Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use

timothy posted more than 7 years ago | from the oh-that's-handy dept.

968

NiK0laI writes "TechWeb has posted an article regarding Vista's new license and how it allows you to only move it to another device once. How will this work for people who build their PCs? I have no intention of purchasing a new license every time I swap out motherboards. 'The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once. ... Elsewhere in the license, Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine. "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system," the legal language reads. Vista Ultimate and Vista Business, however, can be installed within a VM.'" Overly Critical Guy points out more information about changes to Vista's EULA and the new usage restrictions. "For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives, can't run in a virtualized environment, and can only share files and printers to a maximum of 5 network devices."

cancel ×

968 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obesity is not a disease you fat fuck! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415911)

So I'm driving home from work yesterday, when on the radio blares some commercial that tells you to "Fight the nation's #1 disease: Obesity with...blah blah blah." Then I got thinking to myself, Wait a second, Obesity isn't a disease, it's just fat people.
Well, I'm here to tell, as a man who carries a little more weight than usual, Obesity is not a fucking disease! Stop blaming other people because you are an enormous tub of shit! It's not a disease! It's not! I can't tell you enough!
You know what a disease is? It's Cancer, Melanoma, Lukemia, etc. Not being a lard ass. Also, there is no such thing as a weight loss pill. Sorry, you want to lose weight? Stop eating at KFC every fucking day! Stop chowing down on candy all the time! Stop drinking sugary soda! Go walk around a bit! There's your cure you fat piece of shit!
Okay, maybe I'm being a little harsh. No. I want to go on a killing spree every time I hear a lawsuit against McDonalds because some fat fuck wants money for being a fat fuck. Maybe you should lay off of the Egg McMuffins fatboy!
And it's never the slightly overweight people (such as myself) that say obesity is a disease, it's the people that are the size of a house that say this, as they force feed themselves fried chicken and hershey's chocolate bars.
I think what pisses me off though, are people who are so fucking fat that they are confined to a wheelchair! Arrrrrrr! I hate these people! Get your fat ass off of your Rascal Scooter and walk! How do you expect to lose weight in a wheelchair? Save the rascal scooter for someone who has a real disease.
I guess Tyra Banks did some study the other day where she wore a fat suit just to see what it's like to be fat for a day, and she said she got tons of dirty looks from people, and others staring an so on. Well duh! Thank you Tyra for your contribution to the world, now go back to being a model and not caring about dick. So Tyra discovered that being a mound of man blubber is embarrassing and people are cruel. Whoopedy fucking doo, give her the nobel peace prize.
I myself am a little on the chubby side, I know, but you will never hear me say it's McDonald's fault, or KFC's fault, etc. It's my fault, I know, I don't work out because I don't like exercise, I don't go on diets because I like food too much, and I don't complain because I bring on this chubbiness myself. I'm the only one to blame.
Damn, I should be president. Later fatboys

Two words... (1, Insightful)

XaXXon (202882) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415919)

Fuck that.

Re:Two words... (4, Insightful)

MasterPoof (876056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415995)

Seriously, WTF is this ? I can't move my liscenses to a different computer more than once ? And these restrictions on the network usage. "For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives, can't run in a virtualized environment, and can only share files and printers to a maximum of 5 network devices." --- Granted I wouldn't buy Home Basic anyway, but this sounds more like a limited trial version to me.

Re:Two words... (5, Informative)

jfclavette (961511) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416097)

Are we sure this is not the OEM terms ? It's been that way forever.

Re:Two words... (5, Informative)

Baricom (763970) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416099)

The network restrictions are not new. XP has them, although it may have higher limits. Transfer restrictions, however, bother me a lot. I believe this is the first time they've appeared in retail versions of Windows.

I said back in 2002 that I would never buy a PC again, and that my next computer would be a Mac. Microsoft is making it easier and easier for me to keep to that promise.

Re: ISO Information (5, Informative)

sleeper0 (319432) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416381)

I just read through the entire EULA because I just couldn't believe they had included "Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives". Turns out I was right. As far as I can tell there is no restriction to ISO's per-se, instead the original author was attempting to infer a lack of a right of some versions to store a copy of the software [meaning, a copy of the vista DVD] on "network storage" based on the fact that this right is permitted for Ultimate. However, just because they grant a right to some versions doesn't mean you don't have that right when it isn't explicitly granted - for instance even if they only enumerated the right to backup copies for Ultimate you'd still have that right for all others, existing law generally grants it.

The translation to "can't copy [any] iso's" happened in the last step, by the comment submitter, and is as far s I can tell just a complete fabrication.

Some part of me wonders why a website full of people who swear to their grave that they'll never run a piece of software is so intent on discrediting it that they make up shit. Carry on though boys, have fun.

