Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pl

[SESSION_EVENT]

Dear Microsoft Folks:

Take out the transfer only once clause from the Vista EULA and remove the
forced WGA N type software from the Vista SOFTWARE and you will please
millions of hobbiests and enthusiasts.

They might even get downright chipper. You might reap a greater success
than if you don't - just because a lot of people will like you for it.

Do that and I will return to recommending Windows - promise, Scout's honour.

 

[Robert Firth]

Not only will the legitimate customers be pleased, but the software pirates
will as well. Besides, what is so difficult about one license, one computer?
If you change everything about your computer except the case, then that is
still a new computer. That would be 2 computers, one license. It is pretty
simple. If you change the graphics card, well, that is the same computer.

Last I checked WGA checks on your hard drive serial number, the motherboard,
and bios version, among a few other less important things, weighing changes
accordingly.

So if you want to transfer your license from one computer to another, you
are really trying to put it on many different computers with only one
license.

We have all discussed the terms of the EULA. However, we don't really know
how this is being enforced programmatically yet, nor do we know what
Microsoft will do if you call them and tell them that you upgraded your
computer and that it failed.

A one time transfer doesn't necessarily mean you can only activate it twice,
nor does it mean that you can only upgrade your computer once. It simply
means you can't move the license from one computer to another more than
once. Moving your license from one computer to another is pretty arbitrary,
but needs to be defined by Microsoft before we all freak out. It may be that
if you call Microsoft and tell them you upgraded your computer, not
transfered the license, that they will be able to manually override it for
you.

The demands from Microsoft aren't all that outragous. Have you seen how many
cameras there are in Walmart reporting back and recording your every move?
You know that they could use advanced face recognition technology identify
you and keep track of your spending habits. Does that mean that they do? No.
Likewise, that data Microsoft gathers is INTENTIONALLY handled in such a way
that they can't identify you. Of course they have your IP address. So do I.
You aren't as anonymous on the internet as you might think.

Robert Firth
http://www.winvistainfo.org

 

[Jeff]

Firth;
ur killin me
lol
Jeff

Not only will the legitimate customers be pleased, but the software
pirates will as well. Besides, what is so difficult about one license, one
computer? If you change everything about your computer except the case,
then that is still a new computer. That would be 2 computers, one license.
It is pretty simple. If you change the graphics card, well, that is the
same computer.

Last I checked WGA checks on your hard drive serial number, the
motherboard, and bios version, among a few other less important things,
weighing changes accordingly.

So if you want to transfer your license from one computer to another, you
are really trying to put it on many different computers with only one
license.

We have all discussed the terms of the EULA. However, we don't really know
how this is being enforced programmatically yet, nor do we know what
Microsoft will do if you call them and tell them that you upgraded your
computer and that it failed.

A one time transfer doesn't necessarily mean you can only activate it
twice, nor does it mean that you can only upgrade your computer once. It
simply means you can't move the license from one computer to another more
than once. Moving your license from one computer to another is pretty
arbitrary, but needs to be defined by Microsoft before we all freak out.
It may be that if you call Microsoft and tell them you upgraded your
computer, not transfered the license, that they will be able to manually
override it for you.

The demands from Microsoft aren't all that outragous. Have you seen how
many cameras there are in Walmart reporting back and recording your every
move? You know that they could use advanced face recognition technology
identify you and keep track of your spending habits. Does that mean that
they do? No. Likewise, that data Microsoft gathers is INTENTIONALLY
handled in such a way that they can't identify you. Of course they have
your IP address. So do I. You aren't as anonymous on the internet as you
might think.

Robert Firth
http://www.winvistainfo.org

 

[Piet Fourie]

I can understand that Piracy is a problem, but for me, it will also be a
problem to keep on buying new licenses. I am just a normal guy in the
street, earning an average income. Computer Technology changes all the time.
Anyway, I also try other software and in the process sometimes crashes the
PC, and wants to do it all over..........I simply cannot afford it ! It is
unreasonable to have such a heavy hand on OS's. After all, I believe it is
the smaller guys who also promoted Microsoft Software world wide. I will
never believe that MS is so cash strapped that all these restrictions are
necessary.

 

[SESSION_EVENT]

Inline:



How? What difference does it make to them? They don't bother with the EULA
to begin with. And apparently, nine times out of ten they develop a crack
workaround.



