Gas ought to be cheaper than the $2.25 that I paid this morning.
There ought to be less Starbucks in the world.
People ought to be nicer to each other.
*shrug*
The retail copy has the advantage that you can move it to another system
if you need.
Unenforcable? You think Microsoft - with all of their money - would
draft a license agreement that wouldn't hold up in court?
Also, Microsoft doesn't care about shelf space. That's the retailers
problem.
Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
The idea is that you bought a system replete with OS and installed
hardware. I can take out any item of hardware from the system and use
it elsewhere. Why not the OS, as long as I'm not using it twice? It's
like a book, I can use it anywhere I want, but I can't copy it and use
it at the same time in two locations. And, who in the world will even
know? The retail copy has the advantage that you don't need to pay for
any other hardware to get it. Hence, the distinction is very clear.
All of my OEM windows provide a license to use that copy one one
computer. If the legal BS says it can only be used on that one PC, then
that ought to be illegal. It's likely unenforceable anyhow. The fact
that I get it cheaper because I bought a full system is simply an aid to
move systems and to move MSs OS. Hence, from an economical POV, it's to
MSs advantage to do so. No shelf space need for a copy of an OS that
goes out the door on an OEM machine.