THREE words (2, Informative)

sofar (317980) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416093)

Just Use Linux

Re:THREE words (0)

metlin (258108) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416351)

> Just Use Linux

And that's exactly what's going to happen. Today, a lot of companies do not use MS software (office & developer stuff, both) primarily because they do not want to be locked-in.

As MS becomes more and more restrictive, folks are going to want to move away towards more open solutions.

It's rather good for the Open Source community because this will speeden up corporations towards adopting alternate solutions.

Nice to see MS digging their own grave!

Re:THREE words (2, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416353)

Actually, I LIKE the new license. This will make it much easier to talk the wife and the boss into switching to Linux, and force me to figure out how to setup Linux for a media center or get a Wii. Games? We will figure that one out later. All and all, a good decision by Microsoft I would say.

Looks like they will certainly reduce piracy, as even a fully function version of the OS isn't fully functional and not even worth stealing.

Time for Ubuntu to step up to the plate. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416231)

This is the time that the Ubuntu crowd will really need to step up to the plate. They offer the premiere desktop Linux distribution at this time. If any Linux distribution will challenge Vista, it will be Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based distribution.

It'd be very beneficial to the open source community if Kubuntu [kubuntu.org] could be hyped as much as Firefox was. With even just a fraction of the momentum that Firefox once had, we may see the landscape change over night.

I'd recommend Kubuntu only because it uses KDE, which at this time is a more mature and usable desktop than GNOME. I have moved several relatives to Ubuntu (using GNOME) and Kubuntu (using KDE). A couple of those relatives using GNOME visited the relative using KDE, and they wanted to switch after seeing how much better it was. So from my own experience and that of a few people I know, KDE would appear to be the best desktop to go with, thus Kubuntu is naturally the best distribution to choose.

It'd take a lot of coordination and effort to pull something like this off. But I think it is well within the grasp of the Ubuntu community to get the word out about Kubuntu. The purchase of an ad in a major paper might be a good way to start, as it did help the Firefox community when they tried it.

Re:Two words... (0, Redundant)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416237)

I didn't expect the first two-word post that I saw to sum up an article so perfectly!! Best use of mod points ever...

I could imagine a letter-writing campaign where millions of us nerds/IT professionals/gamer dorks/pc builders/enthusiasts/Myspace freaks/youtube nuts/farkers//.'ers/etc start writing to Microsoft on postcards that just say 'FUCK THAT' on the front. Man.. that would really get the point across.

Hopefully, the good PC builders will offer an option to 'downgrade' to Windows XP or even better - linux.

Not such a bad idea... (2, Insightful)

phatvw (996438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416349)

LOL! Folks are always so quick to jump on the bandwagon about how stupid Microsoft's policies are. But is this really such a big deal? Is it even news-worthy? Here is the reality:
  • MS wants to make money - just like everybody else
  • MS loses money for each support call - just like everybody else
  • VM marginally increases support costs due to incompatibilities
  • folks swapping hardware marginally increases support costs
You could argue that only experts would ever swap hardware or use VM and that they don't call MS support. But there are a lot of people who call themselves experts who haven't a clue. Login to whatever tech site you want and there are DIY guides for whatever hardware config you want to build. A complete moron can use those guides, fail miserably, and then call Microsoft for support. Microsoft doesn't want to pay for that and why should they unless you pay a premium for those features?

In addition, MS and everybody else wants to promote a subscription model for software - the more features you use, the more you pay. How is this different than any other vendor who charges for software? Linux isn't free. Somebody has to get paid to support the software and keep businesses running. Would you work for Google and run their linux boxes for free?

Re:Two words... (1)

reanjr (588767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416361)

Indeed. While I wouldn't want to be the guinea pig, just because it's in the license, and you agree to it, does not make it legally enforceable. I especially doubt the ISO clause is enforceable, though the transfer of license is more iffy.

Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1)

Callaway (842055) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415925)

I "guess" I understand the motivation for restrictions at lower levels, though once again, this makes alternatives more attractive.

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415937)

Which alternative? Piracy, Linux, or OS X? ;)

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1)

novafire (263854) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415991)

yes, yes, and yes

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1)

hamilton76 (629072) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416027)

Yes, Linux. Especially Ubuntu.

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415993)

For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.

For developers, like me, it's going to be a matter of reading the fine print. I'm certain that there's a licensing mechanism for me to use HOME in VMWare/Virtual PC for a development environment -- it might require a unique license, or it might be as simple as me having an MSDN subscription.

The "oh n0z, no vm for teh home!" panic is a bit premature.

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416013)

There's no difference between hardware and a VM as far as the OS is concerned, what fucking business is it of Microsofts how their paying customers use the commodity product?

