Ben Ruset wrote:
Gas ought to be cheaper than the $2.25 that I paid this morning.
It is....here. $1.98
There ought to be less Starbucks in the world.
Yes.
People ought to be nicer to each other.
Yes.
*shrug*
*shrug*, *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?
Sure.
Also, Microsoft doesn't care about shelf space. That's the retailers
problem.
In the end, they care. If they don't get any, they don't generate sales.
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.
