homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.68.132
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10)
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: bill

Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10) Forum

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: 72 ( [1] 2 3 > >     
Vista Gets 'Transfer To New Machine Limits' To Combat Piracy
engine




msg:3123988
 11:50 am on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Under changes to Microsoft's licensing terms, buyers of retail copies of Vista will only be able to transfer their software to a new machine once. If they want to move their software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the operating system.

In the past, those who bought a retail copy of Windows needed to uninstall it from any machine before moving it to another machine but there was no limit to how many times this could be done.

Shanen Boettcher, a general manager in Microsoft's Windows Vista unit, said: "It was something that had been abused from a piracy perspective before. We're just being clear it's one move from machine to machine that you are licensed for."

Vista Gets Transfer To New Machine Limits To Combat Piracy [software.silicon.com]

 

vincevincevince




msg:3124023
 12:24 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

The title should be "Microsoft penalises hardware failures and upgrades".

You buy a license for Vista, great. You find it runs slowly on your hardware so you buy a new PC. Move one complete. Your new PC has a serious fault with the hardware so you get a replacement machine from the manufacturer. Oooops, please buy a new license for Vista.

That being said I'm not worried about this as it's just one more nail in the windows coffin.

webdoctor




msg:3124082
 1:43 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

We're just being clear it's one move from machine to machine that you are licensed for

I'd like to think that European Union law probably trumps Microsoft's shrink-wrapped EULA on this issue.

Let's say Joe Q. Public has a valid retail copy of Vista, a valid receipt for his purchase, and happens to have bad luck with motherboards. He (re-)builds his PC for the third time... and Vista won't activate.

Would MSFT *really* want to end up in a European court **AGAIN** over this kind of thing? I think MSFT will bottle out on enforcing this, at least in Europe.

For reference, remember that under European law [theregister.co.uk] Microsoft has no right to stop you selling on any copy of Windows, including preinstalled versions - and yes, that means you can sell on OEM software if you aren't using any longer. At least in the EU... :-)

Edge




msg:3124085
 1:46 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

To "Combat Piracy", give me a break, this is to increase sales. If this is'nt monolistic behaviour, than what is?

kaled




msg:3124100
 2:13 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

That could be a collossal mistake by Microsoft for so many reasons. Here are just three...

For Vista to be a success, it will have to be promoted by retailers. Given that retailers are responsible for technical support for OEM versions, this could create nightmares for them.

Software, by definition, is portable (otherwise, essentially it's firmware). If MS promote promote Vista in the UK using the word software they would arguably be breaching the Trade Description Act here and I imagine similar laws in other countries.

In UK law (and probably elsewhere) a contract is deemed invalid if it is demonstrably unfair.

Kaled.

europeforvisitors




msg:3124146
 2:57 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

How many people will be affected by this? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand?

benflux




msg:3124194
 3:31 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If its that much of a wrong move they'll see sense. I'm so bored of this Anti-MS stance; I bet much of it comes from people who've been pirating their software since MS-DOS.

jtoddv




msg:3124217
 3:44 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If its that much of a wrong move they'll see sense. I'm so bored of this Anti-MS stance; I bet much of it comes from people who've been pirating their software since MS-DOS.

I am on board with this statement for sure, but I would have been screwed in the past year, so I am not on board with this model at all. Makes a Mac look much prettier to me.

Terabytes




msg:3124219
 3:45 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

How many people will be affected by this? One in a thousand? One in ten thousand?

you're obviously not an IT person, or you'd recognize the huge issues that this type of stance creates.

It creates a huge headache for people that have to change hardware, redo machines that users on a network mess up...or IT people that test new software, you load it, find out it totally sucks, and it destroys things...now what..."hey boss, I need another 150+ bucks again" ....that would go over like a fart in a divers helmet...:)

what about joe the computer repair guy, the customer comes in drops off the computer, the system is so infected with spyware, malware, crapware that the only real resolution is to whack it and install a fresh copy of the OS....they get it home and their "oh so bright" kid(s) go right back to the porn site(s) that possibly created the problem(s) in the first place...now what? they have to shell out huge money to replace the OS?
(after they beat the kid(s) that is...)

I think there just might be a quite a few people that would be looking for an alternative solution...

This also opens the door to some type of program that would would circumvent MS's new approach, in order to allow the user to install it a few more times...

(Hmmmm...pay $20.00 for the program, or pay $150+ for a new OS....) I can guess the outcome of that senario..

Thanks for the rant!
Tera

Hester




msg:3124222
 3:47 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm so bored of this Anti-MS stance; I bet much of it comes from people who've been pirating their software since MS-DOS.

No, it's from people fed up with the licensing rules Microsoft have. One more reason to switch to Linux or OS X...

[edited by: Hester at 3:48 pm (utc) on Oct. 17, 2006]

europeforvisitors




msg:3124241
 4:01 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

This also opens the door to some type of program that would would circumvent MS's new approach, in order to allow the user to install it a few more times...