Of course with DRM/TCPA, the only safe place for Vista is in a sandbox anyway!

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (3, Insightful)

Xaria (630117) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416247)

Because it's a *home* product - they are licensing it for home use. This is their way of making businesses pay more for certain rights. They're perfectly entitled to do this from a legal standpoint, and as a home user I'd rather see business copping the higher prices for Vista rather than me.

Note also that the warranty has increased - this is going to cost Microsoft money. It's about time (90 days is barely enough to put a machine through its paces, let alone find issues with your installation) but it's still a positive change.

As for the "only transferring once" thing, I didn't see anything in TFA regarding motherboard swapping. For all we know there may be a more intelligent method to determine what a "new device" is.

Whether we like it or not, we are paying for a *license* not an item. Big commercial products are even more rigid in their licensing, so while I don't like this I can understand and accept it. Let's see how it affects us IRL before we make too many judgements. Of course, if I can't replace a dud motherboard I'll be as abusive as the rest of you.

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416143)

Replying to myself...

The only difference between the home versions is the license key, and that license key determines how and what CABs are installed. This is similar the the current XP scheme, where, for example Media Center XP is exactly the same as XP except that a different key is entered, changing the product type and allowing the Freestyle components to be loaded.

So, you can either buy the license for home that allows virtualization usage, or not. Do they charge more for it? Yes. Can you virtualize home? Yes. Can you virtualize home basic under the existing Microsoft license? No. Is that limitation technical (the kernel refuses to run under VMharware)? Not sure.

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (4, Insightful)

carrier lost (222597) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416377)


For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.


What about gamers? People who change hardware more than underwear and mostly run Windows?


MjM

Re:Doesn't seem to benefit the enduser... (1)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416385)

it might require a unique license
Or it might just require you to fork out a bit more cash, for for example an Ultimate edition? *Sigh*

MSFT business plan (3, Funny)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415927)

Load weapon

Aim at foot

Pull trigger

Profit!!!

You wish (2, Interesting)

overshoot (39700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416035)

What, you think this is going to upset Dell? I want some of what you're smoking.

This is going to be great for Microsoft's bottom line. It's like planned obsolescence for software.

Re:You wish (1)

aneurysm36 (459092) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416263)

true, but probably only for the short term. this is going to be the last straw for a bunch of people (like me) teetering on the edge of switching to another OS. and when those people switch, theyll take a few friends and family with them. and so on...

CORRECTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416213)

You had some errors in your post. I have fixed them.
Load weapon

Aim at VMWare and Apple's foot

Pull trigger

Profit!!!

Re:MSFT business plan (1)

phatvw (996438) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416399)

You have it all wrong:
  1. Write weird license agreements
  2. Steal underpants
  3. ...
  4. profit
Old and busted joke I know, but your post was such a good setup...

A good thing (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415941)

If they make it hard enough to do your job, or piss off enough home users.. It can only be a good thing.

Re:A good thing (2, Insightful)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416005)

Eh, I'm sure a lot of us (being the Slashdot crowd) would be bothered by these things, but I honestly can't see 95%+ of Vista users even noticing.

There are lots of great uses for virtual machines, but you don't need one to surf MySpace and YouTube, send e-mail, download porn, run Word, or any of the things the vast majority of home users will be using their PCs for.

Re:A good thing (3, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416083)

Can we take it that you're willing to volunteer for the job of easing window lusers over to *nix? 'Cos I know I sure as hell won't. I like the fact that using *nix gets me away from having to do n00b tech support. I don't want to see that fucked up!

Re:A good thing (1)

blugu64 (633729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416329)

Parent is majorly underrated

Thanks for the heads up (5, Funny)

joshetc (955226) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415945)

Now everyone knows we only have to bother with pirating Vista Ultimate and Vista Business.

Re:Thanks for the heads up (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416157)

Well, the real issue is going to be distributing fake corporate keys for Vista Ultimate, since supposedly all versions of Vista will be sold on the same DVDs.

Come on guys (1)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415975)

You all know the two devices that your copy of vista will be installed on.

1. Your computer at work

and

2. Your computer at home

Re:Come on guys (2, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416087)

Not *my* computer.

No f-ing way. And it has nothing to do with staying legal, i dont this garbage anywhere near my house.

Not quite two (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416293)

Vista will never be installed on any machine I control. That is all.

Who's the big kahuna? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16415979)

Which CIO of a big league organization will have the huevos to be the first to tell M$ to shove it where the sun don't shine? When are you guys gonna stop being a bunch of boot licking toadies?

The "Linux" License is much easier on the Consumer (1)

andy314159pi (787550) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415985)

You should try out this other operating system called "Linux." There ae few restrictions on the use and copying of the operating system than say, Microsoft Windows.

Re:The "Linux" License is much easier on the Consu (1)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416077)

"You should try out this other operating system called "Linux.""

And how! I mean, you should see how many games it has available! Why theres tuxracer, nethack and um.. nmap! thats a game right?

Re:The "Linux" License is much easier on the Consu (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416225)

And how! I mean, you should see how many games it has available! Why theres tuxracer, nethack and um.. nmap! thats a game right?

Gamers may be driving the computer industry forward, but I think they are a minority, so this isn't the concern for most computer users.

Re:The "Linux" License is much easier on the Consu (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416337)

Well, why not dual-boot Vista (the cheapest one) for games, and use *nix for everything else? Or why not get Xbox or another dedicated appliance for games and leave personal computers for serious stuff?

Or do they plan to restrict certain games to Ultimate?

By the way, quake runs on FreeBSD pretty well. And it plays so much better at 1600x1200!

 

One thing an operating system shouldn't do: (5, Interesting)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415997)

Impose artificial limits, period. I'm not talking about limits on CPU usage or memory for the sake of system stability, but arbitary business decision born limits. When something starts doing this, it ceases to be an operating system.

Note the difference though between not having a feature and restricting the computer.

VM only on some versions (1)

interiot (50685) | more than 7 years ago | (#16415999)

Vista Home can't be VM'd, but Vista Business and Vista Premium can be? Why??? Are there technical restrictions in place to prevent this?

Re:VM only on some versions (2, Informative)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416185)

Vista home BASIC can't be VM'd per the license. Home "Ultimate" can. It is unclear if it refuses to run in a VM environment, or if the restriction is purely based on the EULA.

Since "Ultimate" can, and there's no difference between the two (other than the components loaded at install time, and the product type), there is no technical reason (beyond the kernel simply refusing to execute when it "sees" it's in a VM) it can't run.

Re:VM only on some versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416239)

Why? is because of license's, you get one copy and install it on many PC's.
Home users (all versions below business) are only expected to be install on one PC.

And vista home assume's there is nothing that can go wrong with the new hardware thats required to run it.

thats great! (1)

NovaSupreme (996633) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416001)

whenever i see things like that, i feel happy. some more users will finally switch from m$ to open source.

not that i am against raising the bar of open source OS themselves but some more will find it more attractive compared to all this BS of M$.

FYI (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416215)

OS X isn't open source.

Face it, the only reasonable choice for most consumers is Mac, because most people(incorrectly) think the PC is a device for windows. Thats ebcasue most people get windows with a new box.

Now, if the PC makers feel the VISTA will cost them sales, you will see more Linux on the PC ads from them.

Who cares *what* you intend? (-1, Flamebait)

overshoot (39700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416007)

I have no intention of purchasing a new license every time I swap out motherboards.

I'm sure that just breaks Bill's heart.

Here's a clue, peeps: Microsoft is in charge. You answer to "Bitch!" Your options are:

  • Bend over and whimper
  • Bend over and smile
  • Bend over and act tough
  • etc.
The constant here, for those who think their opinions matter, is that you don't get a vote. Learn to deal with it; after a while it will seem perfectly normal.

However, if you want to pretend to have some shreds of dignity quit the damned whining about it!

Re:Who cares *what* you intend? (1)

Ceribia (865793) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416151)

"The constant here, for those who think their opinions matter, is that you don't get a vote. Learn to deal with it; after a while it will seem perfectly normal.

However, if you want to pretend to have some shreds of dignity quit the damned whining about it!"

Alternative option: Don't buy microsoft products.
Don't buy a copy to play games.
Don't buy a copy to do anything period.
Encourage others to do the same.

The individual might not have much impact on the mighty Microsoft, but we have to start somewhere.

Re:Who cares *what* you intend? (1)

DrFrob (568991) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416243)

Sure you get to vote... if you buy the peice of shit, you vote for artificial restrictions, if you don't buy it, you vote against it.

With all the alternatives out there (1)

batbertus (1011187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416015)

I wonder where Microsoft takes the confidence to push such measures when alternatives to Windows are gaining strength ever day -- with professionals and consumers alike. It's not hard to imagine a world without Windows these days.

Luckily, nobody reads these licenses.... (1)

Deadguy2322 (761832) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416017)

If anybody actually reads and obeys the EULA of their OS, I'd be shocked!

Re:Luckily, nobody reads these licenses.... (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416159)

Indeed. While apparently the courts for some reason tend to think that clicking a license implies consent, I would argue that cannot ever be proven. All a click-through EULA proves is that the software recognized inputs it deemed necessary to allow the program to continue operation. From a user standpoint, this means "I did whatever I needed to do to get that button to become active (scroll down, etc.), then clicked it so I could use my computer and/or the software I want to use."

Effect on web testing (3, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416029)

Microsoft does not support an official way to run multiple versions of Internet Explorer on the same system. This is only really an issue for web developers who need to test their websites in older versions of IE. The closest they come to "blessing" any method (short of testing on different computers) is to recommend running each version of IE in a virtual machine.

Now they're restricting virtual machines, forcing people who want to use the recommended solution to get the more expensive version of the OS.

This won't have much immediate effect. For one thing, Vista will ship with the newest version of IE, so unless you're using Win2k as your host OS, your guest systems will be older versions of Windows without the restriction. For another, it's actually easier to use the unofficial solution [quirksmode.org] to run alternate versions of IE (though it's got its own drawbacks).

Something to think about, though.

You have got to be kidding! (5, Interesting)

rodgster (671476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416037)

What happens when the motherboard fails (bad caps anyone?) and you must replace it with a "new device". What if that one pops too? Must buy Vista again? I think not. I'd see them in court first.

And what is a VM? Can the same guys who swore under oath that they didn't know what a browser is now define what a is VM?

I have mod pts. But this just had to be said.

Re:You have got to be kidding! (0)

overshoot (39700) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416105)

What happens when the motherboard fails (bad caps anyone?) and you must replace it with a "new device". What if that one pops too? Must buy Vista again? I think not. I'd see them in court first.
I'm sure Microsoft Legal is quaking in their boots at the thought of your mighty legal team wearing them down and busting their budget.

Here's a clue: That EULA is a far more strategic asset to MS than the software is. They might give up on a lot of fronts if they have to, but they're going to spend anything they have to to protect the legal presumption of validity for the EULA.

Re:You have got to be kidding! (4, Insightful)

rodgster (671476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416297)

Clue -----> I didn't say I was singlehandedly trying to cause the collapse of MS via a small claims action. But I have no doubt it would cost them more in judgment + attorneys + sending a rep to appear in court (or suffer a default judgment) than the value of that copy of Vista.

I am not just blowing smoke or trolling (like you are), I HAVE actually done this successfully before against another large corporation.

To paraphrase Cory Doctorow... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416057)

Did anybody wake up this morning wanting to do less with their computer?

Microsoft Just Doesn't Get It.

OSX86 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416065)

Would be a good time for Apple to release OSX for X86 non apple hardware. I personally think this is there chance to convert a ton of users.

Re:OSX86 (1)

Trillan (597339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416081)

If it didn't make business sense before Microsoft tried to shoot themselves in the foot, why would it make sense after?

Re:OSX86 (1)

CougarCat (673816) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416137)

I've got a new Mac laptop here as part of a specific project, and MS seems to be begging sysadmins, web developers, and pretty much their only allies to jump ship and find some sort of alternative. That Mac is starting to look appealing.

I Hope... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416067)

I hope it isn't as stupid as XP is. My PC crashed and it came back up telling me my hardware had changed significantly and I only had 3 days to register/activate. When I went through the procedure it had lost all the registration information I already had from the first install 4 years ago. Lovely.

Quick question... (4, Interesting)

locokamil (850008) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416069)

So maybe I fell asleep in that lecture in Operating systems. But how the hell are they planning on enforcing the virtualization clause? I thought the point of virtualization was to make it so the operating system didn't know that it was being emulated.

Of course the fact that they decided to insert the clause is bad-- legally, Home-centric Vista users now won't be able to virtualize their machines.

Well what it might be (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416259)

Is MS has been talking about a special kind of virtualization license. Like if you buy an OS for your system, you are allowed to install it in a certain number of VMs on that system at no charge. As it stands right now you need a new OS license for each and every VM which sucks.

So what they may be doing here is Home doesn't come with that, whereas Business does.

I'll wait until the OS is shipping and I have a chance to check out their EULA before I render any judgements on how it'll play with our VM setup. There's more than a little FUD and alarmism floating around about Vista right now so I'm skeptical of most any Vista news.

Re:Quick question... (1)

amuro98 (461673) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416305)

Well, they can say whatever they want to in their EULA. Enforcing it, is another matter altogether.

At any rate, more restrictions == more reasons to avoid Vista altogether.

Seriously, other than trying to force gamers to upgrade with their lame "DX10 won't work on XP" excuse, is there ANY reason to even consider Vista?

And if Vista is going to cost so much, why not just buy a game console for the same price and less hassles? Way to go Microsoft!

ReactOS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416073)

Hmmmmm, maybe I need to help out ReactOS http://www.reactos.org/xhtml/en/index.html [reactos.org] so it becomes good enough to run my kids games, than I can purge my house of all MS products.

