Microsoft is high towards the EULA for Vista

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

read this before you make a decision

"RoadRunner" <watdafuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OH0C0C%237GHA.788@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>I have 3 legit copies of xp , I just read the EULA for Vista
>
> http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
>
> I don't know about the rest of the world ? I now will not buy this OS
>
> Microsoft >>> Totally going in the wrong direction with the EULA , It
> makes me wonder how good Vista will actually be if they have clowns like
> this coming out with these types of rules
>
> Read 15 , 16
>

So, if I am part of the few people who actually open the cases and change
hardware I do not count? That is BS.

MS should limit the OEM versions. If I buy a retail copy of Windows I pay
more for it than for OEM. I expect flexibility. Having the right to transfer
that retail copy of Windows to another machine ONLY ONCE is hardly any
flexibility.

Paul is wrong on this one.



"Charles Cook" <ccook210@cox.net> wrote in message
news:EE3E86F2-751A-4B1B-A4D7-532A4F4A2E70@microsoft.com...

> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
> read this before you make a decision
>
> "RoadRunner" <watdafuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OH0C0C%237GHA.788@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>I have 3 legit copies of xp , I just read the EULA for Vista
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of the world ? I now will not buy this OS
>>
>> Microsoft >>> Totally going in the wrong direction with the EULA , It
>> makes me wonder how good Vista will actually be if they have clowns like
>> this coming out with these types of rules
>>
>> Read 15 , 16
>>

>

"Charles Cook" <ccook210@cox.net> wrote in message news:EE3E86F2-751A-4B1B-A4D7-532A4F4A2E70@microsoft.com...

> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
> read this before you make a decision
>

Sucks to be it the tiny percentage that experience these issues though.....


--
---
///Terje Alexander Barth
\\\///

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:43:36 -0400, "Charles Cook" <ccook210@cox.net>
wrote:

>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
>read this before you make a decision
>
>"RoadRunner" <watdafuck@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:OH0C0C%237GHA.788@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>I have 3 legit copies of xp , I just read the EULA for Vista
>>
>> http://download.microsoft.com/docume...3f722371fa.pdf
>>
>> I don't know about the rest of the world ? I now will not buy this OS
>>
>> Microsoft >>> Totally going in the wrong direction with the EULA , It
>> makes me wonder how good Vista will actually be if they have clowns like
>> this coming out with these types of rules
>>
>> Read 15 , 16
>>

Ok, I dutifully read the article by Paul Thurrott.
This man is LYING to the American Public.
In the first place, he begins speaking about the XP OEM License, and
then segues into the RETAIL license without saying he is speaking
about TWO different licenses, thus giving the impression that the
license terms of "one machine only" for an OEM license are the SAME
for the RETAIL license.

In addition NO WHERE in the XP OEM license does it say that the
license applies only to a machine. This would be idiocy. A machine
cannot buy a license , nor can a machine be legally bound by the legal
terms of a license. Obviously, the license applies to the ONE who
buys it, not to the machine.

No, friends, Microsoft is attempting to restate the XP license "ex
post facto", which is, of course, highly illegal in the US.

And Microsoft is illegally attempting to reinterpret the terms of both
the Retail and OEM licenses of XP.

Not only that, but the EULA PLAINLY states that the SOFTWARE is
licensed (another legal fiction).

Now, if Microsoft wants to change the Windows licensees, that is their
right. But ONCE they stated the terms of a license of XP in writing
in a court of law (as they HAD to do to sell it), they are BOUND
forever by those terms, just as the user becomes when he installs the
software and activates it. They cannot reinterpret the terms after
the fact.

So, while the Vista Licenses may be what they are, they are NOT XP
licenses, and never will be XP licenses.

What they ARE trying to do, however, is use the terms of an XP OEM
license as the RETAIL license for Vista, changing the wording a little
and replacing the name of the old product (XP) with a new name
(Vista), thus making ALL editions of Vista basically OEM editions (no
matter what you want to call them.) and THEN they are boldly trying
to reinterpret the XP license in the light of Vista's new license,
thus wiping out (so they think) the historical XP license.

This is called "re-writing history after the fact", or simply put,
"LYING through their teeth" about the terms of the XP license.

This one may turn me off toward Microsoft forever, no matter how much
I may like Vista.

Unless Microsoft makes a REAL distinction between the OEM Vista
license and the Retail Vista license, I will do all in my power to
show them up as the liars they are.

> Now, if Microsoft wants to change the Windows licensees, that is their
> right. But ONCE they stated the terms of a license of XP in writing
> in a court of law (as they HAD to do to sell it), they are BOUND
> forever by those terms, just as the user becomes when he installs the
> software and activates it. They cannot reinterpret the terms after
> the fact.

Unfortunately that is not true since the license states that the license can
change without notice. By using the software you agree to that so they can
in fact change it.

Charles Cook wrote:

> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
> read this before you make a decision
>

I see nothing in this article that indicates the author understands the
difference between an OEM and Retail license (or that he even knows
these concepts exist).

Therefore anything he says is meaningless.

The problem is the change in the RETAIL Vista license (relative to XP),
limiting transfer to only one machine.

David Wilkinson

I think he does knows but it look like he doesn't really want to bring that
part to our attentions because he knows what we would think about Vista EULA

"David Wilkinson" <no-reply@effisols.com> wrote in message
news:u%23PgYTS8GHA.3820@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Charles Cook wrote:
>

>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>>
>> read this before you make a decision
>>

>
> I see nothing in this article that indicates the author understands the
> difference between an OEM and Retail license (or that he even knows these
> concepts exist).
>
> Therefore anything he says is meaningless.
>
> The problem is the change in the RETAIL Vista license (relative to XP),
> limiting transfer to only one machine.
>
> David Wilkinson

RoadRunner wrote:

> I think he does knows but it look like he doesn't really want to bring that
> part to our attentions because he knows what we would think about Vista EULA
>

Did you read this rebuttal:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

David Wilkinson