From: "Geo" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0209_01C61808.4503F4D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What's fictional about the Emachines OEM windows license that ties the = OS
to the motherboard?

Geo.
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:43c767ec$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     Why?  Do you want to list a whole bunch of fictional scenarios that =
we can imagine?  Let me start.  Soylent Green is people.

  Rich

    "Geo"  wrote in message
news:43c721d7{at}w3.nls.net...
    Actually I was responding to your "Microsoft does nothing so =
draconian" statement. Imagine what the computer landscape would look =
like if all software were keyed to the motherboard with the throw away =
with motherboard license.

    Geo.

    "Rich"  wrote in message news:43c5d42f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         To apple there is pretty much only apple hardware.  The =
software is only to make the hardware they want to sell you useful.  = When
you buy the next hardware from them they will include the software = again.
 What motivation does apple have to make it easy for you to = upgrade to
non-apple hardware?

      Rich

        "Geo"  wrote in message =
news:43c5cd9a$3{at}w3.nls.net...
        Oh I don't know about that. Forcing users to throw away the OS =
license with the hardware seems pretty draconian to me. What's the point =
to backwards compatibility if you have to buy all new software every = time
you upgrade?

        Geo.
          "Rich"  wrote in message news:43c5c6ca{at}w3.nls.net...
             Apple and Microsoft are different.  Microsoft is a software =
company.  Apple is a hardware company.  If apple felt that people wanted =
macos but were not buying apple hardware because they could run macos on =
cheaper dell or even cheaper whitebox systems they would do something =
about it.  There should be no doubt as apple already stated that they =
would take steps to prevent macos from running on non-apple hardware.  =
Microsoft does nothing so draconian.

          Rich

------=_NextPart_000_0209_01C61808.4503F4D0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








What's fictional about the Emachines =
OEM windows=20
license that ties the OS to the motherboard?
 
Geo.

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43c767ec$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    
Why?  Do you want =
to list a=20
  whole bunch of fictional scenarios that we can imagine?  Let me=20
  start.  Soylent Green is people.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
    wrote in message news:43c721d7{at}w3.nls.net...
    Actually I was responding to your =
"Microsoft=20
    does nothing so draconian" statement. Imagine what the computer =
landscape=20
    would look like if all software were keyed to the motherboard with =
the throw=20
    away with motherboard license.
     
    Geo.
     
    "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43c5d42f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    

         To
apple there is =
pretty much=20
      only apple hardware.  The software is only to make the =
hardware they=20
      want to sell you useful.  When you buy the next hardware from =
them=20
      they will include the software again.  What motivation does =
apple=20
      have to make it easy for you to upgrade to non-apple=20
hardware?
       
      Rich
       
      

        "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>=20">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>=20
        wrote in message news:43c5cd9a$3{at}w3.nls.net...
        Oh I don't know about that. =
Forcing users=20
        to throw away the OS license with the hardware seems pretty =
draconian to=20
        me. What's the point to backwards compatibility if you have to =
buy all=20
        new software every time you upgrade?
         
        Geo.
        

          "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:43c5c6ca{at}w3.nls.net...
            
Apple and =
Microsoft are=20
          different.  Microsoft is a software company.  Apple =
is a=20
          hardware company.  If apple felt that people wanted macos =
but=20
          were not buying apple hardware because they could run macos on =
cheaper=20
          dell or even cheaper whitebox systems they would do something =
about=20
          it.  There should be no doubt as apple already stated =
that they=20
          would take steps to prevent macos from running on non-apple=20
          hardware.  Microsoft does nothing so =
draconian.
           
          Rich
           

------=_NextPart_000_0209_01C61808.4503F4D0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5