Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About tcsenter

  • Rank
    New Member
  1. Oh hey! I'm willing to provide my Partner ID as verification if you are. I don't have my profile and organization details set to be searchable, but I can easily change that. You first. I'm sure Microsoft would love to know about Registered Partners who are in such need of remedial and immediate licensing re-education, don't you agree?
  2. And Microsoft's. I've been a registered Microsoft OEM Partner for years now and have done the baseline licensing, installation, and preinstallation competency exams required to qualify for Microsoft marketing collateral and 'buy local' incentives when I purchase Microsoft product from Authorized Distributors such as Ingram Micro and D&H Distribution. Loving my Microsoft Action Pack subscription, BTW. I'm not expounding on my opinion, but Microsoft EULA and other applicable terms or policies, which it has never been inconsistent about or trained anyone to depart from. 'Some dude' loosely associated with Microsoft might have 'trained' you with a wink-wink that upgrade media can be used to circumvent the requirement to have a qualifying full product, but not Microsoft. I might be able to get a real Microsoft representative to come explain it to you, if you like? I don't have a lot of pull with Microsoft, but I got a little. The point was more that it is a hallmark of youth to be self-absorbed and concerned only about one's own gratification, to hell with things like principles and rules that - in the view of a child - are nothing more than barriers to getting their way. I've never encountered an adolescent that proved otherwise. The thing is, you're supposed to grow out of it no later than 18...23 at the very latest. When you encounter a group of supposed adults who still view every system as one to be gamed, always looking to exploit the loop-hole for their own benefit, something went seriously wrong in their development.
  3. Can we finally dispose with the obviously unwanted discussion about whether he "can" do this or that completely outside the context he asked about? The guy specifically asked whether it was 'legal and ethical'. Was he supposed to put it in bold freaking letters? Would this have been any more helpful for some to understand the question? "Is it FREAKING LEGAL to do this?" Its a good thing he didn't come asking for tax advise. I can just see it now: "Is claiming my dog as a dependent on my taxes legal? How about my stuffed pookie bear?" "Well...it would depend on what the meaning of 'is' is." - Dr. Bowtie, Tax Advisor to the Stars (e.g. Wesley Snipes) An upgrade license is not a back door to acquiring a qualifying product. An upgrade is for users who have a qualifying product, to upgrade that qualifying product. A full version is for users who don't have a qualifying product. Part of the criterion for "qualifying" is that it is legit. No legit = no qualify. Microsoft includes a method to use upgrade media as a full install specifically because upgrades don't always succeed for obvious reasons of added complexity. In the interests of those users who are entitled to an upgrade discount but are unable to use the product as an upgrade because it won't complete successfully, Microsoft lets them perform a clean install rather than lock the media down strictly to upgrades then saying "So sorry for you, now you'll have to purchase the full version even though you are entitled to an upgrade discount. Thanks!" I feel as though I have been time-warped back to my more formidable years of around 13 years of age, where my self-absorbed childish mind and those of my like-aged friends could only think about our own gratification and how to take advantage of loop-holes that were never intended for us, then try to justify it so that we could feel righteous and ethical in doing so.
  4. If he has a machine currently using a legit OEM license that is a qualifying product, he can install the retail upgrade on that machine, yes. If he has a legit OEM copy that was never preinstalled or previously installed onto any machine (e.g. System Builder Pack), he can install it onto any machine he wants (binding it to that machine), then apply the retail upgrade to that machine as long as the base OS is a qualifying product, yes. If he has an OEM copy that is already bound to one machine, he cannot use that as a qualifying product to upgrade "a different PC". You cannot 'upgrade' thin air. If the machine to be upgraded does not currently have a legitimate license for any qualifying product, the retail upgrade doesn't 'create' a new license where one did not exist before. In the third scenario, only a full version is permitted to be installed (retail or OEM). The only reason to do what he is asking about is to avoid having to purchase a qualifying product in the first place. Get it? What did you think was the distinction between upgrade and full versions, cost?
  5. No, he wanted to know whether it would result in a legit license, specifically defining the scope of his question within the bounds of what is "legal and ethical". That's a legit thing, not a "Ha, it worked!" thing.
  6. He was telling you the same thing everyone else has. Will it work, yes. Will your license be legit, no. "You cannot legally install XP on more than one rig and the OEM must stay on the rig it was originally installed according to MS's EULA...You Cannot legally install the OEM copy and then upgrade to a retail upgrade later on..."
  7. I do this about 25% of the time. Gather up the latest drivers for all your new hardware and unzip them (if applicable) to a temp folder that is on your boot drive. Don't put them on removable storage. Especially the Intel INF Chipset Installer: http://downloadmirror.intel.com/14529/a08/infinst_autol.zip Grab the latest BIOS for the new board, while you're at it, and prepare a boot disk or CD to update the BIOS. Uninstall drivers for audio, LAN, and other non-essential devices, then disable them in BIOS or remove them so that Windows doesn't try to reinstall drivers at next boot. Uninstall display drivers, restart and press F8 to invoke the boot menu, select "VGA Mode" from the startup options. If Windows prompts to install a driver for the display device, click cancel to the Driver Wizard thingy. Uninstall the platform/chipset drivers if available through Add/Remove Programs. If not, don't worry about it. In Device Manager, expand the System Devices category and locate "PCI Bus". Right-click once and select Uninstall. If prompted to confirm uninstall, click Yes or OK. Windows will act like its choking on it, but eventually it should complete the removal and prompt you to restart. Click Yes or OK to restart. When the PC shuts down, before it starts up again, hit the PSU switch to cut the power. Change out all your hardware, check your connections and all that. Power on and update the BIOS using your update disk. Restart when the update completes (successfully we hope), enter BIOS Setup and tailor your BIOS settings to taste, but don't enable onboard peripherals such as audio and LAN just yet (keep disabled). Probably be a good idea to enable legacy USB keyboard support, but it shouldn't be necessary. Save and Exit BIOS. [Here you can boot a Memtest86+ CD if you want, to test your CPU and RAM before proceeding any further, which I highly recommend. I like to see three or four passes of Memtest86+ without errors before moving on to the next phase] Now boot into Safe Mode (press F8 after POST screen) and wait a couple minutes. Unless you are using a PS/2 mouse or keyboard, you won't be able to use your USB peripherals at first. Don't worry, Windows will install the USB drivers, but it takes a couple minutes (sometimes like three or four). By the time your mouse and/or keyboard come back to life, or shortly thereafter, you will probably get a prompt to restart the computer due to newly installed devices. Click no to restart, yes to proceed in Safe Mode, and cancel to any additional driver installation prompts. After Windows seems to have found all devices (no further prompts), then restart. Now boot Windows normally, but cancel out of any driver prompts. If Windows automatically installs drivers without your intervention, that's OK (most of the time). Click Start > Run, then enter the following command line using the path where you extracted the Intel Chipset INF Installer files: C:tempinfinst_autolsetup.exe -overall That is the example path, replace with whatever the real path is to Setup.exe. Don't forget the -overall switch at the end. Click next or proceed to install the Intel INF files. This might take a minute or two. When finished, restart and boot Windows normally again. Now install your graphics card drivers, enable onboard peripherals in BIOS, install those drivers, so on and so forth. Presto chango. This works for me at least 80% of the time that I use it. It sounds like a long complicated thing but it only takes about 30 minutes if you have a good handle on what to do (plus the actual hardware swap and Memtest86+), which is a helluva lot better than 3+ hours of installing Windows, 200 updates and patches from Microsoft, all your applications and their updates, et. al. Back up your stuff in case something goes to hell. Oh and somewhere during all that, you will be prompted to re-activate Windows. You might as well wait (activate later) until all your hardware is installed. If you activate when first prompted, you still have several hardware changes yet to complete, which will probably trigger activation again. WGA gives you three days to re-activate, just wait until everything is done.
