Moo Bunny Amiga - thread "Technet"

Technet

Direct link to this message

Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/renew.aspx

Going at discount at the moment.
Gives you access to most MS software, for a one off price (until renewal time..)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

fghjfghj. fghj.

(70.144.190.99) [70.144.190.99]
I was gonna subscribe... but then I got high

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

shi'at e-Ali. shi@e-ali.

(86.26.216.66) [86.26.216.66]
On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/renew.aspx
>
> Going at discount at the moment.
> Gives you access to most MS software, for a one off price (until renewal
> time..)
>
>

http://developer.apple.com/products/mac/program/

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, shi'at e-Ali wrote:
> On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/renew.aspx
> >
> > Going at discount at the moment.
> > Gives you access to most MS software, for a one off price (until renewal
> > time..)
> >
> >
>
> http://developer.apple.com/products/mac/program/

All good, but unlike windows, its not X86 based in the general sense. To take part in it, you'll need to have added in the expense of specific Apple equipment.

Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

shi'at e-Ali. shi@e-ali.

(86.26.216.66) [86.26.216.66]
On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, shi'at e-Ali wrote:
> > On Monday, Jun 29, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/renew.aspx
> > >
> > > Going at discount at the moment.
> > > Gives you access to most MS software, for a one off price (until renewal
> > > time..)
> > >
> > >
> >
> > http://developer.apple.com/products/mac/program/
>
> All good, but unlike windows, its not X86 based in the general sense. To
> take part in it, you'll need to have added in the expense of specific Apple
> equipment.
>
> Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
>

All true, but it's not half as nice to code for. :)

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, shi'at e-Ali wrote:

>
> All true, but it's not half as nice to code for. :)

Well, this is about getting your hands on their OS's, not the coding and dev tools. There are other technet agreements to cover that side if thats where you get your kicks



Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. Moo@umilator.net.

(210.84.50.60) [210.84.50.60]

> Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
>
You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a production environment.

Seeing as most people are not software purchase decision makers, they might just save themselves the 250 quid and get their stuff off bittorrent. Just as legal to use, and a lot cheaper.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
>
> > Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> > of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
> >
> You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a
> production environment.

I never said use it in production.
Retail and home use is not used in production either.

> Seeing as most people are not software purchase decision makers, they might
> just save themselves the 250 quid and get their stuff off bittorrent. Just
> as legal to use, and a lot cheaper.

Try pulling your head out of your ass, just one time.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

XraalE. moo.

(130.159.17.137) [130.159.17.137]
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
>
> > Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> > of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
> >
> You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a
> production environment.
>
> Seeing as most people are not software purchase decision makers, they might
> just save themselves the 250 quid and get their stuff off bittorrent. Just
> as legal to use, and a lot cheaper.

They might. But then, they might lose more than 250 quid's worth of work when Windows internal anti-piracy kicks in after a security or stability hotfix.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

sdfgsdfg. sdfg.

(70.144.190.99) [70.144.190.99]
I don't need technet because I program all my apps in 0's and 1's.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> > > of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
> > >
> > You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a
> > production environment.
> >
> > Seeing as most people are not software purchase decision makers, they might
> > just save themselves the 250 quid and get their stuff off bittorrent. Just
> > as legal to use, and a lot cheaper.
>
> They might. But then, they might lose more than 250 quid's worth of work
> when Windows internal anti-piracy kicks in after a security or stability
> hotfix.

I don't think the moobunny audience fits the 'production' environment the stupid cretin tried to pitch, and even if they were a fit, I'm doubly sure they understand the basic premise more than Mr fucking Hostfile does in any case.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

shi'at e-Ali. shi@e-ali.

(86.26.216.66) [86.26.216.66]
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, XraalE wrote:
> > On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> > > > of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
> > > >
> > > You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a
> > > production environment.
> > >
> > > Seeing as most people are not software purchase decision makers, they might
> > > just save themselves the 250 quid and get their stuff off bittorrent. Just
> > > as legal to use, and a lot cheaper.
> >
> > They might. But then, they might lose more than 250 quid's worth of work
> > when Windows internal anti-piracy kicks in after a security or stability
> > hotfix.
>
> I don't think the moobunny audience fits the 'production' environment the
> stupid cretin tried to pitch, and even if they were a fit, I'm doubly sure
> they understand the basic premise more than Mr fucking Hostfile does in any
> case.
>

You are obviously an intelligent person AdmV, you really don't need to swear to get your point across.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(210.84.50.60) [210.84.50.60]
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> I never said use it in production.
> Retail and home use is not used in production either.
>
> Try pulling your head out of your ass, just one time.

Do you honestly believe that "retail and home use" is covered by the evaluation-only license you get for those 250 quid? I mean, honestly? Are you really that stupid? Or are you just that unwilling to admit that you were wrong?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(94.194.202.229) [94.194.202.229]
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> >
> > I never said use it in production.
> > Retail and home use is not used in production either.
> >
> > Try pulling your head out of your ass, just one time.
>
> Do you honestly believe that "retail and home use" is covered by the
> evaluation-only license you get for those 250 quid? I mean, honestly? Are
> you really that stupid? Or are you just that unwilling to admit that you
> were wrong?

Having failed to show where I said production (Hint mr wizard, I did'nt), a change of tack by the resident moron. Factually, both retail, home and much more_is_covered by that price, and yes, you do get it.

So, as a reminder,
Try pulling your head out of your ass, just one time

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Not PM ahtuos. #!/bin/sh.

(82.69.171.92) 82-69-171-92.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
>
> Do you honestly believe that "retail and home use" is covered by the
> evaluation-only license you get for those 250 quid?

It's the mention of retail that has me particularly intrigued. There are countless people who've invented rationales for not paying for the Windows install on their home laptop, the "spare" PC they use to watch movies, and so on. But "retail" is a much bigger leap, it's hard to imagine where AdmV thinks he's going with that.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

GL. malibannnospam@t-online.de.

(217.113.178.29) 217.113.178.29
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, AdmV wrote:

> I don't think the moobunny audience fits the 'production' environment the
> stupid cretin tried to pitch, and even if they were a fit, I'm doubly sure
> they understand the basic premise more than Mr fucking Hostfile does in any
> case.

It makes understanding even harder ...

Fun with Google translation

English -> German -> Franch -> English


I do not think the public moobunny "production" of the environment stupid Cretin tent, pitch, and even if a crisis, I am sure in two titles in the basic premise, the more Mr. Hostfile fucking outside all cases,

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(128.250.36.30) intelliguard.cs.mu.OZ.AU
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:

> a change of tack by the resident moron.

Indeed, you changed tack.

> Factually, both retail, home and much
> more_is_covered by that price, and yes, you do get it.

"Software is licensed for evaluation purposes only—not for use in production environments."
"You may not use it in a live operating, in a staging environment or with data that has not been sufficiently backed up"

It doesn't get a whole lot more clear than that, does it?

> Try pulling your head out of your ass, just one time

Never let facts get in the way of a inept insult...

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(128.250.36.30) intelliguard.cs.mu.OZ.AU
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Not PM ahtuos wrote:
>
> There are
> countless people who've invented rationales for not paying for the Windows
> install on their home laptop, the "spare" PC they use to watch movies, and
> so on. But "retail" is a much bigger leap, it's hard to imagine where AdmV
> thinks he's going with that.

Well, for one thing he is not going towards "not paying". That would make some kind of sense.

No, he is suggesting the purchase of an annual membership in Technet Plus, a resource designed for IT professionals designing deployments of Microsoft infrastructure, at the low low low price of 234 quid per year (for download-only access to Microsoft software), which is "only" 87 quid MORE than a retail box of Windows Vista Ultimate, at the first UK retailer I looked at. So not only would it take some impressive levels of ignorance and stupidity (or dare I say "rationalisation"?) to think that the Technet Plus license is valid for use in retail (or even for day-to-day home use), following his advice would also result in paying MORE, not less.

Of course, for HOME users, the price of retail Vista Ultimate PLUS retail Office Home and Student is still less than 234 quid, and not only would said home users get actual installation media (and manuals, possibly), but they'd also not have subscribed to a time-limited program.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Not PM ahtuos wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> >
> > Do you honestly believe that "retail and home use" is covered by the
> > evaluation-only license you get for those 250 quid?
>
> It's the mention of retail that has me particularly intrigued. There are
> countless people who've invented rationales for not paying for the Windows
> install on their home laptop, the "spare" PC they use to watch movies, and
> so on. But "retail" is a much bigger leap, it's hard to imagine where AdmV
> thinks he's going with that.

