f



Transferring hardware from Mac to Mac, reactivating OS X not necessary

I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 

The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 

The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 

And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 

I wonder why, Wintrolls. 

Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/2/2008 6:46:09 AM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

70 Replies
715 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 16

Chance Furlong wrote:
> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
> 
> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
> 
> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
> 
> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
> 
> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
> 
> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.

I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
de-authorizing and re-authorizing?

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/2/2008 9:10:08 AM
In article <Db6dnUuD3IftuQnVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Chance Furlong wrote:
> > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
> > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
> > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
> > 
> > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
> > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
> > 
> > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
> > 
> > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
> > 
> > I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
> > 
> > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> 
> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
> de-authorizing and re-authorizing?

Which is unique to Macs, how?



-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
8/2/2008 9:25:35 AM
In article <Db6dnUuD3IftuQnVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Chance Furlong wrote:
> > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
> > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
> > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
> > 
> > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
> > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
> > 
> > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
> > 
> > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
> > 
> > I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
> > 
> > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> 
> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
> de-authorizing and re-authorizing?
> 
> Steve

I use iTunes for listening to podcasts.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/2/2008 9:47:03 AM
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote: 
> Chance Furlong wrote: 
>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
>> 
>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
>> 
>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
>> 
>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
>> 
>> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
>> 
>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze. 
> 
> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
> de-authorizing and re-authorizing? 
> 

And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell? 

0
no-spam2 (6831)
8/2/2008 2:41:31 PM
On Aug 2, 2:46=A0am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>
> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>
> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>
> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>
> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>
> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.

I've always being really bothered by the 12 seconds it takes to re-
activate Windows.
0
muahman (3479)
8/2/2008 10:40:26 PM
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote: 
>> Chance Furlong wrote: 
>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
>>>
>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
>>>
>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
>>>
>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
>>>
>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
>>>
>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze. 
>> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
>> de-authorizing and re-authorizing? 
>>
> 
> And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell? 

Considering the billion or so tracks IMS has sold, I assume most 
people have at least some purchased tracks.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/2/2008 11:08:48 PM
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote: 
>> Chance Furlong wrote: 
>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
>>>
>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
>>>
>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
>>>
>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
>>>
>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
>>>
>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze. 
>> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
>> de-authorizing and re-authorizing? 
>>
> 
> And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell? 

You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than it 
takes to re-authorize Windows?

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/2/2008 11:09:28 PM
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
> it takes to re-authorize Windows?

And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?

0
no-spam2 (6831)
8/3/2008 12:02:20 AM
On Aug 2, 1:08=A0pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Tim Murray wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the f=
our
> >>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA1=
33
> >>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>
> >>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in Syst=
em
> >>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>
> >>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>
> >>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>
> >>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>
> >>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with
> >> de-authorizing and re-authorizing?
>
> > And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell?
>
> Considering the billion or so tracks IMS has sold, I assume most
> people have at least some purchased tracks.
>

Not I...
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI

0
dfritzin (3022)
8/3/2008 12:34:22 AM
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
>> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
>> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
> 
> And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
> 

It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a 
post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be 
activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to 
actually activate Windows.   In other words, it's a non issue.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/3/2008 1:04:21 AM
In article <bIidnfWu4rmLmQjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Tim Murray wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> >> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
> >> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
> > 
> > And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
> > 
> 
> It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a 
> post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be 
> activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to 
> actually activate Windows. In other words, it's a non issue.
> 
> Steve

It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
have had to do with Windoze.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/3/2008 1:13:08 AM
Chance Furlong wrote:
> In article <bIidnfWu4rmLmQjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
>>>> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
>>>> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
>>> And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
>>>
>> It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a 
>> post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be 
>> activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to 
>> actually activate Windows. In other words, it's a non issue.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
> have had to do with Windoze.

But you spent more time *writing* about it.   I guess I am the only 
one that sees the irony in that .

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/3/2008 1:36:41 AM
In article <qq-dnaSalbk0lgjVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> >Chance Furlong wrote:
> >
> > It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
> > have had to do with Windoze.
> 
> But you spent more time writing about it. I guess I am the only 
> one that sees the irony in that.
> 
> Steve

Does the thought of reactivating Windoze annoy you?
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/3/2008 1:58:10 AM
Chance Furlong wrote:
> In article <qq-dnaSalbk0lgjVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>>
>>> It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
>>> have had to do with Windoze.
>> But you spent more time writing about it. I guess I am the only 
>> one that sees the irony in that.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Does the thought of reactivating Windoze annoy you?

It's a necessary evil, to stem software piracy.  if Apple ever sells 
their OS to be used on non-Apple hardware, they'll do the same.

Steve

0
steve13 (4870)
8/3/2008 2:10:02 AM
In article 
<52930d3c-dd04-425a-9d86-42eb287684d7@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 Dave Fritzinger <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Considering the billion or so tracks IMS has sold, I assume most
> > people have at least some purchased tracks.
> >
> 
> Not I...

I've got over 400 "purchased" tracks.  I put "purchased" in quotes 
because I've only actually bought around 20 tracks.  Most of the rest 
are from Apple's free weekly downloads.  They make 2 or 3 tracks 
available every week, for free.  If they want to give away $100-$150 of 
music every year, that's fine with me!

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
8/3/2008 4:51:39 AM
On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 15:40:26 -0700 (PDT), MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Aug 2, 2:46�am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>>
>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>>
>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>>
>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>>
>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>>
>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>
>I've always being really bothered by the 12 seconds it takes to re-
>activate Windows.

I suppose that's a benefit for MacOS X. I got rid of my ancient HW so
I don't have anything to shuffle around anyway. So why was he bragging
about having HW that old in the first place? 'I use old relics' isn't
exactly something to crow about in my estimation.


-- 

"Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a 
Muslim, and is a committed Christian"
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

"...n 1971, Obama enrolled in the Besuki Primary School, 
a government school, as Barry Soetoro, Muslim"
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12745.htm

""In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother
I made faces during Koranic studies.""
From "Dreams From My Father" Barack Obama's autobigraphy
0
8/3/2008 5:18:52 AM
On Aug 2, 9:13=A0pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> In article <bIidnfWu4rmLmQjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_in...@giganews.com>,
> =A0Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> > Tim Murray wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> > >> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than
> > >> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
>
> > > And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
>
> > It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a
> > post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be
> > activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to
> > actually activate Windows. In other words, it's a non issue.
>
> > Steve
>
> It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would
> have had to do with Windoze.

But you have to use Windows. We don't have to use the Mac. Windows is
the defacto world standard for computing. The Mac is a toy.
0
muahman (3479)
8/3/2008 6:47:59 AM
In article 
<42dc76e8-2f3f-4eb8-b55d-94d7570c3978@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
 MuahMan <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 2, 9:13�pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would
> > have had to do with Windoze.
> 
> But you have to use Windows. 

No, I don't.

> We don't have to use the Mac. 

Yes, you can, twink.

> Windows is the defacto world standard for computing. 

Because of pussy assed hardware and software vendors caving in to that 
prick Bill Gates.

> The Mac is a toy.

I doubt it, twinkie.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/3/2008 7:16:06 AM
On Aug 2, 1:46=A0am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>
> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>
> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>
> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>
> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>
> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.

What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/4/2008 2:06:08 AM
In article 
<90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7958@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Aug 2, 1:46�am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
> > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
> > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >
> > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
> > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >
> > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >
> > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >
> > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >
> > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> 
> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.

Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move 
the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/4/2008 2:23:45 AM
Chance Furlong wrote:
> In article 
> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7958@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>>>
>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>>>
>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>>>
>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>>>
>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>>>
>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
> 
> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move 
> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.

The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed 
criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/4/2008 2:56:39 AM
On Aug 3, 10:56=A0pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Chance Furlong wrote:
> > In article
> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > =A0Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the f=
our
> >>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA1=
33
> >>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>
> >>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in Syst=
em
> >>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>
> >>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>
> >>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>
> >>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>
> >>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> >> Windows? =A0 =A0Nothing you listed above.
>
> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or mov=
e
> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
>
> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>
> Steve

SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
Both are bad tho.

Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and XP
twice.
That includes updating the motherboard.

You may or may not get a error message after attempt to exceed the
number of installs.

"Mu=DF es sein?, Es mu=DF sein!"
- Ludwig van Beethoven
0
8/4/2008 4:14:41 PM
On Aug 3, 9:23=A0pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> In article
> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 1:46=A0am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the f=
our
> > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA1=
33
> > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>
> > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in Syst=
em
> > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>
> > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>
> > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>
> > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>
> > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>
> > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> > Windows? =A0 =A0Nothing you listed above.
>
> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move
> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another

Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.

The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
gained building Windows XP computers.
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/4/2008 6:54:32 PM
In article 
<51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
 Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Aug 3, 9:23�pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > �Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 2, 1:46�am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >
> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >
> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >
> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >
> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >
> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >
> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> > > Windows? � �Nothing you listed above.
> >
> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move
> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
> 
> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.

You're wrong...

....as usual.

> 
> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
> gained building Windows XP computers.

That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The 
OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/4/2008 7:55:08 PM
Thundercleets wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
>>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
>>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
>>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
>>>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
>>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move
>>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
>> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
>> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
> Both are bad tho.

That is incorrect.  It is more relaxed in XP.

> Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and XP
> twice.
> That includes updating the motherboard.

Incorrect for Vista.  There are no limitations as to how many times 
you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).

Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of Vista.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/4/2008 9:12:02 PM
In article 
<alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
 Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> 
> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
> > gained building Windows XP computers.
> 
> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The 
> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.

You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
0
t-bone2 (2779)
8/4/2008 9:44:28 PM
In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Thundercleets wrote:
> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four
> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133
> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System
> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> >>>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or move
> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
> >>
> >> Steve
> > 
> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
> > Both are bad tho.
> 
> That is incorrect.  It is more relaxed in XP.
> 
> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and XP
> > twice.
> > That includes updating the motherboard.
> 
> Incorrect for Vista.  There are no limitations as to how many times 
> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
> 
> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of Vista.
> 
> Steve

So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a 
reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/4/2008 11:08:45 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article
> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 9:23 pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> > > On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the 
>> > > > four
>> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo 
>> > > > ATA133
>> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>> >
>> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in 
>> > > > System
>> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>> >
>> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>> >
>> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>> >
>> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>> >
>> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> >
>> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
>> > > Windows? Nothing you listed above.
>> >
>> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or 
>> > move
>> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
>>
>> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
>> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.
>
> You're wrong...
>
> ...as usual.

