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."
Load weapon
Aim at foot
Pull trigger
Profit!!!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Now everyone knows we only have to bother with pirating Vista Ultimate and Vista Business.
For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.
For developers, like me, it's going to be a matter of reading the fine print. I'm certain that there's a licensing mechanism for me to use HOME in VMWare/Virtual PC for a development environment -- it might require a unique license, or it might be as simple as me having an MSDN subscription.
The "oh n0z, no vm for teh home!" panic is a bit premature.
Seriously, WTF is this ? I can't move my liscenses to a different computer more than once ? And these restrictions on the network usage. "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." --- Granted I wouldn't buy Home Basic anyway, but this sounds more like a limited trial version to me.
Using GNU/Linux -- Windows-free zone!
Impose artificial limits, period. I'm not talking about limits on CPU usage or memory for the sake of system stability, but arbitary business decision born limits. When something starts doing this, it ceases to be an operating system.
Note the difference though between not having a feature and restricting the computer.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Microsoft does not support an official way to run multiple versions of Internet Explorer on the same system. This is only really an issue for web developers who need to test their websites in older versions of IE. The closest they come to "blessing" any method (short of testing on different computers) is to recommend running each version of IE in a virtual machine.
Now they're restricting virtual machines, forcing people who want to use the recommended solution to get the more expensive version of the OS.
This won't have much immediate effect. For one thing, Vista will ship with the newest version of IE, so unless you're using Win2k as your host OS, your guest systems will be older versions of Windows without the restriction. For another, it's actually easier to use the unofficial solution to run alternate versions of IE (though it's got its own drawbacks).
Something to think about, though.
What happens when the motherboard fails (bad caps anyone?) and you must replace it with a "new device". What if that one pops too? Must buy Vista again? I think not. I'd see them in court first.
And what is a VM? Can the same guys who swore under oath that they didn't know what a browser is now define what a is VM?
I have mod pts. But this just had to be said.
Who will guard the guards?
Did anybody wake up this morning wanting to do less with their computer?
Microsoft Just Doesn't Get It.
So maybe I fell asleep in that lecture in Operating systems. But how the hell are they planning on enforcing the virtualization clause? I thought the point of virtualization was to make it so the operating system didn't know that it was being emulated.
Of course the fact that they decided to insert the clause is bad-- legally, Home-centric Vista users now won't be able to virtualize their machines.
Can we take it that you're willing to volunteer for the job of easing window lusers over to *nix? 'Cos I know I sure as hell won't. I like the fact that using *nix gets me away from having to do n00b tech support. I don't want to see that fucked up!
#1 Stay with Windows XP
#2 Use ReactOS when it gets a 1.0 release.
#3 Sell my non-Linux compatible system for a Linux one and run Linux instead.
#4 That $599 Mac Mini is looking pretty good despite my previous Anti-Apple rants of the past decade. This Vista Fascism may be enough to get me to switch.
#5 Buy Vista Ultimate, because all of the games and business applications and other stuff I need/want to use only run with Vista, and I cannot work with limitations.
Sadly, I think most people will opt for #5, and that is what Microsoft is counting on. That is why Microsoft cripples the uses for the lower end Vistas to force people into buying the higher end Vistas.
Anyone remember the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST/TT/Mega systems? If only they decided to port AmigaDOS/AmigaOS and TOS/GEM to the Intel platform before Windows became really really popular in the 1990's. That way there would be no OS Fascism and Microsoft would have had a good run for their money.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
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.
Jeez it's nothing new either XP has the same restriction if I remember correctly.
I mean, what is Vista about these days? First, they gutted out the Monad shell and WinFS, two features that would have possibly made me wait for Vista and get a PC instead of switching to a Mac. Secondly, they add new DRM restrictions that weren't present on Windows XP. Now, you can't even run the cheaper versions of Vista in a virtual machine due to licensing issues. As a Mac user, I don't feel like installing Windows natively with Boot Camp; I'd rather use a product like Parallels so that way I can run OS X and Windows simulataneously.
