RE: Has MS overstepping the mark with Vista licensing?

Scottland · 22 Oct 2006 at 14:34

5tephen said:
What happens with the likes of MSDN versions? Will they require activation also?

I assume so, whilst I don't mind activating software on a fresh install I wish they would allow me to transfer the license onto a different system if I want to upgrade the mobo & cpu etc.

dark_matter · 22 Oct 2006 at 14:52

Vai said:
It means you cannot run non Business/Ultimate versions in a VM, you should still be able to run a VM with Win98/Dos/Linux on the other versions of Vista.

Doesn't bother me, nor most people, I won't be running a VLK version of Windows.

http://www.istartedsomething.com/20061017/dont-need-windows/

People always say this, it was said back when XP was released, yet I bet 99% of people reading this thread are now on XP

Point 1)
I can't understand MS's attitude that stops me running a vista.home verion in VM. I use VM to test new software prior to installing on my computer. Are you telling me I really need the ultimate edition to this? The business versions are of no use to me.

Point 2)
You may not buy VLK's, but a lot of people here work for companies who do. And the success of windows in the home is really down to sucess of windows in the workplace. If enough companies switch to Apple, or to Linux then you may find mum&pop buying those machines instead of Vista. So, if MS gets this wrong, it will affect you. Even if thats because you phone up a callcentre and they cant access your details because WPA has locked everyone out. Or the company has decided to pass the additional cost of compliance onto you, the consumer.

Point 3)
I understand what your saying, but its a fatal mistake for any company to assume that historical success inevitably leads to future success. You give the customer what they want, not what you think they want, otherwise they will go elsewhere, and no amount of previous success will stop them walking. Sony is a prime example. If the PS3 fails, Sony is under. Unfortunatley consumers are herdlike, and if enough cows think the grass is greener, the rest will follow out of curiosity.

Burnsey2023.

One source for the new licensing restrictions of VLK
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,2180,2033157,00.asp

FishThrower · 22 Oct 2006 at 16:00

VeNT said:
tbh, I'd NEVER install a V1 of any windows. classicaly its been SP3-4 that sorts out most of the bugs, XP seems ok with SP2, will vista be any good at SP0/1? doubt it.
I love windows, without it we wouldn't have the IT world we have today. but I hate being forced to update to a platform that I am unsure of.
I for one will be doing everything I can to get DX10 to work on windows XP (only started using windows XP as my main OS this week).

I dont know why people think like this

XP was fine before SP1 I found, was stable as anything, no idea why anyone would wait for three SPs to be released for a OS before its "acceptable to use"

The RC2 version of Vista is stable enough, I have been using it since RC1 and it has never locked up, I just used Office 2007, MSN Messenger on it mind you, but for games, Its too slow, nothing is going to remove the performance hit, better drivers may reduce it mind you.

DirectX 10? most overhyped feature of the OS

beh · 22 Oct 2006 at 16:47

Point 1 is quite worrying, anyone know specifically what counts as a machine-to-machine transfer?

csmager · 22 Oct 2006 at 17:19

beh said:
Point 1 is quite worrying, anyone know specifically what counts as a machine-to-machine transfer?

No one actually knows for sure yet, as MS haven't given any further information.

For XP OEM licenses, a new machine = new motherboard. Make of that what you will.

AtreuS · 22 Oct 2006 at 17:35

csmager said:
No one actually knows for sure yet, as MS haven't given any further information.

For XP OEM licenses, a new machine = new motherboard. Make of that what you will.

From the rumors doing the rounds even the top end super duper vista retail pack at £350 is only going to let you move it to another mainboard once ( or what ever vista deems a new pc to be ). If this is the case microsoft can go whistle.

Scottland · 22 Oct 2006 at 17:37

What if the motherboard fails? New license?

dark_matter · 22 Oct 2006 at 17:53

Scottland said:
What if the motherboard fails? New license?

I doubt it. However I imagine that you have to replace it with the exact same motherboard. I cannot see MS comprising on this if they plan only one machine-to-machine transfer, otherwise everyone would be saying their motherboard has failed as a way to upgrade. I assume that MS has discretion on how stringent it applies this rule.

Radiation · 22 Oct 2006 at 20:25

I thought xp was bad enough but it sounds like microsoft have really crossed the line this time, talk about intrusive and costly, surely now there should be some clearly defined standards when it comes to the os and software? I know its a complicated issue but standards have worked for most things in the world so far.

