Vista - number of reinstalls after product release

[Barry Watzman]

No one is making a fuss about transfers to 3rd parties (what I think you
mean by "external"). Nor is there an issue (for most of us, anyway)
with installation on multiple machines concurrently. The issue that has
everyone's dander up has to do with transfers to a machine that is
either the same system drastically upgraded (such as new motherboard,
and consequently seen by Vista/MS as a different system), or to a truly
new system that is a total replacement for a previous system that will
no longer exist (or have Vista installed) after it's replacement (all
machines presumed to be owned by the same owner).

From XP EULA 2004 SP2 version Internal is different, Third Party is not.

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. Transfer
to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make
a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to
another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include the
Software and the Proof of License label. The transfer may
not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior
to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must
agree to all the EULA terms.

Re: "Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here"

That is simply not true. Categorically not true, at least for retail
boxed copies of XP.

A retail boxed copy of XP can be moved from one machine to another an
UNLIMITED number of times [I fully understand that when it is moved from
one machine to another, it must be erased from the machine that it was
originally on ... it can only be on one machine at a time. BUT IT CAN BE
MOVED WITHOUT LIMITATION, as far as the EULA is concerned.]

Whereas under the Vista EULA, a retail copy of Vista can only be moved
ONCE.

[For both XP and Vista, as far as the Eula is concerned, an OEM copy can
NEVER be moved, not even once. The Eula for retail and OEM copies is
different in this regard.]

Of course the issue isn't entirely limited to "movement". There is a
practical issue of how Vista determines whether or not it is in fact on
the same system or a new system. And to this extent, the problem arises
that an UPGRADE of a system may be seen by Vista as a transfer (movement)
of the OS from one system to a different system.

Microsoft has never come right out and said what defines a "system". For
XP, we do know what triggers product activation: Ten parameters are
monitored, and if more than 3 of them change, product activation considers
it to be a new system (if the hardware MAC address, which is one of the
parameters looked at, does not change then a larger number of other items
are allowed to change).

Microsoft has not released any information, however, on how Vista will
work.

Also, in XP, the PA database reportedly (and in fact apparently) resets
itself after 4 months of no changes, even apparently for OEM copies. This
makes the actual implementation more liberal than the letter of the EULA.
But we don't know if this will continue to be the case for Vista or not.


Gary Mount wrote:

Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here.



I have read the article, in which general manager of Windows Shanen
Boettcher says, that Vista licence will allow only 2 machines install for
1 licence.
Is it means, that if i buy box version, i can use it only on 2 machines
at all?
Why is this?
I was able to use XP on unlimited number of PCs (i mean install on 1st
PC, uninstall on 1st PC, install on 2nd PC, uninstall on 2nd PC, and so
on)

I this restriction will exist, that what is reason to buy box version?
Than i will not buy it. Why to pay several times for one program?!

 

[David R. Norton MVP]

I've been quite a supporter of MS, but, this really p*sses me
off... I (like many of us) like to tinker with my PC, upgrading it
bit by bit. If MS is really going to do this, they're going to
drive more of us toward Linux and Mac.

"Going to?" I'm already there, I'm just hoping I'll have solid enough
knowledge of Linux before XP is totally dead.... so far it's been a
huge struggle but that's OK, Vista won't run on my machine either.
<sigh>

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

This is from my copy of XP Pro x86 version

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.

NOTE that this clause does not LIMIT in any way the number of times the
license may be transferred to the SAME person on a different machine, as
LONG as the SOFTWARE (NOT the License) is removed from the CURRENT machine.

Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make
a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to
another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include the
Software and the Proof of License label. The transfer may
not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior
to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must
agree to all the EULA terms.

NOTE, Mr. Barnes, this is referring to SALE or TRANSFER of the license to
ANOTHER Person, not another machine owned by the SAME person. To try to
interpret this clause as applying to the SAME person TRANSFERRING the
LICENSE to HIMSELF is ridiculous.

Obviously, the terms of the license are "one owner, one license", NOT "one
machine, one license'. The EULA goes further, and states IMPLICITLY that
the SOFTWARE may be transferred an INDEFINITE number of times as long as
the license is held by the SAME person, and as long as the software is only
on ONE machine at a time.

The fact is, the LICENSE is NOT "transferred to a second person" when the
LICENSEE is the SAME PERSON after the "transfer" (personally, I do not
believe the license is TRANSFERRED in ANY WAY if the owner moves the
software to a second machine, or a third, or fourth, or so on), and moves
the SOFTWARE to a second (or third, or fourth, or on and on indefinitely)
machine, and as LONG as the SOFTWARE is not KEPT on another machine.

A machine cannot be a "LICENSEE", only a HUMAN BEING can be a "LICENSEE".
Nor can the SOFTWARE itself be the LICENSE to use the Software.
Let's see Microsoft try to prove in a court of law that a machine can be a
licensee, or that the software is the actual license itself. While the
Software may contain a COPY Of the License, it is NOT itself the actual
License.

Obviously, Microsoft is trying to CONFUSE the issue, by equating the
LICENSE to use the Software with the SOFTWARE itself. This is a LEGAL
FICTION, and will NEVER stand up in a court of law.

Such an interpretation MUST be overturned, or we are headed down the
slippery slope to lawlessness itself.

if I could afford it, I would press such a lawsuit myself, with the
arguments I have outlined above.

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Re: "Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here"

That is simply not true. Categorically not true, at least for retail
boxed copies of XP.

A retail boxed copy of XP can be moved from one machine to another an
UNLIMITED number of times [I fully understand that when it is moved from
one machine to another, it must be erased from the machine that it was
originally on ... it can only be on one machine at a time. BUT IT CAN
BE MOVED WITHOUT LIMITATION, as far as the EULA is concerned.]

Whereas under the Vista EULA, a retail copy of Vista can only be moved ONCE.

[For both XP and Vista, as far as the Eula is concerned, an OEM copy can
NEVER be moved, not even once.

This is simply not so, Barry. The OEM license itself EXPRESSLY states that
an OEM license may be moved IF the ORIGINAL machine is transferred along
with it, as well as the original software, and all copies of it.

Implicitly, this leaves room for an INDEFINITE number of transfers of the
License and Software, as long as the terms of the License are adhered to.
To interpret it any other way is legally specious.

The Eula for retail and OEM copies is
different in this regard.]

Of course the issue isn't entirely limited to "movement". There is a
practical issue of how Vista determines whether or not it is in fact on
the same system or a new system. And to this extent, the problem arises
that an UPGRADE of a system may be seen by Vista as a transfer
(movement) of the OS from one system to a different system.

Microsoft has never come right out and said what defines a "system".
For XP, we do know what triggers product activation: Ten parameters are
monitored, and if more than 3 of them change, product activation
considers it to be a new system

This is not correct. Product Activation does NOT "consider it to be a new
system". It considers it to be a CHANGED (or "possibly new") system
needing reactivation.

(if the hardware MAC address, which is
one of the parameters looked at, does not change then a larger number of
other items are allowed to change).

Microsoft has not released any information, however, on how Vista will work.

Also, in XP, the PA database reportedly (and in fact apparently) resets
itself after 4 months of no changes, even apparently for OEM copies.

I can attest to this fact, having never purchased a Retail version of XP
(other than a single "Retail Upgrade" copy". I ALWAYS buy Generic OEM
copies of my OS.

This is well attested to by MANY users of XP as well as Microsoft itself.

This makes the actual implementation more liberal than the letter of the
EULA. But we don't know if this will continue to be the case for Vista
or not.

Obviously, there would be no particular advantage of the "Full Retail"
version over a "Generic OEM" version, since even a Generic OEM may be
installed on a machine which has no OS on it (that being the "supposed"
main advantage of the "Full Retail" version.)

Something tells me that Microsoft is attempting to STOP sales of a "Generic
OEM" version at a reduced price.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were no "Generic OEM"
versions of Vista come November or January.

Too bad.

But this certainly bodes ill for Microsoft, since it is sure to result in
the increased piracy of its OS, not the decreased piracy they think will
result from such cessation of Generic OEM sales.

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

No one is making a fuss about transfers to 3rd parties (what I think you
mean by "external"). Nor is there an issue (for most of us, anyway)
with installation on multiple machines concurrently. The issue that has
everyone's dander up has to do with transfers to a machine that is
either the same system drastically upgraded (such as new motherboard,
and consequently seen by Vista/MS as a different system), or to a truly
new system that is a total replacement for a previous system that will
no longer exist (or have Vista installed) after it's replacement (all
machines presumed to be owned by the same owner).

From XP EULA 2004 SP2 version Internal is different, Third Party is not.

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. Transfer
to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make
a one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to
another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include the
Software and the Proof of License label. The transfer may
not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior
to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must
agree to all the EULA terms.

Re: "Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here"

That is simply not true. Categorically not true, at least for retail
boxed copies of XP.

A retail boxed copy of XP can be moved from one machine to another an
UNLIMITED number of times [I fully understand that when it is moved from
one machine to another, it must be erased from the machine that it was
originally on ... it can only be on one machine at a time. BUT IT CAN BE
MOVED WITHOUT LIMITATION, as far as the EULA is concerned.]

Whereas under the Vista EULA, a retail copy of Vista can only be moved
ONCE.

[For both XP and Vista, as far as the Eula is concerned, an OEM copy can
NEVER be moved, not even once. The Eula for retail and OEM copies is
different in this regard.]

Of course the issue isn't entirely limited to "movement". There is a
practical issue of how Vista determines whether or not it is in fact on
the same system or a new system. And to this extent, the problem arises
that an UPGRADE of a system may be seen by Vista as a transfer (movement)
of the OS from one system to a different system.

Microsoft has never come right out and said what defines a "system". For
XP, we do know what triggers product activation: Ten parameters are
monitored, and if more than 3 of them change, product activation considers
it to be a new system (if the hardware MAC address, which is one of the
parameters looked at, does not change then a larger number of other items
are allowed to change).

Microsoft has not released any information, however, on how Vista will
work.

Also, in XP, the PA database reportedly (and in fact apparently) resets
itself after 4 months of no changes, even apparently for OEM copies. This
makes the actual implementation more liberal than the letter of the EULA.
But we don't know if this will continue to be the case for Vista or not.


Gary Mount wrote:


Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here.



I have read the article, in which general manager of Windows Shanen
Boettcher says, that Vista licence will allow only 2 machines install for
1 licence.
Is it means, that if i buy box version, i can use it only on 2 machines
at all?
Why is this?
I was able to use XP on unlimited number of PCs (i mean install on 1st
PC, uninstall on 1st PC, install on 2nd PC, uninstall on 2nd PC, and so
on)

I this restriction will exist, that what is reason to buy box version?
Than i will not buy it. Why to pay several times for one program?!

As I've said previously, this is a direct result of equating the LICENSE to
install and use the SOFTWARE with the SOFTWARE itself.

Do NOT confuse the two concepts. They are ENTIRELY different.
Microsoft provides us SEVERAL things when we purchase a copy of XP: a
LICENSE to use the SOFTWARE, which is subject to the laws of the nations
where the MEDIA is sold, and the media itself, containing TWO things: The
SOFTWARE itself, and a COPY of the TERMS of the License (found in
EULA.txt).

It also provides us with a CD key which effectively enables us to INSTALL
the software and use it ACCORDING to the License agreement, thus excuting
on our part the License.

AS LONG as we keep the TERMS of the LICENSE (a copy of the TERMS of which
is found in EULA.txt), we may install the SOFTWARE on AS MANY MACHINES as
we need to. Our licenses are held "PERPETUALLY", and may ONLY be rescended
by Microsoft IF we WILLFULLY BREAK the terms of the License Agreement, and
are so found to be guilty of doing in a court of law.

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Not true With Xp if you own the full retail version it will let you transfer
as many times as you like of course you will need to activate it everytime
you do so

Xp OEM versions will in some cases let you transfer once but as rule OEM is
only valid on the one system

This is NOT so about OEM licenses, sir.
An OEM license may be transferred INDEFINITELY, as long as the MACHINE, the
original software, and all copies of it, are transferred along with it.

In otherwords, if an OEM license is transferred properly, the NEW licensee
has the SAME rights as the ORIGINAL holder of the License, since the SAME
Licencing agreement is NOW entered into by the NEW licensee, who then
becomes the "original licensee". This is a standard of Law agreed to by
EVERY civilized nation on the face of the earth.

That Microsoft is attempting to CHANGE this standard only shows their level
of "civility".

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Pfhhh. Well, I'm probably going Mac/Linux now.

 

[Guest]

I'll say this; I want to buy a legit copy of Vista, but if it forces me to
buy a new copy every time I upgrade, while a pirate copy doesn't, then so be
it.

Re: "Windows XP has the same license restrictions, nothing new here"

That is simply not true. Categorically not true, at least for retail
boxed copies of XP.

A retail boxed copy of XP can be moved from one machine to another an
UNLIMITED number of times [I fully understand that when it is moved from
one machine to another, it must be erased from the machine that it was
originally on ... it can only be on one machine at a time. BUT IT CAN
BE MOVED WITHOUT LIMITATION, as far as the EULA is concerned.]

Whereas under the Vista EULA, a retail copy of Vista can only be moved ONCE.

[For both XP and Vista, as far as the Eula is concerned, an OEM copy can
NEVER be moved, not even once.

This is simply not so, Barry. The OEM license itself EXPRESSLY states that
an OEM license may be moved IF the ORIGINAL machine is transferred along
with it, as well as the original software, and all copies of it.

Implicitly, this leaves room for an INDEFINITE number of transfers of the
License and Software, as long as the terms of the License are adhered to.
To interpret it any other way is legally specious.

The Eula for retail and OEM copies is
different in this regard.]

Of course the issue isn't entirely limited to "movement". There is a
practical issue of how Vista determines whether or not it is in fact on
the same system or a new system. And to this extent, the problem arises
that an UPGRADE of a system may be seen by Vista as a transfer
(movement) of the OS from one system to a different system.

Microsoft has never come right out and said what defines a "system".
For XP, we do know what triggers product activation: Ten parameters are
monitored, and if more than 3 of them change, product activation
considers it to be a new system

This is not correct. Product Activation does NOT "consider it to be a new
system". It considers it to be a CHANGED (or "possibly new") system
needing reactivation.

(if the hardware MAC address, which is
one of the parameters looked at, does not change then a larger number of
other items are allowed to change).

Microsoft has not released any information, however, on how Vista will work.

Also, in XP, the PA database reportedly (and in fact apparently) resets
itself after 4 months of no changes, even apparently for OEM copies.

I can attest to this fact, having never purchased a Retail version of XP
(other than a single "Retail Upgrade" copy". I ALWAYS buy Generic OEM
copies of my OS.

This is well attested to by MANY users of XP as well as Microsoft itself.

This makes the actual implementation more liberal than the letter of the
EULA. But we don't know if this will continue to be the case for Vista
or not.

Obviously, there would be no particular advantage of the "Full Retail"
version over a "Generic OEM" version, since even a Generic OEM may be
installed on a machine which has no OS on it (that being the "supposed"
main advantage of the "Full Retail" version.)

Something tells me that Microsoft is attempting to STOP sales of a "Generic
OEM" version at a reduced price.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if there were no "Generic OEM"
versions of Vista come November or January.

Too bad.

But this certainly bodes ill for Microsoft, since it is sure to result in
the increased piracy of its OS, not the decreased piracy they think will
result from such cessation of Generic OEM sales.

Donald

 

[Tom Porterfield]

I'll say this; I want to buy a legit copy of Vista, but if it forces me to
buy a new copy every time I upgrade, while a pirate copy doesn't, then so
be it.

It does not force you to buy a new copy every time you upgrade. Where have
you seen that stated?

 

[Guest]

Well, when I upgrade, it reads my parts, sees that their different, and calls
it a new system. Or I have a problem and format my HDD, it reads my clean
HDD, and calls it a new system.

 

[Tom Porterfield]

Well, when I upgrade, it reads my parts, sees that their different, and
calls it a new system. Or I have a problem and format my HDD, it reads my
clean HDD, and calls it a new system.

It does? I have been on the beta since early and have never seen a new
install on the same hardware (format and install) cause it to read that as a
new system. It reads that as a reinstall on the same system and activates
with no problems.

On your first point, what parts are you upgrading that it reads that as a
new system? I have upgraded video card, added DVD-RW, added RAM. None of
which even triggered reactivation let alone anything that might cause Vista
to think that was a whole new system. In the past that has been mostly
defined as an upgrade of the MB/CPU.

Two additional points. First, there is a lot of over-hyped misinformation
out there right now on the Vista EULA. Research what you read and don't
subscribe to the hysteria that some are trying to spread. Second, no one
has seen the EULA for the RTM version of Vista as Vista is not yet RTM.

 

[Daniel Cox]

Vista uses the same hardware rating system as xp for reactivation.
e.g. The system will reactivate at 250 points, and the mobo is worth 150,
HDD 100, gfx 130, etc.
The EULA for reactivation is the same as xp's, it's just worded differently.
If you need reactivation, jsut ring up MS and ask.

 

[Wake up and smell the coffee]

It does not force you to buy a new copy every time you upgrade. Where
have you seen that stated?

Not every time, it's every other time.

 

[Alias~-]

Vista uses the same hardware rating system as xp for reactivation.
e.g. The system will reactivate at 250 points, and the mobo is worth
150, HDD 100, gfx 130, etc.
The EULA for reactivation is the same as xp's, it's just worded
differently.
If you need reactivation, jsut ring up MS and ask.

And, if they always reactivate, what's the point?

Alias

 

[Chris May]

| I'll say this; I want to buy a legit copy of Vista, but if it forces me to
| buy a new copy every time I upgrade, while a pirate copy doesn't, then so be
| it.

Then stick with XP! I don't see anything in Vista that looks like a "must have"
for the average home user, so I don't plan to queue up on Windows release day
for the first time since 3.0. Instead, I'll keep my $159 in my pocket and keep
XP.

ChrisM

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Perhaps if we all agree to let MS rewrite its EULA for XP to allow only
one transfer, then UPS will let us all buy a lot of original stock at
the original prices? I think I'd go for that.

Something tells me Microsoft won't do that, since that is EXACTLY what the
Retail License for Vista allows. They want to sell RETAIL copies of Vista,
not "better" OEM copies of XP.

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Barry Watzman]

Not every time or every other time. The OS is able to detect if it's
being reinstalled on the same hardware or different hardware (well, most
of the time ....). You are allowed an infinite number of reinstalls on
the same hardware. Issues only arise when you change the hardware (and
"change" here means massive changes, so large that Vista considers it a
different computer). You can make "upgrade" changes small enough that
vista still considers it to be the same computer, and do an unlimited
number of reinstallations on what Vista thinks is the "same computer".

It's only when you move to a different computer (or make truly massive
changes to the same computer, such as new motherboard) that you have an
issue.

An unanswered question, however, that is crucial to the entire argument,
is whether or not Vista's product activation database, like XP's, resets
after 4 months with no changes to a given product key.

 

[Chris May]

| Not every time or every other time. The OS is able to detect if it's
| being reinstalled on the same hardware or different hardware (well, most
| of the time ....). You are allowed an infinite number of reinstalls on
| the same hardware. Issues only arise when you change the hardware (and
| "change" here means massive changes, so large that Vista considers it a
| different computer). You can make "upgrade" changes small enough that
| vista still considers it to be the same computer, and do an unlimited
| number of reinstallations on what Vista thinks is the "same computer".

The changes are cumulative with XP. I recently "tilted" XP activation on my
main computer by uninstalling drivers for my video card. That closely followed
change of motherboard, CPU, optical drives and PSU though. It had been long
enough since my last activation that I was able to do it online.

The XP activation slate is wiped clean after a certain time. I believe it's 120
days. Will it be the same with Vista or has greed got in the way of that?

ChrisM

 

[Barry Watzman]

I think that your analysis of what happened (or more correctly, why it
happened) is incorrect. Drivers are not part of the analysis that is
done to characterize the hardware. No changes in drivers will, by
itself, trigger product activation if the underlying hardware remains
unchanged.

 

[Alias~-]

I think that your analysis of what happened (or more correctly, why it
happened) is incorrect. Drivers are not part of the analysis that is
done to characterize the hardware. No changes in drivers will, by
itself, trigger product activation if the underlying hardware remains
unchanged.

False. I had a problem with my NIC and uninstalled the drivers four
times and then XP Home wanted activation which worked on line.

Alias