Where "you're" means "Alan Baker is."

>>
>> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
>> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
>> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
>> gained building Windows XP computers.
>
> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.

That's what you assume he did.   He only said he moved four hard drives. 
The title of his post is about transferring hardware, not software.

Besides that, why does he need you to say this for him?   If what you assume 
is true, why didn't he say this himself?



** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/5/2008 2:57:24 PM
"Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message 
news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> In article
> <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>> In article
>> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
>> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
>> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
>> > gained building Windows XP computers.
>>
>> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
>> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
>
> You know Edwin will not get what you just said.

If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you need 
to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the trash? 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/5/2008 2:58:55 PM
In article <773f9$48986a55$8718@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article
> > <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 3, 9:23 pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the 
> >> > > > four
> >> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo 
> >> > > > ATA133
> >> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >> >
> >> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in 
> >> > > > System
> >> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >> >
> >> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >> >
> >> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >> >
> >> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >> >
> >> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> >
> >> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it on
> >> > > Windows? Nothing you listed above.
> >> >
> >> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or 
> >> > move
> >> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
> >>
> >> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
> >> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.
> >
> > You're wrong...
> >
> > ...as usual.
> 
> Where "you're" means "Alan Baker is."
> 
> >>
> >> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
> >> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
> >> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
> >> gained building Windows XP computers.
> >
> > That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
> > OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
> 
> That's what you assume he did.   He only said he moved four hard drives. 
> The title of his post is about transferring hardware, not software.
> 
> Besides that, why does he need you to say this for him?   If what you assume 
> is true, why didn't he say this himself?

You twit: he was clearly transferring *everything* from an older Mac 
into a newer Mac and he made a point of saying "The OS booted properly". 
The OS was *on* one of the drives being transferred.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/5/2008 4:40:11 PM
In article <62bda$48986ab0$9006@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message 
> news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> > In article
> > <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >> In article
> >> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
> >> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
> >> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
> >> > gained building Windows XP computers.
> >>
> >> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
> >> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
> >
> > You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
> 
> If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you need 
> to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the trash? 
> 
> 
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

He did say so.

"The OS booted properly". That statement wouldn't have been at all 
necessary if the OS wasn't being moved, because everyone knows that the 
OS boots properly if not moved.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/5/2008 4:41:09 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-CB1178.09394805082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <773f9$48986a55$8718@news.teranews.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article
>> > <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Aug 3, 9:23 pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> > > On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> >> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred 
>> >> > > > the
>> >> > > > four
>> >> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo
>> >> > > > ATA133
>> >> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in
>> >> > > > System
>> >> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>> >> >
>> >> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> >> >
>> >> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it 
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > Windows? Nothing you listed above.
>> >> >
>> >> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or
>> >> > move
>> >> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
>> >>
>> >> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
>> >> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.
>> >
>> > You're wrong...
>> >
>> > ...as usual.
>>
>> Where "you're" means "Alan Baker is."
>>
>> >>
>> >> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
>> >> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
>> >> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
>> >> gained building Windows XP computers.
>> >
>> > That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
>> > OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
>>
>> That's what you assume he did.   He only said he moved four hard drives.
>> The title of his post is about transferring hardware, not software.

Note: no response.

>> Besides that, why does he need you to say this for him?   If what you 
>> assume
>> is true, why didn't he say this himself?

Note: no response.

> You twit:

I'm not the twit here.

> he was clearly transferring *everything* from an older Mac
> into a newer Mac and he made a point of saying "The OS booted properly".
> The OS was *on* one of the drives being transferred.

Repeating your assumptions does not make them true.

He has still not come in to back up your assumptions either.




** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/5/2008 10:42:36 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-0D2D0E.16082204082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>> Thundercleets wrote:
>> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
>> >>> In article
>> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the 
>> >>>>> four
>> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo 
>> >>>>> ATA133
>> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in 
>> >>>>> System
>> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it 
>> >>>> on
>> >>>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
>> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or 
>> >>> move
>> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
>> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
>> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >
>> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
>> > Both are bad tho.
>>
>> That is incorrect.  It is more relaxed in XP.
>>
>> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and XP
>> > twice.
>> > That includes updating the motherboard.
>>
>> Incorrect for Vista.  There are no limitations as to how many times
>> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
>>
>> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of 
>> Vista.
>>
>> Steve
>
> So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a
> reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...

Vista can be legally transferred to any machine that can run it.    You 
can't say the same for Mac OS X. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/5/2008 10:44:49 PM
In article <9947a$4898d75c$14268@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-CB1178.09394805082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <773f9$48986a55$8718@news.teranews.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >> > In article
> >> > <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Aug 3, 9:23 pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >> >> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred 
> >> >> > > > the
> >> >> > > > four
> >> >> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo
> >> >> > > > ATA133
> >> >> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in
> >> >> > > > System
> >> >> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it 
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > Windows? Nothing you listed above.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or
> >> >> > move
> >> >> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
> >> >>
> >> >> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
> >> >> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.
> >> >
> >> > You're wrong...
> >> >
> >> > ...as usual.
> >>
> >> Where "you're" means "Alan Baker is."
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for reactivation
> >> >> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the new
> >> >> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from experience
> >> >> gained building Windows XP computers.
> >> >
> >> > That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS ("The
> >> > OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
> >>
> >> That's what you assume he did.   He only said he moved four hard drives.
> >> The title of his post is about transferring hardware, not software.
> 
> Note: no response.

He transferred the OS that was on one of the hard drives, Edwin.

> 
> >> Besides that, why does he need you to say this for him?   If what you 
> >> assume
> >> is true, why didn't he say this himself?
> 
> Note: no response.
> 
> > You twit:
> 
> I'm not the twit here.
> 
> > he was clearly transferring *everything* from an older Mac
> > into a newer Mac and he made a point of saying "The OS booted properly".
> > The OS was *on* one of the drives being transferred.
> 
> Repeating your assumptions does not make them true.
> 
> He has still not come in to back up your assumptions either.

LOL

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/6/2008 12:02:25 AM
In article <5ee5e$4898d7e2$14676@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-0D2D0E.16082204082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com>,
> > Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Thundercleets wrote:
> >> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >> >>> In article
> >> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the 
> >> >>>>> four
> >> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo 
> >> >>>>> ATA133
> >> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in 
> >> >>>>> System
> >> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
> >> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done it 
> >> >>>> on
> >> >>>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
> >> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts or 
> >> >>> move
> >> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
> >> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
> >> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
> >> >>
> >> >> Steve
> >> >
> >> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
> >> > Both are bad tho.
> >>
> >> That is incorrect.  It is more relaxed in XP.
> >>
> >> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and XP
> >> > twice.
> >> > That includes updating the motherboard.
> >>
> >> Incorrect for Vista.  There are no limitations as to how many times
> >> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
> >>
> >> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of 
> >> Vista.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> > So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a
> > reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...
> 
> Vista can be legally transferred to any machine that can run it.    You 
> can't say the same for Mac OS X. 

Actually, I can.

You can't run Mac OS X on other machines without hacking it. Hacking it 
isn't legal.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/6/2008 12:02:57 AM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-934B9E.17023105082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <5ee5e$4898d7e2$14676@news.teranews.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-0D2D0E.16082204082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> > Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thundercleets wrote:
>> >> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
>> >> >>> In article
>> >> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>>  Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred 
>> >> >>>>> the
>> >> >>>>> four
>> >> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo
>> >> >>>>> ATA133
>> >> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>> >> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in
>> >> >>>>> System
>> >> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email.
>> >> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>> >> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>> >> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>> >> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> >> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done 
>> >> >>>> it
>> >> >>>> on
>> >> >>>> Windows?    Nothing you listed above.
>> >> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts 
>> >> >>> or
>> >> >>> move
>> >> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
>> >> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
>> >> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steve
>> >> >
>> >> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
>> >> > Both are bad tho.
>> >>
>> >> That is incorrect.  It is more relaxed in XP.
>> >>
>> >> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and 
>> >> > XP
>> >> > twice.
>> >> > That includes updating the motherboard.
>> >>
>> >> Incorrect for Vista.  There are no limitations as to how many times
>> >> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
>> >>
>> >> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of
>> >> Vista.
>> >>
>> >> Steve
>> >
>> > So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a
>> > reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...
>>
>> Vista can be legally transferred to any machine that can run it.    You
>> can't say the same for Mac OS X.
>
> Actually, I can.

Actually you're lying again, as you prove yourself below:

> You can't run Mac OS X on other machines without hacking it. Hacking it
> isn't legal.

You can't run Mac OS X on any machine that doesn't carry an Apple brand. 
Hacking it or not hacking it has nothing to do with it.   Either way, you 
can't legally transfer Mac OS X to any machine you want, the way you can 
with Vista.   Just as I said, and you chose to answer with a lie. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/6/2008 2:49:44 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-7E0739.17015605082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <9947a$4898d75c$14268@news.teranews.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-CB1178.09394805082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <773f9$48986a55$8718@news.teranews.com>,
>> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> > Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Aug 3, 9:23 pm, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article
>> >> >> > <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > > On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> 
>> >> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >> > > > I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I 
>> >> >> > > > transferred
>> >> >> > > > the
>> >> >> > > > four
>> >> >> > > > hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett 
>> >> >> > > > Tempo
>> >> >> > > > ATA133
>> >> >> > > > IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly 
>> >> >> > > > in
>> >> >> > > > System
>> >> >> > > > Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and 
>> >> >> > > > email.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > I wonder why, Wintrolls.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > > Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > > What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done 
>> >> >> > > it
>> >> >> > > on
>> >> >> > > Windows? Nothing you listed above.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts 
>> >> >> > or
>> >> >> > move
>> >> >> > the hard drive and parts from one PC to another
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nothing you listed above represented a "drastic change" of parts.
>> >> >> Any of them could be done on Windows XP without reactivation.
>> >> >
>> >> > You're wrong...
>> >> >
>> >> > ...as usual.
>> >>
>> >> Where "you're" means "Alan Baker is."
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for 
>> >> >> reactivation
>> >> >> is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the 
>> >> >> new
>> >> >> hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from 
>> >> >> experience
>> >> >> gained building Windows XP computers.
>> >> >
>> >> > That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS 
>> >> > ("The
>> >> > OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
>> >>
>> >> That's what you assume he did.   He only said he moved four hard 
>> >> drives.
>> >> The title of his post is about transferring hardware, not software.
>>
>> Note: no response.
>
> He transferred the OS that was on one of the hard drives, Edwin.

He never said he did that Alan.   He never even came it to support your 
assumption that he did.

>>
>> >> Besides that, why does he need you to say this for him?   If what you
>> >> assume
>> >> is true, why didn't he say this himself?
>>
>> Note: no response.
>>
>> > You twit:
>>
>> I'm not the twit here.
>>
>> > he was clearly transferring *everything* from an older Mac
>> > into a newer Mac and he made a point of saying "The OS booted 
>> > properly".
>> > The OS was *on* one of the drives being transferred.
>>
>> Repeating your assumptions does not make them true.
>>
>> He has still not come in to back up your assumptions either.
>
> LOL

What would there be to laugh about there?   How stupid you are?   Yes, I 
agree.  Let me join with you in laughing at your unflinching stupidity:

ROTFLMAO!!!!


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/6/2008 2:52:21 PM
On Aug 6, 10:49=A0am, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:alangbaker-934B9E.17023105082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <5ee5e$4898d7e2$14...@news.teranews.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>news:alangbaker-0D2D0E.16082204082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >> > In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@giganews.com>,
> >> > Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Thundercleetswrote:
> >> >> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
com>,
> >> >> >>> =A0Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> wro=
te:
> >> >> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferr=
ed
> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >>>>> four
> >> >> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Te=
mpo
> >> >> >>>>> ATA133
> >> >> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >> >> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly=
 in
> >> >> >>>>> System
> >> >> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and ema=
il.
> >> >> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >> >> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >> >> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >> >> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> >> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had don=
e
> >> >> >>>> it
> >> >> >>>> on
> >> >> >>>> Windows? =A0 =A0Nothing you listed above.
> >> >> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change part=
s
> >> >> >>> or
> >> >> >>> move
> >> >> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
> >> >> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
> >> >> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>
> >> >> >> Steve
>
> >> >> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
> >> >> > Both are bad tho.
>
> >> >> That is incorrect. =A0It is more relaxed in XP.
>
> >> >> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once an=
d
> >> >> > XP
> >> >> > twice.
> >> >> > That includes updating the motherboard.
>
> >> >> Incorrect for Vista. =A0There are no limitations as to how many tim=
es
> >> >> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
>
> >> >> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of
> >> >> Vista.
>
> >> >> Steve
>
> >> > So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a
> >> > reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...
>
> >> Vista can be legally transferred to any machine that can run it. =A0 =
=A0You
> >> can't say the same for Mac OS X.
>
> > Actually, I can.
>
> Actually you're lying again, as you prove yourself below:
>
> > You can't run Mac OS X on other machines without hacking it. Hacking it
> > isn't legal.
>
> You can't run Mac OS X on any machine that doesn't carry an Apple brand.
> Hacking it or not hacking it has nothing to do with it. =A0 Either way, y=
ou
> can't legally transfer Mac OS X to any machine you want, the way you can
> with Vista. =A0 Just as I said, and you chose to answer with a lie.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Edwin,

You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs and you are
legally required to remove it from the original computer.
Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.

You can hack OSX to run on clone hardware but why would you want to?

TMT
0
8/6/2008 3:39:39 PM
"Thundercleets" <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:46b64a84-c638-449c-9d68-ea48b7fa6fbc@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 10:49 am, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
>
> news:alangbaker-934B9E.17023105082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>
>
>
> > In article <5ee5e$4898d7e2$14...@news.teranews.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangba...@telus.net> wrote in message
> >>news:alangbaker-0D2D0E.16082204082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >> > In article <qcSdnfOQw_M57QrVnZ2dnUVZ_rTin...@giganews.com>,
> >> > Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Thundercleetswrote:
> >> >> > On Aug 3, 10:56 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Chance Furlong wrote:
> >> >> >>> In article
> >> >> >>> <90405193-17ba-4d62-887c-a611266a7...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >>> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Aug 2, 1:46 am, Chance Furlong <t-b...@megakatcity.com> 
> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I 
> >> >> >>>>> transferred
> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >>>>> four
> >> >> >>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett 
> >> >> >>>>> Tempo
> >> >> >>>>> ATA133
> >> >> >>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver.
> >> >> >>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly 
> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >>>>> System
> >> >> >>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and 
> >> >> >>>>> email.
> >> >> >>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial.
> >> >> >>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger.
> >> >> >>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls.
> >> >> >>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze.
> >> >> >>>> What did you do that would require reactivation if you had done
> >> >> >>>> it
> >> >> >>>> on
> >> >> >>>> Windows? Nothing you listed above.
> >> >> >>> Windoze XP requires reactivation if you drastically change parts
> >> >> >>> or
> >> >> >>> move
> >> >> >>> the hard drive and parts from one PC to another.
> >> >> >> The current product is "Windows Vista", which has more relaxed
> >> >> >> criteria than XP as to when a re-activation is required.
>
> >> >> >> Steve
>
> >> >> > SPP is more sensitive on Vista than XP.
> >> >> > Both are bad tho.
>
> >> >> That is incorrect. It is more relaxed in XP.
>
> >> >> > Legally you can only transfer a license for Vista install once and
> >> >> > XP
> >> >> > twice.
> >> >> > That includes updating the motherboard.
>
> >> >> Incorrect for Vista. There are no limitations as to how many times
> >> >> you can transfer the license (OEMs excluded).
>
> >> >> Your information seems to come from pre-release or beta versions of
> >> >> Vista.
>
> >> >> Steve
>
> >> > So you're not going to be transferring the Vista you get for a
> >> > reasonable price. Only the copy that costs far more...
>
> >> Vista can be legally transferred to any machine that can run it. You
> >> can't say the same for Mac OS X.
>
> > Actually, I can.
>
> Actually you're lying again, as you prove yourself below:
>
> > You can't run Mac OS X on other machines without hacking it. Hacking it
> > isn't legal.
>
> You can't run Mac OS X on any machine that doesn't carry an Apple brand.
> Hacking it or not hacking it has nothing to do with it. Either way, you
> can't legally transfer Mac OS X to any machine you want, the way you can
> with Vista. Just as I said, and you chose to answer with a lie.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

- Edwin,

- You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs and you are
- legally required to remove it from the original computer.

Even if that's true, I can transfer it to any computer that will run it.

- Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
- long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.

IOW, I can't transfer it to any machine that will run it, even if I remove 
it from the first machine.

- You can hack OSX to run on clone hardware but why would you want to?

Because the "clone hardware" is better and cheaper than what Apple sells. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/6/2008 4:41:55 PM
Thundercleets wrote:

> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs 

WRONG.  There is no 2 install limit.  I already pointed this out to 
you once.  Did you miss that?

"15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the 
software and
install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share 
this license between
devices."

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf

or

http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk

> and you are
> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/6/2008 5:02:03 PM
On Aug 6, 1:02=A0pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Thundercleets wrote:
> > You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
>
> WRONG. =A0There is no 2 install limit. =A0I already pointed this out to
> you once. =A0Did you miss that?
>
> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
> software and
> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
> this license between
> devices."
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti...
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
>
> > and you are
> > legally required to remove it from the original computer.
> > Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
> > long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
>
> Steve

Hi Steve,

You were also wrong then as was pointed out...

Here you go:

There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
another example:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2_2C00_=
-the-New-York-Times-and-License-Information-for-Windows.aspx

You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
You can only transfer once.

TechNet has lots on this also.

You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.

"Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
- Mao Tse-Tung
0
8/6/2008 8:55:54 PM
In article 
<bf294ac9-7761-4f19-8fe9-42f9ba6ff986@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
 Thundercleets <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 6, 1:02�pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> > Thundercleets wrote:
> > > You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
> >
> > WRONG. �There is no 2 install limit. �I already pointed this out to
> > you once. �Did you miss that?
> >
> > "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> > a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
> > software and
> > install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
> > this license between
> > devices."
> >
> > http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti...
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
> >
> > > and you are
> > > legally required to remove it from the original computer.
> > > Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
> > > long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
> >
> > Steve
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
> another example:
> 
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2_2C00_-th
> e-New-York-Times-and-License-Information-for-Windows.aspx
> 
> You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
> for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
> You can only transfer once.
> 
> TechNet has lots on this also.
> 
> You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
> 
> "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
> - Mao Tse-Tung

I think to be fair to Steve, Microsoft did change their terms on this 
issue to allow you to transfer a retail version of Vista as many times 
as you want.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/6/2008 8:59:08 PM
Thundercleets wrote:
> On Aug 6, 1:02 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> Thundercleets wrote:
>>> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
>> WRONG.  There is no 2 install limit.  I already pointed this out to
>> you once.  Did you miss that?
>>
>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
>> software and
>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
>> this license between
>> devices."
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti...
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
>>
>>> and you are
>>> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
>>> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
>>> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
>> Steve
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
> another example:
> 
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2_2C00_-the-New-York-Times-and-License-Information-for-Windows.aspx
> 
> You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
> for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
> You can only transfer once.
> 
> TechNet has lots on this also.
> 
> You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
> 
> "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
> - Mao Tse-Tung

I cited the actual current Windows Vista EULA.   Your URL is from the 
pre-release Vista days, RC2.   October 2006.   I already told you the 
licensing was changed - even BEFORE Vista was released.

Pathetic.

I won't "shut up".

Again, from the EULA:

"15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the 
software and
install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share 
this license between
devices."

The "one time" clause was removed before Vista's release.

http://tinyurl.com/6yoa8l

"...Provided you uninstall the operating system from your original 
computing device and do not share the license among multiple devices, 
you are no longer limited in the number of times that you may reassign 
the license to different devices," Microsoft revealed. "

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/6/2008 10:33:59 PM
On Aug 6, 6:33=A0pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Thundercleetswrote:
> > On Aug 6, 1:02 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >>Thundercleetswrote:
> >>> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
> >> WRONG. =A0There is no 2 install limit. =A0I already pointed this out t=
o
> >> you once. =A0Did you miss that?
>
> >> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> >> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
> >> software and
> >> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
> >> this license between
> >> devices."
>
> >>http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti..=
..
>
> >> or
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
>
> >>> and you are
> >>> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
> >>> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
> >>> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
> >> Steve
>
> > Hi Steve,
>
> > You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
>
> > Here you go:
>
> > There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
> > another example:
>
> >http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2...
>
> > You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
> > for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
> > You can only transfer once.
>
> > TechNet has lots on this also.
>
> > You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
>
> > "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
> > - Mao Tse-Tung
>
> I cited the actual current Windows Vista EULA. =A0 Your URL is from the
> pre-release Vista days, RC2. =A0 October 2006. =A0 I already told you the
> licensing was changed - even BEFORE Vista was released.
>
> Pathetic.
>
> I won't "shut up".
>
> Again, from the EULA:
>
> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
> software and
> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
> this license between
> devices."
>
> The "one time" clause was removed before Vista's release.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6yoa8l
>
> "...Provided you uninstall the operating system from your original
> computing device and do not share the license among multiple devices,
> you are no longer limited in the number of times that you may reassign
> the license to different devices," Microsoft revealed. "
>
> Steve

CNET reported that =93Under changes to Microsoft=92s licensing terms,
buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
operating system.=94

http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-6126379.h=
tml?tag=3Dnl

or

http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t

Please, you really ought to get a TechNet subscription as I do not
like repeating myself for trolls.
If you did then you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself, at
least on UseNet.

I also have seen this "urban myth" as you call it in action as I have
people who have tried to re-use their Vista licenses where I work and
have run into both the machine and even the motherboard license
transfer limitations that form part of your mythology.

They like so many Windows users have here have asked on CSMA for
assistance with... Windows.

"We've got to put a lot of money into changing behavior."
- Bill Gates


0
8/8/2008 1:32:55 PM
Thundercleets wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:33 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> Thundercleetswrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 1:02 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>> Thundercleetswrote:
>>>>> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
>>>> WRONG.  There is no 2 install limit.  I already pointed this out to
>>>> you once.  Did you miss that?
>>>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
>>>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
>>>> software and
>>>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
>>>> this license between
>>>> devices."
>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti...
>>>> or
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
>>>>> and you are
>>>>> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
>>>>> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
>>>>> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
>>>> Steve
>>> Hi Steve,
>>> You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
>>> Here you go:
>>> There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
>>> another example:
>>> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2...
>>> You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
>>> for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
>>> You can only transfer once.
>>> TechNet has lots on this also.
>>> You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
>>> "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
>>> - Mao Tse-Tung
>> I cited the actual current Windows Vista EULA.   Your URL is from the
>> pre-release Vista days, RC2.   October 2006.   I already told you the
>> licensing was changed - even BEFORE Vista was released.
>>
>> Pathetic.
>>
>> I won't "shut up".
>>
>> Again, from the EULA:
>>
>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
>> software and
>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
>> this license between
>> devices."
>>
>> The "one time" clause was removed before Vista's release.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6yoa8l
>>
>> "...Provided you uninstall the operating system from your original
>> computing device and do not share the license among multiple devices,
>> you are no longer limited in the number of times that you may reassign
>> the license to different devices," Microsoft revealed. "
>>
>> Steve
> 
> CNET reported that �Under changes to Microsoft�s licensing terms,
> buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> operating system.�
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-6126379.html?tag=nl
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t

That is from MID 2006, MANY months before Vista was released.

I'll tell you a THIRD TIME how the EULA was changed before Vista was 
released, removing those restrictions.  You are able to read the EULA 
I posted the URL to?

Not that it matters but I have had TechNet / MSDN Universal access for 
years.

Now I'll wait for you to dig up yet another old URL reference from 2 
years ago.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/8/2008 6:13:07 PM
> Thundercleets wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/5efn49

Thundercleets - Read it and weep.

Steve



New Windows Vista License Relaxes Transfer Limitations - Vista users 
may uninstall the software and install it on another device

By: Marius Oiaga, Technology News Editor


On October 16, Microsoft introduced the End User License Agreement for 
Windows Vista. The Vista license terms introduced access limitation 
for failed limitation and increased the warranty  period from just 90 
days to one year. But the Windows Vista EULA also restricted the 
transfer of the operating system between devices, permitting the 
reassigning of Vista to another machine a single time.

Microsoft faced an increasing wave of criticism for the transfer 
limitations introduced in the Windows Vista EULA. "I�m very pleased to 
let you know, that the Windows division has revised the retail license 
terms for Windows Vista in a significant way," stated Nick White, 
Windows Vista Product Manager.

As a consequence of the changes introduces to the Windows Vista EULA, 
the terms that refer to license-to-device assignment of the retail 
operating system are as follows: "You may uninstall the software and 
install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share 
this license between devices. The software may include more than one 
version, such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may use only one version at 
one time."

"We're trying to be really clear about our intention to prevent 
piracy," said Microsoft product manager Mike Burk. "At the same time, 
after listening to the feedback that came in, (we) felt that we needed 
to make this change."

This impacts exclusively retail versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, 
Home Premium, Business and Ultimate. The change in policy affects in 
no way Windows Vista licenses for operating systems preinstalled on 
OEM's devices.

"Our intention behind the original terms was genuinely geared toward 
combating piracy; however, it�s become clear to us that those original 
terms were perceived as adversely affecting an important group of 
customers: PC and hardware enthusiasts. You who comprise the 
enthusiast market are vital to us for several reasons, not least of 
all because of the support you�ve provided us throughout the 
development of Windows Vista. We respect the time and expense you go 
to in customizing, building and rebuilding your hardware and we heard 
you that the previous terms were seen as an impediment to that -- it�s 
for that reason we�ve made this change. I hope that this change 
provides the flexibility you need, and gives you more reason to be 
excited about the upcoming retail release of our new operating 
system," concluded White.
0
steve13 (4870)
8/8/2008 6:21:17 PM
On Aug 8, 2:13=A0pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> Thundercleets wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 6:33 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >> Thundercleetswrote:
> >>> On Aug 6, 1:02 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> >>>> Thundercleetswrote:
> >>>>> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
> >>>> WRONG. =A0There is no 2 install limit. =A0I already pointed this out=
 to
> >>>> you once. =A0Did you miss that?
> >>>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> >>>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall th=
e
> >>>> software and
> >>>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to shar=
e
> >>>> this license between
> >>>> devices."
> >>>>http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti=
....
> >>>> or
> >>>>http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
> >>>>> and you are
> >>>>> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
> >>>>> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac a=
s
> >>>>> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
> >>>> Steve
> >>> Hi Steve,
> >>> You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
> >>> Here you go:
> >>> There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is ye=
t
> >>> another example:
> >>>http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2.=
...
> >>> You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
> >>> for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
> >>> You can only transfer once.
> >>> TechNet has lots on this also.
> >>> You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
> >>> "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
> >>> - Mao Tse-Tung
> >> I cited the actual current Windows Vista EULA. =A0 Your URL is from th=
e
> >> pre-release Vista days, RC2. =A0 October 2006. =A0 I already told you =
the
> >> licensing was changed - even BEFORE Vista was released.
>
> >> Pathetic.
>
> >> I won't "shut up".
>
> >> Again, from the EULA:
>
> >> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
> >> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
> >> software and
> >> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
> >> this license between
> >> devices."
>
> >> The "one time" clause was removed before Vista's release.
>
> >>http://tinyurl.com/6yoa8l
>
> >> "...Provided you uninstall the operating system from your original
> >> computing device and do not share the license among multiple devices,
> >> you are no longer limited in the number of times that you may reassign
> >> the license to different devices," Microsoft revealed. "
>
> >> Steve
>
> > CNET reported that =93Under changes to Microsoft=92s licensing terms,
> > buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> > software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> > software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> > operating system.=94
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-612...
>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
>
> That is from MID 2006, MANY months before Vista was released.
>
> I'll tell you a THIRD TIME how the EULA was changed before Vista was
> released, removing those restrictions. =A0You are able to read the EULA
> I posted the URL to?
>
> Not that it matters but I have had TechNet / MSDN Universal access for
> years.
>
> Now I'll wait for you to dig up yet another old URL reference from 2
> years ago.
>
> Steve

Steve,

If you had TechNet then you would know what kind of crap you are
spewing because TechNet talks about the differences between
transferring a license on the same machine versus transferring a
license to a different one or at least one with a different main
board.  I'm not sure what part of your anus that like came out of but
the activation restriction still applies.

Lets just agree to disagree because this is getting pretty boring.


"


0
8/8/2008 8:16:55 PM
Thundercleets wrote:
> On Aug 8, 2:13 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>> Thundercleets wrote:
>>> On Aug 6, 6:33 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>> Thundercleetswrote:
>>>>> On Aug 6, 1:02 pm, Steve de Mena <st...@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Thundercleetswrote:
>>>>>>> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs
>>>>>> WRONG.  There is no 2 install limit.  I already pointed this out to
>>>>>> you once.  Did you miss that?
>>>>>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
>>>>>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
>>>>>> software and
>>>>>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
>>>>>> this license between
>>>>>> devices."
>>>>>> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ulti...
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yhmyjk
>>>>>>> and you are
>>>>>>> legally required to remove it from the original computer.
>>>>>>> Under current terms you can transfer your license from Mac to Mac as
>>>>>>> long as you have it installed to one machine at a time.
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>> You were also wrong then as was pointed out...
>>>>> Here you go:
>>>>> There's lots on this, if you wanted to search the term but here is yet
>>>>> another example:
>>>>> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/10/10/RC2...
>>>>> You are probably confused in that M$ says you can install unlimited
>>>>> for same hardware, the exact same hardware.
>>>>> You can only transfer once.
>>>>> TechNet has lots on this also.
>>>>> You can read it or you can shut up, I don't care which.
>>>>> "Swollen in head, weak in legs, sharp in tongue but empty in belly."
>>>>> - Mao Tse-Tung
>>>> I cited the actual current Windows Vista EULA.   Your URL is from the
>>>> pre-release Vista days, RC2.   October 2006.   I already told you the
>>>> licensing was changed - even BEFORE Vista was released.
>>>> Pathetic.
>>>> I won't "shut up".
>>>> Again, from the EULA:
>>>> "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
>>>> a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the
>>>> software and
>>>> install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share
>>>> this license between
>>>> devices."
>>>> The "one time" clause was removed before Vista's release.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6yoa8l
>>>> "...Provided you uninstall the operating system from your original
>>>> computing device and do not share the license among multiple devices,
>>>> you are no longer limited in the number of times that you may reassign
>>>> the license to different devices," Microsoft revealed. "
>>>> Steve
>>> CNET reported that �Under changes to Microsoft�s licensing terms,
>>> buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
>>> software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
>>> software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
>>> operating system.�
>>> http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-612...
>>> or
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
>> That is from MID 2006, MANY months before Vista was released.
>>
>> I'll tell you a THIRD TIME how the EULA was changed before Vista was
>> released, removing those restrictions.  You are able to read the EULA
>> I posted the URL to?
>>
>> Not that it matters but I have had TechNet / MSDN Universal access for
>> years.
>>
>> Now I'll wait for you to dig up yet another old URL reference from 2
>> years ago.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Steve,
> 
> If you had TechNet then you would know what kind of crap you are
> spewing because TechNet talks about the differences between
> transferring a license on the same machine versus transferring a
> license to a different one or at least one with a different main
> board.  I'm not sure what part of your anus that like came out of but
> the activation restriction still applies.
> 
> Lets just agree to disagree because this is getting pretty boring.

Send me the TechNet link if you want.

I'm still waiting for ONE single piece of proof that the current 
license does not permit you to transfer retail Vista unlimited times 
to different machines.

I am not "spewing" anything when I cite the actual EULA.

The legal EULA trumps anything written here or anything else.

What does the "activation" process, and whatever happens with that, 
have anything to do with what we were discussing?

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
8/8/2008 8:38:53 PM
Changes announced today in Windows Vista transfer limits

CNET News reports today the changes in Windows Vista transfer limits. 
This was reported in the news last month (see this story link on 
InternetNews), when it was reported that in "customers will only be 
able to reinstall Vista on a new machine once. After that, they will 
have to buy a new copy of Vista."

Not so.

"Reversing a licensing change announced two weeks ago, Microsoft said 
on Thursday that it will not limit the number of times that retail 
customers can transfer their Windows Vista license to a different 
computer. On Oct. 16, Microsoft issued the new user license for Vista, 
including terms that would have limited the ability of those who buy a 
boxed copy of the operating system to transfer that license. Under the 
proposed terms, users could have made such a switch only one time.

"However, the new restriction prompted an outcry among hardware 
enthusiasts and others. Microsoft is returning the licensing terms to 
basically what they were in Windows XP--users can transfer their 
license to a new PC an unlimited number of times, provided they 
uninstall and stop using it on the prior machine.

"The software maker said it paid attention to the response both 
directly to the company and on blogs and decided to reverse course.

"...Microsoft product manager Mike Burk (said) "At the same time, 
after listening to the feedback that came in, (we) felt that we needed 
to make this change."

Tags: Microsoft, Windows Vista, Windows, Vista, Vista upgrade.

Published Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:22 AM by mthre
0
steve13 (4870)
8/8/2008 8:41:12 PM
In article 
<46b64a84-c638-449c-9d68-ea48b7fa6fbc@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
 Thundercleets <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs and you are

Your are about two years out of date.  They originally announced a limit 
on the number of times you could transfer your license to a different 
device, and the number of times a license could be transfered from one 
person to another.  A couple months later, in response to criticism from 
end users, both of those restrictions were removed from retail Vista 
license.  You can move you Vista license from one machine to another as 
many times as you wish, and you can sell your Vista license, and the 
buyer will have the same rights you had (including being able to resell 
the license).

They did not at that time lift those restrictions on OEM licenses, 
though.  I don't know offhand if they ever changed that.


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
8/10/2008 12:04:53 PM
In article 
<1257af24-62b0-4b8a-8aef-3a9757eda026@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
 Thundercleets <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote:
> CNET reported that �Under changes to Microsoft�s licensing terms,
> buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> operating system.�
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-6126379.html
> ?tag=nl
> 
> or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
> 
> Please, you really ought to get a TechNet subscription as I do not
> like repeating myself for trolls.
> If you did then you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself, at
> least on UseNet.

He's not the one making a fool of himself--that would be you.  Hint: 
look at the dates on the stories you keep linking to.


-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
8/10/2008 12:08:30 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-456181.09404705082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <62bda$48986ab0$9006@news.teranews.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> > In article
>> > <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for 
>> >> > reactivation
>> >> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the 
>> >> > new
>> >> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from 
>> >> > experience
>> >> > gained building Windows XP computers.
>> >>
>> >> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS 
>> >> ("The
>> >> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
>> >
>> > You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
>>
>> If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you 
>> need
>> to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the trash?
>>
>>
>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>
> He did say so.

No he didn't, not even when I asked him directly above.

> "The OS booted properly". That statement wouldn't have been at all
> necessary if the OS wasn't being moved, because everyone knows that the
> OS boots properly if not moved.

That's your interpretation of that statement out of context.   His context 
for that statement was all of the hardware he moved causing the system not 
to boot if it were Windows.  That was a card in addition to four hard 
drives.

Again, what does his thread title say?   Nothing about moving software.

And he still hasn't come in to back up your assumption. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/11/2008 8:11:03 PM
On Aug 10, 8:08=A0am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1257af24-62b0-4b8a-8aef-3a9757eda...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> =A0Thundercleets<thundercle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > CNET reported that =B3Under changes to Microsoft=B9s licensing terms,
> > buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> > software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> > software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> > operating system.=B2
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-612...
> > ?tag=3Dnl
>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
>
> > Please, you really ought to get a TechNet subscription as I do not
> > like repeating myself for trolls.
> > If you did then you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself, at
> > least on UseNet.
>
> He's not the one making a fool of himself--that would be you. =A0Hint:
> look at the dates on the stories you keep linking to.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

Little late to the punch there little Tim?
0
8/11/2008 8:14:55 PM
On Aug 10, 8:04=A0am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article
> <46b64a84-c638-449c-9d68-ea48b7fa6...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> =A0Thundercleets<thundercle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > You can't legally transfer Vista to more than 2 installs and you are
>
> Your are about two years out of date. =A0They originally announced a limi=
t
> on the number of times you could transfer your license to a different
> device, and the number of times a license could be transfered from one
> person to another. =A0A couple months later, in response to criticism fro=
m
> end users, both of those restrictions were removed from retail Vista
> license. =A0You can move you Vista license from one machine to another as
> many times as you wish, and you can sell your Vista license, and the
> buyer will have the same rights you had (including being able to resell
> the license).
>
> They did not at that time lift those restrictions on OEM licenses,
> though. =A0I don't know offhand if they ever changed that.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

Even Steve's EULA link mentions that.
Your Vista license is one machine only with OEM and technically you
are not allowed to sell it with the OS.

0
8/11/2008 8:20:10 PM
"Thundercleets" <thundercleets@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:7d394921-f244-427e-a02c-9a6633485c73@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 10, 8:08 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1257af24-62b0-4b8a-8aef-3a9757eda...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Thundercleets<thundercle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > CNET reported that �Under changes to Microsoft�s licensing terms,
> > buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> > software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> > software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> > operating system.�
>
> >http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-612...
> > ?tag=nl
>
> > or
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
>
> > Please, you really ought to get a TechNet subscription as I do not
> > like repeating myself for trolls.
> > If you did then you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself, at
> > least on UseNet.
>
> He's not the one making a fool of himself--that would be you. Hint:
> look at the dates on the stories you keep linking to.
>
> --
> --Tim Smith

- Little late to the punch there little Tim?

You're the one with egg all over your face, not Tim. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/11/2008 9:16:27 PM
In article <4583a$48a09cd8$2541@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-456181.09404705082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <62bda$48986ab0$9006@news.teranews.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
> >> news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> > In article
> >> > <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> >> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for 
> >> >> > reactivation
> >> >> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the 
> >> >> > new
> >> >> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from 
> >> >> > experience
> >> >> > gained building Windows XP computers.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS 
> >> >> ("The
> >> >> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new motherboard.
> >> >
> >> > You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
> >>
> >> If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you 
> >> need
> >> to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the trash?
> >>
> >>
> >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> >
> > He did say so.
> 
> No he didn't, not even when I asked him directly above.
> 
> > "The OS booted properly". That statement wouldn't have been at all
> > necessary if the OS wasn't being moved, because everyone knows that the
> > OS boots properly if not moved.
> 
> That's your interpretation of that statement out of context.   His context 
> for that statement was all of the hardware he moved causing the system not 
> to boot if it were Windows.  That was a card in addition to four hard 
> drives.
> 
> Again, what does his thread title say?   Nothing about moving software.
> 
> And he still hasn't come in to back up your assumption. 

It's called context, Edwin.

We already know moving hardware alone won't cause a Mac not to boot.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/12/2008 5:03:25 PM
On Aug 11, 5:16=A0pm, "Edwin" <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Thundercleets" <thundercle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7d394921-f244-427e-a02c-9a6633485c73@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 8:08 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <1257af24-62b0-4b8a-8aef-3a9757eda...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >Thundercleets<thundercle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > CNET reported that =B3Under changes to Microsoft=B9s licensing terms,
> > > buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their
> > > software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their
> > > software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the
> > > operating system.=B2
>
> > >http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-limits-Vista-transfers/2100-1016_3-612.=
...
> > > ?tag=3Dnl
>
> > > or
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/6mkk5t
>
> > > Please, you really ought to get a TechNet subscription as I do not
> > > like repeating myself for trolls.
> > > If you did then you wouldn't make such a fool out of yourself, at
> > > least on UseNet.
>
> > He's not the one making a fool of himself--that would be you. Hint:
> > look at the dates on the stories you keep linking to.
>
> > --
> > --Tim Smith
>
> - Little late to the punch there little Tim?
>
> You're the one with egg all over your face, not Tim.
>
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Better late than never Edwin.
0
8/12/2008 5:20:14 PM
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
news:alangbaker-E2DD38.10030112082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> In article <4583a$48a09cd8$2541@news.teranews.com>,
> "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:alangbaker-456181.09404705082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
>> > In article <62bda$48986ab0$9006@news.teranews.com>,
>> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> >> > In article
>> >> > <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
>> >> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for
>> >> >> > reactivation
>> >> >> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the
>> >> >> > new
>> >> >> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from
>> >> >> > experience
>> >> >> > gained building Windows XP computers.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS
>> >> >> ("The
>> >> >> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new 
>> >> >> motherboard.
>> >> >
>> >> > You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
>> >>
>> >> If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you
>> >> need
>> >> to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the 
>> >> trash?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>> >
>> > He did say so.
>>
>> No he didn't, not even when I asked him directly above.
>>
>> > "The OS booted properly". That statement wouldn't have been at all
>> > necessary if the OS wasn't being moved, because everyone knows that the
>> > OS boots properly if not moved.
>>
>> That's your interpretation of that statement out of context.   His 
>> context
>> for that statement was all of the hardware he moved causing the system 
>> not
>> to boot if it were Windows.  That was a card in addition to four hard
>> drives.
>>
>> Again, what does his thread title say?   Nothing about moving software.
>>
>> And he still hasn't come in to back up your assumption.
>
> It's called context, Edwin.

Maybe someday you'll learn what that means.

> We already know moving hardware alone won't cause a Mac not to boot.

Good for you.   He was claiming moving hardware in a Windows box would cause 
it to need to be reactivated.    I countered that moving the same hardware 
he did in his  Mac would not have that effect in Windows. 


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
0
thorne25 (21019)
8/12/2008 10:45:53 PM
In article <706d7$48a212a2$17405@news.teranews.com>,
 "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message 
> news:alangbaker-E2DD38.10030112082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> > In article <4583a$48a09cd8$2541@news.teranews.com>,
> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> >> news:alangbaker-456181.09404705082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
> >> > In article <62bda$48986ab0$9006@news.teranews.com>,
> >> > "Edwin" <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Chance Furlong" <t-bone@megakatcity.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:t-bone-4B3B1B.16442804082008@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> >> >> > In article
> >> >> > <alangbaker-01002E.12544304082008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net>,
> >> >> > Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> <51991da6-d9f9-4042-b2d0-18ec735c6a88@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> >>  Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The only time moving a hard drive would cause a need for
> >> >> >> > reactivation
> >> >> >> > is if it contained the OS, and Windows XP would configure all the
> >> >> >> > new
> >> >> >> > hardware automatically after the move.    I know this from
> >> >> >> > experience
> >> >> >> > gained building Windows XP computers.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> That's what he did: he moved the hard drive that contained the OS
> >> >> >> ("The
> >> >> >> OS booted without issues") to a new machine: i.e. a new 
> >> >> >> motherboard.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You know Edwin will not get what you just said.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you moved the OS with an HD, why didn't you say so?    Why did you
> >> >> need
> >> >> to anyway?   Was your 'new' Mac a stripped unit you found in the 
> >> >> trash?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
> >> >
> >> > He did say so.
> >>
> >> No he didn't, not even when I asked him directly above.
> >>
> >> > "The OS booted properly". That statement wouldn't have been at all
> >> > necessary if the OS wasn't being moved, because everyone knows that the
> >> > OS boots properly if not moved.
> >>
> >> That's your interpretation of that statement out of context.   His 
> >> context
> >> for that statement was all of the hardware he moved causing the system 
> >> not
> >> to boot if it were Windows.  That was a card in addition to four hard
> >> drives.
> >>
> >> Again, what does his thread title say?   Nothing about moving software.
> >>
> >> And he still hasn't come in to back up your assumption.
> >
> > It's called context, Edwin.
> 
> Maybe someday you'll learn what that means.
> 
> > We already know moving hardware alone won't cause a Mac not to boot.
> 
> Good for you.   He was claiming moving hardware in a Windows box would cause 
> it to need to be reactivated.    I countered that moving the same hardware 
> he did in his  Mac would not have that effect in Windows. 

Moving a hard drive containing the OS to a different Windows box would 
cause that OS to need reactivation.

-- 
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
0
alangbaker (17682)
8/13/2008 1:52:45 AM
In article <5_CdnR4Tx-61dAnVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Tim Murray wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote: 
> >> Chance Furlong wrote: 
> >>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
> >>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
> >>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
> >>>
> >>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
> >>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
> >>>
> >>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
> >>>
> >>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
> >>>
> >>> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
> >>>
> >>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze. 
> >> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
> >> de-authorizing and re-authorizing? 
> >>
> > 
> > And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell? 
> 
> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than it 
> takes to re-authorize Windows?
> 
> Steve

You can't be that ignorant, Steve.
You certainly know that people don't expect to have to go through it at
all, and may have quite a lot of difficulty finding their numbers, if
they kept them at all. That it isn't a simple matter of typing but of
accurately reading and typing the serials, which can be difficult for
many. That it often requires phone calls to Microsoft that take a long
time and are frustrating. That even if done correctly, there have
reportedly been tens of thousands of cases of the process failing --
insinuating that their customers are thieves and pirates.

And most of all:
That there is nearly no justification for the process in the first
place, since the products are all effectively pirated anyway.


Microsoft's anti-piracy measures are awful, ineffective, and annoy the
best customers, not the worst. It is something their customers _should_
object to -- because it's a bad practice.
0
wetpixel (811)
12/13/2008 8:37:48 PM
In article <qq-dnaSalbk0lgjVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> Chance Furlong wrote:
> > In article <bIidnfWu4rmLmQjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Tim Murray wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
> >>>> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
> >>>> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
> >>> And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
> >>>
> >> It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a 
> >> post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be 
> >> activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to 
> >> actually activate Windows. In other words, it's a non issue.
> >>
> >> Steve
> > 
> > It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
> > have had to do with Windoze.
> 
> But you spent more time *writing* about it.   I guess I am the only 
> one that sees the irony in that .
> 
> Steve

Maybe not the only one, but you are failing the logic test:
we're not talking about the benefit to just this one customer -- we're
talking about a process that every Windows user everywhere should
expect to do multiple times.
If it's annoying, ineffective, or unnecessary or doesn't solve the
problem it was put there to do, then users everywhere should object,
and Microsoft should listen.

Change has to start somewhere.
0
wetpixel (811)
12/13/2008 8:40:07 PM
In article <PqKdnYOzir7njgjVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:


> > Does the thought of reactivating Windoze annoy you?
> 
> It's a necessary evil, to stem software piracy. 

If it were simpler, didn't have so many false reports, was easier to
resolve problems, and (most of all) was actually effective, then you'd
be right.
As it is, it's a burden and annoyance for everyone.

Burdens and annoyances need to be removed, and a good way to start is
to tell the company that makes them to get rid of them.
0
wetpixel (811)
12/13/2008 8:43:55 PM
wetpixel wrote:
> In article <5_CdnR4Tx-61dAnVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
> Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 05:10:08 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote: 
>>>> Chance Furlong wrote: 
>>>>> I acquired a 733MHz Quicksilver (2001) yesterday. I transferred the four 
>>>>> hard drives, the CompUSA 5 port USB 2 card and the Sonnett Tempo ATA133 
>>>>> IDE card from the Sawtooth to the Quicksilver. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The QS booted without issues, the hardware showed up properly in System 
>>>>> Proflier, and I am able to access the Web, newsgroups and email. 
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing I had to re enter was the Drive Genius serial. 
>>>>>
>>>>> And most important, I did not have to reactivate Tiger. 
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why, Wintrolls. 
>>>>>
>>>>> Just one more reason OS X is superior to Windoze. 
>>>> I guess you don't use iTunes and thus didn't have to deal with 
>>>> de-authorizing and re-authorizing? 
>>>>
>>> And where was there any mention of iTunes, pray tell? 
>> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than it 
>> takes to re-authorize Windows?
>>
>> Steve
> 
> You can't be that ignorant, Steve.
> You certainly know that people don't expect to have to go through it at
> all, and may have quite a lot of difficulty finding their numbers, if
> they kept them at all. That it isn't a simple matter of typing but of
> accurately reading and typing the serials, which can be difficult for
> many. That it often requires phone calls to Microsoft that take a long
> time and are frustrating. That even if done correctly, there have
> reportedly been tens of thousands of cases of the process failing --
> insinuating that their customers are thieves and pirates.
> 
> And most of all:
> That there is nearly no justification for the process in the first
> place, since the products are all effectively pirated anyway.
> 
> 
> Microsoft's anti-piracy measures are awful, ineffective, and annoy the
> best customers, not the worst. It is something their customers _should_
> object to -- because it's a bad practice.

I have two (of different manufacturers) USB dongles on my Mac for 
music software.  One of them I had to buy for about $35.  What a pain 
in the ass, and if I'm on my laptop they use up both USB ports.

Yeah, it's tough for someone to keep their activation key number and 
enter it in correctly.  And it has been effective against piracy, in 
fact I attribute that as a major reason Vista hasn't been adopted as 
much.  With XP there were magic "Corporate" keys out there that didn't 
require activation, with Vista that is not the case.  Though it would 
never be mentioned here, Vista activation was relaxed in SP1.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
12/14/2008 1:39:48 AM
wetpixel wrote:
> In article <qq-dnaSalbk0lgjVnZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
> Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> Chance Furlong wrote:
>>> In article <bIidnfWu4rmLmQjVnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim Murray wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:09:28 -0400, Steve de Mena wrote:
>>>>>> You realize it took you longer to read and reply to that post than 
>>>>>> it takes to re-authorize Windows?
>>>>> And the time it took me to do either is ... where, pray tell?
>>>>>
>>>> It doesn't strike you as funny how someone takes the time to write a 
>>>> post to tell everyone how OS X is better because it doesn't have to be 
>>>> activated, and he spent more time writing that post than it takes to 
>>>> actually activate Windows. In other words, it's a non issue.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>> It is an issue, Stevie, I did not have to reactivate Tiger like I would 
>>> have had to do with Windoze.
>> But you spent more time *writing* about it.   I guess I am the only 
>> one that sees the irony in that .
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Maybe not the only one, but you are failing the logic test:
> we're not talking about the benefit to just this one customer -- we're
> talking about a process that every Windows user everywhere should
> expect to do multiple times.
> If it's annoying, ineffective, or unnecessary or doesn't solve the
> problem it was put there to do, then users everywhere should object,
> and Microsoft should listen.
> 
> Change has to start somewhere.

90% of the copies of an OS are sold with new systems, which are 
pre-authorized.  I just got a new Dell Intel i7 system with Vista x64 
and didn't have to go through any "activation".

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
12/14/2008 1:41:02 AM
wetpixel wrote:
> In article <PqKdnYOzir7njgjVnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
> Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Does the thought of reactivating Windoze annoy you?
>> It's a necessary evil, to stem software piracy. 
> 
> If it were simpler, didn't have so many false reports, was easier to
> resolve problems, and (most of all) was actually effective, then you'd
> be right.
> As it is, it's a burden and annoyance for everyone.
> 
> Burdens and annoyances need to be removed, and a good way to start is
> to tell the company that makes them to get rid of them.

The actual % of issues is probably much lower than you imagine it being.

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
12/14/2008 1:42:47 AM
In article <icednV-fUbyt-dnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> > Maybe not the only one, but you are failing the logic test:
> > we're not talking about the benefit to just this one customer -- we're
> > talking about a process that every Windows user everywhere should
> > expect to do multiple times.
> > If it's annoying, ineffective, or unnecessary or doesn't solve the
> > problem it was put there to do, then users everywhere should object,
> > and Microsoft should listen.
> > 
> > Change has to start somewhere.
> 
> 90% of the copies of an OS are sold with new systems, which are 
> preauthorized. I just got a new Dell Intel i7 system with Vista x64 
> and didn't have to go through any "activation."
> 
> Steve

What will happen if and when you have to reinstall Windoze on that Dell 
Intel i7?
0
t-bone2 (2779)
12/14/2008 2:20:14 AM
Chance Furlong wrote:
> In article <icednV-fUbyt-dnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Maybe not the only one, but you are failing the logic test:
>>> we're not talking about the benefit to just this one customer -- we're
>>> talking about a process that every Windows user everywhere should
>>> expect to do multiple times.
>>> If it's annoying, ineffective, or unnecessary or doesn't solve the
>>> problem it was put there to do, then users everywhere should object,
>>> and Microsoft should listen.
>>>
>>> Change has to start somewhere.
>> 90% of the copies of an OS are sold with new systems, which are 
>> preauthorized. I just got a new Dell Intel i7 system with Vista x64 
>> and didn't have to go through any "activation."
>>
>> Steve
> 
> What will happen if and when you have to reinstall Windoze on that Dell 
> Intel i7?

There won't be a reactivation.  That's not required with the supplied 
OS restore disk.   (Do note that I think I had to pay $10 or so for 
that disk).   OEM versions of Vista do not require activation as they 
do "BIOS validation check" for the manufacturer's ID, or some special 
identifier.   (One method of pirating Vista involves some jury-rigged 
method to fool Vista into thinking you are running a Dell or whatever 
hardware the OEM copy is looking for).

Spelling note - it is "Windows".

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
12/15/2008 5:04:32 AM
In article <icednVyfUbx4_tnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> wetpixel wrote:
> > In article <5_CdnR4Tx-61dAnVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
> > Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

[snip]

> Yeah, it's tough for someone to keep their activation key number and 
> enter it in correctly.  And it has been effective against piracy, in 
> fact I attribute that as a major reason Vista hasn't been adopted as 
> much.  With XP there were magic "Corporate" keys out there that didn't 
> require activation, with Vista that is not the case.  Though it would 
> never be mentioned here, Vista activation was relaxed in SP1.
> 
> Steve

Vista activation was cracked pretty early on. It's hard to imagine such 
cracks aren't widely available by now.

In practice, activation stops legal customers of the software from 
casually installing it on more than the authorized number of systems, 
which probably helps a bit with business piracy. But most personal 
piracy is probably of the BitTorrent downloading variety, which 
activation does nothing to prevent because pre-cracked software and/or 
nice user-friendly cracks will inevitably show up on BitTorrent within 
days or weeks of the software's release.

On balance, though, activation is worse than useless. If you make your 
copy protection too annoying, illegal cracked copies of your software 
become *better* than legal copies. We saw this happen with some extent 
with Spore. Software developers (and music labels and movie studios, for 
that matter) should be working to ensure that legal copies of their 
products are better than illegal ones, not worse.

Developers also need to understand that individual consumers are 
essentially never going to buy multiple copies of high-priced software 
for multiple personal-use computers. If your high-priced software has an 
activation system that prevents a user from installing it on (say) both 
his desktop and his laptop, the odds of you actually selling him two 
copies are very slim. He's either going to only install the app on one 
computer (which might seem like some sort of success for the copy 
protection system, until you realize it doesn't actually result in the 
developer making any additional money) or he's going to illegally obtain 
a second copy, which is really bad for the developer because it 
normalizes piracy.

-- 
"If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all
things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in
our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your
answer."                                  -- Barack Obama, November 4th, 2008
0
znu (10395)
12/16/2008 1:09:20 PM
ZnU wrote:
> In article <icednVyfUbx4_tnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
>> wetpixel wrote:
>>> In article <5_CdnR4Tx-61dAnVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
>>> Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:
> 
> [snip]
> 
>> Yeah, it's tough for someone to keep their activation key number and 
>> enter it in correctly.  And it has been effective against piracy, in 
>> fact I attribute that as a major reason Vista hasn't been adopted as 
>> much.  With XP there were magic "Corporate" keys out there that didn't 
>> require activation, with Vista that is not the case.  Though it would 
>> never be mentioned here, Vista activation was relaxed in SP1.
>>
>> Steve
> 
> Vista activation was cracked pretty early on. It's hard to imagine such 
> cracks aren't widely available by now.

I guess that depends how you define "crack".

Steve
0
steve13 (4870)
12/16/2008 11:57:58 PM
In article <icednV6fUbwE-dnUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de
Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> The actual % of issues is probably much lower than you imagine it being.

Maybe -- but the hoops everyone everywhere have to go through to make
this dumb thing happen I know exactly.
I know how much each user has to deal with to make Microsoft fail to do
anything about piracy.
I know it has caused trouble, reduced effectiveness, stress, delays,
and inappropriate attacks against users.
No, I don't know exactly how many people have had to deal with it. Does
it matter, when almost everyone in the industry seems to think it
hasn't had a positive side?


wetpixel
0
wetpixel (811)
12/18/2008 1:13:44 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v12) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All: Them pesky bugs. A few more squashed courtesy of the sleepy pixel. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new in v11 ------------ Fixed some comprehensive help [NRi]. Fixed scale option placeholder [NRi]. Improved application and document icons. Example files now double-click to open in application. What's new in v12 ------------ Added layout option tooltips [NRi]. Fixed layout popup button changing wrong graph [MKe]. Clicking on warning icon now opens Activity window [NRi, AM]. Revert menu item now disabled. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, It's been a busy week or two at Pixelglow Software. Here's a brand new version of Graphviz, all spit and polish now. You'll enjoy the integrated color and font panel support, hand cursor panning and remembered settings. And everyone's most asked for -- a single click on the Edit tool will now bring up the DOT code for you to edit, and of course when you save it the graph automatically re-renders. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/download/ Here's the lowdown: Added edit, render and stop toolbar items [PCh]. Added integrated font and color fields and panels. Added hand cursor panning [AM]. Added autocomplete for most fields [NRi]. Added support for user defaults ("Remember Settings" menu command, command line arguments to GUI) [JSc, RPa]. Fixed click on popup menu unexpectedly selecting "..." [AM]. Fixed small zooms sometimes preventing full scrolling [DJu]. Fixed allowing fonts starting with "." to be selected [NRi]. Fixed transparent backgrounds rendering opaque in bitmap output. Fixed width or height > 32767 pixels unexpectedly cropping bitmap output [AM]. Improved toolbar interaction. Improved settings descriptions and tooltips. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v10) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Hi all, Yet another Graphviz version. The old application icon had been voted off the island, and brand new application and document icons flown in for the task. Comprehensive help features in this version too. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ What's new: ------------ Added new application and document icons. Added comprehensive help. Fixed changes not affecting graph size displaying incorrectly [BTr]. Fixed export then close crashing the export of an open window. Improved shadowed frame for graph [NRi]. Improved status display [NRi]. Changed sources to pure BSD license. Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

[ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.13 (v13) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8) [ANN] Graphviz for Mac OS X 1.12 (v8)
Dear All, I've just released the newest version of Mac Graphviz, featuring shapefile support and enhanced zoom. http://www.pixelglow.com/graphviz/ Shapefiles supported include PDF, EPS, PS, JPEG, PNG and all Quicktime formats. Either specify an absolute or relative (to working directory) file path, or a URL using the shapefile attribute. Developers can now also use the graphviz.framework directly with #include headers in C e.g. using Xcode "Add Frameworks..."; documentation is available from the main Graphviz site -- http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/libguide.pdf Changes ------- Added drawer and zoom menu commands [DWa, NRi]. Added intelligent window zooming [NRi]. Added shapefile support. Added UTF-8 support [RSc]. Added cvtgxl, gvpack and gvpr tools [BSw]. Fixed page setup then close unexpectedly invoking save dialog [PRo]. HTML-like labels now work on 10.2 (use embedded expat instead of libxml2). Improved internal frameworks (added headers, consolidated dylibs). Tracked main build of 23 June. Graphviz is still free, but I'm now accepting donations for it. Enjoy! Cheers, Glen Low --- pixelglow software | simply brilliant stuff www.pixelglow.com ...

Your Mac won't start up in Mac OS X (Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier)
Your Mac won't start up in Mac OS X (Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier) Nothing can be more frustrating than turning on your Mac only to find that it won't start up. Instead of seeing the Finder, you see a blue or gray screen, an icon of a broken folder, a kernel panic, a flashing question mark, or a computer that just sits there. What can you do? Don't worry. It could be a simple issue that you can fix yourself. Note: This article applies to Mac OS X 10.3.9 or earlier. Tip: If your computer won't start at all, skip to "You see a blank, gray screen" below. The first step ...

PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: PDF to EPS workarounds for Mac OS X Attention TeXy, TeXy
Attention TeXy, TeXy peoples: (excuse the mispronunciation; punny licence) It seems that Mac OS X has partially documented issues (http://altair.ific.uv.es/~JaxoDraw/Bugparade/bugparade.htm, http://developer.apple.com/java/faq/issues.html#anchor6) with the generation of EPS, and I'm trying to find a workaround. The Preview application cannot export to eps, but it can read it (converting it to PDF). If I use Adobe Acrobat to read the PDF generated by Preview, the EPS it generates sometimes (inconsistently) causes dvips to make an unreadable file. What I'm trying to do is the followi...

Mac OS X & Mac OS X Server
Hi, I'm currently using a 9i developer release on Mac OS X (10.3) which has proved very stable so far. My understanding of the various Oracle press releases is that 10G will be released for Mac OS X, are there any beta testers out there wiling to comment on availabilitu/quality/performance issues for 10G on Mac OS X? Another question is whether tools such as the OEM will be available in 10G for Mac OS X, does anybody know? Yours in anticipation! Steve Steve <steve@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<2004013008345616807%steve@nospamcom>... > releases is that 10G wil...

Mac OS 9.x included in Mac OS X?
Hi, I read that Mac OS X has a so-called classic mode which emulates Mac OS 9.x so that older applications can still be run. Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought separately? Peter >Provided one is not an upgrader from Mac OS 9.x, does Mac OS X include >Mac OS 9.x required for the classic mode or does it have to be bought >separately? If you buy the installer for OS X it *does not* include OS 9. You generally use the copy of OS 9 that came with your computer in order to install C...

You cannot install Mac OS X on this volume. Mac OS X cannot start up from this volume.
Hi Group, Decided to reinstall OSX today on my MAC Book. _ Boy was this a mistake_ I booted off the DVD and changed the partition setup to two instead of one using the disk utility program. Selected MAC OSX Extended Journaled for both paritions. Now in the installer when I come to select the drive to install on I get the message "You cannot install Mac OS X on this volume. Mac OS X cannot start up from this volume." There is a red explaination mark on the drive. I have reboot, reformatted the drive back one parition using the disk util program and I still have the same proble...

Mac to mac
I just remembered these groups and wondered if someone here could tell me whether what I'd like to do is possible. (NO ONE around here knows anything about Macs) I have a G4 that was the top of the line in 1998. It will die one of these days. It's currently running OS 9.2.2. Someone else(who now lives far away) installed the internal modem, SCSI for my scanner, and my floppy drive (so I didn't have to go through hundreds of them for the bits and pieces I might someday want again). I still have the floppies and a number of Zips, all of which this computer can read. Install...

When is a Mac not a Mac?
This was posted in a forum recently and I thought it brought up some very interesting points relating to the Eula. For reference: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=105546 ------ This question is related to licensing OS X on a machine. The EULA says it has to be an Apple computer, before the Apple License will apply, which means Apple will only support OS X on Apple machines. So, I'm wondering, when is a machine considered an Apple Mac, for the purposes of Licensing and recieving support? Say I buy a Mac from Apple. Then the hard drive fails, and I replace that with an ...

To Mac or not to Mac?
What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am gratified can still find something to say after all this time. Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the Tree family. So I'm looking for **SE...

Mac OS X Kerberos Extras updated for Mac OS X 10.3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Just a reminder to coincide with today's release of Mac OS X 10.3 ("Panther"), the MIT Kerberos team has released an updated version of the Mac OS X Kerberos Extras that work with both Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar) and Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther). The Mac OS X Kerberos Extras allow CFM-based applications, such as Eudora and Fetch, to work with OS X's built-in Kerberos. Older releases of the OS X Kerberos Extras will not work with Mac OS X 10.3. You must have the latest release (which was released back in June) for it to work with Panther. However...

Mac os 9 Vs. Mac os X
I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off the earth for them. The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 will I need all the mac os x libraries ? can someone throw somelight ? Thanks >The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward >compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 >wi...

Mac OS X fonts in Mac OS 9
Dear all, Is it possible to use MacOS X fonts in the classic environment? What's the procedure if it is ... Cheers! In article <3bef037b.0411010152.7625d932@posting.google.com>, davidol@hushmail.com (David) wrote: > Is it possible to use MacOS X fonts in the classic environment? > What's the procedure if it is ... No problem: a) TrueType fonts (.ttf - the vast majority) can simply be *moved* to the fonts folder in your Classic system folder. b) OpenType fonts (.otf) can be placed there as well but require Adobe Type Manager Light to work: <http://www.adobe....

Mac os 9 Vs. Mac os X
I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off the earth for them. The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 will I need all the mac os x libraries ? can someone throw somelight ? Thanks On 21 Nov 2003, dharmesh wrote: > I am porting some windows software to mac os 9. My client has only mac > os 9. I would like to use the URLAccessLib for my development. I find > no documentation of it on Apple websites as if mac os 9 has fallen off > the earth for them. Mac OS 8/9 documentation is at http://developer.apple.com/documentation/macos8/mac8.html (it's in the legacy documentation section) > > The apple site says One can develop on mac os x and it is backward > compatible. What does this mean ? When I install my code on mac os 9 > will I need all the mac os x libraries ? If your application is carbonised (ie you link against CarbonLib instead of InterfaceLib & co) then the same binary will run on OS X and OS 9 Fred I was trying to reference the CarbonLib from visual basic...I was succesful with Interacelib but couldn't access CarbonLib. I dont understand why. The system seems to have CarbonLib 1.4. Thanks for the reply Frederick Cheung <f...

Mac tablet builder comments on Mac OS X for generic hardware
Not an amazing article, but the end summarizes one perspective nicely: http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=36&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=73&tx_ttnews[ backPid]=2&cHash=6497edc900 On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 20:04:40 -1000, Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> chose to bless us with the following wisdom: >Not an amazing article, but the end summarizes one perspective nicely: > >http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=36&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=73&tx_ttnews[ >backPid]=2&cHash=6497edc900 (Insert Polaski whining about not using TinyURL here.) -- "A president who breaks the law i...

Are Mac OS X 10.5.8's iLife programs safe to use in Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x?
Hi. Someone told me that Mac OS X 10.7.x and 10.8.x do not come with iLife like the older Mac OS X versions (e.g., 10.5.x). I did not know this! Since my client uses iPhoto that came preinstalled on his old 2008 MacBook Pro's Mac OS X 10.5.x (10.5.8 right now), can he use the old one from 10.5.8? Or will he need a third party replacement (needs to import/copy the old image files) or buy a new iPhoto version for his photo(graph)s? I recalled he did not like iPhoto and wonder if the new one is any better. Thank you in advance. :) -- Quote of the Week: "Every ruler...

FS: Mac OS X v10.2 and Mac OS X v10.3 (Panther)
clearing up my storeroom. we have moved to tiger. OS10.2 are the original two cds from apple OS10.3 (Panther) are the original three cds from apple. prices: best offer -- getting out of bed in the morning is an act of false confidence - jules feifer to email me, delete syzygy. from my return address ...

Mac OS X 1.0 x86 and Mac OS X 10.4 x86
I wonder of OS X on Intel runs binaries made for Mac OS X Server 1.0 or earlier x86 versions of NEXTSTEP... There should be some interesting error messages to find. I'll try it out with OmniWeb 3 one day... -- Andrew J. Brehm Marx Brothers Fan PowerPC/Macintosh User Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches In article <1gxrpng.qcld42zk38uoN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>, ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote: > I wonder of OS X on Intel runs binaries made for Mac OS X Server 1.0 or > earlier x86 versions of NEXTSTEP... > > There should be some interesting error messages to find. &...

54g Wireless
Hi there, I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the other is a brand new IBook with 128bit WEP security. Our wireless network router is a belkin but only allows us to set 64 bit OR 128 bit - is there anyway of allowing either of these computers onto the network whilst securing it? Thanks Wesley Blue Wezza wrote: > Hi there, > > I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish > IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the ...

54g Wireless
Hi there, I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit WEP and the other is a brand new IBook with 128bit WEP security. Our wireless network router is a belkin but only allows us to set 64 bit OR 128 bit - is there anyway of allowing either of these computers onto the network whilst securing it? Thanks Wesley Blue Wezza <blue-wezza@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > I have two apple laptops coming into our work network - one is an oldish > IBook with an original Airport card which supports 64bit W...

Creating a Bootable Mac OS 9 CD in Mac OS X
I have a bootable Mac OS 9 CD for an old Power Mac. I need to duplicate the System Folder with a few extra extensions and create a bootable CD for emergency reboot on the old computer. My new iMac does not run Classic. I copied the "System Folder" from the Mac OS 9 CD to the new iMac and burned a CD-R. The old Power Mac does not boot from the CD-R when I restart it holding down "C". My investigation revealed that the System Folder in a bootable CD-R must be "blessed" by turning on a boot bit or something. When I copied the System Folder to the iMac, it bec...

Help! iSync mac to mac
Am I right in saying that with iSync, if you want to sync 2 macs together (address book, iCal etc.) the only way to do this is via a ..Mac account, even if those computers are sitting not 5 feet from each other, both Airport equipped? If this is the case, I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Is this just part of another apple scam to get more money out of us? Does anyone know if this is indeed the case, and can you recommend any other sync software out there? I'm setting up an iMac, eMac and powerbook g4 for a friend's office, all running OSX Panther, and you'd think basi...

Web resources about - Transferring hardware from Mac to Mac, reactivating OS X not necessary - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

Morrison defends transferring asylum seekers
Scott Morrison has defended transferring 157 asylum-seekers to Nauru without the knowledge of their lawyers.

Transferring properties to my SMSF
What are the rules about transferring properties I own to my SMSF?

Alabama quarterback Phillip Ely is transferring to Toledo - al.com
... Illinois and Boston College were among the other schools he considered, according to his father. TUSCALOOSA, Alabama Phillip Ely is transferring ...

Syria: Peace talks not for transferring power
Foreign minister says government will take part in planned Geneva talks to form a "national unity government".


Transferring Information to a New BlackBerry
Q: Has anyone found a way to transfer saved emails, saved calendar entries and saved memos from older BlackBerrys, like the Bold, to the new ...

Dish Anywhere Will Soon Include Content Transferring For All iOS Devices
... Black Friday Apple Deals Announced From Best Buy, Walmart . DISH Anywhere Hopper Transfers Dish Anywhere Will Soon Include Content Transferring ...

iPad: Transferring your cellular data plan to a new iPad (3rd generation)
This article explains how to transfer an existing iPad cellular data plan to a new iPad (3rd generation).

LinkedIn app under scrutiny for transferring iOS calendar entries
Security researchers are criticizing LinkedIn's iOS app for a feature that automatically transfers iOS calendar entries to the company's servers. ...

Kim Dotcom: “I’m officially broke” after transferring remaining assets
Megaupload founder a "flight risk" before 2015 extradition hearing, NZ says.

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 12:47:22 AM