Activation for used WinXP OEM, any problems?
Neil Harrington
Home Edition, which I purchased with a new motherboard. I activated WinXP
within the 30 days allowed.
I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will NOT be
reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for the software, I
want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with the same motherboard I
purchased it with, in accordance with the Microsoft EULA.
My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner with respect to
activation?
Should I notify Microsoft in some way to the effect that I am no longer
using the software?
Is there anything else I need to know, or to do?
Any help or information will be much appreciated.
Neil Harrington
Nicholas
Read your End-User License Agreement:
Go to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter.
--
Nicholas
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message:
news:%T8wa.153744$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ken Blake
Neil Harrington wrote:
> I built a new computer in January 2002 with the OEM version of
> Windows XP Home Edition, which I purchased with a new
motherboard. I
> activated WinXP within the 30 days allowed.
>
> I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will
NOT be
> reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for
the
> software, I want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with
the
> same motherboard I purchased it with, in accordance with the
> Microsoft EULA.
>
> My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner
with
> respect to activation?
Yes. OEM versions are *not* transferrable.
--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup
kurttrail
> OEM versions of Windows XP are non-transferable to a new owner.
> Read your End-User License Agreement:
>
> Go to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter.
>
>
Full of sh*t again, Carey!
From pre-SP1 Windows XP Pro EULA:
"Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY
NOT BE SHARED,TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT
COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single
integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the
SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may not use the
SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this
EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,
provided you retain no copies, if you transfer all of the SOFTWARE
(including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any
upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of Authenticity), and the
recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an
upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the
SOFTWARE."
From SP1 Windows XP Pro OEM EULA:
"Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY
NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT
COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single
integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If the
SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE.
You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as
part of a permanent sale or transfer of the COMPUTER, provided you
retain no copies, if you transfer the SOFTWARE (including all component
parts, the media, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of
Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If
the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior
versions of the SOFTWARE."
If the OP's OEM XP is pre-SP1 he can transfer it with the hardware
component he bought it with, and if it is a SP1 OEM copy of XP then he
would have to transfer it with the entire computer, but in either case,
MS's EULA *DOES* allow the tranfers to others under certain
circumstances, so saying, without any qualification, that "OEM versions
of Windows XP are non-transferable to a new owner," is an out & out lie!
Guess it's time for you to go & hide in your cocoon, Butterfly Women!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
BooHoo549
>.
>
kurttrail
Full of SH*T! Read the EULAs, both SP1's and the original XP OEM EULA,
and/or my reply to Carey/Mr. XP/ Nicholass/Butterfly Woman.
Nicholas
was installed on. Selling an activated OEM version of XP with just the
motherboard does not meet the terms of the license agreement.
I stand by my original comment.
--
Nicholas
kurttrail
That's because you are full of shit!
From XP PRO OEM EULA [Both pre SP1, & SP1]:
"The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component."
Nowhere in the EULA does it ever say, refer, or even remotely imply that
the term "HARDWARE" means "the entire computer."
You are so full of sh*t that you can't even see that you missed my
point.
Sh*t for brains said, "OEM versions of Windows XP are non-transferable
to a new owner."
But even MS's OEM EULA states when transfers *ARE* allowable. Standing
behind your lies, still doesn't make them true, only shows others that
you couldn't see the truth, even if it jumped up and bit you in your
ass!
Bryce
And be proud that you did.
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
news:%T8wa.153744$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Opinicus
> OEM versions of Windows XP are non-transferable to a new owner.
Not even if I sell the whole computer that OEM WinXP is installed on? How
would activation know that there was a different owner? Owner information
isn't queried during activation. Is it?
--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://kanyak.com
John B
Read it again. You're allowing those XPee supplied blinders you wear to keep
you from seeing anything correctly...hell, they even seem to make your
comprehension all screwed up! You and too many other 'regulars' in here have
got your noses so far up M$' ass, you refuse to hear, see, or think correctly
about anything not 'pro M$'. Friggin' sickening.
John
--
Butterflies (M$N or otherwise): good for flyswatter practice, or food for my
Penguin.
GSV Three Minds in a Can
from the wonderful person Neil Harrington <noj...@allthanks.net> said
>I built a new computer in January 2002 with the OEM version of Windows XP
>Home Edition, which I purchased with a new motherboard. I activated WinXP
>within the 30 days allowed.
>
>I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will NOT be
>reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for the software, I
>want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with the same motherboard I
>purchased it with, in accordance with the Microsoft EULA.
>
>My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner with respect to
>activation?
No, if >120 days have passed since it was activated, it will reactivate
with no problem. If not, a phone call will be needed. Whether you are
=legally= allowed to sell it depends on the exact EULA wording ..
however for a pre-SP1 copy I believe you are OK, but ignoring whether
it's legal, it will certainly work just fine once the 120 days is up
(and before that, if you can convince the MS liveware that you have to
phone).
>Should I notify Microsoft in some way to the effect that I am no longer
>using the software?
No, and there is no way of doing so anyway.
>Is there anything else I need to know, or to do?
Nope .. just be sure to transfer the license key along with the product,
and make sure you never use it again (or the new owner can quite rightly
come and kick your butt, while MS holds you down. 8>.).
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
kurttrail
> Nicholas, while banging their head on a wall, wrote:
>
>> The "hardware" the OEM refers to is "the entire computer" Windows XP
>> was installed on. Selling an activated OEM version of XP with just
>> the motherboard does not meet the terms of the license agreement.
>>
>> I stand by my original comment.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Nicholas
>
> Read it again. You're allowing those XPee supplied blinders you
> wear to keep you from seeing anything correctly...hell, they even
> seem to make your comprehension all screwed up! You and too many
> other 'regulars' in here have got your noses so far up M$' ass, you
> refuse to hear, see, or think correctly about anything not 'pro M$'.
> Friggin' sickening.
>
> John
And he had the effin' nerve to tell the OP to read the EULA, when he didn't
even know it actually has a section on tranfers! Reading Nicholas's
replies, is the NG equivalent to watching MTV's "Jackass!"
MS's "Nicholass!" LOL!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
Neil Harrington
"Nicholas" <mrxp...@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:#1rA#SXGDH...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> OEM versions of Windows XP are non-transferable to a new owner.
> Read your End-User License Agreement:
I did. That's why I said my intention is to sell it "in accordance with the
Microsoft EULA."
It specifically tells me that I "may permanently transfer all of [my] rights
under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE
[etc., etc.]." The hardware in this case is the motherboard which I bought
with this OEM version of WinXP.
My recollection is that Microsoft has always required that hardware be sold
with OEM versions, which seems reasonable enough. At one time "hardware" in
this connection ameant either a motherboard or hard drive, as I recall, but
now some sellers interpret "hardware" very liberally--one seller on eBay in
reply to my query told me that the hardware he supplies is a screw (and I
have heard that other sellers do the same), which he said is exactly the
same hardware that authorized Microsoft dealers sent to him with the OEM
version of whatever it was. Since the Microsoft EULA uses only the term
"hardware" (and surely a screw is hardware) I suppose that is legal enough.
However, I will be selling it with the motherboard I bought with it, which
surely keeps me well within the spirit as well as the letter of the
agreement.
> Go to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter.
I simply did a search on EULA, found it and read it before sending my
original post. As clearly indicated in the excerpt above, Microsoft does
allow transfer to a new owner. There is not a word in it that says or
suggests otherwise.
Neil
> --
> Nicholas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Harrington
My version is the pre-SP1 version of Home Edition and the EULA is exactly
the same as you state for Professional.
I didn't mention it in my first post but of course I do have the Certificate
of Authenticity, etc., that came with WinXP.
Neil
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in message
news:eWYUlhX...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Neil Harrington
> The "hardware" the OEM refers to is "the entire computer" Windows XP
> was installed on.
There wasn't any "entire computer Windows XP was installed on." I built the
computer and then installed WinXP. I have previously built computers and
installed OEM versions of Win98 and Win2000Pro in the same way, as do God
knows how many other computer hobbyists. These OEM versions are widely sold
with hardware and have been for many years.
Also, used OEM Windows versions have been widely sold on eBay and elsewhere.
eBay requires that OEM versions be sold with hardware in order to meet
Microsoft's requirements. I think it is pretty clear that Microsoft is aware
of such sales and has no objection.
So there never was any question in my mind when I put in the original post
as to whether such sales are legal. My only question was whether the
activation feature of WinXP presented any special problems or requirements.
> Selling an activated OEM version of XP with just the
> motherboard does not meet the terms of the license agreement.
>
> I stand by my original comment.
Then YOU should read the license agreement. It does not say what you say,
despite your unshakable confidence in your opinion.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Ken Blake" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain.com> wrote in message
news:vc2b6ge...@corp.supernews.com...
That's not what the EULA says. And while opinions to the contrary may be
interesting, the EULA as it came with my WinXP is what I'm going by.
Neil
Neil Harrington
Yes, mine is a pre-SP1 version.
I activated it I believe sometime in January 2002, so I'm well over the 120
days. But I don't understand more than dimly how activation works. Does it
report to Microsoft any after-activation changes to the system? The reason
I'm asking is that while my system is essentially the same as it was when I
built it more than a year ago, I did change to a new graphics card and added
a DVD drive fairly recently.
I realize that's probably a dumb question, but better safe than sorry. :-)
Neil
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:MMfkBnPp...@from.is.invalid...
Nicholas
the computer it was originally installed on.
If the new owner cannot successfully activate OEM XP after installing it on
his computer, be prepared to refund the buyer's money.
Read and become knowledgeable:
Windows Product Activation (WPA)
on Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
(Courtesy of Alex Nichol, MS-MVP)
Pay close attention to this paragraph:
"Restrictions of specific license types may limit the foregoing.
OEM versions of Windows XP are licensed together with the hardware
with which they are purchased, as an entity, and such a copy may not be
moved to a different computer. Other specific license types (e.g., Academic licenses)
are handled in different ways."
--
Nicholas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message:
news:Xfewa.154144$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Ken Blake
Neil Harrington wrote:
That's *your* interpretation of the EULA. You may go by whatever
you want. That doesn't make it legal.
Ron Martell
>Nicholas <mrxp...@nospamyahoo.com> said:
>
>> OEM versions of Windows XP are non-transferable to a new owner.
>Not even if I sell the whole computer that OEM WinXP is installed on? How
>would activation know that there was a different owner? Owner information
>isn't queried during activation. Is it?
Yes the whole computer is transferable, including the installed OEM
Windows XP.
However once you get into the area of which components, and how many of
them, comprise "the computer" you have a question that is open to a lot of
different interpretations.
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
GSV Three Minds in a Can
>
>Yes, mine is a pre-SP1 version.
>
>I activated it I believe sometime in January 2002, so I'm well over the 120
>days. But I don't understand more than dimly how activation works. Does it
>report to Microsoft any after-activation changes to the system? The reason
>I'm asking is that while my system is essentially the same as it was when I
>built it more than a year ago, I did change to a new graphics card and added
>a DVD drive fairly recently.
>
>I realize that's probably a dumb question, but better safe than sorry. :-)
It would have needed reactivating if a lot of hardware changed in a
short time .. you'd probably know if it had. The exact details are
available on the web, but boring beyond belief. 8>.
