Windows Vista licence rule = lost customer

[HTPCnewbie]

[COLOR=Red]Below, is my recent rant sent to Microsoft over their "retail" Vista rule of, one copy of Vista OS = one PC. That is a bit general, but basically true and for people like us (PC enthusiast) with several PC's at home this might be the end of my Windows days.

This effects me personally because I build my own PC's, am a PC gamer, and HTPC newbie. I feel...like a new OS will just change the way I look at my PC hobby.

Just a rant, in the least for your amusement. [/COLOR]

I said...


I recently learned that if you purchase a “retail” version of the up and coming Windows Vista you will only be able to install it on one computer. Considering that Vista will sell for $200-400 I’ve found this to be the worst news (back breaking news) a PC enthusiast could hear.

I build, rebuild, upgrade, tweak, etc PC’s all the time and I have 4 PC’s (laptop, office PC, HTPC, and baby HTPC) in my home running XP Pro and XP Media Center Edition 05.

I’m a normal middle class person (lower end of middle class) and can not afford to blow $200-400 every time I upgrade, tweak, re-do, etc one of those PC’s. The only PC that would stay the same is the Laptop, but other than that it seems Microsoft could care less about the PC enthusiast out there and are conspiring with companies like (Dell, HP, etc) to FORCE us to buy their crappy products (from a PC enthusiast point of view) so we can have access to Vista.

If you think a OEM copy sold for lets say $100 is reasonable, you are mistaken so please don't talk to me about OEM copies. Sure, I spend $400 for 4 OEM's, then a year down the line I build another PC or re-do my HTPC and I have to go and buy another Vista disk....unfair, unethical. Nothing but abusive treatment of your customers.

There is an alternative and that is to say good bye to Microsoft and Windows all together and this is most likely going to be my approach. It’s a shame, I just got into the HTPC world (running a OEM copy of Media Center 2005) and now it looks like I’ll have to give that up for a while. Heck, toss in PC gaming also since OS X or Linux does not have a lot of support in those areas.

I always, ALWAYS gave Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. I understand the registration thing, trying to get rid of piracy. I understand that as the main OS viruses, Trojans, hackers, etc would be more directed at Windows…it makes sense, it’s a bit terrorist like (the people who write virus and hackers) because they want to hurt the most possible people. So, I understood why Windows would “seem” less secure and more buggy than OS X or Linux.

But, this is the last straw for me. How a company founded on a bunch of PC nerds (it’s OK, I’m a teach head myself), Bill Gates the NERD king (lets face it, in the dictionary under nerd lies a picture of Mr. Gates, it’s OK…no big deal), pulls something like this on their customers just makes all those things people say against Microsoft a reality for me.

So, I’m done defending your company and I’m done as a customer. I even wiped my laptop and installed Vista RC1 to be a beta tester, to help make the OS better, to then find a knife in my back with the new Vista license.

You know, no one is asking for Windows to be free…it takes a lot of work and money to make an OS, but to force the little guy to buy your OS for each PC in their home is completely unreasonable. I’m not asking for a license to install it on 40 PC’s, but dang it if it’s my purchased OS and my custom PC I should be able to install Vista on all the PC’s in my home (my home, not friends or family, MY HOME) and future PC's I build.

Vista is forcing me to rethink the whole PERSONAL computer hobby I have, custom PC’s, HTPC’s, and PC gaming might be tossed out the “Window” along with Vista because I REFUSE to be backed into a corner by a multi billion dollar giant (virtual monopoly) based on unethical treatment of it’s customers.

I’d love to get a reply to this email saying, wait…we changed it, but I know better and Microsoft just does not care enough about the little guy to stop their endless lust for greed.

One thing I will do (besides switching to OS X which is just a few steps away from being able to install in a custom PC or Linux), is tell everyone I can about this and maybe even see if my congressman might be interested in this unethical practice.

Probably, MicroSHAFT wont care about this email nor will anyone else…but one user at a time, Windows will continue to be seen for what it has become (maybe I'm naive and this was always the case), a monopolistic OS that crushes innovation and user/customer rights in the name of greed. The longer you crush the little guy…the sooner there will be a revolt against the beast that is Microsoft.

I wish I was wrong about all of this, I wish I'd get a reply telling me I'm wrong...but I doubt it.

It will hurt at first, getting use to another OS…losing my ability to build my own custom PC, but doing the right thing is almost always the harder road to travel.

What a shame…to think, all the time I wasted defending Microsoft and Windows…



What do you all think? Am I wrong about this? :confused:

Note: FYI, spelling for Unix, Linx, or is it Linux, etc....I know is wrong but I was lazy in correcting it.

Also, to further explain the reality (as far as I know).

Vista will allow you to:

Install on one PC, and change it over to another PC (you must delete the copy in the other PC FYI) only once. So, if you upgrade your PC (minor, video card, sound cards, HD, DVD Burner) then you just have to re-register (type of thing, I forget the exact term) If you build a complete new system you get to use it only once more from the original PC you installed it on. Meanwhile, the back breaker...if you have 4 PC's...you need 4 Window Vista copies to go with them.

I'm human and can be wrong, if I am, please let me know.


Off to research Linux...

[HTPCnewbie]

Oh, "How does this apply to this area in the forum?"....well, since I'm building my 2nd HTPC and was planning on using Vista I just got the MAJOR shaft from MicroSHAFT considering I have 4 other PC's in need of an OS.

[madpoet]

Ahem... you seem to have 2 complaints. The first is that you're pissed you have to pay for a copy of the OS for each of your PCs. Um, you had to do that anyway. If you weren't, you were violating the law. So I'd drop that argument pretty quick.

Now, the legitimate argument revolves around upgrades. Frankly I think this will sort itself out to a less stringent policy. Either way... don't buy the OS if you don't like the policy. It's that simple.

[Stngray]

I was under the impression that they changed the 1 time rule after public uproar. http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=35970 Still need a license for each PC though which is how it has always been with Windows, afaik.

[HTPCnewbie]

Ahem... you seem to have 2 complaints. The first is that you're pissed you have to pay for a copy of the OS for each of your PCs. Um, you had to do that anyway. If you weren't, you were violating the law. So I'd drop that argument pretty quick.

I have an OEM copy of Windows MCE 2005, my laptop came with Windows XP Home, and my office PC has XP Pro (yes, hacked) but that's because it's an OLD PC when I use to do that type of thing. Those days have been long gone...

I called Microsoft about XP Pro, and asked them how many PC's I can install a retail version of XP Pro and they said:

5

Per their sales guy, so...I guess this guy was VERY VERY WRONG if this is not the case. If it's not, then yes XP sucked as bad as Vista will and I just was never aware of it.

I don't mind paying for software, for an OS...it's understandable, what I do mind is paying for software 4 or 5 times, each time for a new PC and then if I re-do one of my PC's I'm basically shafted.

Your right, don't buy it....but that's...ummm, duhhhhhh. The complaint is, I'd like to stay using Windows hence my RANT.

Stngray, I saw the original location of that link and it tells us:

You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices.

But does not give us a limit, is there one or not? I'm not sure now...but, the one retail copy of the OS = one PC sucks for me still. It's too expensive to go Vista for all my PC's.

Again, I guess some dofus at Microshaft didn't know what he was talking about when he told me I could install XP "retail" on up to 5 PC's.

[Stngray]

There originally was a limit of one transfer per license. Now you can transfer as many times as you want, as long as it is installed on only one machine at a time.

[HTPCnewbie]

Hmmm, I wonder how much it cost to buy a new license? What I mean is, can I buy one Retail copy of Vista and then buy 3 licenses?

Also, I'm not sure if there is a limit to how many times you can uninstall/delete then reinstall XP with the same license.

Example: I biuld a HTPC with Vista 1, then I decide to re-do it and buy all the parts I need, I then install Vista 1 there, then 2 years down the road I do the same thing. Can I still use Vista 1 or can I do that only once? (keeping in mind I'd be using Vista 2,3,4 on my other PC's.)

How many times can you go forward?

[HTPCnewbie]

There originally was a limit of one transfer per license. Now you can transfer as many times as you want, as long as it is installed on only one machine at a time.

OK, this I like....Thanks!

Now, do you know...by chance, if you can buy just a license for your other PC's? Is that cheaper or are you better served buying retail? If buying a license is significantly cheaper (less than $100) then I'm back on the Vista band wagon.

[Stngray]

They have license packs listed on amazon already, no price listed though. http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Windows-Ultimate-Upgrade-Additional/dp/B000HCXLKM/sr=8-6/qid=1163783291/ref=sr_1_6/002-1463297-3057601?ie=UTF8&s=software

[HTPCnewbie]

Hmmmmm...

[sotti]

How is this new, every operating system from MS has had this rule?

And if you want to you could circumvent it, and be in violation, just like if you had installed 5 copies of windows 95.

Also they did update their licensing agreement to allow unlimited transfers of retail copies of vista. OEM versions as always are bound to the first device they are installed on.

[barhoram]

it's funny how people belive that as long as sofware doesn't stop them from doing something, it's somehow not a violation.

Let us know how your HTPC on a new O/S works out.

[tclp]

I don't know why your going on about buying 'Retail' copies of windows, get the OEM copies they are cheaper... a lot cheaper. 'OEM' version are not bound, at least not the ones that you would find at your local PC shop, they can be transfered just like the retail copies can. Dell / HP (major companies) are locked to their systems due to the price discount that they get when purchasing them, this started about 1yr ago I beleive.

As far as 'how many times can XP be activated', you can activate as many times as you need assuming it's on the same machine/hardware. If you re-build / install on a different machine it can be installed 3 times before you need to ring microsoft to reset the activation count / manually activate. I would assume it will be similar in Vista, although they may keep track of how many 'active' machines are running at one time -- only time will tell on this.

[F_L_C]

Meanwhile, the back breaker...if you have 4 PC's...you need 4 Window Vista copies to go with them.

You got 4 PCs and you want to run Vista simultaneously on all of them legally? You'll need 1 physical OEM Vista disc (which comes with 1 license) and 3 additional licenses). You don't need to buy 4 physical discs if that's what you mean. This is the same as XP.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=tclp]I don't know why your going on about buying 'Retail' copies of windows, get the OEM copies they are cheaper... a lot cheaper. 'OEM' version are not bound, at least not the ones that you would find at your local PC shop, they can be transfered just like the retail copies can..[/QUOTE]

No they legally cannot!

The licensing agreement means you are legally required to only run that copy on the machine you initially installed it on.

Of course it'll install where ever as many times as you like.

Vista is no different.

It's still illegeal, but are you really worried about MS kicking your door down?

