Submitted by Microsoft has released licenses for the Windows Vista operating system that dramatically differ from those for Windows XP in that they limit the number of times that retail editions can be transferred to another device and ban the two least-expensive versions from running in a virtual machine. The new licenses, which were highlighted by the Vista team on its official blog Tuesday, add new restrictions to how and where Windows can be used.
It sucks that there’s nothing we can do about this.
I mean this is seriously going way too far. Vista will be bought in droves and businesses will all upgrade soon enough. Microsofties who write this policy really have no concept of reality anymore.
It sucks that there’s nothing we can do about this.
If you don’t like Windows, don’t use it. It’s not as though you’re ignorant of the existance of alternatives — after all, this is OSNews.
If others choose to use Windows, well, it is their own business.
I don’t see how you can place all these restrictions on products. People would scream if GM made a car and then said you can’t drive on specific streets unless you buy the deluxe package for the car.
I don’t see how you can place all these restrictions on products. People would scream if GM made a car and then said you can’t drive on specific streets unless you buy the deluxe package for the car.
No, it’s much worse than that.
First you buy the car from GM, and then you have to pay the state government for an additional license just to drive it on “specific streets”.
No, it’s much worse than that.
First you buy the car from GM, and then you have to pay the state government for an additional license just to drive it on “specific streets”.
Heh! Well, after scratching my head (and banging it against my desk a few times too) over some of the stupid things clueless users do, I think there should be a “computer user’s” license, and everyone would have to pass a test in order to be allowed to use a computer!
(just a joke, don’t mod me down into oblivion, please)
“If you don’t like Windows, don’t use it. It’s not as though you’re ignorant of the existance of alternatives — after all, this is OSNews.
If others choose to use Windows, well, it is their own business.”
so in other words the user has no right to express their opinion to the product makers? sheesh go tell someone else what they should and shouldn’t do.
How would you like it if Chevrolet said that the 350 engine now has a license allowing you to transfer it to only one more vehicle after which you have to destroy it and not even be reimbursed for it? The fact people so easily give up their rights (which you pay for btw)continues to amaze me.
This action by MSFT doesn’t surprise me at all, it’s just one more reason not to use Vista and yet another example of how the market does NOT decide things anymore but rather the powers that be determine the way it will be and tough cookies to the customer.
We alt os users know that actions like this and others by MSFT (and Apple) have to be fought because they hold power over the hardware makers that can design the hardware so it works with nothing but MSFT or Apple thereby killing any alternative. So that eMagius is why it must be complained about. The next two holes MSFT and Apple are trying to get plugged (and have already to some extent) are what they call the “analog” holes – killing off analog tv capture cards (which they have already done actually so buy the remaining ones on shelves before they are gone) and killing off the sound input and output jacks on your sound card so you can’t re-record drm music with an external cable. Followed by that will be the final death of the CD and all new car steroes will instead have jack to connect your iPod type device to. Once that happens the CD-RW will go away killing off that “security hole”.
What can I say. It will only stop when people realize the software they buy should be theirs to use, and that Microsoft is taking that right out of their hands.
Perhaps one day (very unlikely day, that is) the crowd will say “Enough! We’ve had it for too long! How come you want to tell us how to use our own things?”.
Until then. All we can do is feel sad for those who feel like they need to use Windows (and those who really need to).
A sad policy, by every angle I can look at it.
Cheers,
Alexandre Moreira.
Sure there is something you can do about it. Challenge their EULA in court. It’s very possible that Microsoft has no right to tell you where you can run their OS, any more than a book author has the right to tell you where you can read his book.
There is little evidence that EULAs, in general, have any legal power. Indeed, there is precedent to suggest that they do not.
You know, that in a wonderful idea. Has anyone thought to have a class action lawsuit over it?
The OS transfer restriction rots. My retail copy of XP has been on many machines, for only one reason: I run them to the ground and move XP to one that works. I also buy dirt cheap equipment that dies quickly, but thats another story. Since Ive gotten my Mac, I only use windows on an old gateway with a dying mb when I have to test something.
Even so, it still rots.