XP basically 'checksums' the hardware, and if it decides it's on a
different machine (based on NICs, Disk serial numbers, motherboards, and
sundry other stuff) it reactivates. Just adding a couple of new
peripherals generally won't push you over the threshold.
Bruce Chambers
Once installed, an OEM license becomes an integral part of the PC.
It cannot subsequently be transferred to another individual without
also transferring ownership of the entire PC, regardless of the
individual hardware component that the license was purchased with.
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
news:Xfewa.154144$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Bruce Chambers
Reread the EULA. "THE MACHINE" is clearly defined as the entire
PC.
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
news:iUdwa.154115$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Neil Harrington
> Once an OEM version of Windows XP is activated, it remains "tied" to
> the computer it was originally installed on.
>
> If the new owner cannot successfully activate OEM XP after installing it
on
> his computer, be prepared to refund the buyer's money.
In that event I would do so of course, but it doesn't seem likely to me.
> Read and become knowledgeable:
>
> Windows Product Activation (WPA)
> on Windows XP
> http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
>
> (Courtesy of Alex Nichol, MS-MVP)
>
>
> Pay close attention to this paragraph:
>
> "Restrictions of specific license types may limit the foregoing.
> OEM versions of Windows XP are licensed together with the hardware
> with which they are purchased, as an entity,
Again, "the hardware with which . . . purchased" in this case is the
motherboard, and only the motherboard.
As I mentioned previously, the "with hardware" requirement for OEM Microsoft
software sales has been there for years, "hardware" even in the strictest
interpretation never meant anything more than motherboard or hard drive, and
often much less specific than that. Surely Microsoft has been aware that
such sales have been made for many years by many sellers (who invariably
advertised the hardware requirement) and never made any objection, or the
practice would have been stopped.
> and such a copy may not be
> moved to a different computer. Other specific license types (e.g.,
Academic licenses)
> are handled in different ways."
Previous paragraphs in the same section read:
"But Microsoft recognises that machines do get upgraded. If, following the
activation after setup, you do not need to contact the activation center for
120 days (any changes you make during this time being seen as acceptable
when the system boots), then the sheet is swept clean and you can start
again using the current hardware as the new baseline to make more changes.
"If you get a new computer, you are entitled to remove Windows XP from the
one that is being junked, and install the same Windows XP on the new
machine - but you will have to do the reactivation by a voice call and
explain (unless, as was just mentioned, 120 days have passed since the
activation was last performed)."
As I mentioned, in this case much more than 120 days have passed, so I don't
see why there would be any problem with ordinary activation. I think my
original question has been answered, and I thank those who answered it.
If the entire computer were meant in the Microsoft EULA, then surely "the
entire computer" is what the EULA would say. It doesn't. It says "the
hardware."
Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Microsoft might believe it suddenly gained
ownership or other legal control over all the pre-existing components of the
software buyer's computer simply by requiring that the software be sold with
a new motherboard or hard drive.
Even apart from what the EULA does say (which I think it says clearly
enough), the whole intent here is, obviously, to prevent piracy, including
what is sometimes called casual copying. In this case there is no question
of piracy. I bought the OEM version with hardware, as required by Microsoft.
In doing so I bought the right to use the software. That right is my legal
property. That is what I now wish to sell, exactly as I bought it. The EULA
specifically says I may do so. ("You may permanently transfer all of your
rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the
HARDWARE [etc. etc.]") That describes exactly what I intend to do.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@nospam.cableone.net> wrote in message
news:vc3ab46...@corp.supernews.com...
> Greetings --
>
> Once installed, an OEM license becomes an integral part of the PC.
> It cannot subsequently be transferred to another individual without
> also transferring ownership of the entire PC, regardless of the
> individual hardware component that the license was purchased with.
That isn't what the EULA says, Bruce. It says I may transfer my rights to
the software "as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE"
(emphasis Microsoft's). There is no mention of "the entire PC," nor can I
see how Microsoft could expect to gain any legal control over any and all
pre-existing components of my "entire PC" simply by requiring that I buy the
software with ONE piece of hardware.
Neil
Neil Harrington
> Greetings --
>
> Reread the EULA. "THE MACHINE" is clearly defined as the entire
> PC.
Apparently either you have some very unusual EULA or you're just making that
up. The EULA that came with my OEM WinXP does not use either of those terms,
anywhere.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
Thanks again, GSV.
Neil
Michael Stevens
> I built a new computer in January 2002 with the OEM version of
> Windows XP Home Edition, which I purchased with a new motherboard. I
> activated WinXP within the 30 days allowed.
>
> I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will NOT be
> reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for the
> software, I want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with the
> same motherboard I purchased it with, in accordance with the
> Microsoft EULA.
>
> My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner with
> respect to activation?
>
> Should I notify Microsoft in some way to the effect that I am no
> longer using the software?
>
> Is there anything else I need to know, or to do?
>
> Any help or information will be much appreciated.
>
> Neil Harrington
After reading the thread, I have a couple of suggestions. Since you have
probably satisfied the requirements for transfer with the inclusion of the
hardware purchased with the OEM XP and it's single instance of installation
is transferred with the hardware, make sure you inform the person receiving
the package they only need to provide the information generated on the
screen and replace it with the string of code returned from the activation
center. They are not required to provide any details of the transaction. As
a further precaution, I would also provide a simple signed receipt stating
the software was transferred in accordance with the terms of the EULA.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpn...@michaelstevenstech.com
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
kurttrail
> Thanks very much, GSV.
>
> Yes, mine is a pre-SP1 version.
>
> I activated it I believe sometime in January 2002, so I'm well over
> the 120 days. But I don't understand more than dimly how activation
> works. Does it report to Microsoft any after-activation changes to
> the system? The reason I'm asking is that while my system is
> essentially the same as it was when I built it more than a year ago,
> I did change to a new graphics card and added a DVD drive fairly
> recently.
>
> I realize that's probably a dumb question, but better safe than
> sorry.
>
MS says that Activation is totally anonymous.
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#privacy
But a wise man takes anything MS says with a grain of salt. The dumb thing
would be not questioning MS's arcane PA policies.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
kurttrail
> In Ujewa.154147$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>> "Ken Blake" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain.com> wrote in message
>> news:vc2b6ge...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> In %T8wa.153744$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net,
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>
>>>> I built a new computer in January 2002 with the OEM version of
>>>> Windows XP Home Edition, which I purchased with a new motherboard.
>>>> I activated WinXP within the 30 days allowed.
>>>>
>>>> I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will NOT
>>>> be reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for the
>>>> software, I want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with the
>>>> same motherboard I purchased it with, in accordance with the
>>>> Microsoft EULA.
>>>>
>>>> My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner with
>>>> respect to activation?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's not what the EULA says. And while opinions to the contrary may
>> be interesting, the EULA as it came with my WinXP is what I'm going
>> by.
>
>
> you want. That doesn't make it legal.
And what's the "legal" precedent for your oblivious opinion!
kurttrail
> Thanks, Kurt.
>
> My version is the pre-SP1 version of Home Edition and the EULA is
> exactly the same as you state for Professional.
>
> I didn't mention it in my first post but of course I do have the
> Certificate of Authenticity, etc., that came with WinXP.
>
> Neil
>
No need to mention it to me, though the MS line is to presume theft until
proven otherwise. ;^)
As long as it's been 120 days since you last activated that copy OEM XP
Home, it really doesn't matter. MS purges you activation data from their
servers after 120 days, so activation should go smoothly over the internet
for whoever you sell XP and the HARDWARE it is licensed with as a single
integrated product.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
kurttrail
> Once an OEM version of Windows XP is activated, it remains "tied" to
> the computer it was originally installed on.
>
> If the new owner cannot successfully activate OEM XP after installing
> it on
> his computer, be prepared to refund the buyer's money.
>
> Read and become knowledgeable:
>
> Windows Product Activation (WPA)
> on Windows XP
> http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm
>
> (Courtesy of Alex Nichol, MS-MVP)
>
>
> Pay close attention to this paragraph:
>
> "Restrictions of specific license types may limit the foregoing.
> OEM versions of Windows XP are licensed together with the hardware
> with which they are purchased, as an entity, and such a copy may not
> be
> moved to a different computer. Other specific license types (e.g.,
> Academic licenses)
> are handled in different ways."
>
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=jibtru02ocf12gmb7dulokcu34vomaocug%404ax.c
om&output=gplain
Read and ignore the truth like you usually do!
Alex Nichol
>I built a new computer in January 2002 with the OEM version of Windows XP
>Home Edition, which I purchased with a new motherboard. I activated WinXP
>within the 30 days allowed.
>
>I am now planning to completely rebuild that machine and will NOT be
>reinstalling the WinXP. Since I will have no further use for the software, I
>want to sell it. My intention is to sell WinXP with the same motherboard I
>purchased it with, in accordance with the Microsoft EULA.
>
>My question is, Will there be any problem for the next owner with respect to
>activation?
Sorry - the Microsoft gloss on the EULA is that by installing that on
one machine you have tied the system to it and it may not be
transferred. Part of the downside of buying the OEM version.
I have to say that I find that gloss in conflict with the wording - but
it means that no-one is likely to want to buy it with the probability
that activation would be refused
--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows - File Systems)
Bournemouth, U.K. Al...@mvps.org
Alex Nichol
>
>However once you get into the area of which components, and how many of
>them, comprise "the computer" you have a question that is open to a lot of
>different interpretations.
This is where I cannot see how the MS interpretation of the EULA stands
up. That starts by defining hardware as 'computer *or* computer system
component' with which the software is purchased. That then clearly
means that if you buy with say a Hard drive, the hardware concerned is
that drive. And that definition must carry forward into the rest of the
license
You are then allowed to transfer the software with 'the hardware' - ie
that drive; and that it is licensed for use 'with the computer, or where
the hardware is a . .. component, the computer with which the hardware
operates'.
The gloss put appears to be one of interpreting that as 'computer the
hardware was first installed on ' but 'operates', unqualified, can IMO
only mean the one with which it *currently* operates, possibly after
transfer.
Mind you this would mean that if the drive failed and had to be
replaced, you would also have to buy a new copy of the system.
Really this intermediate 'OEM sold with a component' should not exist.
It came into being as a way of getting machines with Win95 a Win95 OSR2
which was not sold as a retail upgrade. There should be OEM
installations, on a machine sufficiently complete to be able to operate
(and tied to it) *or* retail copies, fully transferable
Nicholas
advice, read and comprehend Mr. Nichol's post.
--
Nicholas
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message:
news:tflwa.154819$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John B
> John B wrote:
>> Nicholas, while banging their head on a wall, wrote:
>>
>>> The "hardware" the OEM refers to is "the entire computer" Windows XP
>>> was installed on. Selling an activated OEM version of XP with just
>>> the motherboard does not meet the terms of the license agreement.
>>>
>>> I stand by my original comment.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Nicholas
>>
>> Read it again. You're allowing those XPee supplied blinders you
>> wear to keep you from seeing anything correctly...hell, they even
>> seem to make your comprehension all screwed up! You and too many
>> other 'regulars' in here have got your noses so far up M$' ass, you
>> refuse to hear, see, or think correctly about anything not 'pro M$'.
>> Friggin' sickening.
>>
>> John
>
> And he had the effin' nerve to tell the OP to read the EULA, when he didn't
> even know it actually has a section on tranfers! Reading Nicholas's
> replies, is the NG equivalent to watching MTV's "Jackass!"