[HTPCnewbie]

How is this new, every operating system from MS has had this rule?

Apparently, I was GROSSLY misinformed by someone working in the sales department for Microsoft. I called them up, got into their sales department (asking about XP Pro) and asked them how many PC’s I could install a retail version of XP and they said up to 5.

Either I dreamed the above, or I was talking to the janitor and not the sales department. If this is the way it always was, I was unaware of it, I guess it was sucking for longer than I thought.

Let us know how your HTPC on a new O/S works out.

I’m looking into the Linux HTPC area on this forum…

You got 4 PCs and you want to run Vista simultaneously on all of them legally? You'll need 1 physical OEM Vista disc (which comes with 1 license) and 3 additional licenses). You don't need to buy 4 physical discs if that's what you mean. This is the same as XP.

Yeah, I guess I have to wait to see how much it cost just for a license. I would assume some type of discount considering you are not getting a disk but maybe there isn’t a price discount. If the license cost the same as the OEM (lets say $100) then I wont be putting Vista on my other machines. I'll stick to what they have, my HTPC is my main concern and I have Media Center 2005 for my soon to be baby HTPC.

BUT....to be clear…if I have an OEM version of Vista, I can then transfer it forward (as long as it’s one license per machine) to my new builds? So….if that is the case, why does anyone get retail versions again????


Thanks for the comments…

[chinch]

legal: ONE COPY PER PC

"research linux" ROTFLMAO.

if you buy a new PC next year, it will have VISTA.

if you have an XP box today, you'd be almost nuts to move to Vista, unless you change CPU, vid card, MOBO, etc. Not worth the hassle anytime soon, especially given there is no MMC or HD disc applications on the radar requiring vista.

XP was red flagging at about a dozen, depending on time from what i gathered from MSDN (i'd flag 1/2 that in a few days myself for obvious piracy reasons... lets get real 5 in one day is ABSURD).

yes MS will get some backlash and make license transfer easier and more customer friendly (as they did XP), but let them at least keep the keys hidden from the imates until the product ships huh. jeez,

[sotti]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]Apparently, I was GROSSLY misinformed by someone working in the sales department for Microsoft. I called them up, got into their sales department (asking about XP Pro) and asked them how many PC’s I could install a retail version of XP and they said up to 5.[/quote]

Well that is when it will make you call in to get your next activation, the first 5 it gives you a pass on.

MSDN keys are good for 10.

Since when didn't sales have their heads up their butts?

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]BUT....to be clear…if I have an OEM version of Vista, I can then transfer it forward (as long as it’s one license per machine) to my new builds? [/QUOTE]

Incorrect. OEM versions are only good for the computer they are sold with, what kind of upgrade constitutes a new computer I do not know as I haven't had an "ALL NEW" machine since 98 (meaning I was always carrying over quite a few components), even though nothing in my machine is more than 3 years old.


What this boils down to is how much you care if you are in compliance with the license.

You could go buy OEM MCE from newegg for $120, get the home premium coupon pay the $10 shipping and install vista home premium on 4 machines.

It'll work, you won't get any errors. The feds won't be alerted to your violation.

It will be illegeal, then again so is speeding.

[KevinLS]

No wonder people hate Micro$oft.
Good Lord, just how freaking stupid AND greedy can a corporation be?

Of course we can understand why Micro$oft needs to do this to us little peons – since they became the richest corporation on the planet because people pirate their software.

[F_L_C]

It'll work, you won't get any errors. The feds won't be alerted to your violation.

If he's going to run Vista on all 4 machines using a single license (key), he'll need to crack product activation on 3 machines.

[tclp]

[QUOTE=sotti]No they legally cannot!

The licensing agreement means you are legally required to only run that copy on the machine you initially installed it on.

Of course it'll install where ever as many times as you like.

Vista is no different.

It's still illegeal, but are you really worried about MS kicking your door down?[/QUOTE]


I said it could be 'transfered' not installed on multiple machines, and YES you are LEGALLY alloud to 'transfer' your license to another machine (eg. remove from one machine, and move to another). Dell / HP must however be installed on Dell/HP machines and are no longer transferable to a rig you would build yourself.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=tclp]I said it could be 'transfered' not installed on multiple machines, and YES you are LEGALLY alloud to 'transfer' your license to another machine (eg. remove from one machine, and move to another). Dell / HP must however be installed on Dell/HP machines and are no longer transferable to a rig you would build yourself.[/QUOTE]

What do you think the difference between an OEM copy from newegg and an OEM copy from dell are?

They are exactly the same license.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=F_L_C]If he's going to run Vista on all 4 machines using a single license (key), he'll need to crack product activation on 3 machines.[/QUOTE]

No he won't it'll activate just fine.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=KevinLS]No wonder people hate Micro$oft.
Good Lord, just how freaking stupid AND greedy can a corporation be?

Of course we can understand why Micro$oft needs to do this to us little peons – since they became the richest corporation on the planet because people pirate their software.[/QUOTE]

What apple is just as greedy they sell .1 upgrades for $100 a pop and the license for those also only allows installation on one machine.

The only OS in existence that doesn't have similiar restrictions is linux.

[butters2006]

If you enjoy setting up PCs perhaps you should look into investing in a MSDN subscription. You get access to all flavors of Windows, including Office and other software. The license key allows installation on up to ten computers.

[F_L_C]

[QUOTE=sotti]No he won't it'll activate just fine.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK, product activation on vista uses the same scheme as xp. When he tries to activate the same key on 4 different machines (with 4 different "hardware-tied" hashes), it'll fail. He'll get a message along the lines of "this key has already been activated on another computer". And then those installations will go into "pirated-Vista" mode.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=butters2006]If you enjoy setting up PCs perhaps you should look into investing in a MSDN subscription. You get access to all flavors of Windows, including Office and other software. The license key allows installation on up to ten computers.[/QUOTE]

Yes but it would still be illegal. MSDN only allows for OS installations to build testing environments.

IF you are using those installations for personal or production use you are in violation.

BTW I have my MSDN copy of Vista installed on my main box at home. I am in violation myself.

[sotti]

[QUOTE=F_L_C]AFAIK, product activation on vista uses the same scheme as xp. When he tries to activate the same key on 4 different machines (with 4 different "hardware-tied" hashes), it'll fail. He'll get a message along the lines of "this key has already been activated on another computer". And then those installations will go into "pirated-Vista" mode.[/QUOTE]


You can always call MS they don't ask questions, they just activate the copy and let you go on.

[HTPCnewbie]

if you buy a new PC next year, it will have VISTA.

I don’t buy PC’s, I build them…hence my issue. If I got stuff from companies like DELL or HP, then I’d have no beef. The only PC I buy are laptops and that’s only because I can’t build my own.

if you have an XP box today, you'd be almost nuts to move to Vista, unless you change CPU, vid card, MOBO, etc.

Actually, Vista has been running pretty good with my laptop which has a 1.73Ghz Pentium M, 1.25GB DDR2 533, and ATI X700 video card.

Since my HTPC currently has a 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 with 1GB DDR 400 memory and nVidia 6800 OC (unlocked to 6800 GT level, well the pipes that is) I doubt it can’t run Vista.

My office PC is questionable, but my next HTPC (Duo Core E6400, 2GB DDR2800, nVidia 7900 GS OC) should be fine also (I have the parts waiting to be built).

Some laugh at Linux, some swear by it....I wonder where the truth is?


Thanks everyone, while some of the back and forth is confusing.

[ItsMyLife]

If Vista activation works the same way as XP then my understanding of it is that the product activation will roll off in 90 days.

That means if you install it on a machine and activate it... if you wait 90 days you can install it again on your second machine no problem. So just don't upgrade all machines at once and you'll be fine. What they're really trying to put a stop to is the pirate shops that build 50 machines a day and install the same copy of Windows on all of them.

Also, in my experiences, I've upgraded machines significantly and never had a problem with activation except one time. It depends on how drastically you alter them. And in that instance I simply called MS and they gave me the proper code to enter... no questions asked. But still, if the hardware generated hash isn't that different it will not make you reactivate that machine.

[galileo2000]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie][COLOR=Red]Below, is my recent rant sent to Microsoft over their "retail" Vista rule of, one copy of Vista OS = one PC. That is a bit general, but basically true and for people like us (PC enthusiast) with several PC's at home this might be the end of my Windows days.

This effects me personally because I build my own PC's, am a PC gamer, and HTPC newbie. I feel...like a new OS will just change the way I look at my PC hobby.

Just a rant, in the least for your amusement. [/COLOR]

I said...

Off to research Linux...[/QUOTE]


HTPCnewbie,

You are absolutely correct on all counts.

However, I wouldn't be worried. They will come to their senses, sooner or later.

M$ created the huge empire by providing cheap solutions to the masses.

Now, if they try to take it back, masses will not buy their soft and swith=ch to the superior MAC OS X which "accidenantly" happens to run in the same hardware.

If I was in charge of M$ marketing, I would think long and hard about this.

.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=sotti]The licensing agreement means you are legally required to only run that copy on the machine you initially installed it on.[/QUOTE]Screw their licensing agreement, shown to me after I already paid for the software. If they can unilaterally create an agreement by doing that, I can also do that by sending them my own version of the agreement that supersedes any prior agreements.

Copyright law can restrict me to one installation at a time, and no agreement is needed for that. But I made no agreement with them to only ever install it on the initial machine.

[Health Nut]

You could go buy OEM MCE from newegg for $120, get the home premium coupon pay the $10 shipping and install vista home premium on 4 machines.

1) Sounds like a plan

2) I'm looking for an academic version of Office 2003 PRO, do they offer academic versions for the professional version? I would like to get the technology coupon for upgrade to Office 2007 PRO.

3) I am building 2 computers each with the following: Quad core CPU, dual 8800 GTX in SLI, 2GB of dominator memory, and a Striker Extreme MB... I have a third similar computer built in this past April with components from 6 months ago... My question is, should I go with 64 bit version of Vista? Do all the flavors come in 64 bit or just vista ULTIMATE? Anybody recommend getting Ultimate? I'd get 4GB RAM but it seems like you take a performance hit going to 4 sticks of ram, nobody makes 2GB sticks yet.

4) If I buy a copy of OEM MCE from New Egg, the Vista coupon is only good for the "Home Premium" version.... Can I pay the difference to get Windows Ultimate if I desire? (The difference in price between home premium and ultimate?)

[HTPCnewbie]

However, I wouldn't be worried. They will come to their senses, sooner or later.

Partially, they have...but not far enough for me.

