So is Vista actually going to enforce the "One transfer" rule?

[Rangers]

So is Vista actually going to enforce the "One transfer" rule?

Okay much has been made about this license change, that Vista only allows you to transfer to another computer once.

I have read in another place that microsoft considers the defining piece of hardware for a "new" PC to be the motherboard. AKA you can change the CPU or GPU as much as you want and that doesn't count. But get a new MB and your one transfer (I'm assuming) would be up because that's a "new" PC.

Okay, I tinker with my PC so much I will probably change the MB five times in a five year period so I'm kinda worried about that.

basically my questions are:

How will Vista "know" you've moved to a new PC? Is this tied to validation in any way?

Is their any license difference between OEM and retail in this regard?

Finally, maybe people dont exactly know this, but what's your sense on whether ms will actually enforce this rule? I get the impression they've been lax in the past and probably will again, if so I guess I wont worry about it.
________
ShyRoxanne

 

[Boke]

I just put up a post relating to this. All I did to cause a reactivation notice was change a driver. No hardware change whatsoever.

 

[Rangers]

Hmm but that's just the release candidate right? So could be beta type issues in your case.

I saw some column tucked away somewhere recently, as alluded in my original post, that ms has decided the deciding factor in what makes a "new" pc was the mobo. Of course they got the usual flack, to which they responded logically enough that well, SOME piece has to be the deciding factor, otherwise of course you could change everything forever and it not be a "new" PC.

Not sure how that relates to you, but anyway.
________
WEB SHOWS

 

[Boke]

Hmm but that's just the release candidate right? So could be beta type issues in your case.

I hope so, I have no problem with reactivating for a mobo swap. Probably will only do that 3 or so
times during Vistas lifetime.

 

[ChronoReverse]

Don't even have to worry about that now.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/

Unless you replace your hard drive along with your motherboard, it looks like you might not even have to re-activate. This sounds too good to be true.

 

[Rangers]

Eh ten times makes it a virtual non-issue.

Although I wish it was unlimited, just because.
________
Web shows

 

[Gnerma]

You know what though, you're still agreeing to the one transfer limit when you install Vista. Microsoft can talk all day about how they aren't going to follow their own brand new agreement but they don't have to stick by such statements.

Does this seem strange to anybody else? Why not just change the agreement then? It irritates me to no end that they're coming out saying, "its ok, its not actually like that". As if we've read the EULA wrong somehow. And yes, it should be unlimited.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You know what though, you're still agreeing to the one transfer limit when you install Vista. Microsoft can talk all day about how they aren't going to follow their own brand new agreement but they don't have to stick by such statements.

Does this seem strange to anybody else? Why not just change the agreement then? It irritates me to no end that they're coming out saying, "its ok, its not actually like that". As if we've read the EULA wrong somehow. And yes, it should be unlimited.

My immediate answer would be "if you're not going to follow your written policy, then shouldn't your written policy be changed to actually reflect what your terms and conditions are?"

This is the one biggest thing that's putting me off Vista (outside of price and driver issues while everyone catches up). Changing a few components does not mean a new PC, especially if the old components are decommissioned or broken. Why should I have to buy a new OS (costing several times the price of the changed component) if I get a new motherboard/CPU/whatever? What happens if a component breaks and has to be replaced? MS is going to charge me $300 for a new copy of Vista because my $80 motherboard broke, even though my bought and paid for OS is working fine?!

If this doesn't deserve a "WTF!" then nothing does. I see court cases about this in the future.

 

[Martin Eddy]

From what I recall this only relates to the OEM version. XP is very similar.
The reason for this is when you buy a system pre-installed with Windows it is up to the builder of the PC to provide support for the System.
How can "Joe's Computer Shack" support a product that has been changed?

If you buy a retail copy you can change the Hardware without incidence.(At least theoretically)

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

From what I recall this only relates to the OEM version. XP is very similar.
The reason for this is when you buy a system pre-installed with Windows it is up to the builder of the PC to provide support for the System.
How can "Joe's Computer Shack" support a product that has been changed?

If you buy a retail copy you can change the Hardware without incidence.(At least theoretically)

But PC's are meant to be upgradeable. And it's not the OEM that invalidates the OS when you change a component, it's Microsoft, because they want to make you pay again when you move from an old machine to a new machine. They basically don't want you transferrring your licence (even if you junk your old PC), they want to get some of your money when you buy a new PC, regardless of whether you move most of the old components to the new machine, or even if you just want to change a couple of key components in your current PC.

It's just greed, pure and simple. It's one thing to pay for new components when then old ones are too slow, or even pay for a new OS when the old one is too slow or outdated, but what Microsoft wants to do is make you pay again just for moving your completely working product to those new components.

It's the equivalent of a hard drive manufacturer making you buy a new hard drive when you change the motherboard, or a monitor maker making you buy a new monitor when you get a new PC. There's no justification for it at all except for Microsoft's greed.

 

[Martin Eddy]

But PC's are meant to be upgradeable. And it's not the OEM that invalidates the OS when you change a component, it's Microsoft, because they want to make you pay again when you move from an old machine to a new machine. They basically don't want you transferrring your licence (even if you junk your old PC), they want to get some of your money when you buy a new PC, regardless of whether you move most of the old components to the new machine, or even if you just want to change a couple of key components in your current PC.

It's just greed, pure and simple. It's one thing to pay for new components when then old ones are too slow, or even pay for a new OS when the old one is too slow or outdated, but what Microsoft wants to do is make you pay again just for moving your completely working product to those new components.

It's the equivalent of a hard drive manufacturer making you buy a new hard drive when you change the motherboard, or a monitor maker making you buy a new monitor when you get a new PC. There's no justification for it at all except for Microsoft's greed.

As an OEM myself I appreciate that I can buy windows at a greatly reduced price (around half the price of the retail version). By me installing it on a system I agree to provide support for the OS and the hardware that "I" install it on.

If you want a system that can be upgraded at will. Build the system yourself and buy the Full Retail Version of Windows. If Microsoft were "Greedy" they would not offer the OEM version to small players like myself would they.

There's plenty of things that Microsoft do that I don't agree with, this is not one of them.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I'd like OEM licenses to be made explictily illegal : that way Microsoft would probably sell Windows at reduced price only. Very few people buy retail versions anyway.

why is it so that you pay something like $40 for Windows if you buy a Dell, $100 for an OEM version if you build or buy from an integrator, and $300 for a retail version if you fear a $100 OEM copy might be rendered useless by hostile DRM and licensing.
It's clearly an extorsion scheme made so you buy in the "one new Windows per new PC" meme, i.e. what's called the microsoft tax, and it's somewhat between a real sale and a renting.

I actually like Windows (when you know how to clean all the UI crap) but something should be done. there's no reason I should pay $/€300 (price of an entire PC) when they also sell it for $40 and still make obscene profits on it.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I'd like OEM licenses to be made explictily illegal : that way Microsoft would probably sell Windows at reduced price only. Very few people buy retail versions anyway.

Yep, should be killed off as uncompetative abuse of their market dominance. It's only ever been used as a bribe to ensure OEMs don't install any competing OS on any machine they ship.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

As an OEM myself I appreciate that I can buy windows at a greatly reduced price (around half the price of the retail version). By me installing it on a system I agree to provide support for the OS and the hardware that "I" install it on.

If you want a system that can be upgraded at will. Build the system yourself and buy the Full Retail Version of Windows. If Microsoft were "Greedy" they would not offer the OEM version to small players like myself would they.

There's plenty of things that Microsoft do that I don't agree with, this is not one of them.

And what happens after your support contract expires and your customer want to upgrade or needs to replace a faulty component? You're happy with your customers just swinging in the wind after you've sold them a PC with a self-destructing version of Windows in the event of a hardware repair?

What if they bring a PC to you to replace a component? Are you going to charge them for an extra OEM version of Vista too, or just eat the cost yourself?

It's greedy and immoral to make customers pay again for a product they have already bought and is working perfectly in the event that some other part of the system breaks or is upgraded.

 

[SugarCoat]

in your example why exactly would the windows copy not work if it has to be re-activated. It can be re-activated 10 times, so that means the customer would have to of re-installed it 9 previous times prior to bringing it back to him to actually cause an issue. Basically for average Joe he'd have to break his computer requiring major repair many times for this to cause an issue. You're acting like the first time he has to get a new HDD or major component replaced hes screwed when this is infact not the case.

If the computer failed on the origonal installation done by the OEM and required a re-activation there should be no issue for that time or the following 8 times it happens.


Incase you didnt notice, this is how XP upgrade CD's work. You have a limited amount of activations in a certain time frame, if you somehow manage to run through them all, microsoft does not tell you to buy a new copy. You make a 5-10 minute phone call and you get the copy tied to a new serial allowing you essentially a completely renewed copy. I expect Vista Upgrade CD installations to operate in much the same way. To contemplate that it wont is borderline conspiracy theory.

 

[Maintank]

Don't even have to worry about that now.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10/26/Microsoft_clarifies_Vista_activation_to_bit-tech/

Unless you replace your hard drive along with your motherboard, it looks like you might not even have to re-activate. This sounds too good to be true.

This sounds way too vague, honestly. Where in the EULA does it say 10 times? And why after 10 does Microsoft have a discretion to let you use your license or not?

That didnt really lower my fears.

 

[Zaphod]

Incase you didnt notice, this is how XP upgrade CD's work. You have a limited amount of activations in a certain time frame, if you somehow manage to run through them all, microsoft does not tell you to buy a new copy. You make a 5-10 minute phone call and you get the copy tied to a new serial allowing you essentially a completely renewed copy. I expect Vista Upgrade CD installations to operate in much the same way. To contemplate that it wont is borderline conspiracy theory.

Upgrade and retail XP allowed you to transfer the license to a new device as often as you pleased given that you used it on only one device at a time and removed the software from the previous device.

