Paul Thurrot feeling the heat?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MICHAEL
  • Start date Start date
M

MICHAEL

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
 
Sounds as if he is bring forced to see some sense at last on this matter!!!

Alan

MICHAEL said:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Click to expand...
 
This is also a good article about Vista licensing.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

--Koroush Ghazi
Owner/Author
www.TweakGuides.com
October 16, 2006

<quote>
Why are enthusiasts being ignored? Aside from the fact that we're talking about tens of
millions of people being affected, there also seems to be a bit of a contradiction. If
Microsoft genuinely believes the clarified restrictions only affect a small group of people,
then honestly why change them in the first place? It seems to me it only disenchants an
influential group of users, unfairly targeting their legitimate need to upgrade often to keep
pace with gaming and other requirements. PCs are no longer a 'box' that you buy, keep for 3
years and never upgrade or tinker with. An increasingly large group of people do upgrade their
machines often, and in fact companies like Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD and Intel do everything in
their power to encourage it.

</quote>

continued....

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp



Alan said:
Sounds as if he is bring forced to see some sense at last on this matter!!!

Alan

MICHAEL said:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
MICHAEL said:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel this article still fails to
distinguish between the OEM and retail licenses for XP. It implies that
there was no XP license that allowed you to transfer freely from one PC
to another. As I understand it, the XP retail license allowed this
explicitly (as long as it was only on one PC at a time), and that is why
it was much more expensive than OEM.

It is poossible that the new Vista license is not in practice much
different from the XP OEM license. But it sure is different from the XP
retail license.

David Wilkinson
 
Hopefully Microsoft will realise that all they are doing by making this
significant change is alienating a significant proportion of its supporters
including a large number of its own beta testers. It is really difficult to
see how this change to the EULA made by Microsoft will help reduce piracy.
For a large multinational company they do see to be out of touch with those
of us who are trying to be at the forefront of technological development and
improvement.Under the new EULA for Vista the only advantage for paying a
lot of additional money over the oem version is one additional transfer to
another pc!!!

Alan
 
1984 is alive and well. Microsoft back when XP was introduced reassured
users that they could upgrade their computers without fear of going through
the reactivation process or not being able to continue using the OS. Now
they're saying that was never the case (even though they did say it at the
time). I know it isn't the case, because I've been accused of
"reactivating" XP too many times, of all things. How could you not
reactivate XP with the damn thing turning to garbage after a few months?

Anyway. I'm done with it. I've bought a Mac system and I'll be coverting
over to Linux for my other uses once XP becomes completely unusable. All
Mac or Linux needs now is for some inventive person to come up with some
killer aps that won't run on Vistsa.


MICHAEL said:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Click to expand...
 
Why are enthusiasts being ignored?

Because MS believes there is no where else to go. And as long as companies
keep making their software tied to only one OS they are right. I personally
cannot use anything but Windows because I have a half a dozen programs that
I spend 80 percent of my time using and they only work in Windows.
 
David said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel this article still fails to
distinguish between the OEM and retail licenses for XP. It implies that
there was no XP license that allowed you to transfer freely from one PC
to another. As I understand it, the XP retail license allowed this
explicitly (as long as it was only on one PC at a time), and that is why
it was much more expensive than OEM.
Click to expand...

According to the article, the XP retail license could only be transferred to
a machine after original install one time but that wasn't very clear in the
EULA. They supposedly have clarified this with the Vista license.
It is poossible that the new Vista license is not in practice much
different from the XP OEM license. But it sure is different from the XP
retail license.
Click to expand...

Not that different, again according to the article, not in the popular
understanding.
 
Kent said:
Anyway. I'm done with it. I've bought a Mac system
Click to expand...

I am tempted towards a Macbook when I upgrade my laptop

Alan's reply:
Under the new EULA for Vista the only advantage for paying a
Click to expand...
lot of additional money over the oem version is one additional transfer to
another pc!!!<
this answered how I feel as I was going to purchase the full version, not
because I install/re-install every month or anything like that but Microsoft
has made me feel if I wanted to upgrade anything on my computer I would be
outside of the license if I had already transferred Vista to an upgraded
computer.

I read and listened to Paul Thurrott on his podcast when I went to his site
I was disappointed to read a full retail would not have much over the oem
copy. I am a home user and am even worried about doing too much with XP in
case I have to answer Microsoft - I was determined to purchase Office 2007 +
Vista full versions but now I wonder if the plot has been lost and the home
user is left with 'please ring us' I have never had to & I have 3 licenses
for XP Pro
I was going to install Vista at a fairly early opportunity but it now looks
as if I would be best to make sure all my hardware has been verified and I
will never need an upgrade..........................before I make the
purchase. I really thought a full retail would allow a home user to
re-install if something genuine happened.

I know I am not counted in the eyes of Microsoft even our beta testing isn't
really useful to them but I am a genuine compter user who only wants to enjoy
computing not worry all day in case Intel bring out a new chip which I might
want but this would make my computer new................. sad that we can't
be trusted.
Pirates don't care but I do

I guess I wouldn't be upgrading as soon as I thought I would :(
 
I agree. Under Xp I replaced my motherboard and hard drive together with
graphics card at least 4 times with no problems at all, I did not even have
to phone MS to sort it out!
Alan
 
David said:
Did you read this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

David Wilkinson
Click to expand...

I don't usually agree with Ed Bott but in this case he is bang on. I have
been involved with selling Microsoft products since MS-DOS 2.2. I am very
careful about making sure I know the licenses. I attend every Microsoft
licensing seminar I can. It is very clear to me that with the retail version
of XP you can transfer it to a different pc as many times as you want as
long as it is only on one pc at a time. I have heard this directly from
Microsoft at licensing seminars. If when Vista is released the retail
license is per the new wording then this is a change that restricts an end
users rights compared to XP. Whoever Paul Thurrot was talking to was
dispensing FUD. It doesn't matter where it comes from FUD is FUD and should
be called out. I have no problem if Microsoft wants to change the licensing
for Vista. That is their right and the results of the change will be
reflected in the marketplace and their bottom line. That is their business.
If they want to make a change they should just say so and be done with it.
Spinning FUD only fans the flames.
 
Just reading Ed Bott's blog now

Quote:Retail copies of Windows cost more - much more - than OEM or upgrade
copies. In exchange for that premium price, you get significantly greater
installation rights. This is a big deal to hobbyists and Windows enthusiasts
who want maximum flexibility in licensing. In the hundreds and hundreds of
pages of Microsoft documentation I've read, I have never seen even a hint
that there is any restriction on reinstallation of a Windows XP retail
license, as long as the former copy is removed first. Until Paul printed this
quote last week, I've never seen anyone from Microsoft make this argument,
either. Not once. END Quote
 
David said:
Did you read this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158
Click to expand...

I have been following this closely, including reading Ed's blog as well.
This is why I stated that "according to the article", not according to
popular or common understanding. Unlike Ed, I have not read just about
every piece of documentation that Microsoft has published over the years
regarding licensing. I have read the EULA.

I was addressing your direct question about Paul's article on winsupersite.
According to that article, we've all misunderstood the XP retail license.

I wonder if, like XP, the activation information stored will be discarded
after four months as well. If that is the case, the chance that this will
impact anyone is reduced significantly. If four months after activation on
a machine Microsoft discards your activation information, meaning you can
then activate that copy of XP on a second machine with no problems at all,
not even a phone call to MS, and Vista follows the same model, how many
folks would want to transfer their license more often than once in a four
month period. I don't know anyone who gets a whole new machine that often.
 
David said:
Did you read this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

David Wilkinson
Click to expand...

Yes. Ed Bott's article is well worth reading. Microsoft has never said
that retail versions of XP cannot be moved more than once, until now. As
far as I'm concerned, having to spend US$400 for the retail version of
Vista Ultimate, and then being able to move it to a new PC or upgrade
one's mobo only once before needing to invest that US$400 again, is a
rip-off. With restrictions like that, Microsoft should cut the price in
half.
 
Microsoft is really shackling the computer enthusiast.

