Vista Licensing revisited..
-
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx[^] A while back on in the Lounge we were talking about the new licensing. It is offical though, "retail" versions of Vista may only be transferred to one future box forever! I had thought this would only apply to OEM (which would make more sense), but it is not, it is for th retail version. Gamers who update their systems more than most people change socks will get bit hard by this one. One issue we had hoped for is that they would allow the system to power up to five machines as does Apple, but that is not happening either. Additionally, they are forcing periodic revaluations your license which if you do not allow to occur, will cripple your system until you do. This means that you system MUST be connected to internet at some point to validate. Another funny point is that the software is only licensed to use "up to" two processors. Guess you have to run Server if you are going to use a quad core... There are also a few limitations for virtual servers and may only use if using Vista Ultimate. Oh, but the bright side is that they have extended their "warranty" to 1 year.. Oh, doesn't it just give you chills all over... I do not know what the people at Microsoft are smoking, but I small a fall coming if they do not get a clue quickly! :zzz: So, how is the 64 bit versions of Linux going these days? ;)
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Windows Vista - My Journey begins!
The only way we, as a group of Users / Business Professionals can make a difference is not to persue the Vista product until Microsoft becomes reasonable about licensing. Stick with XP32/64. If you really need a sweet interface use the (stardock) interface. It is a lot less than the price of upgrade, and there are some freeware packages.
To Breathe is to have life; To Code is to live!
-
Joe Woodbury wrote:
Let me count the number of times in the past this licensing would have caused me problems when upgrading.
The upgrades that I've done are usually more memory and better hard drives. However, I do re-install the OS every year or so and clean up the entire system. And I do this usually by replacing the hard disk. I assume this would mean Vista would think I'm using a different machine. :~ Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithFrom what I understand it wouldn't affect you in this regard.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Problem? No, not in the long term. Setback? Very.
Over 90% of users get their OS as part of the computer. The XP OEM licensing already prohibits reinstalling the OS on another system. This is no different; it's all much ado about nothing.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Over 90% of users get their OS as part of the computer. The XP OEM licensing already prohibits reinstalling the OS on another system. This is no different; it's all much ado about nothing.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
My computer is 3 years old, cost me $1000, and supports Vista just fine, Aero and all. I don't intend on buying new computers any time soon, let alone four. If 90% of people get their OS as part of OEM and that's reason enough not to worry about the rest of us, then it's reason enough not to worry about the losses of offering better deals to the remaining 10% of us who are willing to dish out more than the $50 or so that Microsoft earns from OEM licenses.
-
My computer is 3 years old, cost me $1000, and supports Vista just fine, Aero and all. I don't intend on buying new computers any time soon, let alone four. If 90% of people get their OS as part of OEM and that's reason enough not to worry about the rest of us, then it's reason enough not to worry about the losses of offering better deals to the remaining 10% of us who are willing to dish out more than the $50 or so that Microsoft earns from OEM licenses.
By your own account, this will have no effect on you, so why are you complaining?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
can someone tell me what constitutes a different device? if i reinstall the OS after putting in a new video card, would it be considered another device? what about the LAN card? if it uses LAN card's mac address or something similar, would it be ok if I carry my LAN card along when I move to a different machine? If this means a total of 2 activations of fresh installations even if the device does not, then Microsoft might as well not release Vista and charge the XP users some money for continuing to use it beyond the support period.
Changing the video or LAN card has no effect. I have changed quite a bit of hardware without causing a problem with XP.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
It is offical though, "retail" versions of Vista may only be transferred to one future box forever! I had thought this would only apply to OEM (which would make more sense), but it is not, it is for th retail version. Gamers who update their systems more than most people change socks will get bit hard by this one.
I think the most powerful source of complaints toward this new licensing scheme will be the hardware retailers. I can imagine that this policy could cause computer hardware sales to decline. I know I would be much more reluctant to upgrade my PC if I knew I'd need to purchase a new OS license. I'd be interested to see what happens if hardware sales do decline as a result. Pressure from major companies who include Windows on their prebuilt machines, who in turn received pressure from hardware manufacturing companies could be the deciding factor for Microsoft to change this license restriction. Microsoft would be really feeling the hurt if these companies started offering other non-Microsoft OS packages as an alternative or replacement.
