Vista retail - install limitations?

[PatriX]

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of Windows...

 

[Charlie Tame]

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

As far as I know it's not a definite number of parts but varies, however
you should always be able to reactivate by phone if you have a
reasonable explanation.

2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

Not at this time, same as above, however the EULA more or less states
that MS can do when they like when they like so who knows?

I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of Windows...

I agree, I think it is a terrible business decision and hope that MS
reconsider or fix the problems with it before they discover the damage
it does to them the hard way.

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

If you make critical changes to the computer, it will require re-activating
Vista by telephone. Some of the hard parts include Hard disk, motherboad and
in some cases memory. Try not to do it too much since this can be attributed
by the person granting the activation request as suspicious behaviour. If
you are going to make major changes, trying doing once if you can I say.

2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

If its a retail license, fine, you can remove it from your old computer and
install it on a new one.

I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of
Windows...

Most pirated versions of Windows that end users choose are Volume License
versions which are used by Corporations for mass deployment of Windows.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true?

Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.

However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
doesn't represent any real problem.

Can it be done an unlimited number of times?


Yes.


2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.

That's wrong.

First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.

But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
along with the computer.

It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
Windows.

If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

*If* it's a retail license, no, it's false (see above). But with an
OEM license, yes, it's true the very first time you buy a new
computer, not just the second time.

 

[PatriX]

Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.

However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
doesn't represent any real problem.

Actually, it DO represent a problem.
I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
it totally unacceptable to be required to:
1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
and then
2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.

Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?
Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
(I will have to call them almost every month)

Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.

Yes.

Well, at least that's good.

That's wrong.

First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.

But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
along with the computer.

It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
Windows.

Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
retail version.



I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
reasons for this:
1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
express myself in the most proper way
2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
treat the customers the way Microsoft do.



Off topic:
How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
they've paid for?
How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
you modify your hardware configuration?

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Actually, it DO represent a problem.
I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
it totally unacceptable to be required to:
1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
and then
2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.

Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your
shoulder twisting your arms to use their OS.

Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?

Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.

Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
(I will have to call them almost every month)

Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs
in an asylum.

Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.

The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.

Well, at least that's good.


Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
retail version.



I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
reasons for this:
1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
express myself in the most proper way

The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by
living in the milleu it is spoken in.

While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".

2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
treat the customers the way Microsoft do.

Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."

Off topic:
How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
they've paid for?
How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
you modify your hardware configuration?

Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes
that it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a
rhetorical question.

Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal
pockets", so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat
attacking an elephant.

Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".
Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is
more of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like
your first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a
"religious statement of faith", rather than a "question".

This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS
in almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion
of yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others,
so making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
"question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.

I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.

But to answer the part which can be answered:

It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of
validating installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS
X, since OS X will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of
them are sold, making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions.
Apple loses no money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is
much like the food, drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no
money from it, since the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and
the food and entertainment are there as incentives to draw the
customers in, and keep them gambling and drinking. In the same way,
Apple makes its money by selling HARDWARE, not software.

Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something
must be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
investments high.

On top of that, Apple's are already expensive: charging an arm and a
leg for the OS would just put an Apple out of most folks' budget
ranges. The bean-counters in Cupertino know better than to go too far
on pricing.

Donald L McDaniel

 

[Alias]

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

If you make critical changes to the computer, it will require re-activating
Vista by telephone. Some of the hard parts include Hard disk, motherboad and
in some cases memory. Try not to do it too much since this can be attributed
by the person granting the activation request as suspicious behaviour. If
you are going to make major changes, trying doing once if you can I say.

That's absurd. One should be able to update one's computer as one sees
fit and should *never* be construed as "suspicious behavior".

Alias

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Donald, thanks for posting this reply, which I agree with. For some
reason, PatriX's reply to me never showed up here.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your shoulder
twisting your arms to use their OS.


Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.


Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs in
an asylum.


The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.



The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by living
in the milleu it is spoken in.

While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".


Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."



Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes that
it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a rhetorical
question.

Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal pockets",
so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat attacking an
elephant.

Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".
Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is more
of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like your
first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a "religious
statement of faith", rather than a "question".

This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS in
almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion of
yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others, so
making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
"question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.

I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.

But to answer the part which can be answered:

It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of validating
installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS X, since OS X
will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of them are sold,
making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions. Apple loses no
money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is much like the food,
drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no money from it, since
the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and the food and
entertainment are there as incentives to draw the customers in, and keep
them gambling and drinking. In the same way, Apple makes its money by
selling HARDWARE, not software.

Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something must
be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
investments high.

Well I'll tell you one thing. Excessively making customers lives
miserable also puts a dent into the revenue stream. I for one will not be
upgrading my roughly 10 XP licenses I own. I'm planning on having a
single machine around for Vista testing and that will be pretty much it.

So in this particular case, I hope that they are preventing at least 9
pirated copies to just break even on the revenue lost from sales to me.

And yes, I realize little me isn't significant in the larger picture.
However, throw in enough people like me and eventually it adds up.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Alias]

Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your
shoulder twisting your arms to use their OS.

No, the are standing over everyone's shoulder making sure that they use
what they paid for in the way that MS wants them to and you, of course,
buy it hook, line and sinker.

Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.

There should be no reason to call MS for permission to use something one
paid for, period.

Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs
in an asylum.

Your opinion in this regard is meaningless and the computer hobbyists
have a right live and do what they want with their computer hardware.

The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.

We know how you look down on anyone that's different from you so you
don't have to repeat it again and again.

The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by
living in the milleu it is spoken in.

While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".

Um, English isn't just spoken by Americans. The US President is a good
example of an American who can't speak English in the most proper way.

Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."

In England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they say "the way
Microsoft do" because Microsoft is more than one person.

Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes
that it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a
rhetorical question.

And that assumption is correct.

Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal
pockets", so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat
attacking an elephant.

And you think that's a good thing?

Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".

False. His English is just fine.

Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is
more of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like
your first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a
"religious statement of faith", rather than a "question".

Or a good point.

This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS
in almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion
of yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others,
so making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
"question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.

I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.

But to answer the part which can be answered:

It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of
validating installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS
X, since OS X will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of
them are sold, making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions.
Apple loses no money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is
much like the food, drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no
money from it, since the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and
the food and entertainment are there as incentives to draw the
customers in, and keep them gambling and drinking. In the same way,
Apple makes its money by selling HARDWARE, not software.

Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something
must be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
investments high.

FUD and a lie. MS made billions with Windows when it had no "copyright
protection".

On top of that, Apple's are already expensive: charging an arm and a
leg for the OS would just put an Apple out of most folks' budget
ranges. The bean-counters in Cupertino know better than to go too far
on pricing.

Donald L McDaniel

Well, then, that leaves Linux as the obvious choice.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias

 

[Frank]

No, the are standing over everyone's shoulder making sure that they use
what they paid for in the way that MS wants them to and you, of course,
buy it hook, line and sinker.



There should be no reason to call MS for permission to use something one
paid for, period.



Your opinion in this regard is meaningless and the computer hobbyists
have a right live and do what they want with their computer hardware.



We know how you look down on anyone that's different from you so you
don't have to repeat it again and again.



Um, English isn't just spoken by Americans. The US President is a good
example of an American who can't speak English in the most proper way.



In England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they say "the way
Microsoft do" because Microsoft is more than one person.



And that assumption is correct.



And you think that's a good thing?



False. His English is just fine.



Or a good point.



FUD and a lie. MS made billions with Windows when it had no "copyright
protection".



Well, then, that leaves Linux as the obvious choice.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias

Wrong again on all points.
Get a life you friggin lying linux troll.
Frank

 

[Alias]

Wrong again on all points.

False and you can't prove otherwise. All you can do is lie, insult and
bluster.

Get a life you friggin lying linux troll.
Frank

If I didn't have a life, I would be dead and, as you should be able to
see, I am not dead. Ergo, I have a life.

Alias

 

[Frank]

False and you can't prove otherwise. All you can do is lie, insult and
bluster.



