendor's computer that was sold to you. If your computer is still under
>>> warranty, always check with the vendor prior to purchasing another OS to be
>>> used on the computer.

Why? All installing a non-OEM version of Windows on an OEM computer
does is (maybe) cause the warranty for the OS support to lapse during
the time the non-OEM copy of Windows is installed on that particular
machine.


>>> You did not state whether this OEM "System Builder" OS is to be used on
>>> an existing machine that already has a Windows OS installed on it or if it
>>> is to be used on a new computer you purchased that currently has no OS
>>> installed on it or if you built a new computer yourself and wish to install
>>> its first OS.

I might also add, if one is just the INSTALLER of such a license, he
would be well within his rights to purchase such a license.

Anyway, this is completely irrelevant to the license or its validity.
Any such license would be DIFFERENT than the one already on the
Computer. There is absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing a NEW
license and using it. In fact, Microsoft WANTS us to do this, though
they do not REQUIRE it.

>>> If you are going to install Vista on a computer you have had for some
>>> time,

That really depends on how long that period of time has been. Over a
year, maybe it might affect one's ability to install Vista; over 3
years, and it will definitely affect the ability to install Vista.

>>>chances are you don't have the necessary hardware to properly run
>>> Vista. In this case, you may end up paying more for the necessary hardware

One must have an "older computer" indeed to wind up doing this.
I would't even CONSIDER upgrading such a computer to Vista.

>>> than you would pay for a new, Vista capable computer.

I guess that really depends on what you would pay for a new Vista
*Premium* (Home Premium or Ultimate)-capable computer.

I do blame Microsoft for this brou-ha-ha, since they were not very
clear on the exact specs a machine able to run the PREMIUM versions of
Vista needed.

In fact, in general, I believe they've been MUCH too liberal in their
estimates for Vista's minimum hardware requirements, and because of
this, many were faceed with the reality that they could NOT use their
new OS on their OLD machines as they wanted to, and as they thought
Microsoft meant they would be able to.

>>> Keep in mind that a computer that is capable of running Vista Home basic may not be capable of
>>> running the other editions of Vista effectively.

So true. Let's face it: To use the higher-end features of Vista,
including Aero, one MUST have a heftier machine than the MINIMUM
requirements published by Microsoft.

We can argue about it, fight about it, or cry about it. NONE of our
histrionics will help the matter. The ONLY way to "fix" it is to use
a more powerful machine. PERIOD.

<snip>

>> More to the point, anyone may purchase and use a "System Builder Kit",
>> as long as he also buys a "necessary" hardware item. But it's not
>> necessary to buy a full system to be able to buy and use such a
>> License.

>Donald, just as a point of interest, both newegg and tigerdirect (among
>others), previously required multiple hardware purchases or proof of
>such recent purchases when purchasing xp oem.

I guess both NewEgg and TigerDirect decided to stop accepting the
newer OEM License changes which came with XP. All Microsoft required
with the new License was that a "necessary piece" of system hardware
be purchased along with the O.S. This "necessary piece" of hardware
can be something as cheap as a power cord (a dollar or two), or as
expensive as an entirely new machine, or anything in between. The
only condition which must be met is that the piece of hardware be
"necessary to the operation of the computer".

And Microsoft didn't help much, either. THEY want us to purchase
higher-priced Retail editions, not cheaper OEM editions, since it
costs them about the same amount of money to support a Retail copy as
it does to support an OEM copy.

Since the costs for support of an OEM product are not paid by
Microsoft, they are not really giving retail owners that much more
support than the OEMs (who provide next to NO support, anyway), so it
results in a HIGHER profit margin for Microsoft when selling Retail
products.

Many third-party retailers included such a power cord or mouse IN THE
PURCHASE-PRICE, to enable the user to be able to easily and quickly
purchase this license from their online shops.

> There were no such
>requirements for vista oem. Looking at the sites today, there is no
>requirement for ANY hardware purchase for either. The hardware purchase
>requirement has been on and off for xp oem on many sites over the past
>year, at least, based on my usage of such sites. I have never seen such
>a hardware requirement for vista oem based on my usage of the sites.

This is probably caused by the general lack of respect folks have had
for Microsoft since the release of XP. Some abide by the System
Builder/OEM sales conditions, and some do not. Those who do, deserve
our respect as well as our dollars. Those who don't do not deserve
anything, including our business.

If you want to know for sure, isn't it more expedient to ask
MICROSOFT, rather than the retailer? After all, it is in the
retailers interest to sell as many licenses as he can, for as little
cost to himself as possible. It costs MORE to stock RETAIL licenses
than it does to stock OEM licenses, so he will make more money selling
OEM licenses than he would by selling Retail licenses.

But Microsoft has ALWAYS expressly forbidden the sale of "stand-alone
Certificates of Authenticity" (i.e., "the CD key apart from the
media"), yet many retailers have ignored this, unlawfully. I would
NEVER purchase a copy of XP from a retailer who refused to provide the
necessary piece of system hardware (whatever it is), or who sold such
"stand-alone" COAs/CD keys.

Anyway, the pricing of Windows licenses is not covered under our
EULAs. Nor are the conditions for the sale of new Windows licenses
covered by the EULA. These prices and conditions are set by Microsoft
Retail, not the legal department, though I am certain that they check
with the Legal department before setting such prices and conditions.

The prices and conditions for the sale of OEM software are set by the
OEM itself, not Microsoft.

>> I suggest that the user compromise, and purchase a retail "UPGRADE"
>> edition of his chosen OS. This will give him the transferrability of
>> a retail license, and the lower price for the Upgrade media (and which
>> is fairly close to the price of OEM media, anyway.)
>>
>> HOWEVER, this will not be expedient if he has no previous copy of XP
>> or Win2k. If that's the case, I suggest that the user purchase a
>> System Builder Kit, along with a new HD or some other piece of needed
>> hardware -- even a power cord or mouse will do to satisfy Microsoft, and he
>> will be able to install a valid License on any machine capable of using Windows.
>>
>> There really is no reason to purchase a Full Retail copy of Windows, other than
>> the transferrability of the License.

>> The odds of the user losing the original installation media and CD key
>> are low enough to not need a "Full Retail" copy. And few users today
>> do not have a previous copy of XP or 2k hanging around somewhere.
>>
>> If the user plans on going through MANY computers in his lifetime, he
>> SHOULD purchase Full Retail Windows installation media, since it would
>> be a better value in that case.
>>
>> Remember, however, that all support will devolve on the user's own
>> shoulders when using OEM software should something go wrong with his
>> OS, since as the builder of the machine upon which it is installed (or
>> the Installer of the OS), the user himself becomes the responsible
>> "System Builder" or "OEM".


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================

 

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4umg3411ejl4icoaqvobbthnpsj07p81rt@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:23:20 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Essentially there is no practical limit. The license specifies only that
>>you
>>can install a single installation to a device. The "device" itself is not
>>specified as any particular piece of hardware, so if you swap out parts
>>for
>>newer ones on occasion you will be able to reactive (by phone generally,
>>which can be time consuming) as long as you don't install with that
>>license
>>to a second system. There's a lot of leeway built into it when it comes to
>>the definition of it being the same system.
>
> Actually, Rick, it is up to the Activation "Technicians", since they
> appear to have CONSIDERABLE leeway.
>
> I've had more than a single copy of XP reactivated when it technically
> shouldn't have been, if the techs were doing what they were supposed
> to.
>
>>
>>The intent of the OEM license is that it is tied to the original hardware
>>it
>>is installed and activated on, but in practice it doesn't hold up quite
>>like
>>that.
>
> I fully agree. In fact, after 120 days from original Activation, the
> Server wipes one's activation record, and for all intents and
> purposes, that one license appears to have never been activated
> before. So there really is no way for Microsoft to tell whether any
> one license has been activated on a different machine, or the number
> of times it has been activated.
>
>>More important is the support aspect, as it falls to the system
>>builder and not Microsoft. In the case of someone purchasing and
>>installing
>>an OEM license copy, it means they are responsible for their own support.
>
> Sorry, friend, but Activation of the OS is NOT done by the OEM, unless
> one of their images are pre-activated in the factory. But the actual
> activation is done through a Microsoft server, not the OEM.
>
> In fact, about the ONLY support major OEMs give is hardware-related,
> not OS-related.

My understanding is tha the OEM is responsible for OS software support. I
haven't required since my first days of computing back when I had windows 95
but the system manufacturere provided all OS support then. When I
experienced Windows issues, they provided tech support.

>>The price difference is due in part to this fact, as Microsoft does not
>>have
>>to incorporate potential support costs into it.
>
> Actually they DO have to support OEM software, to an extent:
> They do promise free phone support until the OS is activated, and any
> other time it needs to be activated, as well as free security and
> other updates such as Service Packs.
>
> That small window is large enough to cost Microsoft beau-coup bucks.
>
> Personally, I sometimes think that the price differential between a
> Retail copy of their OS and an OEM copy is caused by the Market
> itself, rather than support costs. Microsoft simply can't sell enough
> "Retail Boxed" products to keep their bottom line attractive-enough
> for its investors.
>
> A "FULL OEM" copy of a Microsoft OS can do EVERYTHING a Retail copy
> can do EXCEPT do an "Upgrade" installation.
>
> Support? Who cares about support? Microsoft has only supported me
> ONCE, when I bought a non-fuctional Desktop set from them, in which
> case they replaced the set with a functioning (but lesser quality)
> one.
>
> I don't look to either Microsoft or the Computer Manufacturer to
> support me. I support myself. Anyone else can do this, IF they are
> willing to take the time to LEARN about Microsoft Windows and their
> hardware.
>
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
> ========================================================

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Re: Is Windows VISTA -->OEM<-- ONLY for manufacturers?