They say:
“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
As I understand it, you cannot run the same copy of Vista twice: as the host and withing VM at the same time. If you have 2 licences, there should be no problem. One licenced copy is “installed on the licensed device” (host), whereas the second is not.
Edited 2006-10-13 14:17
First this is the RETAIL license for the full-rights version.. take note of that.
What they are doing is disallowing VMWare and Parallels from legally advertising that you can get the 2 lowest cost versions (at $199 and $239) and use them on a linux or mac box for compatibility! Now those programs are probably able to do that right now, but once Vista is released there will be some kind of “digital protection” that checks for hardware versus VM. To go around it, however trivial will be a DMCA breech and all the switchers are toasted.
This is how MS maintains it’s monopoly… it would take a lot of legal work to get this nullified in court… after all, it’s a clause expressly to prohibit use of their monopoly product elsewhere, but they’ll play it as a “free market”, “fair contract”, “anti-piracy”, “DMCA violater” issue to the courts and usually win. Somebody needs the DOJ to nip this right now!
I’m curious what this means for developers. Currently at my company, if we want to test our app in different configurations of Windows XP, we load up a virtual machine (with a legally licensed install of XP) with the settings we want. Are we not going to be able to test our app in the home versions of Vista without dedicating hardware to it?
I’m curious what this means for developers. Currently at my company, if we want to test our app in different configurations of Windows XP, we load up a virtual machine (with a legally licensed install of XP) with the settings we want. Are we not going to be able to test our app in the home versions of Vista without dedicating hardware to it?
Hopefully MSDN versions will have a different EULA than retail versions.
I’m curious what this means for developers. Currently at my company, if we want to test our app in different configurations of Windows XP, we load up a virtual machine (with a legally licensed install of XP) with the settings we want. Are we not going to be able to test our app in the home versions of Vista without dedicating hardware to it?
As mentioned by another poster, this does not ban you from using Home Basic or Home Premium in a VM. You just need a seperate license for the OS you intend to run in the VM, except for Ultimate which allows one VM instance using the same licensed copy you have installed on your computer. There have been a lot of stories about the license in which the authors’ interpretation of it is wrong.
TechWeb has provided an update:
[Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft’s Vista license applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error. The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.]
On-chip virtualization extensions should, ideally, make it impossible for the OS running under it to know it’s virtualized.. How long until that gets shagged up though, I guess, eh?
“As I understand it, you cannot run the same copy of Vista twice: as the host and withing VM at the same time. If you have 2 licences, there should be no problem. One licenced copy is “installed on the licensed device” (host), whereas the second is not.”
That would be a good way, but not the case. Unfortunately it is staed quite differently in the license.
<em>4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.</em>
That is the same for basic and home premium. Ultimate can be, but they put some serious restrictions on it’s use.
Is that people are going to whine and fuss and then go right out there and buy it. It’s like Crack or Meth. Most people don’t want to be hooked on it but they still run out and buy more.
MS is going to make a ton of Money, when people realize that machines that ran Windows XP just fine will not run Vista
(I found this out the other night, I have a P3 1GH machine with Windows XP on it and it runs just fine. Go to try the Vista RC2 beta and it tells me that I don’t have an ACPI bios. Then rebooted me back into XP)
Or they wont run Vista 100%
Ms knows that it cant have these policies forever so they are trying to strike now and make a bunch of money!
Oh well, more money for me also! LOL!
You’ve got that right. I’ve got a 600 MHz VIA fanless pc with 256 MB of RAM and it ran Windows XP just fine (until I replaced it with Xandros). I wouldn’t even attempt to put Vista on it.
For the most part, Vista is for a new pc only.
Yes, and if you can get it on an old PC it’s just gonna be a slower Windows XP. LOL!
I tried Vista RC2 several days ago on Athlon XP 1.8GHz, 512MB RAM. After booting, it took only 200MB of RAM, Windows XP ~300MB. System was quite responsive even at minimal clock frequency (530MHz). The only things that didn’t work for me were:
– Sound: SiS7012 – recording works (!), but playback does not (I tried everything: drivers through Windows Update, manual installation – it says that it can’t play sound)
– DHCP client through WLAN – I had to enter stuff manually
Those 2 things prevented me from staying with Vista. I don’t give a damn about legacy applications.