>
> MS's "Nicholass!" LOL!
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
Damnit Kurt! You owe me a small bottle of windex! I *gotta* put less sugar in
the coffee! ROFL!
John
--
Butterflies (M$N or otherwise): good for flyswatter practice, or food for my
Penguin.
John B
> Greetings --
>
> Once installed, an OEM license becomes an integral part of the PC.
> It cannot subsequently be transferred to another individual without
> also transferring ownership of the entire PC, regardless of the
> individual hardware component that the license was purchased with.
>
> Bruce Chambers
I don't know how the hell you do it Bruce, but you do. You can have decent
advice for one person, and it be pretty good, then come here like this and spew
this nonsense as if you've never read the EULA or care about what it *actually*
says. It sure doesn't help any credibility on your part of knowing anything
about what one can or can't do with their own copy of XPee!
John B
> Once an OEM version of Windows XP is activated, it remains "tied" to
> the computer it was originally installed on.
>
> If the new owner cannot successfully activate OEM XP after installing it on
> his computer, be prepared to refund the buyer's money.
>
> Read and become knowledgeable:
How about following your own advice? Go back and read it, oh not so
knowledgeable as you think you are. You're just another of those 'I love M$
products so much, I'm gonna kiss their asses til it hurts' types in here.
John B
So now *your* interpretation is more 'correct' than anyone elses eh? No one
else can read and understand a EULA as well as you, right Ken? You're so full
of shit the whites of your eyes are brown.
Neil Harrington
"Alex Nichol" <alexn....@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
news:33h4cvkij5jbmkhbh...@4ax.com...
> Ron Martell wrote:
>
> >
> >However once you get into the area of which components, and how many of
> >them, comprise "the computer" you have a question that is open to a lot
of
> >different interpretations.
>
> This is where I cannot see how the MS interpretation of the EULA stands
> up. That starts by defining hardware as 'computer *or* computer system
> component' with which the software is purchased. That then clearly
> means that if you buy with say a Hard drive, the hardware concerned is
> that drive. And that definition must carry forward into the rest of the
> license
>
> You are then allowed to transfer the software with 'the hardware' - ie
> that drive; and that it is licensed for use 'with the computer, or where
> the hardware is a . .. component, the computer with which the hardware
> operates'.
>
> The gloss put appears to be one of interpreting that as 'computer the
> hardware was first installed on ' but 'operates', unqualified, can IMO
> only mean the one with which it *currently* operates, possibly after
> transfer.
>
> Mind you this would mean that if the drive failed and had to be
> replaced, you would also have to buy a new copy of the system.
That does seem to open up a nasty can of worms, yes.
I get the impression that despite its legalese-sounding terms and
conditions, the EULA is really not a very well-thought-out piece of writing.
Or perhaps what they're trying to do with it is, as a practical matter,
impossible.
>
> Really this intermediate 'OEM sold with a component' should not exist.
> It came into being as a way of getting machines with Win95 a Win95 OSR2
> which was not sold as a retail upgrade. There should be OEM
> installations, on a machine sufficiently complete to be able to operate
> (and tied to it) *or* retail copies, fully transferable
Actually I suppose there were other reasons for the "OEM sold with a
component" arrangement. Not all computer makers were Dells or Gateways,
after all. There used to be (with mass-produced computer prices now so low I
doubt there still are) some one-man stores selling computers built by the
proprietor, a sort of cottage industry. Since those computers might be
assembled from parts coming from several different sources according to the
builder's inclinations, it is reasonable that the OS could be sold as OEM
with some single major part.
In any case, it is hard bordering on impossible to believe that Microsoft is
not well aware of the fact that OEM versions are widely sold to anyone who
wants to buy the software that way and takes the (very little) trouble to
find a source. Doing a Google search just now on "windows xp oem version for
sale" brings up about 20,300 results.
So I assume that Microsoft is making enough money on these sales that they
are happy to keep the present arrangement going. After all, there must be
considerable savings to Microsoft in the OEM sales: no fancy packaging, no
advertising, perhaps some savings in not having to get the product on store
shelves, and no 30-day money-back guarantee as there is with Microsoft
retail software.
That last, of course, also means that by the time the buyer gets to read the
EULA, he can't return the software as he could with a retail product. I
don't believe any seller will take the OEM product back once it's been
opened.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"Michael Stevens" <Mste...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uXebnDgG...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
[ . . . ]
>
> After reading the thread, I have a couple of suggestions. Since you have
> probably satisfied the requirements for transfer with the inclusion of the
> hardware purchased with the OEM XP and it's single instance of
installation
> is transferred with the hardware, make sure you inform the person
receiving
> the package they only need to provide the information generated on the
> screen and replace it with the string of code returned from the activation
> center. They are not required to provide any details of the transaction.
As
> a further precaution, I would also provide a simple signed receipt stating
> the software was transferred in accordance with the terms of the EULA.
Michael, thanks very much for the advice. I will be sure to do both of those
things.
Neil
Neil Harrington
[ . . . ]
>
> Sorry - the Microsoft gloss on the EULA is that by installing that on
> one machine you have tied the system to it and it may not be
> transferred. Part of the downside of buying the OEM version.
>
> I have to say that I find that gloss in conflict with the wording -
I'll say. :-)
I'm not familiar with this use of the word "gloss," but I take your comments
to mean that Microsoft's official position is that their licensing policy
does not necessarily reflect what their license agreement says. Do I have
that about right?
If so, this does not seem like a very fair or honest way of doing business,
or even legally supportable for that matter.
As the buyer, all I have to go by is the written agreement Microsoft
supplied with the product. I have no way of knowing what different "gloss"
they put on it at or after the time I buy it. In the case of the OEM
software I don't even get to see the full agreement until I've opened the
sealed product, which is then non-returnable.
> but
> it means that no-one is likely to want to buy it with the probability
> that activation would be refused
I don't see why that WOULD be the probability though, Alex. I activated the
software in or about January 2002. It has not been reactivated since, as far
as I know, and the few changes I've made to the system do not seem
sufficient to cause such reactivation, judging by what I've read here and in
the links supplied. Another poster here has said that after 120 days the
Microsoft servers are wiped clean as far as the original activation is
concerned, and (if I understand correctly) any new installation would then
go through as a brand-new activation.
Is there a way I can find out for sure when the last activation or
reactivation, if any, was done? I doubt there ever was any after the initial
activation, but it would be nice to know for certain.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:OIVq0PgG...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
> > Thanks, Kurt.
> >
> > My version is the pre-SP1 version of Home Edition and the EULA is
> > exactly the same as you state for Professional.
> >
> > I didn't mention it in my first post but of course I do have the
> > Certificate of Authenticity, etc., that came with WinXP.
> >
> > Neil
> >
>
> No need to mention it to me, though the MS line is to presume theft until
> proven otherwise. ;^)
Evidently!
You know what strikes me as particularly ironic? I was OFFERED a copy of
Windows XP Professional by a casual acquaintance, the "corporate" version
which does not require any activation at all. He had gotten it from someone
else, who probably had gotten it from someone else, and so on. I declined
the offer and BOUGHT this Home Edition OEM version fair, square and legal. I
could have had the more powerful Professional version for nothing. Now I'm
being told that what I bought and paid for honestly, I cannot sell.
This is supposed to PREVENT piracy?
The guy who offered me that corporate version has no corporate connections
of any kind himself and was in fact a newcomer to computers at the time, so
one has to wonder how many copies of those activation-free versions are
floating around.
>
> As long as it's been 120 days since you last activated that copy OEM XP
> Home, it really doesn't matter. MS purges you activation data from their
> servers after 120 days, so activation should go smoothly over the internet
> for whoever you sell XP and the HARDWARE it is licensed with as a single
> integrated product.
That's good enough for me. Many thanks for your help.
Neil
GSV Three Minds in a Can
>So I assume that Microsoft is making enough money on these sales that they
>are happy to keep the present arrangement going. After all, there must be
>considerable savings to Microsoft in the OEM sales: no fancy packaging, no
>advertising, perhaps some savings in not having to get the product on store
>shelves, and no 30-day money-back guarantee as there is with Microsoft
>retail software.
They must make enough saving on the 'no 2 free support incidents' to
cover the 50% cost reduction. Knowing what (semi)trained support staff
costs, I don't believe they can come out ahead on their current support
charges, even for paid calls, never mind the free ones.
Neil Harrington
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
> Bitstring <Azvwa.83413$cO3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> from the wonderful person Neil Harrington <noj...@allthanks.net> said
> <snip>
> >So I assume that Microsoft is making enough money on these sales that
they
> >are happy to keep the present arrangement going. After all, there must be
> >considerable savings to Microsoft in the OEM sales: no fancy packaging,
no
> >advertising, perhaps some savings in not having to get the product on
store
> >shelves, and no 30-day money-back guarantee as there is with Microsoft
> >retail software.
>
> They must make enough saving on the 'no 2 free support incidents' to
> cover the 50% cost reduction. Knowing what (semi)trained support staff
> costs, I don't believe they can come out ahead on their current support
> charges, even for paid calls, never mind the free ones.
Yes, good point. I'd forgotten about that.
Neil
Ron Martell
>They must make enough saving on the 'no 2 free support incidents' to
>cover the 50% cost reduction. Knowing what (semi)trained support staff
>costs, I don't believe they can come out ahead on their current support
>charges, even for paid calls, never mind the free ones.
Microsoft loses money on the paid support calls, or at least they were
when the charges were a flat $45 per incident.
Don't forget that the cost of employing someone is at least double and
sometimes 2 and a half times the hourly wage that they are paid; at least
insofar as the range of wages paid for tech support positions is
concerned.
So somebody being paid $10 per hour is probably costing their employer at
least $20 for each hour they actually work, when you add in the cost of
the workplace itself (office building, equipment, utilities), the payroll
add-ons and benefits (vacation pay, sick pay, medical benefits, retirement
benefits, workers compensation), the administration costs (payroll
preparation, supervision, etc).
Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
kurttrail
news:7em5cvglhfll7v1hb...@4ax.com...
> Microsoft loses money on the paid support calls, or at least they were
> when the charges were a flat $45 per incident.
>
> Don't forget that the cost of employing someone is at least double and
> sometimes 2 and a half times the hourly wage that they are paid; at least
> insofar as the range of wages paid for tech support positions is
> concerned.
>
> So somebody being paid $10 per hour is probably costing their employer at
> least $20 for each hour they actually work, when you add in the cost of
> the workplace itself (office building, equipment, utilities), the payroll
> add-ons and benefits (vacation pay, sick pay, medical benefits, retirement
> benefits, workers compensation), the administration costs (payroll
> preparation, supervision, etc).
>
That's right, then MS would have only had $20 billion in the bank, instead
of $40 billion!
Bruce Chambers
From the OEM EULA:
The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component.
This makes it quite plain that the "Hardware" is the entire
computer, for the purposes of the EULA.
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
news:dslwa.154848$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
kurttrail
> Greetings --
>
> From the OEM EULA:
>
> The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
> the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
> computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
> HARDWARE is a computer system component.
>
> This makes it quite plain that the "Hardware" is the entire
> computer, for the purposes of the EULA.
>
Only to a person that doesn't understand the English language, Douchebag!
It says COMPUTER means HARDWARE. Nowhere in the EULA does it say HARDWARE
means COMPUTER!
Give it up MicroMorons! This OP is a hell of a lot smarter than the whole
lot of you combined, and your lies & FUD won't work!
Michael Stevens
Neil,
What you have learned is you bought the wrong version of XP if you intended
to transfer ownership without meeting some confusing and muddled
requirements. Your integrity is intact for not choosing the pirated
non-existent "corporate version" 8-). Which you would have had a problem
applying SP1 and beyond updates without using a key generator to further
degrade your integrity.
The real problem is how the person you transfer the OEM version feels about
what they have to do to appear they have rightful ownership of the license.
If they respond incorrectly to a phone call activation, they could have a
doorstop; hence the importance of supplying them documentation of the
transfer. I have no idea what MS constitutes a transfer of the OEM XP, but
I would say transferring with the MB would be higher on the list than a
power cable.
Michael Stevens
> "Ron Martell" <r...@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote in message
> news:7em5cvglhfll7v1hb...@4ax.com...
>> Microsoft loses money on the paid support calls, or at least they
>> were when the charges were a flat $45 per incident.
>>
>> Don't forget that the cost of employing someone is at least double
>> and sometimes 2 and a half times the hourly wage that they are paid;
>> at least insofar as the range of wages paid for tech support
>> positions is concerned.
>>
>> So somebody being paid $10 per hour is probably costing their
>> employer at least $20 for each hour they actually work, when you add
>> in the cost of the workplace itself (office building, equipment,
>> utilities), the payroll add-ons and benefits (vacation pay, sick
>> pay, medical benefits, retirement benefits, workers compensation),
>> the administration costs (payroll preparation, supervision, etc).
>>
>
> That's right, then MS would have only had $20 billion in the bank,
> instead of $40 billion!
No, they are very smart and take all into account. When I last looked into
the prime objective of a company it was to make as large a proffit as
possible. If a company does not show a potential for growth, they will lose
their worth in the stock market.
I find it amazing that this monopolistic company is still so successful. It
is still respected by the people that see through the FAIR RIGHTS zealots.
The music industry is on the brink of disaster from what you classify as
fair rights. Can you tell me and the rest of the world how a person should
be guaranteed a fair price for their excellence in the digital age?
Doug G.
says...
The music industry is on the brink of disaster these days because they
are producing mostly crap that is mainly targeted towards gangsters and
thugs that don't hold jobs, and steal everything they want.
People have been recording music since the radio and tape recorder were
in existence and the music industry did just fine.
Doug
Neil Harrington
> Greetings --
>
> From the OEM EULA:
>
> The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
> the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
> computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
> HARDWARE is a computer system component.
>
> This makes it quite plain that the "Hardware" is the entire
> computer, for the purposes of the EULA.
No. Read it again.
It says "HARDWARE" means EITHER the computer system OR a component of that
system. Which meaning applies depends on how the software was purchased, as
is made clear at the beginning of the EULA which refers to "the computer
system or computer system component ("HARDWARE") with which you acquired the
Microsoft software products [etc.]" In my case "HARDWARE" means the
motherboard, since that's the only hardware I purchased the software product
with.
This brings up another point which seems sort of interesting. The first
sentence of the agreement reads:
____________
This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
(either an individual or a single legal entity) and the and the manufacturer
("Manufacturer") of the computer system or computer system component
("HARDWARE") with which you acquired the Microsoft product(s) identified
above ("SOFTWARE").
__________________
It goes on to mention that other EULAs may exist, but they are not
identified. So as far as THIS agreement is concerned, it is defined by
Microsoft only as a legal agreement between myself and the manufacturer of
(in this case) my motherboard. Nowhere does it state that it's an agreement
between me and Microsoft. It appears to me therefore that Microsoft may have
effectively written itself out of its own EULA, and that makes me wonder
about the enforceability (by Microsoft) of its many provisions. But then I'm
not a lawyer.
Neil
kurttrail
The Airline Industry wishes it only had the losses that the Music
Industry has had the last couple of years.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
Neil Harrington
[ . . . ]
>
> Neil,
> What you have learned is you bought the wrong version of XP if you
intended
> to transfer ownership without meeting some confusing and muddled
> requirements.
Actually, Michael, what I have learned is to never again buy anything that
comes with Microsoft's Product Activation scheme. Never. Not if I live to be
a hundred and fifty. I don't really think it would be that much different if
I'd bought the retail boxed version; it just would have cost me about twice
as much.
Of course at the time I bought it, I didn't think I'd ever intend to sell
it. I previously bought OEM versions of Win98SE and Win2000Pro, still have
them and will almost certainly never sell them. I like them. After having
used WinXP for over a year I've decided I DON'T really like it. I didn't
like the interface to begin with, but thought I'd give it time and a fair
chance to see if it would grow on me as I got used to it. It hasn't.
WinXP has some good ideas, even such little things as putting Notepad on the
Start menu so I don't have to click through Start|Programs|Accessories to
get to it. But of course I can do essentially the same thing with a desktop
shortcut in 98 or 2000; it just hadn't occurred to me to do that before.
Other features like System Restore are useful, but since Norton SystemWorks
Pro (which I buy every year, also in an OEM version) comes with Roxio GoBack
there just isn't much need for the WinXP equivalent. The same applies to
every other feature in XP that's of any use to me. The firewall? Bah.
ZoneAlarm is better, and free. Movie Maker? Just useless bloat as far as I'm
concerned.
The last straw for me was Windows Media Player 9, which simply will not
produce sound on my XP system. It won't play MP3s, insists I don't have a
sound card or there's a problem with my sound card. EVERYTHING ELSE runs
perfectly on my Santa Cruz sound card--all the Windows sounds, streaming
audio from IE 6 or whatever, every other media player, every game, every
single thing that can produce a sound. But not Windows Media Player 9. It
will play videos, but with no sound. I've tried new sound card drivers, and
tried reinstalling WMP9. Nothing works. I could get no solution from the WMP
newsgroup, or Microsoft's Knowledge Base, or any WMP-related site I could
find. And the damn thing can't be UNinstalled from WinXP. If I had it
installed on a Win2000 system I could uninstall it through Add/Remove
Programs, but you can't do that with XP. So it's just that much more useless
bloat on my system.
All that said, I am now having second thoughts about selling WinXP. I
intended doing so because unlike previous versions of Windows, XP has
practically no benefit for me and I just don't see much reason to keep it.
And surely I am within my rights to sell it in accordance with the EULA. On
the other hand, the possible problems you and others here have raised are
probably real enough, even if only in the mind of any prospective purchaser.
All of this is, of course, directly attributable to the Product Activation
feature--I suspect a prospective buyer would be about equally leery of ANY
used software requiring this activation, whether retail or OEM.
The amount of money involved would be trivial in any case, and I'm now
thinking it might not be worth the bother. So maybe I'll keep XP and use it
in a fourth or fifth system or something.
> Your integrity is intact for not choosing the pirated
> non-existent "corporate version" 8-). Which you would have had a problem
> applying SP1 and beyond updates without using a key generator to further
> degrade your integrity.
> The real problem is how the person you transfer the OEM version feels
about
> what they have to do to appear they have rightful ownership of the
license.
> If they respond incorrectly to a phone call activation, they could have a
> doorstop; hence the importance of supplying them documentation of the
> transfer.
I agree with you. My understanding is that since it's well over 120 days
since activation (actually more than a year), it should activate all right
online and not require a phone call activation by the next owner. I would
supply that documentation anyway if I did sell it, which now seems
increasingly unlikely. The more I think about it, the more I believe the
FEAR of activation problems with used software would be likely to keep
buyers away. Many people evidently are even afraid of activation with
brand-new software, and used stuff would be seen as posing serious
additional dangers. I'd probably steer clear of it myself.
> I have no idea what MS constitutes a transfer of the OEM XP, but
> I would say transferring with the MB would be higher on the list than a
> power cable.
<chuckle>
I would hope so. And surely higher than a screw, which is the required
"hardware" some OEM software sellers supply.
Neil
Neil Harrington
> kurttrail wrote:
> > "Ron Martell" <r...@onlinehelp.bc.ca> wrote in message
> > news:7em5cvglhfll7v1hb...@4ax.com...
> >> Microsoft loses money on the paid support calls, or at least they
> >> were when the charges were a flat $45 per incident.
> >>
> >> Don't forget that the cost of employing someone is at least double
> >> and sometimes 2 and a half times the hourly wage that they are paid;
> >> at least insofar as the range of wages paid for tech support
> >> positions is concerned.
> >>
> >> So somebody being paid $10 per hour is probably costing their
> >> employer at least $20 for each hour they actually work, when you add
> >> in the cost of the workplace itself (office building, equipment,
> >> utilities), the payroll add-ons and benefits (vacation pay, sick
> >> pay, medical benefits, retirement benefits, workers compensation),
> >> the administration costs (payroll preparation, supervision, etc).
> >>
> >
> > That's right, then MS would have only had $20 billion in the bank,
> > instead of $40 billion!
>
> No, they are very smart and take all into account. When I last looked into
> the prime objective of a company it was to make as large a proffit as
> possible. If a company does not show a potential for growth, they will
lose
> their worth in the stock market.
In that connection Microsoft's activities are a complete mystery to me. But
I'm not a businessman; maybe I would understand it if I were.
What I have read is that Microsoft now comprises seven "segments," of which
only three (Windows, Windows server and Office products) make money. The
others (MSN, Hotmail, gaming products etc.) all lose money, and they lose it
by the billions. Microsoft as a corporation still makes plenty of money to
cover those losses, of course.
Furthermore, this is the way it's been for years. Windows and Office
products have always been the cash cows that supported all of Microsoft's
other enterprises, none of which have ever made a dime as far as I know. The
Xbox, for example, is reported to lose Microsoft $100 for every unit sold.
The more "successful" Xbox is, the more money they lose. Do they make it up
in game sales? According to what I read they don't, and it's unlikely they
ever will.
So there seems to be some reason for all this besides sheer profit. Perhaps
it's Microsoft's need to dominate any related industry, whether it's
profitable to do so or not. MSN loses huge amounts of money, but it's money
that Microsoft seemingly will never run out of--and they are causing AOL to
lose still more money. What happens when and if MSN completely whittles away
AOL's dominance in the field and even causes it to collapse? Will that
segment of Microsoft then start to make money? Or is sheer dominance for its
own sake the goal?
If you're Bill Gates (who at one point was said to have a personal worth of
$63 billion, though it may be somewhat less than that now) I suppose profit
is no longer the most important thing. Maybe empire is.
Also, as far as "their worth in the stock market" is concerned, it should be
remembered that while Microsoft makes enormous piles of money it does not
pay out any dividends at all to stockholders. If it did, surely its stock
price would move higher. Bill Gates has for years now been the world's
wealthiest man, but Microsoft stockholders (who at least in theory are the
actual owners of the company) have not done nearly so well.
Neil
kurttrail
Great post, Neil! But . . . .
"Despite Microsoft's many recent public relations gaffes (an Internet
toilet?), it's hard to find a company that is in better financial position.
$46.2 billion in cash. No debt. And even in a year as tough as this one,
Microsoft is expected to report an earnings increase of 14 percent and sales
growth of 13 percent. Now, it even pays a dividend (however small at 0.3
percent)." -
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/15/technology/techinvestor/lamonica/
MS announced their first dividend payout this January. And I see my use of
the $40 billion statistic is a bit out-dated too! ;^)
Stick around. This group needs more intelligent voices like yours.