If I didn't have a life, I would be dead and, as you should be able to
see, I am not dead. Ergo, I have a life.

Alias

Wrong again...as usual. No more lies and get a life you stupid POS lying
linux loser.
Frank

 

[Alias]

Wrong again...as usual.

False again and you can't prove otherwise.

No more lies

Not one lie above and you can't prove otherwise.

and get a life you stupid POS lying
linux loser.
Frank

See above about "getting a life" and this time maybe if you read it
slowly and outloud, you'll understand, maybe not. If not, who cares?

Alias

 

[Frank]

False again and you can't prove otherwise.



Not one lie above and you can't prove otherwise.



See above about "getting a life" and this time maybe if you read it
slowly and outloud, you'll understand, maybe not. If not, who cares?

Alias

More lies? We've all come to expect nothing but lies from you.
Get a life...!
Frank

 

[Alias]

More lies? We've all come to expect nothing but lies from you.
Get a life...!
Frank

Stop stammering, junior.

Alias

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Donald, thanks for posting this reply, which I agree with. For some
reason, PatriX's reply to me never showed up here.

My pleasure, Ken...

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Well I'll tell you one thing. Excessively making customers lives
miserable also puts a dent into the revenue stream.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "excessively maiking
customers' lives miserable...".

My life has never been made even "partially miserable" by something
Microsoft has done or plans on doing. I've never had any problems
with activating or validating my OS. I assure you, I've installed
Windows many, many times since XP was released. I just don't
understand these people who are having problems. Evidently, all these
"masses of unhappy customers" either have no patience at all, or they
all have invalid copies of Windows. Or else they are just too
ignorant to use computers.

I do not agree with you that Microsoft has made customers' lives
miserable. Considering the time before Microsoft came on the scene,
computing was difficult, time-consuming, and something only those with
specialized degrees could do. My life has been made BETTER, not
miserable.

I for one will not be
upgrading my roughly 10 XP licenses I own. I'm planning on having a
single machine around for Vista testing and that will be pretty much it.

So in this particular case, I hope that they are preventing at least 9
pirated copies to just break even on the revenue lost from sales to me.

Whether pirated copies break even or not is not Microsoft's problem.
Nothing they can do can affect whether the pirates make a profit or
not. There will always be those who are willing to buy something for
nothing (or steal it, if they are not inclined to pay for it), so I
see no end in sight for the sales of pirated copies of Microsoft
software. Thieves always make a better "profit" than honest folk.

And if Microsoft loses sales to you, they will gain them from others.
As they say on the "street", "It's not about you, sucker."

And yes, I realize little me isn't significant in the larger picture.
However, throw in enough people like me and eventually it adds up.

Something tells me there will never be enough "people like you" to
cause them to make much difference in Microsoft's revenue stream.

Donald L McDaniel

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

No, the are standing over everyone's shoulder making sure that they use
what they paid for in the way that MS wants them to and you, of course,
buy it hook, line and sinker.


There should be no reason to call MS for permission to use something one
paid for, period.


Your opinion in this regard is meaningless and the computer hobbyists
have a right live and do what they want with their computer hardware.

We know how you look down on anyone that's different from you so you
don't have to repeat it again and again.

Um, English isn't just spoken by Americans. The US President is a good
example of an American who can't speak English in the most proper way.

I would say "Mr. Bush can't speak English properly..." since that is,
after all, the correct grammatical expression in this case.

In England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they say "the way
Microsoft do" because Microsoft is more than one person.

Because they bruise English gives them even less right to define
proper grammar.

Personally, I believe only the less-educated in English-speaking
nations use improper grammatical constructions like "Microsoft do".

That just shows how weird they are, since "Microsoft" is not a
"person" at all. It is a corporation, and corporations are always
referred to in the singular here in the States. In fact, if I'm not
mistaken, that is the correct way of referring to a corporation's
actions. Don't like that? Don't complain to me about it. I don't
have anything to do with the creation of the Laws of Grammar.

And that assumption is correct.


And you think that's a good thing?

Well, for the gnat, it certainly wouldn't be a good thing.

False. His English is just fine.


Or a good point.

Or the S.O.S. Mac Fanatics spread all over the Internet whereever they
go.

FUD and a lie. MS made billions with Windows when it had no "copyright
protection".

The fact that Windows is widely pirated, causing a large loss of
revenue for Microsoft, is "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt"?

But I keep forgetting that you're the type who never reads anything
except comic books, never finished grammar school, and is still trying
to convince himself of his own technological superiority.

I got some news for ya, bud: The rest of the world grew up around
you, and left you with your bow and arrow.

Oh, yeah, they were the cutting edge for awhile. But we now use
thermonuclear warheads rather than arrows and flint knives.

Well, then, that leaves Linux as the obvious choice.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias

Yeah, right, right...
Keep believing that, "Alias". One day you will really believe it, if
you're the type who tends toward believing his own lies.

And I've observed that Apple fanatics as well as Linux fanatics are
that type, so I have little hope for you.

I definitely have no hope for someone who actually believes that
"alias" is the name of a human being rather than a word denoting a
word used to make a writer somehow "anonymous".

Donald L McDaniel

 

[Stephan Rose]

I don't quite understand what you mean by "excessively maiking
customers' lives miserable...".

My life has never been made even "partially miserable" by something
Microsoft has done or plans on doing. I've never had any problems with
activating or validating my OS. I assure you, I've installed Windows
many, many times since XP was released. I just don't understand these
people who are having problems. Evidently, all these "masses of unhappy
customers" either have no patience at all, or they all have invalid
copies of Windows. Or else they are just too ignorant to use computers.

Easy, if I walk into the office in the morning and find out that Vista
has gotten it's panties tied into a knot and the first thing I have to do
is call Microsoft and re-activate....then I have a problem. The problem
is not if activation is easy or difficult. I don't care if it's only a 10
second phone call. I care that I have to make one for a product I *paid
for*. It's a policy I don't agree with, hence it's a problem and one I
don't feel like dealing with.

I didn't care as much with XP as it only cares about activation at
install time.

However Vista having the ability to bother me about it any given point in
time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, whenever some code feels the need to
do so...that is something I do not like. I do not wish to have my
hardware monitored by Microsoft for changes 24/7 for proof that I didn't
steal their operating system. If my purchase isn't enough proof then they
don't deserve my money.

Even if it's a rare occurrence that only happens once a year per
computer. That means 10 times a year with 10 computers or almost once a
month statistically. And as far as I am concerned, one single time is
already too much.

I have no need to deal with that. Ultimately, disregarding some tasks I
have where Vista is useless for, my problems are with Microsoft's
policies and EULA that I don't agree with.

I do not agree with you that Microsoft has made customers' lives
miserable. Considering the time before Microsoft came on the scene,
computing was difficult, time-consuming, and something only those with
specialized degrees could do. My life has been made BETTER, not
miserable.

Hey, that is absolutely wonderful. Nothing wrong with enjoying Vista. If
it meets your needs and does everything you want it to do then that's
perfectly fine. Enjoy it! =)

Whether pirated copies break even or not is not Microsoft's problem.
Nothing they can do can affect whether the pirates make a profit or not.
There will always be those who are willing to buy something for nothing
(or steal it, if they are not inclined to pay for it), so I see no end
in sight for the sales of pirated copies of Microsoft software. Thieves
always make a better "profit" than honest folk.

I wasn't referring to thieves' profit from illegal copies.

I was referring to MS' profit of 9 copies of Vista they won't be making
from me.

And if Microsoft loses sales to you, they will gain them from others. As
they say on the "street", "It's not about you, sucker."

I hope so for MS' sake. =)

Something tells me there will never be enough "people like you" to cause
them to make much difference in Microsoft's revenue stream.

Something tells me nothing lasts forever. Change happens, always and
inevitably. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow. It is however in
the future and not a matter of "if", only a matter of when.

To me, this when happened with Vista and eventually it'll happen again
when something comes along to replace what I use now.

To you and others, it'll happen at a later date.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®äº‹æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®äº‹å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