Had a MS rep just tell me right out on a call that he was about to transfer me to the validation folks, and that when he did not to confuse them with long explanations about upgraded bits. Just stick to "it's the same computer", chanted like a mantra and they'll give in. DIYers/enthusiast tend to get hung up in the language when they start thinking about "well, I put in a new mobo and memory, and a new cpu, so. . . ." But if that copy of Windows is on only one computer, and its the one in front of you, then just insist it is the same computer. They'll probably give in, at least the first few times!
So is Vista actually going to enforce the "One transfer" rule?
- Thread starter Rangers
- Start date
They should do it like Adobe products. When you want to transfer it to another computer, you deactivate your key with adobe ready for moving, then on the new computer, you activate again. And you can't activate using that key at all unless you deactivate the old one first. If you happened to have had a computer crash etc. then you just need to prove your registration details to have the key deactivated and ready for you.
Blazkowicz
Legend
what's exactly new here, aren't there the same procedure and "agreements" with XP's activation.
anyway, for people who can't afford the risk of having an expensive (even for the OEM version), vital piece of software rendered useless..
it'll be Vista Enterprise corporate or Server 2007
anyway, for people who can't afford the risk of having an expensive (even for the OEM version), vital piece of software rendered useless..
it'll be Vista Enterprise corporate or Server 2007
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz
Legend
just saw the other thread, I'm wrong.
anyway if MS want to keep their windows for themselves, so be it.
I can live without DX10 anyway, I still have a DX8 card.
anyway if MS want to keep their windows for themselves, so be it.
I can live without DX10 anyway, I still have a DX8 card.
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.
Sigh.
I get tired of people who make up reasons and justifications for Microsoft and other large corporations. They're not your friend and their bottom line is making money, they will try anything they can to accomplish that, including screwing their customers. Many cannot get away with it but M$ can because they have a monopoly. Things are on their way to becoming pay per use and I simply refuse to buy into all the marketing bullshit and fluff they try to use to cover it up. That may work on you but not me.
Martin Eddy
Regular
Sigh.
I get tired of people who make up reasons and justifications for Microsoft and other large corporations. They're not your friend and their bottom line is making money, they will try anything they can to accomplish that, including screwing their customers. Many cannot get away with it but M$ can because they have a monopoly. Things are on their way to becoming pay per use and I simply refuse to buy into all the marketing bullshit and fluff they try to use to cover it up. That may work on you but not me.
I suppose the difference between me and you is that I accept that these big companies are there to make money. I'm in business to make money as well. Why else would anyone go in to business.
Anyway I said that I was going to leave this thread. This time I'm actually going to do it.
What if hardware manufacturers started to license their drivers they same way? Sorry, if you change your motherboard twice, you have to pay for another graphics card as well, since you're not licensed to use our drivers anymore. Or games? Let's tie them to the graphics card. Sorry. If you had to upgrade your card to get better gameplay, you're not allowed to install our game anymore. Go buy another copy. Such a merry go-around that would be…
And it would all be fair game, right?
No, of course it wouldn't. The only real difference, however, is that MS think they can get away with such utter abuses because of their virtual monopoly. I, for one, hope they're mistaken.
I have no problem with Microsoft making money, but I have a problem with being exploited.
Today your IMHO abusive obligations are:
- You need an internet conection to register.
- You have to pay a new license to change some hardware.
In a few years with DRM probably:
- You will pay anual values or your software will simply stop.
M$ really need a competition (if anyone has a complain about $ PM me. Thanks).
For me the fair is pay a single license to install the software in one computer for unlimited time.
Change the hardware as you need.
Today your IMHO abusive obligations are:
- You need an internet conection to register.
- You have to pay a new license to change some hardware.
In a few years with DRM probably:
- You will pay anual values or your software will simply stop.
M$ really need a competition (if anyone has a complain about $ PM me. Thanks).
For me the fair is pay a single license to install the software in one computer for unlimited time.
Change the hardware as you need.
Last edited by a moderator:
You don't need internet connection to activate. You can use a phone, and in most countries there is a toll-free number. Actually I used the phone for several times when I reinstall my Windows XP after changing the faulty motherboard, since WinXP simply refused to run anything and it won't reactivate automatically.
Furthermore, you don't need to pay anything to change some hardwares (except, the cost of the hardwares). Microsoft want to enforce the one computer rule. They don't care whether you changed the CPU, the motherboard, or the video card. In case you need to reinstall, you'll need reactivation, and the reactivation limit is currently 10 times (you may still reactivate after 10 times, but, well, it's up to Microsoft).
First thanks for the clarifications.
I prefer a simple single node license, which means you can have the software installed in one computer at the same time for unlimited time.
Still, you need to phone. Much more expensive software dont make all this trouble.
And this "one computer rule" means that if you change the computer you will have to buy a new license, right?
I prefer a simple single node license, which means you can have the software installed in one computer at the same time for unlimited time.
I do think they're walking a fine line. Annoy enough people with this activation, no upgrade, and maybe people actually get around to switching to linux.
I dunno though, I say that, but it hasn't happened yet with other software like office that has free competition.
________
Avandia settlement
Last edited by a moderator:
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
That's for XP, but this thread is about the Vista licence, which is significantly different with regards to this. It's all further up in the thread.
I was reading so fast that I missed that.
I read now the begining of the thread.
So if you change the mobo it is a new PC. Sad, very sad.
Actually, according to Microsoft, Vista is more tolerant to hardware changes than Windows XP. However, in Windows XP, the activation is reset after about three months, so it's possible that one can install one license on two or more computers. In Vista, this is not likely to be possible anymore.
Of course, before the final release of Vista (or some official words from Microsoft) we don't know how tolerant Vista is to hardware changes. Microsoft did say that there's one "free" reactivation if Vista detects substantial hardware changes. If you need more than that, you may need to ask Microsoft support for help.
I don't know if this is much different than Windows XP. My computers also failed several automatic re-activation during its upgrade (and sometimes just simply replace faulty hardwares). Every time I just need to call for a new activation code. Of course, if there's no need for these it'd be much better, but it's no catastrophe either.
This reminds me of the stories before Windows XP's activation. Many people predicted very bad situations, but very few (if any) people actually faced the predicted situations. I can't say whether it would be the same for Vista, but I think if Microsoft actually wants to sell any copies of Vista, it won't be too much different.
The difference is thus:
With Windows XP you can use a retail license at one computer at a time, but as many computers in total as you'd like as long as you uninstall the software from the previously licensed device.
With Vista you can use a retail license at one computer at a time, and only two computers total.
Microsoft defines what a 'new' computer is and what it is not. Tentative lists of the points system that is used to decide this in Vista can be had from MS support and is posted on the web.
Before, activation was only a nuisance, with Vista it will be *boom* no longer legal. Say, you have two computers at home. A main PC and a HTPC that inherits part as you upgrade. You get a new mainboard and processor, swap some parts around and ditch some old ones...
Whoops. Suddenly neither computer is licensed anymore. Too bad.
Everything else is just marketing sugarcoating. If they're really not going to enforce the license change they should rather change the license to reflect policy.
There’s so much contradictory information going around from people who ‘have been in contact with MS’, and the 10 times you’re referring to is an unattributed quote from Bit-Tech. As I stated earlier, believing anonymous PR over the actual license is almost too gullible.
To TechWeb, on the other hand, they say this:
No 10 times there. They say that basically you’re at their whim and mercy. Great. It’s monopolist, draconian, and just plain customer unfriendly, and next time you can bet your ass they’ll take it one step further still.
Windows 98 and before had no activations or checks, XP added activation and pureposefully disabled itself if there was a significant hardware change such as a new motherboard, it also incorporated Microsoft's license per computer policy; vista will do that along with limited transfers and activations for the same computer and will attempt to "validate" on a recurring basis every couple of months I believe, so you will need an internet connection or the os will disable itself (you might be able to activate over the phone for these). Do you not see where this is heading?
You will after 10 activations. If a virus kills your os and you have to reinstall, you have 9 activations left. If you replace the motherboard you cannot replace it again or you will have to buy another license. This is an artificial product that does not cost M$ anything to reproduce aside from the $1.00 or so for packaging and produces a 99.9% profit after dev costs have been covered remember? How do you think Microsoft made its billions of dollars, and that was before these draconian limits that are now being implemented which could potentially double or more their profit.
Last edited by a moderator:
So?
I think most softwares already have one license per one computer policy. It's just most people don't care about it. Even Mac OS X has a family pack edition specially for 5 computers (which is more expensive of course).
The main difference between Windows XP and Vista is in the EULA of Vista, the transfer is limited to one time, which is, of course, not good.
Furthermore, according to Microsoft, if there's no hardware changes, reinstall won't need reactivation. And please stop saying that softwares have no marginal cost, because it's simply not true. I work in software industry, and the problem we face is quite the same: we need to modify our softwares according to customer's needs, then our softwares get pirated. It actually cost quite a lot.
So you don't care if someone takes away your freedom to do what you will with what you payed for and increases prices as well as makes you pay multiple times so that they can buy that second house in the Bahamas and that third Ferrari they need oh so much. I don't understand you people. Why do you not care? Would you like it if you had to pay every time you wanted to use your car? Would you like it if you had to pay to get food out of your fridge? Do you need your computer repaired, because if you do I can come over there and charge a hefty fortune, since you don't seem to care you would pay whatever I wanted right?
pcchen said:
Most software now, it wasn't like that not too long ago. Yes, you can get an OSX license for 5 computers for $200, Vista is $300 for one computer which cannot be transferred and has a limited number of activations. The main difference between Vista and XP is not only the EULA, haven't you been following this thread? Vista incorporates an embedded layer of DRM which cannot be disabled as well as a much more restrictive activation system.
The vast majority of software cost is in development (and a minor amount in computer hardware as well as other software which is also typically overpriced) and please, most companies rarely if ever modify their software to any significant extent except for some specialty uses, most is security patches and minor updates. Of course they make new versions which they then charge full price for and often require for new file types. Once the software is done and revenue exceeds dev costs it's all profit. Unlike hardware which requires constant costs for the machinery, labor and materials and which cannot be reproduced easily, software can.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
