End-user License for Vista

[Guest]

My beef is similar, although not what's being discussed here. My objection
is to the limited number of times you can install the software. After you
install and activate your OS a certain number of times (I don't know the
magical number) you can no longer activate your software without calling
Microsoft and dancing through a lot of hoops to get a new activation number.

Redoing my system as often as I do I long since have passed the "magical
number". I can't begin to tell you how annoying and time wasting it has been
for me to call Microsoft and do the Dance of the Hoops to get a new
activation number.

I don't understand the logic behind this policy. It's like buying a car and
only being allowed to start it so many times before it refuses to start
before you have to spend a day dancing through hoops to get permission to
start it just one more time.

David

 

[MICHAEL]

It sure is some tricky wording.

Even the clarification still kind of sucks.
Although, I guess if a user is spending
mega bucks on Vista Ultimate, those sorts
of "extras" may help justify the cost.


-Michael

 

[Guest]

I have just seen the new License terms for the Vista versions on the MS
website and am concerned about new restrictions about using the license on a
new machine. It seems you are only allowed to transfer vista once to a new
machine. I have checked with Microsoft and apparently installing a new
motherboard/ processor is as far as they are concerned a new machine!
This is going to hit those of us who home build our machines and upgrade
regularly very hard. I must admit I am thinking whether the change to Vista
is worthwhile. This is a new restriction which does not appear in the XP
EULA.
Alan

I agree with Alan. As another user who upgrades my machine on a regular
basis, I do not think we should be "required" to purchase a new copy of Vista
after the one "allowed" transfer. This appears to be an attempt to boost
sales of the OS.

I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.
Microsoft has already built in enough safeguards into Vista to address the
piracy issue.

 

[Alias~-]

I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.

Alias

 

[Beck]

From Microsoft site, questions and answers about OEM product. If you don't
like the answer, not my problem. Call Microsoft. Check
http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2005/09/07/461961.aspx

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

That is all well and good, but that is not in the EULA that customers
agree to. They can only go on what the EULA says when they install the
software. If it is not there, it does not apply.

 

[Guest]

Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.

Alias

Yes it does, Alias. But really, what other purpose besides increasing their
sales of Vista does this restriction serve?

If the argument is: "Well the number of people that build their own systems
is so small that the impact will be minimal" Then I guess ASUS, ABIT, ECS,
GigaByte etc. might as well fold up shop! <<<(insert sarcasm here). I do
realize they build boards for OEM's as well.

Let's hear a LUCID reason for this change in the EULA from someone in the
Microsoft camp...

 

[Guest]

If full version of Vista is purchased outside of any OEM does this still
limit if I upgrade my computer at a later stage? I intend to upgrade things
before install but we all know how fast technology moves and what we didn't
think we wanted today we might want next week or need - will Microsoft
restrict a fresh install or limit a clean install with the full retail
version? if so then there would not be any advantage purchasing at full cost
plus best wait and update everything before installing Vista

I am not one to re-install every month or at all if possible although Vista
has made installing easier. I was planning to purchase full retail but if it
is only access to Microsoft help then I didn't use this with XP. I hoped a
full copy would not tie the OS to any drive/mobo.

 

[Alias~-]

Yes it does, Alias. But really, what other purpose besides increasing their
sales of Vista does this restriction serve?

None that I can see.

If the argument is: "Well the number of people that build their own systems
is so small that the impact will be minimal" Then I guess ASUS, ABIT, ECS,
GigaByte etc. might as well fold up shop! <<<(insert sarcasm here). I do
realize they build boards for OEM's as well.

If they say that, it's further proof that they have no respect for
paying customers but what else is new?

Let's hear a LUCID reason for this change in the EULA from someone in the
Microsoft camp...

Don't hold your breath.

Alias

 

[John Barnes]

The computer purchaser agrees to one computer and no transfer except the
whole computer and this defines one computer. As to the system builder
license, when I bought mine, the seller web page made it clear that the
purchase was subject to the license, but I don't see that on the site now.

 

[John Barnes]

It does seem the license is getting close to the OEM license. As to the
support, I didn't need with 98 or ME, but when I installed SP2 my machine
became a disaster and support eventually sent me a copy of XP that included
SP2. Without that, I wouldn't have had a useable XP for the last 2 years
or would have had to buy a copy with SP2 for close to $140

 

[Beck]

The computer purchaser agrees to one computer and no transfer except the
whole computer and this defines one computer. As to the system builder
license, when I bought mine, the seller web page made it clear that the
purchase was subject to the license, but I don't see that on the site now.

Thing is, when some people buy an oem they are not system builders so
they can only go on the EULA that is presented to them. This obviously
leads to confusion as to what the "rules" are.
Personally I think it is a horrid restriction and I am surprised the EU
commission haven't bitten MS for this yet.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

What I find heavy handed, is the fact which versions are
allowed to be run in a virtual environment.

Home Basic and Home Premium are not allowed
to be virtualized. Why?

This clause is the most idiotic of all the clauses.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE at all in ANY WAY. How the Microsoft
lawyers came up with it, I have no idea. They must have all been
buzzing on speed or coke after an all-night session.

I know Ultimate is allowed.

My favorite is

<quote>
8. SCOPE OF LICENSE.
You May Not:
- work around any technical limitations in the software;
</quote>

What does that mean? Most of, in some fashion or another,
have always worked around Windows' "technical limitations".

This is a rather dubious clause, and probably won't last too long,
since it is not necessarily legally binding in ANY nation, being so
non-specific. It is probably "neo-legaleze" for "no backward
engineering of the code".

Oh, and WTF does this mean? "only one user may use the software
at a time", located under Number of Users.

Lawyers are very strange beasts, it seems. They come up with all
sorts of ways of trying to keep us from using our legally purchased
products the way we want to use them. They even come up with reasons
which actually make no sense whatsoever, as in the case of this one.

This clause supposedly will help insure that the license is not copied
and used on a different machine by a second person.

This, too:
<quote>
You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device.
You may use the software on up to two processors on that device
at one time.
</quote>

This refers to CPUs which have more than one core, or a computer which
has more than one CPU on the motherboard, and commonly refers in that
case to CPUs with both an on-board Floating Point Processor, and an
on-board Integer Processor (the common configuration for all modern of
CPUs): I.E.: It licenses a CPU which has no more than two cores, or
no more than 1 FP processor and 1 Integer processor, either in a
single core, or as two processors (as used to the case), or a machine
which has no more than two cores/CPUs on the Motherboard.

Actually, this is the only clause which DOES make sense, both
financially, and practically.

Only "two processors"?
Quad cores are not too far off.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/09/27/HNintelquadcorenovember_1.html

To use a quad-core processor (which has FOUR cores/CPUs on a single
machine), one must get a DIFFERENT license, which would license more
than TWO cores/CPUs, or TWO licenses, since the OEM license only
licenses TWO cores/CPUS on a SINGLE machine.

-Michael

I really don't believe this restriction will hold up in a court of law
very long, especially in the EU.

Most users will simply disregard this idiotic clause, and do what they
have always done: If their motherboard fails, or if they decide to
upgrade motherboards, they will simply do what they have to do, and if
they have to call in to activate, they will come up with a
"sufficiently valid reason" for the Activation technician. Most users
who can upgrade their own motherboards usually have the intelligence
and imagination necessary to come up with a good-enough reason.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

If full version of Vista is purchased outside of any OEM does this still
limit if I upgrade my computer at a later stage? I intend to upgrade things
before install but we all know how fast technology moves and what we didn't
think we wanted today we might want next week or need - will Microsoft
restrict a fresh install or limit a clean install with the full retail
version? if so then there would not be any advantage purchasing at full cost
plus best wait and update everything before installing Vista

I am not one to re-install every month or at all if possible although Vista
has made installing easier. I was planning to purchase full retail but if it
is only access to Microsoft help then I didn't use this with XP. I hoped a
full copy would not tie the OS to any drive/mobo.

Retail versions of Windows may be transferred to ANY number of
machines, as long as the OS on only ONE machine at a time is
activated.

This means that ANY repairs or upgrades one may wish to do are
completely allowed by the Retail EULA.

If Microsoft EVER tries to mess with the Retail EULA, it will be a
DARK DAY for the world.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[John Barnes]

The Amazon UK site still has the system builder message. I agree the whole
mess is confusing. The EULA is between the system builder and final
consumer and is related to the final product installed on a computer. The
purchaser of the OEM product who installs it on the computer is the system
builder.

This product is intended for system builders and small OEMs (Original
Equipment Manufacturers) who manufacture computer systems and preinstall
Microsoft OEM system builder software onto those systems. Its use is subject
to the OEM System Builder License Agreement that is affixed to the side of
all OEM system builder software packs

 

[Grump]

Both
1. getting Windows to work and
2. working on Windows
obligates one to working around the technical limitations of the software.

 

[will_s]

I agree with Alan. As another user who upgrades my machine on a regular
basis, I do not think we should be "required" to purchase a new copy of
Vista
after the one "allowed" transfer. This appears to be an attempt to boost
sales of the OS.

I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.
Microsoft has already built in enough safeguards into Vista to address the
piracy issue.

actually if someone invovled with PC Magines or anyother IT can get the
story in print then we may see better explainations from Microsoft

and yes..I am a tinkler and quite often reinstall things etc

maybe its best to day with WinXP

 

[Alan]

The problem is that the EULA for retail version of windows only allows a
transfer to another device (ir reassign the licence) one time! See article
15a of the Vista EULA. For XP you could transfer as often as you wanted as
long as it was just on one machine!
Alan

 

[Alias~-]

actually if someone invovled with PC Magines or anyother IT can get the
story in print then we may see better explainations from Microsoft

and yes..I am a tinkler and quite often reinstall things etc

maybe its best to day with WinXP

Wouldn't it be great if MS threw a Vista party and nobody came? Maybe
then they would wake up but I doubt it.

Alias

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

The problem is that the EULA for retail version of windows only allows a
transfer to another device (ir reassign the licence) one time! See article
15a of the Vista EULA. For XP you could transfer as often as you wanted as
long as it was just on one machine!
Alan

Is that the Vista RETAIL EULA, or the OEM EULA? It makes sense for
the OEM EULA, which has ALWAYS allowed the transfer of the license to
only ONE other PERSON, as long as the original machine was transferred
along with the license.

But it certainly makes no sense for a RETAIL license, and if it is
true, is definitely an encroachment on our FAIR USE rights under
almost ANY national legal code.

I doubt this clause will stand long in a court of law.

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

and yes..I am a tinkler and quite often reinstall things etc

As far as I know, we are all "Tinklers", since we all take a piss from
time to time. However, a few of us are "tinkers", in that we "tinker"
with our machines all the time.


Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------