  8. Err...if that was the answer you wanted, then you asked a piss-poor question. You specifically asked whether it was "legal and ethical", not whether it could be done in the functional sense. The answer to the first part is an unequivocal no, it is not legal. The answer to the second part is, I can't tell you what your ethics are. Your ethics are for you to decide.
  9. BOO! Heh, did I make you jump? LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU! Did you look? I'm betting you did, as you seem to be one of those jumpy types. NSPD-51/HSPD-20 is pretty standard as far as COG and COOP directives go, which have been our national policy only since around 1792, later codified and expanded by the National Security and Presidential Succession Acts of 1947 (passed by the Truman Administration). You want sneaky? At least the Bush Administration was utterly 'unsneaky' enough to publish a White House Fact Sheet summarizing the new directives. No such text, summary, or brief was ever released by the Clinton Administration for its PDD-NSC-67 directives (Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations), which were revoked by the new Bush directives. What was in the Clinton directives? We'll never know, as even the freaking summary was classified and the Clinton White House never even publicly announced it as the Bush White House did. Talk about scary...BOO! hehe, I know you jumped again.
  10. You can't transfer the OEM license to another computer then upgrade it using a retail upgrade and end-up with a valid license, no. It might work, but it won't be legit.
  11. As the ice-shelf in Greenland has retreated due to all this anthropogenic global warming, it uncovered something quite remarkable - HUMANS! Well not literally humans, but the remains of a human settlement or colony - Vikings to be exact. Houses, pastures, cobble-stone walls and walkways. Norse settlements there are believed to have approached 3000 persons at its height. In fact, Iceland has been colder than normal in the past 50 years, and a lot colder than it was 1000 years ago when these folks arrived and said "Wow, look at all the lush green fields, plenty of pasture land. We can even grow stuff in that. Stop the freaking boat!" Its gonna be pretty funny in the next global warming/cooling cycle 1500 years from now, when all the scientists are crying about the catastrophic consequences of the melting ice sheets, which have retreated by several miles and....WHAT IS THAT? Its one of those damned Sport Utility Vehicles from 2023. How'd that get under the ice sheet? "I thought you said this whole area has been under 10 feet of ice cap and snow pack for like...100,000 years?" "Well, I didn't say it definitely was for sure 100,000 years. I said it was probably 100,000 years." "No, asshat. You said at first it could be up to 100,000 years, but right around the time that those reporters started calling and quoting you in the newspaper, you started to say this was a definite thing. You said at least 100,000 years - for sure." "I did?" "Uh...Hello! At least 20 times." "Well, yes, hehe. What I meant was, it could have been up to 100,000 years, but possibly less." DOH! I wish I could be around to see it.
  12. Err...clearly you are confusing the US Constitution with the Declaration of Independence, which is more accurately characterized as consisting of 'guiding principles which express fundamental human values'. The Declaration is a political document, and a truly grand one at that, but it is not a legal document or charter like the US Constitution. Big difference. I'm not sure why I have decided to continue engaging someone who doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, it will probably prove to be a foolish endeavor on my part, but here goes... No, it puts some words on the pedestal of simple observation. The legislative branch makes the law, the judicial branch interprets and applies the law, and the executive branch enforces the law. 8th grade civics here. The law supports RIAA, not because RIAA has a catchy ring to it, but because that's what Congress and the framers of our constitution enacted as a matter of LAW. And I would note they did so well before there was any RIAA. The law will always be on the side of one party and against the side of another party. It just happens to be on RIAA's here. You don't have to like it, nor am I asking you to. That's why we have the democratic process and the legislature, to change laws if the people want them changed. Democracy is an exercise of rule by representative majority (subject to constitutional restraints). If you are in the distinct minority, that's the way the ball bounces (again, subject to constitutional restraints). I'm in a distinct minority on a couple issues, I don't go crying about how the Constitution is out-dated and needs to be changed. I deal with it like an adult, by acknowledging that my needs and wants are not at the center of the universe, around which everything should revolve. The mature adult world is about the recognition that society is a balance of interests, many different interests. Sometimes those interests clash and sometimes you aren't going to get your way. Boo hoo, that's life. lol! According to your reasoning, those countries with lax copyright enforcement, thus promoting all this innovation and creativity, should be producing gobs of desirable works that a country with strict copyright enforcement is not able to because of the harm to innovation and creativity. And yet the exact opposite is true and has been for not less than one-half century of unrivaled American innovation in most segments including software, computers, biotech, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, music, film, literature, and television, but lets just stick to films, television, and music. The world is practically addicted to pirating and bootlegging American and British films, television, and music, and the very worst offenders are those countries with the copyright laws you would have foisted upon us. The countries with lax copyright enforcement do not produce a damned thing that anyone would want to pirate or download. What do they care if their citizens are casually pirating music, its not their artists being harmed! It is American and British works that account for the overwhelming majority of content being pirated globally, primarily American. Isn't it positively interesting that what we should find according to your reasoning is in fact the opposite of what we do find? Got a convenient rationale to explain this away? I bet you do, can't wait to hear this whopper. We have international treaties, trade agreements, laws, regulations, and conventions that allow RIAA to meddle in the affairs of other countries, when those countries have agreed to abide by all such applicable treaties, agreements, laws, regulations, and conventions. If those countries want to import copyrighted works by artists and labels who are represented by RIAA, they have to address RIAA's concerns in good faith. When they do not, RIAA can access their courts, just like foreign parties can and frequently do access our courts. Its a two-way street. I don't know there are any more musicians acting against RIAA than there has always been but are just getting more attention for it today. Who are all these musicians acting against RIAA, what percentage of all recording artists do they represent, and how has that changed from, say, 10 years...20 years ago? I know who's interest they serve, I live in California. I've seen the homes of numerous musicians, producers, managers, the accessories in their drive way, and the big iron gates keeping all us little people out. I'm also well aware of the hundreds upon hundreds of formerly famous musicians whose shirts could truthfully read: "I signed a recording contract with RIAA, toured the world, became famous, had lots of . with groupies, made X million dollars in five years, and all I have to show for it is this lowsy T-Shirt (and a hole in my nasal septum from putting that X million dollars up my nose)." e.g. think M.C. Hammer and the hundreds of other stories just like his, though perhaps not as egregious or extreme. The same reason history has seen so many mistreated peoples of any other type and kind. There are bad people in the world, and sometimes they take advantage of other people. You seriously did not have this explained to you around the age that everyone else gets the 'bad people' speech (i.e. like five or six years old)? Please don't ask me where babies come from and why people have to die. Musicians and artists are no more mistreated than anyone else, and judging by the number of them who are filthy rich, or were before they blew it all on decadent lifestyles and extremely expensive drug addictions, they are probably mistreated a lot less than most everyone else. Artists have lawyers and managers who are LEGALLY OBLIGATED to represent and protect the best interests of the artist in their dealings with record labels. If they