Microsoft Vista NEW one time only transfer

[RR Johnson Jr]

I would like to ask the Vista community to give Microsoft our complete
disapproval of item 15 a. as shown in their new license agreement for
Windows Vista home basic, home premium, and ultimate. Here is a quote from
this license agreement:

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."

Many of us in the Vista community upgrade our PCs sometimes several times
within the space of a couple of years. This is completely unacceptable and I
will be writing the Microsoft board of directors about this subject.

http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_66716c9b-88ec-4a8b-bf56-31a72651b7a3.pdf

Microsoft is attempting to punish ninety-five percent of those who are
rightfully using their product because of the five percent that are not.

 

[Will]

It totally sucks
And all it's good for is to maximise MSFT's profits
and I'm sure there will be patches released by hackers to get around this
and people will use those patches. In other words they will be turning
ordinary people into criminals

 

[David Sanders]

I would like to ask the Vista community to give Microsoft our complete
disapproval of item 15 a. as shown in their new license agreement for
Windows Vista home basic, home premium, and ultimate. Here is a quote from
this license agreement:

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."

Many of us in the Vista community upgrade our PCs sometimes several times
within the space of a couple of years. This is completely unacceptable and
I will be writing the Microsoft board of directors about this subject.

http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_66716c9b-88ec-4a8b-bf56-31a72651b7a3.pdf

Microsoft is attempting to punish ninety-five percent of those who are
rightfully using their product because of the five percent that are not.

I don't see anything in the license that prevents you from upgrading your
PCs as you describe.

 

[Paul Smith]

Absolutely.

--
Paul Smith,
Yeovil, UK.
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User.
http://www.windowsresource.net/

*Remove nospam. to reply by e-mail*

 

[Cy!on]

I don't see anything in the license that prevents you from upgrading your
PCs as you describe.

Depends how you define "device".
If i swap the hard drive into a different Pc is that a different device?
Similary, if I buy a new hard drive to replace my current one and install
Vista onto that, is that a different device.
It has to be one or the other, otherwise neither the PC or the Hard Drive is
a device.

 

[Fuzzy John]

I suppose that what MS is after is a Vista retail license just like the OEM
license. A lot of money to be made that way. Next stop: pay for service
packs.

 

[RR Johnson Jr]

I've always been a cheerleader of Microsoft but does this mean if I upgrade
my motherboard and processor or in a worst case scenario I have to replace
my motherboard due to a fault why should I be limited to that being the only
device assuming the Vista software believes I have a different PC?

regards
Robert

 

[Alan]

See Paul Thurrotts justification on www.winsupersite.com Apparently MS
meant to have the same one time only EULA for XP but never got round to it!!
According to Thurrott and apparently Microsoft, this change is ok as it only
affects a small proportion of Windows users!!
It seems to me that this change does nothing to prevent piracy but only
succeeds in alienating those of us who are enthusiasts and like to build
their own machines and upgrade fairly often when as the hardware develops!

Alan

 

[Alias~-]

See Paul Thurrotts justification on www.winsupersite.com Apparently MS
meant to have the same one time only EULA for XP but never got round to it!!
According to Thurrott and apparently Microsoft, this change is ok as it only
affects a small proportion of Windows users!!
It seems to me that this change does nothing to prevent piracy but only
succeeds in alienating those of us who are enthusiasts and like to build
their own machines and upgrade fairly often when as the hardware develops!

Alan

The key question for enthusiasts is how much upgrading of a computer is
too much; if there's a 120 day clean the slate feature; and, what is the
point system that will require reactivation on line or groveling to
someone in Pakistan on the phone. These, and many other, reasons are
good enough to convince me to wait a year or two for Vista. That, and
I'm happy with XP.

Alias

 

[Alias~-]

I've always been a cheerleader of Microsoft but does this mean if I
upgrade my motherboard and processor or in a worst case scenario I have
to replace my motherboard due to a fault why should I be limited to that
being the only device assuming the Vista software believes I have a
different PC?

regards
Robert

If so, then we know it isn't pirates they're after but our wallets.

Alias

 

[Jason Cambre]

I agree that this is punishing the majority of users who are rightfully
using Microsoft's software. With the tougher policies on Volume Licensing in
Vista, why is it even necessary to change the user agreement this way? Most
of the pirated instances of XP are running those Volume Licensed verions.
Since Microsoft can deny features to any suspected abuser, I do not see it
fit to limit the installation of a single genuine licensed instance of Vista
to a device and ONLY it's one "upgrade." What upgrade means is certainly up
to much debate as it's all very vague.

 

[Dave Balcom]

}I suppose that what MS is after is a Vista retail license just like the OEM
}license. A lot of money to be made that way. Next stop: pay for service
}packs.

Hmmmm. Maybe a monthly subscription OS??? You drop in a few quarters and
the system comes to life...

 

[Knox]

I believe that if there's a failure of the machine, you can replace the
machine as often as needed.

Knox

 

[David Sanders]

Depends how you define "device".
If i swap the hard drive into a different Pc is that a different device?
Similary, if I buy a new hard drive to replace my current one and install
Vista onto that, is that a different device.
It has to be one or the other, otherwise neither the PC or the Hard Drive
is a device.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/28/us_court_ruling_nixes_software/

 

[David Sanders]

I believe that if there's a failure of the machine, you can replace the
machine as often as needed.

Knox

That's not what it says.

 

[Fuzzy John]

Apparently MS meant........ Remember Pee Wee Herman when he fell off the
bike in front of the girls? Said "I meant to do that".

Give me a break.

 

[Alfred Kaufmann]

}I suppose that what MS is after is a Vista retail license just like the
OEM
}license. A lot of money to be made that way. Next stop: pay for service
}packs.

Hmmmm. Maybe a monthly subscription OS??? You drop in a few quarters and
the system comes to life...

Sounds like DIVX! If I remember right DIVX for DVDs died a quick death but
for some reason keeps clawing its way out of the grave. I have two
computers and bought many more than just two operating systems from
Microsoft. If I need to buy a new Vista everytime I change something then
I'd like to say I won't buy Vista but that probably would not be true, but I
will defintely have another look at Linux and the open office program.

Al

 

[Kevin Young]

Interesting article on this issue:

http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/6325/983/

 

[Fuzzy John]

Well said. It looks like the folks down under have their heads up straight
unlike some guy named Paul who is mentioned quite a few times around here.

As for the Software Protection Program, in my opinion MS is welcome to
disable a computer found to be running pirated Windows. But there can be no
disclaimer that protects MS from bearing FULL responsibility if the computer
was disabled in error. OOPS, sorry should just not cut it.

 

[Michael Cecil]

Well said. It looks like the folks down under have their heads up straight
unlike some guy named Paul who is mentioned quite a few times around here.

As for the Software Protection Program, in my opinion MS is welcome to
disable a computer found to be running pirated Windows. But there can be no
disclaimer that protects MS from bearing FULL responsibility if the computer
was disabled in error. OOPS, sorry should just not cut it.

Oh come on! After their resounding and unerroring success with the WGA
check implementation, don't you have a little faith that they can detect
actually pirated versions of Vista without fail?