MS - "OEM Vista on home built PCs is UNLICENSED"

Fire Wizard · 22 Mar 2008 at 16:26

RoachycaL said:
This stuff is totally stupid.

Hello RoachycaL, sorry but what exactly is stupid about it?

RoachycaL said:
I bought an x64bit OEM DVD to find that the motherboard I am planning to upgrade will not activate.

When you went out to buy a Windows OEM license, you should fully understand the licensing terms of that particular license. I'm afraid that is down to you and not Microsoft.

You cannot transfer an OEM license from one system (Microsoft deem the motherboard to be the heart of a system, so to speak - Change the motherboard in a system, time to purchase a new license) to another without violating the terms of the EULA. If you are the sort of person to upgrade your system (Changing your motherboard for performance upgrade purposes) on a fairly regular basis, then you would be far better of purchasing a Retail license.

As Burnsy2023 has already said, why purchase a license if in the future, you're going to invalid it?

RoachycaL said:
If Microsoft are going to carry on like this with their OEM

I don't quite understand why you think Microsoft's OEM licensing terms are stupid, what exactly is wrong with them?

Burnsy2023 · 22 Mar 2008 at 16:28

RoachycaL said:
This stuff is totally stupid. I bought an x64bit OEM DVD to find that the motherboard I am planning to upgrade will not activate. Before this, I was pirating vista for a year with no problem - If Microsoft are going to carry on like this with their OEM bs I'm continuing to pirate... at least it means if I re-install/fit new hardware I wont need to worry.

Or you could just buy the retail version and then have the same freedon without the piracy

Burnsy

RoachycaL · 22 Mar 2008 at 16:40

Burnsy2023 said:
Or you could just buy the retail version and then have the same freedon without the piracy

Burnsy

& An empty wallet

I really don't think I'm the only one here who thinks this is annoying. I'm not the only one thats upgrading my motherboard and others will run into this problem as well.

@ Fire Wizard

What I find stupid is that when I upgrade my pc, I have to pay for another windows license. It dosnt make any difference that the motherboard is the "heart" of the system, I'm still upgrading a piece of hardware.

However I'm not prepared to argue, I'm sure there will be plenty of people in my situation who are equally annoyed.

Slam62 · 22 Mar 2008 at 16:51

Well you'll all be pleased to know that MS are reducing the cost of retail vista ---- in mainland europe, not the UK because UK sales are holding up

Mr.Clark · 22 Mar 2008 at 17:18

RoachycaL said:
What I find stupid is that when I upgrade my pc, I have to pay for another windows license. It dosnt make any difference that the motherboard is the "heart" of the system, I'm still upgrading a piece of hardware.

You're paying less for OEM because of that restriction.

If you want to swap it to a new motherboard, you get the more expensive licence. If you'll keep the same one, you can get away with the cheaper version.

What's so hard to understand?

Durzel · 22 Mar 2008 at 18:10

Rainmaker said:
Hi guys,
rant

You didn't do it right though did you.

What were you actually expecting from the conversation? You knowingly (?) bought the wrong licence for your installation and then complain when you're told you're unlicenced? Retail is for home users, OEM is for system builders. Why do you think it costs less than the retail version?

Burnsy2023 · 22 Mar 2008 at 18:26

Durzel said:
You didn't do it right though did you.

What were you actually expecting from the conversation? You knowingly (?) bought the wrong licence for your installation and then complain when you're told you're unlicenced? Retail is for home users, OEM is for system builders. Why do you think it costs less than the retail version?

But the point is, he DID do it right and he IS licensed.

Burnsy

RoachycaL · 22 Mar 2008 at 18:56

Mr.Clark said:
What's so hard to understand?

Theres nothing there that I don't understand, infact I didn't even say that in the first place!

Rainmaker · 22 Mar 2008 at 19:25

Durzel said:
You didn't do it right though did you.

What were you actually expecting from the conversation? You knowingly (?) bought the wrong licence for your installation and then complain when you're told you're unlicenced? Retail is for home users, OEM is for system builders. Why do you think it costs less than the retail version?

As Burnsy has already kindly pointed out in my defence, I DID do it right and I AM licenced :rolleyes:

Perhaps before you post to belittle me you should actually read the rest of the thread and find out what happened, and about the apology I received from MS?

Hint: OEM is perfectly suitable for home users and does not leave them unlicenced. The first "tech support" guy made a mistake. Not me.

gareth170 · 22 Mar 2008 at 19:51

Durzel said:
You didn't do it right though did you.

What were you actually expecting from the conversation? You knowingly (?) bought the wrong licence for your installation and then complain when you're told you're unlicenced? Retail is for home users, OEM is for system builders. Why do you think it costs less than the retail version?

any home user that have built they own system can buy oem windows. it just means they can't upgrade the motherboard with that license... it isn't wrong to buy oem windows, it just depends do u upgrade every few months or not...

simple as that.....

Macro · 22 Mar 2008 at 22:04

gareth170 said:
any home user that have built they own system can buy oem windows. it just means they can't upgrade the motherboard with that license... it isn't wrong to buy oem windows, it just depends do u upgrade every few months or not...

simple as that.....