Let me ask you a question, because quite clearly, you're being moronic. When I posted the link to Technet_where_you_clearly *pay* to do this, how do you make the wonderful leap to not paying. Retail, Volume version, Enterprise, Ultimate, and home are all open to be used by someone who_pays.




Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> > a change of tack by the resident moron.
>
> Indeed, you changed tack.
>
> > Factually, both retail, home and much
> > more_is_covered by that price, and yes, you do get it.
>
> "Software is licensed for evaluation purposes only—not for use in
> production environments."

And?
Again, I'll say it one more time, mr hostfile, where did I say use this in production environments. SHOW ME. I'm curious, show me at least how you've made your fantastic leap of idiocy.


Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

foobar. foo@bar.

(124.170.167.34) [124.170.167.34]
On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> On Tuesday, Jun 30, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > Technet allies itself to the generic X86 and as such, for around the price
> > > of a retail copy of an MS OS, you get almost everything.
> > >
> > You get to EVALUATE almost everything. You may not use any of it in a
> > production environment.
>
> I never said use it in production.
> Retail and home use is not used in production either.

I do not think you understand what production means in this context.

Example: install and use IE to connect to hotmail.
Evaluation is when you install the software and then you connect to your hotmail account to test that it works, and maybe look at a network trace, etc.
I.e. you test that it works/interoperates/... whatever.
Perhaps to verify that you can do so even when you have router xyz installed in your network.

Production is when you connect to hotmail for the purpose of reading your mail.


Example 2: windows media player.
Evaluation is when you install technet and mediaplayer and then you use mediaplayer to test if it can read and playback files of type a,c,b. Or you want to qualitatively evaluate quality of playback for samples a,b,c.

Production is when you start mediaplayer just because you want to listen to some mp3, just for the sake of listening to music.


Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Not PM ahtuos wrote:
> >
> > There are
> > countless people who've invented rationales for not paying for the Windows
> > install on their home laptop, the "spare" PC they use to watch movies, and
> > so on. But "retail" is a much bigger leap, it's hard to imagine where AdmV
> > thinks he's going with that.
>
> Well, for one thing he is not going towards "not paying". That would make
> some kind of sense.
>
> No, he is suggesting the purchase of an annual membership in Technet Plus,
> a resource designed for IT professionals designing deployments of Microsoft
> infrastructure, at the low low low price of 234 quid per year (for
> download-only access to Microsoft software), which is "only" 87 quid MORE
> than a retail box of Windows Vista Ultimate, at the first UK retailer I
> looked at. So not only would it take some impressive levels of ignorance
> and stupidity (or dare I say "rationalisation"?) to think that the Technet
> Plus license is valid for use in retail

Wrong again, what I said is that version, along with other versions is available to the payee. Again, the marvellous leap of stupidity in claiming that I have suggested 'use in retail'.

(or even for day-to-day home use),
> following his advice would also result in paying MORE, not less.

You're inability to grasp that you pay a little more to get more, is really not my problem.

> Of course, for HOME users, the price of retail Vista Ultimate PLUS retail
> Office Home and Student is still less than 234 quid, and not only would
> said home users get actual installation media (and manuals, possibly), but
> they'd also not have subscribed to a time-limited program.

Now, its HOME users in capital letters. Make your mind up, did you wrongly accuse me of stating people should use this in production environments, for use in retail, and now what, its HOME users in capitals? Are there any more straws you'd like to grasp?

Unlike you, I was happy to assume the readers at Moo have some brains, and are technical users to a wide set of varying degrees - and might find the offer interesting. The licensing of the software, as in all software, and the terms of its usage, is a matter for them.

If they wish to regard themselves as 'IT professionals' (maybe many are, who am I to judge), and to test (I'm not here to define what is and is not testing) the software, the deal remains excellent, with 1/3 still off the price.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(128.250.36.30) intelliguard.cs.mu.OZ.AU
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:

> Factually, both retail, home and much
> more_is_covered by that price, and yes, you do get it.

Let's just clarify a few things here. Correct any wrong statements you see, and explain why they are wrong, OK?

1) "that price", in the above, refers to the price of a Technet Plus subscription, i.e. 234 quid plus applicable VAT.

2) "is_covered" refers to the license acquired by subscribing to Technet being sufficient to cover the use of the downloaded software for the respective use.

