Is it possible to get a beta version of MS Longhorn?

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
20 answers Last reply
More about beta version longhorn
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:

    |>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    |>

    Goto the source www.VISTA.com

    I'm sure they'll be really happy to field your request.

    --
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/default.mspx

    If you aren't an MSDN or Technet subscriber, there may be no legitimate way
    to get it. (It was supposed to have appeared on the file sharing networks
    within a few hours of its initial availability. Reportedly, it's a 2.6 GB
    download.)

    "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OJwZzhTnFHA.2904@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Hi,

    There are no public previews available at this time for Longhorn, AKA Vista,
    like there were for WindowsXP (known then as "Whistler"). There has been no
    news as to whether or not there will be a similar preview as it approaches
    the release candidate levels, and those are a long way off at this point.

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OJwZzhTnFHA.2904@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Geez, that ought to help!

    --

    All the Best,
    Kelly (MS-MVP)

    Troubleshooting Windows XP
    http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com


    <Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov> wrote in message
    news:k2jif196mss37hmjmddo393iq0seeiipnh@4ax.com...
    > "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > |>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    > |>
    >
    > Goto the source www.VISTA.com
    >
    > I'm sure they'll be really happy to field your request.
    >
    > --
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 00:15:31 +0100, MrSpike wrote
    (in article <OJwZzhTnFHA.2904@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>):

    > I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >
    >

    There is no such thing.

    ________________________________________________

    Hogwasher, Premier News and Mail for OS X
    http://www.asar.com/cgi-bin/product.pl?58/hogwasher.html
    ________________________________________________
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

    > "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >|>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >|>
    >
    >Goto the source www.VISTA.com

    That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    MS that I can see.

    --
    Tim Slattery
    MS MVP(DTS)
    Slattery_T@bls.gov
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:

    |>Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    |>
    |>> "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    |>>
    |>>|>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    |>>|>

    |>>Goto the source www.VISTA.com

    |>That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    |>MS that I can see.

    Just my small part to stir the pot.

    If microsoft can sue and win over Lindows, what right do they have to
    walk all over this established business (located at Redmond,
    Washington). http://tinyurl.com/7bubn
    --
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:15:31 -0400, "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com>
    wrote:

    >I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >

    Currently there are a two legal ways for non-Microsoft employees to
    get a Beta of Windows Vista (Longhorn):

    1) Join the Microsoft Beta Program and request to be a Beta Tester for
    Windows Vista, then download it from the official Windows Beta site.
    2) Become a member of the Microsoft Software Development Network by
    purchasing a membership, then either download it from the MSDN site,
    or wait for the monthly MSDN CD distribution to arrive.

    Donald L McDaniel
    Please reply to the original thread
    so that conversations may be kept in order
    =======================================================
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:35:40 -0700, Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:

    > Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
    >
    >|>Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    >|>
    >|>> "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >|>>
    >|>>|>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >|>>|>
    >
    >|>>Goto the source www.VISTA.com
    >
    >|>That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    >|>MS that I can see.
    >
    >Just my small part to stir the pot.
    >
    >If microsoft can sue and win over Lindows, what right do they have to
    >walk all over this established business (located at Redmond,
    >Washington). http://tinyurl.com/7bubn

    There is a WORLD of difference between "Lindows"( an operating system
    manufacturer which manufactures a product which purports to be a
    better "Windows" than "Microsoft Windows" and ACTIVELY advertised its
    product that way), and a software company (NOT the producer of an
    Operating System) which shares the word "Vista" in its name.

    Microsoft has a Trademark for the name "Windows" ONLY when it applies
    to an Operating System. That is, as long as Microsoft holds the
    Trademark, no one else can build an OS and use the term "Windows" as
    part of its name, or use a word in its name which gives the
    "impression" of calling its product "Windows". This is only fair and
    equitable.

    In no way does Microsoft intrude on Vista Inc.'s name, nor does Vista
    Inc. intrude on Microsoft, since they each refer to a DIFFERENT class
    of software. We don't see Microsoft complaining about the "Vista
    Inc." name. In no way does Microsoft Windows give the impression that
    it was designed and built by "Vista Inc". In no way could Windows
    Vista intrude, since it in NOT WAY gives the impression that it was
    designed and built by Vista Inc. I am sure that Microsoft researched
    the trademarks surrounding the word "Vista" very carefully before
    choosing the name. Their legal team obviously vetted the name before
    Microsoft announced it to the world.

    While the word "windows" is pretty much generic when referring to
    those square holes covered with glass on most houses and buildings,
    the word "Windows" when referring to an Operating System is not, since
    it refers to "Microsoft Windows" ONLY, and Microsoft holds the
    Trademark for the use of the word "Windows" when referring to an OS.

    Donald L McDaniel
    Please reply to the original thread
    so that conversations may be kept in order
    =======================================================
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Donald McDaniel wrote:
    > On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:15:31 -0400, "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    > >
    >
    > Currently there are a two legal ways for non-Microsoft employees to
    > get a Beta of Windows Vista (Longhorn):

    Is it considered illegal to get a beta version of an OS (or any other
    software for that matter) from somewhere other than the original
    source? I mean, no one charges for beta software, and it's intended as
    a free preview, so it can't be considered as stealing (though knowing
    Microsoft, they'll try).

    Rob
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On 13 Aug 2005 07:57:37 -0700, chaos_disorder@yahoo.com wrote:

    >Donald McDaniel wrote:
    >> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 19:15:31 -0400, "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >> >
    >>
    >> Currently there are a two legal ways for non-Microsoft employees to
    >> get a Beta of Windows Vista (Longhorn):
    >
    >Is it considered illegal to get a beta version of an OS (or any other
    >software for that matter) from somewhere other than the original
    >source?

    The ONLY places you can LEGALLY download Windows Vista in any form,
    and obtain a LEGAL license to use it from Microsoft (yes, even Beta
    versions of ALL Microsoft software require a software license to use
    the software) are:

    The Microsoft Windows Beta web site
    <https://beta.microsoft.com/sign-in/signin.asp?refURL=https%3A%2F%2Fbeta%2Emicrosoft%2Ecom%2Fcontent%2Fbphome%2Easp%3F>

    The Microsoft Windows MSDN web sites
    <http://msdn.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getthebeta/default.aspx>

    The Microsoft TechNet website
    <http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/betadist.mspx>

    ALL OTHER non-Microsoft-owned sites have ILLEGAL downloads of the
    Beta, which cannot provide LEGAL licenses to use the software. I
    can't put it in simpler language

    >I mean, no one charges for beta software, and it's intended as
    >a free preview,

    Microsoft sees it a little differently. Microsoft has THREE different
    types of beta distributions:
    1) Internal betas, only legally distributed within its internal
    network, and not meant for public consumption. Only Microsoft
    employees or a few specially-chosen members of the Press are given
    this distribution.
    2) Limited betas, only legally distributed to the paid members of
    Microsoft Technet, the Microsoft Software Developer Network, and
    registered members of Microsoft Beta. These licenses are only given
    at Microsoft's discretion. The Windows Vista Beta 1 is this variety
    of beta distribution. In the cases of MSDN and Technet memberships,
    you could say that they pay for the software they get. However, as in
    all cases, failing to honor the conditions off the Microsoft licenses
    can lead to losing those licenses, and sometimes, being prosecuted by
    the Courts. One way to fail to honor the licenses is to distribute
    the Beta to others, no matter WHO they are.
    3) Public Betas and Release Candidates. These are distributed to the
    General Public, without distinction. Anyone who receives one of these
    Betas or Release Candidates receives a legal license from Microsoft to
    use the product, usually time-limited to 120 days. After the RTM
    product is released or the 120 days passes, these time-limited
    licenses cease to be honored by Microsoft. You COULD say that these
    licenses are "free", since Microsoft does not charge much beyond
    shipping and handling for the product CDs.

    >so it can't be considered as stealing
    >(though knowing Microsoft, they'll try).
    >
    >Rob

    While you may not consider using an unlicensed software product
    "stealing", most Courts in the world do, as would most moral folks.
    Almost all developed nations have laws on the books which apply to
    software licenses. In the United States, the statute which applies in
    these cases is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which states
    plainly the rights of licensees and the rights of licensors.

    You, like many unlearned people, fail to see the difference between
    having POSSESSION of the CD, or a copy of the CD, and having the LEGAL
    RIGHT to USE the software which is burned on the CD.

    One may have POSSESSION of a thing, yet not have the RIGHT to use it,
    as in the case of a thief who steals your car having POSSESSION of it
    car, but YOU having the TITLE of LAW giving me OWNERSHIP and the RIGHT
    to use it. In other words, "possess" and "own" are NOT synonymous
    words (that is, they don't mean the same thing.)

    Purchasing a CD containing a software product does NOT give a man the
    LICENSE to use what it CONTAINS. This is why LICENSES to use it are
    GRANTED by the software manufacturer along with the CD.

    Software licenses are held by a person ONLY at the discretion of the
    manufacturer or author, and given as the good-faith promise that they
    will use the product as it was designed and written(that is, not make
    any changes or copies of the physical source code without their
    permission), and use it according to the conditions of the license.

    Most software licenses give you the right to make archival copies of
    the software, either on a hard drive, a floppy disk, or a CD or DVD
    disc, for your protection, but do NOT give you the right to pass one
    of these copies to another person in any circumstances, for any
    reason, unless you sell outright your original copy (in which case you
    are almost always required to pass all copies, no matter where they
    are, to the person to which you have sold the original product.)

    Microsoft licenses, either Beta or Retail, are the same as all other
    manufacturer's in this respect, so you can't make Microsoft into a
    villain because they require you to respect your license without
    making all other software manufacturers(or any manufacturer who
    requires the use of licenses to use its products) villains.)

    Microsoft has EVERY RIGHT to protect its software patents and
    trademarks to the FULL extent of the Law, as any man or corporation
    has, including YOU.

    Don't forget that when you purchased that software product, you ONLY
    purchased the right to USE it at the software manufacturer's
    discretion. You were NOT given legal OWNERSHIP of the actual code
    burned on the CD or DVD (the owner of the copyrights and patents
    almost always retains ownership of the actual code, in any form), and
    the software manufacturer usually has EVERY RIGHT to withdraw its
    permission to use it, if you fail to honor the conditions of the
    license you were given.

    If you did NOT purchase the product, or it was not distributed to you
    PERSONALLY by the manufacturer or his agents, but instead got it from
    someone other than the software manufacturer's legal distributors, you
    have STOLEN the product, since you received no license from the
    manufacturer giving you the right to USE it. Not only have you
    "stolen" the product morally, you have stolen the product legally,
    according to the Law.

    Software licenses are different in this respect than most other
    products. While you almost always get OWNERSHIP of the PHYSICAL
    product why you purchase a house, as well as the RIGHT to use it at
    your discretion, you do NOT get OWNERSHIP of the CODE the PHYSICAL
    product (a CD or DVD) contains. So all you "OWN" when you purchase a
    software product is the PHYSICAL media itself(not the code burned on
    it), and the right to USE the code on your machine, which right you
    will retain as long as you fulfil the conditions of the License you
    received.

    Even in the case of a house, your rights of ownership and use are
    limited by the conditions of the Mortgage company. So limited
    ownership and use should be a familiar concept to you. For so many
    years, it has been easy to download software off the Internet; anyone
    with a broadband connection can download billions of bytes in a short
    time, in the privacy of their own home. This has lead many people to
    believing that ANY software package they download of obtain gives them
    the right to USE it, and gives them the impression that they OWN it,
    too.

    But I am here to tell you that people own NONE of the warez they have
    downloaded; and in almost all cases, they do not have the right to use
    it, either.

    Donald L McDaniel
    Please reply to the original thread
    so that conversations may be kept in order
    =======================================================
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Donald McDaniel wrote:

    > While you may not consider using an unlicensed software product
    > "stealing", most Courts in the world do, as would most moral folks.
    > Almost all developed nations have laws on the books which apply to
    > software licenses. In the United States, the statute which applies in
    > these cases is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which states
    > plainly the rights of licensees and the rights of licensors.
    >
    > You, like many unlearned people, fail to see the difference between
    > having POSSESSION of the CD, or a copy of the CD, and having the LEGAL
    > RIGHT to USE the software which is burned on the CD.

    Man, you're definitely on your high horse/soapbox. And who the hell
    are you to call anyone unlearned? You know nothing about me or anyone
    else who posts here. It takes a big man to call names in cyberspace.
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Pot-Stirrers are generally left in the kitchen. As for being Pennywise, MS
    has a barrel over that too. :o)

    --

    All the Best,
    Kelly (MS-MVP)

    Troubleshooting Windows XP
    http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com


    <Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov> wrote in message
    news:3f3kf11b47aodil2m2vtipnu56lg4vig2p@4ax.com...
    > Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
    >
    > |>Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    > |>
    > |>> "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > |>>
    > |>>|>I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    > |>>|>
    >
    > |>>Goto the source www.VISTA.com
    >
    > |>That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    > |>MS that I can see.
    >
    > Just my small part to stir the pot.
    >
    > If microsoft can sue and win over Lindows, what right do they have to
    > walk all over this established business (located at Redmond,
    > Washington). http://tinyurl.com/7bubn
    > --
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Perhaps Donald McDaniel should consider becoming a programmer, spend many
    months developing a product and then consider his views.
    Teriel9

    "chaos_disorder" <chaos_disorder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1124006008.248406.98260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Donald McDaniel wrote:
    >
    >> While you may not consider using an unlicensed software product
    >> "stealing", most Courts in the world do, as would most moral folks.
    >> Almost all developed nations have laws on the books which apply to
    >> software licenses. In the United States, the statute which applies in
    >> these cases is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which states
    >> plainly the rights of licensees and the rights of licensors.
    >>
    >> You, like many unlearned people, fail to see the difference between
    >> having POSSESSION of the CD, or a copy of the CD, and having the LEGAL
    >> RIGHT to USE the software which is burned on the CD.
    >
    > Man, you're definitely on your high horse/soapbox. And who the hell
    > are you to call anyone unlearned? You know nothing about me or anyone
    > else who posts here. It takes a big man to call names in cyberspace.
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:15:38 +0100, Donald McDaniel wrote
    (in article <p6qkf1h6tor1bvt79dsa0k97rmpce17qsf@4ax.com>):

    > On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:35:40 -0700, Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    >
    >> Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >>>>>>>
    >>
    >>>>> Goto the source www.VISTA.com
    >>
    >>>> That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    >>>> MS that I can see.
    >>
    >> Just my small part to stir the pot.
    >>
    >> If microsoft can sue and win over Lindows, what right do they have to
    >> walk all over this established business (located at Redmond,
    >> Washington). http://tinyurl.com/7bubn
    >
    > There is a WORLD of difference between "Lindows"( an operating system
    > manufacturer which manufactures a product which purports to be a
    > better "Windows" than "Microsoft Windows" and ACTIVELY advertised its
    > product that way), and a software company (NOT the producer of an
    > Operating System) which shares the word "Vista" in its name.
    >
    > Microsoft has a Trademark for the name "Windows" ONLY when it applies
    > to an Operating System. That is, as long as Microsoft holds the
    > Trademark, no one else can build an OS and use the term "Windows" as
    > part of its name, or use a word in its name which gives the
    > "impression" of calling its product "Windows". This is only fair and
    > equitable.
    >
    > In no way does Microsoft intrude on Vista Inc.'s name, nor does Vista
    > Inc. intrude on Microsoft, since they each refer to a DIFFERENT class
    > of software. We don't see Microsoft complaining about the "Vista
    > Inc." name. In no way does Microsoft Windows give the impression that
    > it was designed and built by "Vista Inc". In no way could Windows
    > Vista intrude, since it in NOT WAY gives the impression that it was
    > designed and built by Vista Inc. I am sure that Microsoft researched
    > the trademarks surrounding the word "Vista" very carefully before
    > choosing the name. Their legal team obviously vetted the name before
    > Microsoft announced it to the world.
    >
    > While the word "windows" is pretty much generic when referring to
    > those square holes covered with glass on most houses and buildings,
    > the word "Windows" when referring to an Operating System is not, since
    > it refers to "Microsoft Windows" ONLY, and Microsoft holds the
    > Trademark for the use of the word "Windows" when referring to an OS.
    >
    > Donald L McDaniel
    > Please reply to the original thread
    > so that conversations may be kept in order
    > =======================================================

    You've obviously heard the one about MS suing a 17-year-old Canadian lad
    because he decided to call his website 'Mike Rowe Soft"?! When I first heard
    it, I though it was an urban legend but, no, Michael Rowe is a real person
    and lives, I believe, just outside Toronto.

    MS wanted something ridiculous like £2million for the "copyright
    infringement". This kid just wrote small applets as a hobby - anyone could
    see that he wasn't deliberately infringing. Was it his fault that his surname
    was 'Rowe' and his parents just happened to like the name Michael?
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:10:43 +0100, Evadne Cake
    <magrat_garlick@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:15:38 +0100, Donald McDaniel wrote
    >(in article <p6qkf1h6tor1bvt79dsa0k97rmpce17qsf@4ax.com>):
    >
    >> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 07:35:40 -0700, Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    >>
    >>> Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "MrSpike" <mrssoto57@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I got one for XP way back when. Thanks
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>
    >>>>>> Goto the source www.VISTA.com
    >>>
    >>>>> That seems to be a completely different Vista. Has nothing to do with
    >>>>> MS that I can see.
    >>>
    >>> Just my small part to stir the pot.
    >>>
    >>> If microsoft can sue and win over Lindows, what right do they have to
    >>> walk all over this established business (located at Redmond,
    >>> Washington). http://tinyurl.com/7bubn
    >>
    >> There is a WORLD of difference between "Lindows"( an operating system
    >> manufacturer which manufactures a product which purports to be a
    >> better "Windows" than "Microsoft Windows" and ACTIVELY advertised its
    >> product that way), and a software company (NOT the producer of an
    >> Operating System) which shares the word "Vista" in its name.
    >>
    >> Microsoft has a Trademark for the name "Windows" ONLY when it applies
    >> to an Operating System. That is, as long as Microsoft holds the
    >> Trademark, no one else can build an OS and use the term "Windows" as
    >> part of its name, or use a word in its name which gives the
    >> "impression" of calling its product "Windows". This is only fair and
    >> equitable.
    >>
    >> In no way does Microsoft intrude on Vista Inc.'s name, nor does Vista
    >> Inc. intrude on Microsoft, since they each refer to a DIFFERENT class
    >> of software. We don't see Microsoft complaining about the "Vista
    >> Inc." name. In no way does Microsoft Windows give the impression that
    >> it was designed and built by "Vista Inc". In no way could Windows
    >> Vista intrude, since it in NOT WAY gives the impression that it was
    >> designed and built by Vista Inc. I am sure that Microsoft researched
    >> the trademarks surrounding the word "Vista" very carefully before
    >> choosing the name. Their legal team obviously vetted the name before
    >> Microsoft announced it to the world.
    >>
    >> While the word "windows" is pretty much generic when referring to
    >> those square holes covered with glass on most houses and buildings,
    >> the word "Windows" when referring to an Operating System is not, since
    >> it refers to "Microsoft Windows" ONLY, and Microsoft holds the
    >> Trademark for the use of the word "Windows" when referring to an OS.
    >>
    >> Donald L McDaniel
    >> Please reply to the original thread
    >> so that conversations may be kept in order
    >> =======================================================
    >
    >You've obviously heard the one about MS suing a 17-year-old Canadian lad
    >because he decided to call his website 'Mike Rowe Soft"?! When I first heard
    >it, I though it was an urban legend but, no, Michael Rowe is a real person
    >and lives, I believe, just outside Toronto.
    >
    >MS wanted something ridiculous like £2million for the "copyright
    >infringement". This kid just wrote small applets as a hobby - anyone could
    >see that he wasn't deliberately infringing. Was it his fault that his surname
    >was 'Rowe' and his parents just happened to like the name Michael?

    It has been my experience that the larger and more successful a
    corporation becomes, the more paranoid it becomes, too.

    Microsoft was obviously in error in doing that. But we all make
    errors, don't we. Microsoft DID satisfactorily clear up the matter,
    and the young man got his website back, so Microsoft isn't as mean as
    some would think.

    Donald L McDaniel
    Please reply to the original thread
    so that conversations may be kept in order
    =======================================================
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Donald McDaniel <dlmcdaniel2005@yahoo.com> wrote:

    |>>You've obviously heard the one about MS suing a 17-year-old Canadian lad
    |>>because he decided to call his website 'Mike Rowe Soft"?! When I first heard
    |>>it, I though it was an urban legend but, no, Michael Rowe is a real person
    |>>and lives, I believe, just outside Toronto.
    |>>
    |>>MS wanted something ridiculous like ?2million for the "copyright
    |>>infringement". This kid just wrote small applets as a hobby - anyone could
    |>>see that he wasn't deliberately infringing. Was it his fault that his surname
    |>>was 'Rowe' and his parents just happened to like the name Michael?

    |>It has been my experience that the larger and more successful a
    |>corporation becomes, the more paranoid it becomes, too.
    |>
    |>Microsoft was obviously in error in doing that. But we all make
    |>errors, don't we. Microsoft DID satisfactorily clear up the matter,
    |>and the young man got his website back, so Microsoft isn't as mean as
    |>some would think.

    Nope, due to public interest in the attack on this kid, microsoft
    bought him off with training and an X-box; but took over the site.
    http://tinyurl.com/9ppxn

    --
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:53:28 +0100, chaos_disorder wrote
    (in article <1124006008.248406.98260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):

    > Donald McDaniel wrote:
    >
    >> While you may not consider using an unlicensed software product
    >> "stealing", most Courts in the world do, as would most moral folks.
    >> Almost all developed nations have laws on the books which apply to
    >> software licenses. In the United States, the statute which applies in
    >> these cases is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which states
    >> plainly the rights of licensees and the rights of licensors.
    >>
    >> You, like many unlearned people, fail to see the difference between
    >> having POSSESSION of the CD, or a copy of the CD, and having the LEGAL
    >> RIGHT to USE the software which is burned on the CD.
    >
    > Man, you're definitely on your high horse/soapbox. And who the hell
    > are you to call anyone unlearned? You know nothing about me or anyone
    > else who posts here. It takes a big man to call names in cyberspace.
    >

    Er, I have read Don's post several times and *NOWHERE* did he "call names".
    If, however, you took it as that means you obviously have something to hide
    and/or a guilty conscience. If you think being called "unlearned" is
    insulting, then you have a *VERY* thin hide. I suggest you develop a thicker
    one.
  19. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    You seem to be in the wrong group and for the wrong reason.

    --

    All the Best,
    Kelly (MS-MVP)

    Troubleshooting Windows XP
    http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com


    <Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov> wrote in message
    news:k89vf15qfkd2o4797dkgpfgq4kj09tjb3e@4ax.com...
    > Donald McDaniel <dlmcdaniel2005@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    > |>>You've obviously heard the one about MS suing a 17-year-old Canadian
    > lad
    > |>>because he decided to call his website 'Mike Rowe Soft"?! When I first
    > heard
    > |>>it, I though it was an urban legend but, no, Michael Rowe is a real
    > person
    > |>>and lives, I believe, just outside Toronto.
    > |>>
    > |>>MS wanted something ridiculous like ?2million for the "copyright
    > |>>infringement". This kid just wrote small applets as a hobby - anyone
    > could
    > |>>see that he wasn't deliberately infringing. Was it his fault that his
    > surname
    > |>>was 'Rowe' and his parents just happened to like the name Michael?
    >
    > |>It has been my experience that the larger and more successful a
    > |>corporation becomes, the more paranoid it becomes, too.
    > |>
    > |>Microsoft was obviously in error in doing that. But we all make
    > |>errors, don't we. Microsoft DID satisfactorily clear up the matter,
    > |>and the young man got his website back, so Microsoft isn't as mean as
    > |>some would think.
    >
    > Nope, due to public interest in the attack on this kid, microsoft
    > bought him off with training and an X-box; but took over the site.
    > http://tinyurl.com/9ppxn
    >
    > --
    >
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Why? So he could have more money then GOD...

    "Teriel9" <terry@teriel-consultants.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:%23YNPi8LoFHA.3120@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > Perhaps Donald McDaniel should consider becoming a programmer, spend many
    > months developing a product and then consider his views.
    > Teriel9
    >
    > "chaos_disorder" <chaos_disorder@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1124006008.248406.98260@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >> Donald McDaniel wrote:
    >>
    >>> While you may not consider using an unlicensed software product
    >>> "stealing", most Courts in the world do, as would most moral folks.
    >>> Almost all developed nations have laws on the books which apply to
    >>> software licenses. In the United States, the statute which applies in
    >>> these cases is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which states
    >>> plainly the rights of licensees and the rights of licensors.
    >>>
    >>> You, like many unlearned people, fail to see the difference between
    >>> having POSSESSION of the CD, or a copy of the CD, and having the LEGAL
    >>> RIGHT to USE the software which is burned on the CD.
    >>
    >> Man, you're definitely on your high horse/soapbox. And who the hell
    >> are you to call anyone unlearned? You know nothing about me or anyone
    >> else who posts here. It takes a big man to call names in cyberspace.
    >>
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Microsoft Windows XP