How many machines can I install Vista on?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bobby
  • Start date Start date
B

Bobby

When Vista is released to the public, how many machines can I install it on?

I would like to install it on two home PCs - one in "my" room and one is
shared room. Is that OK or must I buy two copies?

Cheers.

Bobby
 
Bobby said:
When Vista is released to the public, how many machines can I install it on?

I would like to install it on two home PCs - one in "my" room and one is
shared room. Is that OK or must I buy two copies?
Click to expand...

One copy, one license, one machine.


-Michael
 
Bobby said:
When Vista is released to the public, how many machines can I install it
on?
I would like to install it on two home PCs - one in "my" room and one is
shared room. Is that OK or must I buy two copies?
Click to expand...

Just like all versions of Windows, you need a license for each PC. If you
want to install it on two PC's, you need two licenses.
 
Bobby said:
When Vista is released to the public, how many machines can I install it
on?

I would like to install it on two home PCs - one in "my" room and one is
shared room. Is that OK or must I buy two copies?

Cheers.

Bobby
Click to expand...

Only one license per machine. Why are you in a hurry? Vista won't really
be ready for a year or so. Wait until it has SP2.

Alias
 
You can install it on exactly the same number of machines for which you
purchase licenses. I understand that Amazon is already taking orders for
"Additional licenses" at a 20 dollar discount - hardly enough to justify
what future problems you're going to have tying those additional licenses
together. Just buy the full retail license for each install and play it
safe.

Of course one question to consider is whether you really want Vista on all
your PCs. I will have it on mine but the rest of them at my house may never
have Vista.

Dale
 
My understanding, "currently," is that the EULA has been modded--read they
backed up from a ridiculous over reach to allow people to add hardware to
the box--in the beginning they weren't even going to allow that and the
ground swell was higher than the MSFT campus. The convoluted EULA hasn't
seen the last mod--possibly court ordered or consent agreement negotiated by
a long shot.

Revision to Windows Vista retail licensing terms
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx

CH
 
The scenario you describe requires 'two' copies of Vista - one for 'your'
room and one for the 'shared' room.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
 
Not true. He can install Vista on as many machines as he wishes to install
it on. Now what happens after 30 days is another story !!!!
 
or do the chinese way,

Business edition or Enterprise edition, then activated against a online KMS
server.
install as many as you want
 
I heard MSFT is turning a blind eye to the Chinese KMS activation
cracks.....That's a little unfair to everyone else I think.
 
Rob said:
I heard MSFT is turning a blind eye to the Chinese KMS activation
cracks.....That's a little unfair to everyone else I think.
Click to expand...

They've cornered the market due to piracy in most of the world. Now
they're doing it in China.

Without piracy, MS would have never gotten to where it is.

Alias
 
Your answer, Henry, is obviously not what the OP needed. What would be the
point of installing on 'X' amount of PCs for a period of 30 days, when one
would be sufficient simply to test it?

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
 
I tend to believe, at least here in the US, that since Microsoft dominates the desktop computers of the corporate world, it is quite natural that the consumer desktop world would follow that lead. In the 80's and early 90's, people wanted to be able to use the same applications and have the same desktop environment that they have on the job. Apple never took the corporate desktop seriously during this time and because of this, and a host of other mistakes, lost the consumer desktop market to Microsoft.
 
I tend to believe, everywhere, that Apple lost the race because Steve Jobs
insisted that everything was to be done his way or not at all.

IBM clones with faster processor speeds were available just behind the IBM
models that inspired them. Since the PC market had an open hardware
platform and allowed both hardware and software manufacturers free rein, it
became a highly popular platform for businesses, developers, home users and
hobbyists.

Apple tried to corner the market by all but giving their computers to
schools so that kids who had learned on Apples at school would make their
parents buy Apples at home. Their parents took one look at Apples, compared
them to PCs (in terms of price, software availability, etc) and the decision
was made by millions of consumers one PC at a time. ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


I tend to believe, at least here in the US, that since Microsoft dominates
the desktop computers of the corporate world, it is quite natural that the
consumer desktop world would follow that lead. In the 80's and early 90's,
people wanted to be able to use the same applications and have the same
desktop environment that they have on the job. Apple never took the
corporate desktop seriously during this time and because of this, and a host
of other mistakes, lost the consumer desktop market to Microsoft.
 
If Apple has focused on provided excellent computers for the business world and embraced and open hardware platform, we may have today a complete reversal of market share with Apple the king of the hill. Maybe Steve Jobs will be forced out of Apple over the financial scandal and people with more of an open approach will come in and give Microsoft a run for it's money and market share.

I tend to believe, everywhere, that Apple lost the race because Steve Jobs
insisted that everything was to be done his way or not at all.

IBM clones with faster processor speeds were available just behind the IBM
models that inspired them. Since the PC market had an open hardware
platform and allowed both hardware and software manufacturers free rein, it
became a highly popular platform for businesses, developers, home users and
hobbyists.

Apple tried to corner the market by all but giving their computers to
schools so that kids who had learned on Apples at school would make their
parents buy Apples at home. Their parents took one look at Apples, compared
them to PCs (in terms of price, software availability, etc) and the decision
was made by millions of consumers one PC at a time. ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


I tend to believe, at least here in the US, that since Microsoft dominates
the desktop computers of the corporate world, it is quite natural that the
consumer desktop world would follow that lead. In the 80's and early 90's,
people wanted to be able to use the same applications and have the same
desktop environment that they have on the job. Apple never took the
corporate desktop seriously during this time and because of this, and a host
of other mistakes, lost the consumer desktop market to Microsoft.
 
Apple is the most closed, secretive company in the world and it runs "Big Brother" adverts about PCs! Hilarious.
If Apple has focused on provided excellent computers for the business world and embraced and open hardware platform, we may have today a complete reversal of market share with Apple the king of the hill. Maybe Steve Jobs will be forced out of Apple over the financial scandal and people with more of an open approach will come in and give Microsoft a run for it's money and market share.

I tend to believe, everywhere, that Apple lost the race because Steve Jobs
insisted that everything was to be done his way or not at all.

IBM clones with faster processor speeds were available just behind the IBM
models that inspired them. Since the PC market had an open hardware
platform and allowed both hardware and software manufacturers free rein, it
became a highly popular platform for businesses, developers, home users and
hobbyists.

Apple tried to corner the market by all but giving their computers to
schools so that kids who had learned on Apples at school would make their
parents buy Apples at home. Their parents took one look at Apples, compared
them to PCs (in terms of price, software availability, etc) and the decision
was made by millions of consumers one PC at a time. ;-)

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


I tend to believe, at least here in the US, that since Microsoft dominates
the desktop computers of the corporate world, it is quite natural that the
consumer desktop world would follow that lead. In the 80's and early 90's,
people wanted to be able to use the same applications and have the same
desktop environment that they have on the job. Apple never took the
corporate desktop seriously during this time and because of this, and a host
of other mistakes, lost the consumer desktop market to Microsoft.
 
William said:
I tend to believe, at least here in the US, that since Microsoft
dominates the desktop computers of the corporate world, it is quite
natural that the consumer desktop world would follow that lead. In the
80's and early 90's, people wanted to be able to use the same
applications and have the same desktop environment that they have on the
job. Apple never took the corporate desktop seriously during this time
and because of this, and a host of other mistakes, lost the consumer
desktop market to Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's Apple's fault that MS allowed casual and other
copying of 95/98 and W2K which gave them the market share they currently
enjoy. The fact that Apple didn't do anything about it or allow the same
freedom is a different story.

Alias
 
The first statement is quite true, but the second appears to be unlikely:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16488399/

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm


If Apple has focused on provided excellent computers for the business world
and embraced and open hardware platform, we may have today a complete
reversal of market share with Apple the king of the hill. Maybe Steve Jobs
will be forced out of Apple over the financial scandal and people with more
of an open approach will come in and give Microsoft a run for it's money and
market share.
 
Back
Top