Vista license revised!

csmager · 3 Nov 2006 at 11:52

achitophel said:
So, as a matter of interest, does that mean that people generally buy the retail version of the OS, on the basis that it will be cheaper in the long run? I know that the mobo is one of the least frequently upgraded parts, but even still, I'd expect to go through 3 - 4 mobos in a 5 - 6 year period (assuming Vista has the equivalent life of XP)

If you're going to buy a copy near the start of its lifetime, it would be far more adviseable to spend a little more and get the Retail version - especially now the restrictions on transfer are no more. As you say, if you went OEM you'd more than likely run into problems with the license during the 5 years you might be using it.

dark_matter · 3 Nov 2006 at 13:38

bledd. said:
all that shouting and screaming paid off lads, lol

Quite. Despite the protests from the fanboys.

bledd · 3 Nov 2006 at 13:48

can't believe its finally coming out either

release date is my birthday

Toothpick · 3 Nov 2006 at 14:03

This is good news.

Burnsy2023 · 3 Nov 2006 at 15:09

I am surprised. Not at the fact that they have been revised, I expected that, but not so soon. Looks like MS are listening to customers, they have hope yet.

Lets see if we have to live with other restrictions, such as the virtualisation rules. I expect they'll stay.

I am still very concerned at the VLK situation though.

Burnsy

Meatball · 3 Nov 2006 at 17:46

well that's good news

I think the only reason they actually changed the license is because they realised they would loose a lot of gamers (since most gamers upgrade often) If they never changed the license I wonder how it might have effected the PC gaming market? :confused:

Macro · 3 Nov 2006 at 18:54

dark_matter said:
Quite. Despite the protests from the fanboys.

The fact that MS have listened to feedback from customers and revised a first pass license for a product that hadn't yet been released would suggest those "fanboys" as you put it were right in the assumption that the EULA wasn't final and MS wasn't inherrantly out to screw people for the hell of it. MS has on this occasion behaved in a reasonable manner and is deserving of some kudos from the anti MS brigade for a change.

Comon, you can't have it both ways.

Digital Punk · 3 Nov 2006 at 20:09

IMO they should never have tried to implement such draconian licensing in the first place.

Burnsy2023 · 3 Nov 2006 at 21:29

Digital Punk said:
IMO they should never have tried to implement such draconian licensing in the first place.

MS need to protect themselves against piracy, I understand that. However, it feels like they were counter-productive. You can't blame MS for trying though.

Burnsy

teaboy5 · 3 Nov 2006 at 23:40

Energize said:
Vista just made my games load slower as everything got paged to the hdd because it used 800mb ram. And it still doesn't offer anything extra for all that memory used that xp didn't.

Well heres the thing, no one will ever force you to buy it, so don't worry all is safe in the world

Energize · 3 Nov 2006 at 23:50

teaboy5 said:
Well heres the thing, no one will ever force you to buy it, so don't worry all is safe in the world

Apart from the fact that loads of programs are going to start needing dx10 which won't be avalible for xp until someone hacks it....

Craig321 · 4 Nov 2006 at 02:19

PARUK said:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/index.php?p=166&tag=nl.e589

Just as well too

Glad to hear it

NathanE · 4 Nov 2006 at 08:53

Keep in mind EULA's are written by Microsoft's lawyers and not by anyone in power for the company. Lawyer's tend to go overboard when it comes to giving their client the maximum amount of rights possible. Especially when their client is Microsoft.

Radiation · 4 Nov 2006 at 13:22

They could improve things further by selling the retail pack for less, as its only software it can't really cost that much to make copies, its better to have more people buying a product for less than less people buying a product for more, that way everyone wins.

Biohazard · 4 Nov 2006 at 13:26

Thats a bit better. When I heard about the previous licence I thought they were seriously shooting themselves in the foot.

Makes me more likely to purchase it.

Burnsy2023 · 4 Nov 2006 at 17:32

NathanE said:
Keep in mind EULA's are written by Microsoft's lawyers and not by anyone in power for the company. Lawyer's tend to go overboard when it comes to giving their client the maximum amount of rights possible. Especially when their client is Microsoft.

I was reading the MS Vista developer's blog and it seemed as though the MS production team wrote it and the points of transferrance were most deinfetly deliberate.

Burnsy

achitophel · 5 Nov 2006 at 13:42

burnsy2023 said:
I was reading the MS Vista developer's blog and it seemed as though the MS production team wrote it and the points of transferrance were most deinfetly deliberate.

Burnsy

Speaking as someone who is a lawyer in a large city law firm, these things are never accidental. On a point which has huge commercial significance, that will not be something that the lawyer drafting the EULA will just decide to include for the hell of it ot just to be thorough. That sort of instruction would only come directly from the client (ie in this case MS) and most likely the commercial / sales arm rather than either of the legal / technical arms.

Cyber-Mav · 5 Nov 2006 at 14:40

Energize said:
Still doesn't change the fact that using up loads of memory makes games take longer to load because of caching.

im not bothered how much ram it takes up. windows xp is always tight in memory usage. even when i have loads of ram available it feels the need to throw stuff in the pagefile to conserve ram. bit stupid that is.