The Vista license as it currently stands allows you to transfer it to one new device. Period.

I don't understand what everyone is discussing OEM for above, as such licenses has always been tied to the hardware component with which they were purchased, but MS has allowed for replacement activation due to 'catastrophic failures', but that's it.

It seems to me that MS is saying that some of their retail customers are abusing the 'lenient' reactivation scheme to install their XP copy on several machines at the same time, so we're just going to assume they all are. We can't have people stealing their software, after all. So what if we screw over the typical retail enthusiast customer in the process. What we really want is for everyone to pay as if it was a rental system anyway, and it's not as if they're going to have a choice in the matter...

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

in your example why exactly would the windows copy not work if it has to be re-activated. It can be re-activated 10 times, so that means the customer would have to of re-installed it 9 previous times prior to bringing it back to him to actually cause an issue. Basically for average Joe he'd have to break his computer requiring major repair many times for this to cause an issue. You're acting like the first time he has to get a new HDD or major component replaced hes screwed when this is infact not the case.

If the computer failed on the origonal installation done by the OEM and required a re-activation there should be no issue for that time or the following 8 times it happens.

Incase you didnt notice, this is how XP upgrade CD's work. You have a limited amount of activations in a certain time frame, if you somehow manage to run through them all, microsoft does not tell you to buy a new copy. You make a 5-10 minute phone call and you get the copy tied to a new serial allowing you essentially a completely renewed copy. I expect Vista Upgrade CD installations to operate in much the same way. To contemplate that it wont is borderline conspiracy theory.

You seem to be confusing XP with Vista. This thread is about Vista. It's been quoted many times in the last few months that MS wants to tie Vista to a particular motherboard, and will allow one upgrade per Vista install, even thought these seems to be contradictory things. Basically if your motherboard expires, MS will simply tell you that you installed a new machine when you installed a new motherboard and so you need to buy a new Vista licence. End of story, that's the EULA you "agree" too.

Again, the question is will you warn your Vista customers that any major failure means a new copy of Vista at several hundred dollars, in additon to replacing the motherboard? Will you eat the cost yourself if a customer wants you to do an out-of-warrenty repair? Are you going to eat the cost of a Vista install if you have to replace a motherboard inside the warrenty period?

 

[SugarCoat]

You seem to be confusing XP with Vista. This thread is about Vista. It's been quoted many times in the last few months that MS wants to tie Vista to a particular motherboard, and will allow one upgrade per Vista install, even thought these seems to be contradictory things. Basically if your motherboard expires, MS will simply tell you that you installed a new machine when you installed a new motherboard and so you need to buy a new Vista licence. End of story, that's the EULA you "agree" too.

Again, the question is will you warn your Vista customers that any major failure means a new copy of Vista at several hundred dollars, in additon to replacing the motherboard? Will you eat the cost yourself if a customer wants you to do an out-of-warrenty repair? Are you going to eat the cost of a Vista install if you have to replace a motherboard inside the warrenty period?

no i said what i did because its absolutly linked. I'm not confusing anything. It is more strict, but should you have to replace hardware components that Vista deems critical what you have to do is make a quick phone call to tell them the computer which the serial was tied to was switched, you read off the number, they blank it out, you're good to go, that is how XP currently operates when you have run through your activation limits. Vista simply does it on a hardware level now too. It sucks, but you're still pulling the conspiracy theory stunt. Microsoft tech support is actually quite good and understanding, i doubt it would take much to simply get it reset should you have to change a component.


When it was revealed that XP would have activation limitations people said the same stuff you're saying now.

"Ohhh woe is me, they're going to tell everyone to buy a new copy when you've activated it too many times oooohhhh woe is me."

Did that prove true? Absolutly not to anyone willing to make that 5 minute phone call. I'll bet money Vista will prove the same should the consumer or OEM be put in that position. To be honest anyone that says Microsoft is going to tell you to get a new copy if you must replace a peice of hardware breaking functionality sounds ludicrous to me. They may sound like greedy people but that doesnt mean they're totally unreasonable, they just want to stop piracy, not legitimate use, and they know there are legitimate customers out there which is why they simply want you to make that call.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

When it was revealed that XP would have activation limitations people said the same stuff you're saying now.

"Ohhh woe is me, they're going to tell everyone to buy a new copy when you've activated it too many times oooohhhh woe is me."

Did that prove true? Absolutly not to anyone willing to make that 5 minute phone call. I'll bet money Vista will prove the same should the consumer or OEM be put in that position.

Not conpiracy theory, MS are actually saying it. MS wants to link Vista licenses (not just authentication) to one single component. That component is the motherboard. When you change the motherboard, they tell you to buy a new copy of Vista. As far as they are concerned people change components, and gradually replace a whole machine. Now MS wants a slice of that action because a new machine should mean a new sale of Vista, rather than the customer transferring a licence to a new machine, hence the new restrictions in the Vista EULA.

And you still haven't answered my question as to how you will deal with your customers. After all, you've already told us that you support them rather than MS.