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

[Martin Eddy]

Actually it was me he said that not SugarCoat.

It's a non -issue as SugarCoat said. One five minute call is all it takes to get re-activated if activation fails.

The current situation with XP is when you activate it the system creates a System Hash that is created by taking into consideration ALL the hardware in your system. Any major change to the hardware can cause re-activation to be necessary.

With Vista, Microsoft are making life easier for Consumers because re-activation will only be necessary if you replace the Motherboard.

I do agree with you on one point though...

"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?

 

[ANova]

All of this new found WGA, activation and restrictions are all to make more money. M$ have all but admitted that piracy cannot be stopped, they just want to discourage as many people as possible from even trying and they want them to buy as many licenses as possible, that includes increasing prices, limiting transfers, increasing checks, etc.

 

[Rangers]

All of this new found WGA, activation and restrictions are all to make more money. M$ have all but admitted that piracy cannot be stopped, they just want to discourage as many people as possible from even trying and they want them to buy as many licenses as possible, that includes increasing prices, limiting transfers, increasing checks, etc.

Then switch to linux.
________
Live sex

 

[digitalwanderer]

Meh, I'm not counting out the pirates on Vista yet.

 

[Martin Eddy]

All of this new found WGA, activation and restrictions are all to make more money.

That could also be taken to mean to not lose so much money.

Microsoft aren't so concerned about individual pirates as they are Big Company's that are mass selling Pirate Copies to consumers.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

It's taking more steps towards a rental model for OS and apps, which MS is only doing because it will make them more money. Instead of someone buying Office or an OS and using it for years without upgrading, it will force people to keep paying and paying even if they are happy with skipping on the latest OS or app.

It's moving from a "pay once and own the product" model to a "pay all the time to rent the product" model, because that a better way for MS to turn the customer into a cash cow.

 

[Martin Eddy]

It's moving from a "pay once and own the product" model to a "pay all the time to rent the product" model, because that a better way for MS to turn the customer into a cash cow.

You have never owned the product. You buy a license that allows you to use "Microsoft's" software under their terms and conditions. The same is true for most software on the market today.

 

[poopypoo]

MOOOO!!!! ;9

Martin, I was previously an OEM, too, and I appreciate where you're coming from. Without the OEM license, we couldn't really do business. But the truth is that MS could sell all these licenses at Dell prices (it already does, to 90% of its customers in the US -- and Australia, I'd imagine, right?). The only reason I see that they don't is just monopolistic bullshit. I firmly believe OSX for all x86es will happen, and am very curious about the eventual result! :O

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You have never owned the product. You buy a license that allows you to use "Microsoft's" software under their terms and conditions. The same is true for most software on the market today.

The license was for all intents and purposes the same as owning the product. Licensing software was always an attempt to end-around consumer laws, and most, if not all those EULAs won't stand up in court if they ever get challenged because they directly contradict statute law. MS can't have me sign away my consumer rights on a few pages that say "by using this product you agree to give up your consumer rights".

 

[ANova]

Then switch to linux.

It certainly is looking more enticing but it's also very user unfriendly and has little support in terms of software. I'm thinking more along the lines of OSX actually.

You have never owned the product. You buy a license that allows you to use "Microsoft's" software under their terms and conditions. The same is true for most software on the market today.

Oh please. The EULA, it's ever increasing restrictions and the idea of leasing 1s and 0s has only come about recently. The internet has opened many possibilities, including that which allows corporations to do what they've always dreamed of doing. By adding bs contracts with ever increasing limitations and through the internet incorporate checks, activations and upgrades they can implement the draconian crap that allows them to increase profit ten fold while blaiming it all on piracy if anyone asks. You don't have to look very far to realize corporate profit is raising, not lowering as some claim.

 

[Martin Eddy]

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one boys. I'm going back to the G80 and R600 speculation threads. No hard feelings, I just have nothing more to add to this thread.

 

[Rangers]

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.

Uhh, this article says otherwise.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/10...n_to_bit-tech/
________
Bubbler pipe

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Uhh, this article says otherwise.

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

Your link its dead.

This is the difference in the licence and has been reported all over the web:

XP SP2 Home:
"14. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer."

Vista Home Premium:
"15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the “licensed device.”"

Microsoft recently made a change to the licence agreement saying that a new motherboard is equal to a new computer, hence you need to purchase a new Windows licence.

Here is what Microsoft has to say:

“An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a “new personal computer” to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required.”

