Microsoft is high towards the EULA for Vista

  • Thread starter Thread starter RoadRunner
  • Start date Start date
Same for me. I have 3 legit copies of XP Pro, one XP Tablet and 3 XP Home.
I think I will stay with them.
Dunno if it will do any good, but you may try to use the "Share Feedback"
icon on your desktop to let MS know your feelings.
 
So, if I am part of the few people who actually open the cases and change
hardware I do not count? That is BS.

MS should limit the OEM versions. If I buy a retail copy of Windows I pay
more for it than for OEM. I expect flexibility. Having the right to transfer
that retail copy of Windows to another machine ONLY ONCE is hardly any
flexibility.

Paul is wrong on this one.
 
Well, lets pass the word around to everyone and mention what Micorsoft is
trying to pull off with this license crap under Vista , Bottom line would be
NOT to purchase Vista
 
RoadRunner said:
Well, lets pass the word around to everyone and mention what Micorsoft is
trying to pull off with this license crap under Vista , Bottom line would be
NOT to purchase Vista
Click to expand...

As XP meets my needs, I see no reason to buy Vista.

Alias
 
You have all missed the point completely, there are hardly ANY changes from
the Eula for XP, just clarifications from what people missunderstood in the
XP Eula.

Also, if you actually bother to read what MS answers in the Winsupersite
article you will see that enthusiasts will be able to move a copy, it's just
that they want you to call a support person and talk to them about what
happend so that they have some control over it. Just like with XP.

I agree with Paul Thurrot, yes, in an ideal world it would be great if
Windows was licensed to an individual instead of a machine, but the eula for
Vista is NOT different from the XP one.

So, if you really say you are happy with the (perceived) XP eula you will be
happy with the Vista eula.

I wonder who all these people are that say they wont buy it, it's strange, I
remember the same crap back when XP was released, "oh, it requires a top of
the line computer", "oh, the eula is crap", "oh, ms can do anything on my
computer", "oh, it limits my crappy companys program from running
insecurely"...did I forget something ? Then a few years later, 95% runs the
new system anyway.

I suspect 99.9% of those complaining and spreading these rumors are actually
paid by competitors, they aren't interested in facts, just spreading lies to
try and chip of pieces for themselfs since they cannot compete with good
software.

KL.
 
I have 3 legit copies of XP and 2 of them can be transfer to as many
computers as I like , So which part don't you get ? This is not the case
with Vista
 
KL said:
You have all missed the point completely, there are hardly ANY changes from
the Eula for XP, just clarifications from what people missunderstood in the
XP Eula.
Click to expand...

Really? Got a list of hardware changes that will trigger activation handy?

Got the EULA for the generic OEM Vista handy?
Also, if you actually bother to read what MS answers in the Winsupersite
article you will see that enthusiasts will be able to move a copy, it's just
that they want you to call a support person and talk to them about what
happend so that they have some control over it. Just like with XP.
Click to expand...

With XP, the only thing you are required to divulge is the ID number.
Now you are saying one has to grovel and explain!? Seems different to me.
I agree with Paul Thurrot, yes, in an ideal world it would be great if
Windows was licensed to an individual instead of a machine, but the eula for
Vista is NOT different from the XP one.
Click to expand...

Um, a device cannot purchase anything. A person can. Somehow it being
licensed to something that cannot even buy it isn't logical.
So, if you really say you are happy with the (perceived) XP eula you will be
happy with the Vista eula.
Click to expand...

See above.
I wonder who all these people are that say they wont buy it, it's strange, I
remember the same crap back when XP was released, "oh, it requires a top of
the line computer", "oh, the eula is crap", "oh, ms can do anything on my
computer", "oh, it limits my crappy companys program from running
insecurely"...did I forget something ? Then a few years later, 95% runs the
new system anyway.
Click to expand...

I never said that. I did, however, wait until XP was at SP1. The
versions before XP sucked is why people upgraded.
I suspect 99.9% of those complaining and spreading these rumors are actually
paid by competitors, they aren't interested in facts, just spreading lies to
try and chip of pieces for themselfs since they cannot compete with good
software.

KL.
Click to expand...

You're paranoid.

Alias
 
I have 3 legit copies of XP and 2 of them can be transfer to as many
computers as I like , So which part don't you get ? This is not the case
with Vista
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that is a missunderstanding about the XP eula that you can
transfer it to as many times as you like. That was exactly what they wanted
to clarify in the vista eula.

Please read the winsupersite article which explains this missunderstanding:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

KL.
 
KL said:
I'm sorry but that is a missunderstanding about the XP eula that you can
transfer it to as many times as you like. That was exactly what they wanted
to clarify in the vista eula.

Please read the winsupersite article which explains this missunderstanding:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

KL.
Click to expand...

