EULA (again, sorry!)

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Brian Wescombe wrote:
>

>> OK. I buy a retail copy of Vista and install it. Then six months later
>> I upgrade the hardware, including mobo and HDD. I then re-install (as
>> one transfer to new hardware is allowed according to the EULA). Six
>> months after that, I transfer the licence to my dad (living in the
>> same house as me). I then upgrade my PC again, and dad installs the OS
>> onto my 'new' machine (it's now his copy after all, he can install it
>> on whichever PC he wants). That's now three different PCs/two
>> transfers to new hardware.
>> Have I missed something here? Does it mean that if I've done one
>> transfer to another PC, I can't then sell/give away my copy as I've
>> already done two separate activations?
>>
>> It says that the original owner can make a transfer to new hardware
>> once, and also says that he/she can also transfer the licence and
>> software to someone else once (unless I've read it wrong). It's all
>> very confusing!

>
> Brian:
>
> I think you have discovered the fundamental contradiction in the
> OEM-ization of the Vista retil license. It is neither fish nor fowl.
>
> But IMHO it is a very bad idea, hurting precisely the most enthusiatic
> users of Microsoft technology.
>
> David Wilkinson

From http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127663/article.html

"This version of Vista isn't the only Microsoft product that people are
waiting for. Consumers concerned about the change in Windows client
licensing that will allow them to transfer a Vista license only once are
still wondering what will happen when they switch out the motherboard
and other components of computers. Some power users, who like to build
their own computers from scratch and who rebuild PCs frequently, have
wondered whether they will have to purchase a new Vista license every
time they do this.

Microsoft is in no hurry to give them an answer. Today, a week after
users first raised the issue, Microsoft declined to comment on the
issue, according to a representative from its public relations firm."

So, we don't know if MS plans to screw the very people who beta tested
their products or not. We may have to wait until January when we can
read the EULA because MS doesn't seem to be in any hurry to clarify. We
can only hope that this means they are reconsidering ...

Alias

I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
planned to upgrade a few things.
I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
soon.

I am not the hardware 'enthusiast' so to speak but when it affects me as a
home user (purchased a computer just to beta test....) into fear of needing
an upgrade I can imagine how the real hardware techs must be feeling now. I
may be a drop in the ocean to Microsoft but I know I am not alone in placing
Vista way into the future now for purchase.

"Brian Wescombe" wrote:

> OK. I buy a retail copy of Vista and install it. Then six months later I
> upgrade the hardware, including mobo and HDD. I then re-install (as one
> transfer to new hardware is allowed according to the EULA). Six months after
> that, I transfer the licence to my dad (living in the same house as me). I
> then upgrade my PC again, and dad installs the OS onto my 'new' machine
> (it's now his copy after all, he can install it on whichever PC he wants).
> That's now three different PCs/two transfers to new hardware.
> Have I missed something here? Does it mean that if I've done one transfer to
> another PC, I can't then sell/give away my copy as I've already done two
> separate activations?
>
> It says that the original owner can make a transfer to new hardware once,
> and also says that he/she can also transfer the licence and software to
> someone else once (unless I've read it wrong). It's all very confusing!
>
>
>

> I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
> am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
> planned to upgrade a few things.
> I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
> but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
> for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
> soon.

I feel the exact same way as you. I would really like a MS rep to explain that
only one upgrade clause. Why not two? I personally feel that it is of no
business to Microsoft wether I upgrade my motherboard or not. They sold the
license to run on my computer, fine. My computer is not paying the "Bill", *I*
am. I'll be damned if I pay $400 because I want /Vista/ to perform better!

BTW, I think no one should apologize for questioning this eula. I think most of
us have worries that are legitimate.

I'm more than willing to purchase Vista once for each computer I have, as I
believe it's one hell of a piece of code. Paying more than once per box,
upgrade or not, is insane.

Oh, and will I get a rebate if I upgrade my Logitech Gaming mouse and keyboard
to the MS brand at the same time?

--
Eric Fortier
http://www.tlnewsreader.com

OK, I get the drift in this thread and usually I hold a view that the
end user and license holder is a human being and not a bundle of kit.

But.... it got me thinking:

a - most enthusiasts will understand why there are restrictions. I'd
guess it is a matter of a copyright holder having a duty to protect the
copyright

b - if such a strict EULA is deemed do-able and important I'd guess that
such a strong approach is based in fact and observations. Nobody would
do it if it were not needed, it appears to be needed so... it is there.

c - if the above two statements hold then it is a sad reflection on
humanity rather than the copyright holder. But it seems IT brings out
the best and the worst in people for example huge productivity boosts at
one end and spiralling naughty stuff at the other

d - if that is what a copyright holder wants and I want to use the
product it follows I should do my best to observe the EULA or, as the
EULA puts it, I can decline to accept the EULA = not install the software

e - I'd also guess that people are comfortable with security and logins.
Computers at work usually require logins, mobile (cell) phones also
require logins maybe users appreciate a need to login to home computer
and home computer networks also?


pippin wrote:

> I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
> am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
> planned to upgrade a few things.
> I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
> but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
> for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
> soon.
>
> I am not the hardware 'enthusiast' so to speak but when it affects me as a
> home user (purchased a computer just to beta test....) into fear of needing
> an upgrade I can imagine how the real hardware techs must be feeling now. I
> may be a drop in the ocean to Microsoft but I know I am not alone in placing
> Vista way into the future now for purchase.
>