Naah, Microsoft will just bundle it into Windows, and the people who create such programs will file an antitrust suit. :-)

incrediBILL




msg:3124304
 4:45 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I can't believe people even get upset about this unless you're one of those people that buys one copy of windows and installs it on 10 machines in a small office or something, and that's who they're stopping, wah.

Who the heck installs Windows anyway?

I don't think I've manually installed a single copy of Windows since Windows 98 shipped as it was already on all the machines when purchased.

So what's the fuss?

Oh yeah, Microsoft bashing by people that don't want to pay for their OS, never mind.

SiteOrigin




msg:3124351
 5:04 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

If its that much of a wrong move they'll see sense. I'm so bored of this Anti-MS stance; I bet much of it comes from people who've been pirating their software since MS-DOS.

I myself am a compulsive upgrader (I do really processor hungry work). I have taken my legal copy of XP with me through about 5 upgrades over the past 5 years. News that I won't be able to do the same with a legal copy of Vista makes me think I'm going to be using my copy of XP for another 5 years. Either that or make my next upgrade a Mac Pro, which seems like the far more attractive option.

Murdoch




msg:3124353
 5:07 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I don't understand. Why does Microsoft care which machine the OS is on as long as there is only one copy of it on a machine at any time? I have Adobe Photoshop and from time to time I need to transfer it from work to home in order to do my job over the weekend. That's not piracy, it's portability.

I think this is pretty dumb on Microsoft's part. Wasn't online activation enough of a failsafe to prevent piracy? Now all they are doing is is kicking themselves in the face and they will be sitting on their hands when the customer service calls start coming in about how their software keeps crashing (which the first shipment ALWAYS does) and how the users can't reinstall it anymore.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. They better hire some more call center people.

webdoctor




msg:3124419
 6:00 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

as [Windows] was already on all the machines when purchased.

Did you get one of those "OEM specials" where they stuff Windows full of timebombed versions of software, and with loads of shortcuts and links to buy extra goodies? 90 days of antivirus updates? Upgrade your firewall for only an extra $29? Didn't this annoy you?

Next time I order a Dell I'd like to see Windows loaded with the hardware drivers installed and NOTHING ELSE. Sadly this doesn't seem to be an option.

incrediBILL




msg:3124460
 6:27 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Windows full of timebombed versions of software

All the crap gets deleted the first few minutes after the new PC is powered up, no big deal.

They get one chance to annoy me and POOF! it's all gone.

Dennis Reinhardt




msg:3124477
 6:37 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Deleting the time-bombed software is only part of the job. I got a Dell Inspiron 9400. The hard drive was formatted so that Norton Ghost dedicated partition used 30% of hard drive.

The cleanest way to get rid of the loaded software was to re-partition the hard disk and install the OS from the CD.

sun818




msg:3124532
 7:25 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

More reason to stay with Windows 2000. I want to be productive with my computer, not deal with licensing issues.

cmendla




msg:3124558
 7:44 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

I'm starting to lean toward open source. And NO, I don't pirate software. I have one machine that has a factory install and the genuine advantage comes up once in a while with a 'this is pirated' message.. reboot and it's ok for a month or so. There is probably something quirky in the os or hardware.

A couple of people said what is the big deal with the OS. I agree, **most** people don't move OS's to different computers. However, I am long overdue to replace my desktop. Once they start the same licensing scheme for office, the costs go way up.

BTW, I was the IT director for a university back in 99 or so. MS wanted to go to yearly licensing fees for it's software. That resulted in a lot of colleges looking at unix. MS quickly abandoned the yearly licensing, at least until now.

As far as open source, I work with a lot of small businesses. $300 - $500 per workstation for ms office can add up really fast. I've installed Openoffice on one of my machines. My 11 year old dove right in to it and has it doing what he wants. I need to look at it as a serious alternative for me and my clients.

I don't think the licensing for Vista will cause too much outcry with the general public. However, when they start doing it with Office, buy stock in open source software (just kidding about the stock part....:)

I did have a situation about a year ago where i had to reinstall windows. For some reason, the install would not accept the license key that came with the machine. Rather than mess with it, I had to go out and buy a full version of XP and install from that. (Couldnt' futz around with MS support while clients were waiting for their sites)

This probably isn't all about piracy but a move to yearly licensing fees.... Incrementalism works where rapid shifts won't

venrooy




msg:3124707
 9:27 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Those that see this as no big deal - are obviously not in the computer game. They are bystanders, and hense it really is no big deal to them. They're the ones that are constantly calling you to come look at their computer, because they don't know how to protect themselves against viruses and spyware.

If I buy a new blank slate computer, I should be able to put anything I own onto it.

That's like making a DVD to play on only one DVD player - It's just begging consumers not to buy it. Anyone remember the original DivX DVDs at Circuit City? That didn't last very long.

europeforvisitors




msg:3124741
 9:45 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Those that see this as no big deal - are obviously not in the computer game. They are bystanders, and hense it really is no big deal to them. They're the ones that are constantly calling you to come look at their computer, because they don't know how to protect themselves against viruses and spyware.

