MircoSoft is going Crazy

[-I-]

Oke i must say, vista had some good stuff, (like a new networking stack) and lots of other usefull features.

and yes many features where scrapped, but it would have still been a great os,

Rigt up untill i heard about the new licence...

Are the completely out of there F*ckin minds

as of now you are supposted to buy a new WAY to expensive licence for every other computer you by,

for instance you just bought a nice AMD Athlon 64 or whatever, but with your old geforce 4 128 AGP card (hey why shouldn't you, it still worked right?)

ow well the darn card fails you after a short while and you start thingking about some thing faster, a nice 7600GT PCI-E with DDR2 would be completely TO cool for - and look at that there is a nice motherboard on sale as well), And who cares about your windows licence right (your the clever guy you buy retail versions).

NOT! you now have spoiled your "1-time only chance to upgrade your system",

next time buy a new licence

[cluberti]

What? I'm confused - are you expecting to reactivate your install of Vista on new hardware without issue? Unfortunately, that's not allowed and you will have to call Microsoft to reactivate (you do the dance where you give them the code on the screen, then they give you a code to enter into the input box, and it's activated). Note that this is the same for Windows XP, within a 6 month period of actiavtion for retail products (and OEM products require you to do this every time you reinstall, regardless of time passed!).

[Spooky]

Hmmm, not really i don't think. You have to actually purchase a new license if you transfer the license to a new 'device' (which includes partitions on hard drivers) more then twice, they will not just let you re-activate by phone, you will have to actually purchase a new license. Install twice on different 'devices' and you will need to shell out the bucks for a new license. Transfering the license means that you activated it on a 'device' and when that happens the licensing is automatically transfered to that new device but the limit is two. You also can't use it on more then one machine at a time, so you can't use it for example on multiple machines in your home network when more then one person is using a machine on your network.

You can get a copy of the license thru a link in the blog at:

http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/arch...or-Windows.aspx

This is very sad indeed. Such a radical departure from industry norms and previous OS's. This is like if you replace more then two tires on your car that you have to pay the dealer a fee to continue to use the car. This is basically a tax, a tax levied against those who upgrade hardware, and does nothing to stop or curb piracy which is the banner under which its introduced. I'm sure there are going to be a bunch of lawsuits over this with states bringing suit for anti-trust and consumer law violations. MS may think the anti-trust thing in Europe really bit them in the butt, just wait until 50 states with 50 different anti-trust cases against them show up, its going to be like Europe times 50.

BTW, i'll bet some of those states that bought lawsuits before because of IE are going to be taking a very interesting look at the Europe results because MS made our courts believe at the time that IE and other components could not be removed from windows, yet here MS in Europe removing components from the very OS they said they couldn't be removed from.

What? I'm confused - are you expecting to reactivate your install of Vista on new hardware without issue? Unfortunately, that's not allowed and you will have to call Microsoft to reactivate (you do the dance where you give them the code on the screen, then they give you a code to enter into the input box, and it's activated). Note that this is the same for Windows XP, within a 6 month period of actiavtion for retail products (and OEM products require you to do this every time you reinstall, regardless of time passed!).

[kartel]

Look, before anyone gets bent outta shape here, if somethings amiss, and you have your purchase order and have paid for your disk, then phoning MS and explaining your problem will almost allways have a positive result.

I phoned once and the guy was real nice about it and a few swaps of information, it was fixed.

There's no way they wont help you.

[cluberti]

There is a provision allowing you to take your software and transfer it from one "device" to another "device" once. Since you *technically* aren't purchasing Windows Vista itself, but a license to use the software, that may mean that if you install a new motherboard a second time and phone in, they won't allow you to transfer it, I don't know. I can't imagine that's very enforceable, but then again it may be enforced. This is definitely a change from Windows XP, and I can't say I agree or disagree with it on technical terms (but on a personal level, it does suck). Hopefully you won't have to upgrade or replace your motherboard that often .

[d1ck]

There is a provision allowing you to take your software and transfer it from one "device" to another "device" once. Since you *technically* aren't purchasing Windows Vista itself, but a license to use the software, that may mean that if you install a new motherboard a second time and phone in, they won't allow you to transfer it, I don't know. I can't imagine that's very enforceable, but then again it may be enforced. This is definitely a change from Windows XP, and I can't say I agree or disagree with it on technical terms (but on a personal level, it does suck). Hopefully you won't have to upgrade or replace your motherboard that often .

This is completely ridiculous. I upgrade my computer about once every 10-12 months, and i have no intention of paying 200 or 300 dollars every two years for a piece of software I already have in my possesion. The fact that MS would do this to their customers blows me away, and hopefully a few lawsuits will fix this up.

[cluberti]

I think there needs to be some clarification on this from Microsoft - assuming you're reinstalling on the same hardware, it should be no issue. However, for those people who replace hardware every 1 - 2 years, there needs to be clarification as to what happens when hardware is retired, and the OS is installed on new hardware. I'm hoping that it will be the same as previous versions of Windows, where as long as the old installation is wiped from the pre-existing hardware, the new hardware can then be installed on and activated. I'll see what I can find on this.

[CoffeeFiend]

cluberti: that only applies to retail version of windows. OEM version (of XP at least) are meant to be installed on ONE and single PC only, so Vista allows one more - but seemingly the limitation is there for the retails versions too.

Mind you, for most people it's a non-issue even if that's how it ends up being. They get windows with their new PC, and the day it's not fast enough anymore, they just buy a new one, which also comes with Windows. This is only going to be affecting those swapping hardware a lot (and for those, it'll be a HUGE pain in the ...)

There's even restrictions about running in a VM.

Nice OS, but they're starting to put a lot very annoying artificial limits.

Like with most protections, those who "win" are the pirates who run totally unrestricted versions and can transfer at will... Not that I condone piracy or anything, but it's just the way it is, and it's pretty sad when you think about it.

[nuhi]

Thank god it seems it's not true

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

[CoffeeFiend]

Thank god it seems it's not true

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

I don't see how "it's not true". He said Vista is limited in transfers (but XP also is). The upgrade part is hogwash though... But then again the VM part is also true, and that's a new limitation (well, except Vista Enterprise which allows 4 instances like 2003). So more like half and half...

[cluberti]

Well, I must say that it appears true that this is limited even on retail copies. I guess we'll be seeing lawsuits and antitrust proceedings on this soon enough, and that's frustrating. I hate when we do silly things like this, for no real reason - and it is indeed very possible Microsoft has overlooked the PC enthusiast, they've done it before...

[Spooky]

DISCLAIMER: My opinion follows below this paragraph and is not an accusation or an endorsement of any other persons or entities opinion including that of MSFN, this is just my opinion and i am not offering any legal, financial, or other advice as to the purchase or suitability and/or applicability for any purpose of the Vista operating system. I do not claim any legal expertise in these matters. This opinion, which forms the contents of this post, comes from my own understanding of the wording as presented in the License agreement found on the Microsoft web site and persumed to have been prepared for public viewing due to its public offering nature:

The license agreement says this, in part:

"2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign

that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the “licensed device.” A

hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.

a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may

use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the

Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any

other device.

b. Number of Users. Except as provided in the Device Connections (all editions), Remote Access

Technologies (Home Basic and Home Premium editions) and Other Access Technologies

(Ultimate edition) sections below, only one user may use the software at a time."

So from the license agreement, in this part, you may not use Vista on any other device other than the one its installed on (licensed to) and only one user may use the software at a time. This means you can't use Vista on more than one machine at a time, so this kills any home networking if you have two machines on your home network and say for example that you and your wife (or other family member) want to say for example surf the web at the same time, because if you install Vista on the second machine and activate it after its been installed on the first machine and activated, the second machine then becomes the licensed device.

But in the overview section of the license it states:

"1. OVERVIEW.

a. Software. The software includes desktop operating system software. This software does not

include Windows Live services. Windows Live is a service available from Microsoft under a

separate agreement.

b. License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis.

c. Edition Specific Rights. See the Additional License Terms sections at the end of this

agreement for license terms that apply to specific editions of the software."

So the license is based on a per copy per device basis. This means a single copy of Vista is licensed to a single device. OK, nothing new here as its always been that way basically. But...then it states here in the license agreement:

"15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.

a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may

reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device

becomes the “licensed device.”

b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the

license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded

from allows reassignment."

So this means that you install it once and thats the first time. Then you are allowed one transfer (see where it says "The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time." So this in combination with the "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS" part allows you to install the software initially and then transfer it to another device once - this is two times, the initial time and then the transfer. this means if you install Vista on the second machine in your home network for example and activate it after its been installed on the first machine and activated, the second machine then becomes the licensed device - so this is your initial install and then a transfer and this equals two times which is the limit of the license. This means that the license is no longer any good for further installs or transfers because the limit of the license has been reached. That is the extent of the license, this means another license will be needed to install and transfer again because the license per copy only covers the initial install and then one transfer and thats it. I don't think Microsoft is going to let you get away with a third activation either by internet or phone because they are bound by the license also and the license only gives you two times. Now granted, if you have some type of hardware failure, a motherboard for example which its replacement basically means a new machine in hardware terms for the OS most of the time, a phone call to MS might just let you go ahead and activate again. However, MS controls the activations and we already have read about the reduced functionality if Vista is not activated.

I think the fair thing to do would be let MS explain this a little more, because from putting the pieces of the license together in context with each other it sure doesn't seem like you will be able to activate more than twice per license and a license extends and covers one copy of vista only, thus you can not activate one copy of Vista on more than two devices which is the limit of the license.

I read the information by Paul Thurrott (and this is not intended to be critical of or dispute the information presented at the link mentioned) in the link at http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp and he seems to paint a rosier picture, but also seems to have failed to put these pieces together. Paul seems to think that this is the same as its been in all MS OS's, but it isn't when you place all this in context with the new MS anti-piracy efforts as this is the first time MS has ever been this heavy-handed in their regualtion of our use of the product purchased.

This "regulation" attempt is outside what we as mere mortals consider "industry standards" (and in my opinion, I believe outside the legal bounds of consumer law and possibly some other laws like anti-trust), is basically a 'Tax', serves no purpose to prevent piracy and is improperly represented under the banner of anti-piracy efforts thus disguising the possibility of the opportunity to make additional profits from the same product in effect selling the same product over and over again, punishes those who seek to upgrade their hardware and possibly imposes an additional 'disguised' financial burden on those that purchase the Vista OS. This punishment comes from the fact that no where in the License does it state that more than two activation per license are available under any conditions that may exist normally and are common for computer owners and an unknowing making the purchase of Vista does not have an opportunity to review or understand the terms of the license before purchase. It also possibly seeks by its present wording to attempt to regulate or restrict when hardware upgrades or the type of hardware upgrade one may make if they continue to use a single copy of Vista and thus limits a persons control over their own computer if a single copy of Vista is to be used - this decreases a persons rights over owner ship of their own computer if a single copy of Vista is to be used and they wish to upgrade hardware that may affect the activation or licensing of Vista.

I'm all for the anti-piracy efforts, but the way this is presented its not anti-piracy, in my opinion its a hidden tax that offers an opportunity to MS to sell the product again and again over time by restricting the honest persons rights to full control over their own hardware in terms of changing or upgrading some types of hardware (or devices). It in effect says "Oh, you changed your hardware a third time, too bad, you'll need to buy another license if you wish to continue the use of Vista". I don't remember reading anywhere that Ms is legally authorized to collect taxes.

Of course i could be completly wrong, its happened before . BTW, if you use the contents of this post anywhere else and its for a good purpose then i get credit

Edited October 14, 2006 by Spooky

[LLXX]

Like with most protections, those who "win" are the pirates who run totally unrestricted versions and can transfer at will... Not that I condone piracy or anything, but it's just the way it is, and it's pretty sad when you think about it.

Don't forget that these licensing restrictions are mostly going to affect businesses etc. because they mostly need to use fully-legal software (in the US, as I understand it - here, piracy is quite the norm). As for personal uses at home... I doubt M$ isn't going to even try to see if every user's copy is legit, seeing as they withdrew WGA for XP

I never really pay attention to software licenses and such, it's my hardware and I do whatever I want with it. M$'s software is just taking space on my hard drive, perhaps I should charge them rent...

Edited October 15, 2006 by LLXX

[nuhi]

LLXX, they didn't withdrew WGA for end users and the purpose of it is to scan for illegal sales which sometimes go at full prices pretending to be the original, not for businesses.

Businesses even have corporate edition which they don't even need to activate (obvious fact I know).

Businesses are checked by the specialized people for that from withing every country (in case you don't know for that control it's not MS, it's just something like tax control).

[-I-]

time to reply...

actualy this article on: win super site, to me, seams a whole lot of MircroSoft's BULL*crap,

lol there ar 3 kinds of lies, "Lies, D*mn Lies, and statistics" of wich the last is Microsoft's most favorable...

it has be true, in holland least, that there were 2 versions, (later 3),

An OEM (sticked to a single computer) licence, - witch was cheaper because it was non-transferable.

A Retail version you could install on 1 single machine, and transfere it to a new machine (with no limits ever spoken of thus no limits).

and later, (but less important to home users) a Corporate

what MS is doing now is playing screwed up little games...

in a radical example: they are murdering evvry 85-year-old grandfather because hardly any man gets that old anyways...

so let MS now explain 'the exact diference between an OEM and a Retail version, because because those 10% retail buyers, are without any doubt people who are paying this extra money for a reason,

so lets ask them what it is... because im darn sure its because they want to upgrade there machine's mor ofter...

lets see.

> in q2 of 2007 you buy a new pc with vista (retail) AMD Socket AM2 K8L

> q1 or q2 of 2008 you will buy a new mother board because of the AM2+ 4x4 stratigy (thus replacen mobo and adding a 2nd cpu)

> in the end of 2008 there will be AM3 plafrom (giving you DDR3 witch willl have signifficantly Less lantency and mutch heigher bus-speeds and Probebly PCI-E-v2

so in the next 3 to 4 years you will have 3 motherbords...

and maybe even 4 or 5 before the version after vista arives. (so in worsed case instead of 140 euro you may want to pay 3x180 = 540 (that is 400euro's more than you would have payed for xp)