norm

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> norm wrote:
>>
>
>> Bruce, I am not trying to get in the middle of your disagreement with
>> nina, but the kb cited (83926) states: "Under the licensing agreements
>> for Microsoft applications software and Windows 3.0,............".
>
>
> Correct. That very same article states quite clearly that, unlike
> Windows 3.0, Microsoft considered Windows 3.1 as "system software."
> However, to anyione more than casually acquainted with computers, even
> that is quite a stretch. In reality, Windows 3.1 (and 95 and 98, to a
> certain extent, as well) was nothing more than a GUI shell that would
> not work unless the real OS (MS-DOS) was loaded first. To the technical
> world, the first version of Windows that could truly be considred an
> operating system was WinNT3.x.
>
>> If I read correctly from wikipedia, windows 3.0 is designated an
>> operating system.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.x
>> Windows 3.x can refer to the following versions of the Microsoft
>> Windows operating system:
>> * Windows 3.0
>> * Windows 3.1x
>
>
> Wikipedia has never struck me as a horribly reliable source, and
> it's just plain wrong on this point.
>
>
>> Also from this site:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
>> Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating system
>> to the 1990 release of Windows 3.0, the first widely popular version
>> of Windows and the first version of Windows many PC users ever tried.
>>
>
>
> But that article doesn't actually state that Windows 3.0 was an
> operating system, does it?
Again, you disagree that this first line doesn't state that 3.0 was an
os? "Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating
system to the 1990 release of Windows 3.0".
It is on an ms site and the statement isn't qualified or refuted. I
guess you read differently than I do. Thanks for the discussion.

>
>
>> So whether or not there is a direct reference as to 3.0 being an os,
>> why would you argue otherwise?
>
>
> For the simple reason Win3.0, by Microsoft's own words, was not an OS.
>
>
>> Possibly, you should consider changing the following part of your
>> statement about licensing terms: "Just as it has *always* been with
>> *all* Microsoft operating systems......".
>
>
> Why change a simple statement of fact, one actually documented by a
> troll ineptly trying to refute the statement.
>
>> Maybe that is just not the case.
>>
>
> It is the case, though, unless one goes back to pre-MSDOS days.
>
>


--
norm

Baron von Helton

Well shiver me timbers!!



I've not seen such a well discused validation for piracy in my life!!

Net profit on a DVD movie: 700%

Net profit on a Music CD: 1000%

Net profit on Vista Ultimate: 2000%

As someone who *IS* a graphic artist, let me assure you that it ain't coming
our way.......LOL!

Piracy exists because of the huge profit margins above. Instead of lowering
the prices, new govt agencies like the MPAA & RIAA were formed to "combat"
the "pirates".

.......There's a term for this: "Bassakwards".

LOL!

In the consumer market, the more you make a thing, the price is supposed to
get LOWER, not higher.......

If you really want to combat piracy & win, lower the price to a reasonable
amount, disband the RIAA & MPAA attack dogs, and piracy will slowly fade away.

.......And as Def Leppard said: "It's better to burn out, than fade away!"

Nina DiBoy

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

Bruce Chambers

Nina DiBoy wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>


That, you'd have to ask Microsoft, as, in this case, it's *their*
definition we're discussing, not my technical opinion.

For some obscure reason, Microsoft draw a line between the two Windows
versions. If I had to guess, I'd tend to speculate that Microsoft had
considered Windows to be something of an experiment up till then, and
only decided to tighten the licensing after they saw that they had a
potential big seller on their hands. They are a business, after all, so
profits will always be a prime consideration and motivation.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

mghinlove

Is there any way to deactive it ?

"ahoypatty" wrote:

> What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop
>
> "Jc" wrote:
>
> > ok so i bought windows Vista ultimate and put it on my desktop so i liked it
> > so i put it on my laptop thinking i could use the same product key on my
> > laptop and vista is 4xx.xx bucks then after a little it ask to active it then
> > it say its being used so i call them up and they want me to pay for a new one
> > you cant use vista on more then one computer if u already bought it?
> >

Rick Rogers

Hi,

No, there is no method to deactivate an installation.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"mghinlove" <mghinlove@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BA77CAE6-AF12-4B09-ABE4-C1C46D82AE0F@microsoft.com...
> Is there any way to deactive it ?
>
> "ahoypatty" wrote:
>
>> What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop
>>
>> "Jc" wrote:
>>
>> > ok so i bought windows Vista ultimate and put it on my desktop so i
>> > liked it
>> > so i put it on my laptop thinking i could use the same product key on
>> > my
>> > laptop and vista is 4xx.xx bucks then after a little it ask to active
>> > it then
>> > it say its being used so i call them up and they want me to pay for a
>> > new one
>> > you cant use vista on more then one computer if u already bought it?
>> >

Robert Martin

Buy a OEM version.
Ultimate is around $199.

or

Call customer support,
Tell them you had to reload and need to reactivate.

I have reloaded my PC 3 or 4 times and I had to call on each reload.
I did a lot of experimenting with old apps at 1st to figure
out how to get them to function properly.



"Rick Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:ux$2MimYIHA.220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> No, there is no method to deactivate an installation.
>
> --
> Best of Luck,
>
> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
> My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
>
> "mghinlove" <mghinlove@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BA77CAE6-AF12-4B09-ABE4-C1C46D82AE0F@microsoft.com...
>> Is there any way to deactive it ?
>>
>> "ahoypatty" wrote:
>>
>>> What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop
>>>
>>> "Jc" wrote:
>>>
>>> > ok so i bought windows Vista ultimate and put it on my desktop so i
>>> > liked it
>>> > so i put it on my laptop thinking i could use the same product key on
>>> > my
>>> > laptop and vista is 4xx.xx bucks then after a little it ask to active
>>> > it then
>>> > it say its being used so i call them up and they want me to pay for a
>>> > new one
>>> > you cant use vista on more then one computer if u already bought it?
>>> >
>