On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:05:25 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:[color=green]
>> Mick Murphy wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> It is OK for you to install an OEM version and/or a Retail version.
>>>
>>> The difference between them is that the OEM version is tied to the
>>> computer that it is 1st installed on; whereas with the Retail Version,
>>> it can be transferred to another computer if the 1st comp dies!
>>>
>>> Also, with OEM versions, there is no support from microsoft. Any
>>> probs(like stuff posted here), you have to solve yourself, or come
>>> here,
>>> When you think about it, just WHAT support does anybody get from MS or
>>> Dell, HP, etc, lol.[/color]
>> I have transferred my OEM copy of Windows to a new Motherboard with all
>> other components being the same. All that happened was I lost all my
>> data on my Hard Drive. Had no problems with Microsoft.[/color]
>
> Was it a copy of Vista?
>
> Alias[/color]

Could be, I read somewhere MS purges the registration data ever 120 days
or so. So if you registered it say in March 2007. It would be cear to
re-register today. Or something like that.

Donald L McDaniel wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:36:39 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Nijmegen wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> The answer is: USERS (not manufacturers) should get the RETAIL version, since
>>> you CAN'T reinstall the OEM version on another motherboard![/color][/color]
>
> This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Most of use know exactly the
> opposite: one CAN reinstall the OEM version when a mother board has
> been changed out.
>
> This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "can or can't", and EVERTHING
> to do with "We won't let you".
>[color=green]
>> Does the EULA say that? I know that the XP OEM generic version's EULA
>> does NOT say that.[/color]
>
> Of course, it doesn't. NOR does the Vista OEM EULA. This is STRICTLY
> a lie meant to discourage users from doing it.
>
> Or it is a misunderstanding caused by nubies posting to these groups.
>[color=green]
>> Snip MS employee's opinion, which, of course, is useless because he,
>> like Carey, is told to sell Vista retail anyway he can.
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> You know, "Alias", we are usually at odds, but in this, I fully
> concurr.
>
> These "rules"have absolutely nothing to do with "support". They have
> EVERYTHING to do with Microsoft's "Bottom Line". 60G-bucks in the
> bank is not enough money for them. They want MORE, and MORE, and
> MORE.
>
> And they want MORE AND MORE AND MORE control over OUR machines.
> Like they will ever get it...
>
> Not as long as I am alive.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
> =================================================[/color]

Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies breed
complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just another
classic case.

Alias

Canuck57 wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:05:25 +0200, Alias wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Mick Murphy wrote:
>>>> It is OK for you to install an OEM version and/or a Retail version.
>>>>
>>>> The difference between them is that the OEM version is tied to the
>>>> computer that it is 1st installed on; whereas with the Retail Version,
>>>> it can be transferred to another computer if the 1st comp dies!
>>>>
>>>> Also, with OEM versions, there is no support from microsoft. Any
>>>> probs(like stuff posted here), you have to solve yourself, or come
>>>> here,
>>>> When you think about it, just WHAT support does anybody get from MS or
>>>> Dell, HP, etc, lol.
>>> I have transferred my OEM copy of Windows to a new Motherboard with all
>>> other components being the same. All that happened was I lost all my
>>> data on my Hard Drive. Had no problems with Microsoft.[/color]
>> Was it a copy of Vista?
>>
>> Alias[/color]
>
> Could be, I read somewhere MS purges the registration data ever 120 days
> or so. So if you registered it say in March 2007. It would be cear to
> re-register today. Or something like that.[/color]

That's true for XP, not sure about Vista.

Alias

On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:38:32 -0700, Donald L McDaniel wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:36:39 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Nijmegen wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> The answer is: USERS (not manufacturers) should get the RETAIL
>>> version, since you CAN'T reinstall the OEM version on another
>>> motherboard![/color][/color]
>
> This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Most of use know exactly the
> opposite: one CAN reinstall the OEM version when a mother board has been
> changed out.
>
> This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "can or can't", and EVERTHING to
> do with "We won't let you".
>
>[color=green]
>>Does the EULA say that? I know that the XP OEM generic version's EULA
>>does NOT say that.[/color]
>
> Of course, it doesn't. NOR does the Vista OEM EULA. This is STRICTLY a
> lie meant to discourage users from doing it.
>
> Or it is a misunderstanding caused by nubies posting to these groups.
>
>[color=green]
>>Snip MS employee's opinion, which, of course, is useless because he,
>>like Carey, is told to sell Vista retail anyway he can.
>>
>>Alias[/color]
>
> You know, "Alias", we are usually at odds, but in this, I fully concurr.
>
> These "rules"have absolutely nothing to do with "support". They have
> EVERYTHING to do with Microsoft's "Bottom Line". 60G-bucks in the bank
> is not enough money for them. They want MORE, and MORE, and MORE.
>
> And they want MORE AND MORE AND MORE control over OUR machines. Like
> they will ever get it...
>
> Not as long as I am alive.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
> =================================================[/color]

Depends.

Microsoft needs our votes to continue. Votes we cast when we buy a PC
with OEM, or buy a package. If people continue to buy MS, then we will
get more DRM, HDMI and nasties.

If we don't buy then MS becomes a paper tiger.

And anyone who says Microsoft does not control their PC to some extent
must be firewalled or disconnected off the Internet. Or of course,
running a Linux, BSD or Solaris.

FYI, you can control a PC with a simple one packet seemingly innocuous
DNS call.

While I personally do not vet my Linux code, I do know far more open eyes
have vetted Linux for back doors and have more faith as a result.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:19:56 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Canuck57 wrote:[color=green]
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:05:25 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:
>>>> Mick Murphy wrote:
>>>>> It is OK for you to install an OEM version and/or a Retail version.
>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between them is that the OEM version is tied to the
>>>>> computer that it is 1st installed on; whereas with the Retail
>>>>> Version, it can be transferred to another computer if the 1st comp
>>>>> dies!
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, with OEM versions, there is no support from microsoft. Any
>>>>> probs(like stuff posted here), you have to solve yourself, or come
>>>>> here,
>>>>> When you think about it, just WHAT support does anybody get from MS
>>>>> or Dell, HP, etc, lol.
>>>> I have transferred my OEM copy of Windows to a new Motherboard with
>>>> all other components being the same. All that happened was I lost all
>>>> my data on my Hard Drive. Had no problems with Microsoft.
>>> Was it a copy of Vista?
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>> Could be, I read somewhere MS purges the registration data ever 120
>> days or so. So if you registered it say in March 2007. It would be
>> cear to re-register today. Or something like that.[/color]
>
> That's true for XP, not sure about Vista.
>
> Alias[/color]

When I got Vista, first thing I did was to make recovery DVDs. Usually
make dual sets in case. Then I swapped out hard drives, and practised a
recovery and to verify the burn.

Worked good. But when I put the original back in, got a weird boot and
possibly license related. But a reboot fixed it. I knew it wasn't me as
I removed the original Vista HD...to be sure. But after the reboot, it
worked correctly. But haven't booted Vista in 4 weeks. Keeping it in
case MS ever fixes it.

On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:09:10 +0200, Alias wrote:
[color=blue]
> Donald L McDaniel wrote:[color=green]
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 17:36:39 +0200, Alias <iamalias@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Nijmegen wrote:
>>>> The answer is: USERS (not manufacturers) should get the RETAIL
>>>> version, since you CAN'T reinstall the OEM version on another
>>>> motherboard![/color]
>>
>> This, of course, is a bold-faced lie. Most of use know exactly the
>> opposite: one CAN reinstall the OEM version when a mother board has
>> been changed out.
>>
>> This has absolutely NOTHING to do with "can or can't", and EVERTHING to
>> do with "We won't let you".
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Does the EULA say that? I know that the XP OEM generic version's EULA
>>> does NOT say that.[/color]
>>
>> Of course, it doesn't. NOR does the Vista OEM EULA. This is STRICTLY a
>> lie meant to discourage users from doing it.
>>
>> Or it is a misunderstanding caused by nubies posting to these groups.
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Snip MS employee's opinion, which, of course, is useless because he,
>>> like Carey, is told to sell Vista retail anyway he can.
>>>
>>> Alias[/color]
>>
>> You know, "Alias", we are usually at odds, but in this, I fully
>> concurr.
>>
>> These "rules"have absolutely nothing to do with "support". They have
>> EVERYTHING to do with Microsoft's "Bottom Line". 60G-bucks in the bank
>> is not enough money for them. They want MORE, and MORE, and MORE.
>>
>> And they want MORE AND MORE AND MORE control over OUR machines. Like
>> they will ever get it...
>>
>> Not as long as I am alive.
>>
>>
>> Donald L McDaniel
>> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
>> =================================================[/color]
>
> Which is one of the more attractive things about Linux. Monopolies breed
> complacency and disdain for one's customers. MS is becoming just another
> classic case.
>
> Alias[/color]

One could say with XP to Vista force feed:

[url]http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/WESAYSO[/url]

Canuck57 wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:19:56 +0200, Alias wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Canuck57 wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>On Thu, 22 May 2008 18:05:25 +0200, Alias wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Vote out Brendan Nelson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mick Murphy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It is OK for you to install an OEM version and/or a Retail version.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The difference between them is that the OEM version is tied to the
>>>>>>computer that it is 1st installed on; whereas with the Retail
>>>>>>Version, it can be transferred to another computer if the 1st comp
>>>>>>dies!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also, with OEM versions, there is no support from microsoft. Any
>>>>>>probs(like stuff posted here), you have to solve yourself, or come
>>>>>>here,
>>>>>>When you think about it, just WHAT support does anybody get from MS
>>>>>>or Dell, HP, etc, lol.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have transferred my OEM copy of Windows to a new Motherboard with
>>>>>all other components being the same. All that happened was I lost all
>>>>>my data on my Hard Drive. Had no problems with Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>>Was it a copy of Vista?
>>>>
>>>>Alias
>>>
>>>Could be, I read somewhere MS purges the registration data ever 120
>>>days or so. So if you registered it say in March 2007. It would be
>>>cear to re-register today. Or something like that.[/color]
>>
>>That's true for XP, not sure about Vista.
>>
>>Alias[/color]
>
>
> When I got Vista, first thing I did was to make recovery DVDs. Usually
> make dual sets in case. Then I swapped out hard drives, and practised a
> recovery and to verify the burn.
>
> Worked good. But when I put the original back in, got a weird boot and
> possibly license related. But a reboot fixed it. I knew it wasn't me as
> I removed the original Vista HD...to be sure. But after the reboot, it
> worked correctly. But haven't booted Vista in 4 weeks. Keeping it in
> case MS ever fixes it.[/color]


What a fukkin POS lying linux loser you are!
Frank

On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:25:14 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:

[color=blue]
>What a fukkin POS lying linux loser you are!
>Frank[/color]


Above line has been repeated by Frank 4,674 times... so far.

On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:18:59 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:25:14 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:
>
>[/color]
[snipped][color=blue]
>
>
>Above line has been repeated by Frank 4,674 times... so far.[/color]

Add your useless quote of hiis obscenity-filled rant, and that would
be 4,675 times, Adam... so far.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the correct thread and article.
=================================================

Donald L McDaniel wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 22:18:59 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>On Thu, 22 May 2008 19:25:14 -0700, Frank <fb@sto.clm> wrote:
>>
>>[/color]
>
> [snipped]
>[color=green]
>>
>>Above line has been repeated by Frank 4,674 times... so far.[/color]
>
>
> Add your useless quote of hiis obscenity-filled rant, and that would
> be 4,675 times, Adam... so far.
>
>
> Donald L McDaniel
> Please reply to the correct thread and article.
> =================================================[/color]

hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
Frank

> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL![color=blue]
> Frank[/color]

I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at least
not in moist states...

On Fri, 23 May 2008 01:53:21 -0600, "Not Me" <cargod01@bresnan.net>
wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>> Frank[/color]
>
>I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at least
>not in moist states...[/color]

Frank is obsessed with all animals that have four legs and make loud
noises. Two of Frank's favorites are pigs squealing and lambs
bahhhing. Frank spends most of his day daydreaming about having sex
with animals.

This sad situation started when Frank was only five and his mommy took
him too the San Diego Zoo. Like all children Frank wanted to see and
pet the animals and watch them doing what animals do.

Here's a picture of Frank reaching out:
[url]http://www.nrvfaironline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/zoo_495.jpg[/url]

A few minutes later Frank saw this happening:
[url]http://www.all-animals.com/images/shlamb.jpg[/url]

Then this:
[url]http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/835/975148.JPG[/url]

And finally this:
[url]http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/horses/fr-draught-Horses-Breeding.jpg[/url]

Ever since that eventful day Frank has been turned on by sheep, pigs
and horses and tries hard to duplicate what he saw that day many years
ago.

Frank living in San Diego still goes to the zoo as often as he can and
spends most of his time watching monkeys since they remind him of his
family, especially his Uncle Phil.

[url]http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/NAN1404.jpg[/url]

Not Me wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>> Frank[/color]
>
>
> I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at
> least not in moist states...[/color]

You'll have to ask mr drunken pig about that seeing as how he's the one
who has all of the pics and videos of animals and he is the one posting
them to this ng.
He seems to have quite a collection doesn't he?
He seems to be proud of them!...LOL!
You just gotta wonder what other pics he has in his "collection!
Frank

On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:40 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Not Me wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>>> Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at
>> least not in moist states...[/color]
>
>You'll have to ask mr drunken pig about that seeing as how he's the one
>who has all of the pics and videos of animals and he is the one posting
>them to this ng.[/color]
[color=blue]
>He seems to have quite a collection doesn't he?
>He seems to be proud of them!...LOL!
>You just gotta wonder what other pics he has in his "collection!
>Frank[/color]

Memo to the moron known as Frank.

All the photos you want:

[url]http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=fools[/url]

Just type in what you're looking for like I just did, fool, and guess
who popped up. You did.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message
news:0j0e34l9fc5dpmcesu2jfoo8jk9acoqbcf@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:19:40 -0700, Frank <fb@tpi.olm> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Not Me wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>> hehehe...I do own and control that fat little drunken pig!...LOL!
>>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't think bestiality was legal even if you owned the animal...at
>>> least not in moist states...[/color]
>>
>>You'll have to ask mr drunken pig about that seeing as how he's the one
>>who has all of the pics and videos of animals and he is the one posting
>>them to this ng.[/color]
>[color=green]
>>He seems to have quite a collection doesn't he?
>>He seems to be proud of them!...LOL!
>>You just gotta wonder what other pics he has in his "collection!
>>Frank[/color]
>
> Memo to the moron known as Frank.
>
> All the photos you want:
>
> [url]http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=fools[/url]
>
> Just type in what you're looking for like I just did, fool, and guess
> who popped up. You did.
>[/color]

yuk yuk yuk, you so funny