More Vista Licensing Crap

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-10-15 07:04pm

They will in time. Hardware breaks down, the new computers will come with Vista licences the same way the current ones come with XP and if that is not a consideration then the company probably has a licence agreement that makes Vista prices a non-issue (ie. they can put any OS they want on the comps), and they will at some point choose to upgrade (probably after Longhorn server comes out tho). I'm not beliving for a second the optimistic uptake figures MS is stating, but no doubt about it in a couple of years Vista will be the dominant OS in buisness. Not to many not already inclined that way will switch to Linux while Apple is a non-starter for a multitude of reasons (from expensive machines, to meager support on the enterprise leve) except in its traditional nieches.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2006-10-15 07:06pm

Lost Soal wrote:
phongn wrote:
RThurmont wrote:Make no mistake, this EULA, when combined with the SPP, is quite possibly the best thing ever to happen to Apple, Linux and the other Microsoft competitors. Steve Jobs and Linus Torvalds should be sending bottles of champagne to Steve Ballmer every morning.
Meh. Most people won't care, frankly. And corporations will buy Vista, though uptake will be slow.
The vast majority won't. They don't need the visual effects, they certainly won't want to buy video cards in order to use it, besides which the vast majority of their computers will be low to mid spec because all they need to do is run office applications and have a fair speed internet connection. There is no real reason for them to upgrade the OS or the hardware needed to run it.

Don't underestimate M$'s trump card, closed proprietary standards.

Scenario:

XYZ megacorp upgrades to Office 2007 and pasta because their stable of MSCEs from the CIO on down are in need of career stability and the 3-year lease on their systems roll over, and then all their correspondence, invoices etc are moved to Office 2007. Some months down the line, Office gets patched and magically, all backwards compatibility breaks and older versions of Office can't open the new documents any more. XYZ's small customers/suppliers that haven't upgraded yet now can't communicate with one of their main sources of revenue. Ballmer and co are very apologetic and working on a patch "real soon now", but to restore the line of contact, everyone gets at least one vista system. Then, in the name of "compatibility", everyone's computer department "upgrades". The lock-in is preserved, and it's business as usual.

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-10-15 07:22pm

The thing is, they honestly don't need to do anything as underhanded as that (and they are volontarily allowing that particular trump card to no longer be such, with all the XML based formats and such). Time is on their side. Retail sales of Vista will amount to miniscule profits in the overall scheme of things and everything else is independent of it (notice them attempting to increase that with the in-place upgrade thingy). New computers? It doesn't matter if they sell XP or Vista (and they will be selling Vista almost exclusivly by mid 2007), MS gets its cut. Big company volume licences? In most cases those are tied not to specific Windows versions.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-10-15 08:05pm

Lost Soal wrote:The vast majority won't. They don't need the visual effects, they certainly won't want to buy video cards in order to use it, besides which the vast majority of their computers will be low to mid spec because all they need to do is run office applications and have a fair speed internet connection. There is no real reason for them to upgrade the OS or the hardware needed to run it.

You don't need a high-powered GPU or CPU to run Vista. If you want eye candy, yes. If you turn that off, no. Also, as computers are replaced, newer ones will likely have Vista on them.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-10-15 10:35pm

The economic benefits of continuing to run Windows are hugely overrated. The only upside is the ability to run certain applications, almost all of which have open source alternatives that, while not quite as good out of the box, can easily be made as good with minimal tweaking. If you desperately need to run a Windows app, you can always keep around legacy machines, as has been suggested elsewhere.

Also, when it comes to running Linux, no, I'm not going to pay for support, unless I absolutely need it. The only real reason to pay for a copy of linux is to get indemnification, and that's something that will only come in handy in the event of the much dreaded Microsoft patent lawsuit materializing, something which I consider to be a remote possibility, considering the increasing strength of Linux's and free software's corporate "sponsors" as it were (IBM etc.). If IBM prevails in the suit against SCO, that almost certainly would scare Microsoft out of further action, as Microsoft (as was recently revealed) was essentially using SCO as their litigative proxy.

In terms of Linux support, I just don't see that it's needed anyway. I've gotten by using Windows with virtually no support from Microsoft and only nominal support from hardware vendors since I was 8, and as far as I can tell, Linux is actually easier to use for everything except installing software. Technical glitches that would require getting on the phone can be averted by ensuring all hardware is Linux-compatble, reviewing known glitches using the availible open source documentation, creating a standardized HD image that is not modified without extensive testing, and backing up data religiously.

With Windows, in addition to having to do all of the above, you're still going to have incidents that require tech support, such as malware infestations, virus attacks, and various glitches such as an incident I had the other day where half of all screen fonts on one of my PCs mysteriously dissappeared (a reboot solved the problem, but it still scarred me into calling my IT consultant).

Additionally, Linux is a "tougher" operating system than XP, so even if I didn't do all of the above, I'd still, in all probability, be OK. The other day I inadvertantly booted 56 instances of the same application in Linux (don't ask) and the system didn't even slow down to any noticeable degree, which amazes me to this moment.

So before you, Phongn, rush to the conclusion that I'm just wanking over Linux, I will have to say, yes, I actually have done my homework and analyzed the economics of a transition.

My real gripe with this licensing crap, however, is the impact it will have on my use of tablet PCs. I might have to put up with Vista for the sake of getting new ones, or else exercise my downgrade rights if it really sucks as hard as I'm afraid it will. However, I wouldn't be at all suprised if a Linux distro emerged that supported tablet functionality. Of course, I'd loose access to my beloved Alias/Autodesk Sketchbook Pro, which much to my annoyance has a patented UI, but I can deal with a traditional Illustrator-style interface.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-10-15 11:32pm

RThurmont wrote:The economic benefits of continuing to run Windows are hugely overrated. The only upside is the ability to run certain applications, almost all of which have open source alternatives that, while not quite as good out of the box, can easily be made as good with minimal tweaking. If you desperately need to run a Windows app, you can always keep around legacy machines, as has been suggested elsewhere.

With due respect, I haven't see anything out of the OSS world to match most of the professional media applications (Photoshop, etc.) And yes, you could keep a legacy machine around but then you're running two boxes, with requisite administrative overhead.

In terms of Linux support, I just don't see that it's needed anyway. I've gotten by using Windows with virtually no support from Microsoft and only nominal support from hardware vendors since I was 8, and as far as I can tell, Linux is actually easier to use for everything except installing software. Technical glitches that would require getting on the phone can be averted by ensuring all hardware is Linux-compatble, reviewing known glitches using the availible open source documentation, creating a standardized HD image that is not modified without extensive testing, and backing up data religiously.

Hrm. For your business that may work (from what I've heard, it doesn't seem to be too big?) - I tend to think of larger-scale enterprise deployments. And when it comes to the server farm, I'd definately want some support contract, whether it be from Red Hat, Ubuntu, Microsoft or Apple.

With Windows, in addition to having to do all of the above, you're still going to have incidents that require tech support, such as malware infestations, virus attacks, and various glitches such as an incident I had the other day where half of all screen fonts on one of my PCs mysteriously dissappeared (a reboot solved the problem, but it still scarred me into calling my IT consultant).

I've never had the font glitch appear on Windows, but I have had issues with Linux font handling (due to its archaic architecture). I'll concede the point about malware, viruses, etc - though a properly-maintained network can defend against that effectively, IMHO.

Additionally, Linux is a "tougher" operating system than XP, so even if I didn't do all of the above, I'd still, in all probability, be OK. The other day I inadvertantly booted 56 instances of the same application in Linux (don't ask) and the system didn't even slow down to any noticeable degree, which amazes me to this moment.

Which application, might I ask?

So before you, Phongn, rush to the conclusion that I'm just wanking over Linux, I will have to say, yes, I actually have done my homework and analyzed the economics of a transition.

I was speaking in the general case, not your specific one in which you seemed to advocate a mass switch to Linux.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2006-10-16 04:54pm

RThurmont wrote:The economic benefits of continuing to run Windows are hugely overrated. The only upside is the ability to run certain applications, almost all of which have open source alternatives that, while not quite as good out of the box, can easily be made as good with minimal tweaking.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

If you believe that one, I've got some property yo sell you.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2006-10-16 05:37pm

While a great number of private enterprises and gov't institutions are switching to OSS software, there is nowhere near the uptake (yet) to really hurt MS. Most of these changes are down to a specific suite being available for free and for just as good a list of features as the paid-for suite. Others are simply because a server is needed that is cheaper to run and more efficient.

As it stands in October, 2006, there are a great many things MS has over Apple, IBM, Sun, Linux and so on that give it leverage even with this overhyped, bloated anti-consumer-freedom-ware that is Windows Vista.

I recall similar grumbles over XP in 2001, so I don't expect many to put their money where their mouth is and ditch what has been the standard for the last decade plus.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-10-16 06:07pm

If DailyTech is to be believe, the Vista EULA is the same shit, different wording. According to the article, if I want to replace my motherboard, I just have to call up MS, like I already have to. As long as that's the case, I don't see the big deal.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-10-16 07:45pm

Arrow: I don't know about you, but I've never had to call up MS* when replacing the mobo or hard drives... am I just lucky? Maybe, but I get the impression that few other people have had to call MS either. I think that the whole calling in thing is a red hearing to distract us from the real issue: can we transfer the license more than once?

In my opinion, the real problem is the the EULA now explicitly states that you can transfer the license only once. And, regardless of what MS meant for XP users to do, if they enforce the new wording, it's a big change. If MS decides to enforce the one-transfer rule, it won't matter if you call in or not.

I hope they don't enforce it... I hope that all you have to do is call in and explain that you transfered the license, but so far I don't see any proof that that is MS's intention.

Paul Thurrott sent out an e-mail newsletter today that has a rewording of what he wrote last week. The new version makes MS's intentions more explicit. I'll excerpt part of it:

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts by Paul Thurrott wrote:Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "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 intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."

All of the [] parts were in the original. The bolding and color is mine.

It's obvious from this that MS only intends for users to move the license if their hardware fails.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe that is what the XP license really meant. Maybe Microsoft hasn't changed anything other than the wording of the license. Maybe. The problem (IMO) is that the new license makes it clear that you can only transfer the license once, and Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher implies that you are only suppose to move it if your computer dies. There is no provision made for those of us who want to upgrade/replace our computers and use the same license on the new computer. If the wording change signals an intent by Microsoft to only allow you to transfer the license once, we're screwed.

BTW, Paul goes on to mention this this excellent response (his wording) which does a good job of explainging why this change is bad for enthusiants, and hence for the computer industry as a whole.

Windows Vista's Enthusiastic Licensing Restrictions wrote:[E]ven at 5 percent that converts to roughly 50-65 million people [in 2010]. So it's not just me and a couple of mates whipping the cover off our PCs, it's actually a fairly large group of people.

Furthermore, it is this 5 percent of the Windows PC market that plows vast sums of money into the PC hardware industry and drives high-end hardware sales. Most pre-built systems do not come with expensive high-end graphics cards, fancy motherboards, low-latency RAM, fast hard drives or aftermarket coolers for example. These are all usually purchased as upgrades, at significant cost. Entire companies base their business models on catering to aftermarket purchases of standalone components.

But why should Microsoft pander to these hardware junkies who have more dollars than sense? Why do they upgrade so often anyway, are they nuts? It's a bit more complex than that. Let's look at one common reason for upgrades: gaming. Take for example Microsoft's much-touted new DirectX 10 (DX10) graphics API for Vista. Upcoming games such as Crysis and Microsoft's own Flight Simulator X are going to take advantage of DX10's capabilities to produce enhanced graphics. Yet to utilize DX10, PC owners will need to buy a DirectX 10-capable graphics card. And since these will only be available with a PCI Express interface, that likely means a fair few people will have to upgrade their motherboards as well, which in turn may mean RAM and even CPU upgrades will be needed, if only because of CPU socket and RAM architecture changes.

So a Vista user who started out with one 'device' prior to the release of DirectX 10 hardware, may well wind up with a new device after necessary upgrades to take advantage of a core feature of Vista. In return they've just used up their one and only Vista license transfer. Heaven forbid they decide to upgrade their system again in the coming years - which is quite likely given the existing pace of upgrades for gaming - they will be faced with either lying about having a 'catastrophic failure', or buying a new Vista license. And at $399 for Vista Ultimate (the likely OS choice for enthusiasts), this isn't just a couple of bucks we're talking about here.

This time the [] are things I added.

*--Actually I did have to call MS once, but that was back when I was using one of the release candidates, and I think it was due to their servers being down, not because I moved the license too many times.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-10-16 11:58pm

Macs may look expensive, but mostly they just don't have a fraction of the options you have when buying a PC. You want the tower, it's going to come with all high-end components. The total price difference between a Dell and a Mac with roughly equivilent components and software is generally within a few percent, at least at the high end. It's harder to compare the iMac and Mac Mini.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-10-17 12:35am

I was once told that when XP takes a snapshot of your system it allows upto 5 changes before deciding its a different computer. If so, Vista would probably follow suit. Right?

Netko · Post by **Netko** » 2006-10-17 05:40am

Supposedly, the algorithm in Vista is more advanced and less likely to require reactivation for your computer. The only currently mentioned example requireing reactivation would be the changing of the motherboard and the (system, I'm assuming) hard drive at the same time, and it has also been mentioned that those two components are the most heavily weighted in deciding that this is a new computer.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-10-17 07:54am

One of the things that I find a little frightening is how much we (or at least I) really don't know about how that activation thing will work.

If you activate a computer and later swap out a HD, that's probably the same computer. If you later swap out the MoBo does it check the change against the original configuration or the most recent configuration?

If it checks the change against the most recent configuration, the one transfer rule probably doesn't matter so much because a careful upgrader should often be able to swap out components one at a time.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-10-17 11:39am

CelesKnight wrote:Arrow: I don't know about you, but I've never had to call up MS* when replacing the mobo or hard drives... am I just lucky? Maybe, but I get the impression that few other people have had to call MS either. I think that the whole calling in thing is a red hearing to distract us from the real issue: can we transfer the license more than once?

If you swap your motherboard while using a previous OS install, or if you do more that a certain number of clean installs with a license key, you'll have to call MS to reactivate. I've done the former at home and the later at work (yes, you should feel sorry for that box, after all the shit we did to it). All you do is tell them you swapped hardware, or blew the ever-loving-fuck out of your install, and they'll give you a large sequence of numbers to reactivate. Its no big deal, and takes only five minutes.

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-10-17 12:09pm

CelesKnight wrote:One of the things that I find a little frightening is how much we (or at least I) really don't know about how that activation thing will work.

If you activate a computer and later swap out a HD, that's probably the same computer. If you later swap out the MoBo does it check the change against the original configuration or the most recent configuration?

If it checks the change against the most recent configuration, the one transfer rule probably doesn't matter so much because a careful upgrader should often be able to swap out components one at a time.

It uses (or used in XP) the original system scan.

As an aside. Does this..

SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights.
You may not
· work around any technical limitations in the software;

sound to anyone else like its saying, if there are faults in the programming, tough shit?

Lost Soal · Post by **Lost Soal** » 2006-10-17 01:06pm

True, all licenses say they aren't responsible for loss or damage, but at least the GPU allows for the user to correct the problems, hence many programs getting unofficial patches.

The Vista one appears to forbid you from doing anything about it that doesn't come direct from microsoft.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-10-17 02:00pm

Lost Soal wrote:True, all licenses say they aren't responsible for loss or damage, but at least the GPU allows for the user to correct the problems, hence many programs getting unofficial patches.

The Vista one appears to forbid you from doing anything about it that doesn't come direct from microsoft.

I seem to recall M$ stating already that they don't give a fuck about independent developers or the GPU comunity. So this doesn't really come as much of a surprise. Just another nail in the coffin for me to not bother upgrading to Vista at all.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-10-17 09:38pm

Arrow wrote:If you swap your motherboard while using a previous OS install, or if you do more that a certain number of clean installs with a license key, you'll have to call MS to reactivate.

Sorry, Arrow, I shouldn't have doubted you. I had assumed you were just parroting Paul. I must have been lucky in that I must have gone through a dozen of reinstalls and quite a few hard drives and mobos but have never had to call in.

At any rate, the underlying issue isn't if we have to call in or not, the issue is if we can transfer Vista more than once. Calling in won't do any good if all the CS Rep says is, "I'm sorry but you can only transfer the license once."

I've been following the debate on this issue fairly closely, and so far I haven't see anything official from MS that directly says you can transfer the license more than one. In fact, as I mentioned in previous posts, the EULA and the statements from MS all imply that the license can only be transferred once.

That's also CNet's understanding of the new license.

Microsoft limits Vista transfers wrote:Under changes to Microsoft's licensing terms, buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their software to a new machine only 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

The often-quoted Paul Thurrott also seems to think that the license can only be transferred once. In yet another newsletter from his he says:

Commentary: Ch-Ch-Changes in Windows Vista by Paul Thurrott wrote:[M]any enthusiasts, who upgrade major PC
components regularly, have pointed to this part of the EULA to justify
using the same copy of XP repeatedly.

Microsoft says that the EULA clause mentioned above applies only to
special circumstances, such as a hardware failure. So with Vista,
they've clarified the EULA to state that a user might "reassign the
[Vista] license to another device one time." This, many believe, is a
huge new restriction.

Paul has now been used as the expert four times in this thread by both the "concerned" and "not concerned" crowd. (By Darth Quorthon, twice by me, and he was the expert in the DailyTech article Arrow posted.) From what I gather, Paul's understanding of the issue isn't that we can transfer the Vista license unlimited times, his understanding seems to be that we weren't supposed to transfer the license on XP more than once. And Microsoft just lets that rule slide.

Of course, just because they let the rule slide in XP doesn't mean they're going to let it slide in Vista, especially with the new wording...

I hope I'm wrong. I hope my fears about only being about to transfer Vista once are unjustified. I hope MS lets multiple transfers slide. I hope a phone call and a white-lie about lightning storms lets you reactivate Vista. I hope that MS makes and announcement clarifying if "one time" really means "one time" or not. But as of right now it looks to me like the offical policy is that Vista can only be transferred once.

On a side note, this blog lists several interpretations of the XP license from MS and others. All seem to imply that the official policy of XP was to allow unlimited license transfers of non-OEM software, and the idea of "one time" transfer is a new concept.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2006-10-18 09:40am

Ars has a new article discussing the EULA. Summary: Wait and see.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2006-10-26 07:43pm

I'm never quite sure where's the line for thread necromancy, but I thought this was interesting enough to add, but not interesting enough for it's own thread.

bit-tech wrote: Should you change the hard drive and another piece of hardware - for example for a major upgrade such as a motherboard change that requires a re-installation - Microsoft will allow you to re-activate up to 10 times. You will not, however, be able to have more than one machine activated concurrently.

Should you wish to activate more than 10 times, you could be busted, or Microsoft could choose to let you activate again at its discretion.

If I can't trust the paraphrasing of an unnamed Microsoft spokesman on a foreign Internet site I've never heard of before, who can I trust?

Sarcasm aside, I think that this is good news. Ten upgrades-that-require-reinstalls seems pretty fair, almost generous even. However, without the actual quote, there's always the chance that the MS spokesman didn't really say that--for all we know, he could have meant that you get 10 reinstalls, not ten upgrades.

After writing the above, I found more information.

PC World wrote:According to Microsoft spokesman Mike Burk, Microsoft users who frequently change the hardware configuration of the system running Vista may fail Vista's new Software Protection Platform software-validation feature more than once. If they did, they would be required to purchase an additional license or use Microsoft's support services to activate Vista on a newly configured machine.

[...]

[V]alidation of the software will fail if it detects a "substantially different hardware configuration," he said.

At that point, a customer can use the one-time reassignment of the license they get with their purchase of Vista to transfer the license to a new hardware configuration. However, if after a user does this, he or she "again exceeds the tolerance for updated components," Burk said. "The customer can either purchase an additional license or seek remediation through Microsoft's support services."

No mention of 10 reactivations this time, and "seek remediation" seems pretty vague. However, taken together the two articles offer a glimmer of hope that MS isn't going to be too vindictive against those of use who upgrade their computers.

Unless MS makes further clarifications, Vista is still off my shopping list.