Vicar · 22 Oct 2006 at 20:59

Radiation said:
I thought xp was bad enough but it sounds like microsoft have really crossed the line this time, talk about intrusive and costly, surely now there should be some clearly defined standards when it comes to the os and software? I know its a complicated issue but standards have worked for most things in the world so far.

Could go the route of replacing a new MB for a better one, would cost 20 dollars rather than completely paying for a new license...? Who knows.... MS have prob no other option for this, I dont like it either, but its easy after 3 Formats and upgrades to Dual Core etc for me to phone MS and get a new activation code. First time they didnt even ask why I was reactivating, 2nd time, MB replacement, ok, here ya go..... a free phone call and no hassles....

Berserker · 22 Oct 2006 at 23:23

I've already used Vista RC2 enough to know I don't like it. I'm happy enough to stay on XP for as long as it's supported. Mind you, I'm still running Windows NT on at least one system (and that's not supported any more). Make of that what you will.

Anyway, I can neither justify nor afford the upgrade cost for 4 machines anyway (all legit).

PS - before anyone suggests otherwise, DX10 and IE7 be damned. Neither make the slightest difference to me.

philhoole · 24 Oct 2006 at 19:18

There may be another restriction on Vista installation/licensing which I just read today which is a real pain for me if it's true.

With XP I have a big HDD with XP installed and activated. I then clone this partition a couple of times on the same HDD. This means I have an XP partition for my 3D programs, one for games and one for general use. This way keeps everything nice and separate and if I mess up things in one partition, the other two are fine.

It seems MS don't like people doing this and now expect me to get 3 licenses even though it's impossible for me to have more than one instance booted at any time. 3 licenses for 1 machine ! Brilliant !

I am not an MS basher, in fact I think XP is rather good and recently built a high spec Core2Duo machine in preference to a MacPro. But quite honestly I think this (if true) stinks.

MS could lower themselves and offer a multi license pack like Apple do for home users but I bet they won't.

Ultimately I don't have to upgrade anyway. no gun to my head etc etc but is this really not milking things a bit far?

Spudgun · 24 Oct 2006 at 20:12

They can kiss my **** if the retail product won't allow you to upgrade your machine without buying a new license.

However, if this is the case, why would anyone buy a retail copy rather than a much cheaper OEM one?

UOcUK Poopscoop · 24 Oct 2006 at 20:29

Spudgun said:
They can kiss my **** if the retail product won't allow you to upgrade your machine without buying a new license.

Pretty much my view too.

matt100 · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:02

The irony is if ms were more liberal, chances are more people would just buy a copy and keep it for a while rather than heading off to their favourite p2p client to get a free cracked/hacked copy.

Mr Jones · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:03

dark_matter said:
2) Preventing VM applications run anything other than Business of Ultimate editions. I have no idea what this is all about? What exactly is the threat to MS if I wanted to run Windows 98, DOS, Linux or the Home Version of Vista in a VM machine? Why exactly do I need the business or ultimate editions?

* Had to update this to make a bit more sense.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=159

I thought this was out to stick the knife into Bootcamps / Parallel OSX systems? :confused:

Because MS wants anyone running OSX or the likes to get the more expensive version to be able to run it(vista) on a virtual system.

csmager · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:06

Dr Jones said:
I thought this was out to stick the knife into Bootcamps / Parallel OSX systems? Because MS wants anyone running OSX or the likes to get the more expensive version to be able to run it on a virtual system.

Are Macs not actually real? :confused:

Mr Jones · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:09

csmager said:
Are Macs not actually real?

Sorry, bad English. I'll rephrase:

I thought this was MS way of saying, Buy the more exensive versions of Vista to run it in your Apple Intel Macs (via virtualisation programs like Parallel), muhahahaha!

csmager · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:11

Dr Jones said:
Sorry, bad English. I'll rephrase:

I thought this was MS way of saying, Buy the more exensive versions of Vista to run it in your Apple Intel Macs (via virtualisation programs like Parallel), muhahahaha!

I got it, just a bit of a joke. But Bootcamp doesn't apply - as that's not virtualised.

Mr Jones · 24 Oct 2006 at 21:14

csmager said:
I got it, just a bit of a joke. But Bootcamp doesn't apply - as that's not virtualised.

Ohhh....

Hmm, but people running parallel would be annoyed, but then again, Vista doesn't offer anything over XP apart from DX10 - for gaming, which Parallel isn't too good for.

MS is just getting too up tight in terms of user rights.

Will this lead to Vista downfall, I'll have to wait and see.