Re: [News] Microsoft Crippleware Patent Rejected, Apple Mocks Own Intelligence

["Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hadron wrote:
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Hadron wrote:
> > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > >
> > > > Hadron wrote:
> > > > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hadron wrote:
> > > > > > > "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > alt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:48:07 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MS pay-per-use PC patent already rejected
> > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but who in their right mind would even use a Pay-per-use
> > > > > > > > > PC in their home or office when hardware is cheap and great, free
> > > > > > > > > OSes are available (Linux/BSD).
> > > > > > > > It's been Bill Gates' wet dream for years. Let them develop it, that
> > > > > > > > by itself will trigger a massive uptake of Linux. These days when
> > > > > > > > people hear about the friend of a friend using linux they dont really
> > > > > > > > care - 
> > > > > > > > its not windows but does the same. So what? When they're paying per
> > > > > > > > use for their PC and they hear about this thing that does the same but
> > > > > > > > without the pay per use they'll take more interest.
> > > > > > > Welcome back. Good to see you're still as full of it as usual.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where is the proof of this "wet dream"? Where is the proof of it being
> > > > > > > implemented as MS only?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Besides, pay to play already exists. It's called "Internet Cafes". And I
> > > > > > > have not seen one yet with Linux installed. Probably because in the past
> > > > > > > the flash support was so poor. Could be a goer now.
> > > > > > And Internet cafe's relate to a fully owned PC how precisely? You are
> > > > > > comparing apples and oranges as usual.
> > > > > They are pay per use.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you pay per use for the net too.
> > > > >
> > > > > And Businesses the world over pay per use too for SW.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure what your "news" is?
> > > > I have no "news".  I merely stated that if MS want to introduce pay
> > > > per use software into the home market then let 'em. You'd have
> > > > understood that if it weren't for your reading comprehension
> > > I asked for proof.
> > Did you? You must have typing difficulties as well then.
> >
> >
> > > I pointed out that others already do.
> > Very interesting. What particular percentage of the home user market
> > would you estimate then? Seeing as that was what we were discussing
> > before you threw your tuppence in.
> >
> >
> > > > difficulties. And businesses that do have software contracts do so for
> > > > the support more than the actual software itself. Nice apples-oranges
> > > > comparison once again.
> > > You are wrong. You do know that don't you? Big businesses license SW per
> > > seat. Support is rarely required.
> > Updates that are included are classed as support you moron. No company
> > pays subscription software for no reason.
> "required"
>
> i.e "we need help"
>
> Try to keep up.
>
> But I can hear you squirming.
>
> You now know that companies pay for SW by the year (day) per SEAT.
>
> Your statement that that they do so for the "support" is nonsense.
>
> Many, many companies pay for USING the sw. Per seat.
>
> Dont try playing silly games.
You must know a lot of companies populated by utter fuckwits then.