These are the very people who drive the hardware and software market. They
are the early adapters, and are the ones most likely to go out and buy a
copy of Vista, just so they can have the latest and greatest.

The other 95% of the people get a new operating system when they purchase a
new computer. I really don't see many going out to buy a new computer just
because Vista is here.

Microsoft is hurting themselves with these "new" restrictions.

--

Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

MICHAEL said:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/93896/93896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, (e-mail address removed)

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Click to expand...
 
Daze N. Knights said:
Yes. Ed Bott's article is well worth reading. Microsoft has never said that retail versions
of XP cannot be moved more than once, until now. As far as I'm concerned, having to spend
US$400 for the retail version of Vista Ultimate, and then being able to move it to a new PC
or upgrade one's mobo only once before needing to invest that US$400 again, is a rip-off.
With restrictions like that, Microsoft should cut the price in half.
Click to expand...

Hey, Daze! How was the Vista Install Fair?


-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
Hey, Daze! How was the Vista Install Fair?


-Michael
Click to expand...

Just fine, Michael, and, once again, a big thank you for alerting me to
it. :-) Although the upgrade process for XP SP2 went smoothly, I was a
bit dismayed to find that it took a solid 2 1/4 hours to complete. A
number of apps immediately failed (i.e. AVG Free, AVG Anti-Spyware, etc,
and I'd already uninstalled Zone Alarm Free, knowing that it would,
too). Since the Install Fair, I really haven't had any time for playing
with it (it's on a separate HD), but I'll be getting around to it
sometime fairly soon. Now that I've earned myself a retail copy of
Ultimate when it's released, however, I'm obviously rather dismayed to
be learning of all these new licensing restrictions, particularly the
one-time transfer situation. :-(

BTW: Since you hadn't already done so, I added the content of your post
with which you began this thread to one discussing the same Paul Thurrot
/ Vista licensing issue over in grc.techtalk, mentioning that it came
from your post here.
 
Daze N. Knights said:
Just fine, Michael, and, once again, a big thank you for alerting me to it. :-) Although the
upgrade process for XP SP2 went smoothly, I was a bit dismayed to find that it took a solid 2
1/4 hours to complete. A number of apps immediately failed (i.e. AVG Free, AVG Anti-Spyware,
etc, and I'd already uninstalled Zone Alarm Free, knowing that it would, too). Since the
Install Fair, I really haven't had any time for playing with it (it's on a separate HD), but
I'll be getting around to it sometime fairly soon. Now that I've earned myself a retail copy
of Ultimate when it's released, however, I'm obviously rather dismayed to be learning of all
these new licensing restrictions, particularly the one-time transfer situation. :-(
Click to expand...

I'm happy you got to go and participate. I'm sure it was a good
learning experience. A free version of Vista Ultimate is a nice
reward, too. I read that a lot of people showed up, there were
many other activities going, also.

Include me in the "dismayed" crowd about Microsoft's new
license. I have always tried to be fair when dealing out
criticism against Microsoft. But, if this license stays as is,
I will put off buying a retail copy. Let's hope the outcry helps
push Microsoft to change the license. Microsoft may be a
behemoth, but, they are not deaf, and I have seen them
back down before. They very well could be "testing the water",
I think they may find it is freezing.
BTW: Since you hadn't already done so, I added the content of your post with which you began
this thread to one discussing the same Paul Thurrot / Vista licensing issue over in
grc.techtalk, mentioning that it came from your post here.
Click to expand...

Cool. I don't get by the "old country" as much, but I did go
check out the opinions about this.

Take care, Daze.


-Michael
 
Tom said:
According to the article, the XP retail license could only be
transferred to a machine after original install one time but that
wasn't very clear in the EULA. They supposedly have clarified this
with the Vista license.
Click to expand...

With all the high-priced lawyers, marketers, advertisers and writers at
Microsoft's command, isn't it very worrying that they have an utter
inability to clearly say what they mean and mean what they say? While the
quality of the lawyers has no correlation to the quality of the code, every
time you catch a company making a silly mistake anywhere on such a high
profile product, it does raise concerns about the quality of their products.
 
Back
Top