Re:ReactOS? (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416209)

You can expect that the day after ReactOS becomes viable, it will dissapear in a cloud of law suits.

For now, its not a threat.

My options (4, Interesting)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416085)

#1 Stay with Windows XP

#2 Use ReactOS [reactos.org] when it gets a 1.0 release.

#3 Sell my non-Linux compatible system for a Linux one and run Linux instead.

#4 That $599 Mac Mini is looking pretty good despite my previous Anti-Apple rants of the past decade. This Vista Fascism may be enough to get me to switch.

#5 Buy Vista Ultimate, because all of the games and business applications and other stuff I need/want to use only run with Vista, and I cannot work with limitations.

Sadly, I think most people will opt for #5, and that is what Microsoft is counting on. That is why Microsoft cripples the uses for the lower end Vistas to force people into buying the higher end Vistas.

Anyone remember the Commodore Amiga and Atari ST/TT/Mega systems? If only they decided to port AmigaDOS/AmigaOS and TOS/GEM to the Intel platform before Windows became really really popular in the 1990's. That way there would be no OS Fascism and Microsoft would have had a good run for their money.

Licensing terms for Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416091)

... regarding my penis:

Microsoft may suck my dick (a) long, and (b) hard.

So, I can see how there's enough of a gray area with the whole "license transfer" thing where they can feel that they can impose restrictions - it's still bullshit, but it's the general direction where the industry is going.

But how on earth can they expect to dictate what hardware, virtual or otherwise, I am allowed to install their OS on?

5 Network Devices at a time (3, Informative)

PPGMD (679725) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416115)

That's 5 simultaneous network devices. Most installs of Windows 2003 have that same restriction until you add more CALs. Since the home edition is not a network server you can't add more CALs.

Jeez it's nothing new either XP has the same restriction if I remember correctly.

That does it (5, Insightful)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416117)

I mean, what is Vista about these days? First, they gutted out the Monad shell and WinFS, two features that would have possibly made me wait for Vista and get a PC instead of switching to a Mac. Secondly, they add new DRM restrictions that weren't present on Windows XP. Now, you can't even run the cheaper versions of Vista in a virtual machine due to licensing issues. As a Mac user, I don't feel like installing Windows natively with Boot Camp; I'd rather use a product like Parallels so that way I can run OS X and Windows simulataneously.

I'm not trolling. I'm not anti-Windows either; I've been a Windows user up until a few months ago and liked my Windows experience. In fact, typing this in my MacBook, I miss certain Windows software, and I was looking at Vista news to see whether or not installing Vista on my computer was worthwhile. But this is my last straw with Vista. How can a company sit on their butts for 5 years, not update their operating system (other than security upgrades), and rest on their laurels with the next major version of their operating system is beyond me. Windows XP is ancient compared to OS X's and Linux's fast adoptation of new technologies, new innovative features (Expose, Spotlight or Beagle), new development tools (look at Python's and Ruby's penetration in Linux), new internet browsers (Safari, Firefox, Konqueror), etc. Five years in computing is an eternity. And after five years, all we get is a half-baked clone of OS X with more licensing restrictions, more DRM, and a higher price tag (why should I spend $399 for full-featured Windows Vista Ultimate when I can get OS X for $129 [yes, I know that $129 is subsidized by Apple, you can't run OS X on a PC legally, blah blah blah, but $129

I was looking forward to Vista until recently. Now I wish Microsoft would delay it another year so that way they can release it with all of its promised features. They also need to cut the BS restrictions with licensing as well. It looks like MS has lost me as a customer. They will continue to lose me unless they port the Windows API to OpenBSD....

Hint (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416287)

Most peopel don't care about the filesystem.
Marketing knows that, which is why it could be cut.

Some of these restrictions aren't so new. (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416125)

Take a look at the EULA for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 if you own it. You can only transfer license to someone else once. Latest version called FSX is coming out with activation (which amusingly has already been cracked before official release - already been distributed and some stores have accidentally sold it) and there are rumours that multiuser play is going to require a subscription.

What's new is that Microsoft seems to have convinced themselves of their own propaganda and think people will pay again and again endlessly for the same thing ala a subscription model, put up with restrictions that make the software useless in their personal circumstances, and that they'll still increase their profits because most people only do a handful of things and if they can do them will keep paying for them repeatedly.

I suspect Microsoft's going to have to deal with a rude awakening from their DRM dream in the next few years. I'll be very surprised if this tactic works. It's very much the same thing you're seeing with music and movie distributors wanting to live some economic fantasy instead of deal with the reality that some people are theives and most people won't buy things that are totally useless to them or worse actually a time wasting pain in the neck to use. In the mean time we're all in for a rough ride.

Re:Some of these restrictions aren't so new. (1)

derEikopf (624124) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416195)

Oh people will definitely pay it. I've found that the more CEOs spend to make sure they're stuff is "legal" or "legitimate," the better they feel. So Microsoft could probably charge them full price every month and most would happily pay it.

No thanks (1)

JWideman (1005353) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416149)

I've been burned once already by a version of WinXP that locked with the motherboard, which had fried.

Re:No thanks (2, Informative)

PPGMD (679725) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416221)

How exactly have you been burned?

I have changed out more motherboards with Windows XP then I care to count, most times Windows XP chugged along, but a few times it asked me to call up to revalidate it, it was a painless process, I just tell the lady (truthfully in my cases) that I changed out the motherboard because the old one was fried, then the lady read up the new key, and the user was up and running.

Re:No thanks (1)

bovinewasteproduct (514128) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416295)

I have changed out more motherboards with Windows XP then I care to count, most times Windows XP chugged along, but a few times it asked me to call up to revalidate it, it was a painless process, I just tell the lady (truthfully in my cases) that I changed out the motherboard because the old one was fried, then the lady read up the new key, and the user was up and running.

Well, I'm willing to bet that he had a OEM copy, locked to the BIOS...

BWP

Is this a reaction to Mac's BootCamp? (1)

sugapablo (600023) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416163)

Just wonderin' aloud....

And then.... (4, Interesting)

Konster (252488) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416177)

So, to get the same basic functionality that I currently have in XP Home, I have to spend $450 for full version of Windows Ultimate or the upgrade at $275, that's a cool $1000 for every PC that I have now that I paid $400 for XP. Forcing abusive pricing on people just so they can use Remote Desktop and rattle off ISO's I think will encourage piracy on a much larger scale than what is going on currently with XP.

I won't pirate the product, but I sure as hell won't buy it either.

Can't copy ISOs? (1)

entrylevel (559061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416191)

What are they going to do? Literally prevent you from copying ISOs? Can you just change the file extension and keep copying? Is changing file extensions prohibited by the EULA as well? Or will Microsoft finally include magic [qut.edu.au] file(1) [qut.edu.au] with Vista so they can correctly detect file types?

The only way I will be running any version of Vista is under VMware. There has to be something sandboxing this crap off for my real work, but I'm sure I'll need to test under Vista.

CrippleWare, call it what it is (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416193)

What is needed is reverse PR on all of these items that deliberatly limit function through configuration. If everything item that has deliberatly limited functionality was described as such then the people making it would get the message and the general public would be alerted to what has been done.

Windows Vista is CrippleWare, deliberatly limited in functionality by the maker through the addition or subtraction of simple elements.

Registry to the Rescue (1)

Delecron (1012817) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416201)

The greatest thing about windows is the registry, why? Cause the average user with Google access can find a hack to make windows do something its not supposed to do. I have Windows Media Center 2005 on my laptop. Not supposed to be able to authenticate to and join domains, but it does (Now). No point in wasting the breath to complain, they're not listening, if they were, this BS wouldn't be happening. Give it 2 months and people will be transforming Home into Ultimate versions with a few downloads and tweaks. Shame on the unformed who say Microsoft is trying to imitate Google......

Time to bail? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416207)

Ah yes, the good ol days of XP Pro and 2000 Pro may linger on for a while!

Who in the hell wants to re-buy a Vista license for no apparent reason other than to line (re-line?) the bank accounts of Monkey$haft?!?!

WTF.

Can't Transfer XP Pro Either (3, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416241)

I recently discovered this doing a little compliance work. I double-checked the EULA.txt on a couple of XP Pro machines, they were the same and do not mention transfer of any sort. So, we can't give away old PC's with XP to employees who may want them as a CYA. (I use Kubuntu to solve this. And they are quite happy users.)

It may be a very serious issue for groups like Freecycle (http://www.freecycle.org/) where there are many people giving away computers on a regular basis. Probably not XP right now, but soon enough. I see a big fat litigation target on their back.

Re:Can't Transfer XP Pro Either (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416327)

That would be great.

Can you imagine the PR nightmare if MS tried to sue on orginization that gave computers to poor people.

heh.

Thanks microsoft. (2, Insightful)

Unknown Poltroon (31628) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416249)

I'll be guilt free when in 7 years i finally feel the need to switch to vista and download a fully cracked and DRM free version off the file sharing site of choice. It must suck to be one of your paying customers.

