| 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 |
 |
Revision to Windows Vista retail licensing terms | |
|
||
| Time: 17:48 EST/22:48 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Good news - The Windows division has revised the retail license terms for Windows Vista in a significant way. Namely, the terms regarding license-to-device assignment of the retail product (including Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate) now read as follows: * 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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:25:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/2/2006 11:01:20 PM |
| Thank you, Microsoft - this was the right thing to do. Technologists, enthusiasts and gamers will appreciate and reward this support. |
| #2 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/3/2006 10:30:12 AM |
| Too bad it always takes a big outcry or backlash before MS does the right thing. It would be refreshing to see them do the right thing all on their own. MS tries to grab the moon & the stars. If nobody complains, great for MS. If someone squawks, they recind a little bit and pretend they're the benevolent Microsoft. They only ever think of the common good when a) they're embarrassed into it, or b) there is some advantage for them to do so. |
| #3 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/3/2006 10:55:08 AM |
|
Bill Gates is a philanthropist - perhaps the most effective the world has seen.
Microsoft is a publicly traded company. We can't expect them to seek anything other than advantage in every situation. So, yes, they made the decision as above, I am sure, for business reasons - likely because any potential cost was less than the damage that might have resulted. Regardless, I am grateful that the decision was made and the small percentage of total users that would have been negatively impacted, will not be. What they have changed is no different than any business deal - it has to work for both sides - in this case, it wasn't for enthusiasts and Microsoft countered with actions that kept the deal alive. Give and take - that's all it is. Now we have to respond by playing by the rules and telling the truth about the model and how it now works for us, too. Give and take. |
| #4 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 11/3/2006 12:30:50 PM |
|
I'll be damned. We won one.
I wonder if their attorney's figured out they could never get away with this one, and those three big letters (FTC) were in their future. Microsoft doesn't do anything nice unless they aren't forced to do so. TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Friday, November 03, 2006 at 12:32. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 11/3/2006 12:36:43 PM |
|
Wow, and they even made it CLEAR, where anyone can understand it.
Short, simple and to the point: "15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE. a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. 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." Now, was that so hard? TL |
| #6 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 11/3/2006 12:58:47 PM |
|
What concerns me is the Windows Anytime Upgrade.
What I understand about it is that you can buy a Home Basic version of Windows and then, as the name implies, basically buy "Ultimate" via an upgrade. So once you do that, you can't transfer the Ultimate license (which in essence is piggybacked onto your normal Home Basic license you originally bought) to another machine more than one time? Thats how this license is worded... |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/3/2006 1:46:49 PM |
|
#2: Yes, I'm sure Bill Gates is the greatest human who ever lived but that's entirely irrelevant to this thread, isn't it? The Gates Foundation is not Microsoft as far as I know.
And I'm sick and tired of hearing shareholder accountability used as an excuse of corporate sociopathic behaviour. I place myself and my family first above all others, yet I somehow resist the urge to push myself to the front of any line at the expense of other people. I don't park in handicapped spaces even though I have to walk farther. I don't take things out of other people's carts at the supermarket. I don't cut people off in traffic to get somewhere faster. I guess I'm just no good at maximizing value for my family. Good thing too or some day I'd be found dead at the hands of someone I pissed off. As for your give & take argument, I doubt very much it played out the way it appears. I suspect that MS came knocking on Novell's door and told them to roll over or they'd be sued into oblivion. The analysis from tech watchers is interesting in that nobody thinks this is good for consumers or Novell (in the long term) -- it's good for Microsoft. |
| #8 By 13030 (198.22.121.110) at 11/3/2006 3:09:37 PM |
|
#7: And I'm sick and tired of hearing shareholder accountability used as an excuse of corporate sociopathic behaviour.
Agreed. While I disagree with many things MSFT does, I believe they are trying to do the right thing more often than not. They also have a future. This is part of the reason why I will never directly or indirectly own stock in companies like Exxon-Mobile. Exxon destroys the environment and fights the clean-up cost for so long in court that the money they set aside has earned enough interest to eventually pay for a half-buttocks'd clean-up. And they somehow(!?) manage to make record profits while we are paying record prices for an imaginary oil shortage. #3: Regardless, I am grateful that the decision was made and the small percentage of total users that would have been negatively impacted, will not be. Of course, you're grateful. This is a classic case of take away 10 rights and give back 9. You are appreciative for what you ended up not losing. After a decade or so you have lost all 10 rights, but don't really feel so bad because it was so gradual. I'm sure most everyone here remembers the old Borland "No nonsense license". |
| #9 By 23275 (209.149.207.40) at 11/3/2006 4:07:39 PM |
|
#7, The examples are used simply to point out the very real differences between charity and for profit business. While we can expect companies ot act lawfully and even decently, we can't expect them to act charitaby just because they are successful.
Clearly, software piracy is an issue - a big one, and one only need read here when guys giggle about downloading Vista from bit torrent, or some other location to understand this. That piracy hurts people like most of us here - as well as the manufacturers of software. Also, speaking to ownership and share/stake-holders... man, please understand that without profits people cannot hire people, retain them or reward them - I frankly am sick and tired of reading about it being all about those that benefit from the wealth and economic energy that companies produce w/o also hearing about what it takes to sustain them. There are multiple sides here and Microsoft, I assess is trying to be a better "corporate citizen" - if you will... but please consider the people signing the "FRONT SIDES" of checks once in a while. |
| #10 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 11/3/2006 5:59:08 PM |
|
IK,
I agree, mostly, but something that has to be remembered here is we are dealing with an as-court-defined Monopoly. No company has to entirely wear it's heart out on it's sleeve for it's customers. Monopolies, however, have more power to hide it even more. I still say the only reason MS did this is because they had something _bigger_ to lose. We will probably never know what that was. TL |
| #11 By 21203 (208.252.96.220) at 11/3/2006 6:16:53 PM |
|
I'll tell you what they have to lose: Now not only is there a cost for development of the product and support of the product, but they have to incur a very real cost for defending the product. Everyone and their brother has to sue Microsoft if (god forbid) they actually build a better mousetrap.
I guess I fall into the social minority when I want a better Windows. I want them to be innovative and add features to existing product. People clamor all over "well XP is fine, just fix the bugs"... well so was DOS. Technology changes. You don't just draw a line in the sand, sell your product, then never adapt. People forget this minor detail -- the one where people actually want to get things done better and in new ways. So what if Microsoft tries to defend that. They have to, and they should. Legalese means nothing to me, it's the real person at the end of the phone line who lets me, on behalf of this totally monopolistic and money grubbing company, move my XP license from one machine to the other after the 15th adaptation of hardware. For shame, Microsoft. You should be asking for my Visa card before even asking for my name, it's what everyone expects. |
| #12 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/4/2006 10:37:36 AM |
|
#10, You are likely right about what they would lose - support from people like those that post here. Not all support mind you, but enough that we'd all write about it for a long time, and I think they recognized that a) we do play by the rules, b) we buy a lot of kit from them and others and c) we influence large numbers of buyers - be they customers, family, or friends.
So, likely, they recognized that they had nothing to gain by not allowing people like us to keep our rigs running as we like to. Case in point, at home this week alone, I swapped out an air cooler for a water cooler on my Wife's PC [earlier model Pent D 8xx series that had a CPU fan that was about to drive me nuts - so a CoolerMaster AquaGate Mini was used to shut it up]. At the same time, the ATI card in it was swapped out with a new Nvidia dual DVI and two new DVI LCD's were hung off of it. In another rig, two new larger drives were added and it was totally rebuilt - and its BIOS was updated with a BETA I am testing - along with a daughter feature bridge adapter to its main dual-tuner card. That's pretty normal week for us - as far as new kit goes - at least a couple of small things going on all the time. Software wise it is even more significant... TCP control for MCE's, new community center builds, a new test deployments of Panda Admin 4.x, new DLNIe builds, etc... Where required, validations and WGA controls were supplied and accepted. IF any of this legitimate activity had even hinted that we were doing something "wrong" - or if it required that I buy yet another license - well... I would not have and I'd have used something else. It would not have been the trouble of a call, or even having to "buy" something... what would have driven me off. It would have been the unspoken, or unwritten sense that I was being accused of something, or assumed to be guilty of something. That is the bit that is just insulting to the point that it angers me and in a way that I am not good at controlling. "Honor" - it sounds silly, but it's the same motivation that also causes restraint - like walking away when angry and waiting until one can approach something productively. |
| #13 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 11/4/2006 10:40:02 AM |
| #11, Very well said, Sir! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 152 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:25:02 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
