48 best free apps from Microsoft
in [Freeware]
|
From: noauth on 1 Feb 2010 07:54 Bear Bottoms wrote: > =?UTF-8?B?wrtRwqs=?= <boxcars(a)gmx.net> wrote in > news:20100131223723.15a2d713(a)bellgrove.remarqs.net: > >> In <news:hk58eq$15s$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, KristleBawl >> <kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: >> >>> Ace expressed an opinion: >>> > On 31.01.2010 20:56, Phil wrote: >>> >> On 29/01/2010 22:07, Ace wrote: >>> >>> how much you _pay_ for windows? ;) >>> >> Missed the point by a couple of light years haven't you ? >>> > >>> > Nope, you have to pay for windows! >>> >>> Once Windows is bought and paid for, additional freeware is still >>> freeware, no matter what company logo is on the box. Whether you get a >>> free version from Microsoft or a different free version from someone >>> else, it's free. >> >> It doesn't have to do with what's on the box. >> >> Most of Microsoft's "freeware" stuff comes without a separate EULA from >> Windows; it come only with addendums to the OS license and the >> addendums are invalid without an OS license. Since the only way to get >> a license to use the "freeware" is to buy it that license from >> Microsoft (or a MS vendor), there are plenty of people who won't >> consider that stuff freeware. >> >> This has been gone over in a.c.f a few times, with at least as much >> heat as light, if you want to try Google's archives. >> >> > If you have Windows, the additional software is free. Sure thing dimbulb... and I have a set of tires I'll sell you for $30,000. Of course you get a free car in the deal. Yes, you really are that much of an idiot.
From: KristleBawl on 1 Feb 2010 11:42 �Q� expressed an opinion: > KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: >> Once Windows is bought and paid for, additional freeware is still >> freeware, no matter what company logo is on the box. Whether you >> get a free version from Microsoft or a different free version from >> someone else, it's free. > > It doesn't have to do with what's on the box. > > Most of Microsoft's "freeware" stuff comes without a separate EULA > from Windows; it come only with addendums to the OS license and the > addendums are invalid without an OS license. Since the only way to > get a license to use the "freeware" is to buy it that license from > Microsoft (or a MS vendor), there are plenty of people who won't > consider that stuff freeware. > > This has been gone over in a.c.f a few times, with at least as much > heat as light, if you want to try Google's archives. It really shouldn't matter. All freeware written for Windows or Mac or Linux is still freeware whichever OS. The newsgroup name is just computer *freeware*, not free-freeware or unlimited or any other qualifier. Call it /free with conditions/ if you want, but I really wish people would stop saying freeware isn't freeware because it doesn't fit their idea of 100% unconditionally free. We should all be more tolerant of each other's _personal_preferences_ here. -- Usenet Netiquette Rule #11: R-E-S-P-E-C-T! KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2 http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/
From: za kAT on 1 Feb 2010 11:52 On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:42:45 -0500, KristleBawl wrote: > Call it /free with conditions/ if you want, but I really wish people > would stop saying freeware isn't freeware because it doesn't fit their > idea of 100% unconditionally free. I really wish people would stop saying "Call it /free with conditions/ if you want" because it fits their idea of 100% free. > We should all be more tolerant of each other's _personal_preferences_ here. Most of us don't give a FF. If someone wants to be intolerant, bring it on... -- zakAT(a)pooh.the.cat
From: »Q« on 1 Feb 2010 23:46 In <news:hk70a0$6ou$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, KristleBawl <kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: > »Q« expressed an opinion: > > KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: > >> Once Windows is bought and paid for, additional freeware is still > >> freeware, no matter what company logo is on the box. Whether you > >> get a free version from Microsoft or a different free version from > >> someone else, it's free. > > > > It doesn't have to do with what's on the box. > > > > Most of Microsoft's "freeware" stuff comes without a separate EULA > > from Windows; it come only with addendums to the OS license and the > > addendums are invalid without an OS license. Since the only way to > > get a