I'm not trolling. I'm not anti-Windows either; I've been a Windows user up until a few months ago and liked my Windows experience. In fact, typing this in my MacBook, I miss certain Windows software, and I was looking at Vista news to see whether or not installing Vista on my computer was worthwhile. But this is my last straw with Vista. How can a company sit on their butts for 5 years, not update their operating system (other than security upgrades), and rest on their laurels with the next major version of their operating system is beyond me. Windows XP is ancient compared to OS X's and Linux's fast adoptation of new technologies, new innovative features (Expose, Spotlight or Beagle), new development tools (look at Python's and Ruby's penetration in Linux), new internet browsers (Safari, Firefox, Konqueror), etc. Five years in computing is an eternity. And after five years, all we get is a half-baked clone of OS X with more licensing restrictions, more DRM, and a higher price tag (why should I spend $399 for full-featured Windows Vista Ultimate when I can get OS X for $129 [yes, I know that $129 is subsidized by Apple, you can't run OS X on a PC legally, blah blah blah, but $129
I was looking forward to Vista until recently. Now I wish Microsoft would delay it another year so that way they can release it with all of its promised features. They also need to cut the BS restrictions with licensing as well. It looks like MS has lost me as a customer. They will continue to lose me unless they port the Windows API to OpenBSD....
Take a look at the EULA for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 if you own it. You can only transfer license to someone else once. Latest version called FSX is coming out with activation (which amusingly has already been cracked before official release - already been distributed and some stores have accidentally sold it) and there are rumours that multiuser play is going to require a subscription.
What's new is that Microsoft seems to have convinced themselves of their own propaganda and think people will pay again and again endlessly for the same thing ala a subscription model, put up with restrictions that make the software useless in their personal circumstances, and that they'll still increase their profits because most people only do a handful of things and if they can do them will keep paying for them repeatedly.
I suspect Microsoft's going to have to deal with a rude awakening from their DRM dream in the next few years. I'll be very surprised if this tactic works. It's very much the same thing you're seeing with music and movie distributors wanting to live some economic fantasy instead of deal with the reality that some people are theives and most people won't buy things that are totally useless to them or worse actually a time wasting pain in the neck to use. In the mean time we're all in for a rough ride.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
So, to get the same basic functionality that I currently have in XP Home, I have to spend $450 for full version of Windows Ultimate or the upgrade at $275, that's a cool $1000 for every PC that I have now that I paid $400 for XP. Forcing abusive pricing on people just so they can use Remote Desktop and rattle off ISO's I think will encourage piracy on a much larger scale than what is going on currently with XP.
I won't pirate the product, but I sure as hell won't buy it either.
I recently discovered this doing a little compliance work. I double-checked the EULA.txt on a couple of XP Pro machines, they were the same and do not mention transfer of any sort. So, we can't give away old PC's with XP to employees who may want them as a CYA. (I use Kubuntu to solve this. And they are quite happy users.)
It may be a very serious issue for groups like Freecycle (http://www.freecycle.org/) where there are many people giving away computers on a regular basis. Probably not XP right now, but soon enough. I see a big fat litigation target on their back.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Because it's a *home* product - they are licensing it for home use. This is their way of making businesses pay more for certain rights. They're perfectly entitled to do this from a legal standpoint, and as a home user I'd rather see business copping the higher prices for Vista rather than me.
Note also that the warranty has increased - this is going to cost Microsoft money. It's about time (90 days is barely enough to put a machine through its paces, let alone find issues with your installation) but it's still a positive change.
As for the "only transferring once" thing, I didn't see anything in TFA regarding motherboard swapping. For all we know there may be a more intelligent method to determine what a "new device" is.
Whether we like it or not, we are paying for a *license* not an item. Big commercial products are even more rigid in their licensing, so while I don't like this I can understand and accept it. Let's see how it affects us IRL before we make too many judgements. Of course, if I can't replace a dud motherboard I'll be as abusive as the rest of you.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
We all know what piracy really does is it devalues software (by increasing supply without increasing demand - nothing at all to do with physical stealing as they would have us believe).
So to stop piracy they're going to make their software less valuable (less functional) which kinda defeats the point of preventing the piracy. Now you'll lose sales because less people will want your software because to a lot more people it's a useless piece of shit. Yep that'll teach them pirates.
Love the new MS leadership. Quick Jim, lets press the self destruct button and lets get out of here before she implodes!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Only when selling numbers are you able to dictate the exact details of how your product is used. What other marketable item exists where the seller has the full force of law behind it they say "this product can only be used for bla bla bla...". If I want to buy a sofa and use it as a bed, I can do that. If I complain to the sofa dealer about my back hurting, they won't listen to me, because they said it was for sitting, not sleeping. However, if my dealer is Microsoft, they call the FBI and put me in jail for violation of contract.
Open source is the only software. When all you pay for is arranged numbers, you forfit all your rights of ownership to the dealer. At least, that's how it works these days...
-dave
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.
What about gamers? People who change hardware more than underwear and mostly run Windows?
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
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.
I would be courting game developers, big time.
Free tools, lots of give aways, maybe buy a game company.
Gaming is the only reason to go with Vista anymore.
I do know that Apple doaes have most of the major titles, but there release is late.
I would also have advertisments that are about gaming on a Mac.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I find the Down grade to linux option defametory Your not sacrificing anything with linux I don't
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.
Quick everyone, boycott Vista and buy an Xbox instead!! That'll teach Microsoft not to mess around with us!
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Personally, I'm all for anything that makes Windows:
Especially if it involves Microsoft pointing the gun at its own foot.
MjM
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
But an awful lot of home users rely on the advice of their knowledgeable friends and family members in making decisions.
I reckon it takes around two upgrade cycles for a serious shift in the market to result from geek momentum alone, once the geeks decide they've had enough and switch. First time out, the geeks start encouraging friends and family to switch the next time they buy/upgrade/install, and some will. The purchase/upgrade/installation after that, it's not just geek friends and family that use the alternative, it's a couple of the guys at work and your next-door neighbour, who know about as much about computers as you do, and if they're all happy, why not give it a go?
Microsoft already has had geeks turning against it for several years; Win2K was probably their best ever bang-for-buck OS, and a load of geeks never upgraded to XP, or at least saw it for the changed window-dressing it mostly was on the desktop, while switching to Linux for server/hosting systems.
The first generation shifters are starting to move away. My dad uses Linux. Several of my work colleagues use Linux. Several friends I know through diverse hobbies use Linux. Apple have produced a good rival system in MacOS X for people who think Linux is too scary.
Moreover, on the application front, MS Office has been stationary for years as far as Joe Average is concerned, and people are starting to realise that they don't have to pay the "Microsoft tax" if all they want to do is write the occasional letter. Firefox is gaining market share, and other browsers like Opera and the main Mac-based systems are getting their claws in with some people too. iTunes is way more popular than any other legal on-line music service. This sort of thing will lead to the second, much larger generation of shifters before too long.
Moreover, Microsoft's frankly bizarre attempts to lock down their systems seem to have reached the point that they're going to hurt significant numbers of users, not just inconvenience the geeks (until they hack the limitations out, at any rate). Media Player adding copy protection to stuff I scanned from my own CD, and not letting me back up anything I download from legal on-line services? Vista costing a fortune but locking me out if I upgrade my system twice? The constant nagging I now get on my perfectly legitimate, properly licensed Windows XP system, with "Genuine Advantage" splashed all over it? Not playing high-definition video properly without jumping through all kinds of hoops (allegedly)? These are things where average end users are going to start saying "Stuff this, it just doesn't work", and that's just going to accelerate phase two.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Most people expect a new version of an operating system to have more features, not less.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
I say all well and good because everyone here fully expects MS to eventually tank and get soundly beaten by some *nix or other. Now, taking that as a likelihood (I do), I still don't see Linux winning this round of battles. It's too hard to copy and paste files without being "root" whatever the hell that means. Don't even get me started on native mp3/xvid support.
I WANT Linux to win. I want it to win sooner rather than later. How about an OS that is actually easy to use without all the ludicrous over the top server security built in? You know, one that plays San Andreas, opens pdfs, has nice looking fonts and is easy to use because it runs EXACTLY how we expect it to. I just don't get why so many devs are wasting their time on ubuntu/redhat/mandriva/et al when clearly joe q. public is A. NOT GOING TO CHANGE, and B. KNOWS HOW TO USE WINDOWS.
Seriously, this "battle" is like a fight between a tired old midget and a young strong UFC champion. Only sadly, the UFC champion is clearly retarded and doesn't even know he's in a fight. Linux should have won nearly half a decade ago. But instead, they keep screwing with the UI, not implementing basic things "out of box" for arcane philosophical reasons, and creating more versions of software that most people will never want to use.
I hate to say this, but the next time I try Linux and the installation doesn't go pretty much as smooth as Tiny XP, and then subsequently has an identical start menu / quick launch / control panel to vanilla WinXP, well, it'll be a cold day in hell until I try Linux and get burned YET AGAIN.
And this is a pissed off rant from somebody who WANTS LINUX TO WIN. Just imagine what the average non-political FOSS advocate is thinking when he can't do something like right click copy paste a file he downloaded off some p2p app because "Linux is different, and difference is good."
No. It's not. Difference is stupid. Now, if you're talking about rock bands, then, yeah, I want some variety. But an OS should operate as expected. Period. For the bulk of the world, as expected means JUST LIKE WINDOWS.
It's embarrasing that so many obviously bright minds are so fully entrenched in such a Quixotian enterprise.
Mod me down. Or give me a drop in windows replacement. Or shut the fuck up already, and realize that Vista already won, and that SUCKS FOR EVERYONE BECAUSE OF YOUR ARROGANT AND IMMATURE IDEALS.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Your not sacrificing anything with linux I don't
Maybe you don't, but what if I want/need to:
- Play games (Tux Racer doesn't count)
- Use Photoshop (don't say Gimp)
- Use 3D Studio Max (yes, there are some alternatives, but 3ds Max is an industry standard)
- Etc
The biggest problem with Linux is that it severely lacks blanket support by large software and hardware developers (including solid driver support for many things). This is what happens when you have a desktop market share that many companies truly consider irrelevant. Yes, Linux has a lot to offer on the desktop, but as of yet it is not on equal footing to Windows (or even Apple in most cases [such as graphics design, drivers, etc]).
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Can someone explain where the ISO comment came from? I can't find anything that would seem to prevent anything regarding ISOs. "ISO" doesn't appear in the document, nor does "CD." "Image" and "Media" don't appear in any related context.
...the faster it actually causes itself to sink into the tarpit. Although it's seven years old and somewhat numerically inaccurate, this article is becoming increasingly more relevant as time goes on.
To use plain speech rather than metaphor...Microsoft are engaging in the WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) and DRM related activities in order to stave off its' inevitable demise. The irony is that the more it uses fascist tactics in order to try and keep itself alive, these will actually accelerate the company's downfall. Already I have read reports of a mass migration to Linux because of Microsoft's jackbooted behaviour associated with the Windows Genuine Advantage program.
The Microsoft ship struck ice in September 1997. As with a much earlier case, the impact was sufficiently quiet and low-key that I'm not sure too many other people felt it at the time...but I remember it. I believed that because of the corporation's massive cash reserves and size, its' demise would take a long time...but as I believed then, so I still say now that I will be very surprised if Microsoft still exists by 2015. The company are coming up to a point that is analagous to when Nearer My God To Thee was being played during the Titanic film. They themselves just possibly aren't aware of it yet.
I keep VM versions of earlier MS operating systems and OSs at different patch levels (eg XP/XP S1/XP SP2) for testing purposes when I release software. I'm glad to see the Microsoft does not want small developers to test for compatibility on home versions of Vista.
------- Code to try when you're bored: qsort( 0, UINT_MAX, sizeof( int* ), IntCompare );
I generally like Microsoft's products. I even defend them, and think that they are in the position they are in because they make better products than the competition.
But these new license terms are bullshit. Even worse, Vista is going to have all kinds of crappy DRM stuff.
