FO: Windows 2000 PRO COA for Compaq

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap

It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ

Best ofer secures

Thanks
David
10 answers Last reply
More about windows 2000 compaq
  1. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Illegal.
    HH

    "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:bPSYe.1556$NO2.239@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    > If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap
    >
    > It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ
    >
    > Best ofer secures
    >
    > Thanks
    > David
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    news:V5WYe.40$Aj4.2444@news.uswest.net...
    > Illegal.
    > HH
    >
    > "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    > news:bPSYe.1556$NO2.239@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    >> If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap
    >>
    >> It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ
    >>
    >> Best ofer secures
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> David
    >>
    >
    Yawnnnnnnn
    That old argument.
    IT IS STILL DEBATEABLE as Win 2000 pro was SOLD - not leased and EU law
    differs from the US interpretation
  3. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT sold.
    The COA might not even work on another machine.
    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    HH

    "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:gAXYe.9273$1A.6297@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
    > "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    > news:V5WYe.40$Aj4.2444@news.uswest.net...
    >> Illegal.
    >> HH
    >>
    >> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >> news:bPSYe.1556$NO2.239@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
    >>> If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap
    >>>
    >>> It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ
    >>>
    >>> Best ofer secures
    >>>
    >>> Thanks
    >>> David
    >>>
    >>
    > Yawnnnnnnn
    > That old argument.
    > IT IS STILL DEBATEABLE as Win 2000 pro was SOLD - not leased and EU law
    > differs from the US interpretation
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    > I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    > sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    > YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    > HH
    >
    1. Top posting is against charters
    2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
    <blocked>
  5. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Bullshit.

    Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    people bore me.

    Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >
    > "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    > news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >> HH
    >>
    > 1. Top posting is against charters
    > 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    > 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
    > <blocked>
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    Tom,
    This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software that
    allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
    the box here.
    HH

    "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    news:qkjZe.102125$xl6.65473@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    > Bullshit.
    >
    > Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    > people bore me.
    >
    > Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    > "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    > news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>
    >> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    >> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >>> HH
    >>>
    >> 1. Top posting is against charters
    >> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    >> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
    >> <blocked>
    >>
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    In article <Z0oZe.124$605.7906@news.uswest.net>, HH
    <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> writes
    >Tom,
    >This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software that
    >allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
    >the box here.
    >HH
    >
    >"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    >news:qkjZe.102125$xl6.65473@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >> Bullshit.
    >>
    >> Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    >> people bore me.
    >>
    >> Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    >> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >> news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>
    >>> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >>>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >>>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >>>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >>>> HH
    >>>>
    >>> 1. Top posting is against charters
    >>> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    >>> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
    >>> <blocked>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >

    I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....

    Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
    Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
    bad manners.

    A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
    is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
    read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
    more important than your those to which you are responding?

    A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
    just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
    like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
    to follow.

    I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
    restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
    qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.

    However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
    in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
    a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
    may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
    enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
    Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
    is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
    The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
    Microsoft or the consumer.
    --
    Nicholas David Richards -

    "Où sont les neiges d'antan?"
  8. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    "Nicholas D Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:hLv3hsA3wmNDFALP@salmiron.co.uk...
    > In article <Z0oZe.124$605.7906@news.uswest.net>, HH
    > <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> writes
    >>Tom,
    >>This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software
    >>that
    >>allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
    >>the box here.
    >>HH
    >>
    >>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    >>news:qkjZe.102125$xl6.65473@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>> Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    >>> people bore me.
    >>>
    >>> Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    >>> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >>>>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >>>>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >>>>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >>>>> HH
    >>>>>
    >>>> 1. Top posting is against charters
    >>>> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    >>>> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your
    >>>> expression.
    >>>> <blocked>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....
    >
    > Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
    > Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
    > bad manners.
    >
    > A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
    > is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
    > read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
    > more important than your those to which you are responding?
    >
    > A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
    > just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
    > like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
    > to follow.
    >
    > I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
    > restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
    > qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.
    >
    > However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
    > in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
    > a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
    > may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
    > enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
    > Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
    > is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
    > The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
    > Microsoft or the consumer.
    > --
    What a well written and full response. Whilst I'm sure it was not for my
    benefit, I appreciate the support and time taken.
    I have read very similar on regular occasions and if 'Tom' the self
    proclaimed knowitall had bothered any sort of research he would have reached
    the same conclusion.
    I did not have the patience to post such as response in the circumstances as
    I was being abused!
    Now that your post has revealed that imbecile HH's response I am justfurther
    exasperated having read his response to my post on the BIOS.
    Seeing as Compaq produce a windows BIOS interface that actually prevents F10
    BIOS access upon boot-up I thought it may be useful (it works on my EVO
    N800W anyway) - but there you go; I guess he knows better than this
    practitioner - I must be a 'blunt' pencil.
    I guess I must be a guy too (presumption)
    D
  9. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    "Nicholas D Richards" <nicholas@salmiron.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:hLv3hsA3wmNDFALP@salmiron.co.uk...
    > In article <Z0oZe.124$605.7906@news.uswest.net>, HH
    > <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> writes
    >>Tom,
    >>This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software
    >>that
    >>allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
    >>the box here.
    >>HH
    >>
    >>"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
    >>news:qkjZe.102125$xl6.65473@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
    >>> Bullshit.
    >>>
    >>> Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    >>> people bore me.
    >>>
    >>> Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    >>> "DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>>>
    >>>> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >>>>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >>>>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >>>>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >>>>> HH
    >>>>>
    >>>> 1. Top posting is against charters
    >>>> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    >>>> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your
    >>>> expression.
    >>>> <blocked>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....
    >
    > Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
    > Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
    > bad manners.
    >
    > A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
    > is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
    > read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
    > more important than your those to which you are responding?
    >
    > A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
    > just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
    > like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
    > to follow.
    >
    > I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
    > restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
    > qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.
    >
    > However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
    > in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
    > a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
    > may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
    > enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
    > Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
    > is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
    > The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
    > Microsoft or the consumer.
    > --
    > Nicholas David Richards -
    >
    > "Où sont les neiges d'antan?"

    So in other words, you're not posting the EULA for fear you will be proven
    wrong and you're diverting attention to a non-issue that was established as
    a recommendation and nothing more in the early days of the internet prior to
    broadband.

    I still maintain you're a pompous ass
  10. Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

    My newsreader faciliates top posting, so other people will have to live with it.
    At least it's not as bad as posting in HTML !!! ... Ben Myers

    On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:13:58 GMT, "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote:

    >Bullshit.
    >
    >Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
    >people bore me.
    >
    >Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
    >"DCA" <dca860MAPS@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
    >news:425Ze.20567$6p.14964@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
    >>
    >> "HH" <hahunt42@kgexpress.net> wrote in message
    >> news:W00Ze.3799$c54.2299@news.uswest.net...
    >>> I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
    >>> sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
    >>> YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
    >>> HH
    >>>
    >> 1. Top posting is against charters
    >> 2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
    >> 3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
    >> <blocked>
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Compaq Windows 2000 Hewlett Packard Computers