The Official OcUK Vista Licencing Questions FAQ Thread

[Big red]

can i throw my last tuppance worth in here , this post is growing by the day and it is like a dog chasing its tail , the fact is we dont know what is going to happen until vista has gone into the public domain and like most of us in here we will upgrade at some time in the future . we will have to hold our breath and reload the oem version and see what happens ,other wise we spend the extra money and buy retail then no worries--- i think so let us sit tight and see what happens. one thing is for certain we will learn soon enough how it pans out when the early buyers have problems.

 

[FatRakoon]

Interesting.

I see how you can read into things that we would normally not see for ourselves.

One thing however did strike me and fairly hard too!

While reading the EULA, there is one thing tha realyl got me in a big way, and that is, that activation / validation etc has absolutely nothign at al to do with protecting the customers or making sure that our systems are as up to date as possible or anythign like that... Although it is a by-product...

Its all to do with MS looking aftr No.1

They really dont give a stuff about us, or our rights do they?

Im just so glad that I have no intention of going to Vista... Now or ever!

I only use XP right now, because of games, and Linux does everythign else, and thankfully most of the games I actually give a to55 about will run just spanky under Linux. Only making my move to linux a little quicker.

 

[elite]

Hey guys, just a few questions

1) Does Vista support/use four cores? such as the Intel Core 2 Quadro Extreme Edition QX6700?

2) Am I right in thinking that ALL my current problems will work fine because Vista is just XP but upgraded meaning it will do everything XP does?

3) There are so many different Vista Packages to choose from! Which do I chose? is there anything along the lines of XP Home?

Cheers fella's!!!!

 

[moontan]

I got a XXXX pc from their outlet before christmas with xp home. I want to get vista home premium so just wondering can anyone confirm that the retail version is my only choice.

 

[FatRakoon]

I got a XXXX pc from their outlet before christmas with xp home. I want to get vista home premium so just wondering can anyone confirm that the retail version is my only choice.

Get rid of that name NOW!

 

[Burnsy2023]

I got a XXXX pc from their outlet before christmas with xp home. I want to get vista home premium so just wondering can anyone confirm that the retail version is my only choice.

Or you can use an upgrade licence, unless your going to do a lot of upgrading.

Burnsy

 

[Burnsy2023]

1) Does Vista support/use four cores? such as the Intel Core 2 Quadro Extreme Edition QX6700?

The licence does, I'm not sure about the OS itself, NathanE would probably be the best person to answer that question. A new thread may be better at finding people who know.

2) Am I right in thinking that ALL my current problems will work fine because Vista is just XP but upgraded meaning it will do everything XP does?

Vista is not just XP. It's built on XP, but then Win 2000 was built on NT4 and they are not cross compatible. So, no, not necessarily.

3) There are so many different Vista Packages to choose from! Which do I chose? is there anything along the lines of XP Home?

Have a look at Home Premium.

Burnsy

 

[Burnsy2023]

Snip

Spinstorm, although law isn't my professional area, I've spoken about everythig you've said in one thread or another.

Firstly, your not looking at the right information. The licence you read is the retail licence and not the OEM one and so the terms are different. The text you quoted about moving it to two devices is also outdated, MS have since edited those terms.

Some of the terms in the EULA are a little bit questionable within the EU, especially when you look at the Computer Software Directive 1991

However, you must goto court to overturn these unfair terms and grant you the compensation, be it a new licence or cost of one.

Most people will not be willing to take legal action over this and for the OFT to order a reevulation of the terms in the EULA a legal precendence needs to be set.

It really is worth reading the whole thread before posting

Burnsy

 

[FatRakoon]

At the end of the day, whether we agree to the EULA or not, there is many things that must be pointed out...

We are not forced to buy the software

We do not have to agree with anyhtign that MS say or do

If we use their software, we have to accept what they say.

I suppose that is basically what it all boils down to with Vista and indeed with XP or any other Windows flavour, and should it actually get to court, do we really have any grounds for anything?

Without trying to find some tiny little thing that Vista cannot do and that will have grounds for a court procedure, I really dont think that anyhting we can do or think we can do, will actually have any meat to it.

