Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
camaroguy1998

M$ Vista Licensing for Power Users!

Recommended Posts

Microsoft on Thursday finally attempted to clear up confusion over licensing of Windows Vista for power users who rebuild their PCs on a regular basis. But the answer from the software vendor did little to placate some users, who are still upset about Microsoft’s one-machine transfer policy for Vista.

According to Microsoft spokesman Mike Burk, Microsoft users who frequently change the hardware configuration of the system running Vista may fail Vista’s new Software Protection Platform software-validation feature more than once. If they do, they would be required to purchase an additional license or use Microsoft’s support services to activate Vista on a newly configured machine.

As he explained in an e-mail to the IDG News Service, Microsoft’s product-activation process for Vista compares information from the initial validation—which includes the hardware configuration of the device—against the new configuration to transfer the license to a new piece of hardware.

This process, an extension of Microsoft’s Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) program designed to fight software piracy, uses an algorithm to help assess whether the software is installed on the same device, and validation of the software will fail if it detects a "substantially different hardware configuration," he said.

At that point, customers can use the one-time reassignment of the license they get with their purchase of Vista to transfer the license to a new hardware configuration. However, if after a user does this, he or she "again exceeds the tolerance for updated components," Burk said, "the customer can either purchase an additional license or seek remediation through Microsoft’s support services."

Burk said the situation is similar to what many XP power users experience today, and that Microsoft has improved the algorithm used to determine what hardware configuration changes constitute a new device.

"The bottom line is that the hardware tolerance of product activation for Windows Vista has been improved and is more flexible than that for Windows XP," Burk said. "We believe these improvements will better accommodate the needs of our PC enthusiast customers."{Yeah Right}

Mark Smith, a Windows user who has his own business developing custom data-acquisition and analysis packages for industrial applications, disagreed with Burk’s assessment.

"I have never heard of an XP user having to use Microsoft’s remediation service to activate the software because they transferred to a new machine, did I miss something?" he wrote in an e-mail to the IDG News Service.

Smith said the licensing debacle and the new required WGA validation are reasons enough not to upgrade to Vista until "absolutely forced to."

"[Vista] has nothing that creates an overriding desire to upgrade, and with WGA there is a strong disincentive," he said. "All recent computers that I’ve purchased came with XP, and I’ve had no reason or need to have Microsoft revalidate that they are genuine. To upgrade to Vista and face possible service interruptions if Microsoft incorrectly decides that a valid copy is not genuine is ridiculous, to say the least."

After learning of Microsoft’s explanation, Don Smutny, a software developer for a large Midwestern technology company, said he was still unsure of what might happen in some instances when he switches components out of PCs that have Vista licenses.

"I would like to know if there is still a ‘timer’ involved in determining whether or not I would have to call Microsoft and explain to them that changing my motherboard is not the same thing as installing Vista on a new PC," he said. "With XP, you can make most hardware changes without needing to reactivate the OS, as long as those changes had somewhere between 30 to 45 days between them."

He said if Vista allows for the same type of staggered hardware upgrading, then he can live with the new licensing. However, "if there is no ‘timer reset’ mechanism built into the hardware check, then I think Microsoft still has some work to do."

User concerns over Vista licensing began two weeks ago when it was disclosed that Microsoft is limiting the number of machines to which users can transfer Windows Vista licenses as part of licensing changes to the Windows client OS. Consumers who buy Vista licenses separate from hardware will be able to transfer the OS license they purchase to only one machine other than the one for which they originally bought Vista.

This is Why I Wont Upgrade(I use that word loosely) to Vista until I have no choice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i give it 3 days after the official release of vista untill there is a crack floating around somewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you cast your vote on the main site?

Yes I did..... When They Change The EULA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

afirmitive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welllll.....I read today that the EULA has been changed or something to that effect. Rumor has it whats been floating around the net was untrue. That the restrictions were not actually part of the true EULA.

QUOTE.....

"You may know the official ship date of Vista (for corporate customers), and you may know what the packaging will look like, but do you know Microsoft's licensing scheme? Originally, Microsoft was going to allow only one transfer of Vista between devices—not good for people who frequently upgrade computers.

Enough people complained to convince Microsoft to relent its previously hard-line stance, since they've now changed the EULA to allow what seems like an infinite number of transfers as long as you "uninstall" the software from your previous machine. Still no "sharing" of licenses, but you can apparently use Vista on as many machines as you want."

UNQUOTE.....

Edited by camaroguy1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you provide a reference for that quote? Depending on the source, it may be swill (Paul Thurrott). Regardless, that doesn't address the virtualization issue. How about thsi quote form the EULA:

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

So long VMWare. Also, check this out:

"6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption."

This means bad news for web developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first one is where the quote came from, the second is MaximumPCs report

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/software/mi...soft_capit.html

http://www.maximumpc.com/2006/11/microsoft_capit.html

The virtualization issue may still exist, I have not read the M$ EULA direct from M$!(yet)

Edited by camaroguy1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the article is from the asshat I mentioned in my reply, Paul Thurrott. The revised EULA, as far as I can tell, has not been published yet. The only proof anyone has is the article from PT. It is from the Windows ITPro website, of which I am a member. If you search for vista,eula on the microshaft website, you get this page:

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/us...53f722371fa.pdf

Yes, I know, you get the page cannot be found error. However, I have the original version of the eula. Like I said, consider the source. I am not picking on you, just pointing it out. If you check all of PT's articles on ITPro, I suspect you won't find one negative one about MS. If you follow the thread from Maximum PC, you eventually end up here, which is where they got their info from:

http://www.windowsitpro.com/windowspaulthu...rott_94117.html

I don't know where PT gets the idea that MS made an announcement thursday about changes to the eula, all I can find is references to other sites that talk about someone had a conversation with some ms reps or ms developers. Well, until I see the change I dont believe it and also, how many of us have access to a rep from MS to question about the legality of the eual or our use of it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By no means do I feel picked on!

I'd rather know the truth than believe something thats incorrect!

But..... Here's the EULA from M$

M$ Vista EULA

This can be found through here!

MS.com Licensing agreement search

And another article that supposedly quotes M$ stating that the EULA requierments have been eased.

ComputerWorld Vista Article

As far as the use in a virtual setup, apparently that hasnt changed. :(

Edited by camaroguy1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so this is going to be what step 1/10 will look like for lisencing vista?

202607335.jpg

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO....I like that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links. I'll get back to you once I read it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×