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

[pcchen]

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.

Not now. Most softwares, maybe ten years ago, are supposed to be used on a single computer.
And this thread is about the "one transfer" rule stated in the Vista EULA. DRM or other things are not relevant. About the activation system, Microsoft actually said it will be less restrictive (you can change more hardwares before the need of reactivation).

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.

Do you think a software developer can write a software, sell it, and just wait for money?
The reality is, most softwares need modifications throughout its history. And it's not just about security patches. Whether the modification is for special uses or not is not important, because it still need manpower to modify the software, no matter how many people need the modification.
Even Microsoft can't sell the same thing over and over, although many people seem to think it's the case. Not to mention the security patches, Microsoft still have to cope with new hardwares, fix issues with certain softwares, etc. These all cost money. Support cost is also significant. What happens if a customer complains that Windows XP doesn't work on a computer? You need people and time to find out what happens, and sometimes you need more people and time to fix the problem. If support is not an issue, why did Microsoft have to end support for Windows 95/98, and there are people actually complaining about the end of support?

Hardwares are quite the same as softwares. Although many people tend to think the cost of a hardware is the manufacturing cost, it's not just that simple. Many hardware products have quite a lot revisions over its lifetime. Some revisions are to reduce cost, others to fix problems, or to increase stability. These cost can also be significant.

 

[Zaphod]

What happens if a customer complains that Windows XP doesn't work on a computer?

They charge him $109 as a 'one time support fee' for the hotfix?

 

[pcchen]

They charge him $109 as a 'one time support fee' for the hotfix?

Sorry, but "a customer" does not necessarily mean "a person." It could be an OEM vendor, who will sell hundreds of thousand PCs to a certain market. Now you try to charge the customer for the "one time support fee." Furthermore, supposed that you need three people spends three days to solve the problem (and that's quite a generous estimation), how will $109 cover the cost?

It's very naive to think a software is "done" when it's released. Such situation is very rare.

 

[bloodbob]

They charge him $109 as a 'one time support fee' for the hotfix?

Which remains a hotfix since they decide not to release SP3.

Frankly I tried to shutdown a windows 2003 SP1 server a couple of months ago and I hit not one but 3 different problems trying to remotely shut it down that required hotfixes to repair. Its a bloody joke.

Thats 3 questions so thats potentially 3 times they can charge me for a support fee.

The best thing of all is M$ can simply just decided to stop activating a product forcing you to update your system.

 

[Zaphod]

Sorry, but "a customer" does not necessarily mean "a person." It could be an OEM vendor, who will sell hundreds of thousand PCs to a certain market. Now you try to charge the customer for the "one time support fee." Furthermore, supposed that you need three people spends three days to solve the problem (and that's quite a generous estimation), how will $109 cover the cost?

So? This was a thread about Vista retail licensing (and implicitly about the ever increasing restrictions leading towards a pay-by-play model for MS software).

When you buy something as a consumer you have rights and remedies if the product is malfunctioning, and frankly using the fact that people don't usually have these rights when licensing software as a crux totally besides the point. In reality we should be outraged that we got something that didn't work right, not filled with compassion towards the poor gigantean company that might have to dip a few bucks in to their vast profits to fix it.

Please don't use MS as an example of the 'hardships' of software developers in general. It just doesn’t fly.

 

[karlotta]

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?



....

Well i do pay to use my car, and food isnt a good choice here. So as, in dont buy it, why do you need a MS product? So as in whats wrong with profit? So because a few hundred $ more year doesnt bother me, to play with something i use all the time. So as, it is not my OS to use as i wish, never was. MS having a lock on the OS market gets to set the rules... Dont like that dont play, stay with XP, go to Linux ,write your own, Playing games isnt a necessity. The degrading OS after three days or so will be a inconvenience, I will have to budget my time better to test, as opposed to the 30days now. If the new policy isnt working, and lots of people complain then great it too will change.
So what.

 

[pcchen]

So? This was a thread about Vista retail licensing (and implicitly about the ever increasing restrictions leading towards a pay-by-play model for MS software).

I just want to debunk ANova's myth of the "no marginal cost" of software development. If you don't want to talk about this, why do you reply to my post specifically at this part?

 

[Zaphod]

I just want to debunk ANova's myth of the "no marginal cost" of software development. If you don't want to talk about this, why do you reply to my post specifically at this part?

Perhaps I'm being too generous, but I read Anova's 'no' as 'significantly reduced compared to most manufacturing industries'. This point can hardly be argued, particularly for MS. While they may spend more than any other software company for upkeep (in absolute terms), I doubt anyone else have their profit margins to show for it some time into the cycle.

 

[ANova]

Not now. Most softwares, maybe ten years ago, are supposed to be used on a single computer.
And this thread is about the "one transfer" rule stated in the Vista EULA. DRM or other things are not relevant. About the activation system, Microsoft actually said it will be less restrictive (you can change more hardwares before the need of reactivation).

Oh please, supposed is a relative term mostly used to refer to the past and which means absolutely nothing today. Microsoft tried pulling that crap as well, 'oh we meant to say that XP shouldn't have had the ability to be tranferred infinitely' despite direct contradition to the wording in XP's EULA. It's all a game of semantics and bs to try to weasel into their new model while incorporating damage control. M$ say alot of things, it doesn't make them true.

Do you think a software developer can write a software, sell it, and just wait for money?
The reality is, most softwares need modifications throughout its history. And it's not just about security patches. Whether the modification is for special uses or not is not important, because it still need manpower to modify the software, no matter how many people need the modification.
Even Microsoft can't sell the same thing over and over, although many people seem to think it's the case. Not to mention the security patches, Microsoft still have to cope with new hardwares, fix issues with certain softwares, etc. These all cost money. Support cost is also significant. What happens if a customer complains that Windows XP doesn't work on a computer? You need people and time to find out what happens, and sometimes you need more people and time to fix the problem. If support is not an issue, why did Microsoft have to end support for Windows 95/98, and there are people actually complaining about the end of support?

Hardwares are quite the same as softwares. Although many people tend to think the cost of a hardware is the manufacturing cost, it's not just that simple. Many hardware products have quite a lot revisions over its lifetime. Some revisions are to reduce cost, others to fix problems, or to increase stability. These cost can also be significant.

Thanks for confirming what I said, though misworded it may be. Microsoft does not issue fixes for hardware, that is the hardware manufacturer's job through recalls or driver updates. Microsoft can sell the same thing over and over, they've been doing it with XP for over 5 years (and Vista is arguably not much of an improvement). As far as dev costs for bug fixes, the consumer should not have to pay for a flawed product, it is Microsoft's job to either get the product right the first time or fix the issues. Support is an added cost, I'll grant you that, but those people get payed very little overall and things like activation just add to this unnecessarily; well not really since it makes the companies more money. You can sugar coat it all you like but the pure fact is that software is nothing like hardware and software profit margins are much higher due to the simple fact that they are artificial numbers orchestrated in a pattern that can be reproduced infinitely and for practically free. You think that extra license you bought cost the company anything other than shipping and handling or customer support costs? In fact many added costs are a direct result of Microsoft's implementations, WGA for instance requires extra servers, added bandwidth and more annoyed customers calling support as when WGA decided to create false positives claiming many paying customers were pirates which in turn required M$ to waste more money paying devs to fix the problem. However, they continue to do it. Why? Because the profit they make off of these programs outweighs the costs.

Well i do pay to use my car, and food isnt a good choice here. So as, in dont buy it, why do you need a MS product? So as in whats wrong with profit? So because a few hundred $ more year doesnt bother me, to play with something i use all the time. So as, it is not my OS to use as i wish, never was. MS having a lock on the OS market gets to set the rules... Dont like that dont play, stay with XP, go to Linux ,write your own, Playing games isnt a necessity. The degrading OS after three days or so will be a inconvenience, I will have to budget my time better to test, as opposed to the 30days now....

I meant pay per use to use your car or access food. So I should be happy that I have to suddenly pay more and/or am forced into buying their new product in order to continue what I have been doing? Is that what you're saying?

If the new policy isnt working, and lots of people complain then great it too will change.

Well there you go, I'll be among the first.

 

[pcchen]

Oh please, supposed is a relative term mostly used to refer to the past and which means absolutely nothing today. Microsoft tried pulling that crap as well, 'oh we meant to say that XP shouldn't have had the ability to be tranferred infinitely' despite direct contradition to the wording in XP's EULA. It's all a game of semantics and bs to try to weasel into their new model while incorporating damage control. M$ say alot of things, it doesn't make them true.

By "On a single computer" I mean a single computer simultaneously. There are softwares which restricts the number of transfers (that means, you uninstall the software in the first computer, and install it on a second computer). Microsoft is not the first to do so.

Of course, Microsoft is not always honest. However, since Vista is not released yet, they are the only good source. Do you want to believe Microsoft, or a unknown person on the internet who can't provide any evidence? If Vista is released, of course you can do experiments and show that the restriction is worse or not. But it's certainly not the case right now.

Thanks for confirming what I said, though misworded it may be. Microsoft does not issue fixes for hardware, that is the hardware manufacturer's job through recalls or driver updates. Microsoft can sell the same thing over and over, they've been doing it with XP for over 5 years (and Vista is arguably not much of an improvement). As far as dev costs for bug fixes, the consumer should not have to pay for a flawed product, it is Microsoft's job to either get the product right the first time or fix the issues. Support is an added cost, I'll grant you that, but those people get payed very little overall and things like activation just add to this unnecessarily; well not really since it makes the companies more money.

Microsoft did issue hot fixes for hardware problems, not just for fixing their bugs. You'd be surprised that many software "problems" are caused by hardwares. They are not always the fault of softwares. This reminds me the mind set in many people: there are bugs in hardware? Ok, fix it in the driver. There are bugs in the driver? Ok, fix it in the software. Then, the softwares always get all the blame.

Activation is very annoying, especially for legit users. However, it sometimes unavoidable. Many softwares go this way, why? Because they don't want to support pirated copies. Many software companies receive support calls from customers using pirated copies (they often don't know that their softwares are not legit). If you run a software company, how do you deal with this? Even if you just deny the support call, you need people and resource just to receive and process these calls. We are a small software company, yet we have this problem. I can imagine the problem with Microsoft is even bigger.

 

[Maintank]

In case people didnt see this

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6131900.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

Looks like we are back to an XP style of activation which is fine by me.

 

[Geo]

In case people didnt see this

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6131900.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

Looks like we are back to an XP style of activation which is fine by me.

So, can we have a moment of silent appreciation for MS doing the right thing?

And then go back to hatin' on them, of course!

 

[Rangers]

Yay!!! but...

I still dont understand the whole thing. If you can move Vista around to new computers at will now, what's the point of activation at all? Are they simply checking to be sure the same copy of the OS isn't active in two+ places at once?

And is it correct for my uses (frequent system rebuilds), I would need to buy the retail version? Because I know say, Anandtech frequently advises to buy the oem version which is like half the price.

So it's no transfers on the oem version, but unlimited transfers on the retail? And how, then, do they enforce the former?
________
Park Royal 3 Condominium

 

[pcchen]

On Windows XP, it's quite possible to install one license on two computers, because the activation database "reset" after a few months. Apparently, this won't be possible on Vista. To do this is quite simple, just compare your hardware configuration with the data in their database (this can be done when you are doing online updates).

To my understanding, Windows XP OEM version is not really much difference from the retail version, except the support issues (if you buy an OEM version, you should get your support through the computer vendor, not directly to Microsoft). In Vista, Microsoft claimed that they are working with vendors to "lock-in" with their computers. So, it's possible that an OEM version Vista will run only on the specific kind of computer (probably through BIOS check or something similar).

 

[ChrisRay]

In case people didnt see this

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6131900.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed

Looks like we are back to an XP style of activation which is fine by me.

This decreases my reservations immensely. Glad to hear about this.

 

[Gnerma]

Yay we win this one.

The Score:
MS - 86
US - 3

As far as "silent appreciation" goes I'm not sure that would be appropriate. Somebody about to do the wrong thing, then backing down from it to do the right thing doesn't exactly call for appreciation.

 

[ANova]

Consumers have the power to change these things, the problem is getting them to notice. This is only a minor win (assuming it is true).

 

[pcchen]

They did revise the words in the EULA (PDF file).

 

[Rangers]

On Windows XP, it's quite possible to install one license on two computers, because the activation database "reset" after a few months. Apparently, this won't be possible on Vista. To do this is quite simple, just compare your hardware configuration with the data in their database (this can be done when you are doing online updates).

To my understanding, Windows XP OEM version is not really much difference from the retail version, except the support issues (if you buy an OEM version, you should get your support through the computer vendor, not directly to Microsoft). In Vista, Microsoft claimed that they are working with vendors to "lock-in" with their computers. So, it's possible that an OEM version Vista will run only on the specific kind of computer (probably through BIOS check or something similar).

As I say, it's a frequent tactic to buy the oem version of XP off newegg for much lower (nearly half, only $139 for XP pro I believe, <$100 for home) price. The catch is it must be bought with "hardware" to be legal, but people do things like buy it with a $2 cable just to fulfill the requirement, and nobody seems to mind.

So do you think with Vista could I buy the oem, do my frequent upgrades, and be okay? Is there any way for the software to tell the difference and freeze me out?
________
tiny tits Webcam

 

[Monty]

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php

This is a pretty good description of the licensing in Windows XP, so basically should be the same as Vista now.