A small familiar story about how civilisation died (4, Funny)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416255)

"Many years ago this was a thriving, happy planet - people,
cities shops, a normal world. Except that on the high streets of
these cities there were slightly more BSA offices than one might
have thought necessary. And slowly, insidiously, the numbers of
these BSA offices were increasing. It's a well known economic
phenomenon but tragic to see it in operation, for the more BSA
offices there were, the more arcane EULAS they had to make and the worse
and more unreadable they became. And the worse they were to read,
the more people had to agree to to keep themselves legal, and the more
the offices proliferated, until the whole economy of the place
passed what I believe is termed the EULA Event Horizon, and it
became no longer economically possible to build anything other
than BSA offices. Result - collapse, ruin and famine. Most of the
population died out. Those few who had the right kind of genetic
instability mutated into cavemen - you've seen one of them - who
cursed proprietary software, cursed the companies, and vowed that none should
use it again. Unhappy lot. Come, I must take you to the
Vortex."

Vista won't be on AMD systems then (1)

xmedar (55856) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416261)

From AMD quad-core Opteron will support FB-DIMM [reghardware.co.uk]

However, Barcelona will also incorporate hardware-controlled memory page nesting to accelerate the manipulation of memory addresses when the CPU's virtualisation technology is in operation.

Hardware virtualisation will kill Vista is it's not allowed by the EULA, I can't wait for some stock analyst to realise MSFT has just slashed it's own throat by making it verboten.

Bone head maneuver (4, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416265)

We all know what piracy really does is it devalues software (by increasing supply without increasing demand - nothing at all to do with physical stealing as they would have us believe).

So to stop piracy they're going to make their software less valuable (less functional) which kinda defeats the point of preventing the piracy. Now you'll lose sales because less people will want your software because to a lot more people it's a useless piece of shit. Yep that'll teach them pirates.

Love the new MS leadership. Quick Jim, lets press the self destruct button and lets get out of here before she implodes!

"can't copy ISOs"? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416267)


> For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives,

Am I reading that right?

So if I had an ISO file of a Linux distribution, I am prohibited from copying it to my hard drive under Vista Home Basic?

If you'd actually parse the language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416271)

you'd discover that it says you can't run the same licensed copy on the host and the VM. You can with Ultimate and Enterprise which is a more relaxed license, not restrictive (ie one license gets you a host and a VM).

You can copy .iso to your HD, it just stipulates that home users are not supposed to backup their copy of Vista with an iso, but may do so with a disc. People should actually read this before spouting off with half-assed groupthink.

only when selling numbers... (3, Insightful)

davek (18465) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416299)

Only when selling numbers are you able to dictate the exact details of how your product is used. What other marketable item exists where the seller has the full force of law behind it they say "this product can only be used for bla bla bla...". If I want to buy a sofa and use it as a bed, I can do that. If I complain to the sofa dealer about my back hurting, they won't listen to me, because they said it was for sitting, not sleeping. However, if my dealer is Microsoft, they call the FBI and put me in jail for violation of contract.

Open source is the only software. When all you pay for is arranged numbers, you forfit all your rights of ownership to the dealer. At least, that's how it works these days...

-dave

Although you purchased it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416301)

you don't really own it!

Isn't that exactly what Microsoft is saying?

Only one solution; don't! Just say NO to Microsoft!

And, yeah, I expect lotsa comments about "yeah, dude, but I gotta run XYZ". You cannot free slaves; they must free themselves.

Another reason to try Linux (1)

electrogeek_dot_com (1000932) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416319)

Sounds to me like Microsoft is doing everything in their power to get people to stop buying their O.S. This is just another reason why I won't upgrade to Vista. In fact I am investigating running Ubuntu Linux. Now if I can only figure how to run all my Microsoft apps on it!?

raises an interesting question.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416345)

What's the point? Oh, btw, does anybody know if allofmp3 is offline or something. Seems as if the server is down or something. Anybody heard anything?

LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416355)

You Windows fanboys. Did you really think they cared about you? Really? I don't care how deficient you say open source products are; they are a far better situation to be in than Windows shops are going to find themselves in a few months from now. Welcome to EULA Hell brudda.

Or, you can just steal Windows, like so many of you fanboys do anyway. Hahahahahahaha.

Cheat Code (1)

batbertus (1011187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416365)

Press PageDown, PageDown, PageDown, then F8

Uping the Microsoft tax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16416375)

They seem determined to wring even more money out of users and make the OS less attractive. This confirms one thing, I won't be updating to Vista.

What this about no ISOs, does it mean they're going have software to actively prevent users from getting ISOs on their machine? So if you want to download Linux in Vista Home Basic you're out of luck?

If I were Steve Jobs (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#16416383)

I would be courting game developers, big time.

Free tools, lots of give aways, maybe buy a game company.

Gaming is the only reason to go with Vista anymore.

I do know that Apple doaes have most of the major titles, but there release is late.

I would also have advertisments that are about gaming on a Mac.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?