Okay, this could go on forever. If you look back at my original post, I asked a simple question, I asked it politely, and I had no sinister or overtly illegal intentions. If you choose not to believe me, I'm sorry but I can't do anything about that. But I can't convince you via e-communication, so let's just let it go.
While I really don't wanna go down the tit-for-tat path, I suppose I need to answer nOcmonkey's statements so it doesn't like like I'm evading them. This will, however, be my final post on this subject. Here goes:
Using Microsoft products is supporting Microsoft.
We're dealing with semantics here. What I meant in my reply is that just because I
have to use Microsoft's products (and yes, I do have to right now), that doesn't necessarily mean I endorse (or "support," if you will) everything Microsoft does. Yes, I suppose giving them my money for their products does "support" the company, but I do so only because I have no realistic alternative.
What reasonably advanced program has no security holes?
Wow, you did a spin-job on that. I never criticized Microsoft because their software isn't perfect, with "no security holes." What I criticized them for was the GAPING security holes they've had for years, many of which could have and should have absolutely been identified and fixed before the products were put on the market. Oh, and Apple's OS X has far fewer security holes, which, for an open-source program, puts MS Windows to shame IMHO. But yes, it does have some holes. (And no, I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means.)
Bad drivers/cheap hardware?
You're joking, right? No offense, but that's absurd. So the millions of people whose computers used to freeze up all the time with Windows 3.x, 95, 98 and ME all had bad drivers and cheap hardware? I had neither during those times, I downloaded the most current drivers for my hardware on a regular basis, yet my computer would still lock up so bad I'd often have to pull the power plug. And so would the computers of my colleagues at several different companies I worked at during the 90's. Why do you think people used to put stickers on the bottom of their keyboards with the tricks for how to use the keyboard arrow keys when their mouse locked up? And since I have far less freeze-ups now with W2K Pro or Win XP Pro, did all the hardware companies suddenly and miraculously come out with perfect drivers? No, what happened was Microsoft finally got their act together -- after how many years? -- and fixed the previous problems within the OS. I'm running W2K Pro on this old Gateway sloth computer from 1998 that I'm typing on right now -- it occasionally locks up, but not very often. In 1998 and 1999 though, it locked up all the time. The probs were mitigated only when I upgraded to W2K Pro, and I did not go on a downloading-of-updated-drivers spree.
Win2k was also available.
Astonishing. I see -- so I and millions of other consumers had no right to complain about ME's myriad of problems because we should have somehow known (was it written on the product box?) that the software was uniquely flawed and we should have known to buy Win 2K instead. And if we didn't, that's our fault?
Nope, don't remember much of those.
Astonishing again. Do you mind if I ask how long have you've been using computers? Just because you "don't remember much of those" doesn't mean the problems weren't real, pervasive, and that they didn't cost millions of people God knows how much aggravation and lost productivity time. I called Microsoft tech support at least a half dozen times in 1998 and 1999 until I finally got help from a chap who told me that cleaning out the Internet cache and temp files would take care of most of the "illegal operation" crashes. And the reason Windows had this problem and Mac's OS and Linux didn't is ________________? (Feel free to fill in the blank)
Exactly what you have demanded. They have released more software.
Um, that's compensation?! Particularly when we have to
pay for that "more software"? What are you smokin', my friend? And how did releasing "more software" compensate me for the lost time and productivity? Oh, and I didn't "demand" anything. Please don't miquote or misrepresent me.
Common sense tells you software has flaws. Research into the issues (what every consumer should do) also tells you that cheap hardware, bad drivers, and lack of basic knowledge (taking care of a computer isn't hard) can cause issues.
I agree. If you can find anything in any of my previous posts where I say I expected perfection, please post it (you won't). A few flaws can and should be expected. But IMHO, the flaws with some older versions of Windows exceed what should be expected. That's strictly a subjective opinion and not something I can 'prove.' But since MS has come out with a myriad of fixes to most of the problems that I've lamented, clearly the problems weren't "cheap hardware, bad drivers, or lack of basic knowledge" about taking care of a computer, were they? Have some mfgrs put out bad drivers? Of course. Are there some people who are clueless about taking care of their computer? Sure. But that doesn't explain why Service Packs and downloadable patches cure so many of Windows's problems, does it?
Microsoft cannot test and try every combinations of hardware and software out there. No matter how smart their engineers are, there are people out there that will try something different. Show me a car manufacturer that has never issued a recall. Hell, there have been 3+ recalls on the car I have.
Ditto my last answer. Oh, and does it not bother you in the least that your car has had 3 recalls? It'd sure bother me (and most other people I'd assume). C'mon, be honest -- you know it does!
If I had one of those Ford Pinto's in the late 70's that exploded when rear-ended, I sure wouldn't have simply said, "Oh well, no car's perfect." :laugh:
I didn't want to get involved in the ethical side of this. But, justifying one potentially unethical action by demonstrating that we get away with other potentially unethical actions is just stupid.
I agree that one shouldn't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior (thank you, Bill O'Reilly).
But that's not what I was doing. You completely missed my point, my friend. What I was getting at was that yes, technically we might be talking about something unethical or even illegal in the strict sense of the words. But my point was that some unethical or even "illegal" actions are so insignificant that it shouldn't matter. That's what I was trying to get across, and it's not "stupid." Jaywalking across a street with zero traffic at 2:00 in the morning is "illegal," but so what? Driving 1 mile an hour over the speed limit is "illegal," but again, so what? And IMHO (and I'm sure you'll disagree!), if I've paid in full for 2 version of Windows (W2K Pro and XP Pro) and would like, just as a preference, to run 2 versions of just W2K Pro or 2 versions of XP Pro, I simply think that is rather insignificant. And for Microsoft to demand another $100+ from me for that privilege is nothing more than profiteering -- in the, uh, strict sense of the word.
So should we all assume you work for Microsoft?
As for Mikecel79:
If this were the rational then I demand compensation for the 3 times my alternator died on my car and left me stranded in the middle of nowhere? Or the time my DSL went down and I couldn't get on the internet to pay a bill.
Nothing is perfect in the world. Get used to it. Demanding compensation for a non-perfect product is ridiculous. If I received compensation for every product that had a flaw or was broken I would be a rich man.
Um, can you show me where I "demanded" compensation? Don't evade the question. If you can't point it out, then please stop misrepresenting me.
If you read my post again, I think (and hope) you'll realize that I was trying to make a point. The point is that what I was
thinking about doing -- using 2 installations of XP Pro with one license -- is laughably insignificant in terms of the 'damage' it would do to Microsoft compared to the 'damage' they've done to me (and millions of other users) with their flawed products. It's not a perfect, quantifiable argument, I know, but they want me to compensate them (in the form of another $100+) for the privilege, yet they've never -- to my knowledge -- apologized for or offered to compensate us for the myriad of probs we've had with their previously flawed software. I wasn't "demanding" or expecting actual compensation -- I was just trying to illustrate what I feel is the absurdity and greed-driven motive for not letting a person run 2 installations of XP Pro from one CD ... particularly if that person has already paid for a version of W2K Pro, which is nearly identical software! Do you really not see my point?
Whew .... I'm done with this topic. You all can have the last word. Flame away ....
Facebook
Twitter