EULA (again, sorry!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brian Wescombe
  • Start date Start date
B

Brian Wescombe

OK. I buy a retail copy of Vista and install it. Then six months later I
upgrade the hardware, including mobo and HDD. I then re-install (as one
transfer to new hardware is allowed according to the EULA). Six months after
that, I transfer the licence to my dad (living in the same house as me). I
then upgrade my PC again, and dad installs the OS onto my 'new' machine
(it's now his copy after all, he can install it on whichever PC he wants).
That's now three different PCs/two transfers to new hardware.
Have I missed something here? Does it mean that if I've done one transfer to
another PC, I can't then sell/give away my copy as I've already done two
separate activations?

It says that the original owner can make a transfer to new hardware once,
and also says that he/she can also transfer the licence and software to
someone else once (unless I've read it wrong). It's all very confusing!
 
Brian said:
OK. I buy a retail copy of Vista and install it. Then six months later I
upgrade the hardware, including mobo and HDD. I then re-install (as one
transfer to new hardware is allowed according to the EULA). Six months
after that, I transfer the licence to my dad (living in the same house
as me). I then upgrade my PC again, and dad installs the OS onto my
'new' machine (it's now his copy after all, he can install it on
whichever PC he wants). That's now three different PCs/two transfers to
new hardware.
Have I missed something here? Does it mean that if I've done one
transfer to another PC, I can't then sell/give away my copy as I've
already done two separate activations?

It says that the original owner can make a transfer to new hardware
once, and also says that he/she can also transfer the licence and
software to someone else once (unless I've read it wrong). It's all
very confusing!
Click to expand...

Brian:

I think you have discovered the fundamental contradiction in the
OEM-ization of the Vista retil license. It is neither fish nor fowl.

But IMHO it is a very bad idea, hurting precisely the most enthusiatic
users of Microsoft technology.

David Wilkinson
 
David said:
Brian:

I think you have discovered the fundamental contradiction in the
OEM-ization of the Vista retil license. It is neither fish nor fowl.

But IMHO it is a very bad idea, hurting precisely the most enthusiatic
users of Microsoft technology.

David Wilkinson
Click to expand...

From http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127663/article.html

"This version of Vista isn't the only Microsoft product that people are
waiting for. Consumers concerned about the change in Windows client
licensing that will allow them to transfer a Vista license only once are
still wondering what will happen when they switch out the motherboard
and other components of computers. Some power users, who like to build
their own computers from scratch and who rebuild PCs frequently, have
wondered whether they will have to purchase a new Vista license every
time they do this.

Microsoft is in no hurry to give them an answer. Today, a week after
users first raised the issue, Microsoft declined to comment on the
issue, according to a representative from its public relations firm."

So, we don't know if MS plans to screw the very people who beta tested
their products or not. We may have to wait until January when we can
read the EULA because MS doesn't seem to be in any hurry to clarify. We
can only hope that this means they are reconsidering ...

Alias
 
I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
planned to upgrade a few things.
I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
soon.

I am not the hardware 'enthusiast' so to speak but when it affects me as a
home user (purchased a computer just to beta test....) into fear of needing
an upgrade I can imagine how the real hardware techs must be feeling now. I
may be a drop in the ocean to Microsoft but I know I am not alone in placing
Vista way into the future now for purchase.
 
I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
planned to upgrade a few things.
I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
soon.
Click to expand...

I feel the exact same way as you. I would really like a MS rep to explain that
only one upgrade clause. Why not two? I personally feel that it is of no
business to Microsoft wether I upgrade my motherboard or not. They sold the
license to run on my computer, fine. My computer is not paying the "Bill", *I*
am. I'll be damned if I pay $400 because I want /Vista/ to perform better!

BTW, I think no one should apologize for questioning this eula. I think most of
us have worries that are legitimate.

I'm more than willing to purchase Vista once for each computer I have, as I
believe it's one hell of a piece of code. Paying more than once per box,
upgrade or not, is insane.

Oh, and will I get a rebate if I upgrade my Logitech Gaming mouse and keyboard
to the MS brand at the same time?
 
OK, I get the drift in this thread and usually I hold a view that the
end user and license holder is a human being and not a bundle of kit.

But.... it got me thinking:

a - most enthusiasts will understand why there are restrictions. I'd
guess it is a matter of a copyright holder having a duty to protect the
copyright

b - if such a strict EULA is deemed do-able and important I'd guess that
such a strong approach is based in fact and observations. Nobody would
do it if it were not needed, it appears to be needed so... it is there.

c - if the above two statements hold then it is a sad reflection on
humanity rather than the copyright holder. But it seems IT brings out
the best and the worst in people for example huge productivity boosts at
one end and spiralling naughty stuff at the other

d - if that is what a copyright holder wants and I want to use the
product it follows I should do my best to observe the EULA or, as the
EULA puts it, I can decline to accept the EULA = not install the software

e - I'd also guess that people are comfortable with security and logins.
Computers at work usually require logins, mobile (cell) phones also
require logins maybe users appreciate a need to login to home computer
and home computer networks also?
 