Ken Blake
> After having
> used WinXP for over a year I've decided I DON'T really like it.
I didn't
> like the interface to begin with, but thought I'd give it time
and a fair
> chance to see if it would grow on me as I got used to it. It
hasn't.
Are you aware that XP's new interface is entirely optional, and
you can easily use the classic interface instead? I find the new
interface hokey, don't like it at all, and keep it turned off.
If you don't like XP, that's fine--it's your choice. But the
interface shouldn't be the reason for making such a decision.
David Candy
The threat to MS of Netscape wasn't that netscape was going to replace windows but that NS would become the standard setter. People wouldn't be cursing windows but cursing NS as they would interact with their computer via NS with windows or any other OS being virtually invisible (how many people talk about their mobile phone OS - I can't even think of a mobile OS name off the top of my head).
Customers don't specify an OS when they buy a phone (or VCR) . Phone OS makers are interchangable.
That's what MS is scared of. Losing control of monopoly.
--
http://www.g2mil.com/Apr2003.htm
http://prorev.com/forbesrussia.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message news:hLPwa.84710$cO3.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
John B
<snip>
> No, they are very smart and take all into account. When I last looked into
> the prime objective of a company it was to make as large a proffit as
> possible. If a company does not show a potential for growth, they will lose
> their worth in the stock market.
> I find it amazing that this monopolistic company is still so successful. It
> is still respected by the people that see through the FAIR RIGHTS zealots.
> The music industry is on the brink of disaster from what you classify as
> fair rights. Can you tell me and the rest of the world how a person should
> be guaranteed a fair price for their excellence in the digital age?
> --
>
> Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
How do you explain M$ still selling the Xbox and it's been losing money
extremely badly almost at the outcome?
You answered your own amazement...*because* they're monopolistic and
predatory, they survive and do well...all at the expense of others.
If there *were* no <cackle> "FAIR RIGHTS" zealots, the US wouldn't be what is
is or have the freedoms it has, or allow a criminal company to keep doing
criminal acts even after being taken to court! You need to go out and kiss the
ass of a veteran who has kept these "FAIR RIGHTS" around for us.
Neil Harrington
> "Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
> news:DLOwa.157682$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > After having
> > used WinXP for over a year I've decided I DON'T really like it.
> I didn't
> > like the interface to begin with, but thought I'd give it time
> and a fair
> > chance to see if it would grow on me as I got used to it. It
> hasn't.
>
>
> Are you aware that XP's new interface is entirely optional, and
> you can easily use the classic interface instead?
I know. I've been using the standard XP screen all this time with the
thought that I might get used to it and come to like it. I did change the
color scheme to make it less garish, the default version being unbearable to
look at.
> I find the new
> interface hokey, don't like it at all, and keep it turned off.
>
> If you don't like XP, that's fine--it's your choice. But the
> interface shouldn't be the reason for making such a decision.
It isn't the only reason. As I mentioned in another post, Windows Media
Player 9 won't produce sound on my system (it's the only thing that won't)
and WinXP doesn't allow me to get rid of it. In Win2000, I could get rid of
it in Add/Remove Programs, but in XP you can't do that. So WMP9 is just
useless bloat that I'm stuck with. There are some other aggravations, and no
real advantage over Win2000 that I can see
But as also mentioned in other posts, I've decided that because of
understandable buyer concerns over the activation system and used software,
selling it would probably be more bother than it's worth. So I've now
decided I might as well keep it, sort of like an inoperable but benign
tumor. I will change to the classic interface too, and that will at least
make it look more like Win2000.
Neil
Neil Harrington
Kurt, thanks for the correction. Actually before posting that I did a quick
search on "microsoft stock dividends" on Google to make sure the information
about Microsoft paying no dividends was still correct, and skimming the
first few items it seemed it was. But if I'd looked a little further I'd
have seen that they have started to pay dividends as you point out.
Microsoft had come into some sharp criticism in the investment community for
sitting on those huge profits and not sharing a dime of 'em with the
stockholders. I suppose that's why they finally started their niggardly
little payout. Wow, now for every thousand dollars in Microsoft stock the
investor gets the princely sum of three bucks a year. Stockholder joy must
be boundless. ;-)
>
> Stick around. This group needs more intelligent voices like yours.
Thanks very much for the kind words!
Neil
DJ
<noj...@allthanks.net> wrote:
>Also, as far as "their worth in the stock market" is concerned, it should be
>remembered that while Microsoft makes enormous piles of money it does not
>pay out any dividends at all to stockholders. If it did, surely its stock
>price would move higher. Bill Gates has for years now been the world's
>wealthiest man, but Microsoft stockholders (who at least in theory are the
>actual owners of the company) have not done nearly so well.
I see you have no knowledge of how investing in the stock market
works.
Tech companies do not generally pay dividends because investors are
looking for capital gains. These come about by re-investing profits
into research and development, and in purchasing other companies much
like Cisco has done.
The reason the stock is valued so high is because it DOES NOT pay
dividends. Well, not until this year.
Microsoft stock owners have done better than almost any other company
over the time frame that MS has issued stock. Cisco did better in
that time, and maybe a few others, but not many.
Bill Gates owns huge amounts of MS stock. So for you to say he did
well while the stock holders did not, is just plain stupid. Further,
most of his money is in MS stock. While I am sure he owns some other
stock, people are able to track his net worth simply by focusing on
the value of MS stock. It is close enough.
I am no fan of some of the things MS does. But at least I learn of
what I speak before I speak it.
DJ
<noj...@allthanks.net> wrote:
>Microsoft had come into some sharp criticism in the investment community for
>sitting on those huge profits and not sharing a dime of 'em with the
>stockholders. I suppose that's why they finally started their niggardly
>little payout. Wow, now for every thousand dollars in Microsoft stock the
>investor gets the princely sum of three bucks a year. Stockholder joy must
>be boundless. ;-)
You really should stick to something other than talking about stocks.
The dividend is based on the number of shares - not the dollar amount
you invest.
Charles Tomaras
>
> It isn't the only reason. As I mentioned in another post, Windows Media
> Player 9 won't produce sound on my system (it's the only thing that won't)
Since Windows Media Player 9 produces sound on everyone elses XP
installations I think you should find out what is wrong with your setup.
What steps have you taken to trouble shoot it? What has led you to just say
"it doesn't work?"
Neil Harrington
"DJ" <nosp...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:58e8cv8k6nc1kae36...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:16:01 GMT, "Neil Harrington"
> <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote:
> >Microsoft had come into some sharp criticism in the investment community
for
> >sitting on those huge profits and not sharing a dime of 'em with the
> >stockholders. I suppose that's why they finally started their niggardly
> >little payout. Wow, now for every thousand dollars in Microsoft stock the
> >investor gets the princely sum of three bucks a year. Stockholder joy
must
> >be boundless. ;-)
>
> You really should stick to something other than talking about stocks.
Go on, tell me all about it.
>
> The dividend is based on the number of shares - not the dollar amount
> you invest.
The dividend is a certain payout PER SHARE. The "number of shares" doesn't
change the dividend.
The news item Kurt posted said:
"Despite Microsoft's many recent public relations gaffes (an Internet
toilet?), it's hard to find a company that is in better financial position.
$46.2 billion in cash. No debt. And even in a year as tough as this one,
Microsoft is expected to report an earnings increase of 14 percent and sales
growth of 13 percent. Now, it even pays a dividend (however small at 0.3
percent)." -
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/15/technology/techinvestor/lamonica/
The actual dividend isn't stated in the article, but that "0.3 percent"
obviously means the payout is that percentage of the current stock
price--not "the dollar amount you invest," which would vary greatly
according to when the investor bought the stock. (Duh.)
You do the math. Then let me know if you come up with something different
from what I said ("now for every thousand dollars in Microsoft stock the
investor gets the princely sum of three bucks a year").
Neil
Neil Harrington
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 17:03:09 GMT, "Neil Harrington"
> <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote:
> >Also, as far as "their worth in the stock market" is concerned, it should
be
> >remembered that while Microsoft makes enormous piles of money it does not
> >pay out any dividends at all to stockholders. If it did, surely its stock
> >price would move higher. Bill Gates has for years now been the world's
> >wealthiest man, but Microsoft stockholders (who at least in theory are
the
> >actual owners of the company) have not done nearly so well.
>
> I see you have no knowledge of how investing in the stock market
> works.
Well, I've been a pretty successful investor in equities for 30 years, but
go ahead and explain it all to me anyway. I'm always willing to learn more.
>
> Tech companies do not generally pay dividends because investors are
> looking for capital gains. These come about by re-investing profits
> into research and development, and in purchasing other companies much
> like Cisco has done.
Investors in ANY company (tech or otherwise) "are looking for capital
gains." This is especially true of growth companies but by no means
exclusive to them. The important thing to people who invest in equities is
total return, i.e. capital gains plus dividends. No one expects new, or
relatively new, companies (tech or otherwise) to pay dividends because they
need the money for growth. Microsoft has been there for over 20 years, has
enormous profits, no debt at all, and is sitting on a huge pile of cash that
it doesn't really need to sit on. Under those conditions most companies pay
dividends.
>
> The reason the stock is valued so high is because it DOES NOT pay
> dividends. Well, not until this year.
Your notion that NOT paying dividends raises the stock price is interesting,
but baseless.
>
> Microsoft stock owners have done better than almost any other company
> over the time frame that MS has issued stock.
Of course--if they bought the stock when it was first offered. But over the
last five years Microsoft investors haven't made any money, and anyone
unfortunate enough to have bought MSFT when it peaked at the beginning of
2000 has LOST half his investment. Meanwhile Microsoft has continued to pile
up profits.
> Cisco did better in
> that time, and maybe a few others, but not many.
>
> Bill Gates owns huge amounts of MS stock. So for you to say he did
> well while the stock holders did not, is just plain stupid. Further,
> most of his money is in MS stock. While I am sure he owns some other
> stock, people are able to track his net worth simply by focusing on
> the value of MS stock. It is close enough.
I think it's pretty obvious that the REASON Microsoft has finally started to
pay dividends is an attempt to reverse the three-year slide of the stock
price. You probably ought to explain to them that they are (according to
your theory) doing exactly the wrong thing.
>
> I am no fan of some of the things MS does. But at least I learn of
> what I speak before I speak it.
Your self-congratulation is noted without comment.
Neil
kurttrail
"The last straw for me was Windows Media Player 9, which simply will not
produce sound on my XP system. It won't play MP3s, insists I don't have
a
sound card or there's a problem with my sound card. EVERYTHING ELSE runs
perfectly on my Santa Cruz sound card--all the Windows sounds, streaming
audio from IE 6 or whatever, every other media player, every game, every
single thing that can produce a sound. But not Windows Media Player 9.
It
will play videos, but with no sound. I've tried new sound card drivers,
and
tried reinstalling WMP9. Nothing works. I could get no solution from the
WMP
newsgroup, or Microsoft's Knowledge Base, or any WMP-related site I
could
find. And the damn thing can't be UNinstalled from WinXP. If I had it
installed on a Win2000 system I could uninstall it through Add/Remove
Programs, but you can't do that with XP. So it's just that much more
useless
bloat on my system." - Neil from earlier in this thread.
Read the whole thread next time!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
Neil Harrington
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:uzsk483G...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "Neil Harrington" <noj...@allthanks.net> wrote in message
> news:RmSwa.157946$ja4.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> >
> > It isn't the only reason. As I mentioned in another post, Windows Media
> > Player 9 won't produce sound on my system (it's the only thing that
won't)
>
> Since Windows Media Player 9 produces sound on everyone elses XP
That's not true. If you read the Microsoft mediaplayer newsgroup you'll find
that many people running WinXP are having many, many different kinds of
problems with WMP9. It causes problems on other versions of Windows too, but
at least with the other versions it can be uninstalled via Add/Remove
Programs. With WinXP it can't.
> installations I think you should find out what is wrong with your setup.
> What steps have you taken to trouble shoot it?
Reinstalled WMP9.
Downloaded the installation file all over again in case the first was
corrupted in some way, and reinstalled again.
Installed the latest drivers for my sound card (Santa Cruz).
Explained the problem in the Microsoft mediaplayer newsgroup and asked for
help. Was referred to web sites about WMP, went to them, read and tried
everything that seemed related to the problem.
Explored Microsoft's Knowledge Base, searching on anything I could think of
relating to no sound from the player.
Nothing has helped.
> What has led you to just say
> "it doesn't work?"
The fact that it refuses to produce sound. :-/
Attempting to play an MP3 file (ANY MP3 file) produces an error message
saying I have no sound card installed, or there is a problem with the sound
card. But nothing else has any problem at all with my sound card. It works
perfectly with all the Windows sounds, IE sounds, DirectX diagnostics, its
own sound check, all games, OTHER media players (such as RealOne, which I
installed after finally giving up on WMP9), as well as streaming video/audio
as long as it doesn't come fhrough WMP9.
WMP9 plays the various types of video files, but with no sound.
I should mention also that I have used every version of WMP that's come
along since I've been using Windows (i.e., since Windows 3.0) and have never
had a problem with any of them before. Most recently I have been running
and/or continue to run various versions of WMP under Win98SE, WinME, and
Win2000. (I have not yet tried WMP9 on any of those.)
Neil
Charles Tomaras
"kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in message
news:%23RFHyq6...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> find. And the damn thing can't be UNinstalled from WinXP. If I had it
> installed on a Win2000 system I could uninstall it through Add/Remove
> Programs, but you can't do that with XP. So it's just that much more
> useless
> bloat on my system." - Neil from earlier in this thread.
>
> Read the whole thread next time!
Yah...I read that part Kurt. He wouldn't want to uninstall it if he got
"HIS" computer issues figured out. You see Kurt, that wasn't the part I was
directly responding to which is why I saved the bandwidth and only quoted
the relevant information. Apparently the only part you find relevant is fuel
for your dig at MS for not having an uninstall routine for WMP9 on XP.
Charles Tomaras
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:OO609u6G...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
All of that would lead one to believe it's a very hidden yet simple issue.
I'm not saying I have an answer but I'm betting it's a conflict with one of
the non-MS applications you have installed. WMP9 is a different application
for all the other versions of WMP so just because they ran properly with
your configuration doesn't mean 9 couldn't have an issue. Anyway, 9 is here
to stay and a great many multi-media sites will be using the 9 codecs in the
coming months and years. It behooves you to get it working properly even if
it means some real spring cleaning of your complete computing enviornment.
When's the last time you did a clean install of your OS and software
applications?
Neil Harrington
>
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in message
> news:%23RFHyq6...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > find. And the damn thing can't be UNinstalled from WinXP. If I had it
> > installed on a Win2000 system I could uninstall it through Add/Remove
> > Programs, but you can't do that with XP. So it's just that much more
> > useless
> > bloat on my system." - Neil from earlier in this thread.
> >
> > Read the whole thread next time!
>
>
> Yah...I read that part Kurt. He wouldn't want to uninstall it if he got
> "HIS" computer issues figured out.
Well, MY "computer issues" as far as sound is concerned are limited to
running WMP9 under WinXP. Of my four computers, only this one has this kind
of "computer issues." And as pointed out, NOTHING ELSE that uses sound gives
me "computer issues" on this computer either--only WMP9. What does that
suggest to you?
I don't doubt that WMP9 is a fine media player--when and if it works. I wish
it worked for me. Since it doesn't, I'd like to go back to an earlier
version of WMP--and in WinXP it's not possible to do that.
> You see Kurt, that wasn't the part I was
> directly responding to which is why I saved the bandwidth and only quoted
> the relevant information. Apparently the only part you find relevant is
fuel
> for your dig at MS for not having an uninstall routine for WMP9 on XP.
If WMP9 can be uninstalled through Add/Remove Programs on Win2000, why isn't
that option available on WinXP? If it is no use to me, and it isn't, I don't
want the damn thing taking up disk space.
Neil
kurttrail
I said nothing about having no uninstall feature for WMP9. So if you
are claiming to have read this thread, then it quite obvious that you
have comprehended little.
Neil Harrington
I agree with you. But that's like saying "The needle is in this haystack
somewhere."
> I'm not saying I have an answer but I'm betting it's a conflict with one
of
> the non-MS applications you have installed. WMP9 is a different
application
> for all the other versions of WMP so just because they ran properly with
> your configuration doesn't mean 9 couldn't have an issue. Anyway, 9 is
here
> to stay and a great many multi-media sites will be using the 9 codecs in
the
> coming months and years. It behooves you to get it working properly even
if
> it means some real spring cleaning of your complete computing enviornment.
> When's the last time you did a clean install of your OS and software
> applications?
<groan>
You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this computer.
None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working perfectly. Only
WMP9 doesn't work.
My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and then at
least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with it.
Neil
kurttrail
Of course you would believe that is a conflict with a non-MS
applications, not that WMP9 is what is doing the conflicting! While
we're mindlessly speculating, I bet it the gunman-on-the-grassy knoll's
fault, but it couldn't possibly be due to something MS has done. MS
gets everything right! So was the iLoo a hoax, or was the hoax, a hoax?
David Candy
Most MS apps (even uninstallable ones) put their uninstall commands in the registry.under
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Uninstall
Have a look and see if wmp9 does.
To install WMP
D:\WINDOWS\inf\wmp.inf (though this file claim it ver 7)
--
http://www.g2mil.com/Apr2003.htm
http://www.sharpword.com/fascism.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@thisplace.net> wrote in message news:#CQSzK8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
David Candy
--
http://www.g2mil.com/Apr2003.htm
http://www.sharpword.com/fascism.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Candy
http://www.mvps.org/serenitymacros
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Neil Harrington" <noj...@thisplace.net> wrote in message news:#CQSzK8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
Neil Harrington
suggested in the previous post, and actually it won't be too long before I
do a reinstall of WinXP on the present system anyway--I just have to clear
off and save a lot of stuff on CDs first.
Neil
"David Candy" <da...@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:eWMUXn8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
GSV Three Minds in a Can
person Neil Harrington <noj...@thisplace.net> said
<huge snip>
>You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this computer.
>None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working perfectly. Only
>WMP9 doesn't work.
>
>My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and then at
>least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with it.
I gave up on WMP9 around the first release candidate. I =might=
reconsider, when it gets to 9.1 or 9.2. What exactly is it that you want
that 8.1 or even 7.1 won't do (in half the space, with half the cpu
cycles?)
--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
kurttrail
> Bitstring <ux9TaQ8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, from the wonderful
> person Neil Harrington <noj...@thisplace.net> said
> <huge snip>
>> You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this
>> computer. None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working
>> perfectly. Only WMP9 doesn't work.
>>
>> My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and
>> then at least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with
>> it.
>
> I gave up on WMP9 around the first release candidate. I =might=
> reconsider, when it gets to 9.1 or 9.2. What exactly is it that you
> want that 8.1 or even 7.1 won't do (in half the space, with half the
> cpu cycles?)
Miniplayer toolbar in the Taskbar. That's about it in my opinion.
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
JDK
>
>
> All of that would lead one to believe it's a very hidden yet simple issue.
> I'm not saying I have an answer but I'm betting it's a conflict with one of
> the non-MS applications you have installed. WMP9 is a different application
> for all the other versions of WMP so just because they ran properly with
> your configuration doesn't mean 9 couldn't have an issue. Anyway, 9 is here
> to stay and a great many multi-media sites will be using the 9 codecs in the
> coming months and years. It behooves you to get it working properly even if
> it means some real spring cleaning of your complete computing enviornment.
> When's the last time you did a clean install of your OS and software
> applications?
>
>
Re-install the OS to get a media player to work? You cant be serious?
John
Charles Tomaras
> > All of that would lead one to believe it's a very hidden yet simple
> > issue. I'm not saying I have an answer but I'm betting it's a
> > conflict with one of the non-MS applications you have installed. WMP9
> > is a different application for all the other versions of WMP so just
> > because they ran properly with your configuration doesn't mean 9
> > couldn't have an issue. Anyway, 9 is here to stay and a great many
> > multi-media sites will be using the 9 codecs in the coming months and
> > years. It behooves you to get it working properly even if it means
> > some real spring cleaning of your complete computing enviornment.
> > When's the last time you did a clean install of your OS and software
> > applications?
>
> Of course you would believe that is a conflict with a non-MS
> applications, not that WMP9 is what is doing the conflicting! While
> we're mindlessly speculating, I bet it the gunman-on-the-grassy knoll's
> fault, but it couldn't possibly be due to something MS has done. MS
> gets everything right! So was the iLoo a hoax, or was the hoax, a hoax?
>
Kurt, I'm gonna bet you that Windows Media Player 9 works flawlessly on a
Windows XP system with approved hardware and certified drivers. When you
start adding in the myriad of stuff this gentleman says he has on his
computer the odds are pretty damn good it's not XP or WMP9 that's
responsible for his issue. Personally I think XP, Internet Explorer and
Windows Media Player form the core foundation of an XP install and should be
installed and updated before anything else goes in. The problem is that most
people install a ton of stuff all at once without truly checking to see if
it breaks something. A few weeks later they notice a feature, option or app
is broke and they don't even know where to look for the problem. For you, it
seems, the blame always falls with Microsoft. I don't have the gumption to
Google your Usenet posts so I will take your word on it... Is there any
other software manufacturer that you are critical of? Are the rest of them
beyond reproach? Is Microsoft the only company that makes, in your view, bad
software? Name me any other OS that supports as many legacy devices,
applications and permutations of software/hardware combinations as XP. It's
certainly not Linux or Mac OS.
Charles Tomaras
You may not be able to uninstall it from XP but you certainly could have
reverted back to Windows Media Player 8 had you wanted to with the restore
feature.
Charles Tomaras
>
> You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this computer.
> None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working perfectly. Only
> WMP9 doesn't work.
Any computer with "that much stuff" on it probably has a boat load of
orphaned files and assorted old junk living on it's discs.Windows Media
Player 9 is not any other sound app. It is Windows Media Player 9. It
doesn't use the same code as any other sound app so comparing them to ANY
OTHER sound app in this manner is irrelevent.
>
> My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and then
at
> least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with it.
If you like XP, your next clean install should be of XP. After you install
XP you should install WMP9 first. If it works fine then you know it's not
Windows Media Player 9 that is causing your conflict.