I'm not in the "computer game," but I've been using, installing, and upgrading PCs for nearly 25 years, and I participated in any number of betas (including Win95) before I found better ways to invest my spare time. And for the record, I'm with IncrediBILL: I don't think this is a big deal.

incrediBILL




msg:3124754
 9:55 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Those that see this as no big deal - are obviously not in the computer game. They are bystanders, and hense it really is no big deal to them.

That's funny, absurd, but funny.

For 99.9999% of the population this change will be meaningless and have no impact, but I can see how some IT dept. people might come unglued tracking where Vista was installed and how many times unless they get it pre-installed on machines like the rest of the world.

My desktop came pre-installed with Windows, my server came pre-installed with Red Hat Enterprise and I have no intention on touching the OS on either box until I move to the next box, at which time it will again be pre-installed.

engine




msg:3124759
 10:01 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Oh, this is a big deal for Microsoft, and for pirates.

I cannot imagine how large the piracy problem is for Microsoft.

If the pirate clears off to some other platform, MS is no worse off. If it converts pirates to legitimate copies, then MS will gain.

For the vast majority of users, they will not have a problem.

It's also worth noting that this is specific to retail copies.

venrooy




msg:3124774
 10:19 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

Oh, this is a big deal for Microsoft, and for pirates.

And for anyone that works on or builds computers - as well as anyone that upgrades or builds their own computers. And let me clue you it's way more than .001% Just ask Newegg, or Tigerdirect.

And if anything - this will increase piracy, because legitimate users will be looking for ways to use their product after MS cuts them off. That means there will be more people hacking the code, which only benefits the pirates.

Personally I see this as a good thing. It will give other more legitimate Operating systems a better foot hold.

europeforvisitors




msg:3124811
 11:09 pm on Oct 17, 2006 (gmt 0)

It will give other more legitimate Operating systems a better foot hold.

In what way are other operating systems more "legitimate" than Windows is?

beanfortez




msg:3124894
 12:20 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

I see a simple solution to this.

Google buys out Microsoft for #*$! Billion.

Google makes XP completely free with adsense or video ads and only a mere $49.99 for it to be ad free. Guaranteed people would buy it and it would become the god of the internet.

beanfortez




msg:3124895
 12:21 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Sorry XP = Vista

bill




msg:3124910
 12:33 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

There is an interesting counter article by Paul Thurrott that sheds some more light on this issue: Licensing Changes to Windows Vista [winsupersite.com]
The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single copy of XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention. "This clause was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example."

The problem, of course, was that some people felt they could install a single copy of Windows as many times as they wanted. "It's always been per copy, per device," Boettcher said.

With Windows Vista, the EULA has been clarified. It now explicitly states that a user may "reassign the [Windows Vista] license to another device one time." This, the pundits say, is a huge restriction that wasn't present in Windows XP. Many people incorrectly believe this to be the case.

Admittedly this EULA does appear that it will cause difficulty for those hardware enthusiasts who upgrade frequently. However, on the other hand it sounds like MS is just clarifying an existing policy that has been misunderstood. Give the above article a read-through.

For those of you who like to read the actual documents themselves Microsoft has tool online that lets you view the EULA of various products: License Terms for Software Licensed from Microsoft [microsoft.com]

vincevincevince




msg:3124915
 12:35 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

If the pirate clears off to some other platform, MS is no worse off.

If it had not been for piracy of Microsoft software they would have a much lower market share today. Microsoft has needed piracy at the bottom-feeder level to engender monopoly at all the higher levels.

Personally I don't see piracy as bad if there are no free alternatives, but once there is a free and workable alternative (e.g. linux) then there is no excuse for piracy to continue.

Transfering software between machines is just another thing which is going to make owning Microsoft software harder. With XP today a legitimate owner has to go through a complex activation process which involves either an internet connection or a phone call (there is no fully disconnected activation process).

Compare that to a pirated copy which can be fully activated with a couple of clicks, or compare it to other operating systems which install and then run, no fuss.

kaled




msg:3124926
 1:01 am on Oct 18, 2006 (gmt 0)

Depending on how it is implemented, I could imagine a situation whereby hardware manufacturers sue Microsoft for making it hard for them to sell upgrade components.

For instance, if changing the motherboard kills Windows then motherboard manufacturers are likely to be pretty upset. If changing the CPU to a newer model kills Windows then Intel (and AMD) will go after MS in a big way.

Of course, Microsoft may have a means of getting around this but I have my doubts.

For 99.9999% of the population this change will be meaningless and have no impact
I doubt that even Microsoft would be so foolishly optimistic. In any case, making such high predictions of satisfaction requires a confidence in the reliability of Microsoft code that is almost absurdly optimistic based on past performance.

Kaled.

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: 72 ( [1] 2 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Microsoft / Microsoft Windows OS (XP/NT/Vista/Windows 7/8/9/10)
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved