Another reason to switch to Microsoft!

JohnR

:deal :scratch

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-6126379.html?part=rss&tag=6126379&subj=news

StevenV

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

I'm here to tell you that virtually everything you've read online about the changes to Windows Vista's end-user license agreement (EULA) is wrong.

like you said... dunno

devbobo

nothing to see here...as usual... elitist turtleneck-wearing twits

JohnR

StevenV wrote:

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp



like you said... dunno

All that guy did was explain what was meant..that MS made the EULA easier to read.

JohnR

devbobo wrote:

nothing to see here...as usual... elitist turtleneck-wearing twits

Oh, such nice attitude. Is this the way you talk to everyone whom you disagree with?

devbobo

JohnR wrote:

Oh, such nice attitude. Is this the way you talk to everyone whom you disagree with?

ummm, well perhaps you would like to explain what the purpose of this thread was...other than to stir up some sort of MS/Apple flame war.

StevenV

I'm still not sure why a change to a license agreement, even if were only one that gives the appearance of being more restrictive than before, should be "another reason to switch to Microsoft." Or away from them, for that matter.

JohnR

devbobo wrote:

ummm, well perhaps you would like to explain what the purpose of this thread was...other than to stir up some sort of MS/Apple flame war.

The purpose was to show how restrictive Microsoft's EULA is. Not only is Vista going to be expensive...even more so for those who may want to run it in VM.

Heck, if I was wanting to start a MS/Apple flame war, then I should have posted in the first post about how good Apple was, etc. But did I? Nope. I just posted a link, and you took it however you wanted.

And you added in an insult to boot. Nice...real nice.

Why don't they just allow it to be on one PC at a time and if you buy/build a new PC, take that software that you bought (I'm talking about purchased retail box, not the one that comes with the PC when you buy one) and install it on it after deleting it from the other one?

I think Adobe allows you to do that..and they have more expensive software!

JohnR

StevenV wrote:

I'm still not sure why a change to a license agreement, even if were only one that gives the appearance of being more restrictive than before, should be "another reason to switch to Microsoft." Or away from them, for that matter.

i was being sarcastic in my thread title.

And not to repeat myself, just read what I wrote above ^^

marlof

Come on you guys, play nice.

I use both Mac OS X and Windows, and both have cost me more than I would like to admit. Sure, Vista might be restrictive. But at least they don't name their Service Packs after a cat, and sell it for another $100+.

JohnR

marlof wrote:

Come on you guys, play nice.

I use both Mac OS X and Windows, and both have cost me more than I would like to admit. Sure, Vista might be restrictive. But at least they don't name their Service Packs after a cat, and sell it for another $100+.

Oh, I am being nice...no attitude going on here.

ha! naming it after a cat..that's it's code name, like Longhorn was for Vista. And no, it's not a service pack. And at least it's not $199 and up to $399!

And now with their restriction on running it in VM, where you have to buy either one of the top 2 most expensive versions...ouch!

DavidTO

The cat names are not code names. The 10.4 box I bought says Tiger right on it. It's the product name, just to be clear.

And John, be proud of being a turtleneck wearing twit. It's a badge of honor.

Just be more clear about your posts in the future.

devbobo

John,

I find it highly amusing that you disregarded the article linked to by SteveV so offhandedly. Since that article actually rebuffed the entire concept from your original article.

hmm...i think i know who's opinion I would trust more....one of someone who has alot of experience in reviewing operating systems...or a staff writer at a internet news company looking to make a name for themselves.


David

GraphyFotoz

marlof wrote:

Come on you guys, play nice.

I use both Mac OS X and Windows, and both have cost me more than I would like to admit. Sure, Vista might be restrictive. But at least they don't name their Service Packs after a cat, and sell it for another $100+.

Cost cost cost.....Bill Gates gets richer and richer by cornering the market.
HEY MR GATES....you have made your huge profit....time to pass some savings on to your long time customers!
Your soooo worried about PPL pirating MS stuff...stop $$$$ us to death!
Many companies can learn a lesson or two from this!
Service packs? Get it right the first time and you don't need em!!!
Who cares what they call their programs no reason for any of em to cost more or even as much as you pay for your NEW PC!!
They are all worried about piracy....geeee I wonder why?

Maybe I shoulda learned to use a MAC?
I know they are far superior to a PC for graphics and such but in my area you can't get a damn thing for a MAC. Nothing but PC's.

marlof

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Service packs? Get it right the first time and you don't need em!!!

I don't know any application (including the Mac OS X) that doesn't have service packs/version.point upgrades/security updates from time to time. Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need service packs, but I guess we're not there yet.

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Who cares what they call their programs no reason for any of em to cost more or even as much as you pay for your NEW PC!!

Sure, you can get a basic PC for less than the price of Photoshop. But why should the hardware be more expensive than the software? Why is intellectual property less worth than goods you can touch? I would think that photographers of all people should know that the worth of an object isn't just defined by the materials that go in it.

GraphyFotoz wrote:

They are all worried about piracy....geeee I wonder why?

I think because file sharing is very easy nowadays, and people don't seem to understand the concept of intellectual property. They think that if it's just bits and bytes, it should be (near) free.

GraphyFotoz wrote:

Maybe I shoulda learned to use a MAC?

May be you should. It has its quirks, but it still is a fun operating system, and all in all, in the end you'll end up spending about as much as on a Windows station, so there's no financial reason to hold you back. But remember, Steve Jobs wants to get rich too.

GraphyFotoz wrote:

I know they are far superior to a PC for graphics and such but in my area you can't get a damn thing for a MAC. Nothing but PC's.

I wouldn't say they're far superior. You can have excellent graphics workstations on both the Mac and the PC. But... they do seem to cater more for the graphics market out of the box. And sure you can get things for a Mac, or doesn't DHL/FedEx/etc. ship to your door?

GraphyFotoz

marlof wrote:

I don't know any application (including the Mac OS X) that doesn't have service packs/version.point upgrades/security updates from time to time. Sure, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need service packs, but I guess we're not there yet.



Sure, you can get a basic PC for less than the price of Photoshop. But why should the hardware be more expensive than the software? Why is intellectual property less worth than goods you can touch? I would think that photographers of all people should know that the worth of an object isn't just defined by the materials that go in it.



I think because file sharing is very easy nowadays, and people don't seem to understand the concept of intellectual property. They think that if it's just bits and bytes, it should be (near) free.



May be you should. It has its quirks, but it still is a fun operating system, and all in all, in the end you'll end up spending about as much as on a Windows station, so there's no financial reason to hold you back. But remember, Steve Jobs wants to get rich too.



I wouldn't say they're far superior. You can have excellent graphics workstations on both the Mac and the PC. But... they do seem to cater more for the graphics market out of the box. And sure you can get things for a Mac, or doesn't DHL/FedEx/etc. ship to your door?

A upgrade now and then I can see but a service pack is usually a full blown patch for a a major screw-up in programing.
Microsoft users have been lab rats/beta testers for years!!
Gets quite tiresome.
But you did get one thing right....it's not a perfect world!
If people had better things to do than make viruses...trojans and hack stuff to where they didn't work it'd be more perfect!

Mike Lane

:lurk

marlof

Mike Lane wrote:

:lurk

This thread was dead for three days, and you're reviving it with a Lurk message? You bored, or what?

gus

marlof wrote:

This thread was dead for three days, and you're reviving it with a Lurk message? You bored, or what?

I was thinking the same thing.

Art Scott

Any one running linux???
I have curious with all of this complaining going on about MS & their EULA'S....

There are several of you out there that are 'puter geek types....is anyone running any distro of LINUX....I understand that Xandros will run Photoshop and most all MS compatable software.

I've never been an MS fan but have always had way tooo much software to jump to mac....even the emulators wouldn't allow PS to Run on the macs thatwere tried....not could a friend of mine get PS to run on Linux the last time we tried....My PS and his linux machine.....


just curious...................................

Mike Lane

marlof wrote:

This thread was dead for three days, and you're reviving it with a Lurk message? You bored, or what?

:nah it's so rare that I poke my head out of the customization forum and this was right up on top of this forum so I didn't even bother looking at when the last activity was.