And what does the future hold? Is the next version of Windows going to require a monthly fee to keep it working? Am I going to have to pay the RIAA and MPAA a few bucks every time I watch a movie, listen to a song, or burn a CD/DVD?
I really am beginning to think the answers to those questions are "YES". It's actually scary.
Needless to say, I don't plan on buying Vista. I'll keep using XP until I can't anymore, and then it's Ubuntu from then on.
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.
The license says you can only transfer the software once, and with the agreement. But the person you transfer it to can also transfer it once themselved, because they are bound by an agreement between Microsoft and them, not between Microsoft and you.
The prevailing attitude is that you must use Windows, regardless of how painful it is. Everyone else uses Windows, and the business of business is business. CTOs and CIOs don't want to hear about OpenOffice or Samba, etc, because it just muddies the waters they're paid to keep clear.
That, and frequently the executive suite is a logic-free zone.
So long as people are stupid and ignore the facts, Microsoft will be in business. So they'll be around, fucking us in the ass sideways, for years to come.
(I only use Linux at work, but that's because my boss is too cheap to buy Windows, because the IT manager before me lost the OEM media for my work laptop. I still might not have used Windows, but I didn't have a choice in the matter. He also won't pay for a real business-class internet connection or real phone service, and forces us to use a cablemodem and Vonage. I've stopped listening to him when he tells me his sales people have had calls drop out on them. I just remind him that I offered him an alternative that he didn't take, because it would increase our fixed costs $300 a month. That shuts him up until the next time. Logic-free zone, anyone?)
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Y'know, wine runs most games, and even runs photoshop quite well. In fact, Disney has thousands of boxes running photoshop under wine, and I don't think they'd be running something half-assed.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Considering how much they lose on each one, it might. Even with the games, they haven't made money yet.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
They'll notice when publications like the NYT review Vista, compare it to the more advanced OS X Leopard, discuss the protracted and disappointing development cycle of the last half-decade, and mention the usage restrictions in the seven (!) different versions, not counting separate 32-bit and 64-bit versions which makes for a total of fourteen versions of Windows Vista.
If they don't notice Vista's limitations then, they'll notice when they start using it and get bugged by UAC every day.
"Sufferin' succotash."
MS can abuse gamers as much as they want because gamers are the very definition of a captured demographic.
It sure would be nice to get someone from MS to talk to. Someone who isn't going to sputter out marketing hype and techno babble. No, just geek to geek. I would have some down to earth questions to ask instead of listening to the echo chamber. I would ask some questions I haven't yet seen on this story in addition to some that people here are asking. Honest questions wanting some honest answers.
/. as Bill Clinton is to Bill O'Rielly?
My questions would go something like this:
Microsoft, I think you got a pretty good OS and I know that you know you have one too, so let's cut the hype here and talk like normal (geek) folks instead of marketers. Now, your EULA obviously makes sense from your standpoint, but there a few of us out here scratching our heads. For example, some of us build our own machines and like to upgrade our parts fairly often. Now, when we purchase your OS, we expect that license to go with us as we make our 'rigs better. However, as I understand your license, we can install Vista and only really do one upgrade before our license goes up in smoke. From our viewpoint that really doesn't seem fair to have to spend an additional $300+ for the OS for doing something simple like upgrading a $150 motherboard, or adding an additional $100 of RAM. What options are there out there for those of us who would like to have Vista, but not substantially increase the cost of upgrading hardware? Is our market segment too small for you to worry about?
Some of us are developers and need a low cost solution to test our software against. As I understand the EULA, I won't be able to install Vista on a VM unless I buy one of the more pricier versions. I really feel like I've been painted into a corner here because buying a lesser version meets my needs as far development is concerned, but your EULA doesn't allow that. Did you take us into consideration when creating the EULA, and will any cheaper solutions exist for developing on your platform?
Etc, etc. Cmdr Taco, can you set something up??? Or are the Microsofties as repulsed by
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Add Ram: Went from 512M to 2G then had stick fail so went down to 1G
Add Hard Drive: Added a second Hard Drive
Replace Motherboard and CPU: Went from a Asus cheapy mobo with a A64 3000 to a Asus nice Mobo with a A64 3700
Changed Video Card: Went from a Nvidia 5x00 (don't remember the model number but it sucked) to a 6800GT
Through all that I only had to reactivate once, and that's when I ripped out my Intel NIC for a Wifi NIC when I moved to my new house.