license to use the "freeware" is to buy it that license from > > Microsoft (or a MS vendor), there are plenty of people who won't > > consider that stuff freeware. > > > > This has been gone over in a.c.f a few times, with at least as much > > heat as light, if you want to try Google's archives. > > It really shouldn't matter. IMO, whether or not the user has to purchase a license to use an app is one of the things that matters most when deciding whether that app is freeware or not. > All freeware written for Windows or Mac or Linux is still freeware > whichever OS. The newsgroup name is just computer *freeware*, not > free-freeware or unlimited or any other qualifier. Did you just say that freeware is freeware? If I had a nickel for every time that tautology's been posted here, I could afford to buy a lot of Microsoft "freeware". > Call it /free with conditions/ if you want, I'd rather just call it commercial software. > but I really wish people would stop saying freeware isn't freeware > because it doesn't fit their idea of 100% unconditionally free. We > should all be more tolerant of each other's _personal_preferences_ > here. I may have said some things you disagree with, but I didn't say that freeware isn't freeware, and I really wish you'd stop implying that I have. And I'm not being intolerant of your "personal preference" to call something freeware even when you've had to purchase a license for it, but that doesn't meant I have to agree with you that it should be called freeware.
From: KristleBawl on 2 Feb 2010 08:58
»Q« expressed an opinion: > KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: >> »Q« expressed an opinion: >>> KristleBawl<kristlebawl(a)some.email> wrote: >>>> Once Windows is bought and paid for, additional freeware is >>>> still freeware, no matter what company logo is on the box. >>>> Whether you get a free version from Microsoft or a different >>>> free version from someone else, it's free. >>> >>> It doesn't have to do with what's on the box. >>> >>> Most of Microsoft's "freeware" stuff comes without a separate >>> EULA from Windows; it come only with addendums to the OS license >>> and the addendums are invalid without an OS license. Since the >>> only way to get a license to use the "freeware" is to buy it that >>> license from Microsoft (or a MS vendor), there are plenty of >>> people who won't consider that stuff freeware. >>> >>> This has been gone over in a.c.f a few times, with at least as >>> much heat as light, if you want to try Google's archives. >> >> It really shouldn't matter. > > IMO, whether or not the user has to purchase a license to use an app > is one of the things that matters most when deciding whether that app > is freeware or not. > >> All freeware written for Windows or Mac or Linux is still freeware >> whichever OS. The newsgroup name is just computer *freeware*, not >> free-freeware or unlimited or any other qualifier. > > Did you just say that freeware is freeware? If I had a nickel for > every time that tautology's been posted here, I could afford to buy > a lot of Microsoft "freeware". > >> Call it /free with conditions/ if you want, > > I'd rather just call it commercial software. > >> but I really wish people would stop saying freeware isn't freeware >> because it doesn't fit their idea of 100% unconditionally free. We >> should all be more tolerant of each other's _personal_preferences_ >> here. > > I may have said some things you disagree with, but I didn't say that > freeware isn't freeware, and I really wish you'd stop implying that > I have. > > And I'm not being intolerant of your "personal preference" to call > something freeware even when you've had to purchase a license for > it, but that doesn't meant I have to agree with you that it should > be called freeware. I didn't mean *you* or *me* at all. I literally meant exactly what I said. Some people posting in this newsgroup are almost demanding others accept their definition of freeware, which is intolerant of the preferences of the other posters in here. The fact is that, after you buy a Mac or Windows, there are other programs you can get for free. Linux users can also get a lot of programs to work using Wine. Microsoft offers very little freeware but it is probably all written for a Windows PC. OTOH, Apple did release a Windows version of the Safari browser. -- I don't think math is a science. I think it's a religion. - Calvin KristleBawl's Taglines by Tagzilla 0.066.2 http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla Instabird development http://www.instantbird.com/ |