The reason Microsoft gave for this term is that “Microsoft needed to have one base component “left standing” that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the “heart and soul” of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created.”

Microsoft sent a memo to its OEM partners asking them to enforce this new policy, every time they upgrade a computer for a client.

From the Microsoft License FAQ, question 11:

Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard drive, this computer is still licensed, right?

Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your computer and maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs.

Of course there's not guarentee of any of this because apparently MS writes conditions into their licences that arn't actually the conditions they operate the licences under.

Should be interesting speaking to that Indian Call Centre to explain that you've just changed a faulty motherboard, but you don't one to use up your "one transfer" even though your OS hasn't actually timed out yet, just used up your one transfer. How are you going to explain when you change your motherboard 18 months down the line that you used up your one transfer a couple of years earlier swapping a faulty motherboard and could you please have your one transfer back.

 

[ANova]

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one boys. I'm going back to the G80 and R600 speculation threads. No hard feelings, I just have nothing more to add to this thread.

What do you have stock in Microsoft or something?

 

[Martin Eddy]

I wish.
I just get tired of all the people who think it's cool to hate Microsoft(or any major corporation) just because they are a big company who make money.

 

[Rangers]

Your link its dead.

This is the difference in the licence and has been reported all over the web:





Of course there's not guarentee of any of this because apparently MS writes conditions into their licences that arn't actually the conditions they operate the licences under.

Should be interesting speaking to that Indian Call Centre to explain that you've just changed a faulty motherboard, but you don't one to use up your "one transfer" even though your OS hasn't actually timed out yet, just used up your one transfer. How are you going to explain when you change your motherboard 18 months down the line that you used up your one transfer a couple of years earlier swapping a faulty motherboard and could you please have your one transfer back.

That isn't what THIS article says (fixed link, was already posted earlier btw, kind of hard to believe you missed it, unless you just didn't read the thread, or else ignored it)

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

What is, let us say, the OSX policy on this?
________
Leather Cams

 

[Zaphod]

That isn't what THIS article says (fixed link, was already posted earlier btw, kind of hard to believe you missed it, unless you just didn't read the thread, or else ignored it)

Oh, I don't think he missed it.

The point is: What should carry the most weight when concluding about Vista licensing policy?

A. What Microsoft states in the actual license?
B. Unattributed quote from PR goon on a tech website?

Personally, I find it hard to comprehend why anyone should think it is option B.

 

[Rangers]

Oh, I don't think he missed it.

The point is: What should carry the most weight when concluding about Vista licensing policy?

A. What Microsoft states in the actual license?
B. Unattributed quote from PR goon on a tech website?

Personally, I find it hard to comprehend why anyone should think it is option B.

So instead I should believe Bouncing Zagablione Brothers?

There is a bit more info here:

http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193500002

I believe microsoft has responded to enthusiasts concerns appropriately, and based on past behavior (The leniency with Xp activation) it looks like a Vista purchase is in my future.
________
Laguna Heights Condos Pattaya

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

So instead I should believe Bouncing Zagablione Brothers?

There is a bit more info here:

http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193500002

I believe microsoft has responded to enthusiasts concerns appropriately, and based on past behavior (The leniency with Xp activation) it looks like a Vista purchase is in my future.

You can google and see THE ACTUAL TEXT IN THE LICENCE on any one of a number of websites.

What are you going to believe, the actual licence, or some PR person who's job it is to get you to buy Vista above all else and control any bad publicity? Microsoft enforced activation on XP, what makes you think they won't enforce the terms of the Vista licence? Just because of the goodness in their hearts? I think you are in denial about the whole thing and the steps Microsoft is making towards a rental model.

 

[Maintank]

So instead I should believe Bouncing Zagablione Brothers?

There is a bit more info here:

http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193500002

I believe microsoft has responded to enthusiasts concerns appropriately, and based on past behavior (The leniency with Xp activation) it looks like a Vista purchase is in my future.

In all of these inteviews it appears Microsoft is being intentionally vague in their responses conserning reactivation.

When hardware components are changed, Microsoft's product activation process compares information derived from the initial validation, which includes the hardware configuration of the device, against the changes that have been made. This process uses an algorithm to help assess whether the software is installed on the same device. Validation will fail if the software detects a substantially different hardware configuration.

At that point, the customer is able to use the one reassignment for the new device. If, after using its one reassignment right, a customer again exceeds the tolerance for updated components, the customer can purchase an additional license or seek remediation through Microsoft's support services.

The bolded doesnt sit well with me.

/shrug