If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
"Byron Forbes" > wrote in message ... > > "Scott B. Husted" > wrote in message > ... >> Garrot wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp >>> >>> >>> Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail >>> XP >>> is tied to a single device. Why the **** would we buy retail copies of >>> XP >>> if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just >>> backtracking >>> and trying to confuse the issue. >> >> I just replaced a Hard Drive (not my primary, a second drive) and added a >> gigabit NIC card and I had to re-activate Windows. Had no problem doing >> so, but I did have to do it. It's the first time I've had to do it, but >> I guess I'm one of the stupid people who actually owns and paid for 3 >> Retail copies of Win XP Pro. >> >> -- >> Scott B. Husted >> http://www.Husted.cc > > I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. As you say, it > was simple but also VERY petty on MS's part I thought. > Hate it when you think of "that other thing" just after you hit "send"! How's this for petty - I updated the firmware of my DVD drive and had to re-activate just a few weeks ago! It will be interesting to see how far MS push the envelope. Are the poor ****ers starving over there are they? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
jason moyer wrote:
> Mitch_A wrote: > >> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****. > > I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point > seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment > of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or > product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't > effect me so why do I care". I don't think this article is relevant to most of us, but as you say to the majority of Windows users who wouldn't know a graphics card from a processor let alone open the machine up. The article is correct for most users and any general hysteria about Vista licensing is unfounded, although for those with the nouse to update their hardware on a regular basis it may be a different story... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
Garrot wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > >> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp > > Oh yea, thanks for that url. Lots of people are going to find this > "interesting" too. NP, I think only time will tell. From what I got out of the article, the EULA only clarifies but doesn't change what we can do, and I emphasise "can do". According to this article we are under the same rules with XP, but I am using the same copy of XP on my 3rd build. It only exists on one computer at this moment but I have installed it on each major upgrade (motherboard, cpu, hard drive) without a problem. Yes I had to activate but I was never prevented from installing it (I'm not saying that XP has the ability to prevent someone from installing it multiple times as some are saying Vista will do)). Now here is something funny. I installed alcohol 120% and had to call Microsoft and do some 'splainin. The woman on the other end said she has never heard of that program triggering a re-activation. Mike |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
That's true that XP keeps track of changes but after 120 days of no changes,
you start fresh with a new baseline based on the current hardware. Also if you change an item in the same category e.g. video card, you can change it as many times as you want and you won't be any more likely to have to activate. The likely reason that Byron and Scott had to re-activate when they changed their NIC is that the NIC counts for three "votes". See WPA info he http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm It'll be interesting if Vista will work the same way. The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC owners upgrade their own computers. That may be true but how many upgrade their friends and relatives computers? I know that I've upgraded quite a few over the years. Also, how many people take their machines in to a computer store and have it upgraded. Bill "Andrew MacPherson" > wrote in message ddress_disguised... > (Byron Forbes) wrote: > >> I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. > > That's because XP keeps track of minor changes. When you accumulate > enough small changes they add up to a big change and trigger activation. > > Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have > which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must > have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades > XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are > only issues to people who are careless. > > I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months. > > Andrew McP > |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still
call support and transfer the license. MS simply clarified the EULA with Vista (and added virtualization). Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bull**** spreading punk like the OP. Quote: "The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single copy of XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention. "This clause was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example." The problem, of course, was that some people felt they could install a single copy of Windows as many times as they wanted. "It's always been per copy, per device," Boettcher said. And if you do actually have a catastrophic PC failure, you'll be able to transfer your license just as before. The process, as it turns out, hasn't changed at all. "The escalation process is exactly the same in Vista," Boettcher told me. "You have to call support. It just wasn't clear in Windows XP. But we wanted to do the right thing by the customer. So we let them move a license, while being clear about what the license is intended for. In the past haven't been super clear up front." When Windows examines changes to the system, the two most heavily weighed components are the PC's motherboard and hard drive, in that order. If you change both of these components at one time, Windows will almost certainly assume it's running in a new computer and cause you to reactivate. "It's that old question, 'When does a boat become a new boat?," Boettcher asked, rhetorically. "When every plank has been replaced, is it a new boat?" In the case of a Windows XP and Vista-based PC, there is an algorithm that examines hardware changes and, based on an internal score, determines whether a reactivation is required." Pretty clear to me but then again it's not 4:20 here in Cali yet... Mitch "Tony Rickard" > wrote in message .uk... > jason moyer wrote: >> Mitch_A wrote: >> >>> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bull****. >> >> I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point >> seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment >> of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or >> product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't >> effect me so why do I care". > > I don't think this article is relevant to most of us, but as you say to > the majority of Windows users who wouldn't know a graphics card from a > processor let alone open the machine up. > > The article is correct for most users and any general hysteria about Vista > licensing is unfounded, although for those with the nouse to update their > hardware on a regular basis it may be a different story... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
On 14 Oct 2006 11:09:09 -0700, jason moyer wrote:
> I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point > seems to be that the author doesn't give a **** about the small segment > of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or > product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't > effect me so why do I care". Email him and tell him what you think of his article, I did. The article is BS anyway. Here is what the XP Retail EULA says. Where does it say XP is tied to the first PC it is installed to? It clearly doesn't. 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:
> As the article says it's no different than XP. Yes it is. 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:
Personally I trust the author > P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bull**** spreading punk like the > OP. Thurott is a shill you dumb ****. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Vista license agreement is a joke
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:34:51 -0500, mls067 wrote:
> > NP, I think only time will tell. From what I got out of the article, the > EULA only clarifies but doesn't change what we can do, and I emphasise > "can do". But the XP retail EULA is clearly not worded as that article is suggesting. It is not a clarification IMO because the XP EULA clearly states I can transfer my copy of XP retail to another PC. It says nothing about how many times. Vista EULA says I can only do that once. How can they clarify an EULA that doesn't even suggest say what they are saying? >According to this article we are under the same rules with > XP, but I am using the same copy of XP on my 3rd build. It only exists > on one computer at this moment but I have installed it on each major > upgrade (motherboard, cpu, hard drive) without a problem. Yes I had to > activate but I was never prevented from installing it (I'm not saying > that XP has the ability to prevent someone from installing it multiple > times as some are saying Vista will do)). Now here is something funny. I > installed alcohol 120% and had to call Microsoft and do some 'splainin. > The woman on the other end said she has never heard of that program > triggering a re-activation. I had Winamp install trigger activation on me once. It was either Winamp or that damned Starforce ****e. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kaldis, OCD and You! <= what every sane person should know (was: Suspended license from another state) | proffsl | Driving | 14 | September 11th 06 04:30 PM |
Suspended license from another state | Terry | Driving | 6 | September 8th 06 02:35 AM |
Idiot -- Suspended license from another state | => Vox Populi© | Driving | 2 | September 7th 06 05:19 PM |
Texas driver's license to jump up to a whopping $100 or more | [email protected] | Driving | 48 | August 5th 06 11:29 PM |
Tri-National Driver Database (Driver License Agreement) | [email protected] | Driving | 0 | December 26th 05 08:33 PM |