Vista license

[Burnsy2023]

As far as I know, no one has ever shown the terms to be unlawful unless you know different.

No, thats why I said 'if', but there is definetly potential, especially with the OEM license.

Oh comon - with the amount of class action and other lawsuits thrown at MS. If anyone had the vaguest thought this was the case an individual/company/goverment would have have done it long before now. Any sign of the EU disputing any element of the EULA, nope, that's for a reason. Lets face it, they're hardly shy of giving MS a hard time if they think they have a reason to.

Just because it has yet to be challenged doesn't mean it can be completely enforced. It just takes one person to have the balls.

Yes, but it serves to illustrate just how silly the proposition is soon as you transpose somewhere other than the heroic down trodden computer user fighting against the evil multi billion dollar company.

Don't think that my views are Anit-MS, they're not, in fact most of the time i'm on the other side of the fence. I'm just trying to be objective and think about MS's long term licensing strategy and its pitfalls.

Which is why I don't get a bunch of people here getting their panties in a twist about something that the EULA doesn't even say in the first place

It does however, show a trend of what Microsoft are trying to do with their consumer licensing, and this should be analysed.

As for whether Businesses will jump at the chance to upgrade? Highly doubtful, and people might just start upgrading slowly when SP1 for Vista comes out. It needs to be proven before adopted.

Burnsy

 

[sativa]

Which is why I don't get a bunch of people here getting their panties in a twist about something that the EULA doesn't even say in the first place

It does however, show a trend of what Microsoft are trying to do with their consumer licensing, and this should be analysed.

I can't wait for Vista. I will be purchasing the ultimate version and install on my one computer and each time, as and when, I upgrade. Thank you MS.

 

[dirtydog]

The support for XP is:

Mainstream support will end two years after the next version of this product is released (i.e. Vista). Extended support will end five years after mainstream support ends.

So support is Jan 09 for mainstream and then Jan 2014 for extended support.

Good I expect to be sticking with XP for several years to come.

 

[wwwebber]

- most of you are from the UK yes ? then keep it British and start spelling properly please :-

License - American spelling
Licence - British spelling

 

[regulus]

Well, I won't be buying Vista then. I'll just....acquire it at a later stage

 

[fornowagain]

And that's the problem with much of this thread, it's very little fact and lot's of opinion and dramatics.

Well he did write it in Dec 05.

And the quote and link was in reference to a lack of DX10 in XP. Showing that 9.L is a Vista development.

It's certainly not DX10 for XP.

The most important point to realise with Direct3D 10 is that whilst it retains many similarities with previous iterations it was fundamentally redesigned from the ground up. For a start, it's intended to be for Windows Vista only – that is, you will not be running Direct3D 10 applications on Windows XP.

Application compatibility is a big factor in a new OS such that DirectX 9 applications built for Windows XP will still work under Windows Vista, and there will even be an updated version of DirectX 9 to take advantage of the new driver model in Vista ("DirectX 9.L").

For the time period running up to Windows Vista (currently estimated somewhere towards the end of 2006) it makes sense to continue developing for DirectX 9 with an eye towards targeting DirectX 9.L (as and when details are available). If you follow the guidelines in this article (as well as any others you can find) then updating to be Direct3D 10 compatible (or to make use of its features) should be fairly straight forward.

 

[stoofa]

Well, I won't be buying Vista then. I'll just....acquire it at a later stage

Good for you.
I had a read through your profile and I agree - I think the world owes you a living and you shouldn't have to buy it.
You're just more special than everyone else and you should get it for free.

 

[stoofa]

- most of you are from the UK yes ? then keep it British and start spelling properly please :-

License - American spelling
Licence - British spelling

This grammar is incorrect.
You are ending a question with an answer and then asking if the answer to your question is correct.
Your question should simply have been:

Are most of you from the UK?

Or a similar phrase.
Also notice the "Full Stop" at the bottom of a question mark?
Your "then" should have had a capital "T" as it comes after a Full Stop.

I'm sure somebody will now point out mistakes with this post - but that is always the danger when you attempt to point our spelling and grammar issues in other peoples posts.

 

[Burnsy2023]

My point was that MS are tightening their Licence terms and their strategy is focused on device licensing without concurrancy.

Burnsy

 

[wwwebber]

This grammar is incorrect.
You are ending a question with an answer and then asking if the answer to your question is correct.
Your question should simply have been:

Are most of you from the UK?

Or a similar phrase.
Also notice the "Full Stop" at the bottom of a question mark?
Your "then" should have had a capital "T" as it comes after a Full Stop.

I'm sure somebody will now point out mistakes with this post - but that is always the danger when you attempt to point our spelling and grammar issues in other peoples posts.

Plank.

 

[fornowagain]

Plank.

You started it

 

[killjohnnybravo]

Oh well at least they admit when they are wrong. Back to square one now with DX10 and XP.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35140

We have been well and truely screwed. There is no way am I buying vista and sod the DX10 games.

 

[Macro]

Seems a reasonable approach. Some people will be interested in what Vista has to offer, some will be perfectly happy with XP for the next couple of years and will end up getting Vista on a new PC or as an OEM install at some point in the furture with a major hardware upgrade (or indeed never).

I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary. /shrug

Like I say, it's all really just forum dramatics about a non issue.

 

[d.chatten]

What makes me laugh is the term "clarify" or "clarification" of the XP EULA, how can MS clarify something that wasn't there in the first place, if this "one transfer only" was in the EULA for XP in one form or another, then MS could clarify that term, but as far as i know it wasn't, so it seems to me that MS are using the term "clarify" or "clarification" to cover their backs to try and make the changes to the EULA more exceptable.

