INFOWORLD GRIPE LINE BY ED FOSTER Bookmark this page

  
Display: Sort:
Licensed Users or Licensed Machines? | 101 comments (101 topical) | Post A Comment
What does a license mean?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by wantobe on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 03:08:09 AM PDT

A license means exactly what the granter of the license says it means, and if you accept it at the point of sale, you can't later complain about it being a bad license.

Look, we've all seen bad EULAs that have mangled legalese and are impossible to understand, but in this day and time there is nothing at all "hidden" about the fact that when you buy a bundled system you are buying the system as a bundle. Microsoft's policy of licensing per machine is years old, and those of us in the tech industry have known about it all this time. The average consumer should be aware of it, but of course most of you will obsolve the consumer of any blame even though they predictably don't do any research before buying a product.

As one writer pointed out, the manufacturer can't be held accountable for reauthorizing the MS software because they bought, and sold, it on the condition that it belongs to that machine only. And MS sold the software under those conditions to the manufacturer, so they are perfectly in their right to stand by the conditions. If you don't like it, pay the non-discounted price for the retail version of the software, and you can then take it with you to different machines.

As for the writer who asked what would be different from this than if car manufacturers used the same argument, he's right; there is no significant difference. And if you bought a cheap car with the understanding that it would no longer work if you replaced a major part from a third-party supplier (I don't know enough about how cars are built to know what would be the equivalent of replaceing a motherboard on a computer, but I imagine it would be a bit more significant than chaning the oil or a lightbulb) then you can hardly blame anyone else when the situation comes up.

You don't have to like it, of course, and you can refuse to buy under those conditions. But quit whining about how unfair it is long after you accepted the terms of the agreement. There are times when bitching about a EULA is warranted, especially when the terms are hidden in small print buried deep within the document, but this is not the case this time. It's a well known practice, and there are alternatives if you don't like it.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This ]



In other words...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:52:10 AM PDT

"Lay there and take it bee-otches!" Pathetic. You get no choice in the EULA, "My way or the Highway" is not a negotiated or valid license. If the software industry continues, they deserve every last act of "piracy" inflicted upon them. (I say make them walk the plank in shark infested waters)

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


A little more.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by foxyshadis1 on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:28:52 PM PDT

To clarify a bit, you get no choice because the only machines sold at retail are OEM licensed. The only way to get an unencumbered one is: find a local whitebox dealer, mail-order, or build one. Or waste the $50-100 extra the oem windows license cost and buy a retail box.

When you buy a car you're treated to a long contract listing your rights and responsibilities, and consequenses of failure to abide. When you buy a computer you swipe a card. When you get home and set it up, then you're suddenly presented with a rigidly encumbered and slightly misleading license written in legalese.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



I didn't say I liked it.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by wantobe on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 03:06:34 AM PDT

You can complain about the cumbersome EULAs all you like, and I'll agree with you that they are burdonsome, but my point remains that in THIS case, the bundled OS license is pretty well known. You can't complain that this is some surprise sprung on unsuspecting buyers.

You make a good point about the lack of options for the typical buyer when they buy a computer at Best Buy or Circuit City, but there are other options. The average consumer probably isn't aware of the difference, and would balk at the higher cost of a custom built system with retail versions of software instead of OEM, but you get what you pay for.

And consumers not doing the research to better understand what it is they are getting (or failing to get) is something I can't really sympathize with, considering one of the services my company offers is free consulting on computer purchases.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Not at all "well known"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:34:31 AM PDT

>but my point remains that in THIS case, the
>bundled OS license is pretty well known.

I would say that most people buying a computer doesn't have a clue really and have no knowledge of such things at all. You even admit this later on when you write that "The average consumer probably isn't aware of the difference," which I agree with completely.

>And consumers not doing the research to better
>understand what it is they are getting (or
>failing to get) is something I can't really
>sympathize with,

The main problem is that in many cases, the consumer has no idea what he needs to get infomration about to start with and have a hard time to get it and so on. That is of course why in many countries, consumer sales laws put the burden on the seller to informa of such things that are not evident, can be surprising and different from what one might expect and so on. It is also why many types of sales practises are not allowed by the law, not sure about these specific cases discussed here and don't think there have been cases either.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Hogwash![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#41)
by wantobe on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:06:29 AM PDT

Yes, I "admit" that the average consumer isn't aware of the difference, but that doesn't mean I don't think they are responsible for finding out. And really, it's as easy as asking someone you know who works on computers, or calling a local computer shop and just asking for advice. Not all of them will help you, but you'll eventually find someone who will. And the practise is well-known by anyone who has been involved in computer maintenance and repair, or even building, for more than a few months.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