If only they didn’t add moronic “features” such as god damn product activation (required even if you replace single f***king driver), it would be perfectly good product. Currently it’s for begginers which are afraid of touching the mouse, because they can screw their PC. I hope all those “features” will be cracked soon, because they’re only slowing down owners of legitimate software.
As for visual appearance: desktop wallpapers, icons and everything else is work of art. I could use Aero (modify registry by hand), but I didn’t feel the need to.
Edited 2006-10-15 14:37
Might be dumb, but still: tell me who in the world can punish me or do anything for using Windows in VM? I bought a software (or rented it I guess), where I install it, it’s 100% my personal choice. I do understand why I can use one copy on X computers and why I shouldn’t lend it to someone, but I can install the software on my mobile phone or a refridgerator, if I can, that’s none of MS’s business. It’s like selling bread and forbiding customers to put honey on it, only jam. Retarded. If I’m allowed to do backup of a DVD, I am allowed to put ISO on my hard drive, it’s only illegal to give or share the ISO. Microsoft doesn’t own my computer or my life, their actions look more and more like limiting my constitutional rights when buying their products. Seriously, what the F**K is wrong with this company?!
Might be dumb, but still: tell me who in the world can punish me or do anything for using Windows in VM? I bought a software (or rented it I guess), where I install it, it’s 100% my personal choice. I do understand why I can use one copy on X computers and why I shouldn’t lend it to someone, but I can install the software on my mobile phone or a refridgerator, if I can, that’s none of MS’s business.
Yes, it is. The licence tells you what you can do with the copy you have of the software. If you don’t agree to the terms of the licence, then you can’t make any copy of it. FYI, installing _and_ excuting software are both forms of copying. The licence cannot be more restrictive than the copyright law, but the latter simply doesn’t allow the copy.
Of course, it doesn’t mean MS aren’t complete arseholes, but that’s not a reason good enough to ignore the licence.
Caveat emptor.
Quentin Garnier.
Edited 2006-10-13 14:37
FYI, installing _and_ excuting software are both forms of copying.
Installing and executing software are *not* forms of copying. In any case, copyright law is concerned with distribution of copies, not copying in and of itself.
This is why the GPL can’t force you to open-source changes to code that you only use internally. Since you’re not redistributing the software, copyright law has no power.
> FYI, installing _and_ excuting software are both
> forms of copying.
Installing and executing software are *not* forms of copying. In any case, copyright law is concerned with distribution of copies, not copying in and of itself.
This is why the GPL can’t force you to open-source changes to code that you only use internally. Since you’re not redistributing the software, copyright law has no power.
Yes, they are.
You’ll notice that GPL states “The act of running the Program is not restricted,” in article 0.
You’ll notice that GPL article 2b only applies to work “distributed or published”. _Not_ simply copied.
Microsoft licences also explicitely allow you to install and run the software.
Quentin Garnier.
DUPE, please remove.
Edited 2006-10-13 16:08
It’s like selling bread and forbiding customers to put honey on it, only jam. Retarded.
Exactly right. But I’ll go further. This limitation is morally wrong.
They can’t do better if they want to lose customers for Apple/BSD/Linux.
One more reason not to go back to Windows.
MS actually do listen to their customers! They just demand extra money for every little thing the customer wants.
“MS. Use your initiative, so we can charge you for it.”
Edited 2006-10-13 14:44
You can’t run MacOS in a VM, at least not Tiger, but nobody seems to have tackled the problem, or wanted to.
It’s almost like they /want/ people to pirate Vista and crack it’s RIAA-style licensing and DRM. With this announcement, I hope to avoid having to use Vista for at least a year after release, if not at all. Having to purchase the pro edition just to be able to run it in Parallels is a an absolute piss-take.
I do hope Microsoft come to feel sore over this decision.
It sounds like Microsoft is asking for more piracy…
Believe me, that kind of mesure won’t make Windows users switch to another OS. It’ll still be alot easier to find a crack somewhere on the web. Anyway, that’s how it works with XP.
But seriously, they are going too far this time. That WGA thing in XP was already enough. Going further is a big mistake.
Instead of doing this, they should try to find a way to stop piracy in asian countries. That’s where the problem really is. Illegal copies of Windows are sold everywhere. Even some PC shops install illegal copies of Windows. That’s nonsense.
Anyway, I’m getting tired of piracy and abusive counter-measures. It’s pathetic to see all these kids pirating Windows while they eat at Mcdo 2 times a week, buy 200$ of clothing/electronic gadgets every month, etc. Goddamn, is $100-200 too much for something you use 50+ hours a week during 5 years? Be rational. Windows, a freaking OS made by a ton of software developers, cost much less than fixing a damn car. And uh, let’s compare the level of education of a software developer versus someone who fix cars.
And stupid counter-measures don’t help. Because of them, I now hate the RIAA, MPAA, etc. For those who don’t know (or don’t play guitars), it’s now almost illegal to share tablatures on the net. That’s so freaking stupid. And the same thing is hurting the software industry. Abusive counter-measures are going to ruin everything trust me…
Having something that needs cracking isn’t the problem here. Making it illegal to run Vista in a VM is.
“Goddamn, is $100-200 too much for something you use 50+ hours a week during 5 years?”
No, but it is also a political issue. Feeding microsoft with money isn’t actually going to help open source prevail. Not to mention that Bush government will use part of the tax money for waging wars like the Iraq one and steal their oil. Not how average human being wants to spend his money.
“Goddamn, is $100-200 too much for something you use 50+ hours a week during 5 years? Be rational.”
sorry, but rational won’t come from this point; your point is not wrong but your vision of rational is narrow.
Isn’t it rational MS allow nonMS technicians to fix the same computer trice, and not tell them you’ve over activated the software; like in car analogy I am allowed to fix my car (to a level of modifying it with non original parts during 5 years of owning it) for 10x and then I will not be allowed to fix it not from the manufacturer but from my wife! And in both products (cars or software) problems happen because of the quality, and if the manufacturer restricts you from doing repairs then he is not rational.
So, your imagination that the computer once you pay for it 100-200 $ would be OK is totally wrong.
100-200$ even is the price for an upgrade which would be not possible to install on a computer with XP and bunch of infestation of viruses and harmful things!
There’s always, always a catch with Microsoft, isn’t there? Curiously, they’ve remained very quiet about these new “features” in Vista while trumpeting all the others. The only thing missing is a way of frightening people off continuing to use XP, but I’m sure they’re working on that. I guess MS are scared of virtual machines and are going to do their best to stop their spread outside of the server space except on their terms.
This is also an invitation to piracy, eventually, and piracy means machines that are poorly maintained, security-wise. Spammers and malware guys must be rubbing their hands. As soon as Microsoft’s security folks shut one door, their marketing department opens another.
Maybe the EU could see whether these new terms are a licensing restriction too far. It’s a fair bet that no one in the present US government will.
Edited 2006-10-13 15:29
I think Microsoft is more and more losing touch with reality. They really play a dangerous game, called boomerang. It will hit them soon, for sure. For me, all the best, the more we are using Linux, the more we enjoy it…See you soon 😉
The two versions of Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium) that cannot be run in a virtual machine are the two versions that most home users will be using. Does this mean users are not allowed to use Parallels/VMWare to simultaneously run Vista and OS X? If so, people are either going to have to purchase Vista Ultimate (ie the most expensive version) to run Vista and OS X simultaneoulsy or people are going to have to deal with the inconvenience of booting between the two OSes.
Or people get fed up and decide they don’t really need the Win32 compatibility at home. From then on it is a sole non-MS OS that rules the roost and yet another batch of people ticked off at Microsofts policies.
In trying to get people to use a Microsoft platform to run all other OSes on top off with the help of Virtual PC, they are just alienating users considering using a genuine MS product.
If they crack down on this, it will mean more development of alternative Win32 implementations like Wine.
Some people on here are over reacting to this announcement just a little bit. Its the two least expensive versions that can’t be run in VM. These versions won’t be run in a corporate environment. We are talking home users who will have this version of Vista loaded on their computers anyway.
