Re: MS Customers must now submit. Submit I say! Dammit...

On 1 Aug 2005 10:06:42 -0700, "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>Josh McKee wrote:
>> In article <1122676533.837279.178580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > Josh McKee wrote:
>> > > In article <1122669623.418875.63930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> > > "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > > Corporate accounts. It's not uncommon for a business to have purchased
>> > > Microsoft software through a volume license program of some kind. It's
>> > > also not uncommon for them to have paid for, as part of the system
>> > > price, an individual license for each system they're purchasing. In
>> > > effect paying twice.
>> >
>> > You're citing incompetence on the part of corporate purchasing
>> > departments, not an example of anyone being forced to buy extra
>> > licenses.
>>
>> When the hardware they're purchasing cannot be obtained without a
>> license they were forced to purchase a license which they did not need.
>
>PCs without operating systems have been available for many years.

The ones that I wanted were not.

>> > > My own experience. I've purchased three new PC's. Each of them had a
>> > > version of Windows installed (Windows 3.1 on one, Windows 98 on the
>> > > other two). Disliking both of those versions of Windows I bought, and
>> > > installed a retail copy of Windows NT 4.0 on one, and Windows 2000
>> > > Professional on the others. I paid for three copies of Windows which I
>> > > did not want.
>> >
>> > You should have bought PCs with no OS, or with the OS you wanted.
>> > Again, nobody forced you to buy what you did.
>>
>> That's wasn't an option. The systems I wanted to purchase could not be
>> obtained without an OEM license. Therefore I was forced to pay for
>> licenses which I did not desire.
>
>You bought new OEM computers with Windows 3.1 and Windows 98, at a time
>when Windows 2000 was available?

No, Windows NT 3.51 and 4.0.

>I find it very hard to believe you could have bought PCs with the same
>specs elsewhere, with no OS, or even had built your own.

It's not whether I could or not. It's that the ones that I wanted to
purchase did not allow me the option to forego the OS.

>In any case, you're presenting an extrodinary example as if it were the
>norm.

I'd say that it was more the norm than the exception. Today it's
likely still the norm than the exception. Though it has gotten easier.

>> > > OEM licensing prohibits me from transferring the licenses
>> > > to another system...therefore restricting my ability to recover costs.
>> >
>> > Above you complained that systems came with a license when you bought
>> > them. Now you need to transfer your license. Make up your mind,
>> > please.
>>
>> Transfer them to someone else who would be willing to pay me so that I
>> could recover the cost of the item I did not want.
>
>It would have been easier to just not buy computers that come with
>items you don't want.

It would have been easier to purchase the ones that I did without the
OS. Unfortunately that wasn't an option.

>> > > In addition, due to the OEM licensing, Microsoft collects more as people
>> > > are not free to resell copies that they no longer need.
>> >
>> > Nobody is being forced to buy an extra copy of Windows in that example.
>>
>> Agreed. It doesn't fit with the original statement but does increase
>> sales directly to Microsoft by eliminating the ability for a secondary
>> market to develop.
>
>What would you gain by reselling your old copy of Windows? If you
>didn't have the original OS, you wouldn't be entitled to an upgrade
>copy, which is cheaper than the full version.

I have non-upgrade, retail versions of Windows NT and Windows 2000 for
precisely this reason. I purchase one copy so that I could transfer it
from system to system without having to worry about upgrade
conditions. As such I had, and still don't, no need for additional
licenses. Windows 2000 works fine for me. While I think that Windows
XP is a huge improvement over Windows 95/98/ME I see no reason to pay
for a license when my current OS works just fine. Ideally if I
purchase a new system I'd like it to come without an OS so that I can
transfer my Windows 2000 license to it. No need to pay for something I
don't need.

And here's the crux of it. Microsoft hates to hear what I just wrote.
By pre-loading the OS they sell something that I neither need nor
want.

>Whatever you made selling the old version would be eaten up by having
>to buy a full install of the new version.

I already have the full install. That's why I don't need an OS on any
computer that I buy. I already have a license that I can transfer to
it. Any license I purchase now is money that I don't need nor want to
spend.

>> > > Likewise the used IBM laptop that I purchased from work. As are the
>> > > majority of PC's it was sold with a license for Windows. Yet I have no
>> > > proof of license. Thus I need to purchase an additional license for it.
>> > > Yet another sale for Microsoft.
>> >
>> > Did somebody scrap off your Windows serial number sticker? It's your
>> > proof of license.
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Then why did you claim you had no proof of license?

Because there's just the remnants of the sticker. I know the system is
properly licensed. I can even look up what version the system
originally shipped with (it's an IBM laptop and IBM makes this easy to
do). I cannot provide proof of a license, such as a genuine sticker,
CD, or license card. However since it shipped with an OEM license and
OEM licenses forbid transferring the license that system remains
licensed for Windows 98. Much can be said about the majority of PC's
out there. Most are licensed for some version of Windows because the
license cannot be transferred.

>> But the fact that it was sold with a valid license and the fact
>> that OEM licenses are non-transferable implies that it's legal whether I
>> have documentation or not.
>
>Then why did you need to purchase another license?

Because it's licensed for Windows 98. I want to run Windows 2000. This
particular system is a bad example. Having bought it used Microsoft
didn't receive any money for a license.

>> Since the majority of systems sold are likely
>> to have had some form of OEM license most systems are legally licenses.
>
>I think that in order to have proof of license, you need the serial
>number sticker, or at least the original OEM CD that came with the PC.

I have neither (unless you call the remnants of the sticker proof).

>> > > Multiply this by the huge market that Windows has and it's easy to see
>> > > that Microsoft has certainly sold many licenses for Windows that were
>> > > unnecessary. This is not to say that it all equals out in the end. But,
>> > > IMO, Microsoft has been able to sell additional licenses that really
>> > > weren't wanted or needed.
>> >
>> > You were supposed to be showing how people were forced to buy extra
>> > licenses, not how they couldn't resell those they bought and no longer
>> > needed.
>>
>> Already did. Perhaps it was my use of the word "forced" that you
>> disagree with.
>
>Yes, that's what I'm disagreeing with.

What do you disagree with?

>> That's fine. I'm willing to adjust the statement that
>> Microsoft has received compensation for copies of Windows that were not
>> wanted nor needed due to their licensing practices.
>
>IOW, people were forced, even though you accept disagreement with
>saying they were forced.

IMO I was forced to purchase a copy of Windows that I neither needed
nor wanted...multiple times.

But the point is that Microsoft has received license fees for licenses
that I did not need nor want and would not have bought had the option
been available.

Call it forced or something else the point is still the same.
Microsoft has received money due to their license agreements with
vendors that they otherwise would not have received.

>If people are buying more licenses than they need, it's due to them not
>considering the OS issue during purchase, IMHO.

I considered it. However I had no option. For the systems that I
wanted to buy foregoing the purchase the OS was not an option. To me
it's just an added cost that I'm willing to pay for the system I want.
That doesn't mean that I would forego it if given the option. Which
means that Microsoft is obtaining additional license revenue where
they otherwise would not.

Josh
.

Relevant Pages

  • Windows media player 11 validating that Windows is genuime.
    ... I 'upgraded' to WMP 11 and it will not run untill it validates that windows ... MICROSOFT SOFTWARE SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS ... SOFTWARE SUPPLEMENT FOR MICROSOFT WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: 905474 re-released June 27
    ... THIS UPDATE FROM MICROSOFT WILL HELP YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE RUNNING A PROPERLY LICENSED, GENUINE COPY OF WINDOWS XP. ... PLEASE READ AND ACCEPT THE LICENSE TERMS BELOW. ... Microsoft Corporation licenses this supplement to you. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: Cannot Install SP-1
    ... Windows Update pops up on my screen as it is at this moment telling me I have ... MICROSOFT SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS ... Microsoft and install it on your device. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: 905474 re-released June 27
    ... THIS UPDATE FROM MICROSOFT WILL HELP YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE RUNNING ... FROM MICROSOFT REQUIRE A GENUINE COPY OF WINDOWS XP. ... PLEASE READ AND ACCEPT THE LICENSE TERMS BELOW. ... additional use terms for this supplement. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
  • Re: 905474 re-released June 27
    ... THIS UPDATE FROM MICROSOFT WILL HELP YOU KNOW IF YOU ARE RUNNING A PROPERLY LICENSED, GENUINE COPY OF WINDOWS XP. ... PLEASE READ AND ACCEPT THE LICENSE TERMS BELOW. ... Microsoft Corporation licenses this supplement to you. ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsupdate)
Loading