Exactly, with OEM you get a substantialy discounted copy of Vista in exchange for what is in effect a fairly minor restriction.

If you want full tranferability get a retail version, assuming you already have an OS the upgrade version isn't hugely expensive compared to other bits of your PC.

The problem is people want their cake and eat it. They want the discounted version and then want to ignore the restriction it carries making it discounted in the first place. They then rant at people like Burnsy for pointing it out.

Customer: "I'll take the cheap concert ticket for £10 please"
Shop: "Certainly, that's £10 but you can only go to the concert on the tuesday and the seat is at the back. We do have a royal box ticket for opening night at £50 if you'd like it"
Customer: "No thanks, the cheapest version will do for me".
Shop: "Ok sir, thankyou for your custom"

2 weeks later

Customer: "I took this ticket you sold me and demanded to be let into the royal box for opening night of the concert, there was no one else in the box so I reckon that's fair"
Shop: "Errrrrr... we could have sold you tickets for the box on opening night but that's more expensive. You did know that sir. Your tickets were cheap because although you saw and heard the concert there was some restrictions, hence the discount."
Customer: "You $uck, I shouldn't have any restrictions just because I bought the restricted, discounted version, you make profit and that's not right, it's not like I stole anything, there was no one else in the box, I bought a ticket so I should be allowed in!!!!11111oneone!!1"
Shop: "wtf?"

Brian Stuart · 22 Mar 2008 at 22:32

Love the analogy.

mrgubby · 22 Mar 2008 at 23:09

or another analogy

Having the choice of a Focus 1.6 LX for £10K but you could only park it in one garage and had to leave it with the house when you moved or a Focus ST500 for £19K that you could take with you when you moved.

You get Vista in two flavours OEM (budget) and Retail , the difference in the products is packaging / manuals and 1 years support. Thats what your money buys you , it shouldn't be a totally artificial licensing system.

I know its a buisness and Microsoft are entitled to sell / charge what they want but it does make me scratch my head at the logic behind it

[TW]Fox · 22 Mar 2008 at 23:26

Burnsy2023 said:
I think your referring to the contract of sale and not the acceptance of the EULA.

My understanding is that in UK law, a contract cannot be applied retrospectively. The case for this is Some Bloke vs Brighton Council, from the early part of last century. A guy hired a deckchair and injured himself on it. The council pointed to a clause on the back of his ticket saying they were not liable for injury. They lost the case as the clause is only viewable after purchase of the service/product.

You don't get to read the EULA of a Microsoft product until after you've purchased it - nobody has challenged it in law yet but...

Macro · 22 Mar 2008 at 23:32

You do however get the opportunity to view the EULA before you carry out the install and are told clearly that if you do not agree to the EULA you should not continue to install the software, and should return it for a full refund.

Just like items covered by the distance selling regulations you are given an opportunity to inspect the item (in this case the terms of the EULA) and if it doesn't fit your requirements you don't install it, return it and get your money back.

Hardly unreasonable methinks.

[TW]Fox;11349215 said:
You don't get to read the EULA of a Microsoft product until after you've purchased it - nobody has challenged it in law yet but...

Presumably because they'd lose. I'd have thought given the EU's propensity to take MS to court, they (or a US class action lawsuit for that matter), would have hauled MS, and other software publishers in years ago if they thought there was a problem.

pumaz · 23 Mar 2008 at 00:13

Mkaes me wish there was more support for Linux, Think i'll just stick with XP for now

Bomag · 23 Mar 2008 at 00:18

mrgubby said:
Having the choice of a Focus 1.6 LX for £10K but you could only park it in one garage and had to leave it with the house when you moved or a Focus ST500 for £19K that you could take with you when you moved.

A more accurate analogy is that you could by the Focus 1.6 Style (since they stopped making LXs) for £10k but you cannot move house, or you could pay £20k for the same car but take it with you. You don't get any better car (or OS) it's just cheaper.

Dolph · 23 Mar 2008 at 08:08

[TW]Fox;11349215 said:
My understanding is that in UK law, a contract cannot be applied retrospectively. The case for this is Some Bloke vs Brighton Council, from the early part of last century. A guy hired a deckchair and injured himself on it. The council pointed to a clause on the back of his ticket saying they were not liable for injury. They lost the case as the clause is only viewable after purchase of the service/product.

You don't get to read the EULA of a Microsoft product until after you've purchased it - nobody has challenged it in law yet but...

MS offer a returns system for those who read and disagree with the EULA though, the fact that many retailers refuse to honour this is not MS' fault.

Slam62 · 23 Mar 2008 at 11:30

hmm, if you bought a cattle class ticket but they let you sit in first, would you refuse?

Macro · 23 Mar 2008 at 13:12

Maybe, and maybe not - but would I then accuse them of sucking and being lucky I bought a ticket at all if I was asked to sit in the area appropriate for the tickets I had actually bought?

If someone wants to ignore the rules of the EULA then that's entirely a decision for their own honesty, the MS (and majority of software publishers) licensing system is based on trust. What I don't get is when the same people try to justify themselves here that somehow it's MS fault and rant at people like Burnsy when they highlight facts.

/shrug