Its a lovely and nice thought... Hell, if anyone found something that was perfect for taking MS to the cleaners, then hell yes, I would love it... If only to stop MS being such money grabbing sh1th34ds.

But in truth, Im not too sure we do any any footing at all in anything for it to go to court.

Of course, I may still not bee seeing the bigger picture?

 

[moontan]

Or you can use an upgrade licence, unless your going to do a lot of upgrading.

thanks Burnsy, looks like its gonna be very expensive whatever I do

 

[BoomAM]

Hey guys, just a few questions

1) Does Vista support/use four cores? such as the Intel Core 2 Quadro Extreme Edition QX6700?

Yes it will work fine, asuming you get the version of Vista that supports that many cores.

2) Am I right in thinking that ALL my current problems will work fine because Vista is just XP but upgraded meaning it will do everything XP does?

In theory, everything should work fine. Although for the first few months, it might be a bit buggy, until either MS or the software company releases a patch to make it work properly. Exceptions are of course programs that intergrate with the OS or ones that 'optimise' it.

3) There are so many different Vista Packages to choose from! Which do I chose? is there anything along the lines of XP Home?

Im not entirely sure, but i think 'Home Premium' is pretty much the XP Home of all the versions. The best thing to do is look at the feature comparisons between all the versions, and choose which one suits your needs best.

 

[jrodga2k5]

Im not entirely sure, but i think 'Home Premium' is pretty much the XP Home of all the versions. The best thing to do is look at the feature comparisons between all the versions, and choose which one suits your needs best.

Pretty much the Media Center Edition of all of them really since it includes that and only PRemium Home and Ultimate have it!

 

[spinstorm]

You should point me to the updated EULA and let me read it.

But my point was really that you can challange it and create a lot of hassle for microsoft, undoubtdley there are terms in it that fall foul of either UCTA 1977 or SOGA 1979.

The cost of going to the small claims court is minimal and the judge will read what the complaint is and decide very quikly if it gets that far.

My honest feeling as I said is it would not get that far, either MS would activate windows again or agree to activate it before you even got to court, and lets not forget that MS may not even turn up at court if it goes that far in which case the normal guy would win by default as they did not turn up to defend themselves.

And yes you could take MS to court it doesn't matter if you chose windows, it doesnt matter if you accepted the EULA, if the terms are unreasonable you are entitled to compensation in court. Just because you haven't heard anyone challange it doesn't mean its legal.

A good example is the banks, they have for a very long time charged their customers if they go overdrawn or a direct debit cannot be paid. Those charges are in fact illegal and despite doing it for a long long time (I can't even imagine how many years!) they were recently told off by OFT and told they should not charge more than £12 for such situations... and even that is too much - one of the banks has recently been taken to court (I don't recall the details of the top of my head) but the judge said the only charge they should make is the cost of a letter to tell you that you are overdrawn!

Yet the banks still charge at least £12 - although those of you that are observent would realise that is used to be more than £20 recently and when the OFT told them off the reduced it. The fact is if you took the banks to court when they have charged you then you would win and get the charges back... so just because you use a certain service and it is widespread does not mean that the terms of the service are fair and enforcable!

By the way the same applies for credit cards with going over your credit limit or not making a payment ontime - and if you didn't know about that until I mentioned it you can go get some money back now!

 

[Burnsy2023]

You should point me to the updated EULA and let me read it.

But my point was really that you can challange it and create a lot of hassle for microsoft, undoubtdley there are terms in it that fall foul of either UCTA 1977 or SOGA 1979.

The cost of going to the small claims court is minimal and the judge will read what the complaint is and decide very quikly if it gets that far.

My honest feeling as I said is it would not get that far, either MS would activate windows again or agree to activate it before you even got to court, and lets not forget that MS may not even turn up at court if it goes that far in which case the normal guy would win by default as they did not turn up to defend themselves.

You're looking at the right retail EULA, but the quote you posted refers to an earlier EULA.

TBH, I doubt a court will rule against the MS EULA because of unfair terms or fitness for purpose. I would say that the vast mojority of the terms are fair and as long as you are licenced MS is obliged to allow you to activate.

The only clause that could possibly be deemed unlawful is in the OEM licence and refers to it's transferability.

Anyway, we're going off topic.