I don't know...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#45)
by Jarulf on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:23:16 AM PDT

I don't know how it is in the US but considering that in most countries when you buy something, you own it and there is no restrictions on its use, this case would be an EXCEPTION to what one can expect. In such a case it would be the responsability of the seller to inform of such a thing. A consumer is not supposed to haveing the duto on each and every purchase to go arround and make questions from "experts" to find out if there is some special case.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


EULA[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 12:35:34 PM PDT

I Agree. For people who are new to buying a computer, it's not reasonable to expect there would be such a long and ridiculous legal agreement attached to the purchase, AND that you can't even read said agreement until after you complete the purchase and set up the computer the first time. At least in the case of a computer system, you can usually return it for a refund if you don't agree with the EULA. (There are exceptions, like re-stock fees for some computers from some stores. Those stores deserve to have the re-stock fee charged back to them by the consumers credit card issuer.)

In the case of a computer system purchase, there should be enough room on the outside of the box to print a fairly large warning that this purchase requires accepting a "legal" agreeement, and to ask the store employee for a copy of said agreement if they wish to review it before purchase.  

Of course, they don't really want consumers being made aware of the agreements, then there could be some real backlash from consumers.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Post-Sale Agreement = Absurdity[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#74)
by Anonymous User on Mon Jan 30, 2006 at 01:01:56 PM PDT

I am not aware of any legal precedant establishing a license is legally enforcable unless it was somehow disclosed in a reasonable fashion before the actual sale. How can an agreement that it is hidden until after purchase be made AFTER THE FACT? Money was accepted without any agreement. Please alert me to relevant case laws, if applicable. -Chris

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The retail market is the default place of purchase[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#53)
by ekuns on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:39:09 PM PDT

ALL machines in the retail market come with Windows pre-installed. You simply cannot -- in the normal retail market -- find a PC without paying for an OEM Windows license. Thus, your argument that a careful user would pay more for the full non-OEM license is absurd. There is no venue in which to do so, in part because Microsoft licensing largely prevents it.

This means that you are always free to purchase the boxed non-OEM version of Windows ("for machines without Windows" -- which machines would those be?), but to do so you are paying for TWO copies of the same software.

Can you name a single retail computer vendor who will sell you a computer with a non-OEM license? Again, I'm talking retail. There are always custom shops who will do just about anything you want, but we're talking about the consumer retail market here.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Retail[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous User on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 06:04:03 AM PDT

the local computer stores that will build a computer to what you want, including OS version, are retail stores.

If you want to only shop at big box stores look at Micro Center (microcenter.com).  They do have computers listed without Windows OEM version.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



You're right, they now have 1 model with Linspire[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#66)
by ekuns on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:38:33 PM PDT

So when I said 100%, I was a fraction of a percent off. My point still stands: Microsoft licensing agreements that the OEMs have discourage the OEMs from selling computers without Windows and discourage the OEMs from giving even a full Windows install CD. This is to Microsoft's advantage, because it means the consumer buys a new version of Windows with each computer.

Microsoft does not WANT consumers to buy the full price full version of Windows, because they will then transfer it to their newer computers. The whole argument of "since it is sold at a discount" is bogus. It's a red herring.

Also notice that the OEM price of Windows has gone up or stayed the same with every release. It has never dropped. Windows is the sole component of a computer whose cost has gone up steadily and continuously over 20 years. Monitors cost less for better resolution. Drives cost less for more space. Memory costs more for more space. Network cards cost less for faster networking speed.



[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Oh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#60)
by LasVegan on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 09:01:56 PM PDT

A few months back I bought a laptop sans OS.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Yes, but...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#67)
by ekuns on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 12:40:19 PM PDT

Did you actually pay *less* for the laptop since it came without an OS or did you just pay the normal price someone pays to get it with Windows but not receive Windows? Was this a new laptop? Did you buy it retail?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Paid less[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#70)
by LasVegan on Sat Jan 28, 2006 at 11:40:02 AM PDT

The OS was an *OPTION* that I didn't choose to pay for as I was replacing an old laptop that had a non-OEM copy of XP on it from a prior upgrade. Since I had a valid license I didn't need a new one.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


So who was the vendor[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#81)
by ekuns on Tue Jan 31, 2006 at 04:12:15 PM PDT

where you got your laptop?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The vendor[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#82)
by LasVegan on Wed Feb 01, 2006 at 01:16:50 PM PDT

Sager

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#90)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:32:45 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#92)
by maderikapapa on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:33:02 PM PDT

出会い系出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニー。エロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援。不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEｱｹﾞｲﾝで決まり

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Define "machine"[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Fushigi on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:37:41 AM PDT

What consititutes a PC? There are dozens of parts.

