Vista license

Slam62 · 15 Oct 2006 at 15:40

If they want people to comply with the eula, they just state the main factors very clearly on the outside packaging so that you can read it clearly in store and know what you are buying.

It is not reasonable to expect consumers to scrutinise the details of the eula in the way it is currently presented and in its current form is probably not enforceable.

But everyone would like to be clear on what they are buying.

Macro · 15 Oct 2006 at 16:15

Slam62 said:
If they want people to comply with the eula, they just state the main factors very clearly on the outside packaging so that you can read it clearly in store and know what you are buying.

Sounds like a good idea, although anything legaly binding would always have to be read as part of a fully detailed document still.

Slam62 said:
It is not reasonable to expect consumers to scrutinise the details of the eula in the way it is currently presented and in its current form is probably not enforceable.

Oh I don't know, compared to an HP agreement, bank account, mortgage, house purchase or an airline ticket, the EULA seems relatively straight forward. In fact almost anything we purchase involves "Terms & Conditions"(for example the OCUK T&Cs Clicky) I can't see any grounds for it not being enforcable to be honest.

It's easy to paint MS as the evil empire and sole beneficary of selling it's software. We should however be clear there's a lot more to it than that. OCUK (and other retailers), the transport companies from distribution, the distributors, packaging companies, CD/DVD pressing companies, print companies, advertisers and others all take a portion of the price along with the government and its 17.5% slice.

Perhaps you should try to persuade Spie that if you bought XP from him previously he should not make any profit on Vista and give it to us at cost.

killjohnnybravo · 15 Oct 2006 at 20:10

Microsoft knows we have no choice but accept their eula, this called having a monopoly. You don't accept it and you are left in time with a os thats not supported anymore with big gaping security flaws.

Biohazard · 15 Oct 2006 at 21:16

I was actually considering purchasing Vista, however if I need to buy nearly 300 quid again if I upgrade then they can kiss good by to my money. Pirate all the way tbh

Slam62 · 15 Oct 2006 at 22:18

Actually as a result of legal enforcers on this forum, i was going to pay for a full retail copy, however with the latest 'dirty trick' to get more cash and control i shall have to seek other avenues, it remains to be seen which is the most cost effective, but one things looking very likely, ms and the retail industry will get less rather than more cash from me.

killjohnnybravo · 16 Oct 2006 at 10:49

A bit of good news direct 9.0L will allow dx10 games play on xp.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

They just need to change their license for vista and then I will be happy.

dirtydog · 16 Oct 2006 at 11:08

killjohnnybravo said:
A bit of good news direct 9.0L will allow dx10 games play on xp.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

They just need to change their license for vista and then I will be happy.

One of the biggest issues is the fact that Nvidia or ATI won't have any mainstream or entry-level cards until at least mid- to end of Q1 2007. This suggests that ig Vista tips up around *** beginning of tehyear gamers will be turned off by it.

They really need to run their articles through a spellchecker or something...

Bony Maloney · 16 Oct 2006 at 11:45

More clarification: http://www.techspot.com/news/23197-microsoft-talks-about-vistas-new-licensing.html

Paul Thurrott of Winsupersite.com has posted a brief article clarifying some of the things supposedly misinterpreted during this past week regarding the changes in Windows Vista licensing terms. Paul was in contact with Microsoft in order to come up with the actual meaning of their new EULA for Vista. As a starter you should know that in Vista, just like you currently do with XP, you should be able to upgrade your machine as many times as you want; only needing to re-activate your copy of the OS when prompted to, via the Internet or through the phone. This is perhaps the most important part that was being reported inaccurately. In the other hand, Paul goes as far as saying: “Microsoft has clarified the EULA for Windows Vista. They've made it more readable, for starters, so normal people can get by the legalese and understand what the document really means.” I do not believe that is the case, I have read the EULA myself and for many case scenarios, the explanations Microsoft provides remain very unclear and ambiguous.

AtreuS · 16 Oct 2006 at 12:07

Bony Maloney said:
More clarification: http://www.techspot.com/news/23197-microsoft-talks-about-vistas-new-licensing.html

worryingly he also says

"Vista will also strip OS functionality should validation fail. What people feared with activation in XP is now coming true in Vista. The OS will periodically “validate” itself, and if it finds that you are a dirty pirate it will limit your use. It also only allows you to transfer a license once. Meaning, if you have a Vista-equipped PC and you rebuild it, you must transfer the license... and then never again can you repeat that process. Some people are used to replacing many components of their PC quite often, going through an entire rig in mere months. Enthusiasts beware."

If this is true i find it totally crazy that they honestly think people will pay £350 for the top end vista and then buy it again 9 months and 2 upgrades later. As far as im concerned you should be able to go and pay £350 or whatever for a retail boxed version of ultimate and use it for as long as you like on whatever pc you like as long as you only have ONE install at any one time. Otherwise why even bother with boxed retail versions at all?

Another thing that i think will cause problems... exactly what will happen to those people with no internet access? will vista throw a wobbly because it cant keep phoning home all the time? Many of my customers do not have internet access readily availiable for one reason or another. Will you have to keep phoning microsoft every week for a code to stop vista whining?

Burnsy2023 · 16 Oct 2006 at 14:00

Athanor said:
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...