On Tue, 27 May 2008 15:59:32 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

>"Donald L McDaniel" <orthocross@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4umg3411ejl4icoaqvobbthnpsj07p81rt@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 May 2008 06:23:20 -0400, "Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Essentially there is no practical limit. The license specifies only that
>>>you
>>>can install a single installation to a device. The "device" itself is not
>>>specified as any particular piece of hardware, so if you swap out parts
>>>for
>>>newer ones on occasion you will be able to reactive (by phone generally,
>>>which can be time consuming) as long as you don't install with that
>>>license
>>>to a second system. There's a lot of leeway built into it when it comes to
>>>the definition of it being the same system.
>>
>> Actually, Rick, it is up to the Activation "Technicians", since they
>> appear to have CONSIDERABLE leeway.
>>
>> I've had more than a single copy of XP reactivated when it technically
>> shouldn't have been, if the techs were doing what they were supposed
>> to.
>>
>>>
>>>The intent of the OEM license is that it is tied to the original hardware
>>>it
>>>is installed and activated on, but in practice it doesn't hold up quite
>>>like
>>>that.
>>
>> I fully agree. In fact, after 120 days from original Activation, the
>> Server wipes one's activation record, and for all intents and
>> purposes, that one license appears to have never been activated
>> before. So there really is no way for Microsoft to tell whether any
>> one license has been activated on a different machine, or the number
>> of times it has been activated.
>>
>>>More important is the support aspect, as it falls to the system
>>>builder and not Microsoft. In the case of someone purchasing and
>>>installing
>>>an OEM license copy, it means they are responsible for their own support.
>>
>> Sorry, friend, but Activation of the OS is NOT done by the OEM, unless
>> one of their images are pre-activated in the factory. But the actual
>> activation is done through a Microsoft server, not the OEM.
>>
>> In fact, about the ONLY support major OEMs give is hardware-related,
>> not OS-related.
>
>My understanding is tha the OEM is responsible for OS software support. I
>haven't required since my first days of computing back when I had windows 95
>but the system manufacturere provided all OS support then. When I
>experienced Windows issues, they provided tech support.

Well, I'm certain they can provide Windows 95-XP support, since that
is all they know about. Few techs have any helpful knowledge about
Microsoft's newest OS. IF one wants decent support, he is going to
have to pay Microsoft $35/incident to speak with a knowledgable
technician.

Anyway, I'm glad that you got the support you needed, with the ANSWERS
you needed at the time. This is not always the normal result of
buying a complete computer from a major manufacturer. Most
manufacturer's support consists of peer support forums, where answers
from knowledgeable technicians are few and far between, and never seem
to answer [put your name here] question.

My experience has been (maybe I am somehow unlucky, and always get the
"support techs" who don't know what they are talking about, don't
understand what they are saying, or just don't care, or I am
completely unable to communicate "badly enough" for them to understand
me. That's right, I said "badly enough", for a simple reason: Most
folk I speak with on the phone have even worse English skills then I
do, and as a result, I have to write or speak in gutter English before
they will understand me. I spend more time EXPLAINING what I mean
than I do getting answers. This shouldn't be, if they are truly
"support techs".

In reality, though, these "techs" are people somewhere in a
call-center, reading from a script. None of them know what they are
talking about. They don't understand the problems. They just read
from their little scripts, and apologize for their employers when the
customer is frustrated in his attempt to get his problem fixed.

Much of this is caused by the state of the art. The support techs are
just getting up to speed on one OS, and suddenly there's a new OS, and
all the information they have is on the OLD OS. All they could do in
that situation is either learn the new OS in their spare time, or wait
till Management decides to get them up-to-date on the newer OS and
technology, or give them the tools they need to look the information
up. Or simply pass you on to another tech, who in turn will pass you
on to another, until you finally get to one of their supervisors, who
will be just as much in the dark as their underlings.

Anyone called Dell lately? Then you know what I mean.

Since few desire to work on their off-hours if they aren't getting
paid, few ever take the time to learn the newer OS and technology,
resulting in folks with newer machines and technology speaking with
techs with older knowledge. The result is mad and frustrated
customers, who quickly become people grasping at straws to fix their
machines, like the ones who post in these newsgroups.

>> Support? Who cares about support? Microsoft has only supported me
>> ONCE, when I bought a non-fuctional Desktop set from them, in which
>> case they replaced the set with a functioning (but lesser quality)
>> one.
>>
>> I don't look to either Microsoft or the Computer Manufacturer to
>> support me. I support myself. Anyone else can do this, IF they are
>> willing to take the time to LEARN about Microsoft Windows and their
>> hardware.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original newsgroup and thread.
========================================================