Um, an EULA for Vista cannot be retroactively applied to XP. What you
have posted is an opinion. The EULA for XP does not say how many times
you can move it. Period. Vista's EULA does make it clear that you can
move it once which, in effect, is a ploy to get people to buy more
copies of Vista than they need. I would consider that a con game and MS
should be prosecuted for it.

Alias
 
No ! That's what they want you to believe , so they can try to pull this
garbage off , Its cool , ITS PIRATE TIME . I will pay anyone that can make
Vista operate like XP when it comes to the transfer part , I rather pay a
few dollars then what MicroRip-off is trying to do
 
The real problem is the so called "misconception" so
many users have had- the right to put your retail copy
on any machine so long as it wasn't on another machine,
and do so as many times as you wanted to.

That's what I believed. I have even seen MVPs in
this group and others, state that as fact. So, when
someone says nothing has really changed, to many
users, especially the "enthusiasts"- this new EULA
is an enormous change.


-Michael
 
I can, and I did transfer the licenses for XP from one machine to another
several times. MS has not complained about it once. It always activated
online without a problem.
 
This thread makes me realize why we have so many lawyers. And also why
Microsoft has to spend so much time on anti-piracy. <sigh>
 
}...did I forget something ? Then a few years later, 95% runs the
}new system anyway.

Doesn't 95% of Windows software sales come from pre-installed systems?
That said, it does suck to be in that 5% of hard core enthusiasts... :)
 
What is Microsoft simply gave way Vista to anyone who wanted for free and then just lived off the profits from Office and other applications the develop for Vista? There would be no need for piracy, or activation or even a disk key number. Your one copy could be installed on any computer you wish to install it. It would be bad news for the various Linux distributions and might force them to get their act together because if you could get Vista for free, why bother with Linux.

William
This thread makes me realize why we have so many lawyers. And also why
Microsoft has to spend so much time on anti-piracy. <sigh>
 
You have all missed the point completely, there are hardly ANY changes from
the Eula for XP, just clarifications from what people missunderstood in the
XP Eula.

Also, if you actually bother to read what MS answers in the Winsupersite
article you will see that enthusiasts will be able to move a copy, it's just
that they want you to call a support person and talk to them about what
happend so that they have some control over it. Just like with XP.
Click to expand...

Why should Microsoft have any control over what I do with my legally
licensed RETAIL OS, as long as I am not misusing the license?

Looks like the Neo-Speak people are out in force with this one. The
Retail XP license has ALWAYS stated that we have the right to move our
license to ANY NUMBER of machines, as long as it is installed and
activated only on ONE.

Now Microsoft and their sychophants are trying to REINTERPRET after
the fact what its Retail license PLAINLY stated.

Do they REALLY have such little respect for the intelligence of their
customers that they don't believe we can understand the English of the
Retail license?

But I happen to possess at LEAST ONE retail license, as well as
several OEM licenses, so Microsoft can't lie to me about what they
say.

And neither can Paul Thurrott or anyone else.
 
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

read this before you make a decision
Click to expand...

Ok, I dutifully read the article by Paul Thurrott.
This man is LYING to the American Public.
In the first place, he begins speaking about the XP OEM License, and
then segues into the RETAIL license without saying he is speaking
about TWO different licenses, thus giving the impression that the
license terms of "one machine only" for an OEM license are the SAME
for the RETAIL license.

In addition NO WHERE in the XP OEM license does it say that the
license applies only to a machine. This would be idiocy. A machine
cannot buy a license , nor can a machine be legally bound by the legal
terms of a license. Obviously, the license applies to the ONE who
buys it, not to the machine.

No, friends, Microsoft is attempting to restate the XP license "ex
post facto", which is, of course, highly illegal in the US.

And Microsoft is illegally attempting to reinterpret the terms of both
the Retail and OEM licenses of XP.

Not only that, but the EULA PLAINLY states that the SOFTWARE is
licensed (another legal fiction).

Now, if Microsoft wants to change the Windows licensees, that is their
right. But ONCE they stated the terms of a license of XP in writing
in a court of law (as they HAD to do to sell it), they are BOUND
forever by those terms, just as the user becomes when he installs the
software and activates it. They cannot reinterpret the terms after
the fact.

So, while the Vista Licenses may be what they are, they are NOT XP
licenses, and never will be XP licenses.

What they ARE trying to do, however, is use the terms of an XP OEM
license as the RETAIL license for Vista, changing the wording a little
and replacing the name of the old product (XP) with a new name
(Vista), thus making ALL editions of Vista basically OEM editions (no
matter what you want to call them.) and THEN they are boldly trying
to reinterpret the XP license in the light of Vista's new license,
thus wiping out (so they think) the historical XP license.

This is called "re-writing history after the fact", or simply put,
"LYING through their teeth" about the terms of the XP license.

This one may turn me off toward Microsoft forever, no matter how much
I may like Vista.

Unless Microsoft makes a REAL distinction between the OEM Vista
license and the Retail Vista license, I will do all in my power to
show them up as the liars they are.
 
Back
Top