Software developers in a corporate environment had better run these versions if they want to be sure their software runs on the customer’s machine.
So savvy home users have no need to run Vista affordably in a VM and therefore should be forbidden to do so.
This is just another move from MS to ram Windows down our throats as the sole platform. VPC bundled or free for download, so we can play with competitors running on top of Windows. It kills Parallels, VMWare and bans GNU/Linux and *BSD to a VM jail on Windows.
Windows as the “firmware” to run other OSes. Yet another attempt to corner a new market. MS wants Virtual Computing to mean Redmond.
Don’t buy their product….if you make stupid decisions you’ll pay for it at some point.
if you are windows developers stop being idiots and write software to be cross platform from the very beginning. Have some integrety and don’t get on microsoft bribery programs. Use opengl 2.0 and not directx 10.
Hopefully hardware & hardware interfaces will become so commoditized that a bit part of the reasons for microsoft dominance starts to go away.
if you are windows developers stop being idiots and write software to be cross platform from the very beginning. Have some integrety and don’t get on microsoft bribery programs. Use opengl 2.0 and not directx 10.
ermmm… so you think Windows developers should trade MFC and .NET for wxWidgets? It would be stupid to do so.
Making cross-platform software, as of today, is almost impossible ….well, unless you’re making really simple applications that don’t deal with the OS internals. And even if you do so, you’re going to live with poor performance compared to native applications.
From a Windows developer point of view, there’re not many choices. Most will forget Java for non-corporate applications. GTK is broken on Windows. QT has full of problems on Windows. It flickers alot, mainly because it draws widgets on its own most of the time. And uh, you have to pay for QT if you’re developing closed-source software (…most Windows software are closed-source). And then there’s WxWidgets. Not bad but it got its load of problems too (not on Windows but on other platforms). Well, WxWidgets is still a good option after all. And what’s next? WinForms applications that someday will run fine on Linux when Mono will be more mature? Yes and no. For non-corporate applications, managed code is not so popular on Windows you know.
My 0,02$
You forgot Mono. You can still use .NET on other platforms, just drop directX in favor of openGL.
Also, could you elaborate on what is broken in GTK for Windows?
Also, could you elaborate on what is broken in GTK for Windows?
Yes, please do elaborate. In my personal experience, The GIMP runs as well on Windows as it does on Linux. If it’s broken, it’s not on the user level.
Also, could you elaborate on what is broken in GTK for Windows?
GTK+ on Windows has some serious redraw issues. This can be seen for example when you resize Sylpheed message/summary pane. Moreover, once I actually managed to take a screenshot of Gimp on Windows showing the window in the middle of redraw process (it took about a second then); I believe it’s better now but the problems still remain.
Also, AFAIK GTK+ doesn’t use native common dialogs.
“if you are windows developers stop being idiots and write software to be cross platform from the very beginning. Have some integrety and don’t get on microsoft bribery programs. Use opengl 2.0 and not directx 10.”
Exactly. It is the software houses that are keeping people tied to Windows, not Microsoft. Lets get some of these applications ported over to Linux and the like and it no longer will be an issue.
The more insane and annoying restrictions that Microsoft imposes, the better. We can’t beat MS in a straight-up, toe-to-toe, knock-down, dragout fight. It’ll never happen. But whenever they do something to make themselves a little less attractive, and maybe even a little less viable, that helps the alternatives.
I don’t say it’ll be easy. Who told you it would be? I like instant gratification as much as anyone, but it hasn’t been so far, and we’re talking years and years now, so why should it suddenly get easy? And speaking of history, what does it tell you about when Microsoft will suddenly turn around and start doing the Right Thing? Let that happen and it’ll be a Banner Day at OSNews.com… if it doesn’t strike us all speechless instead.
We need for the alternatives to become stronger, more useful, and more viable. They’re doing that, but slowly, oh so slowly (and sometimes there’s even backward movement — the people who actually work on the alternatives are not always sensible or practical, either).
If MS will help by weakening their position, well then, thank you very much Microsoft.
This stinks. It also seems to be a plain shift for the worse from Microsoft which actually surprises me. I didn’t think they would have the gall to try and restrict usage even more.
