I own a license, not the software. I'm talking about executing my right
to that copy of Windows. I think that my rights to use it should be
limited, but to tie it to hardware is fundamentally wrong unless you
start selling closed systems that are meant to be disposable.
FORC5 wrote:
unfortunately you do NOT own it.
sad state that has been created. IMO I agree one should own what he buys but
that is not the case with SW.
fp
At 02:11 PM 10/5/2006, Anthony Q. Martin Poked the stick with:
why? I bought a copy with a PC...my hardware, I own it. I don't need vendor
support after i know the system works. why should anything be tied to hardware
and what makes hardware unique? Do we now consider a PC to be a disposable
unit...don't fix it, change it, or upgrade it....just toss it out (OS and all)
and get a new one?
Ben Ruset wrote:
Why should you? You didn't pay retail price for that copy of XP. It's sold at a
discount and tied to the hardware. And the hardware vendor is the person who
has to support the OS, not Microsoft.
You want to shift your OS around to new PC's? Spend the $199 and buy the boxed
copy of XP.
Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
I kinda think this sucks, though. If I bought an OEM computer and I decide to
trash it, I feel as though I ought to be able to use the OS on a new system. Is
that unfair to MS?