Sentinel_13 wrote:
I think the most powerful source of complaints toward this new licensing scheme will be the hardware retailers.
The OEM licensing hasn't changed from XP. You aren't allowed to transfer an OEM Windows license to a new device.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Anyone have any insight regarding MSDN Professional Subscriptions and how the Vista Licensing will be affected in terms of activations and Virtual Machine usage. I often install my MSDN XP Pro licenses in VMWare VM's and then after a few months, destory it and recreate it for various reasons.
________________________________ Heston T. Holtmann, B.Sc.Eng. Software Engineer
MSDN allows ten activations for XP. It's probably the same for Vista.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
By your own account, this will have no effect on you, so why are you complaining?
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
How does it have no effect on me? It means I have to either buy new computers or $1100 worth in Windows licenses.
-
I have one simple question. Where are the upgrade suppliers like nVidia and ATI and video game houses? They get a large chunk of changes due to the interaction between "improvements" in gaming software that end up requiring more capable hardware. They are essentially encouraging people to buy brand new computers all the time, which would be good for major PC producers (a la Dell/HP/etc), but this means that the vast majority of non-hardcore gamers will just say "meh" if a game requires another very expensive license if they want to upgrade to play it on a capable machine.
Changing the video card does not affect this. Do note that the license refers to transfering the operating system to a new device, NOT activations.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
The only way we, as a group of Users / Business Professionals can make a difference is not to persue the Vista product until Microsoft becomes reasonable about licensing. Stick with XP32/64. If you really need a sweet interface use the (stardock) interface. It is a lot less than the price of upgrade, and there are some freeware packages.
To Breathe is to have life; To Code is to live!
The licensing is almost identical to XP licensing. It simply isn't a big issue. Here's a good summary: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4548[^]
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
How does it have no effect on me? It means I have to either buy new computers or $1100 worth in Windows licenses.
$1100 worth? How? This has nothing to do with activation. You can change a serious amount of hardware on your computer without reactivating and can easily reactivate it even if it's triggered.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Changing the video card does not affect this. Do note that the license refers to transfering the operating system to a new device, NOT activations.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
What about motherboards? nVidia is in the chipset business and then there are all the taiwanese mainboard manufacturers. Again what constitutes a new device in MS's eyes?
-
$1100 worth? How? This has nothing to do with activation. You can change a serious amount of hardware on your computer without reactivating and can easily reactivate it even if it's triggered.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Are you even reading what I write before you go ahead to dismiss everything? I'm not making my messages particularly long here; if you're going to tell me what I need or don't need, at least have the decency to pay attention first. There's 4 computers in this home/business. Licenses for Business cost only $30 less than retail copies. Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Editions[^] $299 + $269*3 = $1106.
-
What about motherboards? nVidia is in the chipset business and then there are all the taiwanese mainboard manufacturers. Again what constitutes a new device in MS's eyes?
Changing the motherboard is an activation issue, not an assignment of license issue. If you change your entire sytem except your video card, that would probably constitute a new device. However, I'd still just call and reactivate it and not worry about it.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Are you even reading what I write before you go ahead to dismiss everything? I'm not making my messages particularly long here; if you're going to tell me what I need or don't need, at least have the decency to pay attention first. There's 4 computers in this home/business. Licenses for Business cost only $30 less than retail copies. Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Editions[^] $299 + $269*3 = $1106.
reinux wrote:
Are you even reading what I write before you go ahead to dismiss everything? I'm not making my messages particularly long here; if you're going to tell me what I need or don't need, at least have the decency to pay attention first. There's 4 computers in this home/business. Licenses for Business cost only $30 less than retail copies. Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes.
I am reading what you wrote, but what you wrote makes no sense. If you have four computers in your home/business you have to buy four licenses. This was true with ALL Microsoft operating sytems. It's true with all Macintosh operating systems. It's true of the vast majority of software you purchase. If you want a break in pricing, that's an entirely different issue than the license agreement. As it turns out you can get a break by purchasing some hardware and getting the OEM version. But, again, your beef is with pricing, not the licensing unless you are proposing you be able to pirate Windows. -- modified at 17:21 Monday 16th October, 2006
reinux wrote:
Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes.
In this chain, you didn't. It may be that the message threads got messed up and my responses are going to a different thread than you started.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
reinux wrote:
Are you even reading what I write before you go ahead to dismiss everything? I'm not making my messages particularly long here; if you're going to tell me what I need or don't need, at least have the decency to pay attention first. There's 4 computers in this home/business. Licenses for Business cost only $30 less than retail copies. Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes.
I am reading what you wrote, but what you wrote makes no sense. If you have four computers in your home/business you have to buy four licenses. This was true with ALL Microsoft operating sytems. It's true with all Macintosh operating systems. It's true of the vast majority of software you purchase. If you want a break in pricing, that's an entirely different issue than the license agreement. As it turns out you can get a break by purchasing some hardware and getting the OEM version. But, again, your beef is with pricing, not the licensing unless you are proposing you be able to pirate Windows. -- modified at 17:21 Monday 16th October, 2006
reinux wrote:
Hence, I said, they need to offer deals for small businesses and homes.
In this chain, you didn't. It may be that the message threads got messed up and my responses are going to a different thread than you started.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
You're just splitting hairs. I said in this thread that I wanted a better "deal". Does that not at least make enough sense even if it's arguably from a purist perspective not necessarily about licenses? We are talking about the conditions for which we need to buy new licenses after all. Yes it's true that almost all software requires you to buy additional licenses for additional copies, but that's mainly because there are so few cases where you would need to buy multiple copies in the same household. Not true for an OS. Think usage scenarios. Why are you being so abrasive? Is it because you think I'm just blindly bxtching about M$? I don't care what Apple offers. I want Microsoft to offer something better.
reinux wrote:
If 90% of people get their OS as part of OEM and that's reason enough not to worry about the rest of us, then it's reason enough not to worry about the losses of offering better deals to the remaining 10% of us who are willing to dish out more than the $50 or so that Microsoft earns from OEM licenses.
-
Changing the motherboard is an activation issue, not an assignment of license issue. If you change your entire sytem except your video card, that would probably constitute a new device. However, I'd still just call and reactivate it and not worry about it.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I haven't been able to look up the licenses definition for "Device" as every time I try to go to the license website it times out. The dailytech article that you linked in the response below has a lot of comments that reflect my concerns about my legal rights under the new operating system EULA as pointed out by kilkennycat. http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4548&commentid=70641&threshhold=1&red=4051#comments[^]
-
You're just splitting hairs. I said in this thread that I wanted a better "deal". Does that not at least make enough sense even if it's arguably from a purist perspective not necessarily about licenses? We are talking about the conditions for which we need to buy new licenses after all. Yes it's true that almost all software requires you to buy additional licenses for additional copies, but that's mainly because there are so few cases where you would need to buy multiple copies in the same household. Not true for an OS. Think usage scenarios. Why are you being so abrasive? Is it because you think I'm just blindly bxtching about M$? I don't care what Apple offers. I want Microsoft to offer something better.
reinux wrote:
If 90% of people get their OS as part of OEM and that's reason enough not to worry about the rest of us, then it's reason enough not to worry about the losses of offering better deals to the remaining 10% of us who are willing to dish out more than the $50 or so that Microsoft earns from OEM licenses.
reinux wrote:
Why are you being so abrasive?
:laugh::laugh::laugh: (You are experiencing what psychologists call "projection.")
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
reinux wrote:
Why are you being so abrasive?
:laugh::laugh::laugh: (You are experiencing what psychologists call "projection.")
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
:wtf: What I'm experiencing is a guy on a software forum pretending to psychoanalyze me because he doesn't want to admit that he's being cocky and dismissive of a problem that he mistakenly thought wasn't a problem.