Disallowing the running of the Home or Home Premium editions in virtual environments IS going to cause issues. Arguing that business won’t use Home or Home premium is shortsighted and doesn’t reflect reality. Sure larger corporates will go with the Business edition but many smaller companies will not (as some currently run XP Home), and that means the only way we’re going to be able to test those products is by having test boxes just for those editions rather than using our nice big VMWare servers.
And that transfer clause is outrageous. I can semi-understand (but still disagree with) the restriction to move an OEM copy from machine to machine. But I buy a retail box and I should be able to use it on whichever single PC I want.
My XP Pro has been well used that way; having been installed on probably 5 or 6 PCs in the last 4 years or so as I have upgraded machines or had them die on me. I’ve had at least 4 new motherboards and each time that would probably be classed as a new PC.
To be quite frank, I’ll probably go Vista once a killer product comes out only on it but when I’ve come to the point some time after when I’m changing hardware for the second time, there is no chance I will buy another new copy. At that point Microsoft will have made me reach for whichever crack is around to “fix” that problem and I won’t feel too much compunction against that.
I hope this is Microsoft putting out a feeler for reaction and there is a widespread enough condemnation for them to back off before release.
“And that transfer clause is outrageous. I can semi-understand (but still disagree with) the restriction to move an OEM copy from machine to machine. But I buy a retail box and I should be able to use it on whichever single PC I want.
My XP Pro has been well used that way; having been installed on probably 5 or 6 PCs in the last 4 years or so as I have upgraded machines or had them die on me. I’ve had at least 4 new motherboards and each time that would probably be classed as a new PC.”
I agree completely to your statement. My copy moves from machine to machine as a machine is replaced or whatever. Only being able to transfer it once definitely throws a damper on the party.
Time to re-send letters to Adobe and the like for them to port their software to Linux as an alternative. Although Mac OS X is looking better and better to me now.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
no matter.
where there is a will -there is a way.
or something like that.
More restrictions. Pile them on!
The rest of the industry and the human race thank you! Or they will… once they switch…
Edited 2006-10-13 17:59
Yeah, that is my opinion as well. Let MS just keep treating the customer base like liars and thieves. I take personal joy every time I get a call that WGA has killed another Licensed Box. Some we have been able to get worked out with MS, some just say “So, what about Linux, can I use it?”.
Keep it coming MS, you are making my life easier every day.
While this does seem to suck, it’s sucking is limited to a small set of people. Yes, the corporate testing angle is completely valid. It wouldn’t shock me if MSDN licensing was different. It also wouldn’t shock me to find out that MSDN only lets you run Vista Home on Virtual Server VMs, but hey.
For the home user, even a technical one, it isn’t going to matter much for now. If you’ve already switched to something else (OS X, Linux, etc), you’re probably only going to be using Windows for a few windows-only applications. These applications aren’t going to stop supporting Windows XP any time soon, since they know that a large share of people are going to be using XP for a very long time.
I will try run Vista in a VM. If MS really wants to crack down, I just won’t run Vista, simple as that. I have Linux and Mac anyways, and XP in a VM.
At least that’s the way I see it.
As soon Microsoft decides to limit the amount of times we can transfer the license of a retail product on devices we own, I myself am not buying that retail product.
Microsoft is going the way of the consumer product-pusher.
Serious users will, more and more, get away from their software, specially with the availability of solutions to run the majority of the library of Windows-compatible software on Linux and other OSes. Why should I get Windows at all, if my favorite alternative OS runs the same software? And even then, if the demand it’s there, why not native software?
I predict that Microsoft will not lose much of market share, but alternative OSes will gain a lot of native application software, due to demand by serious, conscious users.
Windows XP won’t even activate on my machine anymore, even though I bought a legitimate copy with a legitimate key from a legitimate source. Oh yes, and I’m installing it on the hardware that it was originally activated on. I guess that my inability to activate XP also means that my copy of Office is useless too!
Maybe Microsoft got ticked off because I overwrote my XP partition a few too many times, in the name of trying out oddball Linux distros.
Whatever the cause, I don’t feel too bright for spending my hard earned cash on XP. After all, I knew about this potential problem going into the purchase.
