New licensing terms for Windows Vista are a shocker.

[networkman]

Originally posted by: Dark Cupcake
What always gets me is, well i have two computers which I and I only use so why should i buy two copies of windows for them, when i'm the only one who uses them.

Because that's how the licensing for Windows works.

If you happen to have Adobe Photoshop, you can actually install that on both your PC and your notebook so long as you're the only one using those machines. That question just came up at my work, so we checked with Adobe and they confirmed the license was per user and not per device, thus saving us some money.

 

[mechBgon]

I don't like having the software's license lifespan limited to the lifespan of two PC components. That doesn't seem fair to the consumer, considering that hardware can and does fail through no fault of the user.

But I guess this is a good excuse to keep up my 15k SCSI habit Heck, I can leave the drive in the system and simply have it spun down. Should last a looooong time

 

[harpy82]

we are all humans, why is it that people working in MS are so tough to understand?
lifespan of 2 hardware upgrades are a joke, I hope someone in MS who has a brain put a stop to this before it is official.

 

[h0nke]

I cant say I am surprised, it is Micro$oft, did you honestly expect something other than greed? Linux my friend. Its a rough switch at first, you may even be tempted to switch back. But after you become comfortable with the kernel and filesystem you will wonder why you didnt do it a long time ago. Especially if you are a PC nut (like most on this forum I would assume).

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger

Originally posted by: nweaver
since that 80% number was thrown out...

I think it's probably MORE THEN 80% that are OEM machines, which come with a licensed copy of windows.

No way are 80% of XP installs pirated. Windows 98 and 2000 are a totally different story.

But the vast majority of XP PCs that I run into have "legal" licenses. Based on the homes and offices that I've been into, I'd put the piracy rate of XP at something like 5%.

Almost all pirated XP installs I've seen are with "stolen" Volume License Keys. And I've seen one or two systems with some other jury-rigged piracy arrangement.

See? I don't understand why the "good" 95% should have to bear the punishment for the "bad" 5%.

Here is a general product feedback line for Microsoft, send them some hate mail.

 

[harpy82]

Originally posted by: h0nke
I cant say I am surprised, it is Micro$oft, did you honestly expect something other than greed? Linux my friend. Its a rough switch at first, you may even be tempted to switch back. But after you become comfortable with the kernel and filesystem you will wonder why you didnt do it a long time ago. Especially if you are a PC nut (like most on this forum I would assume).

But probably Crysis and Alan Awake won't be running in Ubuntu...................

 

[Brazen]

New licensing terms for Windows Vista are a shocker.

Microsoft's giving you two in the pink and one in the stink? :disgust:

 

[Rilex]

The only thing that affects users is going to be the VM limitation. Although they'll never realise it because Microsoft is being pre-emptive here.

The only "limitation" is that you can't have Home as a host to the same license in the guest (e.g. you buy a single copy of Home, you can't put the same copy in VM while that Home license is a host). You can buy two licenses, use one on the physical hardware, and one in VM.

You can, however, use the Vista business/Ultimate editions to as a host and the same license as a guest while running under the Vista host. You can also use a Home license as a guest in Vista (but you'd have to buy that license).

There is nothing stopping you from using a Home edition within a VM on OS X, Linux, or any other version of Windows.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Rilex

The only thing that affects users is going to be the VM limitation. Although they'll never realise it because Microsoft is being pre-emptive here.

The only "limitation" is that you can't have Home as a host to the same license in the guest (e.g. you buy a single copy of Home, you can't put the same copy in VM while that Home license is a host). You can buy two licenses, use one on the physical hardware, and one in VM.

Were you get that?

Because all I get is:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

And that's it. It doesn't mention anywere about buying a license for home specificly to be used on a VM.

Now you also are able to transfer the license once, right?
So if I wipe out home edition and then install that same home edition 'license' in a VM in another operating system on the same computer then is that ok? Does the software emulation count as a "licensed device"?

Then on top of that if I take snapshots of the system then does that require another license?

Also if I host the file system in a loopback file and I make a copy of that file is that count as 2 licensed devices now?

What if I leave the install alone and then install a seperate operating system then simply modify the existing installation to run in a VM. Does that count?

You can, however, use the Vista business/Ultimate editions to as a host and the same license as a guest while running under the Vista host. You can also use a Home license as a guest in Vista (but you'd have to buy that license).

There is nothing stopping you from using a Home edition within a VM on OS X, Linux, or any other version of Windows.

All I see is that your not allowed to use it in a VM. I would be interested in seeing otherwise.

 

[Rilex]

Let's read this very carefully...

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device (i.e. the HOST) within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system (i.e. the GUEST).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Rilex
Let's read this very carefully...

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device (i.e. the HOST) within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system (i.e. the GUEST).

Yes that is your interpretation. You didn't actually reply to my questions though. What you think it says may not be what Microsoft intended.

First off 'Licensed Device' is not 'host'. That's just your incorrect assumption. Microsoft makes very clearly that a 'licensed device' is the HARDWARE the license is tied to. It does not include any software or anything else.

INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign
that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the ?licensed device.? A
hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may
use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the
Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any
other device.

What your saying is that your allowed to install home in a VM, right? So that virtual machine must become the 'licensed device', right? So then it is no longer tied to the actual hardware so then I can move that virtualized system from one machine to another and that is allowed?

Using hypervisors I can keep Home in a protected ring state, a VM, and transfer stuff willy-nilly from one machine to another. I don't even have to stop the thing from running or pause it or reboot it or anything. So your saying that I am allowed to do with home? (I don't think so)

The way I see it the EULA doesn't explicitely deny your ability to run it in a VM, but effectively removes any and all ability to gain any benifits from it or do it any meaningfull way.

If you have somewere were Microsoft clarifies then I would be happy to see this.

 

[Pythias]

I do worry about the puppies though.

And the starving lesbian pygmies in Namibia whom Bill takes milk money from.

 

[stash]

The only "limitation" is that you can't have Home as a host to the same license in the guest (e.g. you buy a single copy of Home, you can't put the same copy in VM while that Home license is a host). You can buy two licenses, use one on the physical hardware, and one in VM.

That's what I thought originally, but that is not the case. You can't run Home in a VM, period. There won't be any checks or anything that will prevent you from doing so, but it is a violation of the license and not supported.

 

[Xellos2099]

Is microsoft really ready to face the wrath of all those system builder opr home user who are force to buy a new vista every 1-2 years just because parts failure? Correct me if I am wrong, but I notice a trend that soem company begining to use soem inferior part which cause the device to begin failure after 1 year of use, Antec is a good example. Hard drive is prone to failure as well if you use maxtor, so is cdrw, dvd-rw drve( heaven forbid if you use blue-ray drive). So according to the tou, if we repalce more than 2 part of the computer and vista will no logner be valid and be force to get a brand new copy? I don't think too many customer will like it.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Is microsoft really ready to face the wrath of all those system builder opr home user who are force to buy a new vista every 1-2 years just because parts failure? Correct me if I am wrong, but I notice a trend that soem company begining to use soem inferior part which cause the device to begin failure after 1 year of use, Antec is a good example. Hard drive is prone to failure as well if you use maxtor, so is cdrw, dvd-rw drve( heaven forbid if you use blue-ray drive). So according to the tou, if we repalce more than 2 part of the computer and vista will no logner be valid and be force to get a brand new copy? I don't think too many customer will like it.

It's actually two "systems," which in this case seems to mean two "major" component changes. In other words, you can change the motherboard and hard drive once after installing a retail license of Vista on a system, and if you need to change them again, you have to buy a new license. This is totally unacceptable, and while I'd love to hear some official statements on it, I'm not surprised that those who would be in a position to defend any "reasons" behind this change are keeping quiet about it, even though this would negatively affect many more people than the lack of [legal] ability to run the Home editions in a VM would.

 

[Xellos2099]

I don't think there is any logical reason behind it beside to made bill gate richer than he already is. Whoever thought up is going to get grill if they went public with this information, that why they are keeping quiet about this.