3) "home" refers to the standard use case of an ordinary home user. One example of such a home user would be my mother, who starts up her machine each day, starts Internet Explorer, checks her webmail, prints out whatever mail she wants to reply to, replies to some mail, checks Flickr and Twitter for photos/updates from family members, then shuts down Internet Explorer, starts up Word, writes a couple of letters to friends, prints them, then shuts down word and starts up a bejewelled-type game, plays that for a while, shuts it down and plays Solitaire Spider for a while, then shuts down the computer.

4) "retail", as mentioned above and in an earlier post, refers to day-to-day use of the product in a retail setting; E.g. to calculate prices and discounts using an Excel spreadsheet, or to run a POS system, or to provide customers with kiosk-style access to the inventory system (such as seen in Borders shops).

5) "and much more" may not be *adding* any meaning to the phrase it is attached to, yet may under no circumstances be interpreted to limit or restrict that phrase, either.

6) The pronoun "it" in "you do get it" does not reference any obvious noun, and thus is there just to provide you with maximum wiggle room when all of this blows up in your face, again.

Are we on the same page so far?

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> > Factually, both retail, home and much
> > more_is_covered by that price, and yes, you do get it.
>
> Let's just clarify a few things here. Correct any wrong statements you see,
> and explain why they are wrong, OK?

This is not a debate. Either show me where I stated what you claim I have stated or don't.



Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

XraalE. moo.

(130.159.17.137) [130.159.17.137]
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, foobar wrote:
> > I never said use it in production.
> > Retail and home use is not used in production either.
>
> I do not think you understand what production means in this context.
>
> Example: install and use IE to connect to hotmail.
> Evaluation is when you install the software and then you connect to your
> hotmail account to test that it works, and maybe look at a network trace,
> etc.
> I.e. you test that it works/interoperates/... whatever.
> Perhaps to verify that you can do so even when you have router xyz
> installed in your network.
>
> Production is when you connect to hotmail for the purpose of reading your
> mail.

My understanding of "production" in this context is that the software is actively used by third parties to make money in a production environment. i.e. you can use a browser at home for no cost, but when you include it into your kiosk suite you have to pay a commission for it. Most lab chemicals come with a disclaimer that you can't use them in a production environment. This isn't because they aren't good enough, this is because the manufacturers want a slice of your profit for the priveledge.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Not PM ahtuos. #!/bin/sh.

(82.69.171.94) 82-69-171-94.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> Well, for one thing he is not going towards "not paying". That would make
> some kind of sense.

Usually people who think a Technet subscription is a substitute for buying the actual products are rationalising that whatever they do is "evaluation". They get the subscription paid for by work, then burn images to install on their laptop, family PC, maybe a friend's refurbished PC and so on... so it's very much about "not paying".

But anyway AdmV is into his usual game now, I think he's currently trying to pretend that "Retail" is the name of a Windows variant you get access to in the subscription. But who knows, maybe he'll decide Retail is the name of his dog.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Bernd Meyer. moo@umilator.net.

(210.84.50.60) [210.84.50.60]
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
>
> This is not a debate. Either show me where I stated what you claim I have
> stated or don't.

Well, are we then in agreement that Technet-licensed software is pretty much useless to people other than those decision makers who need to evaluate whether to purchase "real" licenses for their organisation?

If yes, then why did you compare the price of a Technet subscription to that of a retail copy of "Windows" (whatever *that* is).

If no, then what other use do you believe is sanctioned by the Technet license.


Seeing as I have never attributed any claim to you (check the thread), I am a bit unsure what you want from me. I have, however, clarified that the "get" in the 4th post and the "access to" in the first merely refer to being allowed to *evaluate*, not to actually *use* in any day-to-day situation --- a misconception one could easily fall prey to, given your rather odd price comparison.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Not PM ahtuos wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Bernd Meyer wrote:
> > Well, for one thing he is not going towards "not paying". That would make
> > some kind of sense.
>
> Usually people who think a Technet subscription is a substitute for buying
> the actual products are rationalising that whatever they do is
> "evaluation". They get the subscription paid for by work, then burn images
> to install on their laptop, family PC, maybe a friend's refurbished PC and
> so on... so it's very much about "not paying".

In your opinion. But lets get back on tack, you claimed earlier that I was suggesting they pay nothing, which was factually incorrect, a outright lie, and your usual bullshit. Now you try to justify this with this garbage, which has nothing to do with what I posted or said. Now, if you can show me where I said install it on a friend's refurbished PC or any such thing, provide the evidence.