Burnsy

 

[spinstorm]

But my point is you don't know what a court is going to do so you can't make that judgement specially as your not a lawyer.

But as I said part of going to court is that a settlement must be reached if at all possible before the matter gets to court - this is the law as stated by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) so what that means is if all you want is to activate windows and MS won't do it they risk a harsher judgement and court costs if they fail to settle with you.

That is the same with any civil court case.

 

[Slam62]

You're looking

Anyway, we're going off topic.

Burnsy

Well you're blatantly disagreeing with someone who is (by the look of it) far more qualified than you to make a judgement. You should be making use of his wider knowledge.

If you have information which may change his judgement then please show it to him and let him form a fresh view. If he is being truthful about his qualifications and experience then his opinion is of great value to you and you would do well to learn from it.

We might also question your own authority with regards to these matters and hence the validity of the whole thread.

 

[OzyOly]

Well you're blatantly disagreeing with someone who is (by the look of it) far more qualified than you to make a judgement.

I'd have you know that Burnsy happens to be incharge of software licencing for the part of the company he works for. He has to know to aplly these licences on company computers to do his job understand?
If he didn't know the ins and outs of the EULA then he could get fired or his company could be sued for illegal use of windows.

Now the rest of the post is not directed at you personally but towards many people in this thread;

Burnsy set up this thread to answer the same questions that are clogging up the forums about the different EULA to help people who want to stay legal.

If you don't agree or want to follow the legallities of windows then that is fair enough.
What I'm fed up of is people putting Burnsy down for helping people while trying to justify loopholes and other ways to break the EULA to save money.
You are trying to get other people to acept your view on the EULA so you can justify it to yourself to run an illegal version of windows.
People keep trying to see grey in the EULA but to be honest is is Black and White and there is nothing you can do about it. You either acept is for break it but no matter how much you ***** about it, it will not change.
You know to EULA, you decide whether you want to follow it, but don't have a go at Burnsy for pointing out when you are illegal or not, he is trying to help you.

 

[The Running Man]

A good example is the banks, they have for a very long time charged their customers if they go overdrawn or a direct debit cannot be paid. Those charges are in fact illegal and despite doing it for a long long time (I can't even imagine how many years!) they were recently told off by OFT and told they should not charge more than £12 for such situations... and even that is too much - one of the banks has recently been taken to court (I don't recall the details of the top of my head) but the judge said the only charge they should make is the cost of a letter to tell you that you are overdrawn!

Yet the banks still charge at least £12 - although those of you that are observent would realise that is used to be more than £20 recently and when the OFT told them off the reduced it. The fact is if you took the banks to court when they have charged you then you would win and get the charges back... so just because you use a certain service and it is widespread does not mean that the terms of the service are fair and enforcable!

ow!

yes that is a good example of how the few could screw the many.

as i eluded to earlier in the thread, you may petition against MS EULA... But....

...what would be the outcome if you were to win, and find the OEM rules innapropriate?

MS would simply pull OEM from retail space. simple as. then you would ALL have to buy RETAIL and pay out the big bucks.

in a similar way to how banks are now going to start charging money to account holders (whether they mismanage their money or not...) because of the few who incurred costs and want it back.

SO who wins? MS withdraw OEM from retail, everyone pays retail price for retail copy. no EULA descrepancies with that....

 

[Slam62]

I'd have you know that Burnsy happens to be incharge of software licencing blah blah
you are illegal or not, he is trying to help you.[/B]

What ever I'm sure its a very large and important company but thats got nothing to do with it, he has to do exactly what MS says because thats his job. He is not paid to defend the rights of consumers or to legally analyse the eula. He is paid to blurt out over and over again the MS public spin on the eula. Which is great from MS point of view but not necessarily the correct angle in all matters.

here's hoping this thread is in its death throws

 

[Slam62]

yes that is a good example of how
blah blah
retail price for retail copy. no EULA descrepancies with that....

Well earlier in this thread someone suggested that MS gained world domination by supplying cheap oem copies to pc suppliers and you may well find that in some eu law somewhere because they do that they have to sell retail oem copies as well.

If MS had to charge oems the retail price, you would find a lot of cheap linux computers turning up.