So I did 7 upgrades only have to reactive once. I don't know where the horror stories are coming from.
Now of course my luck at work isn't nearly as easy just about every motherboard replacment that I have done at work requires a call for reactivation.
Everybody's stressing over the phrase "one time." That phrase has been used before, for example the XP EULA referenced in one of TFAs (emphasis mine):The very same phrase, and, in this usage, it seems to be emphasizing that, after you transfer your user rights to somebody else, you retain no rights yourself; as if, without the words "one time," somebody could argue "Person A transferred to Person B, then Person A transferred to Person C..." and suddenly Warez sites are legit.
Now, with regards to Vista, we have "reassign the license to another device one time." Now, considering that the EULA now requires that "(b)efore you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device (physical hardware system)," the EULA now considers the way the install is tied to a particular machine similar to the way it treats the way it is tied to a particular person. So they are using the same language for hardware as they have always used for people.
All I'm seeing here is a new way of saying "you have to uninstall from the old machine before installing on a new one" worded in a different way from they way they used to. The language (to me, at least) seems to not do anything more than to ensure that all rights a particular computer might have to the install must be transferred (including the right of transfer itself).
Otherwise, you end up with a logical inconsistency; if, by agreeing with the EULA, you can only change hardware once, what happens when you sell the license to somebody else? That new user, by agreeing to the EULA, gets all the rights you had at first purchase, including that once-only hardware transfer. So, if you give it to somebody else, and you get it back (or simply sell it to yourself for $0.01), you get your "hardware transfer" counter reset back to zero and the once-only transfer rule becomes unenforcable.
As for other things people seem to be screaming about, were the features that are denied to home flavors of Vista allowed in the home flavor of XP? I see some noise like "ZOMG! No Remote Desktop!" here and there...
Hehe, ok.
Since I've already once, I'll let you read it this time.
Where in the EULA does it specifically allow me to create an ISO image of a CD containing photgraphs I have taken and copy it onto my hard drive? If this is not expressly permitted by the EULA, does this mean you believe it's forbidden? Do you think Microsoft would tell you it was forbidden to this if they were asked? If not, where is the language written that applies to my photographs and not my legal backup? If thats not there, then where is the language explicitly forbidding the legal backup to be stored on my hard drive? If you can't find any of those, well then, you've got your answer.
I don't come from an Adobe background, and I found that The GIMP was not just counterintuitive. It was downright infuriating. Nothing made any sense for me except for basic file operations. The next day, I went to one of the graphics guys at work to look at Photoshop, and it was beautifully easy to get the basic things that I wanted. Eventually I found GIMPshop, which helped, but it took a long time from my initial experience to lose the grudge of a horribly broken interface. The basic functionality of any program should be clear to a new user, even if it takes time to master those functions.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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?
Huh? MacBooks and MacBook Pros have exactly the same set of clamshell mode options. In either case the machine will run while closed if it thinks it has a keyboard and a mouse hooked up. Want to fool your MacBook? Use InsomniaX.
Save the integrated graphics and lack of ExpressCard 34 support, you are only losing cosmetics by going from MBP to MacBook. I should know -- there is one of each in my household.
"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.
How do you define moving to another system? What constitutes "another system"? If you swap out a video card does that make this a new system? Probably not. If you look at Windows XP and it's product activation, there are several things that can be changed as often as you wish without it being considered a new system that requires activation. There are some items that, between them as a group, can only be changed a couple of times before Windows will disable the system (CPU, mainboard, hard disk). This sounds pretty much like the same thing, so I'm not sure why people are making a stink about it now, other than the fact that the surest way to get lots of hits right now is to either extoll the virtues of or condemn Vista.
I guess that in theory, with previous retail versions of Windows you could remove it and re-install it on different machines as much as you wanted, but in practice how many people actually did that? Most home users certainly didn't. Lots of enthusiasts didn't either. If you buy a retail copy of Vista for your current PC, then pitch your current PC and build a new PC, then you might want to transfer your OS. Or perhaps if your PC died completely, you might want to transfer the license, and you would be allowed to do so once under this license. Now if you decided to add additional PCs, you would need more licenses anyway, right? When you consider that most consumers buy a PC with an OEM version of Windows already installed, and that many enthusiasts who build already buy the cheaper OEM versions, who really buys retail? Keeping in mind how many hardware changes it takes to trip up Product Activation now, how many people out there are likely to buy retail copies of Vista AND trip product activation more than once? Very few I suspect.
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.'"
There are very few home users who could even tell you what a VM is, let alone install an OS into one. And those of us who are likely to use virtualization at home (and I'm one of them who currently does do this) would likely also need/already have the business version of Vista (or in today's world, XP Pro). More to the point, when I run virtualization at home it's not usually to run a second instance of my main OS. Usually it's so that I can test some new Linux distro, or to keep an older version of Windows around for compatibility purposes. Right now I run one of the Vista RCs as a host OS, and have Windows XP Pro, Ubuntu, and Windows Server 2003 running in virtual machines. So what's the big deal here? If you get the Business edition, you are allowed to run up to 4 virtual instances of Vista on the same machine using the same license, whereas with XP Pro you were permitted only a second instance. So this sounds like a net improvement to me. If for some reason you need to maintain two separate Vista Home Edition installs on the same machine, you can still dual boot.
"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 networ
I didn't find anything about that either. The only thing that really seems all that different is the VM rule, which is just a bunch of crap. What difference does it make to them? They then get TWO licenses for my ONE PC. That's dumb for them to deny! Seriously though, XP Home doesn't allow remote desktop, only remote assistance, and it also is not threaded, so no good on dual core machines (not a problem for its day, but definitely a problem in the next generation). The only thing that bugs me is the reactivation on upgrades. Seriously, it wouldn't be that difficult to allow a user unlimited upgrades. Here's my thought. User buys OS, installs on PC, and activates their unique product ID, stored with some form of unique hardware hash as XP supposedly does now. Now, periodically check these ID's to see if they match. Keep a database of these combinations. An ID should only show up with it's most recent hardware hash, or one that hasn't been used before. If the relation consistently goes back and forth between several hardware id's, you know it's being used on more than one machine, and the key can be deactivated.
I don't think you all grasp the cunningness of Microsoft's new strategy. It's well known that Microsoft's biggest competitor is... Microsoft themselves. Convincing people to upgrade to their latest-and-greates product has always been an uphill struggle for Microsoft. Microsoft has such a stranglehold on the market that no new product -not even their own- can break that iron grip.
But with Vista, the marketing geniuses at Microsoft have come up with a plan to finally break that viselike grip. If the problem is that Microsoft's marketshare is too big, then there's only one thing to do: convince consumers to stop buying Microsoft products. Only then will Microsoft have a fair chance at breaking into the market that Microsoft now controls.
This isn't the first time Microsoft has utilized this strategy; they tested the waters with WindowsME. However, Microsoft hedged their bets back then with the concurrent release of Windows2000. But WinME proved their tactics had merit; they created such a despicable product that consumers flocked to WindowsXP.
Now, with the imminent release of Vista, Microsoft is betting the entire company; there is no "backup" product to save the day in case the strategy flops, as was Windows2000. Microsoft has put all its eggs in the basket with Vista, and they have worked hard to make sure Vista is something nobody wants. It has only the minimum of improvments while at the same time necessitating obscenely high hardware requirements to make use of those features. Microsoft is also -as this latest development shows- injected their new flagship OS with as many painful ways to restrict the consumer in how he uses the software he has paid for. So not only is it a product nobody needs, not only is it a product nobody wants, but it is also a product that doesn't do anything well. Vista is sure to flop, costing Microsoft billions of dolllars and a significant percentage of their marketshare. Microsoft has even gotten their games division involved; all future Microsoft games will be Vista (DirectX 10) only; when Vista inevitably flops, so will all those games.
And then, when Microsoft is shattered by its own incompetance, that's when Microsoft will swoop in for the kill.*
Devious and cunning. Who says Microsoft doesn't innovate?
* My brain hurts.
I've been in 3, that I can remember, class action suits.
(1) Chevy trucks (early 90's) with the gas tank mounted outside the frame. Just like the Pintos of the 70's BOOM!
Result: Lawyers make millions, I get $1000 off the purchase of a new Chevy truck. No thanks.
(2) MS windows/office Price fixing scheme mid 90's
Result: Lawyers make millions, I get something like $20 off the purchase of more MS software. No thanks.
(3) RIAA price fixing scheme more familiar to most
Result: Lawyers make millions, I get $20 to buy more RIAA musak. No thanks.
I was NOT interested in any of these settlements because I decided I no longer wanted to their products, even for free. IMHO in class action suits, only the lawyers win.
Now imagine if MS had to fed off small claims suits from just 10% of buyers. Many corporations operate on a roughly 10% profit margin (MS is an exception to that). Think about it. Class action is merely a way to silence the voice of the complainants and appease the general public.
I'd take MS to court even if it COSTS ME $ to do it. It is a matter of principle. In case you didn't know, in my state you can include the cost of your time you've spent attempting to resolve the issue and lost wages attending court (but no attorney fees). So the only argument left is people too lazy to stand up for their fair use rights. I say F^$K em.
Also to the Best of my knowledge EULA click thrus don't hold much water (SCOTUS has yet to rule on it), especially when you cannot see what you've agreed to until you've entered into a purchase agreement (retail or wholesale). And opened software is usually non-returnable. Can you say pig in a poke?
Who will guard the guards?
I can see where you're coming from, but learning the commands isn't about doing the basic stuff. It's about doing all the other stuff that's only done easily with those esoteric commands.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
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.
Actually, serving any clients from a Windows workstation OS is a violation of their EULA if Microsoft didn't write it and bundle it with the OS. So you can serve 10 clients on XP Pro with IIS but zero with Apache. Yes, running a Quake server for your mates at at a LAN is a violation. BitTorrent is a violation. VNC is a violation.
I thought this sounded bogus, so I actually went and looked up the XP Home EULA. Unsurprisingly, your claim is rubbish.
It's not about what I believe, it's not about what I think. You made a factually incorrect statement while bitching about the EULA, I corrected you. If you've already read it once then I'm not sure how you missed the clearly typed information that contradicted you. It's in the GP if you'd like to see it.
You keep making that error, too, because you asked me "do you believe it's forbidden?" What part of "you may use the software only as expressly permitted" is unclear? Or "Microsoft reserves all other rights?" It's an EULA; it's legalese. This is what lawyers use to cover their asses in court. The answer to your question, which is printed in the EULA, is as clear and encompassing as it gets.
Seriously, who modded this guy insightful? He read the EULA, decided its most clear passages on what rights are permitted and denied magically does not apply to him. It's not insightful for someone to say "Thanks for the teacup!" when you've handed them a 2x4.
I didn't say that the EULA made any sense, at all, or that it was enforceable, or that Microsoft would ever necessarily enforce any of the terms of the agreement. I did not say I agree with it. I did not do anything except show you how your argument, based as it was, did not hold up to scrutiny
Just look at all the wasted time and effort involved in trying to enforce licensing restrictions...
The cheaper versions actually cost MORE to produce, because of all the effort that went in to restricting them.
And you just know, a cracked version will be out very quickly and all the people who run pirate copies will just continue to do so.
You don't get all this wasted effort with open source... The time spent writing licensing enforcement can instead be spent improving the product, and similarly the time spent by third parties cracking these restrictions could also be spent improving the product itself.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Certainly not. In open source software I just get 10 different apps to control the bloody volume levels of my soundcard :P Not the same, but everybody wastes a load of effort somewhere, I guess
Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
So when a customer reports a bug that shows up only on Vista Home I'm supposed to do *what* excatly.
Tell them to get lost because microsoft won't let us setup a VM to test their fault?