Originally Posted by sotti
The licensing agreement means you are legally required to only run that copy on the machine you initially installed it on.
Screw their licensing agreement, shown to me after I already paid for the software. If they can unilaterally create an agreement by doing that, I can also do that by sending them my own version of the agreement that supersedes any prior agreements.

Copyright law can restrict me to one installation at a time, and no agreement is needed for that. But I made no agreement with them to only ever install it on the initial machine.

I'd love to hear more from this debate, while I don't know if I follow fully...

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]I'd love to hear more from this debate, while I don't know if I follow fully...[/QUOTE]You don't follow? Or is it that you don't agree?

My point was that once you paid for it, you own that copy of the software and are allowed to do anything with it that doesn't violate copyright law, and copyright law doesn't restrict you to only having it installed on the initial machine. They can't impose additional conditions of use after you've already own it.

[HTPCnewbie]

^Interesting......

But, like some have said then why would they mention that it can only be on one machine and would then it mess up the other installations at validation?

I just want you to give me more details...

Thanks!

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]But, like some have said then why would they mention that it can only be on one machine and would then it mess up the other installations at validation?[/QUOTE]Copyright law would allow you to install it on another machine, but only after it is no longer on the first machine. Microsoft's EULA tries to impose the additional restriction of keeping it only on the initial machine forever, and they use the activation scheme to enforce it.

[swifty7]

a bit off topic but does Vista still have a built in black box which tracks your activities?

[TKO]

Those arguing 'they own it' need to understand software is licensed, not sold. Thus the meaning of the 'End User License Agreement'. For Windows Vista you agree to the license during the installation. If you don't agree to the license you have the option of returning the software for a full refund.

Microsoft already changed the EULA to allow moving the license an unlimited number of times. You just need to uninstall the existing copy first. This is in section 15.a of the EULA.

Microsoft also allows you to make one transfer of ownership to a third party.

This is what makes a capitalistic society. Remember you can always buy a Mac. Oh wait they don't even allow you to use your own hardware. Oh well.

Vista's EULA in PDF format: EULA (http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows Vista_Home Basic_English_2cd69850-7680-4987-8b1e-59a3d405c074.pdf)

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=TKO]Those arguing 'they own it' need to understand software is licensed, not sold.[/QUOTE]That's what MS and others would like you to believe, but that does not make it so (http://www.answers.com/topic/softman-products-co-v-adobe-systems-inc) when the transaction already took place in the form of a sale, i.e. there is no discussion or negotiation of terms before the product and money exchange hands.

[cjd]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]there is no discussion or negotiation of terms before the product and money exchange hands.[/QUOTE]

This is not Microsoft's fault at this point, as they do make their EULA freely available for review on their website prior to purchase. Granted, retail channels generally do nothing whatsoever as intermediary, but I suspect any suit regarding this particular legal track would have to be aimed at a reseller for failure to provide this information. I don't remember for sure but I seem to recall my XP purchase tripping an additional page in the checkout path alerting me to the terms, providing a link, etc.

With such products, negotiation is generally not an option - you either agree or you don't.

Also, remember that most copies of Windows are installed by the OEM. Retail sales are a small percentage of their total volume.

C

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=cjd]This is not Microsoft's fault at this point, as they do make their EULA freely available for review on their website prior to purchase. Granted, retail channels generally do nothing whatsoever as intermediary, but I suspect any suit regarding this particular legal track would have to be aimed at a reseller for failure to provide this information.[/quote]But reading or signing the agreement is not a condition of purchase with retail transactions. If they can unilaterally impose an agreement post-purchase, I can do the same to them by sending them a letter with my terms.

With such products, negotiation is generally not an option - you either agree or you don't.That's fine, but ensure that I agree before taking my money, don't impose the agreement afterwards.

Also, remember that most copies of Windows are installed by the OEM. Retail sales are a small percentage of their total volume.But the customer doesn't agree to any license before making the purchase. The agreement to only sell the software with a new PC is one they made with the OEMs, not the end customers. They don't have the authority to invalidate the First Sale Doctrine.

[TKO]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]That's what MS and others would like you to believe, but that does not make it so (http://www.answers.com/topic/softman-products-co-v-adobe-systems-inc) when the transaction already took place in the form of a sale, i.e. there is no discussion or negotiation of terms before the product and money exchange hands.[/QUOTE]

Since when is there discussion or negotiation of terms on any boxed sale. You guys are arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone cannot afford to buy multiple copies of a product that's not my fault.

When was the last time someone argued that the Warranty terms of any product are inside the box and the product must be bought and opened prior to reading the terms?

If you're so concerned about your rights you should do your homework before giving anyone your money. All of the information is readily available to the public.

Did any of you read the Agreement of this forum prior to signing up?
Have any of you bought TheaterTek lately?
Do any of you own an iPod?

I bet Microsoft could clean house with MSDN members on this forum and how they are using the OS's provided via MSDN.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=TKO]Since when is there discussion or negotiation of terms on any boxed sale. You guys are arguing for the sake of arguing. If someone cannot afford to buy multiple copies of a product that's not my fault.[/quote]I'm not talking about multiple copies, I'm talking about moving a single copy to another machine after it is no longer on the first machine.

When was the last time someone argued that the Warranty terms of any product are inside the box and the product must be bought and opened prior to reading the terms?The warranty is information about what the manufacturer will or won't do for you if the product goes bad, not a restriction on how you can use or sell it.

If you're so concerned about your rights you should do your homework before giving anyone your money. All of the information is readily available to the public.No, they need to do their homework before taking my money and telling me what do with something I bought.

[TKO]

Microsoft allows Vista to be 'moved' an unlimited number of times. It's in the EULA.

How do you sell something you don't own?

I bet if there was a way to clone Sony TV's after buying one, Sony would need to change their policy regarding use and the number of copies.

It's clearly stated how the OS is to be used. If consumer's don't like the conditions then take their business elsewhere. If the OS is so simple to implement and support I bet there would be numerous alternatives. Anyone can buy a Dell right now without Windows on it.

[TKO]

No, they need to do their homework before taking my money and telling me what do with something I bought.

Has anyone taken Econ 101? That's one lame comment.

Microsoft is not forcing you to buy their product. You bought it and accepted their terms. If you don't like it go elsewhere. How many of you have negotiated changing any license agreement or Warranty terms prior to purchase? I bet Sony will produce a new Warranty clause just for you. I bet AVS Forum will amend their Agreement and allow just you to post great pricing deals.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=TKO]Microsoft allows Vista to be 'moved' an unlimited number of times. It's in the EULA.[/quote]Not for OEM versions.

How do you sell something you don't own?How do you tell a customer what to do with something THEY own and you don't? After it's sold, the purchaser owns that copy of the software, not Microsoft. First Sale Doctrine.

It's clearly stated how the OS is to be used.After I buy the software, not when I walk into the shop and buy it. Sure, they can post their conditions on a web site, but then I can do the same thing with my terms of use and claim that they agreed to it.

If consumer's don't like the conditions then take their business elsewhere.If they don't like people ignoring their unenforcable EULA's they shouldn't sell it to them.

[TKO]

This will be my last post. You better get a grip on EULA and 'sold' vs. 'licensing'. Look at the terms of any product/service that is licensed, leased, rented, etc.

If you don't like the OEM agreement then take it up with the OEM. They agreed to their own terms of licensing and passed the rights on to the consumer. Maybe the consumer should contact the OEM prior to the OEM entering into an agreement so all consumer's 'fair use' rights are covered. Do you think the OEM is covering their own butt for support and economics of sale by not allowing their OEM'ed product to be used on non-original OEM equipment. Shame on them for trying to earn a living and sell more hardware.

[hdmi4ever]

http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/5738d25e31f54e3988256a8100701ebd/1c0109b1a49387b288256b48007a04cd/%24FILE/CV00-04161DDP.pdf

[quote="DEAN D. PREGERSON, United States District Judge"]DAK, GG F.3d at 1095, n.2. Other courts have reached the same conclusion: [size=+1]software is sold and not licensed[/size]. See, e.g., RRX Indus., Inc. v. Lab-Con Inc., 772 F.2d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 1985); Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart, 976 Supp. 149, 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) finding that whether a transaction denominated a "license" was in act a sale conveying ownership was a disputed question of fact); Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In Novell, a software manufacturer was pursuing a discount retailer for copyright infringement. Like Adobe, CPU argued that it purchased the software from an authorized source, and was entitled to resell it under the first sale doctrine. Novell claimed that it did not sell software but merely licensed it to distribution partners. The court held that these transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 at *18.[/quote]
[quote="DEAN D. PREGERSON, United States District Judge"]The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that [size=+1]a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.[/size][/quote]
I rest my case. If you want to give up your rights and obey Microsoft's every wish, I'm not stopping you.

[HTPCnewbie]

I'm going to PM you^

If someone cannot afford to buy multiple copies of a product that's not my fault.

Do you work for Microsoft? Taking it a bit personal there...just wondering...??

If you do, your right...it's not your fault but people WILL find something else and in time WILL hurt Microsoft in the long run. You can step on the little guy only so long before it bites you back.

Just saying...

[cjd]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]But reading or signing the agreement is not a condition of purchase with retail transactions. If they can unilaterally impose an agreement post-purchase, I can do the same to them by sending them a letter with my terms.[/QUOTE]

Correct. And I believe software can be returned. The license agreement does not change, it exists prior to the purchase, and you can review it at any time. Your failure to understand what it is you are buying is NOT the fault of the software company. The license agreement only regards your USE of the software, something you can choose not to do if you don't like the EULA. They make sure you read this and agree before you USE the software.

I don't like the MS EULA as it exists for Vista currently. I don't care for XP's even, though I have one install because it was required for a piece of software I needed. I have linux installs, and some Windows 2000 installs. So I have to agree entirely with your sentiments. But arguments that rely on stubborn failure to understand the full scope of what you are arguing about don't generally hold up in court, though they sure can hold a lot of sway on the grand old interweb. ;)

C

[gsr]

What the heck...

There are several categories of people:

1) Those who don't like Microsoft's terms and go elsewhere. They don't use anything Microsoft.

2) Those who don't like Microsoft's terms, but purchase and use the software because they really don't have much choice. They have some piece or hardware / software they need (or strongly want) to use that will only work with Windows. So they suck it up and buy legal copies of everything.

3) Those who don't like Microsoft's terms, and try to find every loophole they can regardless of whether it's legal or not. They'll install 1 copy of Windows XP multiple times, use MSDN installs of Windows for non-development use, move an OEM copy of XP to a new system, instead of buying a new license, etc.

4) Those (the few) who have no issues with Microsoft's terms and do everything by the book. Sort of like group 2, but they're happy too :).

