Being an MS admin for 20 years+ now, I'm with you. Really all the "Home" versions are are gimped (no pun intended) versions of the Office edition - MS disables advanced networking, encryption, and other stuff. It isn't a separate version at all.

Theoretically, however, Apple's OS licensing of allowing 5 installs per key for a mere $40 has really put a damper on Microsoft's ongoing Windows sales (couldn't possibly have had to do with their crappy desktop on Windows 8) and with Windows 10 you'll be able to install on multiple devices with the same key - just like how they opened up Office.

I'll believe it when i see it. I have hated Microsoft's licensing policies ever since they let their lawyers define the terms - which was a very long time ago.

any photo of NW helps. . oh;;; sorry. . it was a devil-made-me-do-it
moment which soon passed. . but the virus stuck around! -- j
.

Ha! I hope the photo was worth it.

Jan

my "more normal breakdowns" occur because I went out to
get a photo of Natalie Wood or some such -- viruses and
trojans which shut me down. . helps to have a second computer
which was not affected!!! -- j
.

One of Microsoft's bogus IP claims that really bugs me is, they sell separate "Home" and "Office" editions of Windows, then pretend that anyone who buys the "Home" version and installs it in an office is somehow stealing from them. No I'm not, if it's only on one computer per purchased copy.

I don't think a warranty counts as insurance, or should.

Intellectual property law does not have a solid, objective basis in part because “intellectual property” is itself a slippery and ill-defined concept. Patents are not copyrights and copyrights are not trademarks. Each of these three has a distinct relationship to the concept of ownership, and the validity of any one of these as a form of property does not imply the validity of any of the others. Many people (myself included) consider certain forms of “intellectual property” to be legitimate, and other forms not so.

While I agree with jdg, Thoritsu and others who are in favor of this decision (obviously, or I would not have started this thread), I would think it would be less divisive to the members of the Gulch in that the changes were made were for personal use not as a commercial product: I get to jailbreak my phone; I get to fix my car.

Jan

We had no problems with MS on that - in case of major disaster (such as Katrina) we told our customers (even the ones who were not on support) to go out and buy a new PC (because their offices had been destroyed) and we would reinstall SL on it and copy in their most recent backup of their database. The new PC came with a copy of Windows (but often they lacked a copy of their backup and had to start from scratch). It is when a more normal breakdown occurs that we have discussions over the licenses of MS and Pervasive.

Jan

Jan

And they're often wrong about that, not only morally but legally. It's a basic principle of law that if I buy something without a written agreement, the seller isn't entitled to later add conditions -- and both "shrinkwrap" and "clickwrap" licenses violate that principle, unless the entire license is printed where I can see it before I pay the money and walk out the door with the package.

This is an interesting discussion with many good points back and forth. I gave thumbs up on many pro and con. But everyone is just stating opinions, nothing is really rigorous or principled. Intellectual property law does not have a solid, objective basis. We inherit too many ideas from experience with land, which must be rival and exclusive. But my making a copy of a program does not prevent you having your own copy. So, we have "copy rights" i.e., the right to copy. However, they, too, derived originally from royal grants, like the right to colonize Delaware (without actually consulting the people already living there....), so it was a mixed-premise attempt at an important step forward.

It needs to be cleared up and put on a rational-empirical basis.

What happens when pharmaceutical companies copyright your genes?

For some time, courts have been holding that to use a device implies acceptance of the license agreement for whatever embedded software it contains, and therefore to use a device contrary to this license agreement is a breach of copyright.

The "second principle" is complete BS. An inventor's or composer's right extends ONLY to not having copies made (beyond fair use) or public performances occur without his permission. Once I buy my copy it is mine to do with as I please, except those two things.

Never had a problem moving a license from one computer to another. I've rebuilt computers, sometimes a couple of times a year, with new drives, new motherboards, etc, and only once had to go through reactivation with Windows 7 and later.

We can thank the new interim librarian of Congress for this.

Agreed, you don't built a machine to save money, you built a machine to put in it what you want in it. If you have a Windows machine you can dedicate take a look at Blue Iris, for $50 you can't go wrong. Very easy to setup as well.

This is actually a divisive area for the Gulch population.

At stake are two contradictory principles of property rights: the physical property rights of the purchaser, versus the intellectual property rights of the publishers and devices.

The first principle rests on the axiom that when you buy a product, you automatically have the right to do whatever you want with it, as long as you're not pirating intellectual property out to anyone else.

The second principle is based on the argument that intellectual property rights take precedence, and that the "sale" of a device or medium such as a DVD is in fact just a granting of very limited rights of possession, and does not constitute "ownership".

Under this latter argument, when you buy a cellphone, you have the right to smash it to pieces with a sledgehammer, you have the right to use it to make calls and run a limited set of apps, but you do not have the right to use it beyond the intentions of the manufacturer, because as part of your purchase, you have agreed to uphold the intellectual property rights of the manufacturer.

There are those in the Gulch here who would argue vehemently for the latter principle, and complain that the EFF are in fact a bunch of looters.

ummmmm ... like my siamesing 2 computers for backup
and also making cd copies of these books which I am
co-editing-writing? . and, somehow, MS did not allow
your maneuvers to help customers get back on their feet? -- j
.

I've looked at Zoneminder, but I really didn't want to have to build my own machine. Not that I can't, I've built all the others.

It was just more cost effective for me to get a pre-made system.

When you buy a Windows version, you get two things: a download or disk with the product on it and a license key (string of letters and numbers) that is now registered to you. If your computer dies, you are supposed to be able to reuse the disk or to get another copy of that same version, as long as you have a copy of the license key.

It is not just MS that does this - we used a Pervasive db for many years, and it worked the same way (but if our customer had lost the license key they had to re-buy the product).

(We just keep track of our customers and reload our software on their new computer...but they have to have a copy of their data! Most of our medical facilities are Very Bad about doing backups and as often as not, the data is lost. That means: your past medical record is wiped out of existence.)

Jan

I have an old Vista laptop that my son gave me that I use for my cameras. I have not revisited the Linux use of camera but perhaps I will soon just to get rid of the Vista machine. You could try Zoneminder for your cameras but I didn't find it as good as Blue Iris and it is way more difficult to setup. I print directly on USB so I cannot say anything about network printing.

And that stargeezer is what I thought should happen but after several calls and producing receipts and key codes there was no joy.

Thanks, that is great news!

One of the many reasons I've been a Mac user for the last 20 years. I've routinely switched from one machine to another, without a hint of any restrictions. Apple is just happy you bought their machine, but that's the headache of having the owner of the hardware and operating system being two separate firms.