Much. It's changing the rules. It's substantially detracting value from the
full Retail licence. It is very inconvenient for the hobbiest enthusiast who
frequently changes computers / mobos etc.

Furthermore, the forced WGA N type software is, essentially, a
spyware/trojan device that wrests control of the behaviour of the PC from
its owner. Not good.



? The point being ?



In other words just everything about the computer and perhaps then some. I'm
not commenting on WGA, rather forced WGA N which will regularly report on a
person, and possibly seize one's effects, electronic papers and documents. I
think that would be a serious a civil rights violation.



No, I would be using the Retail license on only one computer at any one
time. Which is reasonable and fair use of it, especially considering what I
pay for it in comparison to an OEM type license.



Who cares if it enforcable through software? Enforcement is the job of the
state, not Microsoft. When the state enforces they have to do it in a manner
that respects my civil liberties. Microsoft is attempting to usrup the jobs
of cop, judge, jury and executioner and plans to do so at its own caprice
and whim. Not good.



Which is a major flaw of the new EULA.



When WPA came in we were told we were never to have to explain ourselves to
Microsoft. Now this?



But Walmart is not my home or personal papers. Those are protected by my
civil rights against seizure without a warrant.



Well, that's a altogether debatable subject. I think there are issues
surrounding the use of face recognition software - or there should be.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/lm12.cfm

Besides, here it has become possible for a person to wear a face covering.
So it is a broad topic whose legal implications are still vague and a bit
off topic.



Yes, but I choose where I post and what sites I visit or if I ever even
venture onto the Internet. Forced WGA N would report without my permission.
Forced WGA N takes the ongoing control of my computer out of my hands and
puts it into Microsoft's - an unnerving qualitiative change. And Microsoft
so far would not be responsible / accountable for the information they
gather in any way. A situation I think is not good.

 

[ML]

I hope you never upgrade your motherboard for whatever reason because MS
definitely consider an motherboard upgrade as a new computer......
So please, don't change your cpu which require a new mobo. And don't
upgrade your RAM from DDR2 to DDR3 either...... And if you are
non-SLi or non-CF and want to upgrade to SLi or CF? Sorry, you need a new
mobo........

The Vista EULA issue bring out what MS can dictate as upgrade or not and
they are jamming it down our (enthusiats, and most of us beta test MS
products.....) throat.

 

[Guest]

See, now there is a misconception. If your computer crashes, and you
have to reload it, it should still activate without issue, and if there is a
siutuation where you have to call in activation, that shouldn't be a problem
either. Look, no one is telling you that you have to be perfect and you can't
re-load. That is not a problem. You can re-load it on the same computer as
many times as you see fit.
The difference is that unlike Windows XP, if you change your computer
(replace the mainboard, hard drive, processor, etc.), you can do that once
(within reason, of course). Now if you call Microsoft and say "My hard drive
burnt out on me, and I had to replace it." I am sure they wouldn't have a
problem giving you another liscense, as long as you aren't calling them for a
hard drive this week, a mainboard next month and a processor 3 months from
now. Common sense will prevail. They are even saying that you can buy
yourself a new computer, or build yourself a new computer once and change the
liscense over to it. Not that hard to deal with.
The best advice I can say is if you are already running RC1 or RC2, use
that as your test platform, get all the upgrades you think you will need. My
goal is to have 4.5 to 5.0 index before Vista is bought. This way, I will not
have to worry about upgrades.
In the coming months I will be buying 2 hard drives, maybe a new
processor (I am already runnign a 64 X2 4600), a new graphics card, and a
couple more gigs of ram. You have time to do that, you have a few months
before it hits the shelves. This way, after you load Vista, you won't have to
worry about "I need upgrades because I am running too slow." You know what
your computer needs, you have the ability to "Get Ready!"
Moreover, the RC versions, from what I understand will remain
operational, at least for a little while after the market release, so you
will have time. Then again, you don't have to be the first person in line at
the store to buy Vista either. It may be a good idea to wait until you know
your computer is ready for Vista before you buy it.
The EULA isn't made to tie our hands, but it does encourage one to
think about things first. It also forces us to do a little planning before
acting. A couple routes to go. Eitehr upgrade before you install, or upgrade
after you install, but plan it out and when you do that upgrading, do it all
at once, whether you buy the parts at the same time, or buy the parts over
time and install it all at the same time.

this shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Jeff]

Gene;
Basically,
Hardware shouldnt be an issue-at all; if i lease an o.s.-and i switch
computers;I'm taking my leased o.s. with me . Not that I intend it;but say I
have a hardware fail;buy a new pc;there's #1;if in the course of events;I
decide I either don't like that hardware;or switch it for any reason; said
o.s. is coming with me;and it better work on #2 period.
If MSFT has a problem with that;then they'll lose my business; and I'd
dare say;lots of people feel that way.

Jeff

 

[Guest]

Jeff,
Not to sound rude about this, but the EULA is layed out pretty bluntly, you
buy the liscense for the computer, not for yourself. That is what makes this
liscense different. it is also the reason they say "only one computer
change."
This is what makes the Vista EULA different from the older OS. See? This is
what all the hub bub is about. this is what has people pissed off. I don't
have a problem with it, but many do.
In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could use
the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using it
on one computer at a time.
The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only use
on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP, Gateway,
and other computer companies started making the restore function a partition
of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
that would only work on the computer it came with.
This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer, which
changes the ball game. It tells you that you can use it one one computer, but
you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another computer
only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
upgraded old computer"
the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
may constitute a new computer.
I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update to a
Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and a
PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is it
still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.
Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are starting
to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80% or
more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages. Knowing this, that
80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation. You
will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the restore
system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be, for
the most, a transparent change.

People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..

 

[ML]

That's why everybody should just buy OEM version and buying retail does not
make sense for Vista. Retail versions are around a little more then 2X the
price of OEM versions (at least for existing products XP, Office,
Server..... etc). The key differences for Retail version which was touted
by even MS licensing professionals over years has always been that the
retail version has transfer rights to other computers (and the one-transfer
limit was not in the old EULAs).

So now that the one-transfer clause is "clarified" into Vista EULA, why
should people buy Vista retail package? common sense would dictate that
when the cost of Vista retail is roughly twice (actually a little bit more
than twice in most cases) of the OEM with ONE ADDITIONAL TRANSFER RIGHT than
the OEM licenses, why pay more for the retail version?

And before you say that normal people can't buy OEM...... Yes they can as
long as they buy it with certain hardware components, like
HD/motherboards.....

 

[Alexander Suhovey]

-----Original Message-----

From: SESSION_EVENT [mailto:[email protected]]
Posted At: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:49 AM
Posted To: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Conversation: Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once
Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased
Subject: Re: Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once
Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased

And apparently, nine times out of ten they develop a crack workaround.

As a side note, I'll tell you a secret: Although there are pirated
copies of retail Windows with cracked activation modules, the lion's
share is corporate/volume license versions. Why bother with a crack if
there are versions out there that do not need any activation? Probably
that's the reason behind Microsoft allegedly including activation module
in corp versions of Vista.

 

[Jeff]

Gene;
Eula or no Eula; if this scenario played out;which I have no intention of
it happening; I better not get ANY grief from MSFT over it;or lost
customer;period.
And;btw; whiteboxes are gaining momentum;even to the point of OEM's
offering them.

Jeff

 

[SESSION_EVENT]

Actually, that is the current license. Go to the Super Computer Store, ask
for a full retail copyof Windows and that is the license [and value] you
get. You can install it again and again so long as you use it only on one
computer at a time. Fair value too considering what you pay for a full
Retail license over an OEM license.

But with the supposedly upcoming EULA the value over the OEM license is
removed .. but the high Retail price remains. Not good. ANd there's no real
reason for it neither, especially since it is more likely that enthusiast
will be buying the license and more likely that the buyer is the person who
is more apt to be switching around parts and buying new mobos.

Sad day for and a slap in the face of the loyal enthusiast. I recommend
Microsoft relent on this plan [along with the forced WGA N plan].

 

[Guest]

Again, that is a misconception, they aren't saying that you can't upgrade
your system, but lets be honset, changing processor and mother board, isnt an
upgrade, you have a new computer, just in an old case. My example above talks
about that.
Microsoft even says, you can change the liscense once. But instead of
installing a new processor this week, a main board next week, and a hard
drive next month, get your upgraded gear, all at one time, or seperately, and
install all at the same time.
Oh, and memory, Graphics, sound, Ethernet, modems, PVRs, etc. Are not major
system changes. they are exempt, so upgrade from DDR2 to DDR3, to DDR4, to
what ever, if you feel like it. As long as your board can handle it, Vista
will only thank you
But if you have to change your Motherboard, do a little planning, set a
goal. Mine is a 5.0 + on the index.
Here's the kicker. If you upgrade your system to the optimal settings you
are looking for, before you install Vista, the required upgrades after
install should be minimal. You know what is coming, new hardware releases are
hardly secrets anymore.
So buy Vista, if you want it, but hold off on the install. If you know DDR3
is coming out, and know you will be needing a different main board for it,
wait till the gear comes out, then install Vista.
Look, the typical life span of a newer OS is about 3 to 5 yars, maybe 6 if
it is very reliable. If your system is fitting for your needs, it will stay
fitting for at least that long. Past that, if you need to get a video card,
great, if you need to upgrade memory, you aren't going to have a problem.
I still think y'all are making mountains out of molehills here.

Plan, Get Ready, and don't move until you know you are ready. A little
planning is worth much more than $400 of regrets.

 

[Robert Robinson]

We make a point of trying to keep up with new technology and have
installed and tested all of the MSDN available beta releases of Vista
including #5744. Vista currently runs reliably, but I have yet to see
that it has any advantages over XP/Windows 2003 Server.
There are many obvious disadvantages:
1. It is a large and inefficient operating system that requires high
performance computer hardware.
2. The "security features" are a major blunder. Their only purpose
appears to be the creation of a maximum amount of user annoyance.
3. Microsoft has made still another change in driver software
specifications. It may be a long time, if ever, that compatible drivers
are available for many devices. This is especially true for some of the
more exotic, professional level devices; for example, high quality sound
converters.
4. Vista contains a significant amount of what qualifies as spyware. I
strongly object to any software that "calls home". Regardless of the
claims of Microsoft and other software vendors that their eavesdropping
is harmless, this process always has the potential for considerable abuse.
5. Automated updating, especially if it is forced on a consumer, is not
wise because of the well known problem that "software fixes" frequently
cause unintended problems.
6. Microsoft appears to have gone overboard in meeting the desires of
the MPAA and RIAA as opposed to supporting flexible, state of the art,
user friendly technology.
7. The End User License Agreement places burdensome and unnecessary
restrictions on the consumer.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Jeff,
Not to sound rude about this, but the EULA is layed out pretty bluntly, you
buy the liscense for the computer, not for yourself. That is what makes this
liscense different. it is also the reason they say "only one computer
change."

The fact is, Microsoft has absolutely NO RIGHT to "license what it does not
own (I.E. My computer).

The Windows license is NOT a license of the computer. It is a license to
USE MIcrosoft's software, as the EULA plainly states (and which EVERY
Microsoft OS EULA states).

For Microsoft to actually think it can license OUR PROPERTY (our computers)
is very arrogant. But I do not believe they are attemting to press this
claim, since it is plainly legally ridiculous.

Personally, I believe that YOU have misunderstood the terms of the License
agreement. Have you even READ it? I seriously doubt it. Or you are
simply unfamiliar with legalese, and should probably take the EULA to a
lawyer and have HIM interpret it for you.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the EULA being "laid out pretty
bluntly". Microsoft has been INTENTIONALLY ambiguous in its language in
the Vista EULA, because their legal department KNOWS there are idiots like
you who will actually believe that Microsoft has the RIGHT to license our
property.

What Microsoft is ACTUALLY doing is making the normal Retail EULA an OEM
EULA, since that is EXACTLY what this new license is: AN EULA license,
with the addition of adding a clause which enables us to "transfer our
license to a second machine ONE time", rather than "NEVER", as the OEM EULA
license stated, then calling this obscenity a "Retail License".

This is what makes the Vista EULA different from the older OS. See? This is
what all the hub bub is about. this is what has people pissed off. I don't
have a problem with it, but many do.

If you have no problem with it, you are a very strange man. Under the XP
OEM EULA, one has exactly the SAME rights, except the right to transfer the
license to a SECOND machine ONE time.