There are people who fall into more than 1 category and I suppose I'm one of those (though I more or less fit in category 2).

My main problem with Microsoft is that their license terms seem to be excessively confusing and/or vague.

For example, a few years ago I got an offer to receive a promotional copy of Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition with a 25 CAL license, which I jumped at - free is always good :). The CAL license is a NFR (Not For Resale) license, and the agreement says it can only be used for "demonstration, test, or evaluation". It doesn't say anything about being time limited or how long a demo or evaluation I can give it. I haven't gotten around to installing it yet, but I truly wonder if it would be legal for me to install it on my primary PC at home and use it for day to day use (email, word processing, development, web browsing, audio processing, watching DVD's, and whatever else I usually use my computer for) or if it is strictly to install briefly to determine if I want to pay the big bucks to buy a non-NFR version. I'm not really concerned that Microsoft is going to come break my door down over it, I'm just curious.

OEM versions of XP being tied to a single PC was a surprise to me (perhaps I had never read the license agreement carefully enough when installing, but I had definitely missed that detail) and something that definitely doesn't really seem right. It does seem reasonable that as long as I'm only using the copy on one system at a time it ought to be ok. But those are the rules whether we like it or not. I am curious though what the situation is with all those OEM copies bought over the years with a hard drive cable (or other cheap piece of hardware) - is everyone using these breaking the rules?

What does bother me is when people buy 1 license and then proceed to try to find ways to install it on multiple PC's. It just seems obvious (at least to me) that 1 license = 1 computer at a time unless otherwise specified (Theatertek, for example, let's you install their software on more than 1 system in your home). It also amazes me how openly people discuss how they are doing these things in places where Microsoft may be paying attention. Perhaps Microsoft really doesn't care so long as it's only a few copies in someone's home (they have been known to go after corporations that don't follow the license terms), but it doesn't strike me as wise to discuss it in a forum such as this.

When you go and buy a car, it doesn't give you the right to go back to the dealer and take 4 more so the rest of your family each has their own car, does it? Why is software any different (other than it being easy)?

[gsr]

[QUOTE=cjd]Correct. And I believe software can be returned.[/QUOTE]

Most places won't take software back once it's been opened.

[HTPCnewbie]

gsr, I hear ya...to me if I spend $400 for an OS I should be able to install it on more than one PC at my home. No, not give a copy to my friend or family member...just for me, but to spend $400 for ONE PC is unreasonable to me.

Hence, my main complaint. I don't feel right spending that much for only one PC when I own at least 3, maybe 4. So...it might be time I start learning about Linux, so I can one day (as someone said it...lol) wean myself off the Microsoft tit, maybe it's time I forget about cutom PC's and PC gamming and just buy a Wii.

You see, that's how I feel...I'm honestly disapointed in MicroSHAFT but maybe I was just neive all this time.

[Health Nut]

When you go and buy a car, it doesn't give you the right to go back to the dealer and take 4 more so the rest of your family each has their own car, does it? Why is software any diffeent (other than it being easy)?

That example seems a bit extreme.

I have 2 desktop PC's and one laptop. I'm not paying for 3 copies of Vista ultimate at around $1,000. This is the problem when so many people become dependent on one manufacturer... Perhaps a competitor would offer three licenses for the same price as long as it is to one individual... OOOOPS!!! I forgot, Microsoft HAS NO REAL competition... Guess I can't go to a competitor then.... I don't know... perhaps we should go back to breaking up Microsoft? There are a lot of gray areas here, but spending $1,000 on operating system upgrades for one simple end user isn't going to happen.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=gsr]I am curious though what the situation is with all those OEM copies bought over the years with a hard drive cable (or other cheap piece of hardware) - is everyone using these breaking the rules?[/QUOTE]Microsoft probably will never tackle them in court, because they know they're likely to lose and perhaps would also have other parts of their EULA officially ruled invalid.

[Sherbona]

[QUOTE=Health Nut]That example seems a bit extreme.

I have 2 desktop PC's and one laptop. I'm not paying for 3 copies of Vista ultimate at around $1,000. This is the problem when so many people become dependent on one manufacturer... Perhaps a competitor would offer three licenses for the same price as long as it is to one individual... OOOOPS!!! I forgot, Microsoft HAS NO REAL competition... Guess I can't go to a competitor then.... I don't know... perhaps we should go back to breaking up Microsoft? There are a lot of gray areas here, but spending $1,000 on operating system upgrades for one simple end user isn't going to happen.[/QUOTE]

If your not paying for 3 copies then don't install 3 copies. A product is offered for sale - if the price is higher than than its value to you then simply do not purchase or install it, this is the way things work. I myself do plan on purchasing but I'm planning to wait awhile until drivers and such are more mature.

[voivod84]

I was just takeing a quick look on this topic and I seen the good old rant (I will just buy a Apple and switch to OSX) You think Vista is lock down. Just try ripping off Apple. Yes there software is stable and runs great do to the fact they keep a strangle hold on it. If you have a problem just give them a call and its will get fixed. Unless you installed some Non OSX certified software then forget it. Well what I am trying to get at is if you want to pay top $ for a stable os then OSX is it. ( just rember 1 Mac to 1 OSX) Don't hack it or install some dudes free kickass do whatever software and you will be happy. Install any Windows operating system and there will be lots of free software, Hacks and whatever else you think you need. Just don't call MS and bitch why your computer is not running right. SO there you have it. OSX stable and hands off or Windows do what you want and not so stable. I kind of like doing what I want. Oh by the way Vista RTM is out and there is a activation work around (2099) and like I stated before to mess is fun but if you break it in the process don't blame a so call lame OS blame yourself.

Be Cooolll

Eric (yes I have been drinking LOL)

[jmeer]

Semi-OT, but Apple sells a 5 user "family" pack for home use for their OS that does not seem to be unreasonably priced. If MS was really interested in dealing with piracy, and misuse of OEM licenses they would have offered something like this for Vista.

[voivod84]

That's cool but the way I mess up any OS with crap I download 5 would not quite cut it. 3 computers and one notebook. I am formating at least 1 a month and doing a reinstall do to me most of the time instaling crappy drivers, or software the offers everything but nothing.

Be Coooll

Eric

[voivod84]

What does bother me is when people buy 1 license and then proceed to try to find ways to install it on multiple PC's. It just seems obvious (at least to me) that 1 license = 1 computer at a time unless otherwise specified (Theatertek, for example, let's you install their software on more than 1 system in your home). It also amazes me how openly people discuss how they are doing these things in places where Microsoft may be paying attention. Perhaps Microsoft really doesn't care so long as it's only a few copies in someone's home (they have been known to go after corporations that don't follow the license terms), but it doesn't strike me as wise to discuss it in a forum such as this.

The reason is easy. Windows before XP let you install in on as many computers you want. Have a friend, let them install your Windows, MS won't even care. Then XP came out and now MS cares and it shows and the people are confused. What was ok before (not realy) is now not and is being enforced! the the people got angry. I am dealing with this on my internet service. Me and other's out there are finding out the unlimted internet service is not what it use to be and we are angry. Hughes net is my provider and I have a 169 MB pre 4 hour limit and if I break it I get reduced to dialup speeds. Well you see what I am getting at.

later

Eric

[mdmaclean]

[QUOTE=jmeer]Semi-OT, but Apple sells a 5 user "family" pack for home use for their OS that does not seem to be unreasonably priced. If MS was really interested in dealing with piracy, and misuse of OEM licenses they would have offered something like this for Vista.[/QUOTE]

This is what I would like too, a family site licence. Microsoft does sell the educational version of office with 3 licences (not for commercial use). The same idea would be great for Vista, now that many families have more than 1 pc.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]gsr, I hear ya...to me if I spend $400 for an OS I should be able to install it on more than one PC at my home. No, not give a copy to my friend or family member...just for me, but to spend $400 for ONE PC is unreasonable to me.[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, I'm in the camp that doesn't like the cost involved, but tries to follow the rules. I might be guilty of moving an OEM copy of XP to another system - that's something that, though it is against the license rules, I don't really feel too bad about. Using a single license to build multiple current PC's is something I would not do. Fortunately for me, I have a friend who has access to the Microsoft store and has gotten me a few copies of Windows (1 XP Pro and 1 Server 2003 Standard Edition) at Microsoft store prices, which saved me a bunch of $$$ (less the beers I had to buy him :D).

The "it's too expensive" argument simply doesn't cut it especially when this stuff is being used for recreational use. Many of us won't blink an eye at spending thousands of dollars on a new set of speakers, power amp, surround processor, TV, front projector, computer hardware components, etc. Why is it so different when the cost is for the OS and software to drive all this wonderful hardware we buy?

If $400 is too expensive for Vista, then stick with XP for now. I'm not touching Vista with a 10 foot pole until the dust has settled for a while regardless of cost.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=voivod84]The reason is easy. Windows before XP let you install in on as many computers you want. Have a friend, let them install your Windows, MS won't even care. Then XP came out and now MS cares and it shows and the people are confused. What was ok before (not realy) is now not and is being enforced! the the people got angry. I am dealing with this on my internet service. Me and other's out there are finding out the unlimted internet service is not what it use to be and we are angry. Hughes net is my provider and I have a 169 MB pre 4 hour limit and if I break it I get reduced to dialup speeds. Well you see what I am getting at.[/QUOTE]

As you say, the difference between pre-XP and XP (and newer) is that Microsoft started to (sort of) enforce the licensing terms.

Certainly based on the discussion in this thread alone, one thing is clear to me - Microsoft has probably done a poor job wording their licensing terms as some people are clearly very confused over what is and is not ok (and of course some people are not confused but don't care what the terms are). It's also clear that they could help improve their image a bit by making attractively priced license bundles for home use (though businesses would probably find a loophole to get cheap copies...) and might make more money in the process by getting some of the "it's too expensive" crowd to suck it up and go legal.

Taking the stance that their license terms wouldn't hold up in court is a risky proposition should they decide to take you to court (however unlikely that is to happen, but the MP-3 cases from a year ago show that it could happen). If nothing else, they have VEEEEEERY deep pockets and could cost you a bundle in legal fees. Should you lose in court, and unless you have the money to hire a really good attorney I suspect you would, you could be out a lot.

[darkjedi664]

Ok, so your company needs Server 2003 installed on 4 servers; do they buy 1 copy and install on the other 3 machines? Or do they buy one copy, and 3 licenses? If a business tried to do #1, they would be in serious trouble; why is it different with consumers? How the hell can you expect to buy software, and think that you can install it on 4 computers? You can't even install a game on more than one computer at a time. You don't like it, use Linux, it's free. Microsoft has a right to protect it's software, it's not their fault that you can't, or don't want to pay for 3 extra licenses. As the Stones said it "You can't always get what you want..."

[HTPCnewbie]

Many of us won't blink an eye at spending thousands of dollars on a new set of speakers, power amp, surround processor, TV, front projector, computer hardware components, etc. Why is it so different when the cost is for the OS and software to drive all this wonderful hardware we buy?

Here maybe, in the real world most people care about spending anything over $50. For me, I'm like this. I don't take $400 likely, if you got it like that....good for you, but "most" people don't blow $400 like if money grew on trees.

Let me say a few things here:

Microsoft can do what ever they want, well...until the GOBment does not like it then they change but little folks like most of us do get the short end of the stick.

Am I looking for pity? No, what would pity do for me? Nothing...

What are my options, yes, start learning Linux and say CU to MicroShaft and PC gamming, maybe even custom PC/HTPC building. Does MicroSHAFT care, no, do I think they should...it does not matter.

While I use to use hack-ware I don't anymore, it's the right thing to do. Which leads me to this point, about caring that for all my PC's I'd have to spend $1,200 for 4 PC's to have an OS.

So, what do I do then? What do us normal folk do about this, when Microsoft is basically a monopoly and the government wont do jack about it. I thought this was illegal in this great nation (not perfect, but great). I thought competition was good for the consumer?

So, this company has this strangle hold on the OS for PC market, OSX is stuck to Apples complete control, and Linux is the little guy trying to make headway...Vista might be the final straw for alot of normal people who can't afford to continue to plug into the monster that is MicroShaft.

OR, most people wont notice because they are not like most of us that custom build their PC's and it's just us enthusiasts that get SHAFTED...well, the ones who feel the hurt of spending $400 that is.

So, again...I'm not here asking for pity nor that anyone agrees with me. I felt slighted, didn't know it has been this way since XP (no thanks to MicroShafts own crappy sales department) and ranted at MicroShaft.

The little guy, as always...gets kicked in the nuts. They wont miss me probably if I leave, but one thing is for sure I wont be buying Vista for 4 PC's either and they will only push me to explore Linux which in time might wean me off the whole platter of MicroShaft products.

[hdmi4ever]

There are two debates going on here. Let's be careful not to confuse them.

The first is about purchasing a single copy and running it on multiple machines at the same time. They don't need an EULA to restrict you from doing that; that's already in copyright law (although one could make an argument that fair use rights would allow multiple installations within one's private residence).

The other is about being able to transfer an installation from one machine to another, which is what the OEM EULA says you must not do... the instance of the software is supposedly married to its original machine forever. That is a restriction that goes above and beyond what copyright supports, and if they want to impose such restrictions on customers they need to have the customers agree to such restrictions in a manner supported by contract law... which is very questionable since since they do not meet the usual standards for contracts, such as negotiation or signatures or exchange of consideration as part of making the agreement.

So the validity and enforcability of EULAs will ultimately be decided by the extent to which they are to be generally considered as legitimate contracts (or not), and their general validity is a question the courts so far have shied away from addressing explicitly and directly, although they have held certain conditions to be irrelevant or unenforcable in the specific cases they ruled on.

[voivod84]

Well here is a few things I know so far about Vista. I am running RC1 (legal I signed up for beta testing got to july befor it crapes out) very OSX like and stable as long as you don't try to do anything other than what came with it. Most of my opengl games run very poorly and that has not changed with Vista RTM version. From what I understand it can be installed up to 10 times befor it is locked and MS won't activate it and a new key or a phone call will be needed. I am getting close to that. On the Vista RTM version no key is required but a random serial number is generated and a 30 day evulation timer is set. Ms was asked about the Vista RTM on torrents and were happy that people were so into getting a early copy and say the can easly deactviate the copys. This tell me Vista is full of MS Spyware. they were also not worred about the BIOS 2099 activation trick and said do the serial number Vista generates they can find these copys and deactivate them. Of course you will have to be on the internet for this to happen. Reminds me of a friend that is a MAC lover and has a hacked copy of OSX and keeps it off the internet because it will get shutdown. Well what I get from all of this is I had growing pains when I upgraded from Windows ME, 98SE to XP. I am still pissed some of my older games will not run on XP. I think the jump to Vista is going to be much worse as far as backward compatibilty for games and everything else is concerned. This = more money for everyone to run Vista. New software and new hardware no real support for old stuff.

Well later

Eric

[darkjedi664]

I think MS is waiting the 30 days before it invalidates every last pirated copy. How can they tell it's a pirated copy? Well NO ONE has an RTM key, at all! And all these activated copies are using Beta2 keys. MS can go in there, find the PID's, and blacklist them; and BAM you're copy is no longer valid; and you have to go through all these hoops just to get a working copy. I think in the end, pirating the software costs way more than the actual software itself. I've been a long time MS pirate; but since being a tester for MS, I've actually grown to dispise it with a passion. If I think it's good enough, I will buy it as I have the money to purchase that stuff now. But to the OP, quit whining, and thinking you can get what you want, and calling MS "MicroSHAFT"; you aren't cute, and it's just lame. Cry me a river, and go use Linux or OSX and hate MS somewhere else. Have fun gaming on Linux or OSX :)

[Health Nut]

Have fun gaming on Linux or OSX :)

I think that is one of many reasons why they call MS a monopoly... Maybe MS should be spun off?

[darkjedi664]

Just because 99% of PC gaming is on Windows, does NOT mean MS is a monopoly. Not only does the game have to be coded in whatever API the OS uses, but also drivers have to be developed as well. The fact of the matter is, there's WAY more people using Windows than OSX or Linux; who do you think developers are going to develop a game for? Do you really think people game on OSX? Do you really think they can? Maybe if they call it iGame, or something gay like that.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=darkjedi664]The fact of the matter is, there's WAY more people using Windows than OSX or Linux;[/QUOTE]

If you qualify that for home use, then I agree. Overall (ie: including business use), I'm not sure if that's true.

who do you think developers are going to develop a game for?

Obviously the OS that is the most popular among the gaming crowd.

Do you really think people game on OSX? Do you really think they can?

If games were available on OSX, some number of people would definitely be there. Do you honestly think gaming couldn't happen on OSX? It's purely a numbers game - if more people were using OSX at home than Windows, the situation would be reversed.

[darkjedi664]

I'm mainly "attacking" the Mac user more than the actual Mac itself. The fact is, the majority of people who own a Mac are NOT tech savvy at all; and wouldn't even know what a video card is, let alone know how to update drivers for it. That aside, I know Mac's "can" game, but what's the point? Not trying to get off topic here. The moral of the story is, if you want to use software on more than one PC, buy licenses for it!

[Health Nut]

The moral of the story is, if you want to use software on more than one PC, buy licenses for it!

I disagree. we are going to have CAR PC's in the near future. My next car WILL have one. In general, most people are going to own more than one PC. The price must then be lowered to reflect that or, the additional licenses for use with one individual's multiple PC's must be very inexpensive relative to the main purchase (obviously the latter). Good luck having me pay $1400.00 for the operating system. Good luck with that.... aint happenin.

[voivod84]

[QUOTE=darkjedi664]I'm mainly "attacking" the Mac user more than the actual Mac itself. The fact is, the majority of people who own a Mac are NOT tech savvy at all; and wouldn't even know what a video card is, let alone know how to update drivers for it. That aside, I know Mac's "can" game, but what's the point? Not trying to get off topic here. The moral of the story is, if you want to use software on more than one PC, buy licenses for it![/QUOTE]

I have a few friends that love there OS X the hate Windows. Reason to hard to deal with where OS X is nice and simple and so called stable. Why is this? because every thing on OS X is Mac certified. Hardware and software and yes even games Quake 3 comes to mind. That is why it does not (most of the time) have issues. I know for a fact lets just say you go to Best Buy and pick up some cheap ram (not Mac certified) for your Mac and use it. More than likely it will work without issues. If you have a issue and give Apple Tech support a call and tell them you put uncertified ram in your box. Well that will be the end of the call Now you can return that cheap ram and go spend 10 times as much cash for Certified MAC ram and find out you still have the same problem but Tech suport will help now. and that goes the same for software to. Off topic a bit I know just kind of sick of how everything on a OS X is better.

Later

Eric

[gsr]

[QUOTE=Health Nut]I disagree. we are going to have CAR PC's in the near future. My next car WILL have one. In general, most people are going to own more than one PC. The price must then be lowered to reflect that or, the additional licenses for use with one individual's multiple PC's must be very inexpensive relative to the main purchase (obviously the latter). Good luck having me pay $1400.00 for the operating system. Good luck with that.... aint happenin.[/QUOTE]

On the contrary, perhaps people will need to do without that which they cannot (or choose not to) afford...

If the price of the OS is such a big problem, why aren't you people complaining about the cost of the hardware too? I guess the difference is that it is (or had been) easier to steal a 2nd, 3rd, 4th install of the OS than it is to clone extra motherboards, CPU's, RAM, video cards, sound cards, etc. All of this stuff is expensive. If you can't afford to buy 2 complete systems (which includes the hardware, OS, and software), learn to deal with only having 1 or switch to a different vendor.

[darkjedi664]

I had an arguement with my friend about this sort of thing. If MS tried to do this, they would cry monopoly and anti-trust all over again; and put small businesses out of business. Trust me, I want MS to do this like no other (and not because I really like MS), but the fact of the matter is, that they can't do it. Vista was supposed to be run without any AV at all, but Symantec and McAfee whined about it, and MS had to give them access to the kernel. The main reason those companies are in business is because the OS wasn't secure, now it's actually secure, they're bitching about it. I really wish MS could revitilize (sp) the PC market, come out with same standards as Mac has, make pretty cases, etc...have everything built into the OS; but that just wont happen. If Apple got that big, I'm sure they would cry monopoly as well. OSX is not more secure than Windows, people think it's more secure because of the lack of viruses or spyware for it; but the truth is, virus writers or spyware makers want to affect the most amount of people; and who is that? Windows. So they are going to target Windows a whole lot more than OSX. At DevCon this past year, they were successfully able to hack into a fully patched OSX box in less than 5 minutes! I'm not ripping on OSX per se; I just wish Mac users would stop being so smug and thinking they are better than Windows users.

@HealthNut
Additional licenses are always cheaper than the full boxed copy, because they don't have to pay for the packaging, and cd's. Any software that requires activation, should not let you install on more than 1 PC unless you have more than 1 license. I just don't see how people can think that they can expect to buy 1 license and install it on as many pc's as you want. It doesn't fly like that, get over it!