 

[stash]

This is totally unacceptable, and while I'd love to hear some official statements on it, I'm not surprised that those who would be in a position to defend any "reasons" behind this change are keeping quiet about it, even though this would negatively affect many more people than the lack of [legal] ability to run the Home editions in a VM would.

There already is an official statement. The EULA is the official statement.

 

[Xellos2099]

not if the public refuse it specially every computer made by dell, hp will come with some form of vista beginning next year.

 

[stash]

The EULA that everyone is quoting is the retail EULA, which is completely separate from the OEM EULA for computers from companies like Dell. You could never move an OEM license to any other machine, ever, in the past, so there are no changes there.

 

[Xellos2099]

Well the problem is the 2 time transfer include like a motherboard failure. We all say the part won;t fail on me but it does. And we all know how hdd are, failure rate is pretty bad for old maxtor and even some western digitial. Even seagate are prone to failure. If the Eula is mean as we believe it to be, some people who got bad luck on part will be buying a new vista every year, how does that sound to you? Also, how is a average person going to read a eula before opening the package?

 

[stash]

Motherboard failure is explicitly called out in the OEM EULA IIRC. The motherboard is essentially considered the computer, so if you replace the motherboard you are violating the OEM EULA. However, if the motherboard fails, you are allowed to replace it.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: stash

This is totally unacceptable, and while I'd love to hear some official statements on it, I'm not surprised that those who would be in a position to defend any "reasons" behind this change are keeping quiet about it, even though this would negatively affect many more people than the lack of [legal] ability to run the Home editions in a VM would.

There already is an official statement. The EULA is the official statement.

Look, if you want to be an *** about it, that's fine, but you're not helping anything with useless crap like that. Instead of being obtuse, you could clarify whether this means that I would have to buy a new retail copy of Vista after two motherboard changes or not. Since you haven't, I am left to assume that the answer wouldn't reflect very pleasantly upon your company, so you chose to give a useless and condescending answer instead.

 

[stash]

Look, if you want to be an *** about it, that's fine, but you're not helping anything with useless crap like that. Instead of being obtuse, you could clarify whether this means that I would have to buy a new retail copy of Vista after two motherboard changes or not. Since you haven't, I am left to assume that the answer wouldn't reflect very pleasantly upon your company, so you chose to give a useless and condescending answer instead.

I"m not trying to be an ass or obtuse or condescending or any of that, but thanks for the compliments! My answer is a valid answer.

I'm not qualified to 'interpret' EULAs and I would wager that there aren't many (if any) people here that are. The fact is, the EULA is THE authoritative source for the terms of the license. Asking people on the web who are not lawyers and therefore not qualified to speak to the workings of software contracts only leads to rumor and speculation, as has been seen in great quantities over the past couple days.

You are unlikely to hear anyone from Microsoft say anything different than I am. If you have a question about the EULA, it's on the website. If something is not clear to you, you should talk to someone who is an expert in this area, namely a lawyer.

 

[drag]

Exactly.

We have 2 things to go off here:
The EULA and any statements or clarifications (such as a licensing FAQ) on Microsoft's website.

I know that Stash is a employee of Microsoft and although he is not a lawyer and is not qualified to make statements on Microsoft's behave and is only here as his own personal self and does not represent Microsoft in any way.. he is much more able to come into contact with people that _do_ do this sort of thing for a living inside Microsoft.

I am willing to beleive anything he says about anything regarding Microsoft, but I would not put any stake into it. If I was running a business or wanted to resell computers I would definately get a lawyer if I had any real questions.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: drag
We have 2 things to go off here:
The EULA and any statements or clarifications (such as a licensing FAQ) on Microsoft's website.

As stash notes, Microsoft's position on licensing is that it's TOTALLY based on the content of the EULA.

As a consequence, anything that's in a Microsoft FAQ or anything that you are told by a Microsoft employee is meaningless, legally. The only "true" interpretation of the EULA is what is actually stated in the EULA and how that's interpreted in the courts of your own country.

In the U.S., it's similar to U.S. Tax Code and the IRS. The IRS has web sites and employees who will give you the IRS's interpretation of the Tax Code, but will tell you that if you follow the IRS' advice and it's wrong, it's your problem.