Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Nina DiBoy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Why would MS compare the license agreements for 3.0 and 3.1 if they
>> weren't comparable software?
>
>
> Because the names were similar but that scope and licensing of the
> two products were different. Is that so hard to grasp? Did you even
> read the article? By the way, I really should have thanked you for
> pointing it out and proving my point for me. I apologize for that lapse
> in manners.
>
>
>> Why would both versions be named "Windows"?
>>
>
>
> Why does Microsoft have Windows *Explorer* and Internet *Explorer*,
> *Outlook* and *Outlook* Express, Windows *XP* and Office *XP*? No one
> ever accused Microsoft of using original, clear and/or distinctive names
> for different products.
>
>
>> Noted that you snipped the rest without responding.
>>
>
> Didn't think it was particularly relevant. Is that the same reason
> you neglected to quote the portion of the KB Article that clearly stated
> that:
>
> "However, Windows 3.1 is considered systems software and therefore
> follows the same licensing agreement as MS-DOS (that is, you must
> purchase one copy of the software for each machine)."
>
> (Mind you, I don't actually consider even Windows 3.1 to be a true
> operating system, despite Microsoft's statement/definition, as one first
> had to boot into MS-DOS and then execute Windows. It was just a GUI
> shell riding on top of the true OS, MS-DOS. I've much the same opinion
> of Win9x, although they made the transition a bit more "seamless.")
>
>
I agree with your last paragraph Bruce, which again begs the question
since Windows 3.0 worked that way also, why is it not an OS?
--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html
Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."
"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot