If it works flawlessly and allows for such things as swapping motherboards and disk drives, reloads after OS crashes, machines without modems, etc. it might be ok. But the first time some lawyer can't get his court papers filed on time because of an obstinate but erroneous licensing pack, look out.
Lotus and Ashton-Tate both generated a fair amount of ill will among their users by trying to enforce their licenses with technical gimmicks, IMHO. As I recall, a cottage industry quickly sprouted up to provide tools to defeat the gimmicks.
Personally, I think the software should be free for home/noncommercial use -- that seems to be the direction things are moving, and MSFT is behind the times. Piracy would be all but eliminated under such a scheme.
BTW, I don't purchase much Microsoft software any more, but was once a pretty good customer. And I'm not a big fan of the company, because I think they're sucking the lifeblood out of the industry. I also find the Internet has made Microsoft software irrelevant to much of what I do -- the only software where I need anything approaching the "latest and greatest" is a good browser, and I prefer Netscape's. But it's not a "hate" thing, and I still use the OS, so I felt justified in responding despite your last paragraph.
JMHO, of course. |