In the first place, the license is NEVER for the machine, and Microsoft
KNOWS it. Anyone with even a smattering of 1st year Business Law knows
this. Microsoft simply CAN'T license our property. PERIOD.

This is why the XP license plainly states that the license is for HUMAN
BEINGS to use Microsoft's software. PERIOD. In other words, WE are the
"Licensee", NOT the Machine.

In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could use
the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using it
on one computer at a time.
The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only use
on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP, Gateway,
and other computer companies started making the restore function a partition
of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
that would only work on the computer it came with.

IDIOT, can't you see that this "new license" is EXACTLY like the OEM
license? And at RETAIL Prices, rather than OEM prices (which were over a
$100 cheaper than retail prices)?

Microsoft is STICKING IT TO YOU, stud.

Wake up!!! Smell the coffee!!!

This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer, which
changes the ball game.

In other words, Microsoft is arrogantly claiming the ability to license OUR
PROPERTY!!! I really don't believe even Microsoft is that arrogant.
HOW could you be so BLIND!!!

t tells you that you can use it one one computer, but
you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another computer
only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
upgraded old computer"

IDIOT!! That's not the issue AT ALL!!!

the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
may constitute a new computer.

How could a Hard drive be a "new computer"? What ignorance!!!
How can a CPU by itself be a "new computer"? Apparently, you have NO IDEA
just what DOES constitute a computer, much less a "new computer".

In my computer classes, when I was in school, I was taught that a
"computer" is composed of SEVERAL elements: 1) CPU 2) RAM (internal
storage) 3) I/O and 4) External storage (HD). NONE of these by themselves
constitute "a computer". Perhaps, you should take a few Computer Science
classes. It will certainly be a revelation to you.

I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update to a
Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and a
PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is it
still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.

All of this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
Which is, ONLY GOVERNMENTS have the right to "license our property".

Now, in the U.K, one must get a license for each television he owns. But
the license is NOT issued by a manufacturer. It is licensed by the
GOVERNMENT.

Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are starting
to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80% or
more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages.

Have you EVER bought an OEM license before? it is over a HUNDRED DOLLARS
CHEAPER than the Retail license. IN the case of XP professional, one may
purchase an OEM copy of XP professional for less than $140, while a Retail
copy costs $299. So that's a $150 difference in price.

Yet Microsoft has INCREASED the price of its Retail license, and
additionally, made the terms of the Retail license the SAME as the OEM
license formerly was, and additionally tried to CHANGE the meaning of the
license itself. NEVER has a manufacturer attempted to LICENSE our private
property. Yet THIS IS EXACTLY what Microsoft is trying to do, if you are
correct.

How can you stand by and let this happen?

knowing this, that
80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation. You
will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the restore
system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be, for
the most, a transparent change.

Sir, not all of us can afford to "Buy a new computer loaded with Vista".
Many (more than you think) build our own machines. (UNLIKE YOU, we DO know
a little about computers).

So Microsoft just leaves the poor out in the cold? I feel sorry for you,
sir. You have no compassion, no concern for your fellow human being. I'm
sure Microsoft loves people like you. You'll just shell it out, and shell
it out, never asking a question, never considering what you are doing to
legal precedent in the United States.

People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..

MOLE HILL? The usurpation of our basic HUMAN RIGHTS a "MOLE HILL"? How
sad, sir. How sad for you and those like you.

And HOW DARE YOU?

Donald
-------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

The fact is, Microsoft has absolutely NO RIGHT to "license what it does not
own (I.E. My computer).

Microsoft may not have the right to liscense your property, but it does have
the right to determine how MICROSOFT software is liscensed. You simply have
the choice whether to accept it or not.

The Windows license is NOT a license of the computer. It is a license to
USE MIcrosoft's software, as the EULA plainly states (and which EVERY
Microsoft OS EULA states).

Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are only
leasing the software.

For Microsoft to actually think it can license OUR PROPERTY (our computers)
is very arrogant. But I do not believe they are attemting to press this
claim, since it is plainly legally ridiculous.

Personally, I believe that YOU have misunderstood the terms of the License
agreement. Have you even READ it? I seriously doubt it. Or you are
simply unfamiliar with legalese, and should probably take the EULA to a
lawyer and have HIM interpret it for you.

