MSFT *Revises Vista EULA* for hdw today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chad Harris
  • Start date Start date
I wonder how those who thought we are bandits are feeling now.

They now enjoy the same sweet fruit from our "bashing" without paying any
efforts except bashing us.




They now enjoy the same sweet fruits
 
Thankyou Microsoft!! Good going! Now I may get Vista earlier than waiting for
vista service pack 2, LOL! Maybe this March! Will see! Thanks!
 
Hello,

You can thank Microsoft for it has been listening to customers.

But I'm not with the company and chose not to have any association with it.

In any case, glad you're happy now.

See - a simple change got another happy customer.

I still wonder how those knights are feeling now.
 
I don't know exactly what this means but my three concerns (shared by a lot
of people) in the original EULA were that many of us who like to upgrade hdw
and correlate it with software and build a box would have been restricted;
my other concern has been the cost of Vista to families that might have
needs for several, and that the Kill Switch aka SPP would make mistakes and
shut down people who need to earn a living with their computers as WGA has
been doing.

I am not sure what sweet fruit, bashing, and paying efforst means exactly so
maybe you could help me with the concepts.

CH
 
Sweet fruit: MS has revised Vista EULA.

Bashing: Perceived by knights for those, myself included, who have been
crying out loud for EULA changes.

Paying efforts: They did not join us, instead, they condemned us and framed
us as pirates and MS haters.
 
Ahh Chad,
Like I posted elsewhere,
One down; one to go!!
Well-2; where you're concerned!!
:-)

Jeff
 
Hello,

You can thank Microsoft for it has been listening to customers.
Click to expand...

Not really. This is an ancient strategy: demand a whole lot more than
you really want, then when people scream you relent on everything except
what you wanted all along. The rubes are still left holding something
unpleasant, but they're happy now because they think you care.
 
Yes, that's part of ancient old "negotiation strategy".

But is it also good for motivating the other party for correcting mistakes?

I think so :) So for that, I'd thank the company only because it has
corrected the mistake.

And better yet, change WGA N practice, and I'll thank it again, even though
I know it shouldn't have done it in the first place.
 
Yes, that's part of ancient old "negotiation strategy".

But is it also good for motivating the other party for correcting
mistakes?

I think so :) So for that, I'd thank the company only because it has
corrected the mistake.

And better yet, change WGA N practice, and I'll thank it again, even
though I know it shouldn't have done it in the first place.
Click to expand...

How about EULA changes to accommodate Virtual Machines, too?

As I read the XP EULA, you can have only one installation at a time. So if
you take the XP that's installed to your hard drive and copy it into a VM
running on that same system, you're in violation of the EULA (and may also
have problems activating the copy in the VM).

The EULA's for the home versions of Vista simply don't let you run those
versions in a VM. The business version can be run in a VM but you're not
allowed to access Microsoft's "protected" (DRM'd) data formats in the VM.
As I read the EULA this means both media and DRM-protected database and MS
Office files. At the low end of the business scale you can run Vista in a
VM but ISTR that you have to purchase a separate license for each copy. At
the higher end you're allowed a maximum of 4 VM's per license.

And all this, even though you're running on the very same hardware that
your copy of Windows was licensed for!

So MS is taking away the ability of most home consumers to utilize VM
technology, and making it very expensive for business users and then
sabotaging their attempts to isolate office workers's data by putting each
person's Windows install in its own VM's.

I'm really surprised Windows users aren't screaming bloody murder about
being shut off from Virtual-Machine technology.
 
Hi,

It's very true and I can only "guess" their reasoning for why not offering
home versions for VM, and that's because product differentiations.

OK, I'm not trying to comment on whether it's good or bad, but that's why
they took out some features from one version but included in another.

Another example will be, if my knowledge is correct, Ultimate comes with a
multi-language pack (which is very important for an international company
such as ours) but not included in the business version. Reasons? I don't
know.

For XP, it is only available for volume licensed customers. But
multi-language pack is the reason that I might purchase Ultimate version
instead of Business.

I guess the underlying problem is that it's more and more difficult to
distinguish between what is for home and for business use, and if they have
decided to make differentiations, they have to cut it at some point.

One could certainly argue or question if it's necessary to make so many
versions (or variations for any product), but that's the reasoning for
leaving out VM for home versions, if my guess is right.

And for the technical part of restrictions, my knowledge and experience are
not qualified for even a guess, and I don't know the potential impact, so I'd
have to consult with more experienced engineers.
 
arachnid said:
Not really. This is an ancient strategy: demand a whole lot more than
you really want, then when people scream you relent on everything except
what you wanted all along. The rubes are still left holding something
unpleasant, but they're happy now because they think you care.
Click to expand...

LOL, reminds me of Scotty from Start Trek, he would always say it would
take him longer than normal to get the engines back online to make
himself look good to Kirk.
 
Back
Top