 

[dark_matter]

Erm, back on topic. Just had this delivered to my mailbox. Perhaps this clarifies things. Basically your Vista license will only be transferable once, and once only.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9590_22-6126379.html?tag=nl.e589

I don't care about suing multinational companies. I dont care about EULA's. Im not here to argue about the correct grammer, americanisms or intellectual point scoring. This is not a debate, its a forum. What I do care about is value for money, and that if I pay several hundred quid for something I expect to be able to keep using it if it doesnt break. Its like Sony or Belling telling me I can only move my TV/Cooker to two different houses, after that I have to buy a new one. Phffft. As if. And although I don't condone piracy, microsoft may have opened a can of worms with this. Because if general joe cant use his legit product more than twice, he isnt going to pay full whack a third time... And personally, in that instance it isnt piracy. Is it. Its just greed on behalf of Microsoft. its not as though they are short of cash. Is it.

Flame me if you want. Its my opinion, and I think its just a general down the line average joe opinion.

Crickey. Just read the bit about Virtualisation. I did NOT know that about Virtualisation and XP. MS dont warn you about this when they are giving out Virtual PC 2004. Not clearly anyway. Had to edit my post.

 

[Burnsy2023]

I do agree that this has opened a huge can of worms, and I'km dubious to whether MS will stand firm on this or offer an alternative, like a very cheap upgrade licence perhalps.

Burnsy

 

[serlex]

surely there will be a way around this, guess it will be illegal

 

[The Belgain]

One aspect of the new licencing which I'm slightly surprised to not see mentioned once in this thread is the policy regarding VMs. MS are not allowing Vista Home and Vista Home Premium to be run inside a virtual machine (this is allowed only in the Ultimate and Business editions).

I personally have much more problems with this as a restriction than any of the other new restrictions they've made. The reasons are:

- This seems like an overtly anticompetitive measure: the primary reason for running VMs on a PC is to be able to run multiple different OSes concurrently. Barring the user from running Vista inside a VM looks like a pretty blatant attempt at making running, say, Linux or OSX alongsing Vista a much worse computing experience. I'm very surprised that MS are doing this given the background of the recent EU rulings against them - I'd imagine the FSF would have a field day on this one... (I don't see it as being that far removed from MS saying you can't dual-boot Vista with other OSes, and surely that would be deemed to breach competition laws in the EU at least?).

- With this licence, MS are effectively placing a restriction on something outside the OS on your PC. This seems wrong for an OS software licence.

What are people's thoughts on the VM issue?

 

[dark_matter]

One aspect of the new licencing which I'm slightly surprised to not see mentioned once in this thread is the policy regarding VMs. MS are not allowing Vista Home and Vista Home Premium to be run inside a virtual machine (this is allowed only in the Ultimate and Business editions).

I personally have much more problems with this as a restriction than any of the other new restrictions they've made. The reasons are:

- This seems like an overtly anticompetitive measure: the primary reason for running VMs on a PC is to be able to run multiple different OSes concurrently. Barring the user from running Vista inside a VM looks like a pretty blatant attempt at making running, say, Linux or OSX alongsing Vista a much worse computing experience. I'm very surprised that MS are doing this given the background of the recent EU rulings against them - I'd imagine the FSF would have a field day on this one... (I don't see it as being that far removed from MS saying you can't dual-boot Vista with other OSes, and surely that would be deemed to breach competition laws in the EU at least?).

- With this licence, MS are effectively placing a restriction on something outside the OS on your PC. This seems wrong for an OS software licence.

What are people's thoughts on the VM issue?

You do have a seperate license for any virtual XP machines you have dont you? If you dont, then consider youtself a pirate. Shiver me timbers. You need a seperate license for each XP virtual machine. Something I wasnt aware of myself. It doesnt notify you of this when MS happily allows you to download its Virtual PC 2004 software. Or if it does, its hidden away in 10 pages of EULA.

I doubt the EU could do anything about MS preventing the Home versions of Vista to be run in a virtual environment as they dont prevent this action if you have the business versions. Also MS could say that if you want to play games as well as run a VM then you can purchase the Ultimate Edition.

What I cant understand is once the customers realise the restrictions on Vista, who on earth is going to buy the retail versions? Previously people used to pay for the retail of XP to allow them to change machines. Now there is no benefit in paying double.

 

[The Belgain]

You do have a seperate license for any virtual XP machines you have dont you? If you dont, then consider youtself a pirate. Shiver me timbers. You need a seperate license for each XP virtual machine. Something I wasnt aware of myself. It doesnt notify you of this when MS happily allows you to download its Virtual PC 2004 software. Or if it does, its hidden away in 10 pages of EULA.

I'm not objecting to having to buy a separate licence for each Vista VM I run on a PC (that's not unreasonable, given that you are running multiple instances of the OS). What I'm objecting to is not being allowed to run one instance of Vista Home and one instance of a Linux distro simultaneously on the same PC. To use a software analogy, I don't see how this is any different from MS changing the IE EULA to say that the user isn't allowed to run simultanous instances of IE and Firefox.

I doubt the EU could do anything about MS preventing the Home versions of Vista to be run in a virtual environment as they dont prevent this action if you have the business versions. Also MS could say that if you want to play games as well as run a VM then you can purchase the Ultimate Edition.

I'm not sure I understand your point here - just because MS sell (at a premium) a version of Vista that isn't anticompetitive, it doesn't mean that they should be allowed to sell a version that is anticompetitive as well...