I fully understand the way it is layed out, I have read it a few times.
Legally, Microsoft can liscense their software that way, in the end, you have
the choice of whether to use it or not.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the EULA being "laid out pretty
bluntly". Microsoft has been INTENTIONALLY ambiguous in its language in
the Vista EULA, because their legal department KNOWS there are idiots like
you who will actually believe that Microsoft has the RIGHT to license our
property.

Again, Microsoft is not liscensing YOUR computer, it is only liscensing the
Operating system.

What Microsoft is ACTUALLY doing is making the normal Retail EULA an OEM
EULA, since that is EXACTLY what this new license is: AN EULA license,
with the addition of adding a clause which enables us to "transfer our
license to a second machine ONE time", rather than "NEVER", as the OEM EULA
license stated, then calling this obscenity a "Retail License".

Call it what you want. But if you want to install the program, you have to
agree to it. Whether you like it or not.

If you have no problem with it, you are a very strange man. Under the XP
OEM EULA, one has exactly the SAME rights, except the right to transfer the
license to a SECOND machine ONE time.

In the first place, the license is NEVER for the machine, and Microsoft
KNOWS it. Anyone with even a smattering of 1st year Business Law knows
this. Microsoft simply CAN'T license our property. PERIOD.

Actually, now it is. Microsoft says, if you lease the liscense, you can only
use it on one computer, and can only transfer it once. You may not like it,
but that's the breaks kid.

This is why the XP license plainly states that the license is for HUMAN
BEINGS to use Microsoft's software. PERIOD. In other words, WE are the
"Licensee", NOT the Machine.


IDIOT, can't you see that this "new license" is EXACTLY like the OEM
license? And at RETAIL Prices, rather than OEM prices (which were over a
$100 cheaper than retail prices)?

Microsoft is STICKING IT TO YOU, stud.

Wake up!!! Smell the coffee!!!

Again, old news.

In other words, Microsoft is arrogantly claiming the ability to license OUR
PROPERTY!!! I really don't believe even Microsoft is that arrogant.
HOW could you be so BLIND!!!

Come on now, I just gave you the whole schpeel. I layed it out for you, no
confustion in what I said. I understand completely what I typed. I know the
stipulations, and since I don't expect to load the same software on several
different computers, it is not an issue for me.

IDIOT!! That's not the issue AT ALL!!!


How could a Hard drive be a "new computer"? What ignorance!!!
How can a CPU by itself be a "new computer"? Apparently, you have NO IDEA
just what DOES constitute a computer, much less a "new computer".

In my computer classes, when I was in school, I was taught that a
"computer" is composed of SEVERAL elements: 1) CPU 2) RAM (internal
storage) 3) I/O and 4) External storage (HD). NONE of these by themselves
constitute "a computer". Perhaps, you should take a few Computer Science
classes. It will certainly be a revelation to you.

I am well aware of how a computer works. I have not only worked on computers
since my cute little Tandy basic, but I have had PCs since the days of the
386sx. I have upgraded, built, and re-built many computers. What exactly a
computer consists of is no secret to me. And correct, changing a hard drive
may not constitute a new computer, however, if you have ever had to change
hard drives in XP, you may have noticet the requirement to re-activate. Even
XP sees it as enough of a hardware change to require it. NOW that being said,
Microsoft may be laxed on that idea.
But make no mistake, if you upgrade you main board and processor, that is no
longer the computer you originally loaded windows on to. Don't fool yourself.
You are running a different computer. for all intents and purposes, you may
as well loaded it onto another complete computer. Again, you just have a new
computer in an old case.
If you loaded XP on a P2, and upgrade to a Pentium D board and processor,
guess what? It is not the computer you loaded XP onto. I understand that it
may look the same, but it is not.

All of this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
Which is, ONLY GOVERNMENTS have the right to "license our property".

Now, in the U.K, one must get a license for each television he owns. But
the license is NOT issued by a manufacturer. It is licensed by the
GOVERNMENT.

Have you EVER bought an OEM license before? it is over a HUNDRED DOLLARS
CHEAPER than the Retail license. IN the case of XP professional, one may
purchase an OEM copy of XP professional for less than $140, while a Retail
copy costs $299. So that's a $150 difference in price.

