A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » System Manufacturers & Vendors » Compaq Computers
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

FO: Windows 2000 PRO COA for Compaq



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 23rd 05, 01:47 PM
DCA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default FO: Windows 2000 PRO COA for Compaq

If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap

It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ

Best ofer secures

Thanks
David


  #2  
Old September 23rd 05, 05:29 PM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Illegal.
HH

"DCA" wrote in message
...
If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap

It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ

Best ofer secures

Thanks
David



  #3  
Old September 23rd 05, 07:12 PM
DCA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"HH" wrote in message
...
Illegal.
HH

"DCA" wrote in message
...
If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap

It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ

Best ofer secures

Thanks
David


Yawnnnnnnn
That old argument.
IT IS STILL DEBATEABLE as Win 2000 pro was SOLD - not leased and EU law
differs from the US interpretation


  #4  
Old September 24th 05, 12:13 AM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT sold.
The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

"DCA" wrote in message
...
"HH" wrote in message
...
Illegal.
HH

"DCA" wrote in message
...
If this is wanted by anyone, please email me removing spamtrap

It is from an HP Compaq P4M laptop, and is marked COMPAQ

Best ofer secures

Thanks
David


Yawnnnnnnn
That old argument.
IT IS STILL DEBATEABLE as Win 2000 pro was SOLD - not leased and EU law
differs from the US interpretation




  #5  
Old September 24th 05, 05:58 AM
DCA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
blocked


  #6  
Old September 24th 05, 10:13 PM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bull****.

Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
people bore me.

Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
"DCA" wrote in message
...

"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
blocked



  #7  
Old September 25th 05, 03:32 AM
HH
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Tom,
This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software that
allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
the box here.
HH

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
m...
Bull****.

Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
people bore me.

Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
"DCA" wrote in message
...

"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
blocked





  #8  
Old September 25th 05, 10:21 AM
Nicholas D Richards
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , HH
writes
Tom,
This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software that
allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
the box here.
HH

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
om...
Bull****.

Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
people bore me.

Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
"DCA" wrote in message
...

"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your expression.
blocked






I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....

Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
bad manners.

A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
more important than your those to which you are responding?

A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
to follow.

I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.

However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
Microsoft or the consumer.
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Oł sont les neiges d'antan?"
  #9  
Old September 25th 05, 08:26 PM
DCA
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Nicholas D Richards" wrote in message
...
In article , HH
writes
Tom,
This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software
that
allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
the box here.
HH

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
. com...
Bull****.

Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
people bore me.

Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
"DCA" wrote in message
...

"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your
expression.
blocked






I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....

Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
bad manners.

A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
more important than your those to which you are responding?

A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
to follow.

I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.

However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
Microsoft or the consumer.
--

What a well written and full response. Whilst I'm sure it was not for my
benefit, I appreciate the support and time taken.
I have read very similar on regular occasions and if 'Tom' the self
proclaimed knowitall had bothered any sort of research he would have reached
the same conclusion.
I did not have the patience to post such as response in the circumstances as
I was being abused!
Now that your post has revealed that imbecile HH's response I am justfurther
exasperated having read his response to my post on the BIOS.
Seeing as Compaq produce a windows BIOS interface that actually prevents F10
BIOS access upon boot-up I thought it may be useful (it works on my EVO
N800W anyway) - but there you go; I guess he knows better than this
practitioner - I must be a 'blunt' pencil.
I guess I must be a guy too (presumption)
D


  #10  
Old September 25th 05, 08:58 PM
Tom Scales
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Nicholas D Richards" wrote in message
...
In article , HH
writes
Tom,
This is the same guy who suggested a user install "the Windows software
that
allows entering the BIOS." We're not talking about the sharpest pencil in
the box here.
HH

"Tom Scales" wrote in message
. com...
Bull****.

Show me where the 'charter' says top posting is wrong. You pompous ass
people bore me.

Also, please post the EULA for the copy of W2K
"DCA" wrote in message
...

"HH" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. It was LICENSED for one machine NOT
sold. The COA might not even work on another machine.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNN.
HH

1. Top posting is against charters
2. Have you read European interpretation of enforceable law on this?
3. You are very tiresome - you can't even be original in your
expression.
blocked






I do not know about the sharpest pencil in the box, but.....

Top Posting is very annoying, and what ever you say, it is against
Usenet custom, makes a thread very difficult to follow and just plain
bad manners.

A thread where everyone has top posted is difficult to read because it
is out of chronological sequence; I have to read your reply before I can
read what the hell you are writing about. Or are your comments much
more important than your those to which you are responding?

A thread where most people have followed custom and bottom posted and
just a few know-alls have top posted, is impossible to follow. It is
like the American style of writing dates or the thread above, impossible
to follow.

I make no comment about the legality and enforceability of Licences that
restrict the running of software to only one machine. I am not
qualified, and as far as I know it is not totally determined, yet.

However, American law does not take precedence over EU and national law
in EU countries. A Licence written in America may say one thing and has
a given meaning in America, if it is sold in the UK, for instance, it
may have a different meaning in the UK and some provisions may not be
enforceable. In fact I, as the Licensee may have the right to force the
Licenser, in law, to do something different (Unfair provisions). This
is why Microsoft are in negotiation with the EU about their licences.
The consequences of those negotiations may not be entirely in favour of
Microsoft or the consumer.
--
Nicholas David Richards -

"Oł sont les neiges d'antan?"


So in other words, you're not posting the EULA for fear you will be proven
wrong and you're diverting attention to a non-issue that was established as
a recommendation and nothing more in the early days of the internet prior to
broadband.

I still maintain you're a pompous ass


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
linux fdisk changed CHS, now Windows says "invalid media type" student Storage (alternative) 23 August 3rd 05 03:54 PM
64 bit - Windows Liberty 64bit, Windows Limited Edition 64 Bit, Microsoft SQL Server 2000 Developer Edition 64 Bit, IBM DB2 64 bit - new ! vvcd AMD x86-64 Processors 0 September 17th 04 09:07 PM
Help: windows 2000 and joystick need help Giovanni General Hardware 3 June 28th 04 06:37 AM
Easynote K 5305 with Windows 2000 SP 4 Maik Broscheit Packard Bell Computers 1 May 6th 04 12:51 PM
Unable to install Windows 2000 Server on dual CPU 7DPXDW+ Rob Nicholson Gigabyte Motherboards 6 April 13th 04 10:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2018 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.