wanted your 'help' in protecting their interests vis-a-vis the record labels, they would ask you for it. 95% of artists are asking you to buy their albums, not steal from them, so we can finally put to rest the self-serving PACK OF LIES that anyone is 'helping' the artist by stealing their music. Artists want to sign recording contracts with RIAA and do so enthusiastically, because nowhere else on earth will they find someone willing to bankroll their music career and the artist doesn't have to pay the money back. That's right. If the artist's album is a flop, they don't have to pay the money back. RIAA isn't going to sue them, put a lien on their Winnebago, or sell the debt to a collections agency. They just absorb the loss and shift it to the profitable artists. The artist had $250,000 to $500,000 spent for their benefit, to promote their music and name to the world, and they don't freaking have to pay the money back! Of course artists are enthusiastically signing the contract - who wouldn't! Its win-win for the artist no matter what. And THAT is why people keep making the same predictions year after year, decade after decade, that never seem to come true about artists 'rebelling' against the record labels. Rebelling in favor of what? Coming up with the quarter to half million dollars on their own? Borrowing it from sources that WILL make them pay it back whether or not the album is successful? Navigating the treacherous waters of music promotion with no 'big league' support? RIGHT! This is the equivalent of believing that actors and directors are going to start rebelling against the majors and will start making their own little films on You Tube. Sure, on some very limited and virtually insignificant scale, but it will always be a true exception to the rule. Even Michael Moore - the self-proclaimed 'Champion of the Little Man' - has been cutting deals for years with big film distribution companies and movie studios. Not the majors, per se, but 'right-below-the-majors', real corporations with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, who are in fact in bed with the majors. And he brags about how he lives in the exclusive gated communities right along with the corporate executives that he villifies. He's really proud of that (being filthy rich, that is). So maybe you can make a name for yourself, generate some interest in your stuff, but sooner or later (like Micheal Moore), you're gonna come to the feeding trough like everyone else. Or not, and you'll die broke, taking comfort in knowing that you stuck to your principles, because nobody else will know who you are except your mom and some guy who lives in a van down by the river. If artists truly just 'wanted to play music', they can do that on the street. Heck, they don't even have to leave the house. They can position some stuffed animals on the couch and play for them. Mission accomplished! But we know that is NOT all they want in life, artistically or otherwise. The artist is every bit as greedy as the corporate CEO. The artist's ego and need for validation is much greater than some Namby-Pamby emotional statement about principles and integrity and those other things people love to talk about until their big break comes. They want their works to be appreciated, NOT by their mom and some guy who lives in a van down by the river, but by MILLIONS! And that costs money - lots of money. Show me an artist who commands one million fans and earns the 'modest but comfortable' living they all claim would satisfy them. You can't do it, because such an animal doesn't exist. Once they get the fans, they start to develop this mysterious feeling that they also justly deserve to be compensated for all the 'greatness' they are sharing with the world - VERY WELL compensated.
  13. Well, I suppose the fact that THE LAW supports RIAA's argument wouldn't have anything to do with those judges being persuaded by RIAA? Ars technica needs to enroll a few of its editors/bloggers into law school, they're almost as bad as DailyTech at routinely botching basic legal matters. Almost as bad as DailyTech, but not quite. The fact is, copyright law (and the U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 8) plainly state that the copyright owner has EXCLUSIVE rights over their works. Period. Without expressed written permission, or an exemption granted by statute such as fair use, you can't legally copy or reproduce those works, no matter how much you paid for the little shiny disc its on. I've purchased a lot of CDs in my life and have yet to find this such permission expressly granted on the labeling somewhere. Its not what RIAA thinks or says or wants - ITS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. So are judges supposed to ignore the law or uphold the law? Lemme guess, when the law is to your personal liking, judges are supposed to uphold it, but when you personally don't like the law, judges are supposed to ignore it...does that about sum it up? You aren't, by chance, the same person who ranted on about how Wal-Mart and Best Buy are somehow to blame because Sony neglected to post a modem driver on its website, are you? That would explain much.
  14. Correction: ACPI Uniprocessor PC is the correct HAL/PC type for single-processor systems with APIC mode enabled in BIOS and an APIC-aware OS like XP. This is not a 'bug', it is required for XP to properly support the benefits of APIC. Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC is the correct HAL/PC type for single-processor systems using ACPI mode with APIC disabled (or not supported). In a very small number of configurations where APIC function is broken or buggy, APIC may cause problems but this is not an inherent flaw in APIC itself rather than a design flaw in the BIOS code and/or motherboard design.
  • Create New...