I think it has taken the fun and enjoyment out of using a computer especially
when we read about the WGA check incorrectly added 'pirated' to user
computers. I was going to purchase the full retail Ultimate with a version of
Office 2007 to use as a home user but even by doing this I still could be
classed as a pirate by Microsoft on top ot the fearsome EULA.
I know there will be media hype making me feel I am the only me not to have
Vista as my OS but the beta testing has really opened my eyes to the things I
didn't know when I just had XP + Office + trust in Microsoft to care (not
now)

Pirates don't care as they will have the fun but my fun was lost after all
the analysis and the lack of trust in home users

"Eric Fortier" wrote:

>

> > I was looking forward to purchasing Vista soon after the actual release but I
> > am going to be waiting longer now even though my current PC would run Vista I
> > planned to upgrade a few things.
> > I may never have the need to install Vista after the 'permitted one move'
> > but it certainly has made me reconsider when I will purchase Vista and know
> > for sure with the new cores/graphics/hardrives this will be definitely not be
> > soon.

>
> I feel the exact same way as you. I would really like a MS rep to explain that
> only one upgrade clause. Why not two? I personally feel that it is of no
> business to Microsoft wether I upgrade my motherboard or not. They sold the
> license to run on my computer, fine. My computer is not paying the "Bill", *I*
> am. I'll be damned if I pay $400 because I want /Vista/ to perform better!
>
> BTW, I think no one should apologize for questioning this eula. I think most of
> us have worries that are legitimate.
>
> I'm more than willing to purchase Vista once for each computer I have, as I
> believe it's one hell of a piece of code. Paying more than once per box,
> upgrade or not, is insane.
>
> Oh, and will I get a rebate if I upgrade my Logitech Gaming mouse and keyboard
> to the MS brand at the same time?
>
> --
> Eric Fortier
> http://www.tlnewsreader.com
>
>

"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:ufIddhR%23GHA.2300@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> OK, I get the drift in this thread and usually I hold a view that the end
> user and license holder is a human being and not a bundle of kit.
>
> But.... it got me thinking:
>
> a - most enthusiasts will understand why there are restrictions. I'd
> guess it is a matter of a copyright holder having a duty to protect the
> copyright
>
> b - if such a strict EULA is deemed do-able and important I'd guess that
> such a strong approach is based in fact and observations. Nobody would do
> it if it were not needed, it appears to be needed so... it is there.
>
> c - if the above two statements hold then it is a sad reflection on
> humanity rather than the copyright holder. But it seems IT brings out the
> best and the worst in people for example huge productivity boosts at one
> end and spiralling naughty stuff at the other
>
> d - if that is what a copyright holder wants and I want to use the product
> it follows I should do my best to observe the EULA or, as the EULA puts
> it, I can decline to accept the EULA = not install the software
>
> e - I'd also guess that people are comfortable with security and logins.
> Computers at work usually require logins, mobile (cell) phones also
> require logins maybe users appreciate a need to login to home computer and
> home computer networks also?

f - At a time when the economy is in the toilet and when the value of
Microsoft is tumbling due to poor sales, I would certainly go ahead and bite
the hand that feeds me...That makes perfect sense to me.
Go ahead and do your best to drive away your existing customer base.
Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP may no longer be supported by MSFT, (not that we
ever really needed their support anyway), but those old Operating Systems
still work fine.

We Do Not Need a New O/S, it is more a matter of want than need isn't it?

>

> f - At a time when the economy is in the toilet and when the value
> of Microsoft is tumbling due to poor sales, I would certainly go ahead
> and bite the hand that feeds me...That makes perfect sense to me.
> Go ahead and do your best to drive away your existing customer base.
> Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP may no longer be supported by MSFT, (not
> that we ever really needed their support anyway), but those old
> Operating Systems still work fine.
>
> We Do Not Need a New O/S, it is more a matter of want than need isn't it?

Was a wooden ship with sails an improvement on a smaller one without?

Was an ironclad vessel an improvement on a wooden one?
It is in the nature of things (especially those contrived by humans) for
things to change.

Add a dash of meritocracy and change happens by virtue of that meritocracy?

I don't understand, one thing.

When i buy legal Windows, why don't Microsoft do a free update of system.
Example, when i have Windows 98 why in Windows Update isn't any option to
upgrade to Windows 2000?
Do users must pay every 2 or 3 years to have up-to-date systems?

This is a bit...
"deebs" <deebs@false.false> wrote in message
news:er8YPeT%23GHA.1168@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>
>> f - At a time when the economy is in the toilet and when the value of
>> Microsoft is tumbling due to poor sales, I would certainly go ahead and
>> bite the hand that feeds me...That makes perfect sense to me.
>> Go ahead and do your best to drive away your existing customer base.
>> Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP may no longer be supported by MSFT, (not that
>> we ever really needed their support anyway), but those old Operating
>> Systems still work fine.
>>
>> We Do Not Need a New O/S, it is more a matter of want than need isn't it?

> Was a wooden ship with sails an improvement on a smaller one without?
>
> Was an ironclad vessel an improvement on a wooden one?
> It is in the nature of things (especially those contrived by humans) for
> things to change.
>
> Add a dash of meritocracy and change happens by virtue of that
> meritocracy?