If it was unlawful for a company to have such terms in their licenses why should we have to abide by them?

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

Mainly because consumer's don't have the money to defend legal action against multi billion dollar multi national corporations.

Athanor said:
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.

Your being silly now....

Athanor said:
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

This I totally agree with, a lot of the new EULA is like XP's, a bit ambiguous and until MS clarify (and possible refine) a bit more, it'll still be a bit of a grey area.

What exactly does MS define a 'Device' as? Is it the same definition as 'Machine' in XP?

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 16 Oct 2006 at 14:07

dirtydog said:
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.

DD I agree, MS can intend what they want but just like UK law, it is interpreted by judges and that's what matters.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 16 Oct 2006 at 14:13

Athanor said:
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.

Loyalty has a big part of software development, without a loyal customer base, you have no company worth. At the end of the day, the product needs to be taylored to the customer's needs and therefore we have a big say in the lifecycle.

Athanor said:
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.

Are you kidding? How do you make a new version without knowing what consumer's hated from the old one? This is software engineering 101.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 16 Oct 2006 at 14:19

AtreuS said:
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.

Now, I think MS could have a trick up their sleave. From what I can gather from the EULA, MS will be planning to sell upgrades via Live Marketplace, the pricing of these licenses will be crucial to the whole strategy.

This is worth keeping an eye on.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 16 Oct 2006 at 14:27

Athanor said:
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.

The motherboard must be replaced under a 'warranty claim'.

The license quoted is retail and not OEM, therefore I didn't expect it to be mentioned.

Like I said earlier, MS need to define 'device', as they did with 'Machine'.

Burnsy

malfunkshun · 16 Oct 2006 at 18:37

So what happened to Vista being able to handle hardware upgrades without reinstalling? or is this another feature that got dropped and I missed it?

Either way, there are methods to get around a reinstall with XP and I wouldnt be surprised if there is with Vista too, at some point.

Macro · 16 Oct 2006 at 20:16

malfunkshun said:
So what happened to Vista being able to handle hardware upgrades without reinstalling? or is this another feature that got dropped and I missed it?

Who can tell, lots of people here are getting their panties in a twist when in fact there's nothing in the quoted EULA that prohibits any kind of upgrade whatsoever.

Macro · 16 Oct 2006 at 20:22

burnsy2023 said:
If it was unlawful for a company to have such terms in their licenses why should we have to abide by them?

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

burnsy2023 said:
Mainly because consumer's don't have the money to defend legal action against multi billion dollar multi national corporations.

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.

burnsy2023 said:
Your being silly now....

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.

burnsy2023 said:
This I totally agree with, a lot of the new EULA is like XP's, a bit ambiguous and until MS clarify (and possible refine) a bit more, it'll still be a bit of a grey area.

What exactly does MS define a 'Device' as? Is it the same definition as 'Machine' in XP?

Burnsy

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

fornowagain · 16 Oct 2006 at 20:30

killjohnnybravo said:
A bit of good news direct 9.0L will allow dx10 games play on xp.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35110

They just need to change their license for vista and then I will be happy.

Sounds great, must be right, its the Inquirer.

Jack Hoxley is a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for DirectX.

As you could quite rightly expect, Windows XP and DirectX 9 are still going to be around for some time yet. Officially Windows XP will cease to be supported at the end of 2006, but that doesn't mean it'll just vanish off home users machines (it may well vanish very quickly off corporate networks though). 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").

Slam62 · 16 Oct 2006 at 20:46

um sorry to dissapoint anyone in marketing land but possibly the majority of corporate machines are still on windows 2000 pro. No way is vista going to be adopted in a great rush by corporations, they cant afford the application/security confusion.

Dont get drawn into marketing hype, it will be a very long time before most pcs run vista, let alone have dx10 hardware. In fact ms are doing themselves no favours at all here.

The rights and wrongs can be argued until the cows come home but if it turns out be true (it will) they are putting of most of the early adopters leaving of the shelf high street purchasers which firstly are not going to be that abundant and secondly are going get sucked into every security floor vista has to offer, leading to massive negative publicity in the mass media.

Still i bet the idea sounded really good to some accountant somewhere.

I'll be buying oem or taking my chances

Macro · 16 Oct 2006 at 21:24

Jack Hoxley is a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional (MVP) for DirectX.

As you could quite rightly expect, Windows XP and DirectX 9 are still going to be around for some time yet. Officially Windows XP will cease to be supported at the end of 2006, but that doesn't mean it'll just vanish off home users machines (it may well vanish very quickly off corporate networks though). 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").

And that's the problem with much of this thread, it's very little fact and lot's of opinion and dramatics. XP does not stop being supported in 2006. 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. DX9L as far as I understand it is the version used in the Xbox 360 or is it the version of DX9 built into Vista to proved backward compat with DX9 apps - can't remember. It's certainly not DX10 for XP.

Like I said at the begining as far as I can see, no where in the EULA did it say you could not upgrade, nor would anyone in their right mind pay "£300" for a copy of Vista (at most you'd get Home Premium for £180 and you're more like to get an upgrade for ~£120 or OEM for ~£80).

Not to mention pointing out that what MS intended in the previous EULA didn't matter because they didn't word it in a water tight way and then complaining because this time they might do.

Jeez... :rolleyes: