G
Ghostrider
Garrot said:
For Microsoft to enforce just these aspects of the Vista license,
it is going to need a pretty extensive database that can not only
identify the user of record as well as the computer system of record.
And it has to do so with sufficient redundancy to guarantee accuracy,
something that is woefully missing from the current method using WGA.
Just how does Microsoft intend to obtain this information, keep it
secure and not make a mockery of personal privacy?
R
Rod Speed
Ghostrider said:
Its more likely they wont bother and will just attempt to do better
than they currently do and assume that thats better than doing nothing.
All they need to do is to make it hard to move the licensed copy to new
hardware more than once to encourage most to just buy another copy.
J
johns
I paid a little more, but I own my copy of WinXP
Pro. It authorizes when I type in the proper number.
I'll be watching for that again, and avoid the license
that has to authorize online.
johns
Pro. It authorizes when I type in the proper number.
I'll be watching for that again, and avoid the license
that has to authorize online.
johns
J
John Doe
johns said:
Hackers will have published a patch before Vista is released.
There's no justification for struggling with a legal copy
of Windows.
J
John Doe
A Windows license is not an agreement, it's an edict.
Before Windows Product Activation, during the antitrust trial when
Bill Gates and company were doing a public relations campaign, this
is one of Bill Gates' anti-antitrust commercials (edited for
clarity).
"Twenty-five years ago, my friends and I started with nothing but
(rich lawyer parents and) an idea that we could harness the power of
the PC (operating system to leverage our applications)... Since
then, it's become a tool that has transformed our (personal) economy
and had a profound effect on how we (think we can do no wrong)...
Now our goal at Microsoft is to (mock justice and keep) the next
generation of (PC users dependent on us), to keep innovating and
improving (our methods for collecting money from all of you)... The
best (offer you can't refuse) is yet to come."
Besides just pirating Windows and so easily defeating Microsoft's
activation schemes, eventually the rest of the world will find a way
to wiggle out from under Microsoft altogether, and then the doo doo
will totally hit the fan here at home.
P
PC Guy
John said:
As much as I'd like to believe that, the way I see it is that any
organization or corporation with more than 15 employees is going to
keep their nose clean and buy Windows (instead of borrow it).
Ex-employees have a nasty habbit of going to the cops and telling them
that their former employer is running bootlegged or copied versions of
Windoze.
WPA has made it such that most home users and practically all corps
have no choice but to buy each and every installation of XP.
As for those of us who have figured out how to clone XP, or get our
hands on a valid license code, or out-right circumvent WPA, we're of
no consequence to MS.
Not when MS continues to either buy, or squash, any or all competitive
threats.
B
BigJim
if you object to it, don't buy it but don't whine about it. It is your money
do with it what you want.
do with it what you want.
G
Garrot
Simple man, Windows has a near monopoly on PC gaming. I have no choice!
BTW, Microsoft is now saying this same license has always applied to all
versions of Windows. They just didn't word it clearly. <rolls eyes>
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Windows transfer rights
There's a funny myth going around that says you have a right to transfer a
single copy of Windows XP (or any previous Windows version) to as many
computers as you like, as often as you like, and for any reason you like.
This myth exists because the Windows XP EULA is vaguely worded. It states,
"You may move [Windows XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the
transfer, you must completely remove [Windows XP] from the former
Workstation Computer." Pundits argue, incorrectly, that this EULA
implicitly allows any user to continually move a single copy of Windows XP
from machine to machine as often as they'd like. One online pundit decided
this meant that "there are no restrictions on the number of times you can
transfer the software from one computer to another in your household or
office." That person is, however, incorrect. As it turns out, the Windows
license is pretty simple: Windows is tied to a single device (typically a
PC), and not to a person.
J
JAD
Ghostrider said:
I smell the CPU identifier serial number making a comeback
D
Dave
I smell the CPU identifier serial number making a comeback
I smell huge profits for AMD which is adamantly opposed to it then.
-Dave
I smell huge profits for AMD which is adamantly opposed to it then.
-Dave
J
John Doe
PC Guy said:
The hackers/crackers make it look easy as pie.
That sounds true for American companies. Yup.
Not if they have a techie friend. Helping someone use a legitimate
copy of software is no problem for me.
Easy as pie.
Obviously most other countries/governments could not care less about
Microsoft's continuing success, unless maybe Microsoft is able to
buy some of their politicians. The problem with our United States
intellectual property law is that it stops at our borders. There's
no way to force other countries to enforce their intellectual
property law if they have any to begin with. There's no way to even
know whether they enforce it or not. And the hackers defeat anything
Microsoft throws at them. Americans are paying for Microsoft's
empire and to no good end IMO. The rest of the world gets it for
free.
G
good americans will register
Why do you think Microsoft got such special treatment when they lost
their trial and the judge was ready to break up the company ?
If Microsoft did not exist, the government would have to create it.
J
John Doe
good said:
Because George Bush Jr. entered office and our government went on
vacation. And then the great war on being sucker-punched started,
fought mostly from Disneyland.
I think giving Microsoft a pass looked like protectionism. But the
real reasons probably also had to do with what you are suggesting.
Keeping all that power concentrated in one company makes things more
easily controllable.
Our leaders want to rule the world, but that's not going to happen
right away so Microsoft is going to have to figure out how to
protect its software remotely. If it ever does, that's when the rest
of the world stops using Windows and the do-do hits the fan here at
home. In the meantime, Microsoft will keep sucking Americans dry.
D
Doug Warner
Don't blame Microsoft, blame the software theives that made it
necessary to create protection schemes like this.
necessary to create protection schemes like this.
R
Roy Coorne
Doug said:
FACK - let them steal Linux distros or Mac OS X
Roy
J
J. Conners
Roy said:FACK - let them steal Linux distros or Mac OS X
Roy
Don't have to steal it. Linux is free you twit.
J
John Doe
Doug Warner said:
Very odd IMO that some programmers are shocked at the idea their
programs end up being freely distributed, it's like they've never
heard of piracy before.
In order to believe that it's not Microsoft's fault, you have to
imagine that piracy magically appeared only after Microsoft gained a
stranglehold on the personal computer software market. That is
amusing, some people suggesting that piracy is something new.
Even the name "piracy" is centuries old.
Microsoft actually benefited by piracy while trying to saturate the
personal computer market with Windows. While Microsoft was gaining
monopoly power, distribution of Windows without being paid was like
money in the bank.
The reason Microsoft is tightening the screws is because (normal)
consumers don't have a choice. Maybe the reason some programmers are
alarmed at the idea of piracy is because they didn't take
Programming 101?
T
Tomcat (Tom)
John said:
Microsoft is not tightening the screws on "normal" consumers because
most of them will not even be affected by the new EULA. Most consumers
don't even know what's inside their computer, let alone replace the
motherboard to use up a transfer point. Most are just in possession of
a restore CD anyway so can't do a major upgrade even if they wanted to.
As a casual home builder, yeah I'm upset with the EULA but we'll have
to wait and see how it evolves and how it will be enforced.
J
John Doe
Tomcat (Tom) said:
Many consumers buy an upgrade CD. Microsoft has been trying hard to
stop ordinary users from installing Windows on more than one
computer. That's what Windows Product Activation is all about.
If it weren't for semantics, you would never have an argument.
I would call you an "ordinary user".
If you were experienced and skilled enough, you wouldn't be
personally upset because you could easily get around Microsoft's
Product Activation and whatever other schemes Microsoft can come up
with. For anyone who knows significantly more than the average user
(or has a friend who does), it's very easy to work around
Microsoft's monopoly era schemes.