[voivod84]

The main problem is that most of the people who visit these forums use home built PC's and have to install and reinstall Windows many times. I myself have done 3 reinstalls in one day (thanks ATi). Then I have to make that stupid phone call to MS give reason why I reinstalled Windows and punch in a nice long number. I feel MS need to come up with a different way to lock down there OS. Maybe by person Name, Address and phone number. Then if they see same windows install in a different place they can flag it and start a countdown timer for deactivation. If you moved then a phone call will make things right if its illegal copy or you let someone use your copy well they wont be using it for long.
Just a idea.

Later

Eric

[darkjedi664]

The phone process isn't as bad as people think, my friend called there and got a new key within 2 minutes (activation of course), and off the phone.

[JerryW]

[QUOTE=darkjedi664]Just because 99% of PC gaming is on Windows, does NOT mean MS is a monopoly.[/QUOTE]
I think you are unclear on the definition of monopoly.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=gsr]On the contrary, perhaps people will need to do without that which they cannot (or choose not to) afford...[/quote]Which is moving some people to Linux.

If the price of the OS is such a big problem, why aren't you people complaining about the cost of the hardware too? I guess the difference is that it is (or had been) easier to steal a 2nd, 3rd, 4th install of the OS than it is to clone extra motherboards, CPU's, RAM, video cards, sound cards, etc.Hardware costs money to manufacture. Whereas allowing somebody to make extra copies within their house doesn't cost the software maker anything.

Also, hardware constantly drops in price. If a piece of hardware is too expensive now, no need to complain -- just wait and the price will drop. Whereas MS software never drops in price. Win 2000 and Office 2000 are the same price as when they were originally released. Only a monopolist has that sort of pricing power.

[redjr]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie][COLOR=Red]Below, is my recent rant sent to Microsoft over their "retail" Vista rule of, one copy of Vista OS = one PC. That is a bit general, but basically true and for people like us (PC enthusiast) with several PC's at home this might be the end of my Windows days.

This effects me personally because I build my own PC's, am a PC gamer, and HTPC newbie. I feel...like a new OS will just change the way I look at my PC hobby.

Just a rant, in the least for your amusement. [/COLOR]

I said...





What do you all think? Am I wrong about this? :confused:

Note: FYI, spelling for Unix, Linx, or is it Linux, etc....I know is wrong but I was lazy in correcting it.

Also, to further explain the reality (as far as I know).

Vista will allow you to:

Install on one PC, and change it over to another PC (you must delete the copy in the other PC FYI) only once. So, if you upgrade your PC (minor, video card, sound cards, HD, DVD Burner) then you just have to re-register (type of thing, I forget the exact term) If you build a complete new system you get to use it only once more from the original PC you installed it on. Meanwhile, the back breaker...if you have 4 PC's...you need 4 Window Vista copies to go with them.

I'm human and can be wrong, if I am, please let me know.


Off to research Linux...[/QUOTE]
HTPCnewbie,

MS changed their policy about 1 PC = 1 OS when XP was released way back when. You should know that by now! 'Legally' it's one copy, one PC. I remember all the rants back when XP was released over the same issue. I guess we all got over it pretty quick, or switched to Linux. :eek: I do the same thing you do with PCs and I've had to buy more copies than I think is fair too. It's the way it is. Unless you're 'David', you're not going to slay Goliath into submission and a policy you like.

PS. Look at it this way... At least you won't have to buy another copy of MCE2005 for your HTPC. It's included with Vista!. :D

[redjr]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]Hmmm, I wonder how much it cost to buy a new license? What I mean is, can I buy one Retail copy of Vista and then buy 3 licenses?

Also, I'm not sure if there is a limit to how many times you can uninstall/delete then reinstall XP with the same license.

Example: I biuld a HTPC with Vista 1, then I decide to re-do it and buy all the parts I need, I then install Vista 1 there, then 2 years down the road I do the same thing. Can I still use Vista 1 or can I do that only once? (keeping in mind I'd be using Vista 2,3,4 on my other PC's.)

How many times can you go forward?[/QUOTE]
If Vista licensing is anything like XPs, then the answer is yes. As long as Vista 1 is only installed on one PC at a time. You can upgrade to your hearts content and use the same copy. You will likely have to re-activate using the 800 number and explain to the CS rep in Zimbabwe that the PC was upgraded, but the OS copy is only on one PC.

[redjr]

[QUOTE=HTPCnewbie]....Some laugh at Linux, some swear by it....I wonder where the truth is?

Thanks everyone, while some of the back and forth is confusing.[/QUOTE]
Some swear at it too!

[replayrob]

If the Vista OS is indeed $400 per copy... I predict it will be the most widely hacked software Microsoft has ever released :eek: :eek: :eek:

[redjr]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]You don't follow? Or is it that you don't agree?

My point was that once you paid for it, you own that copy of the software and are allowed to do anything with it that doesn't violate copyright law, and copyright law doesn't restrict you to only having it installed on the initial machine. They can't impose additional conditions of use after you've already own it.[/QUOTE]
Actually, hdmi4ever, I don't think you own it. If you read the fine print on most retail or other software, you are granted a license to use the software. Ownership of software, or other intellectual property has pretty much gone away with laws that have been passed over the past 10 yrs or so. We are basically leasing it.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=redjr]Actually, hdmi4ever, I don't think you own it. If you read the fine print on most retail or other software, you are granted a license to use the software. Ownership of software, or other intellectual property has pretty much gone away with laws that have been passed over the past 10 yrs or so. We are basically leasing it.[/QUOTE]My point is that the fine print is irrelevant, because it is not presented to me prior to purchase like a normal contract would. I own the specific instance of the software, just like I own a book or CD or a piece of patented hardware, and I can and will do what I want with it within the scope of copyright and patent law (which does not include the right to unilaterally impose an EULA).

[HTPCnewbie]

But to the OP, quit whining, and thinking you can get what you want, and calling MS "MicroSHAFT"; you aren't cute, and it's just lame. Cry me a river, and go use Linux or OSX and hate MS somewhere else. Have fun gaming on Linux or OSX.

Wow, missed the whole point…I didn’t ask for nor need your pity. I will continue to call MicroSHAFT by that name for reasons like this, and many many more. I’m not anti-MS, nor Pro-OSX, and frankly I don’t know enough about Linux to say much about them either.

I felt slighted, was mislead by the sales department at MicroSHAFT…hence my rant. Since then I’ve been told that this has been happening since XP, so I’m not complaining that this is new in Vista. Since then I’ve been told you can reinstall Vista as many times as you want as long as you remove it from the original machine it was installed, so I’m not complaining about that either.

My current complaint, is that for $400-$250 I find it unreasonable to demand that their OS can only be installed on one of your PERSONAL PC’s at home (nor do I demand to have unlimited installs, just give us 3-5).

If you are a member here, you should realize that most of us have several PC’s, game on our PC’s, use them as HTPC’s, and build custom PC’s. The price, considering that the OS is the software foundation (just like I think the motherboards should be more expensive considering they are the hardware backbone, while I’m happy to save a buck) is not my beef (initially), it’s the need to purchase their product for each PC you own. Like someone else said…when you start hitting $1,000 it’s time to think about Linux.

Oh, and yes…like someone else said, it seems you don’t understand what a monopoly is. MicroSHAFT is a monopoly, as the government turns a blind eye.

The main reason those companies are in business is because the OS wasn't secure, now it's actually secure, they're bitching about it.

Um, that remains to be seen…the OS is not even sold to the public yet (other than businesses). Someone smell a fanboy? LOL

Unless you're 'David', you're not going to slay Goliath into submission and a policy you like.

I hear ya, I’m not trying to smash Goliath with a rock…I’m trying to ask the dude to be reasonable, that’s all. But, originally he mocked and didn’t listen until David smashed him with a rock so maybe one day there will be a David to the MS Goliath.

LOL

I’m listening, don’t get me wrong and I’ll have to wait and see how much it cost to get more than one license. If it’s even $100 bucks it might be time to jump ship. Again, I don’t hate MS (been using them for years and I’m a beta tester for RC1) but I’m growing tired of their greedy ways.

[Health Nut]

Hardware costs money to manufacture. Whereas allowing somebody to make extra copies within their house doesn't cost the software maker anything.

Also, hardware constantly drops in price. If a piece of hardware is too expensive now, no need to complain -- just wait and the price will drop. Whereas MS software never drops in price. Win 2000 and Office 2000 are the same price as when they were originally released. Only a monopolist has that sort of pricing power.

Not only that... I can pick and chose which hardware I like based on price/peformance. I can shoic from many, many companies and many different products... Let's see, what can I chose for an operating system? Windows, Windows, and windows.... Apple and Linux are not true competitors, they are stragglers. Heck Microsoft needs to keep them around and bailed out Apple before! They need to act like there is competition out there...

[cjd]

[QUOTE=Health Nut]The price must then be lowered to reflect that or, the additional licenses for use with one individual's multiple PC's must be very inexpensive relative to the main purchase (obviously the latter). Good luck having me pay $1400.00 for the operating system. Good luck with that.... aint happenin.[/QUOTE]

cry me a river? How much are you paying for hardware to put this PC in your car, and you won't spring for a software license? The license is what costs money, not the media. Price may be nominally less. In fact, you can buy "3-packs" of XP now with nominal savings, give or take ($89 for a single, $250 for a 3-pack) And, $1400? Not sure where you get that number...

I've had to call MS when I upgraded a few items and explain what was up - they commented on the number of re-installs I'd done, asked why hard drive and processor were both new (I never EVER blow away any of my old install until I know I have everything). Took a few minutes on hold, another couple minutes talking to someone and all was well.

I also use Linux anywhere I can.

C

[redjr]

[QUOTE=cjd]...I've had to call MS when I upgraded a few items and explain what was up - they commented on the number of re-installs I'd done, asked why hard drive and processor were both new (I never EVER blow away any of my old install until I know I have everything). Took a few minutes on hold, another couple minutes talking to someone and all was well.

I also use Linux anywhere I can.

C[/QUOTE]
I've been building PCs since the late 70s. When XP came along I didn't like the 1PC/1OS restriction anymore than the next guy, cause I knew I'd have to shell out more hard earned cash for other PCs around the house.

I've called MS on more than one occassion during a hardware upgrade - sometime twice in the same week - and have never had an issue with re-activation on a re-built PC. While it's still a hassle, calling for activation and keying in the long number, all of my major upgrades have gone without a hitch. And MS never questioning why.

For what its worth, XP Home can be found on sale almost every weekend at some big box store for $49(upgrade version).

[gsr]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]Hardware costs money to manufacture. Whereas allowing somebody to make extra copies within their house doesn't cost the software maker anything.[/QUOTE]

That's absurd. Extra installs (and I don't care if you're talking about Windows or some other piece of software) within your house or business cost the company revenue. If the license terms are $100 for 1 license for 1 PC, then using that license on 5 PC's cost the company $400.

Your statement implies that software doesn't cost a company anything to produce other than the cost of putting it on the media. Well newsflash, but the company (whether it be Microsoft or some other company) has to pay people like me, to research, design, and develop the software. For hardware, people have to be paid to research, design, and manufacture the hardware. With just a little bit of thought, the difference between hardware and software really isn't that significant - they are both components of your PC.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=gsr]That's absurd. Extra installs (and I don't care if you're talking about Windows or some other piece of software) within your house or business cost the company revenue. If the license terms are $100 for 1 license for 1 PC, then using that license on 5 PC's cost the company $400.[/quote]No, what you are saying absurd. By that logic, they would be better off selling nothing rather than selling 1 million copies and having 4 million extra copies made by the users, because the 4 million unauthorized copies would cost them more than what they made from the 1 million sold.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=redjr]I've been building PCs since the late 70s. When XP came along I didn't like the 1PC/1OS restriction anymore than the next guy, cause I knew I'd have to shell out more hard earned cash for other PCs around the house.[/QUOTE]

Once again, the 1 copy of Windows per PC is not a new thing, just the enforcement (of sorts) of it.

[hdmi4ever]

Note that I am not advocating installing one copy onto multiple machines. Copyright law already prevents that and a license is not needed to ban multiple copies.

However, I think Microsoft is hurting themselves as well as their customers by not waking up to the fact that so many households have multiple computers nowadays and can't or won't pay full cost for a copy on every machine. It's not like 10 years ago when each machine was about $2000-$2500 and people only had one or none. Just as they realized that students don't have much money and offered student-discounted versions, they can and should come up with a way to provide something like "family discounts" for multiple computers in the same household, or they'll be losing customers.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]No, what you are saying absurd. By that logic, they would be better off selling nothing rather than selling 1 million copies and having 4 million extra copies made by the users, because the 4 million unauthorized copies would cost them more than what they made from the 1 million sold.[/QUOTE]

Huh? It's obviously your choice if you don't want Windows at all which is the only way they're going to end up selling nothing. If you follow the rules and purchase a license for each computer, then at $100 per license it's $500 for 5 computers. If you choose to break the rules and use 1 license on 5 computers, you have cost the company $400. In this case, Microsoft has made a decision on how much each copy will cost. In the end it's your choice whether you play ball and purchase legal copies for each PC and take your chances on using 1 license to run on multiple PC's. If you can sleep at night knowing that you're using illegal copies, good for you I guess.

As a person who makes a living writing computer software, maybe my understanding of how much effort goes into creating the software is lost on those who don't develop software, but an operating system like Windows is an extremely complex project.

It always amazes me that people who would presumably never walk into a store and steal something find it so easy to bend and break the rules with software. Using a single copy of Windows on multiple computers is no different than walking into CompUSA and walking out with that many extra copies of Windows without paying for them. If you can't agree with that, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss here.

I don't argue that it isn't cheap to purchase multiple licenses, but the rest of the computer isn't exactly cheap either. Before deciding to build a system, you need to figure out if you can afford to do it - the cost of the OS should be part of that decision just as the motherboard and CPU are.

[hdmi4ever]

[QUOTE=gsr]Huh? It's obviously your choice if you don't want Windows at all which is the only way they're going to end up selling nothing. If you follow the rules and purchase a license for each computer, then at $100 per license it's $500 for 5 computers. If you choose to break the rules and use 1 license on 5 computers, you have cost the company $400. In this case, Microsoft has made a decision on how much each copy will cost. In the end it's your choice whether you play ball and purchase legal copies for each PC and take your chances on using 1 license to run on multiple PC's. If you can sleep at night knowing that you're using illegal copies, good for you I guess.[/quote]I wrote "Hardware costs money to manufacture. Whereas allowing somebody to make extra copies within their house doesn't cost the software maker anything." I was referring to Microsoft allowing people to make extra copies, not people copying them on their own. Suppose Microsoft's decision is to provide the right to 4 extra copies within the household for an extra $50. Is that costing them $350? Suppose they allow it for free. Is that costing them $400? Suppose the person puts Linux on the other 4 computers instead of Windows. Is that costing MS $400?

And get real, you know that software doesn't have the same sort of marginal costs as hardware. Theoretical forgoing of potential sales is not the same as actually spending real money to make hardware and giving it away for free. The hardware producer has the costs of R&D plus nontrivial manufacturing costs for every unit, while the software producer has R&D plus tiny manufacturing costs (zero manufacturing costs for copies made by their customers).

As a person who makes a living writing computer software, maybe my understanding of how much effort goes into creating the software is lost on those who don't develop software, but an operating system like Windows is an extremely complex project.Guess what, I also write software for a living. I know what goes into developing software. I also understand enough economics to know the difference between marginal costs, sunk costs, and marginal revenue. I worked for a company that made a product that took 4 years to develop and sold for $100,000 per server plus per seat licenses (and yes, these were actual licenses, negotiated and signed -- not unilaterally imposed EULAs). But I am not so delusional as to think that if a college kid made a copy for using in his dorm that we would have lost $100,000.

It always amazes me that people who would presumably never walk into a store and steal something find it so easy to bend and break the rules with software. Using a single copy of Windows on multiple computers is no different than walking into CompUSA and walking out with that many extra copies of Windows without paying for them. If you can't agree with that, then I guess we have nothing further to discuss here.Who loses something if somebody shoplifts from CompUSA? CompUSA (and maybe others in the distribution chain). But numerous companies sell Windows, not just CompUSA. Which of those companies loses money if somebody makes extra copies? 1000 companies lose $100 each? If you really think that copying is the same as stealing physical goods, even though copying leaves the owner still possessing the goods and stealing doesn't, and even if even if the producer authorizes those copies (i.e. extra copies within the household only), then you are not living in reality and we really have nothing further to discuss.

[jimwhite]

"Who loses something if somebody shoplifts from CompUSA?"

we all do.... "shrinkage" losses due to theft are factored into the profit margin... so the cost is shared by all customers...

:cool:

[HTPCnewbie]

they can and should come up with a way to provide something like "family discounts" for multiple computers in the same household, or they'll be losing customers.

You see, that is what I’m talking about…just be reasonable.

As a person who makes a living writing computer software, maybe my understanding of how much effort goes into creating the software is lost on those who don't develop software, but an operating system like Windows is an extremely complex project.

I understand this, because I HATE programming and for people to sit there and create software I tip my hat off to them. I know it’s a lot of work. The thing is, no one is asking MS to give us their OS free but at the price they set for Vista and then restrict it to only one PC is not reasonable for a family.

I’m not advocating hacking Vista nor that MS sells it for free. But, the response I hear here is…well, then don’t buy it and move on (duhhhh). Exactly, that is what MS is forcing some of us to think about.

Frankly, it’s pretty arrogant to say such a thing and that type of talk only comes from monopolies that have so much power that they could care less about making their products reasonably priced since there isn’t any competition.

Again, for a family home with several PC’s I’ll be the first to say I WONT be buying Vista (at the $250-400) for each PC. So, regardless they just lost business.

Let's take it a step further, now maybe you all are right and I shouldn't have more than one PC. So, now HP (my laptop) lost a sale, and now let's say...Newegg lost a sale of hardware for two other PC's. Enough people do this, and now the economy takes a bit of a hit because of the lost sales. Again...not free, just BE REASONABLE!

At $400 bucks I’d expect to install it on 3-5 PC’s that I personally own, not one. UNLESS, they offer some type of family pack or a VERY reduced licensing pricing that remains to be seen. So, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt until I see the final prices.

[Naylia]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]No, what you are saying absurd. By that logic, they would be better off selling nothing rather than selling 1 million copies and having 4 million extra copies made by the users, because the 4 million unauthorized copies would cost them more than what they made from the 1 million sold.[/QUOTE]

You almost got it but not quite...if the business model and pricing was based on turning a profit when selling to 4 million users and only 1 million buy the product and the other 3 million use pirate copies then the business is losing money on the software development....hence they would have been better off not selling any copies....or developing the software to begin with. Your example is almost perfect because people almost always think about well pirating one copy doesn't hurt the company, and that is probably true....but if all of China pirates it and you expected all of China to buy a copy at $99 when you planned your R&D then the company could be screwed.

[Jimwesternguy]

You can buy MCE 2005 with an upgrade Vista Home Premium coupon now at Newegg for $110. I just entered the coupon redemption code on Microsoft's upgrade web site and the code was accepted. The cost of shipping/handling is $11.40. Shipment is expected in February.

So, for $122 you get a license for both MCE 2005 and for Vista Home Premium. That is reasonable.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=Jimwesternguy]So, for $122 you get a license for both MCE 2005 and for Vista Home Premium. That is reasonable.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. You're upgrading to Vista, not purchasing a 2nd license.

[Jimwesternguy]

[QUOTE=gsr]I'm pretty sure that isn't correct. You're upgrading to Vista, not purchasing a 2nd license.[/QUOTE]

Prove that I am wrong

[gsr]

[QUOTE=Jimwesternguy]Prove that I am wrong[/QUOTE]

What are we in pre school now? :rolleyes: It's an U-P-G-R-A-D-E coupon, not a coupon for a free (plus shipping) copy of Vista.

Since you asked for proof here it is from Vista License Terms (http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Ultimate_English_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf):

"13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from."

[cjd]

[QUOTE=hdmi4ever]No, what you are saying absurd. By that logic, they would be better off selling nothing rather than selling 1 million copies and having 4 million extra copies made by the users, because the 4 million unauthorized copies would cost them more than what they made from the 1 million sold.[/QUOTE]

No, no... he's absolutely correct. Your statement is so lacking logic that I almost can't point it out. Nowhere does he say anything about selling nothing. They're going to sell the OS or they wouldn't be taking the time to make it (which is where is no product comment comes in). If they sell 1mil and 4mil illegal copies were made, they're not doing as well as if those 4mil weren't possible (i.e. DRM works) and they sold 2mil and had 3mil go to Linux. This is how this type of license, this type of product WORKS. It works this way because it is fair to both the producer AND the consumer.

Yes, you'll claim it's NOT fair to the consumer. But that's just a whine, not a fact. If a single purchase allowed the rest to be free, how much would that one cost? Yup - tons and tons. Who would ever buy it? If they did as you suggest, corporations would only have to buy one copy of an OS. How much would that cost? You can bet you wouldn't be able to afford it for home use under any circumstance.

I would love to see low count family pack licenses (3-packs or 5 packs, or even add-a-license) made more affordable (which, in theory, would make people complain less). I think this would be GOOD for their business - the only people this would really help out are the people that otherwise KNOW how to get an OS on more than one machine even when MS tries so hard to prevent it. People that are doing their own system building. People that buy 3 machines from Dell would probably miss out since Dell already gets insane volume discount.

Regardless, I'm glad you're such an open source zealout that you hand out all the labor of your life for others to use and enjoy with no compensation for yourself at all. Er... why are you using Windows?

Knowing how to argue a point means being able to argue the counterpoint successfully - i.e. you understand and can coherently argue ALL points of view, even if the preponderance of evidence

C

[Jimwesternguy]

gsr...read what I said.

I didn't say anything about a free plus shipping copy of Vista. I said that you receive a license for MCE 2005 (correct) and then you receive a license for Vista Home Premium after the redemption process (correct). gsr....you do realize that 1+1=2 or do you need to go back to pre-school?

I did not mention running them at the same time, that was your interpretation of my statement.

Why quibble, $122 is still a good a good price for a new operating system.

[LeahcimWolf]

hmdi4ever.

Unfortunately, you are mostly wrong about having to agree to the license when installing software.

You cited only one judges opinion in a case that largely had nothing to do with "shrinkwrap" or "clickwrap'" licenses and is also 20 years old.

As you may or may not know, these types of license agreements fall under contract law, and each state in the union has its own laws regarding the subject. Since most software is sold throughout the country and world, it often goes to federal courts to determine if a shrinkwrap license is legal or not.

The vast majority of states and the most important federal court (at least the most important that deals with these cases, the 9th circuit court of appeals is in California and deals with a lot of technology law) has ruled that a "clickwrap" or "shrinkwrap" license is binding on the end user.

Early on in the courts they were not deemed legal because it was a type of buy now, deal with the terms later thing.

Unfortunately, with the way technology and the world changes, often the law takes a while to catch up. Over the last 10 years or so, the courts have held that these licenses are legal and binding to the end user. You cannot simply ignore the license agreement and do whatever you want with the software you "own" because they did not state the terms when you paid for it at the counter. However, in all cases, you are allowed to NOT agree to the license and return it for a full refund. Unfortunately again, you typically have to deal with the company itself, as a retail outlet does not have to honor such things. So if you bought Windows Vista and did not agree to the license, you have to prove that you clicked no, did not accept, did not install or use the software, and complain to Microsoft, they legally have to refund your money.

Here are more recent cases that deal with this directly than the one you posted:

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1161, 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 1109 (7th Cir. 1996) (applying Wisconsin law), that a shrinkwrap license included with software was binding on the purchaser under the Uniform Commercial Code. The court held that shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable as a general matter unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general, such as violation of a rule of positive law, or unconscionability.
(This case pretty much set the precedent, it is widely cited)

Moore v. Microsoft Corp., 293 A.D.2d 587, 741 N.Y.S.2d 91, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 76 (2d Dep't 2002), the court dismissed a software user's deceptive trade practices claim. The court found that the End User License Agreement contained in a software manufacturer's software program was a binding contract, where the plaintiff user was required to click on an "I agree" icon before proceeding with the download of the software, and that the warranty disclaimers and limitations of liability contained in the agreement precluded the user's claims.



Considering a shrinkwrap agreement packaged inside a box of software, the court in Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Stargate Software Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (applying California law), determined that the agreement was enforceable against the defendant software distributor, noting that the user had the opportunity to return the software if it did not agree with the terms of the shrinkwrap agreement



Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 306 F.3d 17, 48 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 761 (2d Cir. 2002) (applying California law).
This is a most famous precedent setting case. This involved an online software where a person downloaded a program and was not bound by the license agreement because it was not visible on the page. Subsequently, this case caused all online downloadable software/or anything that required you to agree to terms to be clearly visible before being allowed to download it. Hence, all the option boxes that say "I agree" before you click submit or whatever, this case caused that.


-----
The bottom line is, a lawyer's (I am one) most used phrase is "It depends." Nothing in law is very clear cut, that's why lawyer's exist I guess. Every case has to be taken on its own accord. However, in pretty much all states, this particular piece of law is well defined. If you buy software, hit the "agree" button, and install it, you're bound to what you agreed to. Of course there are always exceptions, and you could always battle Microsoft over certain things, and hey, you may even win. If you proved something was unconscionable (something very egregious), you could potentionally win.

On the brightside, you can always send your CDs back to Microsoft and get your money back, and install Linux =)

[gsr]

[QUOTE=Jimwesternguy]gsr...read what I said.

I didn't say anything about a free plus shipping copy of Vista. I said that you receive a license for MCE 2005 (correct) and then you receive a license for Vista Home Premium after the redemption process (correct). gsr....you do realize that 1+1=2 or do you need to go back to pre-school?

I did not mention running them at the same time, that was your interpretation of my statement.

Why quibble, $122 is still a good a good price for a new operating system.[/QUOTE]

The important thing that your statement omits is that you receive an UPGRADE license for Vista which renders your initial MCE license useless once you install the upgrade. Your 1+1=2 comment doesn't apply - it's more like 1 + 1 - 1 = 1 in this case.

You initially said "you get a license for both MCE 2005 and for Vista Home Premium" - that implies that you get 2 distinct licenses that can be used on 2 separate systems, which is incorrect. Assuming your wording was just confusing, then given all the confusion that's already in this thread, a clarification seemed in order.

But yes, $122 is a good price for a copy of MCE or Vista.

[HTPCnewbie]

Rant = forum fighting

Forgive me for fueling this at times ugly debate...lol.

[jpomp]

Holy cow. I'm afraid to enter this, but nonetheless.

I think there is just a tad (did I just say 'tad'? Eeesh) bit of overreaction going on here.

I believe that OS key 'restriction' is a bit misconstrued in the fact that I believe that it is moreso a 'safeguard' put in place to stop the keys from being abused.

Case in point: I work for a company in IT and just finished building 15 OS's (various 2000/2003 server configurations for testing) all on one server using Microsofts Virtual Server (which is AWESOME by the way). Before I completed the 15 builds, I ran into a problem on the 11th install and got "CD key invaild/expired whathaveyou. We have the MSDN subscription and that was when I saw "only 10 installs is this key good for".

At this point I called Microsoft customer service (a PERSON picked up after the first menu selection) and I was greeted by an ENGLISH-SPEAKING chick and she first asked "how are you today, and what can I do for you?" I told her my situation and, after about 2 minutes on hold, she regenerated a new key good for 10 more installs.

That leads me to believe that that is what the restriction is all about. Not to stop the honest middle-income computer-tinkering guy whol rebuilds 2 or 3 times a year, but to protect him/you and stop black market a-holes from getting their hands on your disks and MASS PRODUCING these things.

Think about it...Yea it's slightly inconvenient, but I think they just want you to call in and verify your identity to make sure you're legit.

I could be wrong, but I just wanted to share my experience with you. Please don't bite my head off, nor count Microsoft out JUST YET (I'll say it again JUST YET).

[darkjedi664]

Any version of Windows past XP allow you to activate the same key every 90 days I believe. Your MSDN key can be activated almost an unlimited amount of times, granted that you activate every 90 days. I've done this on countless MSDN keys and I've activated way more then 10 times.

[gsr]

[QUOTE=jpomp]Holy cow. I'm afraid to enter this, but nonetheless.

I think there is just a tad (did I just say 'tad'? Eeesh) bit of overreaction going on here.

I believe that OS key 'restriction' is a bit misconstrued in the fact that I believe that it is moreso a 'safeguard' put in place to stop the keys from being abused.

Case in point: I work for a company in IT and just finished building 15 OS's (various 2000/2003 server configurations for testing) all on one server using Microsofts Virtual Server (which is AWESOME by the way). Before I completed the 15 builds, I ran into a problem on the 11th install and got "CD key invaild/expired whathaveyou. We have the MSDN subscription and that was when I saw "only 10 installs is this key good for".

At this point I called Microsoft customer service (a PERSON picked up after the first menu selection) and I was greeted by an ENGLISH-SPEAKING chick and she first asked "how are you today, and what can I do for you?" I told her my situation and, after about 2 minutes on hold, she regenerated a new key good for 10 more installs.

That leads me to believe that that is what the restriction is all about. Not to stop the honest middle-income computer-tinkering guy whol rebuilds 2 or 3 times a year, but to protect him/you and stop black market a-holes from getting their hands on your disks and MASS PRODUCING these things.

Think about it...Yea it's slightly inconvenient, but I think they just want you to call in and verify your identity to make sure you're legit.

I could be wrong, but I just wanted to share my experience with you. Please don't bite my head off, nor count Microsoft out JUST YET (I'll say it again JUST YET).[/QUOTE]

I hear what you're saying, but there's a big difference between using a MSDN subscription to build a test environment and using a single retail / OEM license to build multiple systems.

With MSDN, Microsoft is counting on the fact that when you go to production, you'll need to purchase full licenses (and probably more than you used in your test environment) - and the licenses for things like Server 2003 Enterprise Edition aren't cheap.

With a copy of Windows used at home, one isn't likely to use extra installs to see how things work and then later go out and purchase extra licenses for long term use.

Microsoft has been pretty generous mostly looking the other way for quite a long time now, but there's no guarantee that they'll continue to do so. I have heard of them going after businesses who are breaking the licensing agreements, but haven't heard of any individual ever running into trouble with them installing multiple copies at home BUT that doesn't change the fact that doing so is against the licensing terms.

If we assume that Microsoft will continue looking the other way indefinitely, each person has to decide how far they can go and still be able to sleep at night. For some people, that means following the rules to the T. For others, anything goes. Probably for most, it's somewhere in the middle. For example:

License violations that I don't have a problem with:

- Transfering an OEM license to a new system.

- Using an MSDN OS install at home for everyday use - I'm pretty sure this breaks the terms of the license.

License violations that I do have a problem with:

- Buying 1 license whether it be OEM or Retail and using it to install the OS on multiple systems.

- Selling the copy of Server 2003 Enterprise Server that I received as a promotion and marked Not For Resale.

- Using a MSDN install in a business production environment.

I think it's important for people to understand what is allowed and what isn't allowed under the license terms. Wouldn't it stink to have thought that it was ok to build as many systems as you want and then end up paying a huge penalty (or even ending up in jail) when Microsoft comes knocking on your door at some point?