YOu think closing this thread is going to persuade Microsoft? LOL
This policy is set in stone. No budging on their behalf. The key is stopping the piracy and then maybe they will realx their liscesning policy.
I applaud what they are doing.
Printable View
YOu think closing this thread is going to persuade Microsoft? LOL
This policy is set in stone. No budging on their behalf. The key is stopping the piracy and then maybe they will realx their liscesning policy.
I applaud what they are doing.
No closing this thread will not do a thing, but I suggested closing the Vista part of Vdr in the hope of it spreading to other forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwills
I find it very hard to understand why you "applaud what they are doing" are you happy to pay for another license if you change your Motherboard twice.
If you stop the piracy, then you stop the need for measures as this. Of course, this will only keep the honest people honest.
It (the policy) doesn't affect me directly so I'm not going to worry about it.
I emailed Microsoft expressing my concerns and this is part of the reply.
"In response to your query, I can advise that customers can install and activate a retail copy of Windows Vista as many times as needed on the same computer within their End User License Agreement (EULA). More specific information on the EULA and installation of the same copy of Windows Vista after upgrading the computer will be available close to the release date of the product."
So jmwills, nothing is set in stone, people power will always win if they stick together.
Do you work for them and get unlimited free licenses?Quote:
Originally Posted by jmwills
Actually I wonder if it isn't all a bit of a storm in a teacup. As long as what is stated in the article that Snooker linked to above is true, really all that's happened is that MS have made the existing licencing conditions clearer. If that is the case, and the terms are the same as for WinXP, then I don't see a problem. Product Activation has never caused me any grief at all.
I'd say that they are floating the idea to gauge public reaction, there's a lot of anger around so hopefully that will deter them.
Did anyone else hear that Microsoft will now allow 10 hardware changes ? including the MB
MS owns the software; they can offer licence terms as they please, and we can accept or not. I liken it in a way to both cars and sound systems. With sound systems, if you need good quality (ie. if your ear is finely attuned, and you notice the difference, you upgrade.) With cars, if maybe you want to impress other people, or you want easy or inexpensive maintenance, or better safety features, you upgrade. With a computer, I may be out of the loop, but I don't think having the "latest" is a big social status thing. It's pure functionality; does it do what you need and want it to do? And can you fix it yourself? Windows98 did all I needed and wanted. And I could tweak it. And I have an installation disk. Then, I had to get XP (on another machine, no installation disk, just a recovery disk)) to run some software I needed for work; it wouldn't run on 98 - who do you think was behind that) I kept the 98 because I could control it. MS has realized that they can't create the "want" (the status thing) so they are trying to engineer the need by taking away control, and engineering (as opposed to just claiming) proprietary rights. It's clever, and somewhat pernicious. How to combat it? Don't buy it. If companies who have signed with MS to make their software compatible only with Vista, are finding low market levels, maybe we'll find Vista free with new computers. :) MS has to come to realize that when they license their software, they have to give a disk that can be reinstalled as many times, and on as many machines as the licencee wants. The licence has to be negotiated, not imposed. And in the mix, the consumer has the ultimate power. When it comes right down to it, most people are honest, licence fees are a business expense, they are paid, and the potential losses from a small group of people who may install the OS on their mother's machine as well as their own are minimal, compared with the losses when someone inevitably finds a work-around, or better yet, invents a new OS, and bye, bye MS.
Chas
I've gotten dragged, kicking and screaming, to every OS upgrade. If it wasn't for the 3rd party software I like to run needing XP then XP SP2....I wouldn't have gotten those either.... :rolleyes:
I was very happy with 98SE because it did what it was supposed to do.....run my machine and stay out of the way. XP....(and my guess Vista)....has so many bells and whistles that I never use, I will spend countless hours trying to shut them down. Do we need yet another bloated OS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...n_to_bit-tech/
...
It looks to me that Microsoft are trying to work out the minimum amount of upgrades that they can get away with. I'd say that 10 times is completely unacceptable, vista could be around for years and lots of us would soon run out.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
Software is absolutely ridiculous, what other thing do we pay money for where we would accept such second rate performance, you buy it then you have to download the latest fix. Would we accept that with anything else, imagine having to download a fix for your microwave before you can cook a potato.
To cap it all we download the beta versions so that we can test it for them, then they treat us like this.
People power is the only way we can get round this, so keep on raging. Big Brother Microsoft is listening.
Isn't it the situation with microsoft that you don't buy the software but you buy a licence to use it?
And when you do so you agree to the licence conditions.
Therefore if you don't like the licence then don't buy it.
Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
That is essentially the same for any software but the crux is you cant usually read the license conditions without breaking the seal.Which makes the software non returnable to the vendor.
I don't think 10 hardware changes is completely unreasonable.