My beef is similar, although not what's being discussed here. My objection
is to the limited number of times you can install the software. After you
install and activate your OS a certain number of times (I don't know the
magical number) you can no longer activate your software without calling
Microsoft and dancing through a lot of hoops to get a new activation number.

Redoing my system as often as I do I long since have passed the "magical
number". I can't begin to tell you how annoying and time wasting it has been
for me to call Microsoft and do the Dance of the Hoops to get a new
activation number.

I don't understand the logic behind this policy. It's like buying a car and
only being allowed to start it so many times before it refuses to start
before you have to spend a day dancing through hoops to get permission to
start it just one more time.

David


"Alan" wrote:

> I have just seen the new License terms for the Vista versions on the MS
> website and am concerned about new restrictions about using the license on a
> new machine. It seems you are only allowed to transfer vista once to a new
> machine. I have checked with Microsoft and apparently installing a new
> motherboard/ processor is as far as they are concerned a new machine!
> This is going to hit those of us who home build our machines and upgrade
> regularly very hard. I must admit I am thinking whether the change to Vista
> is worthwhile. This is a new restriction which does not appear in the XP
> EULA.
> Alan
>
>
>

It sure is some tricky wording.

Even the clarification still kind of sucks.
Although, I guess if a user is spending
mega bucks on Vista Ultimate, those sorts
of "extras" may help justify the cost.


-Michael


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJIINLu7GHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> No, there’s no ban on virtual Vista
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "MICHAEL" wrote:
>
> | What I find heavy handed, is the fact which versions are
> | allowed to be run in a virtual environment.
> |
> | Home Basic and Home Premium are not allowed
> | to be virtualized. Why?
> | I know Ultimate is allowed.
> |
> | My favorite is
> |
> | <quote>
> | 8. SCOPE OF LICENSE.
> | You May Not:
> | - work around any technical limitations in the software;
> | </quote>
> |
> | What does that mean? Most of, in some fashion or another,
> | have always worked around Windows' "technical limitations".
> |
> | Oh, and WTF does this mean? "only one user may use the software
> | at a time", located under Number of Users.
> |
> | This, too:
> | <quote>
> | You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device.
> | You may use the software on up to two processors on that device
> | at one time.
> | </quote>
> |
> | Only "two processors"?
> | Quad cores are not too far off.
> | http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/...ovember_1.html
> |
> |
> | -Michael
>
>

"Alan" wrote:

> I have just seen the new License terms for the Vista versions on the MS
> website and am concerned about new restrictions about using the license on a
> new machine. It seems you are only allowed to transfer vista once to a new
> machine. I have checked with Microsoft and apparently installing a new
> motherboard/ processor is as far as they are concerned a new machine!
> This is going to hit those of us who home build our machines and upgrade
> regularly very hard. I must admit I am thinking whether the change to Vista
> is worthwhile. This is a new restriction which does not appear in the XP
> EULA.
> Alan
>
>
>

I agree with Alan. As another user who upgrades my machine on a regular
basis, I do not think we should be "required" to purchase a new copy of Vista
after the one "allowed" transfer. This appears to be an attempt to boost
sales of the OS.

I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.
Microsoft has already built in enough safeguards into Vista to address the
piracy issue.

LJB wrote:

>
> I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
> necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.

Alias

John Barnes wrote:

> From Microsoft site, questions and answers about OEM product. If you don't
> like the answer, not my problem. Call Microsoft. Check
> http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...07/461961.aspx
>
> Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your
> computer and maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating
> system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the
> motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new
> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has
> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs

That is all well and good, but that is not in the EULA that customers
agree to. They can only go on what the EULA says when they install the
software. If it is not there, it does not apply.

"Alias~-" wrote:

> LJB wrote:
>

> >
> > I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
> > necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

>
> Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
> constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.
>
> Alias
>

Yes it does, Alias. But really, what other purpose besides increasing their
sales of Vista does this restriction serve?

If the argument is: "Well the number of people that build their own systems
is so small that the impact will be minimal" Then I guess ASUS, ABIT, ECS,
GigaByte etc. might as well fold up shop! <<<(insert sarcasm here). I do
realize they build boards for OEM's as well.

Let's hear a LUCID reason for this change in the EULA from someone in the
Microsoft camp...

If full version of Vista is purchased outside of any OEM does this still
limit if I upgrade my computer at a later stage? I intend to upgrade things
before install but we all know how fast technology moves and what we didn't
think we wanted today we might want next week or need - will Microsoft
restrict a fresh install or limit a clean install with the full retail
version? if so then there would not be any advantage purchasing at full cost
plus best wait and update everything before installing Vista

I am not one to re-install every month or at all if possible although Vista
has made installing easier. I was planning to purchase full retail but if it
is only access to Microsoft help then I didn't use this with XP. I hoped a
full copy would not tie the OS to any drive/mobo.

"Alias~-" wrote:

> LJB wrote:
>

> >
> > I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
> > necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

>
> Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
> constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.
>
> Alias
>

LJB wrote:

> "Alias~-" wrote:
>

>> LJB wrote:
>>

>>> I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
>>> necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

>> Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
>> constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.
>>
>> Alias
>>

>
> Yes it does, Alias. But really, what other purpose besides increasing their
> sales of Vista does this restriction serve?

None that I can see.

>
> If the argument is: "Well the number of people that build their own systems
> is so small that the impact will be minimal" Then I guess ASUS, ABIT, ECS,
> GigaByte etc. might as well fold up shop! <<<(insert sarcasm here). I do
> realize they build boards for OEM's as well.

If they say that, it's further proof that they have no respect for
paying customers but what else is new?

>
> Let's hear a LUCID reason for this change in the EULA from someone in the
> Microsoft camp...

Don't hold your breath.

Alias

The computer purchaser agrees to one computer and no transfer except the
whole computer and this defines one computer. As to the system builder
license, when I bought mine, the seller web page made it clear that the
purchase was subject to the license, but I don't see that on the site now.

"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:%23NIws3u7GHA.4288@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> John Barnes wrote:

>> From Microsoft site, questions and answers about OEM product. If you
>> don't like the answer, not my problem. Call Microsoft. Check
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/arc...07/461961.aspx
>>
>> Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on
>> your computer and maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM
>> operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or
>> replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is
>> considered to result in a "new personal computer." Microsoft OEM
>> operating system software cannot be transferred from one computer to
>> another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for
>> reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been created, the
>> original license expires, and a new full operating system license (not
>> upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is covered under
>> Software Assurance or other Volume License programs

>
> That is all well and good, but that is not in the EULA that customers
> agree to. They can only go on what the EULA says when they install the
> software. If it is not there, it does not apply.

It does seem the license is getting close to the OEM license. As to the
support, I didn't need with 98 or ME, but when I installed SP2 my machine
became a disaster and support eventually sent me a copy of XP that included
SP2. Without that, I wouldn't have had a useable XP for the last 2 years
or would have had to buy a copy with SP2 for close to $140



"pippin" <pippin@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C590605-014C-4713-A312-0DB59061587A@microsoft.com...

> If full version of Vista is purchased outside of any OEM does this still
> limit if I upgrade my computer at a later stage? I intend to upgrade
> things
> before install but we all know how fast technology moves and what we
> didn't
> think we wanted today we might want next week or need - will Microsoft
> restrict a fresh install or limit a clean install with the full retail
> version? if so then there would not be any advantage purchasing at full
> cost
> plus best wait and update everything before installing Vista
>
> I am not one to re-install every month or at all if possible although
> Vista
> has made installing easier. I was planning to purchase full retail but if
> it
> is only access to Microsoft help then I didn't use this with XP. I hoped a
> full copy would not tie the OS to any drive/mobo.
>
> "Alias~-" wrote:
>

>> LJB wrote:
>>

>> >
>> > I would really appreciate an explanation of why this restriction is
>> > necessary. Not the standard "To reduce software piracy" statement.

>>
>> Reminds you of a certain cowboy that lives in a white house that is
>> constantly using 9/11 for political purposes.
>>
>> Alias
>>