Slashdot Mirror
Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use
NiK0laI writes "TechWeb has posted an article regarding Vista's new license and how it allows you to only move it to another device once. How will this work for people who build their PCs? I have no intention of purchasing a new license every time I swap out motherboards. '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," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once. ... Elsewhere in the license, Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine. "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system," the legal language reads. Vista Ultimate and Vista Business, however, can be installed within a VM.'"
Overly Critical Guy points out more information about changes to Vista's EULA and the new usage restrictions. "For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives, can't run in a virtualized environment, and can only share files and printers to a maximum of 5 network devices."
Are we sure this is not the OEM terms ? It's been that way forever.
The network restrictions are not new. XP has them, although it may have higher limits. Transfer restrictions, however, bother me a lot. I believe this is the first time they've appeared in retail versions of Windows.
I said back in 2002 that I would never buy a PC again, and that my next computer would be a Mac. Microsoft is making it easier and easier for me to keep to that promise.
I just read through the entire EULA because I just couldn't believe they had included "Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives". Turns out I was right. As far as I can tell there is no restriction to ISO's per-se, instead the original author was attempting to infer a lack of a right of some versions to store a copy of the software [meaning, a copy of the vista DVD] on "network storage" based on the fact that this right is permitted for Ultimate. However, just because they grant a right to some versions doesn't mean you don't have that right when it isn't explicitly granted - for instance even if they only enumerated the right to backup copies for Ultimate you'd still have that right for all others, existing law generally grants it.
The translation to "can't copy [any] iso's" happened in the last step, by the comment submitter, and is as far s I can tell just a complete fabrication.
Some part of me wonders why a website full of people who swear to their grave that they'll never run a piece of software is so intent on discrediting it that they make up shit. Carry on though boys, have fun.
Users may not care about the actual file system, but the actual features provided by a file system that uses relational databases for metadata management can be very beneficial to users. For example, Apple Spotlight is a tool used for searching files based on the metadata of the files. Although it is a database that sits on top of the file system, it is seamlessly integrated nonetheless. Spotlight makes searching very quick and very easy. WinFS was a very similar concept (it sits on top of NTFS; it doesn't outright replace any file systems), but it took a few steps futher than Spotlight did. For example, WinFS had very powerful querying features that Spotlight doesn't (currently) have.
Users can care less about the actual file system. They don't (and shouldn't) care about FAT, NTFS, UFS, HFS+, ext3, and all of the other acronyms that we file system researchers and enthusiasts throw around. However, users do benefit from new features in new file systems that makes their lives easier. Try searching for a file in Windows XP, which scans through the hard drive and is based on the file name and file metadata specified by the file system, which doesn't take in account for metadata stored inside of the file, especially if that metadata is proprietary. Now, try searching for a file in Safari. There is a huge difference between the speed and the experience.
Windows Vista would have had a file system similar to Apple's Spotlight on a much larger technical scale, but they gutted out that feature. Instead, we get Windows Indexing Services, which indexes all of the files in a database. It makes querying for files easier, but it doesn't provide the rich APIs used for storing extended metadata in files that WinFS or Apple Spotlight provides, making it only better than Windows XP in speed, not in functionality. If you forget the file name, or its time of creation, or any other OS-provided metadata, tough. WinFS and Spotlight are different. It would have been wonderful for Windows users to have advanced file searching based on the files' metadata. But it isn't happening, which is sad for 2006 and 2007, IMO.
http://invisiblethings.org/papers/redpill.html
Basically, it tests the location of a particular piece of data.
If the machine is non-virtualised, it is stored in what is called the IDTR register (this location is constant).
However, as there is only one IDTR register, when virtualised, it is stored somewhere else.
There are other techniques available too; however this looks to be the simplest.
IMO, this new license is rubbish. I expect to go through 3 or 4 computers in vistas lifespan, which would need me to buy at least 2 licenses.
Whilst Linux would seem to be the perfect option, whenever I'm booted into linux, there is always something that comes up that I just can't do without lots of haxing.
My Mac on the other hand...
Do you know that XP has most of the same legal restrictions? Yet that didn't send millions of desktop users to Linux. It's simply ignored. Corporate users who need to care more about licenses will simply buy the corporate licenses that have less of these restrictions.
Since very little here is different than XP I imagine this news won't provoke massive Linux migrations.
Developers: We can use your help.
Everyone has been massively mis-interpreting the license agreement, starting with the author of the original document. Instead of believing an incendiary article, let's hit each point with evidence:
Article says: "allows you to only move it to another device once"
Vista EULA says: "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.""
XP EULA says: "TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer."
Conclusion: iffy at best; more restrictive at worst. I believe the "internal" designation in the XP EULA was meant for corporations, who retain this right with volume licensed editions of Vista.
Article says: "Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine."
Vista EULA: "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."
XP EULA: "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer")."
Conclusion so far: Microsoft hasn't forbidden me from installing in a virtual machine. Note that the Vista EULA says I only must "assign" my license to a device, I don't necessarily have to "install" to that physical hardware device. But let's examine the clause that gets everyone all confused:
Vista Home Basic/Home Premium EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Conclusion: All it's saying here is that I can't use the same copy of the software for the physical machine AND in a virtualized environment. Notice that it very clearly restricts ONLY "the software installed on the licensed device". ie, if you install Home Basic on your physical PC, you can't install the same copy in a VM. This is fair and in line with the XP EULA.
Vista Ultimate EULA: "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device."
Conclusion: This is an ADDITIONAL grant of a license. If you pay the price for Ultimate, Microsoft is granting to you an additional right to run ANOTHER copy in a virtualized environment. Note again that it allows you to use "the software installed on the licensed device" in a VM.
Get over it people. The VM thing was a claim from someone who has the reading comprehension of a 5th-grader. If you want to know what your rights are, read the EULA yourself. I'm not a lawyer, I don't enjoy EULA's, and I didn't spend more than 5 minutes reading the published EULA, but I can still understand English.
As far as testing goes, if you really care about testing, get an MSDN subscription. A few hundred bucks gets you perpetual (forever) licenses to every OS Microsoft has ever made for dev & test purposes. These can be used in virtual machines, physical machines, across a network, wherever. Oh, and did I mention you can install on an unlimited number of machines an unlimited number of times? (subject to the same dev & test restrictions of course). It's a worthwhile investment if you're a software developer.
Ya, I read that site also, but if you lookup their reference for their claims in the actual EULA, it is NOT in the EULA.
Their main page has a lot of incorrect assumptions and mis-interpretations of the EULA, to the point that many of the laid out claims are just made up.
The ISO example is one of the more egregious.
It specifically DOES NOT SAY you cannot copy the Vista ISO for backup or to your hard drive.
What it DOES say is you can't put it on a network store (like for volume installations - and this is only for the HOME and STARTER versions that have no business being MASS installed from a network location.)
Either this Website has an axe to grind or they have no technical knowledge...
As for the other issues, there have been Network connection limitations in Windows NT since version 4.0 for the desktop version. 10 Connections, and this has not changed for the professional level version of Vista either.
The Home versions are limited to 5 'concurrent' connections. Which seems quite reasonable, because if you have a big enough family that you have 5 OTHER users in your house accessing a file or printer on your computer 'at the same time' then you probably need something other than the HOME edition.
MS even upped the Media Center Extender 'allowed' connections in Vista over XP, instead of 3 you get 5 on the first tier of Vista that has Media Center.
Why not rename your post to MS increases connection limits for MCE users?
I suspect it's quite possibly a product of Overly Critical Guy's imagination - one look at his comment history shows he's never particularly concerned with letting facts get in the way of a good rant at Microsoft.