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."
Now everyone knows we only have to bother with pirating Vista Ultimate and Vista Business.
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
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?
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 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....
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.
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
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.
MS can abuse gamers as much as they want because gamers are the very definition of a captured demographic.
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 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 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.
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?