Vista license

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I am reading quite alot about Vista only going on the computer it was
purchased for and one more later. I build my own systems and may do several
upgrades in a 5 year period. Won't we be able to call the activation line and
explain the upgrade and get a key?
 
Sam said:
I am reading quite alot about Vista only going on the computer it was
purchased for and one more later. I build my own systems and may do several
upgrades in a 5 year period. Won't we be able to call the activation line and
explain the upgrade and get a key?
Click to expand...

Apparently not. Be prepared to pay MS US$400 for every other significant
upgrade. You can download Vista's EULA to read for yourself here:

http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_9d10381d-6fa8-47c7-83b0-c53f722371fa.pdf

or TinyURL: http://tinyurl.com/ydyw2f
 
Other than a different weighting for upgrades, there should be no noticable
difference. Whether it resets after 120 days, I haven't seen.
 
I disagree. Microsoft generally defined the motherboard as defining the
computer. It just made no difference because there was no limit on INTERNAL
transfers for retail versions. Still had a 1 external transfer linit.
Numerous OP report not having to even re-activate when switching mobos.
 
I misunderstood what you were saying.

Microsoft is spreading FUD about the new Vista EULA compared to the XP EULA
for retail versions though. I have been told by several different MS
employees at various licensing seminars over the years that the retail
version of XP has no limit on the number of times it can be transferred to a
different system as long as it is only on one system at a time. They pointed
to this as one reason the retail version was more expensive than the OEM
version. Now all of a sudden they seem to be denying this is the case and
saying there was a problem with the wording in the XP EULA. It was meant to
mean it could only be transferred once. This is very different that what
they were saying as little as a couple of weeks ago. I have no problem if
they want to make this restriction in the Vista EULA but to now say that
they meant for this restriction to exist with XP as well is FUD. They are
trying to spin the new Vista EULA to look better. They should just bite the
bullet and say this is the way it will be from now on and take their lumps.
Although they are very vocal the people that actually transfer a license
several times is a very small minority.
 
But for retail version, according the existing EULA for XP where you don't
have limit on internal transfer provided that XP is uninstalled on from
original (I read existing or old) machine. So even thought that MS
considers a new mobo as a new machine in general, it doesn't affect hardware
upgradability of the retail packaged version.

But in Vista, this has changed EXPLICITLY to restrict internal transfer to
ONE TIME so now what MS considers a new machine becomes very applicable and
is a real issue.

So it is a very material difference between the XP license and the Vista
license for the retail package.....

Now everybody is arguing that unlimited internal transfer was not MS intend.
We will never know. However, in these legal contracts, we will have to
stick with the explicit terms presented to the buyers when they clicked ok.
And if the limit wasn't there, too bad. MS cannot enforce that because it
is not in the XP EULA.
 
Agreed 100%. They are trying to rework history and change it to suit their
corporate interest. There's a method behind the madness though. i think they
are trying to eliminate the notion of 'retail' Windows and replace it with
OEM only. They successfully lobbied the Chinese government to pass laws
forbaidding the sale of a PC without an operating system. I guess they
figure they can't get the lawmakers to go that far in free countries, so,
instead they make the retail EULA unpalletable. They want their cake and to
eat it too.

Which is a crying shame, because while a corporation is about profit, there
should be a nod towards other values, including, in the case of computers, a
nod toward the enthusiasts who helped build the industry and who helped fill
their vast vast very vast coffers to more than over flowing. Instead, they
insult the enthusiast and hobbiest.
 
Oh come on. They knew and intended. That was the pretty much the only
benefit of buying retail - being able to transfer. They just want to change
the rules to suit their machinations and are willing to distort the truth
and insult loyal customers in the course of doing so. They really should
rethink their mistake here.
 
Yup. I am with you there....
Eddy said:
Oh come on. They knew and intended. That was the pretty much the only
benefit of buying retail - being able to transfer. They just want to
change the rules to suit their machinations and are willing to distort the
truth and insult loyal customers in the course of doing so. They really
should rethink their mistake here.
Click to expand...
 
I misunderstood what you were saying.

Microsoft is spreading FUD about the new Vista EULA compared to the XP EULA
for retail versions though. I have been told by several different MS
employees at various licensing seminars over the years that the retail
version of XP has no limit on the number of times it can be transferred to a
different system as long as it is only on one system at a time. They pointed
to this as one reason the retail version was more expensive than the OEM
version. Now all of a sudden they seem to be denying this is the case and
saying there was a problem with the wording in the XP EULA. It was meant to
mean it could only be transferred once. This is very different that what
they were saying as little as a couple of weeks ago. I have no problem if
they want to make this restriction in the Vista EULA but to now say that
they meant for this restriction to exist with XP as well is FUD. They are
trying to spin the new Vista EULA to look better. They should just bite the
bullet and say this is the way it will be from now on and take their lumps.
Although they are very vocal the people that actually transfer a license
several times is a very small minority.
Click to expand...

How can a machine transfer a license? Ridiculous!!!
This is effectively what would be happening if it is the MACHINE that is
the licensee (just not possible in the real world).

But the LICENSE is for the SOFTWARE, not the HARDWARE. Else we would lose
all rights to use our HARDWARE with any other OS if we purchased a "License
for the HARDWARE from Microsoft".

That, sir, is a plainly ridiculous argument.
If Microsoft can "license the hardware", we are in a sad shape, aren't we?

What happened to you people's common sense?
Can't you clearly see that the LICENSE is held by a PERSON, who CANNOT
transfer the license to himself, so there would be NO transfer of license
if the Licensee removed the software from one machine and put it on another
one. In addition, the LICENSE is to use Microsoft's software, not our
machines.

Microsoft owns the Software. This is a given. And we have a LICENSE to use
this software as long as we keep the terms of the License. Microsoft has
NO RIGHT to tell us WHAT hardware we can install the SOFTWARE on, as LONG
as we abide by the terms of the License Agreement.

ANY TERMS of our License which KEEP us from USING our License lawfully are
INVALID, and therefore, NOT binding.

For this reason, ANY curtailment on the NUMBER of machines we may lawfully
install their software on is INVALID, and will be found to be so in one or
more courts of law (and hopefully, the U.S Supreme Court, as well as the
Courts of Supreme Justice of the E.U, as well as the courts of law in the
rest of the world.)

I don't know why the Microsoft Legal Department is trying to turn us into
fools, and put one over on us. It will NEVER happen to me.

Has Microsoft become THAT arrogant, that they actually think they can
rewrite US Statute Law with no consequences from the TRUE lawmakers (the
People, the Courts, and the Congress)?

I advise them to think twice about this illegal "license" before finalizing
it.

Donald
-------------------------------------------
 
Back
Top