Vista Licensing revisited..
-
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.
-
: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.
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: You provided humor for my afternoon.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
Who cares? Let me count the number of times in the past this licensing would have caused me problems when upgrading. Zero. (Yup, really did count all the installations and what hardware I used--the computer I'm using right now is, in fact, the only computer with that has had just one OS on it; all my other computers have gone through multiple operating systems.)
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 who wishes to replace their machine (or enough of it to count as a different machine) but not their OS, presumably...?...
Steve
-
Jochen_Muenchen wrote:
diriproject wrote: According current practice you are wrong. Such a license has to be readable before somebody pays. sure. Go to the web and download a copy.
No need for because they neither pay my internet access nor my time. I enter a shop, take a box, pay and have it. And, I'm pretty sure you are aware of the sentence: Opening a box forces you to buy it.
Especially here in the United States. Most software, including Microsoft's, has a statement that several have mentioned that usually goes something like, "If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, return the software to the place of purchase for a refund." However, most retail stores have a policy that once you open a piece of software (or a CD, DVD, etc.) you can only exchange it for another copy of it, if it is defective. This is related to current U.S. Copyright law. Now, I'm not sure whether or not the store policy is required by law or is simply the stores' way of covering themselves from lawsuits by Microsoft, Sony, Business Software Alliance, RIAA, MPAA, or any of the myriad of monster intellectual property owners. In other words, I'm sure Microsoft knows that this is the case and therefore their refund statement is, at best, hard to collect on in the real world and is, at worst, just plain illegal. Any comments from my fellow coders around the world on whether your situation is worse, better, or about the same?
Andrew C. Eisenberg Nashville, TN, USA (a.k.a. Music City USA) (Yes Virginia, there are rock and roll stations in Nashville! :laugh:)
-
Anyone who wishes to replace their machine (or enough of it to count as a different machine) but not their OS, presumably...?...
Steve
And they can. Once. Which is more than most people do it, including myself--a computer geek who has had a long stream of computers. As stated, I've actually gone through more operating systems (starting with DOS 3.0--well Apple II OS, but that doesn't count) than full blown replacement systems.
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
That's odd. We've a very similar system (as your spec but an Athlon X2 4600+) and it installs in 20 minutes! :confused:
Anna :rose: Currently working mostly on: Visual Lint :cool: Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.
Thats great Anna. But was it an upgrade or a clean install ? I tried with RC2 build 5600.both an upgrade from windows XP and a clean install. did the black screens annoy you ?
Regards srk
-
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!
I work for a small company and of its 24 computers currently in operation, zero will be upgraded to Vista in the coming 12 months. Part of the reason is overall cost, estimated to be between 7 and 9 thousand, and the other is no forseeable benefit to the operation of the company. If we had to pay for extra licences every time we upgrade a computer, we'd be lucky to see 6 months per PC per licence. We've recently switched to a linux server on X2s, and are seriously looking at linux alternatives for basic operations due to increased costs from Microsoft. If M$ are that stupid, then I hope they completely fail. They are killing Vista before they get a chance to sell it! Daz Who will benefit the most from Vista? Apple and Linux!
-
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!
Jeff Palmer wrote:
Stick with XP32/64.
That is not an option, the market is moving to Vista as most computers after the first of the year will ship with Vista and smart developers will make sure to keep up.
Jeff Palmer wrote:
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
If that is all you view the differences coming in Vista, you need to work with it a bit. There are a ton of changes, most of the vast improvements. Vista is a major update, not just a service pack as some look at it.
Rocky <>< Latest Code Blog Post: ASP.NET HttpException - Cannot use leading "..".. Latest Tech Blog Post: Windows Vista - My Journey begins!