Charles Tomaras
> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> > Bitstring <ux9TaQ8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, from the wonderful
> > person Neil Harrington <noj...@thisplace.net> said
> > <huge snip>
> >> You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this
> >> computer. None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working
> >> perfectly. Only WMP9 doesn't work.
> >>
> >> My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and
> >> then at least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with
> >> it.
> >
> > I gave up on WMP9 around the first release candidate. I =might=
> > reconsider, when it gets to 9.1 or 9.2. What exactly is it that you
> > want that 8.1 or even 7.1 won't do (in half the space, with half the
> > cpu cycles?)
>
> Miniplayer toolbar in the Taskbar. That's about it in my opinion.
>
The real advantage of WMP9 is the ability to use the 9 series audio and
video codecs which are superior to their predecessors in all ways. 9 is here
to stay and there will be more and more streaming and hard content available
exclusively in 9 series codecs like the Artisan high resolution DVD ROM
releases.
Charles Tomaras
"JDK" <Jo...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:fIgxa.9889$XV1....@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
If you want to view Windows Media 9 content the answer is yes. If you want
to clear the cobwebs out of your system the answer is yes. If you are
worried that maybe the media player won't be the last new application you
install that doesn't work properly because of a corrupt and ever growing
collection of left overs bits and pieces from the natural progression of
actively using an OS with a large collection of apps....then the answer is
yes.
Neil Harrington
Yes, but it's too late for that now. I don't remember when I installed WMP9
but it was some time ago. There's no way I could pick a restore point now,
and anyway I wouldn't want to undo everything else I've installed since.
Neil
Neil Harrington
"GSV Three Minds in a Can" <GSV@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:+f3YFxDM...@from.is.invalid...
> Bitstring <ux9TaQ8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>, from the wonderful
> person Neil Harrington <noj...@thisplace.net> said
> <huge snip>
> >You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this computer.
> >None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working perfectly. Only
> >WMP9 doesn't work.
> >
> >My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and then
at
> >least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with it.
>
> I gave up on WMP9 around the first release candidate. I =might=
> reconsider, when it gets to 9.1 or 9.2. What exactly is it that you want
> that 8.1 or even 7.1 won't do (in half the space, with half the cpu
> cycles?)
Good point. I do like the way WMP9 LOOKS compared to the earlier versions,
and I assumed it must have some improvements over earlier versions when it
works. But really I was always well satisfied with the earlier versions'
performance.
Neil
Neil Harrington
>
> "Neil Harrington" <noj...@thisplace.net> wrote in message
> news:ux9TaQ8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> >
> > You don't have any conception of how much stuff I have on this computer.
> > None of it has prevented ANY OTHER sound app from working perfectly.
Only
> > WMP9 doesn't work.
>
> Any computer with "that much stuff" on it probably has a boat load of
> orphaned files and assorted old junk living on it's discs.
I don't think so. I use Norton CleanSweep regularly and I think it keeps the
old junk pretty much cleared out.
> Windows Media
> Player 9 is not any other sound app. It is Windows Media Player 9.
Yes. That's sort of like saying cancer is not any other disease. It is
cancer.
> It
> doesn't use the same code as any other sound app so comparing them to ANY
> OTHER sound app in this manner is irrelevent.
Sorry, I don't follow the logic there. A non-working application doesn't use
the same code as any similar app so that's an EXCUSE for its not working
where the other apps do? Good luck trying to sell that one.
>
> >
> > My next clean install will be Win2000. I will try WMP9 on that, and then
> at
> > least I'll be able to uninstall it if I have problems with it.
>
>
> If you like XP, your next clean install should be of XP. After you install
> XP you should install WMP9 first. If it works fine then you know it's not
> Windows Media Player 9 that is causing your conflict.
Does that really seem reasonable to you? Everything can't be installed
first. Any software that requires being installed before anything else is
not worth considering, IMO. I don't have any other programs installed that
cause problems with any other installed programs. If WMP9 can't get along in
the environment that all other sound-producing programs work perfectly well
in, I don't want it.
Neil
Neil Harrington
>
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.net> wrote in message
> news:uQ9XsS8G...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > All of that would lead one to believe it's a very hidden yet simple
> > > issue. I'm not saying I have an answer but I'm betting it's a
> > > conflict with one of the non-MS applications you have installed. WMP9
> > > is a different application for all the other versions of WMP so just
> > > because they ran properly with your configuration doesn't mean 9
> > > couldn't have an issue. Anyway, 9 is here to stay and a great many
> > > multi-media sites will be using the 9 codecs in the coming months and
> > > years. It behooves you to get it working properly even if it means
> > > some real spring cleaning of your complete computing enviornment.
> > > When's the last time you did a clean install of your OS and software
> > > applications?
> >
> > Of course you would believe that is a conflict with a non-MS
> > applications, not that WMP9 is what is doing the conflicting! While
> > we're mindlessly speculating, I bet it the gunman-on-the-grassy knoll's
> > fault, but it couldn't possibly be due to something MS has done. MS
> > gets everything right! So was the iLoo a hoax, or was the hoax, a hoax?
> >
>
>
> Kurt, I'm gonna bet you that Windows Media Player 9 works flawlessly on a
> Windows XP system with approved hardware and certified drivers.
My display card (nVidia GeForce3) and sound card (Voyetra Turtle Beach Santa
Cruz) drivers are both Microsoft certified. Running Dxdiag shows no
problems, and the DirectX sound test works perfectly. Voyetra's sound check
program works perfectly. EVERYTHING ELSE works perfectly except WMP9, which
tells me I have no sound card or there's a problem with my sound card.
The sound works perfectly in games. It works perfectly in streaming
video/audio through IE 6. It works perfectly with all the usual Windows
sounds. It works perfectly with RealOne, which I just recently installed out
of sheer frustration trying to get WMP9 to give me sound. In fact, I have
come to believe that there probably isn't any software anywhere in the world
that will NOT work with my sound card, with the single solitary exception of
WMP9 (at least running under WinXP).
> When you
> start adding in the myriad of stuff this gentleman says he has on his
> computer the odds are pretty damn good it's not XP or WMP9 that's
> responsible for his issue.
Everything else WORKS though, Charles.
I think most people nowadays have a lot of stuff on their computers. I have
a 40GB hard drive on my WinXP machine with WMP9, which is certainly not an
extravagant amount of space these days. Installed programs include IE6,
DSL-related software, Word and Excel, Norton SystemWorks, a few games,
various utilities and benchmarks, PowerDVD, Nero and InCD burning software,
a lot of Microsoft stuff (Reader, Streets and Trips, Pocket PC related
progams like ActiveSync, Microsoft mouse and keyboard-related programs,
etc.), digital camera-related software, QuickTime, Shockwave, RealOne
Player, a flock of WinXP Hotfixes, a lot of Windows and other software
updates and drivers for printers, scanners and other peripherals etc.
So yes, it's enough stuff that your breezy suggestion to start over,
reinstall XP and everything else is enough to make me groan. I don't really
think that it's such an exceptional amount of software to have on one's
computer nowadays. At some point I will do a complete Windows
reinstallation, but I'm sure not going to do it just in hopes of getting
WMP9 to work.
There is still the question of why WMP9 WON'T work when everything else
WILL. And remember, that's even after reinstalling WMP9, and then
re-downloading the installation file and reinstalling it all over again just
to make sure there was nothing screwed up in the first file.
Neil
Charles Tomaras
I certainly don't have an answer for you as to why it won't work but I can
say with certainty that there are enough permutations of how all those
disparate applications interact with each other to stagger the mind. I've
probably got just as much crap on my computer as well but I know it would
bug me to the point of a clean install if I couldn't get to the bottom of
the problem. I think WMP9 is such outstanding software that I hope you do
get it going
kurttrail
Codecs supports version 7.0 and later of the Windows Media Player.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/codecdownload.aspx
Maybe you should know what your talking about, before you open your big
mouth!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
"Charles Tomaras" <tom...@tomaras.com> wrote in message
news:e2DPZBCH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
>
Nope, he ain't kidding! This guys is a serious friggin' moron! Not even
gonna tell Neil try a repair install first, before doing a clean install.
Or to install the WM9 codecs and use another Media Player.
kurttrail
> Kurt, I'm gonna bet you that Windows Media Player 9 works flawlessly on a
> Windows XP system with approved hardware and certified drivers. When you
> start adding in the myriad of stuff this gentleman says he has on his
> computer the odds are pretty damn good it's not XP or WMP9 that's
> responsible for his issue.
XP is flawless unless you use it? The Santa Cruz soundcard is easy to
configure and has MS certified drivers.
> Personally I think XP, Internet Explorer and
> Windows Media Player form the core foundation of an XP install and should
be
> installed and updated before anything else goes in.
So everybody that XP for the year& a half before WMP9 came out should do a
reinstall? LOL!
> The problem is that most
> people install a ton of stuff all at once without truly checking to see if
> it breaks something. A few weeks later they notice a feature, option or
app
> is broke and they don't even know where to look for the problem. For you,
it
> seems, the blame always falls with Microsoft.
No, I haven't blamed his problem on anyone, but I haven't eliminated MS from
the equation either! We had people in this group that said the problem with
Update 811493 wasn't MS's fault, but placed the blame on AV companies, until
MS finally admitted that it was their problem. But now were back to your
inability to comprehend what you read. I didn't blame MS, I was pointing
out that your absolving MS from being the cause was nothing more than
mindless speculation.
> I don't have the gumption to
> Google your Usenet posts so I will take your word on it...
Yes, I can tell. You've repeatedly have shown that you are too lazy to find
out & think for yourself. Must be told the things you believe.
> Is there any
> other software manufacturer that you are critical of?
Yeah, but most are also MS partners, like Roxio, for helping MS screw up CD
Burning in XP!
> Are the rest of them
> beyond reproach?
Nope, I'm sure if any other company was in MS's position, they'd be just as
scummy, as power does corrupt. And there is no vaccine!
> Is Microsoft the only company that makes, in your view, bad
> software?
All software is flawed. But MS tends to make unneccessary problems for
themselves. Like tying the effin' kitchen sink to the OS! I still dream of
the day that someone writes an nice small OS with no bells & whistles, but
then again I still hope that human beings will learn to live peacefully with
each other.
> Name me any other OS that supports as many legacy devices,
> applications and permutations of software/hardware combinations as XP.
It's
> certainly not Linux or Mac OS.
Windows 98SE! And no French justice built in. As PA assumes guilt until
proven otherwise by MS's PA "Star Chamber" servers. Unlike English justice
where guilt must be proven first in a real court!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
Charles Tomaras
> Actually all you need are the codecs, as MS says the Windows Media 9
Series
> Codecs supports version 7.0 and later of the Windows Media Player.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/codecdownload.aspx
>
> Maybe you should know what your talking about, before you open your big
> mouth!
So Kurt....where did I say that you couldn't download the codecs? The guy
said "reinstall an OS to get a media player to work?" And I said:
>>If you want to view Windows Media 9 content the answer is yes. If you want
> > to clear the cobwebs out of your system the answer is yes. If you are
> > worried that maybe the media player won't be the last new application
you
> > install that doesn't work properly because of a corrupt and ever growing
> > collection of left overs bits and pieces from the natural progression of
> > actively using an OS with a large collection of apps....then the answer
is yes.
This is about getting Windows Media 9 player to run on an XP installation.
Not about running Windows Media 7+.