Yet Microsoft has INCREASED the price of its Retail license, and
additionally, made the terms of the Retail license the SAME as the OEM
license formerly was, and additionally tried to CHANGE the meaning of the
license itself. NEVER has a manufacturer attempted to LICENSE our private
property. Yet THIS IS EXACTLY what Microsoft is trying to do, if you are
correct.

How can you stand by and let this happen?


Sir, not all of us can afford to "Buy a new computer loaded with Vista".
Many (more than you think) build our own machines. (UNLIKE YOU, we DO know
a little about computers).

So Microsoft just leaves the poor out in the cold? I feel sorry for you,
sir. You have no compassion, no concern for your fellow human being. I'm
sure Microsoft loves people like you. You'll just shell it out, and shell
it out, never asking a question, never considering what you are doing to
legal precedent in the United States.

Look, I have an OEM computer right now. I payed the price for it. It isn't a
screamer, but it runs vista well.
Now look, building a computer yourself is admirable. I have done it, and I
will be upgrading this one before all is said and done. the difference is
that I have a plan, and I know how to get to the point where I am ready to
load the new OS. Using the RC Version of Vista, I am setting my goal at a
minimum 4.5 or 5.0 experience index.
Before I buy Vista, I will be at that index. See, the beauty of doing that,
is that this way, I know I am well within the Vista standards, and well above
the grade. Any upgrades I need after that will be small things like memory,
or possibly video.
This way, even as poor as I am, I will be able to put vista on my computer,
and not have to worry about not having enough processor, or main board to
handle what I need to.

MOLE HILL? The usurpation of our basic HUMAN RIGHTS a "MOLE HILL"? How
sad, sir. How sad for you and those like you.

And HOW DARE YOU?

Donald
-------------------------------------------

Donald, bottom line, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE! Load it, don't load it! No one is
putting a gun to your head, no one is twisting you arm. If you want to play
the Microsoft game, you have to play it by the Microsoft rules. The Bright
side is that if you are running XP, they will still be supporting XP, from
what I understand SP3 will be coming out in 2008, maybe even 2007. You are
not completely out of options.
The Microsoft lawyers have written the contract, whether you choose to
accept it or not is all you bro. But they seem to have put the foot down.
Accept it or not. Complain if you want, but complain to them. I know the
rules, and I like the OS. I am willing to play by them. and if I decide that
I no longer like the rules, I still have XP on a partition ready to restore.
Kind of a win/win for me.
But I will spend the money, I will load it on this computer and this
computer only like the EULa stipulates. I don't forsee myself getting another
computer any time soon, but if I do, I will probably just get an OEM package
that already has Vista on it.

 

[arachnid]

Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are
only leasing the software.

Actually it's a very gray area in the courts. Some have ruled one way,
some another. For an example of one ruling opposing the idea that you're
just buying a license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah
1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the
use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the
purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely
constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap
license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such
a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in
the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to
redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement.
Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale
doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder
upon transfer of title.

As discussed in the article, the later DMCA has further confused the
issue. It allows copyright owners to impose arbitrary conditions of use,
but there are some conflicting rulings over whether the DMCA can legally
override the First Sale Doctrine or certain other consumer protections:

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of
legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does
not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an
End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary
decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v.
O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases
that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the
scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state
courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods
under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are
exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not
sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other
circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court
opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc.
v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as
opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v.
Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the
Supreme Court.

 

[Jeff]

Thx,
A good piece of info to know;thanks for the research.
Jeff

Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are
only leasing the software.

Actually it's a very gray area in the courts. Some have ruled one way,
some another. For an example of one ruling opposing the idea that you're
just buying a license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah
1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the
use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the
purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely
constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap
license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such
a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in
the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to
redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement.
Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale
doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder
upon transfer of title.

As discussed in the article, the later DMCA has further confused the
issue. It allows copyright owners to impose arbitrary conditions of use,
but there are some conflicting rulings over whether the DMCA can legally
override the First Sale Doctrine or certain other consumer protections:

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of
legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does
not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an
End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary
decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v.
O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases
that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the
scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state
courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods
under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are
exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not
sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other
circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court
opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc.
v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as
opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v.
Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the
Supreme Court.

 

[ML]

Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as

1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).

And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.

This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey, you
didn't have to shell out as much initially either........