You can't do this off course, because your charge aimed at me holds about as much water as Microsoft claiming Linux uses its patents.

> But anyway AdmV is into his usual game now, I think he's currently trying
> to pretend that "Retail" is the name of a Windows variant you get access to
> in the subscription. But who knows, maybe he'll decide Retail is the name
> of his dog.

Windows Vista (x64) - DVD (English)

Includes: Home Basic; Home Premium; Business-Retail; Ultimate;
Taken directly from the technet download site.

But just to correct you, as well, I was accused of suggesting 'use in retail' - again, that is something at no point said by me.





Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

Not PM ahtuos. #!/bin/sh.

(82.69.171.94) 82-69-171-94.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> In your opinion. But lets get back on tack, you claimed earlier that I was
> suggesting they pay nothing, which was factually incorrect, a outright lie,

I have written no such thing about you. Your reading comprehension is as lousy as usual.

> Includes: Home Basic; Home Premium; Business-Retail; Ultimate;
> Taken directly from the technet download site.

So, there is no product called "Retail", your earlier sentence “Retail and home use is not used in production either” seems to be either plain wrong, or just nonsense. I think it's rather generous of people to assume you were merely wrong, rather than drunk at the keyboard.

There's no need to fly into a rage and start calling people names when you don't know what you're talking about and can't even express yourself clearly enough to say what you mean on the rare occasion you have a coherent thought.

Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, XraalE wrote:

> My understanding of "production" in this context is that the software is
> actively used by third parties to make money in a production environment.
> i.e. you can use a browser at home for no cost, but when you include it
> into your kiosk suite you have to pay a commission for it. Most lab
> chemicals come with a disclaimer that you can't use them in a production
> environment. This isn't because they aren't good enough, this is because
> the manufacturers want a slice of your profit for the priveledge.

Your understanding is roughly correct.

Most Microsoft technet users use the software to fully evaluate and test. This full evaluation does not include some of the fucking lunacy suggested in this thread by others, such as open the browser, but don't use it, or open the media player, but don't listen to music on it. Such use would be cretinous if claimed to be fully evaluating anything.

Evaluate, really means evaluate, upto and inclusive of any testing or evaluation of the system in totality.

Now, what the two morons are whining about, is that they, not I, implied illicit use of the technet license. At no point did I suggest someone take a technet lic and then (example) go roll out 100 machines on their business network using the volume lic key. Nor at any point did I suggest any such thing.

But the license totally supports *a user*, technical person, an-other who has an interest, paying the fee, and taking part in evaluation, in short or long term, across multiple devices. In fact, its wholly encouraged.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/cc294422.aspx
The full terms.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-gb/subscriptions/bb892756.aspx
The technet deals

For those who are so worried about the lines of 'production/non evaluation' there is this
https://partner.microsoft.com/40016472

Action Pack.
Its cheaper, but has some minimum requirements.
This pack is cheaper than the Technet one, but allows full internal, live production use. There are still some areas where you must not use these, but they are less limiting in the business sense than the technet signup.




Reply to this
Direct link to this message

Re: Technet

AdmV. AdmV.

(195.11.197.194) london.stagetech.com
On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, Not PM ahtuos wrote:
> On Wednesday, Jul 1, 2009, AdmV wrote:
> > In your opinion. But lets get back on tack, you claimed earlier that I was
> > suggesting they pay nothing, which was factually incorrect, a outright lie,
>
> I have written no such thing about you. Your reading comprehension is as
> lousy as usual.

Hardly, considering others took your stupid comment in the same way.

Reply to this

Short list view

Previous thread - Next thread

Back to Moo Bunny

It is now: 11:24:14 GMT.
Moo Bunny brand Message Boards
[General Stuff (10:30:54)] [Space (Aug 2009)] [Anime (2007)]
[WalkingFish (Oct 3)] [Cabinet of Curiosities (2007)] [Portland (2008)]
Retro and Exotic Computing
[Atari ST (2007)] [WeirdMac (Jan 2009)]
Amiga Boards
[Amiga Section (11:18:03)]
John Shepard's Projects
[Rastport (Tuesday)] [Squid's Amiga Page & Rumor Mill (n/a)] [Art by John Shepard (Sep 2009)]