Which parts or how many parts have to be replaced, removed, or added before a PC is no longer considered to be the same?

In eMachine's/MicroSoft's license, what hardware is explicitly identified as being the hardware that the license is tied to?

Keep in mind that the Windows OEM license simply ties the license to some piece of hardware that was purchased at the same time. It may be a motherboard, but it could also be a power splitter cable, a power supply, or a case screw. The latter items are not detectable by the OS yet are still valid in terms of satisfying the OEM hardware requirement. If the license applies to the machine as a whole, then just replacing the mouse or using a differen power cable would invalidate the license. Yet I can do that all day long and Windows won't care at all.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



See the Refurbished Text Below[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:18:11 PM PDT

Actually, eMachines could have provided an identical motherboard so that the license was free and clear. But if you don't buy the motherboard from them, and want to "upgrade" the OEM motherboard by buying elsewhere: guess what, that's not their business model.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


OEM license[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:45:52 AM PDT

Actually the Microsoft OEM license does state that it can only be sold with one of the following: a complete system, a motherboard, a processor, or a hard disk drive. Unless, of course, that has changed since I stopped building PC's. I don't know the details of the situation, but it sounds more to me like this may have been a mistake in customer service?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Hidden EULAs[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:54:42 AM PDT

The only problem with that rant is the license is not available for inspection until after you have agreed to it. Even if the user did read it, it was then too late. Of course, we all know the thing was written specifically to discourage the user from reading it.

It really does not matter what is standard, what is past practice. The customer's assumptions about getting the same machine back into proper working order is a warranty issue, not a licensing issue. MS has advertised they would do it, then refused. They lied. The fine print is no excuse when you present yourself as reasonable, but we've accepted that far too long. Real justice requires fine print be stricken from consideration. That's what we demand in normal discourse, and lawyers are rightly vilified for such sneaky meanness.

Of course, we know advertising is inherently false, a big expensive and noisy lie. Pitchmen hold consumers in comptemp; they just want the money. Who cares what people want and need? The civil law system was built and designed by crooks, looking for every possible means to rape the public.

Thank God for Open Source.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



And you called my posting a rant![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by wantobe on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 03:39:10 AM PDT

In business, it most certainly does matter what is standard and past practice.

The customer's machine was out out of warranty, and the motherboard was replaced by a third-party m/b. Had she bought the manufacturer's m/b, admittedly more expensive, she would have been able to reinstall the OS without problem. Her fault, or her tech support's, for not checking.

What did MS advertise they would do but then didn't? How did they lie?

People talking about "real justice only happens when" really scare me.

I really have no idea how to respond to the rest of this disjointed screed. If you had a coherent point, you failed to make it. Maybe you could clarify?


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



But is it allowed?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Jarulf on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 05:40:16 AM PDT

>The customer's machine was out out of warranty,
>and the motherboard was replaced by a third-
>party m/b. Had she bought the manufacturer's
>m/b, admittedly more expensive, she would have
>been able to reinstall the OS without problem.
>Her fault, or her tech support's, for not
>checking.

Actually, such practise of forcing someone to only buy spare parts from you and not someone else can in many cases and in many countries not be allowed. The car industry tried it for a long time but today you can buy spare pparts that are not "original" and from the manufacturer and so on. I don't see much of a difference here and would claim that it is not at all her fault.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Sure it is[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#40)
by wantobe on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:53:16 AM PDT

In this case, the customer was not barred from installing a 3rd-party motherboard. She was able to do that, and it appears that the computer itself is working just fine. However, as per the terms of the OEM license, she needs to purchase another license of the software in order to use it on this new machine.

I can't speak to whether or not it's actually legal, but this is one case where I certainly do not see anything morally wrong. It would be better if at the time of purchase the seller were required to expressly inform the customer of the software license restrictions involved with OEM, but most of my clients get the glassy-eyed look as soon as I start to explain it to them. They want the bottom dollar, and for the most part all they care about is paying the least amount of money. Being able to transfer the OS to another computer in the future is something they could care less about, and it's there own damned fault when it bites them in the ass later, as far as I'm concerned. (I just get mad when they tune me out as I'm trying to explain something important to them, and ignore my advice in order to save a few bucks.)

And I would love it if at the time of purchase the customer were giving the option of paying $50 more for the retail version, but again, most customers won't understand the difference (and won't put forth any effort to) and will opt for the cheaper version.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Don't believe everything you read[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 27, 2006 at 06:26:01 AM PDT

Rob,

Companies lie all the time about IP rights. They lie all the time about what choices you have. They withhold information.

Purchasers sometimes take it and sometimes complain. Please recognize that I and many others simply don't believe that the OEM licensing restrictions are valid.

Courts have ruled both ways on this issue so there is certainly validity to the opinion that MicroSoft's OEM agreements are an illegal circumvention of the First Sale Doctrine that is enshrined in US Copyright Law and is every bit as valid as the exclusive monopoly rights granted copyright holders in that same law.

You can't legally enforce an agreement (even one entered into willingly by both parties) that conflicts with the law of the land.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Legal doesn't matter[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#86)
by Anonymous User on Thu Feb 09, 2006 at 05:03:23 PM PDT

Legal or not, it worked. She could not install the software. MS is enforcing their license even if we all agree it sucks and is probably not legal. Until someone takes it to court and wins MS will continue to enforce. BTW - I went to HP's site was able to choose to buy with Windows or FreeDOS with about a $100 difference. If I wanted to put a non-OEM version of windows on the box after that, I am free to do so. In fact I usually buy my PCs without an OS and install the full version. If I bought the proverbial car in this story and Ford said that they would knock another $5000 off if I promise to replace with only Ford parts. Now I choose to break that agreement and put aftermarket parts in it and it stopped working, who is at fault? If I buy an OEM software package, I recieve value for agreeing that I will continue to spend money with the vendor. The consumer should be informed before the purchase of this deal, but if they choose to take the value offered and then break the agreement down the road, I can't blame the vendor or MS.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Wow, your post made no sense.[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous User on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 07:55:38 AM PDT

I couldn't follow your post even though I read it twice.

Law is a funny thing. It gets created based upon a variety of inputs. Standard industry practice is one of the inputs; so unfortunately, the longer we put up with onerous behavior, the more likely we'll be stuck with it when new laws are passed or old laws are interpreted.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Re: Hidden EULAs[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 07:41:56 AM PDT

I continue my rant ;-) You should fear comments about "real justice" (though not fear me). You represent the standard immoral practices of most businesmen. I said the issue was about warranty -- if the hardware is out of warranty, fine. However, the software was not out of warranty. MS is the real crook here. The owner repaired a part; it's the same machine otherwise. MS has promised in their lavish advertising they would work with people. Calling it OEM is no excuse for refusing to honor the purchase. As another said, the machine didn't buy it; the customer did. The OS came with the machine. She rightfully owns the OEM copy of the OS, and MS should reactivate. Because it's MS with billions to waste, no one can afford to challenge this. The current legal practice here is evil. It's wrong, it's immoral, it's sinful before God Almighty. You apparently operate from prissy middle-class materialist standards, so that probably escapes you.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Software licenses[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 02:18:52 PM PDT

"If you don't like it, pay the non-discounted price for the retail version of the software, and you can then take it with you to different machines."
The retail versions of Windows have product activation too. Good luck taking it to another machine. Your only option is to buy 5 copies under the Open Business License. These don't require activation (yet).

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Retail license can be re-activated[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by wantobe on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 03:09:49 AM PDT

The retail version of Windows can be reactivated on different machines. I think (but am not at all sure) that it can even be done automatically over the internet a certain number of times, but it can be done manually over the phone as well.


Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Retail License Can be Reactivated[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 04:48:38 AM PDT

Having always built my own PC's, I was not aware the OEM version of Windows could not be reactivated after a hardware failure. As Mr. Miles says, the retail version can be reactivated up to five times (including the original activation), and this can be done online. Thereafter, the user must reactivate over the phone, which I presume will require proof that the copy is not being installed to a second machine.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Licensed Users or Licensed Machines? | 101 comments (101 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:

Menu
· create account
· faq
· search

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

 HOME  NEWS  COLUMNS  BLOGS  PODCASTS  TECHNOLOGIES  TEST CENTER  EVENTS  CAREERS  IT EXEC-CONNECT   About Awards Contact Us 

Copyright © 2006, Reprints, Permissions, Licensing, IDG Network, Privacy Policy.
All Rights reserved. InfoWorld is a leading publisher of technology information and product reviews on topics including viruses,
phishing, worms, firewalls, security, servers, storage, networking, wireless, databases, and web services.

 ComputerWorld :: LinuxWorld :: Network World :: CIO :: PC World :: Darwin :: CMO :: CSO
IT Careers :: JavaWorld :: Macworld :: Mac Central :: Playlist :: GamePro :: GameStar :: Gamerhelp
ITWorld Canada :: Computerwoche :: Techworld UK :: tecChannel :: IDG.se :: IDG.no :: IDG.pl

create account | faq | search