“Windows XP won’t even activate on my machine anymore, even though I bought a legitimate copy with a legitimate key from a legitimate source. Oh yes, and I’m installing it on the hardware that it was originally activated on. I guess that my inability to activate XP also means that my copy of Office is useless too!”
Easy to fix as long as the copy is legitimate. Simply call up MS. The process takes about 5 minutes.
And I may call up Microsoft one day, even though I disagree with having to phone them up to get permission to use the software that I bought from them (as a matter of principle).
Or maybe not. I picked up XP and Office to make life easier when I entered a professional programme. I’m done with that and it didn’t make life easier anyway, so calling Microsoft would only waste my time and send my blood pressure through the roof.
And for what it’s worth, I purchased the license through the University so it is legit. I am currently employed by that same university so there is no reason why it would no longer be valid.
i use vms to run os’s for testing and whatnot
our clients NEED us to test things on the os’s they use before we just go deploy
i feel that this is “a load of crap”, now we are forced to purchase hardware to run the lower end vista os’s “legally”…
Again, you don’t need to purchase hardware to run Home Basic or Home Premium. This is not a ban on VMs. The license is simply formalizing what is the current situation for running Windows on a VM (i.e., you can run on a VM, but you need to have a license for each copy of the OS you run in the VM).
If you have Home Basic or Home Premium installed on a physical PC, you cannot use that same license to install on a VM. You must acquire an additional license for the VM copy.
Windows Ultimate Edition includes in its license the right to use the same copy you’ve installed on a physical PC in a VM without acquiring an additional license.
In Germany and in France I think, EULAs that you click to accept are illegal, as you are supposed to agree to them before opening the box. So you cannot be forced to agree to something you cannot know before accepting.
Oh well, it’s not like anyone reads them anyway…
You accept the EULA before installing the software. For retail copies, if you don’t accept the EULA, the software won’t install, and you may return it to the retailer for a credit or refund, or contact MS if the retailer refuses.
The EULAs for MS products are also available online:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/
Please name the retailer who will refund your money for opened software. Microsoft won’t refund it either; people have tried to get money back from them for software whose license they rejected. They will tell you to get your refund from the retailer, who will refuse.
Go and read the link and you will see a rather important correction:
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234
[Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft’s Vista license applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error. The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.]
… Oops?
I’m sure that will get no coverage and some people here will go on thinking VM use is banned.
Bets on how long before someone uses it as a point during an argument on here?
While all the other journalists have done their level best to stir up mass hysteria (brings in the readers), Thurrott has taken the novel approach, of ringing Microsoft and asking them what it all means.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
Fewer than 5 percent of PC users ever open a PC case let along perform major hardware surgery. But if you’re one of those guys who regularly upgrades your PC’s hardware, you’ll be happy to hear that instances of forced reactivation because of hardware upgrades are less frequent under Vista than they were under XP. More to the point, this is another one of those issues that only affects a tiny, tiny percentage of Windows users.
When Windows examines changes to the system, the two most heavily weighed components are the PC’s motherboard and hard drive, in that order. If you change both of these components at one time, Windows will almost certainly assume it’s running in a new computer and cause you to reactivate. “It’s that old question, ‘ When does a boat become a new boat?,” Boettcher asked, rhetorically. “When every plank has been replaced, is it a new boat?” In the case of a Windows XP and Vista-based PC, there is an algorithm that examines hardware changes and, based on an internal score, determines whether a reactivation is required.
When that happens, Windows will attempt to reactivate electronically. If that fails, the user will need to call and reactivate manually. This is the same under Vista as it was under XP, though again the algorithm has been updated to be less strict.
“This is a fairly rare thing,” Boettcher said. “Edge cases can be accommodated through customer support, but it’s a relatively small group: People who are building their own PCs; hard core enthusiasts.” Long story short, you’ll have to talk to a human being and explain what happened. Just as you have had to do with XP.
I guess it always pays to ask …..
…override the first sale doctrine at all?
When I was a Windows user, years ago when I was still naive, I never let a little thing like an MS EULA get in my way. Yeah, I know, I’m going to go to Hell. 🙂