So what part of that causes you to tell me I don't know what I'm talking
about? And what part of that makes you start calling me names? You can't
seem to have a conversation with anyone. If someone asks you a question that
doesn't agree with your view of the world you just don't answer.
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:uQiBj$FHDHA...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Actually all you need are the codecs, as MS says the Windows Media 9
>> Series Codecs supports version 7.0 and later of the Windows Media
>> Player.
>>
>>
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/format/codecdownload.aspx
>>
>> Maybe you should know what your talking about, before you open your
>> big mouth!
>
> So Kurt....where did I say that you couldn't download the codecs? The
> guy said "reinstall an OS to get a media player to work?"
:: Re-install the OS to get a media player to work? You cant be serious?
::
:: John
:
: If you want to view Windows Media 9 content the answer is yes
:
So what you're implying in reponse to John is that you need WMP9 to veiw WM9
content, which of course is absolute bullsh*t. You don't even understand
what your own words mean. LOL!
MS wants every media player in the world to use WM9 content, so that it will
become the standard, and then they can leverage content providers into
paying a cut to MS.
> And I said:
>
>>> If you want to view Windows Media 9 content the answer is yes. If
>>> you want to clear the cobwebs out of your system the answer is yes.
>>> If you are worried that maybe the media player won't be the last
>>> new application you install that doesn't work properly because of a
>>> corrupt and ever growing collection of left overs bits and pieces
>>> from the natural progression of actively using an OS with a large
>>> collection of apps....then the answer is yes.
>
> This is about getting Windows Media 9 player to run on an XP
> installation. Not about running Windows Media 7+.
>
You also made this about viewing WM9 content, in response to John, not me.
ROFL!
> So what part of that causes you to tell me I don't know what I'm
> talking about?
Just about everthing you say! You are so careless about reading the posts
of others, that your responses show how little you comprehend about every
subject. Where did you get your schooling, so the parents in this group
know where not to send their kids!
> And what part of that makes you start calling me
> names?
I didn't call you a name in my last post. Wouldn't this have been more
appropriate in reply to one of my posts where I actually call you something,
ignorant fool! Advising you to keep silent on subject that you have little
knowledge about, isn't calling you a name. Just some good advise that I
believe that you are too moronic to even consider. Describing your mouth
with the adjective "big" is not calling you a name.
> You can't seem to have a conversation with anyone.
Sure, then why am I still conversing with you? To point out to others the
dangers of conformity. And you are just about the perfect example of a
mindless conformist.
> If someone
> asks you a question that doesn't agree with your view of the world
> you just don't answer.
Oh, what a bullsh*t artist you are! I directly answer more questions
directly asked of me, than anyone ever does with my question to them. I've
been here for over a year and a half, and I haven't run from any argument,
and I am still standing with my head held high, while you just can't get
your head out of MS's ass long enough to even comprehend the words you
mindlessly spew, let alone understand the words of others.
Charles Tomaras
> So what you're implying in reponse to John is that you need WMP9 to veiw
WM9
> content, which of course is absolute bullsh*t.
No, you can read what you want into it. What I'm saying NOW is that if he
want to use Windows Media Player 9 a clean install will probably solve his
problems.
> MS wants every media player in the world to use WM9 content, so that it
will
> become the standard, and then they can leverage content providers into
> paying a cut to MS.
Just more of your demonization of everything MS. I thought that Real
Networks and Apple/Quicktime wanted to be the standard. Did I miss something
in my Business 101 class?
> You also made this about viewing WM9 content, in response to John, not me.
> ROFL!
I was talking to you not John. You need to read the posts a little more
carefully.
>
> I didn't call you a name in my last post. Wouldn't this have been more
> appropriate in reply to one of my posts where I actually call you
something,
> ignorant fool! Advising you to keep silent on subject that you have
little
> knowledge about, isn't calling you a name. Just some good advise that I
> believe that you are too moronic to even consider. Describing your mouth
> with the adjective "big" is not calling you a name.
You call me names and you call countless others names in these newsgroupd.
Pretty much anyone who disagree with you or doesn't share the same level of
self-acclaimed knowledge you seem to believe that you have. Are you unable
to carry on a civil conversation with people you don't agree with? Even if
someone is in error it give you no right to be so disrespectful. Do you
call people you've had casual conversations with names like big mouth and
idiot when you speak with them face to face in real life. You have an
obvious lack of social graces which speaks more highely of your upbringing
than your imagined jabs at mine. (That comes from another derogatory post
you made...but I think you can remember it without it being quoted here)
>
> Oh, what a bullsh*t artist you are! I directly answer more questions
> directly asked of me, than anyone ever does with my question to them.
I've
> been here for over a year and a half, and I haven't run from any argument,
> and I am still standing with my head held high, while you just can't get
> your head out of MS's ass long enough to even comprehend the words you
> mindlessly spew, let alone understand the words of others.
You only answer questions and engage in "coversations" that you feel you are
superior in. I can't remember one "coversation" you've been in where you
have professed to learning from or agreeing with any thing someone else has
said. You are without fault, you are the great annointed one. You badger
people and call them names, then you have the gall to use the word "Peace"
in your signature.
Neil Harrington
>
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in message
> news:Om8YagTH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > So what you're implying in reponse to John is that you need WMP9 to veiw
> WM9
> > content, which of course is absolute bullsh*t.
>
> No, you can read what you want into it. What I'm saying NOW is that if he
> want to use Windows Media Player 9 a clean install will probably solve his
> problems.
You mean a clean reinstall of both WinXP and WMP9. Charles, I don't doubt
for a moment that you are correct. I'm sure WMP9 is working just fine on a
million other WinXP systems. But it won't work on mine, despite the fact
that I have all up-to-date hardware and the latest certified drivers.
It is simply unreasonable to expect anyone to have to do a clean reinstall
of his whole OS and everything else, just to get the media player to work.
Once again: my sound card (which WMP9 for some reason refuses to recognize)
works PERFECTLY with everything else that uses sound, including other media
players like RealOne Player. The ONLY thing it doesn't work with is WMP9. I
have done a reinstall of WMP9 (over the original installation; I can't do a
clean install since WinXP will not allow me to uninstall WMP9) and this
doesn't help at all.
Believe me, I would RATHER have WMP9 than RealOne. I find the ads etc.
annoying in RealOne.
Neil
kurttrail
> "kurttrail" <donte...@anywhereintheknownuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:Om8YagTH...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> So what you're implying in reponse to John is that you need WMP9 to
>> veiw WM9 content, which of course is absolute bullsh*t.
>
> No, you can read what you want into it. What I'm saying NOW is that
> if he want to use Windows Media Player 9 a clean install will
> probably solve his problems.
>
ROFL! I think I sh*t my pants! "What I'm saying NOW . . . ." LOL!
"The real advantage of WMP9 is the ability to use the 9 series audio and
video codecs . . . ." - Charles Tomarass, Re: Activation for used WinXP OEM,
any problems?, Friday, May 16, 2003 10:15 PM
You mean you don't mean this NOW either! LOL! Don't tell me you aren't
gonna thank me for teaching you that WM9 codecs can be used on other Media
Players other than WMP9? LOL!
>
>> MS wants every media player in the world to use WM9 content, so that
>> it will become the standard, and then they can leverage content
>> providers into paying a cut to MS.
>
> Just more of your demonization of everything MS. I thought that Real
> Networks and Apple/Quicktime wanted to be the standard. Did I miss
> something in my Business 101 class?
>
Yes. The thing about competition! MS doesn't play well with others.
That's their history, as proven in a real court of law.
>
>> You also made this about viewing WM9 content, in response to John,
>> not me. ROFL!
>
> I was talking to you not John. You need to read the posts a little
> more carefully.
>
Yes it does look that way, when you cut out the part where I was quoting
your brief exchange with John. Any little trick to try to back up your
insanity. Did you really think no one would notice? Fool!
>>
>> I didn't call you a name in my last post. Wouldn't this have been
>> more appropriate in reply to one of my posts where I actually call
>> you something, ignorant fool! Advising you to keep silent on
>> subject that you have little knowledge about, isn't calling you a
>> name. Just some good advise that I believe that you are too moronic
>> to even consider. Describing your mouth with the adjective "big" is
>> not calling you a name.
>
> You call me names and you call countless others names in these
> newsgroupd. Pretty much anyone who disagree with you or doesn't share
> the same level of self-acclaimed knowledge you seem to believe that
> you have. Are you unable to carry on a civil conversation with people
> you don't agree with?
No. I have had plenty of civil conversations with those that can actually
comprehend the English language, but don't agree with my opinions. Those,
like you, too stupid & lazy to comprehend a conversation, or those who are
purposely preverting a conversation, I have no absolutely no respect for,
and I'm not afraid to show my utter contempt for such an individual.
> Even if someone is in error it give you no
> right to be so disrespectful.
For an honest mistake, you would be correct. But your insanity is out of
shear stupidity or blind devotion, and frequently repeated.
> Do you call people you've had casual
> conversations with names like big mouth and idiot when you speak with
> them face to face in real life.
See, you still don't understand that I didn't call you a "big mouth," even
after I explained the difference. "Maybe you should know what your talking
about, before you open your big mouth!" - me
And if someone is a fool or an idiot, yes, I am not afraid to say it!
> You have an obvious lack of social
> graces which speaks more highely of your upbringing than your
> imagined jabs at mine.
Yeah, I'm a real man, unwilling to submit to Politically Correct conformity.
A lot better than being a unpaid PC sychophant to some godless corporate
entity.
> (That comes from another derogatory post you
> made...but I think you can remember it without it being quoted here)
>
If your parents paid taxes so you could get a decent public education, they
should demand a refund!
>>
>> Oh, what a bullsh*t artist you are! I directly answer more questions
>> directly asked of me, than anyone ever does with my question to
>> them. I've been here for over a year and a half, and I haven't run
>> from any argument, and I am still standing with my head held high,
>> while you just can't get your head out of MS's ass long enough to
>> even comprehend the words you mindlessly spew, let alone understand
>> the words of others.
>
> You only answer questions and engage in "coversations" that you feel
> you are superior in.
I keep my "big mouth" shut on topics that I don't have a good understanding
of! I'm not an effin' moron like you. But I am quite willing to answer any
question directly asked of me, though I don't promise the questioner will
like my answer. [NOW am I calling myself a "big mouth"?! LOL!]
> I can't remember one "coversation" you've been
> in where you have professed to learning from or agreeing with any
> thing someone else has said.
And your memory here means absolutely nothing, Johnny-Come-Lately. "I don't
have the gumption to
Google your Usenet posts so I will take your word on it... " - Charles
Tomarass, Re: Activation for used WinXP OEM, any problems?, Friday, May 16,
2003 10:02 PM. So in your admittledly limited experience on the subject you
remember nothing! LOL!
> You are without fault, you are the great
> annointed one.
Self-Anoited, schmuck. Please don't edit my attempt at being
self-deprecating. But I should have know that it was too subtle for you to
pick up with your absolute inability to comprehend even the simplest of
concepts.
> You badger people and call them names, then you have
> the gall to use the word "Peace" in your signature.
>
Peace has different meanings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=peace
I wish for everyone to have a little peace of mind. But in your case, I am
willing to make an exception, and I wish for you to actually have a piece of
mind.
But now I'm gonna have to end this, because I don't want to be seen as if
I'm Tard-baiting. See I do take into account how I am percieved by others.
LOL!
--
Piece!