Vista license

[Macro]

Why is it unfair in law? It's the terms the company chooses to supply it's products under, if you don't agree with them then don't use it, it's that simple. Stick with XP, OSX, Linux, whatever...

There have been EULAs for god knows how long - have you ever heard of one being overturned by a court? Nope, me neither.

Perhaps as a follow up you'd suggest taking Tesco to court for pricing it's baked beans too high for your liking and being restrictive by not allowing you to walk around it's store shouting ASDA is cheaper.

What's next, suggest taking OCUK to court by restricting your right to free speech by not allowing you to discuss competators on these boards? You look at the terms of a product or service ad then make an informed decision if you want to use/buy it or not.

Whilst there's some informative and interesting discussion about MS and Vista on these boards I really wish the few hardcore anti MS whiners would just live up to their threats, go load Linux / buy a mac and leave the rest of us in peace.

I can't believe how many people get away with condoning/suggesting piracy is OK on a forum funded by a company that makes it's money from selling hardware & software, talk about biting the hand tht feeds you! Spie & OCUK make the money to run the business, pay wages that people spend on other things with other businesses from selling this stuff, it's simple economics. Do you honestly believe MS pockets the whole £180 or whatever Vista Home premium is?

Now if it's just a question of if one additional xfer of license is is enough I'd tend to agree that for a retail version absolutely not. Having said that I'll be interested to see the terms defined a little more. Is an upgrade of H/W a move or are MS now saying upgrade a PC as much as you like but only move it to a whole new PC once? Answers on apostcard please

 

[Jimbo]

K.M.A.

Sorry.

 

[dirtydog]

Whilst there's some informative and interesting discussion about MS and Vista on these boards I really wish the few hardcore anti MS whiners would just live up to their threats, go load Linux / buy a mac and leave the rest of us in peace.

I don't see any anti-MS whiners in this thread, just people not wanting to waste their hard-earned money. If the EULA restrictions in the retail-boxed product are as truly as restrictive as it appears then it is quite astonishing, and I suspect the EU will not find them acceptable. And by the way you really need to read the link in my sig.

 

[killjohnnybravo]

Athanor

I never started this thread as a anti ms thread, if people become anti ms its ms fault. As for piracy I have 2 pc's and bought 2 retail upgrade copies of XP. I upgrade both pc's from time to time and having to spend £500 on a os for the pc's just to be able to upgrade when I need to is disgusting on ms part. The way DX10 has been handled and the license for vista cheaper copies being restrictive, I still believe it was a decision to boost profits and with DX10 to try and force people to upgrade, they could have made it work with XP if they wanted to. £150 is not cheap for something that can only be used for 1 upgrade of the mobo.

I have spent plenty of money on ms os over the years and don't see why such a rich company needs to rip off loyal customers. To me you buy a license and as long as you use it on 1 pc at any one time the owner of the license should be able to install the os as many times as they want to on upgrading their pc or on a new build.

 

[Slam62]

totally agree

 

[bledd]

if you read that paul t's website, can't remember his surname, thorrett or something..

he says this is the case with xp retail, and that people have wrongly interpreted the vista licencing

-currently if you change a lot of hardware with xp, it can fail activation, calling ms will resolve the issue, this will be the case with vista retail too (at least thats what i gathered) as he says, the retail market is about 3-5% of the total xp userbase

 

[dirtydog]

if you read that paul t's website, can't remember his surname, thorrett or something..

he says this is the case with xp retail, and that people have wrongly interpreted the vista licencing

-currently if you change a lot of hardware with xp, it can fail activation, calling ms will resolve the issue, this will be the case with vista retail too (at least thats what i gathered) as he says, the retail market is about 3-5% of the total xp userbase

Here... http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

I disagree with his conclusions though.

There's a funny myth going around that says you have a right to transfer a single copy of Windows XP (or any previous Windows version) to as many computers as you like, as often as you like, and for any reason you like. This myth exists because the Windows XP EULA is vaguely worded. It states, "You may move [Windows XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove [Windows XP] from the former Workstation Computer." Pundits argue, incorrectly, that this EULA implicitly allows any user to continually move a single copy of Windows XP from machine to machine as often as they'd like. One online pundit decided this meant that "there are no restrictions on the number of times you can transfer the software from one computer to another in your household or office." That person is, however, incorrect. As it turns out, the Windows license is pretty simple: Windows is tied to a single device (typically a PC), and not to a person.

As a side note, I should add something since this argument is widely misunderstood. Would it be "better" if Windows were licensed to an individual? Sure, but that's not reality. The important thing to remember is that, with Vista, this device-based emphasis has not changed. Windows is, as always, not licensed to an individual. It's licensed to a device. One device.

The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single copy of XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention. "This clause was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example."

The problem, of course, was that some people felt they could install a single copy of Windows as many times as they wanted. "It's always been per copy, per device," Boettcher said.

With Windows Vista, the EULA has been clarified. It now explicitly states that a user may "reassign the [Windows Vista] license to another device one time." This, the pundits say, is a huge restriction that wasn't present in Windows XP. Many people incorrectly believe this to be the case.

So while the original XP EULA might have been worded contrary to what Microsoft INTENDED, the fact remains that the XP EULA *did* permit unlimited transfers of the licence to different computers, provided it was only ever used on one computer at once.

Microsoft can't just say 'ah but we never intended that' - it was there in black and white in the XP EULA. Now in the Vista EULA it is specifically forbidden to do more than one transfer.

If it only affects such a tiny percentage of users and is no big deal then why the hell are Microsoft including such a restrictive clause? And one which makes the very expensive retail license almost as bad as the far cheaper OEM one? It doesn't add up and I don't buy the damage limitation, PR spin they are attempting to put on it here.

 

[Macro]

Athanor

....snip...
I have spent plenty of money on ms os over the years and don't see why such a rich company needs to rip off loyal customers. To me you buy a license and as long as you use it on 1 pc at any one time the owner of the license should be able to install the os as many times as they want to on upgrading their pc or on a new build.

Microsoft is a company, XP and Vista are products, they are there to make money to pay their employees and shareholders. That's it. There's nothing more, they don't owe you or me anything. You bought a product (XP) for a price, you used it. Loyalty has nothing to do with it and is just emotive language. As a user of a service or product you are not being particularly "loyal" to MS, they just supplied a product you wanted to use.

The fact that you bought a product in the past and used it has no effect on a new product. Either buy the product or don't based on your desire for the product or service in relation to your willingness to pay for it.

So while the original XP EULA might have been worded contrary to what Microsoft INTENDED, the fact remains that the XP EULA *did* permit unlimited transfers of the licence to different computers, provided it was only ever used on one computer at once.

Microsoft can't just say 'ah but we never intended that' - it was there in black and white in the XP EULA. Now in the Vista EULA it is specifically forbidden to do more than one transfer.

OK, if I follow your argument MS has done nothing but close a loophole that was never intended to be there in the first place. Now you are complaining that this time they have been more carefull with the wording. To paraphrase your own arguement:

The original VISTA EULA has now been worded to correctly reflect what Microsoft INTENDED, the fact remains that the VISTA EULA *does not* permit unlimited transfers of the licence to different computers.

Oh, and by the way you really need to look at the link below.
________

Basic economics

 

[dirtydog]

OK, if I follow your argument MS has done nothing but close a loophole that was never intended to be there in the first place.

Correct, except MS and Paul Thurrott seem to be denying that it was a loophole and are trying to rewrite history by saying that the XP EULA was equally as restrictive as Vista's, we just never noticed before. That is wrong

Oh, and by the way you really need to look at the link below.

My knowledge of economics appears to be superior to your knowledge of elementary punctuation, but thanks anyway

 

[AtreuS]

Well i cant see many people forking out for the ultimate version then if it will only last you about 9 months or so ( because the kind of people buying the ultimate will be the kind that update their pc often).

I wont be getting vista until i HAVE to... and i suspect many others will feel the same. I paid £130 i think it was for retail xp pro and consider it worth the money considering i still use it after all this time. Id pay upto maybe £200 tops for ultimate vista happily if i was allowed to use the thing i paid for on my pc for years to come. Sadly this now seems not to be the case.

Ive never used pirated software myself but if this turns out to be true then ill be considering it. Nice work microsoft.... you are supposed to be making genuine software more attractive to get not LESS attractive.

 

[Macro]

To be honest i reckon all 99.9% of enthusiasts / home users need is Home Premium which should be about £120ish for an upgrade (or £80ish OEM) initialy. I think the only things that Ultimate has over Home Premium are bitlocker (full volume encryption) and remote desktop.

Certainly nothing of any real consequence.

 

[AtreuS]

To be honest i reckon all 99.9% of enthusiasts / home users need is Home Premium which should be about £120ish for an upgrade (or £80ish OEM) initialy. I think the only things that Ultimate has over Home Premium are bitlocker (full volume encryption) and remote desktop.

Certainly nothing of any real consequence.

And everytime you change motherboard you have to buy it again? nice.....

I think a lot of the problem is what people determine a "new" pc to be. If you had an engine blow out on your ford focus and have a new engine fitted is it then a "new" car? no its not obviously. But change processor and ram and gfx card and i bet vista will reckon you have a new pc!

 

[Macro]

As I mentioned earlier, interestingly there is no reference to upgrades in the EULA quoted, only that you cannot transfer the copy of Vista to a different device. It may well be that there is no restriction on upgrades to a PC at all. I don't thik anyone posting here has ever mentioned having a re activation of XP refused because of an upgrade.

The "tied to the motherboard" restriction was only ever a part of the OEM license.

 

[killjohnnybravo]

This is what happens when a company has a monopoly. I get fed up with people saying linux then. All the software is made for ms platform mainly with a few linux programmes.

Companies who drop on loyal customers from a great height end up paying the price in the end. Yes I bought a product, and this is a new product but they are the same product but just a later generation.

The new hardware will require the new os for latest games to get the best out of them. In the end most people will have to upgrade, well gamers will. If I bought a new pc that came with vista I wouldn't expect to be able to upgrade as liked, but if I am paying the full retail price for the product I expect to be able to upgrade my pc. Who is going to buy the retail price when a cheaper oem copy will do the same.

And who reads the eula, they are too long wrote in legal jargon to confuse. The main poits of the eula should be on the outside packaging. Consumers can then decide if they want the product or not based on the license.

 

[Macro]

And who reads the eula, they are too long wrote in legal jargon to confuse. The main poits of the eula should be on the outside packaging. Consumers can then decide if they want the product or not based on the license.

To be fair you can hardly blame a company for using the same legal language that is used for all contracts. The legal language in a EULA is simple compared to the terms of a bank loan or credit agreement for example, it's absolutely not intended to confuse.

The first thing the EULA says is: "By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit." Seems relatively reasonable and clear to me, you really can't hold a company as unreasonable because you chose not to read the EULA...

 

[dirtydog]

The first thing the EULA says is: "By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit." Seems relatively reasonable and clear to me,

except once you've broken the seal on the software in order to read the EULA, most stores will not accept it back for a refund.

 

[Macro]

If you had an engine blow out on your ford focus and have a new engine fitted is it then a "new" car? no its not obviously.

The OEM license which previously tied the OS to the motherboard (I have no idea if the current Vista EULA we're talking about uses the same definition, there's certainly no refernce to it in the EULA itself) specificaly says it's ok to replace the motherboard if it fails.

But change processor and ram and gfx card and i bet vista will reckon you have a new pc!

It's perfectly OK to change the Proc/GFX and RAM in a PC without replacing the OS without violating the EULA.

However to use your example Buy a 1.6l Ford Focus. Rip the engine out yourself, and put in a 3.0 litre V6, upgrade the body shell with one from a Mondeo and then replace the wheels with catapillar tracks. I'm betting Ford & insurance companies would disagree with you if you said it was still the same car.

 

[Macro]

except once you've broken the seal on the software in order to read the EULA, most stores will not accept it back for a refund.

"If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country". You can't hold Microsoft responsible for the policies of individual shops it has no control over.

 

[dirtydog]

The OEM license which previously tied the OS to the motherboard (I have no idea if the current Vista EULA we're talking about uses the same definition, there's certainly no refernce to it in the EULA itself) specificaly says it's ok to replace the motherboard if it fails.

I thought you had to replace it with another motherboard of the same make and model?

It's perfectly OK to change the Proc/GFX and RAM in a PC without replacing the OS without violating the EULA.

The Vista EULA or the XP one? As far as Vista is concerned, I thought the position was still not clear.

 

[Macro]

I thought you had to replace it with another motherboard of the same make and model?

Which seems perfectly reasonble if you are just replacing a broken motherboard. If that option is no longer available the nearest equivalent would be fine, this has been well documented in numerous threads here. The OP was talking about an engine that "blew out" so translating that to a motherboard failure you would not be breaking the EULA by replacing it and therefore would not need a new copy of the software.

The Vista EULA or the XP one? As far as Vista is concerned, I thought the position was still not clear.

I assume the OP was refering to XP as we've already established there is no reference to replacing a faulty motherboard in the Vista retail EULA being forbidden.

Sorry, I've obviously missed the point you were trying to make.