| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Get facts, not spin, about Vista’s new license (Bott vs. Thurrott) | |
|
||
| Time: 11:10 EST/16:10 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Memo to Paul Thurrott: If you're going to write an article entitled "Windows Vista Licensing Changes: Everything you've read is wrong", it helps to get your facts right. After reading a post I wrote last week about Vista licensing, Paul spoke to a Microsoft product manager, who says there's no change in the license terms for Windows Vista, just a "clarification" of an existing restriction that already applies to Windows XP users. I've dug deeply into this issue and I'm convinced that he's being spun by his sources at Microsoft. Unlike Paul, I'll give you links to all the facts, so you can read the supporting documents and decide for yourself. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:05:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/16/2006 2:29:26 PM |
|
Good article - both guys meant well, and offered the best of what information they had.
I hope Bott is right and those of us buying boxed retail versions are going to be okay. If not, I want the same "real-world" clarification that many are asking for regarding our ability to service machines with new parts, or burn old machines down and transfer licenses to new hardware. Licensing appear to be only one side of this - WGA is my larger concern - how will it view a new hard drive, or main board upgrade opposite a fully boxed retail [FPP] Vista license? The licensing side seems to cover the theoretical, where WGA will govern, practically - will they marry up and be consistent? If not, what then - as even Paul Thurott offered in twit.tv, he still has a machine that thinks he's a "Romanian Software Pirate" [his words, not mine]. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/16/2006 5:43:51 PM |
|
lketchum--I think you may have misunderstood Bott. His point in the original article was that the retail version of Vista will only allow for ONE transfer, and he clarified in the second article that this was never the case for XP as the EULAs read. As I read it, this would not apply to a damaged machine that you replace; this is tied to the motherboard, and as long as you stick with an identical motherboard, you haven't transferred anything.
This does seem like a huge let-down for retail buyers. What's the incentive to pay extra anymore? BTW, do these guys (Bott and Thurrott) have a previous history of not liking each other? |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/16/2006 7:13:22 PM |
|
Well... dern... I thought I was beginning to get some handle on this, at least personally.
I read, Bott states that retail boxed buyers have the right to transfer the license - so long as it is first removed from any previous machine. Thurott says, no, and one never could do that more than once. Here's my real take - pseudo legit guys are using the entire issue to fill air time and blog space. I'm getting caught up in that and not adding a dang thing that is helpful, "YET." We're all getting caught up, to some degree. Some tech pundits and media personalities that are clever, and who have an agenda, are using the "clarification" to a) add to air time as above, and b) advance their personal agendas, which is largely anti-Microsoft. It's a mess, and being made worse by a few folks - regardless of intent. We are working like mad on new tools that we hope will help - an entire new Community Center where experts will step up - e.g., the Chair of the American Bar Association's Technology and the Courts, will weigh in on this issue - they are reviewing all this for us, as I type and reaching out to Microsoft for real answers. We will be providing what we learn in scenario supported ways that we hope will actually help. The same will be true for all other areas in our industry - e.g., work from the inventors of many technologies, or CEO's that will tell why they decided what they did. It will be all new material and not linked from other sources. Tech coaches will help in each area - and point to examples we use in the real-world. Our hope is to force tech pundits to raise the bar and quickly expose "truths" - especially among those we regard as pseudo experts that make a living providing what we regard as less than accurate technical help. |
| #4 By 2459 (69.22.124.202) at 10/16/2006 11:06:01 PM |
| Though I agree with Bott's interpretation, I think MS should further clarify the license or publish a FAQ to accompany it. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 10/17/2006 1:08:55 PM |
|
If this story is accurate, it's not looking good...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6126287.html If this all pans out, I can certainly now understand Microsoft's draconian approach to copy protection (including forcing corporate users to activate). Otherwise this license agreement would increase piracy by unheard of numbers. This is bad stuff folks. I see a court battle over this one. You can't just take away something someone has paid for. They _think_ they can, but I think in the long run they will be proven wrong. We're not talking about peanuts here. We're talking about several hundreds worth of product that, once paid for, is having usage rights revoked by Microsoft. It just ain't right. NOTE: I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy watching Denny Crain on TV. TL |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/17/2006 3:46:04 PM |
| lketchum--what I meant was that Bott is saying that users used to have unlimited transfer rights (providing the original installation is removed each time) according to every license he has read, but with Vista, it will now be limited to one transfer. Thurrott is saying, no, it has always been this way. The point of Bott's second article is to say, no, it has never been that way, and Thurrott is mistaken in believing the "spin" he's hearing from the Microsoft rep. Looking at the evidence Bott presents, I think he's correct. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 10/17/2006 5:54:54 PM |
|
Thank you, bluvg - that helps a great deal.
Have they defined what constitutes a new machine transfer - would a hard drive upgrade qualify? How about mainboard - one replacement, or many? Thanks! |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 10/17/2006 7:03:25 PM |
| I don't know if it has changed for Vista, but as I understand it, replacement of the motherboard would be considered by the OS as a transfer--unless it was the identical motherboard (replacement scenario). Other changes would not constitute transfers. I can't see any reason why that would change for Vista. If you were in the habit of upgrading your motherboard, I think you would need to contact Microsoft each time. Would they allow it? I haven't a clue. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 317 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:05:45 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
