Richteralan

I\'ll wait for more credible source, such as theinquirer, to make my judgement.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-17 06:20:


This is from theinquirer.......(or i just dun get what u mean.......)
Well, the thing is, this is a fairly reliable source coz the PDF dociment itself is actually being stored on the M$  ...

yes I know this is from theinquirer, that\'s why I said a "more credible source such as theinquirer".

The inquirer is infamous in computer industry for their inaccurate and speculative "news"

I take any "news" from theinquirer as a ton of salt.

Richteralan

And yes, does the inquirer provide a link for the PDF download?

If not, they are interpreting the "mystic document" in any way we cannot know.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-17 15:31:

this was the link they provided and it link straight to the microsoft server

Again theinquirer is interpreting themselves.

Paragraph 3C states:

While the software is running , you may use it but not share its icon, images, sounds and media.

This is perfectly acceptable. Vista\'s icon/images/sounds/media are copyrighted I would imagine you cannot SHARE it.

Now making presentations with projector is not SHARING. You are not SHARING the ACTUAL FILE.

Taking desktop screenshots is not SHARING. You are not sharing the actual icon/images file.

theinquirer is well-known to make a big fuss out of nothing and attract mouse clicks.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-18 02:21:

ah......... u see, this is where the problem comes in
I am not saying I am making a judgment based on just the article of theinquirer
I have interpreted this myself as well
Theinquirer only po ...

Well, fine.

But I can say this for sure, if you know the reputation of theinquirer, you wouldn\'t have said what you said above.

Richteralan

引用:

Originally posted by 5毫子 at 2006-10-18 05:56:


I was just making a point, however the articles are, at the end of the day, they are still different articles. Being prejudice to all of them is unfair.

lol
actually I was not being prejudice to ALL of them.

I just take teh site: www.theinquirer.net, a single site as a ton of salt.

You obviously didn\'t read theinquirer for at least the past 5 years. You obviously don\'t know when inquirer changed their article within 1 hour to exactly opposite content/context. You also obviously don\'t know that theinquirer\'s multiple articles been pulled due to false/misleading information.

I don\'t want to argue here as it\'s no need to argue.

That\'s why I was being sarcastic by saying that "I will wait for a more \'credible source\' such as theinquirer..."

If the new MS EULA is very destructive to human right/fair-use right, I wouldn\'t believe no other website will not make any single article about it, especially linux fanatic sites and/or anti-MS sites.

Maybe this is why theinquirer can still survive till today.

Let\'s just wait and see and I belive MS won\'t this dumb if this is true as there are plenty of anti-Windows Vista voice in home users as well as business sectors.

Richteralan

The article is not that interesting.....

Just read all user comments