I'm finding this a bit hard to believe, but if true, then home builders and frequent modders are going to need to think carefully about buying Vista:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234
Printable View
I'm finding this a bit hard to believe, but if true, then home builders and frequent modders are going to need to think carefully about buying Vista:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234
That is pretty bad, and if it is true, and if it applies to all variations (Ultimate inparticular) then you're gonna have to shell out a lot to keep it.....and you wonder why there is piracy.:rolleyes:
Liam
We are Microsoft...........We......Must.....Have.....Control.....Resistance is futile..... :mad:
If this holds true, then the only way it will become "practical" for home builders/modders is for them to put it on a machine that has today's state-of-the-art hardware on it (future-proofed in other words)....one that will not need upgrades for quite a while. :(
Good point...I do not advocate piracy, but I can see why this kind of foolish stringency just encourages it.Quote:
Originally Posted by liam858
The article was corrected today.
Quote:
Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft's Vista license applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error. The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.
This part is what just may bite us.
Quote:
[Update] Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb Technology News
[Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft's Vista license applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error. The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.]
Microsoft has released licenses for the Windows Vista operating system that dramatically differ from those for Windows XP in that they limit the number of times that retail editions can be transferred to another device.
The new licenses, which were highlighted by the Vista team on its official blog Tuesday, add new restrictions to how and where Windows can be used.
"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.
And in the for what its worth catagory - I've been unsuccessful in getting an image of Vista to work.
Yes I had seen recent mention of the last paragraph refering to limited access on another forum.I believe it will allow only one hour increments per day of limited browsing or data access before the system shuts down/logs off again.
And the issues with lack of third party software support may be down to design to prevent system instability.
Microsoft is within their rights to do whatever they want with their product.
I am within my rights to point out to everyone I know that Vista will not be worth purchasing if the retail license is so limited. I'm enough of a stinker to mail Bill Gates a copy of Ubuntu and tell him that this is now what I recommend to my customers for ease of use ( :) ), transferability ( :D ) and price. ( https://discussions.virtualdr.com/im...2007/03/11.gif )
What an idiotic decision! Only in a perfect world is there no theft. In this world, people steal free stuff. I think this is the law of diminishing returns in action. MS will hurt themselves in the eyes of many to prevent the actions of a few.
Well I've pretty much given up on Linux as much of an alternative, Linux fanboys are their own worst enemies. Now OS X, on the other hand, if Apple were to release that for PC's, could lead to some real competition for Windows (which IMO would be good for everyone, including MS - competition is always a good thing). And look how reasonable the licence termas are for OS X too.
Unfortunately, I don't think they really care. They know that their OS is on 95% of the world's computers....they are in like flint and nobody can do anything about it. They also know that no matter what, Vista is going to be in very high demand. People were yelling and screaming about XP's licensing requirements and yet....here it is; selling like hotcakes (or is it "Pop Tarts" now?).Quote:
Originally Posted by lgbpop
:D I was considering taking the Microsoft Certified Desktop Support Technician course and exams (for XP).....but I guess I'll just have to wait for the Vista version now. :D I think the first lesson of THAT course will be "How to Talk People Out of Arguing About The Vista License Requirements and Just Buy It Anyway". :rolleyes:
I wonder what would happen if you ghosted an image before you transferred and then put it back on the original machine?
"This ain't good."
A little info for those not part of the present Vista program who may already be aware of these features
Windows Software Protection Platform
Quote:
Let's call it WGA Plus, shall we? The Plus means this software, which is baked into Windows Vista, is even more aggressive about detecting and blocking what it considers software that is running with unauthorized license keys or has been tampered with. And woe be unto you if you get snagged in the WGA - sorry, SPP dragnet while running Vista. If that happens on a premium version of Windows Vista, you'll first lose access to key features, including the Aero interface, ReadyBoost performance enhancements, and Windows Defender antispyware detection. Eventually, if you don't deal with the problem, the measures get more severe and you're kicked into "reduced functionality mode":
....................
By choosing "Access your computer with reduced functionality," the default Web browser will be started and the user will be presented with an option to purchase a new product key. There is no start menu, no desktop icons, and the desktop background is changed to black. The Web browser will fully function and Internet connectivity will not be blocked. After one hour, the system will log the user out without warning
................
Corporations using Vista with VLKs will have to activate them, using either a Multiple Activation Key that allows a limited number of activations, or a Key Management Service running on a Windows domain (which will require periodic reactivation). The new program is called Volume Activation 2.0, and you can read more details in this white paper).
.........................
And in the sort of irony that invariably goes hand in hand with hubris, a wave of new problem reports have begun appearing on the official Microsoft WGA Validation Problems forum from corporate customers reporting that legitimate VLKs for Windows XP are suddenly being blocked.
I just don't see how MS is going to convince people to buy Vista instead of XP. XP is not Windows 98. Most of us are perfectly happy using XP, so why upgrade and limit ourselves with Vista? I think MS are shooting themselves in the foot with this one.
What about OEM versions? I dread to hear what they plan for that version. Will they now not allow you to use the same OEM version if you change the hard disk, RAM or processor?
"reduced functionality mode"......in other words, if you mess around with it, Microsoft will make you into a cyber-eunuch..... :eek:
At least this won't be hard coded into the OS, but rather depends on how they set up the activation servers. So if enough people protest, or downright refuse to buy Vista, my bet is that they'll change those terms PDQ. I'm starting to see a fair amount of negative comment around already, and the news has only been out a couple of days :rolleyes:
Hi ... Have a read on this link below
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
HIH
Microsoft think they got problem with pirating now, they will find out how much pirating will be happening once vista is released. What Microsoft and other software company must realize, any technology that was created by man, can be cracked and by a man. Basically the only thing that Microsoft will accomplish with vista, is more pirating. Yes those that got no idea what they are doing will be forced to buy but the rest of people for ex "much of people on this board that have thousand of post" have the knowledge on either finding way them self to get around the activation or find a place from which they can get this info.
I think more importantly (or to expand on your train of thought?)most people/companies have invested $$$ in software that will only run on a Windows OS ,so if buying a computer(s) after Vista is released they will be forced to accept the licence agreement or shell out for whole new software lineup.Individuals aren't going to have the means to replace all of their software(s) and Companies aren't going to have the Desire ,thats what they pay their IT guys/gals for.Quote:
Originally Posted by bistro
And of that 95%, a hugh percent won't care or need to know abut the new license. They buy a computer and use it till it dies without upgrading..Quote:
Originally Posted by bistro
Quote:
Originally Posted by ylen13
I somewhat agree with you , I don't get it what Microsoft is trying to pull off , If I can't transfer my OS to more then one computer ? Then I would rather get a pirate copy of Vista when it becomes available , I really would rather not go into that direction but I don't think people are going to pay out that kind of cash just to transfer to other computers
All I can say is,I seriously doubt I will have any need for Windows Vista at all!
Until they can prove to me it has more benefits than XP-Pro, it just doesn't make sense to buy it. The media thing imho is crap! I can do all those things and more with a few third party programs and much better afaic...
"Not interested in Windows 95....I just learned Windows for Workgroups and THAT is hard enough!" ---Bistro the IgnorantQuote:
Originally Posted by Ridgerunr
"What's Windows 98 got that Windows 95 doesn't?? Phooey! I won't waste my money!" --- Bistro the Satisfied
"XP-schmex-P! Just pure eye-candy that has a rotten licensing agreement! You gotta be crazy as a loon to fall for it! Bleccch! I can do without it!" --- Bistro the Cynic
"Ooooooooo! Vista!! Look at the cool 3D cascading windows and the neato-keeno Start menu! I LIKE dat!" --- Bistro the Loon
Funnily enough, this is what many people thought back then, and are probably thinking now. Personally, I am too much of a sucker to miss out on what others have. But the fact is, there has never been an operating system that has satisfied my needs as XP has. It certainly meets my own criteria and I am very happy using it (as opposed to older OS's). From what I've read, besides the eye candy, Vista doesn't have enough new features to warrant throwing XP out the window (no pun intended) and installing Vista.Quote:
Originally Posted by bistro
I will get Vista through MS Action Pack, but if I didn't, I highly doubt I would go out and buy it for at least 3 years (when MS will stop supporting XP).
Despite the lousy licensing, I know I will still get it....but it will be a XP-Vista dual boot for quite some time. Already finding it difficult to get some drivers that are Vista-compatible and some of my coveted legacy programs won't run at all. I DO like most of the new functions that Vista offers....at least someone is still thinking up there in Redmond.
I like what's in Vista too, for the most part. But what does surprise me is the things that haven't changed (some of which people have been complaining about for years). Like Windows Explorer still won't open to the size that you want. And in this super secure OS, file extensions are still hidden by default. And they still have "automatically restart" checked in System Properties. I could go on and on.
Anyway, my Vista rig's mobo died this weekend, so my testing days are over for a while, until I get it fixed - there is no real chance of getting Vista to run on my older machine :(
Yeah....I've noticed you still have to go through the OS and disable/uncheck the same old nuisances.
I'm perfectly happy using Win98SE, WinMe and Win2k at home but my almost 6 year old PC is getting ready to push up daisy's so I need to by a new PC that will probably have XP installed by default.Quote:
Originally Posted by usil
By default of the manufacturer, or are you going to build your own?
As I'll probably go with Dell or HP it will be by manufacturer default.
I am going to try very hard not to buy Vista for two reasons, price and this ridiculous licensing rubbish.
Why dont we all get together and make a mass pledge not to buy it, we could even close this Vista forum in protest. At the end of the day most of us here are nuts about computers and these licensing rules need to be changed.
If we closed the Vista forum and stated clearly why it would soon spread to other forums and I guarantee that Microsoft would take notice. So I say lets take action and get Microsoft to change their mind why there is still time.
Remember a feint heart never won a fair license.
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?