I think it has taken the fun and enjoyment out of using a computer especially
when we read about the WGA check incorrectly added 'pirated' to user
computers. I was going to purchase the full retail Ultimate with a version of
Office 2007 to use as a home user but even by doing this I still could be
classed as a pirate by Microsoft on top ot the fearsome EULA.
I know there will be media hype making me feel I am the only me not to have
Vista as my OS but the beta testing has really opened my eyes to the things I
didn't know when I just had XP + Office + trust in Microsoft to care (not
now)

Pirates don't care as they will have the fun but my fun was lost after all
the analysis and the lack of trust in home users :(
 
deebs said:
OK, I get the drift in this thread and usually I hold a view that the end
user and license holder is a human being and not a bundle of kit.

But.... it got me thinking:

a - most enthusiasts will understand why there are restrictions. I'd
guess it is a matter of a copyright holder having a duty to protect the
copyright

b - if such a strict EULA is deemed do-able and important I'd guess that
such a strong approach is based in fact and observations. Nobody would do
it if it were not needed, it appears to be needed so... it is there.

c - if the above two statements hold then it is a sad reflection on
humanity rather than the copyright holder. But it seems IT brings out the
best and the worst in people for example huge productivity boosts at one
end and spiralling naughty stuff at the other

d - if that is what a copyright holder wants and I want to use the product
it follows I should do my best to observe the EULA or, as the EULA puts
it, I can decline to accept the EULA = not install the software

e - I'd also guess that people are comfortable with security and logins.
Computers at work usually require logins, mobile (cell) phones also
require logins maybe users appreciate a need to login to home computer and
home computer networks also?
Click to expand...

f - At a time when the economy is in the toilet and when the value of
Microsoft is tumbling due to poor sales, I would certainly go ahead and bite
the hand that feeds me...That makes perfect sense to me.
Go ahead and do your best to drive away your existing customer base.
Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP may no longer be supported by MSFT, (not that we
ever really needed their support anyway), but those old Operating Systems
still work fine.

We Do Not Need a New O/S, it is more a matter of want than need isn't it?
 
f - At a time when the economy is in the toilet and when the value
of Microsoft is tumbling due to poor sales, I would certainly go ahead
and bite the hand that feeds me...That makes perfect sense to me.
Go ahead and do your best to drive away your existing customer base.
Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP may no longer be supported by MSFT, (not
that we ever really needed their support anyway), but those old
Operating Systems still work fine.

We Do Not Need a New O/S, it is more a matter of want than need isn't it?
Click to expand...
Was a wooden ship with sails an improvement on a smaller one without?

Was an ironclad vessel an improvement on a wooden one?
It is in the nature of things (especially those contrived by humans) for
things to change.

Add a dash of meritocracy and change happens by virtue of that meritocracy?
 
I don't understand, one thing.

When i buy legal Windows, why don't Microsoft do a free update of system.
Example, when i have Windows 98 why in Windows Update isn't any option to
upgrade to Windows 2000?
Do users must pay every 2 or 3 years to have up-to-date systems?

This is a bit...
 
Your kidding right?
Users Must not do anything they don't want to, there are no forced upgrades.
 
Well, that is the best idea. Wait until you know your system is ready for it.
We who are running Vista RC1 and RC2, have the perfect opportunity to get
our computers ready. Using the WEI, you can check your scores and decide what
upgrades you need . I mean look, I am sitting on a 3, my goal before I buy
and install Vista is 5.0+
If you think about it like that, and Microsoft has already said that the WEI
will not change, if you are sitting on a 5.0 now, you will be sitting on a
5.0 until Vista is replaced with the "Next big thing"
Microsoft has also speculated that with the advancements, constantly of
newer faster hardware, that the WEI may go as high as 10.9 before Vista is
replaced. But if you start with a good score on the WEI, upgrades after
iinstall of Vista should be very minimal .
I mean, right now, running on 5.0 WEI, is a pretty smokin system, and the
life span of an OS is usually less than 6 years. A lot can change in 6 years.
By then, I am expecting quad-core processors, and probably like DDR4 or
something, probably 4000 hz boards and such. So by time the next OS comes
out, it will be time to do the major upgrades or computer replacement.
Microsoft tells you what you need to run Vista. The WEI tells you what you
may need to make Vista better for your needs.
Past the issues for the EULA, you don't have to change your hardware every
week, or every months. Sometimes it is better to hold off, and do all your
upgrades at once. This way, the EULA isn't much of an issue.
 
I have returned to this post as (in my opinion) I believe there to be an
industry wide example of myopia.

Namely and historically (?) EULAs seem to be embedded in the following
models:
- single PC home user
- multiple network commercial user

If so, then EULAs are selling short an important an emerging trend with
possible impact on costing models as appropriate.

In this case:
- the emergence of home networked computers or multiple computers used at
home.

I beliece that lack of provision for this emerging phenomena to be an over
optimisation of the effect that multiple computers are used at home.

Should each of these home based machines be treated as a single instance of
a single home based computer - well, the wise will see what I mean. It is
an abhorent oversight.
 
As a ps-

should earlier models be based on one computer per household then on
moralistic grounds as well as costing models (in my opinion) the cost of
software EULAs (operating systems or applications) should actually start to
decrease rather than attempt to maintain parity with previous less populated
models. It should never, under increasing usage, turn out for EULAs to
increase in cost.

What say you?
 
Back
Top