================================================ Subject: Re: Excel .... "softshare" From: "Debbi R" To: Date: Mon 11 Feb 2002 15:54:21 -0800 ================================================ So you're saying you're not using it (well except when it's convenient for you of course) because you're misinformed as usual. As shocking as this sounds, I believe you. And before you try to reply with your customary incoherent drivel, you might be interested to know you're heading back to the killfile. -----Original Message----- From: Creed Discussion List [mailto:CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM] On Behalf Of Creed - 7M3 - Live Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 3:48 PM To: CREED-DISCUSS@WINDUPLIST.COM Subject: Re: Excel, .... "softshare" That is a major reason that I didn't even consider XP. I'd rather have an evolving OS. Where I can install it on as many machines, as I want to. Instead of being servant to an operating system. That is a major reason why I switched Operating systems awhile back. I do still use windows for my grandchilds games (and the stranded Creed pager). But for everything else. I stay away from it. Jim Joe Earles wrote: >I'm not of the "two wrongs somehow make a right" mindset, but I'd love >for someone to explain to me where the right is in me buying a piece of >software, taking it home and installing it on my machine and being >precluded from making too many changes or upgrades to my hardware or >else I have to pay for it again. > >That pretty well describes the XP Home edition. If you swap out your >mainboard, hard drive, NIC and CPU guess what... BillyBob decides you >have a new PC and you get to pay to install XP again! Now if the >motivation behind that isn't greed I don't know what it is. Why, pray >tell, am I restricted from upgrading my system if I want to keep my OS? >Now granted the possibility of THE AVERAGE END USER making that many >changes to one system is next to zip, but the chances of a certified PC >technician trying out new stuff just for kicks is feasible. The notion >of that same tech having several PCs is also feasible. Now I have to >pay for the OS four times to run it on each machine on my home LAN? >Look, if I do the right thing even when I know that I can get the >product for nothing that ought to afford me the right to do with it >whatever I please, so long as no one else is benefiting from it. To >spin it around to an argument that holds water here, let's say you go >out and buy a copy of Weathered. It plays fine on your PC, but if you >want to play it on your stereo's CD player you have to send Wind-Up >records $15 more...and if you want to play it in the car, again you >send them $15 for the privilege. Would that piss anyone but me off just >a little? Sure, you can make the argument that the software companies >suffer when you pirate their stuff. All right. That argument has to >hold *some* merit, of course, but I can't help but realize that there >are scores upon scores of pirate copies of the earlier (9x/Me/NT/2K) >operating systems out there and Bill Gates continues to be one of the >richest men if not still THE richest man on planet earth. Simply put, >he doesn't have to worry about people pirating software because he'll >never have the time to spend all the money he has now. The motivation >behind the one user, one license thing is nothing more than greed and >that, as far as I'm concerned, is on the same level as the one who >pirates the software. Are the software developers worthy to make >profits for their effort? Absolutely. But once they have my money, what >business is it of theirs what I do with the product? This question and >the lack of a logical and forthright answer is the biggest motivation >behind software piracy. To unsubscribe or change your preferences for the Creed-Discuss list, visit: http://www.winduplist.com/ls/discuss/form.asp