Slashdot Mirror
Vista to Allow "One Significant" Hardware Upgrade
fiorenza writes "Ars Technica spoke with Microsoft concerning the controversial changes in Windows Vista's licensing, and they have learned that Vista will permit one 'significant' hardware change before requiring users to either appeal to Microsoft support or purchase another license. Automatic re-activation online will fail after one use. Microsoft is using a new algorithm to monitor hardware changes and enforce licensing compliance, and the company says that it is more forgiving now than it was with Windows XP."
MS is looking to hurt the pc enthusiasts who for all intensive purposes helped them create such a vast "empire"?
aside from the various "grey" hacks and cracks that *WILL* come out of this - this is a very poor choice for MS imo.
When, oh when, will we be able to use what we paid for for what we want, within the limits of the law, without asking permission. Sheesh.
that all depends on how they choose to define 'significant'. Gamers who regularly upgrade their box are going to be unhappy at any rate; if a video card is considered 'significant', I can see storm clouds blowing. Of course, Microsoft won't care - they've got their money, and with the example of Halo 2, they can count on those purchases of Vista as given for the hardcore.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
As a small-business owner who spends all day just configuring/fixing/testing/developing/working, I can tell you right now.....This would pound the last nail into the coffin for using MS products for me. MS obviously doesn't care about people that have to make things WORK and have little time to do so. After I have spend a few hundred hours tweaking a mail server that will have to deliver 100,000 messages per day, or a web farm that has to work FLAWLESSLY and serve hundreds of millions of hits per month, this one thing that I would not want to have to deal with, especially when I have to add/change a network interface to accomodate a SAN development or some other change where we don't have time to worry about such nonsensical shit as "Will the OS allow us to do this"
Screw that. My shop will stay Linux anyway, but that is just BS!
- Eric
"... the company says that it is more forgiving now than it was with Windows XP."
It's uncomfortable to be in the situation that when I want to upgrade my computer, I need to be "forgiven".
--
The best of the Bush comedy videos
I didnt read the article, but the little bits above says that the algorythm is more forgiving than XP. in XP you can change almost everything and it doesn't notice... You think changing your videocard will trigger anything in Vista?
Windows activation is a joke anyway. You can keep using the same cdkey, you just have to call their 800 number. It's been awhile since I've done it, but they ask you a stupid question like "is this copy of windows installed on any other computers". I think once they asked me why I was reinstalling and I stated "reformat because of a virus". Let them argue that. If they complain you've called too much complain that their OS is too virus prone and keeps making you reformat. I don't know which is easier to do, get the anti-activation crack or call the 800 number.
----
Squirrel
> Also, have you heard about the houses you can buy? You can only renovate them or add on to them one time.
> What?!? Doesn't make sense? That's because when you buy something you should be able to do what you want with it.
Sorry dude, the infection has already spread. Go buy a house, cash money. Think you own it? Only if you bought a chunk of land in a very red state far away from any town.... of course most places like that are subject to being declared a wetland, wildlife preserve or national park with no prior warning.
That house you think you bought was probably built by a developer in a major development project. They retained first dibs on it, selling you limited 'rights'. And if you will notice you agreed to annual fees to a 'homeowners association' that can and will tell you exactly what sort of renovations you can and can't do, what vehicles you can park, etc. Many even regulate against you erecting a TV antenna.
And if that isn't enough, if your home is inside a city you may only use it for non-commercial purposes. And regardless of whether you live in a city/town, don't forget you get the 'right' to pay and pay property taxes to find any and all crazy schemes the government can invent.
So yes, shrink wrap EULAs are horrible, but only because you can't see em until you pay, but we already bent over and surrendered the idea of property rights a century ago.
Democrat delenda est
Of course, Microsoft is pushing hard. Soon, they will push too hard, and mass migration away from them wills start to occur (I know, I know, this has been said since 1992...).
Palm trees and 8
You should be more pissed off at your phone guy than Microsoft. Small Business Server 2003 is a package that's intended to be used in a certain way. It's considerably cheaper to buy everything included this way than to buy all of the parts separately, but it's subject to significant restrictions as to how you can use it. That's the deal. Shouldn't your phone guy have looked into that when he bought it on your behalf? I'm no Microsoft apologist but that's the way they choose to sell it and they are entitled to do that. If you don't want to agree to their terms, use something else.
"I am a die-hard capitalist....but unethical, lying, bastard capitalism is really no better than socialism" - unknown
But you infer that he is alone in his decision.
There are a lot of huge business who buy thousands of bulk licenses, and they are MS' favorite customers.
But worldwide, there are probably millions of small businesses who are subject to the same decision; that will impact MS VERY significantly.
This reminds me of a decade ago when people used AOL instead of local dial-up because "AOL has 8 million customers... your local ISP has about 2000... clearly, they're America's favorite choice" but neglect that adding up the many local dial-up ISPs everywhere constitutes tens of millions of customers.
MS won't change their mind because this one guy is switching his little business to Linux. But when thousands of his competitors, parteners and peers do, they'll start thinking about it.
I don't see why you can't tell Windows "Hey, I'm going to switch hardware now, please deactivate my old license on this (point to HD and folder) installation and switch it to this new hard drive/computer/set of hardware". If Windows phoned home periodically to check its authenticity, like it does when you update it, MS might have to upgrade their WGA servers & whatnot, but it would prevent all this aggrevation. If the deactivated license tries to update (or just phone home on schedule), it locks them out and directs them to MS support.
I feel fucked because people pirate Windows all the time, get to play all their games & whatnot (the only reason I have Windows, plus a few full feature drivers that aren't there under Linux) and know how not to get screwed by malware, but I actually paid for it against my will because it was the right thing to do, and yet I'm worried sick about what happens if my HD dies, or I want to move my install to another disk or something. You can call them once or twice, but if you do it all the time, they get suspicious don't they? I don't want to be flagged as a (potential) pirate. I'm used to reinstalling Windows a couple of times a year (albeit less often with XP), and I'm fine with that.
They sure aren't working very hard to come up with an adequate solution to their problem... I may not be their favorite customer, but I still paid like $150 for an OEM XP Pro, and I feel like what they're doing isn't ethical. That should be reason enough to find a better solution. Yeah I know, nothing's perfect and they don't have to.
I salute MS with my long finger.
From now on, everyone who complains that editing Unix config files is too hard will be directed to this post. Thank you.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?