As you've probably already surmised, downloads of Windows Vista RC2 for the Customer Preview Program (CPP) have now closed and the links are no longer active. We were bowled over by your response to RC2 -- in fact, we hit our download target (200K+) within 72 hours of propping the files! This is an incredible response.
Special thanks go out to everyone who participated in the CPP by downloading and installing this new build, and please keep the feedback coming -- it makes a huge difference.
If you want another take on how your feedback helps and how the team tracks it, check out this story in the tech section of the New York Times. (The story also has a good photo of the Life Cycle team -- that’s Sven Hallauer, Director of the Life Cycle team, in the black t-shirt, second from the left. For more from Sven on the process of getting builds out to the public and what RC2 is all about, check out this podcast).
The amount of information coming out of the Windows Team between now and business availability in November is going to be daunting, but we’re really excited about Windows Vista and we know you are, too, so we’ll do our best to give you as much detail as soon and as often as we can.
On that note, today MS.com published the retail license terms for Windows Vista; you can find them here. Two notable changes between Windows Vista license terms and those for Windows XP are: 1) failure of a validation check results in the loss of access to specific features (this is the SPP news you’ve likely been reading about this past week); and 2) an increase in our warranty period from 90 days to 1 year, which brings Windows in line with most other Microsoft products.
heyyy this thread is so useful,its really great.
Microsoft needs to allow de-activation of Vista, Adobe can do it so why not Microsoft?
I work in the MS Channel and we get so many licenses for development and testing. To carry out testing we re-install machines to a clean OS regularily, we have X dev/test licenses for one product but currenlty although we have no machines installed using the software are we can not install a copy as all our test licenses are already "in use". The problem is none of them are but they have been for short periods of time during testing afterwards, the machine is formatted and they are tested with another version of OS etc. How are we supposed to deal with this phone MS each time we re-install??
I'm not sure if you're still reading this thread or not
but here's a legitimate situation that is making me feel really upset with Vista activation. After gaining some experience installing a copy of Vista Ultimate on my desktop (that was hell initially - I had to reinstall it something like six times - but now it's rock solid six months later), I decided not to activate my laptop's copy until I got the drivers and crashing issues sorted out. This brings up another issue with WGA and activation. I shouldn't need to waste an activation to get WGA updates to troubleshoot a hardware driver problem on a clean OS install only to have the OS get messed up again and again until I figure out what's causing the problem.
I thought I had finally reached a happy stable stage with my laptop, but just two days ago, a new issue arose, and now the machine will not shut down, restart, or even log off; it will only hibernate. Argh! I now have a big project due this week, and my laptop's Vista said that I needed to activate it. So I did... just to keep it working this week and delay my troubleshooting until I can afford time to do so. The second problem occurred last night when I tried to fix the aforementioned shut down issues by using MS System Restore Tool to go back to an earlier point in time when I thought everything was working properly. When I did this, I was shocked to find out that it had also deactivated my Windows license in the process. Though it makes sense, deactivating in this manner should not be possible! I'm going to hazard a guess and say that this deactivation was not mirrored on your activation server and has counted as one of my installations on your end in Redmond. I'm going to further assume that it cannot be undone. Now I need to reactivate Vista again just so that I can make it through this week on my project, and then I'm probably going to need to use another activation (if I even can) when I inevitably have to reformat / reinstall Vista again. This is not right, and is definitely not fair to the end users. Incidentally, a friend of mine who just bought a brand-new HP laptop had the exact same problem with logging off as mine after installing the latest round of windows updates. She's really angry with Microsoft and Vista now and is telling everyone she knows. Not really that big a deal were it not for the fact that her father will inevitably hear about it and he's the CEO of a major multinational corporation with thousands of computers still on XP.
There needs to be a way Microsoft can leave some trace of activation on the computer that does not get erased with a system restore. Whatever happened to CPU serial numbers and BIOS-based GUIDs? Legitimate customers affected by these activation type problems would more than likely consent to be "tracked" this way. Lord knows, I would gladly trade this minor privacy issue for no activation problems and for not having to call Microsoft to explain why I need to activate Windows again on the same machine. In addition, there should be a way for my now deactivated system to check your activation server (as soon as it goes onto the Internet) and realize that my copy has already been activated and registered and is completely legitimate. Symantec's Norton Internet Security has this capability...surely Microsoft can figure out how to do this too. Maybe through certificates, or an installed program license management center (like Symantec's) where users could log in be positively identified in the real world via an optional premium version of Windows Live Passport with their ID backed by a credit card.
I've loved Microsoft's products since the early DOS days, and have recommended them to my customers for years, but I have to say this activation thing is really annoying and Apple is really making a good case to switch over (I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm thinking of getting a MacBook Pro and putting XP Pro on it). Please let us know if MS is doing anything about these issues.
cc: Ryan Storgaard
Hey "Nick White",thx for share
thx for share.
Whaaaaat!!!!! Im writing to add my name to the list of na-sayers. Microsoft Pleas Stop This!!! I love Microsoft, own all sorts of Microsoft products since the DOS days. What u r planning is WRONG. This will not stop Hackers and u know it. Some of the Hackers work for ur company. Make this product affordable and people will buy as many copies as they need. Many Geeks like myself may do more than a dozen installs in one year, testing, upgrading and getting rid of pesky viruses and or a corrupt system u name it. I dont want to wait and haggle on the phone with some laim Tech guy any and every time i wish do this. I dont believe Bill Gates wants it like this. Let him tell us why this has to be done.
Wow, MS has changed the licence, unbelievable!
Now i hope for the German Licence and look forward to a Vista on my Desk!
Hey scott.weidig: some of the drivers are still not quite there but will be by the time Windows Vista is available for purchase at retail. I'm afraid we cannot provide support via this blog (altho a clean installation may work better for than an upgrade), but know that we're close to nailing down the final version of the software, so you're that much closer.
I have RC2 and really am impressed with Vista. However, I am struggling as I installed it on a new tablet and the drivers for the tablet itself did not install. When checking with the Upgrade advisor, it says to connect to Windows Update to get the latest driver, however, WU believes that my PC is up to date... Help.
It is a good thing MS "is"listening because I am retired on FIXED income, and if I have to replace my HD again, or my MB after yet another lightening strike, I do not have the $$ to keep buying copies of Vista, I just can't!!!! It is insane not to be able to call MS, give a password that you set so they know WHO you are, plus some other key info, so that you can reload via a fixed code key. There is a way to solve this problem so it's a win/win situation. This is NOT rocket science...but it "is" COMMON SENSE.
WoW, they got ears.
Mr. White, I appreciate your efforts and this move which will ensure Vista succeeds.
This is the license which is acceptable.
Thanks Microsoft, it seems that that you respect your custumers opinion. If the EULA is now final i will spent a lot of money and buy my copys of Vista and office 2007.
I also hope that when your next OS will be release that we don't have a Deja Vu...
Seems the activation limit has been removed:
Here we go.....
Here you guys go Check out this link as it seems Microsoft is listening.
Check the link for the new EULA (you have to fill in your own info though :) )
Just recompiled nVidia kernel module on my brand new SuSE. Works like a charm.
Hmm is it Firefox or the link up there just broke the page?
Did anyone read last months Computer power user. Well the article about Vista increasing Mac OXS share of the market(unrelated to the EULA) seemed a little far fetched for me...but after reading about the EULA issues they seem dead on.
Anyway, as with every other gamer/builder out there I will not be buying Vista if I can not upgrade my hardware. PERIOD
Though I might buy a copy when the massive class action lawsuit kicks off (which will obviusly happen) just out of spite and to join the fight!
My very first Computer was a Vic-20. My second was the super computer if it's day the Amega 500 (No one has yet to come out with a talking computer) The thing I loved the most about the amega was it's Windows enviroment. When I got a PC (486DX2) Microsoft Win. 3.11 was the OS for me. Well my current Computersaurus is a PII 466 running Win 98SE.
I have been a loyal Microsoft customer for over 10 years but after watching a friend spend $100 to buy a new key for his XP I will
NOT be purchasing Microsoft & will recomend that others also NOT use Microsoft OS.
As I'm building several computers with old parts I'll be installing
another Linux based OS as well....
I belive the only way to kill this EULA is for no one to purchase Vista. I will be asking whomever I purchase my next computer from to just install Linspire (Lindows).
Why the hell pay you folks $400 when Linspire is just $60.00
& I can install it as many times as I want.
Oh well Microsoft like Netscape was GREAT before both got greedy.
Future Loyal Lindows User
I'm usually a wait and see what happens type guy and I don't like getting too radical about anything. As I stated earlier my view here is to use XP as long as I can and forego buying Vista even though I liked RC1 very much. I will NOT pirate Vista even if available.
That said the above post by bannedone has many valid points. I do work on many custom systems for various people some of which I built myself. I have a rather large following of users who regularly ask for buying and upgrading advice as do others I have listened to in this blog. My advice to them at this point will be to wait on any purchace of Vista. After Vista has been released for a while I'm sure the web will be full of user experiences to draw from.
I think this has to be probably one of the least smart moves in the history of computing. This not only affects users, but also component companies that rely on the upgrade market to sell their big ticket items.
Who is going to want to upgrade if they have to spend an extra $200-300 every other time they put a new MOBO or CPU in?
I mean, come on guys...Billy is rich enough by now. I own a small computer business that is also a Microsoft Partner, and trust me when I say that I'll be more then happy to cancel that partnership if this goes through. I'm not about to tell my customers that the computer I build them has room for one upgrade then its another large lump of money for another.
From a business owner's standpoint it's a trash agreement that's gonna hurt small builders in the long run. Everyone will just turn to getting a Dell every 3 years.
The fact Vista Ultimate's cost went to $400 which is almost as half for a server version, and the fact they've actually limited number of installs you can make... that makes Microsoft's politics bad and contraproductive.
As a programmer with masters degree which I've been now for almost 10 years I'm sure Vista will be cracked eventually. Starforce was.
There is a funny myth that such measures will stop or slow piracy.
Actually, it is obvious, that whoever decides about antipiracy strategies and mechanisms is quite overpayed and ignorant dude.
Even my students I teach programming laugh at this kind of prevention.
Even a dumb would realize this, as high prices and EULA will just reject people from buying it.
People will just wait a few weeks or months for it to be cracked and then use it.
Why to pay up to $400 for software that you can use twice or 10 times, never mind.
Look at a good example. Game "Galactic Civilisations 2" has been released with no protection at all.
Still - it was sold in million of copies.
Why? Because it's good. People pay for what is good and has reasonable price and EULA.
If Vista is good (it sure is) people will buy it. BUT Microsoft made it sure to cut their Vista sales as much as possible.
This EULA simply will not be accepted by many companies and individuals.
Will those just give up on Vista? Of course not.
There is and will always be a nice torrent to get new software in just a matter of hours.
Who looses? Well, Microsoft will loose a large amount of potential customers and will enhance piracy of Vista and if we look wider, make sure people don't even think about buying next Microsoft product because they will simply presume it also has such EULA.
Office 2007? After such experience with Vista, people will just download it with Vista together and will not even bother to check if it has an acceptable price.
As some analysts say, Vista is Microsoft's key product and it's success will mark Microsoft's future.
Maybe at the moment Microsoft is rich and doesn't care if they will sell 2 or 22 million copies, but soon that will just get back like boomerang.
Clearly, if the matter stays this way and Microsoft doesn't change EULA (and even remove activation which doesn't stop anything but legal customers from buying it) Microsoft, as all empires trough history, could face it's dawn very soon.
Maybe we here are insignificant to them, but our words here and this blog are read worldwide.
Who was the guy who said: "There´s no need to pay more than 20$ for an Operating System!" ?
I think the same one who said: "No one ever needs more than 1 MB RAM for working!".
Billus Gattus of Borg
So saying MS is dishonest to the customers is quite relative, maybe they hope we can laugh about that (in 30 years or so).
I've been a programmer on the MS platform for 11 years, and have defended MS during the tough times like Code Red and Nimda, when MS was getting their face kicked because of the Win 2000 patches released left and right.
MS has a great development platform and I like it, but I don't think I can continue to support a company that says the software I purchase from them is limited on the number of times I can install it. Yes, I've been ghosting my machines for years, starting with a "base" image and then a different image after my core apps are installed. But there are still many times when I need to install fresh or just don't want to use that previous image.
With the MS response on TechWeb, they've done it again like many times before...they've spoken like we're children...saying that the license changes will help the enthusiast because it's better. I don't think it gets any more dishonest than this. Right before that they say that if hardware changes enough, that you need to look at getting another license. If I totally ditch my computer and build a new one, and I have to get a new license, how is that better and helping me?
Hey charles duff: downloads for RC2 are closed, so it's RC1 or the RTM version of the product at this point. Sorry.
I have vista rc1, And I missed the downloads for rc2. Where can I download it from?
I work at a small PC sales and service shop. We are partnered with Microsoft and Sell anything from PCs for email and internet to corporate servers and XP Home to Server 2003 Enterprise. We are totally legit but have had times when customers have gone balistic or XP's licensing activation.
One case is when a person dropped off a system because the motherboard was bad. It was out of warranty and production, so we got him the closest one to his old and installed it. It asked for reactivation. We called him and told him he needed to reactivate it. He picked it up and went home. A few hours later he returned saying that reactivation was refused. Even over the phone. We inform him of XP's policy and he goes balistic refusing to purchase another copy. His last words as he stepped out the door was "No wonder piracy of their products is so rampant." Which to a degree does make sense.
We have a fairly large number of customers who are avid gamers and this draconian rights bashing EULA is going to make us deal with the onslaught of consumer wrath while MS just sits back and watches the $$$ come flowing in.
below here is personal non-business opinions
Eventually, the only victim is the legitimate consumer. While the hackers and crackers eventually circumvent the security and attract the very frustrated former legitimate user now gone pirate. Hmm. Is it me, or does it seem like MS is indirectly promoting the piracy of their own product.
This is a bit off subject, but it concerns another way MS could get into a lot of trouble with anti-trust. The kernal is protected by a patch shield which prevents any unauthorized third-party programs from modifying or linking to it unless digitally certified by MS. They say its to protect from viruses and spyware, but this same feature also blocks third-party security programs like symantec and Mcafee. Which can lead to a monumental anti-trust lawsuit.
Too bad for this kind of ending. Vista looked sooo promising...
What about using Vista inside a VM?
I teach people about using MS OSs. For that I (we) have to Install Vista a few times per course. Until now, I used XP/2000prof/2000Server/2003Server to Install inside a VM, so every student can manage a whole network on one machine. If my Company wants to educate people in using Vista, do you REALLY mean, that we have to buy new licenses constantly.
You can´t be serious. Until now, we worked with VolumeLicences, so we can Install, reinstall on the same machines whenever we want to and whenever it is neccessary. This won´t work with the new EULA and i´m sure my Company would rather cut the Microsoft Courses then to buy constantly new licenses.
If the Companies which work with your OS can´t make money because of this, they won´t use your OS. That can´t be Microsofts goal to achieve.
Hope that something will change!
Deaf... Microsoft if deaf...
"The software giant adds that it has no current plans to change the terms of the Vista license."
So, obviously, piracy is Microsoft's goal instead of anti-piracy.
:|... Hi there Solaris!
My company is a Microsoft Gold Certified Partner and we are a little bit worried about the new license, too. It's true that we make money mainly with open license contracts but this license can move away people from Vista and, at the end, move away companies.
Please change the license and give more flexibility to power users because these users can drive more selling of Vista.
Having just recently been through a six week nightmare in trying to activate XP after reformat, I am just another one who has invested many thousands of $$ in MS Developer products, just to all of a sudden realise that it has been money completely wasted, as neither I nor anyone else with half a brain will keep paying top dollars for any software, MS or not, with a EULA like Vista's.
I thought the idea was to stop pirated software, not to encourage piracy.
okay, I didn't realize you couldn't post html code, so let's try that again. The article
"Microsoft Responds To Vista License Concerns," is here:
news story, "Microsoft Responds To Vista License Concerns," posted on TechWeb, <a href= "http://www.techweb.com/article/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=193403029" >here</a>.
Clearly some allowance (or bridge) has to be made for the tech enthusiast. It is unacceptable to me that I should purchase a new Vista license every 18 months at the rate I upgrade my system. The Vista license as it seems to currently stand will drive me to Ubuntu for sure.
In their efforts to thwart piracy, it seems sad that MS sees fit to squeeze those most enthusiastic about their PCs. If the intent instead is to increase revenue from their base of legitimate users, then I suppose things become clearer...
... 10 activations. I often install my OS new without changing my hardware. Every 1-2 month i do a fresh windows install. After this, i must activate my xp copy, too - so now, if bittech is right, i can only activate Vista 10 times with or without changing the hardware, very nice!
Microsoft is here the criminal, they are cheating there customer with this EULA. There only intension is to cheat us out of our money.
And maybe pushes up the mainstream PC builder such as dell???
Maybe I rushed out with banning. I apologize if I did.
About 10 activations is still too low. 100 maybe?
That I would accept.
@bannedone - Don't be ridiculous, just wait for what MS has to say and if you read the link to the article I posted above, we might be able to re-activate 10 times.
Also, why do you think you've been banned. If you've noticed this blog has been updated and I think someone accidentily cleared the registrations as well.
@nitecrawler2: yes, using pirated software is stealing. I never do that, but what this EULA is is stealing. And not just that.
Making profit and advantage by using their monopolistic position on the market and trying to force people to EULA they like, is criminal.
Microsoft clearly knows and abuses the fact that Vista will be the only choice for large and largest PC population - gamers.
They've ensured that by denying release of DirectX 10 for XP.
Knowing that PC gaming will be possible only on Vista, they have no more obstacles to making any kind of EULA for it.
With this market position they could put in EULA this also:
"You can install Vista only once on a single computer. For each 1GB of RAM you need an extra license and you can use any Vista license for maximum of 6 months after installation. After that time period, Vista will not boot and you need a new $500 license per CPU, CPU core, and 1GB of RAM respectively."
Who could do anything about it?
Not buy it? - Who cares. You can't play.
I just can't wait to see what European courts will do to Microsoft for this.
This is so like Microsoft.
I have been banned and my account deleted.
How convenient? Maybe it hurts you if you see disgruntled people comments?
Why don't you just delete all the comments? Or it would be too obvious censorship?
Is that a prize for a customer that bought all you software yet since Windows 95 OSR1 ?
Oh, I see, yes it is. Even more, don't reply my questions. Honest answers on straight forward questions may reveal true Microsoft policy and truth behind all of it. Truth about how you prolong and delay any promised "clarification" as long as possible and long enough so Vista gets released and shipped to preorders before people get "clarification" and change their mind.
This way, when you "clarify" it, and finally admit EULA will not change, it will be too late because people will already have their Vistas sent and charged.
Kudos Marshall. My choice is to stay with XP for as long as I can.
Kritscha, We have all voiced our opposition to this EULA. Let's see what happens. Deactivation after the second hardware change is not what it says but I understand your point.
Stealing is stealing no matter how cloaked it is in rhetoric and indignation. However you justify it the facts are the same.
An idea I could live with:
Vista 300 $- when activated you get a code (code 0) for free.
If you activate again but do not change the PC configuration activation FREE.
If you activate and change the PC configuration
activation cost is 20 $ -you get act. code 1, but first
you must deactivate code 0.
You can activate 10 times for 20 $ (code 1 -
For more activation you must buy new Vista.
This is for single person single PC.
Maybe 400$ for single person two PCs ?!
kritscha, you knew what the terms are and you still bought it and willfully violates the terms. You tell me......
...what's going on here, why my posts are now "Anonymous" and why my account is broken. I needed to login again with the same nick and password.
When i buy a copy of Vista ultimate for $400,- and after the second hardware change i wil be forced by Microsoft to buy a new copy for another $400,- and i'am not willing to pay again and choose to crack my purchased version of vista, who in your eyes is here the bigger outlaw???
nitecrawler2, I agree. And I set an example for my kids. If I can't agree to the terms or I can't afford it, I don't use/buy it. That's why I am testing Ubuntu on all my machines now......
I don't like the Vista EULA any better than the rest of you but you have a choice. Accept Vista with it's EULA or maybe a rewritten one by the time it comes out or don't buy it. Protest with your wallet. Use XP for another few years but don't threaten with pirated copies of Vista. Using pirated OS's is much worse than anything Microsoft is doing. It makes you a lawbreaker and as such you deserve censure.
ghopper, you beat me to it. Clarification or Confirmation from Nick will be great, though.
If that is true, then it is bad but not disastrous to enthusiats community. I guess for the people who are doing hardware testing, they probably will not activate Vista anyway......
However, that article dealt with the practical implementation and enforcement side of things. I would still like to see how the EULA reflects that.......
What about the info posted here, i.e. we are allowed to activate ~10 times?
Hi everyone: as I've stated on another post: while I said I would have more information for you on the EULA some time ago, I regret to say that I still do not have anything new to share at this time. However, the situation is still very much under discussion, and as soon as I have more information, you will be the first to learn of it, as I will post it immediately.
Please bear with me and realize I (we) are on your side and doing everything in our power to advocate your position.
nWhite, if you are a Product Manager, don't you have some kind of influence in decision making?
nWhite, We appreciate that you are trying to voice our concerns but .....
What I am afraid is that you are talking to a machine marked as deposit only at the bank. ie. It has no ears.......
"FPP, OEM, System builder, Volumelicense wich? - if it's for the FPP than you will become some problems in the EU...."
This kind of EULA can't go to EU. No way.
It's impossible and will probably result in Vista being banned from EU market.
If not banned, EULA will be changed.
I doubt USA will enforce Microsoft EULA the air-strike way as they do with democracy.
Almost 15 days and no response?
I mean, how dumb Microsoft EULA authors have to be not to see how community reacts?!
Btw, someone said:
"MS knows very well that they have the monopole for Game OS and they will us treading again and again with such restrictions, because they can… there is no alternative for gamers."
Why not? There are pirate copies to obtain. No problem.
I don't mind using a pirated version if EULA stays like this.
I know that the EULA is valid for all Versions of Vista. I want to know wich licensemodell this EULA is for.
FPP, OEM, System builder, Volumelicense wich? - if it's for the FPP than you will become some problems in the EU....
Hi Marshall: the issue is still being discussed and while I presently have nothing new I can share with the community, if and when that changes, I will post to the blog immediately. Please know that many of us are doing all we can to ensure your voices are heard.
Hi ceejay: You'll want to check out the forums at http://forums.microsoft.com/TechNet/default.aspx?ForumGroupID=204&SiteID=17, as we cannot provide support via this blog.
Hi kritscha: the EULA you're referring to pertains to all consumer versions of Windows Vista: Home Basic, Home Premium and Ultimate.
So, I do the first steps. It seems Mr. Nick White or any other Microsoft employee wants to continuous this conversation about the EULA, or explains something. I have informed a consumer care TV show about the ongoing with the Vista EULA and Microsofts behaviour.
I also consult a lawyer and he said that this EULA will never be accepting in Switzerland, because here you will buy the usufruct when purchasing the FPP Version...
I hope this will open the eyes of the consumer here in Switzerland. I think 99.99% of all private Windows users never read more than the first sentence of the EULA, so they will never know what going on here with Microsoft and than, after they have change there hardware twice, the surprise will be great.
I currently live in Europe and the current Vista EULA license isn't going to make the cut here under some of the E.U. country consumer laws. However, since Microsoft doesn't seem to want to respond to this ongoing conversation about the EULA I ask that all of you contact your state governments and make them change the laws so that Microsoft or any other software company can not tell us with their software license that we can not upgrade our hardware or change hardware when we want. It seems Microsoft doesn't seem to understand a whole lot until they are dragged into the courtroom. If that is what they want then let us, the public, start to control their destiny for them!
I’ am broken but I think your right, and as I said… the three monkeys. Nwhite “promise” us that they explain there terms in the last week… they didn’t.
They will never explain, because there is nothing to explain and they will never change the EULA, because it is so easy to pull out the money from the stupid consumers we are in there eyes.
MS knows very well that they have the monopole for Game OS and they will us treading again and again with such restrictions, because they can… there is no alternative for gamers.
Shame on you…
It's been nearly two weeks, and I find I've grown bored with this. No word of a new EULA, and it seems the previously-mentioned "clarifications" aren't going to be coming any time soon either. Microsoft's dug in, their representatives have told several members of the press that the general interpretations of the odious parts of the EULA are correct, so there's nothing more to be done anyway.
For 50% more than the Vista Ultimate license I was looking at, I can get a Mac Mini. Sure, the license may not be much better than what Microsoft is pushing with Vista, but building Macs isn't feasable for most people.
As for my PCs, long-term I'm looking at Fedora and SUSE. However, the fallout from this EULA announcement has given me short-term concerns about the security of my XP installations. Early on, the "one transfer only" clause of Vista has been described by Microsoft as a "mere clarification" of the XP license, essentially saying that Microsoft's belief is that the XP license itself allows only one transfer, a threshold I passed a long time ago.
Microsoft attempting to unilaterally and retroactively change the terms of the XP EULA in and of itself wouldn't cause me concern were it not for Windows Product Activation and Windows Genuine Advantage. WPA and WGA give Microsoft the power to enforce such retroactive changes to the EULA, leaving the user no recourse outside of a courtroom.
Microsoft might not do it, but they seem to feel they would be justified to do so, and I don't doubt they have the desire. Where I was able to tolerate WPA and WGA insofar as they enforced the terms of the EULA as written, I find for the security of my machines and my own peace of mind that I must roll back to Windows 2000 until my transition to Linux is complete.
And I'm half-tempted to attempt to return my XP Pro FPP and License Pak for a full refund, as I do not agree to the terms of what amounts to be a new EULA (since I see nothing in the old one allowing such a retroactive change without my consent).
For those of you who are going to continue to wait with bated breath, have fun and try not to pass out.
I assembled my current system from various parts, both new and old (new motherboard, new microprocessor, new RAM), in 2003. Hopefully, upgrading it will be possible in the months to come, to something such as an Intel Dual Core.
I was impressed enough with RC2 of Vista to consider purchasing it upon the January release--but why would I want to purchase it now, if I can only transfer this software to another computer one time? I don't know how long I'll have my current system...it could be 6 months, it could be a year, it could be a year and a half...so why would I want to waste a Vista activation on my current system at this point?
I've been a Microsoft supporter for years, have defended Microsoft in newsgroups...but I can no longer justify defending Microsoft upon learning about the licensing restrictions. I'm very unhappy, and any desire to upgrade to Vista is gone now.
I can understand recouping you R&D investment, but recouping 10-13x the investment in one year is pure greed. Are they planning on replacing Vista in 2008? Vista will endure at least 5 years like XP has. Wouldn't it be wiser to spread this quantity over that period of time? Yes you make your $65B, just in 5 years. [censored smart-ass remark]
Who cares? No one will buy it under this EULA and with the activation crap. If i knew XP seizes working after # of activations and I have to call support and read and write 84 numbers I wouldn't have bought it either.
If Vista EULA doesn't ship with FREE license in the way we can install it as many times as we want, I will happily go pirate way.
Pirates are there to make the life easier, obviously.
Dear Mr. Nick White
Can you explain a simple question, please? This could help to eliminate some rumours and possible misunderstandings.
Will the EULA we are speaking from be valid for the FPP Version of Vista Ultimate or not?
I have called the support and ask about this issue and they told me after a consultation with Redmond that only the EULA for the Enterprise Version is fixed and that the massive restrictions we can read in the published EULA are for the OEM and system builder licences.
Can you confirm this statement?
They have to recoup that 5+ billion in R&D some how. Screwing their customers is the way to do it. Microsoft has become the very thing they hated. IBM.
I know a company exists to make money and provide a return for its share holders, but screwing your customers is plain wrong. It may only be 5-10 percent but that's a huge number of people. I for one hope that all those people say no to Vista. That's a lot of money not being made. Maybe 2006 is the year the second IBM starts it's fall. Crosses fingers.
Apple was very helpful to me today. I have a new non-Microsoft system being shipped. Thank you.
Regarding the death of the pc gaming industry: OK let me rephrase that:
How happy do you think harware OEMs are going to be with Microsoft when the Vista EULA diverts $50-65 BILLION USD from the OEMs to Microsoft?
How did I arrive at that number? Based on Koroush Ghazi's estimates of 50-65 million "PC Enthusiasts" worldwide and assuming they significantly upgrade their systems 3 times per year (which translates to roughly $1,000 USD for two licenses of Vista Ultimate under this EULA).
50-65M Users x $1000 = $50-65B USD
They don't care. They have lawyers which are more feared than The Borg... ^^
I think the most important point here (as someone mentioned earlier) is that the so called "small number" of enthusiasts in question are very often the people who work in the industry (I am a system builder for a small frim). There's just no way I could ,with clean conscience, recommend Vista to customers when it features this kind of draconian licencing. If Microsoft doesn't rethink this, they might find the knock on effect of alienating people such as myself hits them much harder (financially) than they expect.
Personally, I don't think it matters how many times I may or may not wish to upgrade my computer in a year. In fact, that is far from the point.
The point is, who gave Microsoft such control over how I use my computer? The shameful answer is, I did. By not voting with my wallet sooner. Then introduced Activation and I, like many others, ranted on my favourite websites about the injustive of it all. But continued on anyway. Then came WGA, DRM, choose your poison of choice, and again, foolishly, I did my customary ranting and then carried on regardless, throwing more money into the Microsoft coffers.
It seems quite clear to me that Microsoft have a big issue with the "personal" in "personal computing", and much prefer the term "Microsoft Computing". Enough is enough. This latest licensing issue is the final straw, for this user at least.
I flatly refuse to continue to allow Microsoft to dictate how I use my computer on a day to day basis, in such a draconian fashion. You (Microsoft) could change your mind on this issue completely tomorrow. It will make no difference to me. You've made your end objectives crystal clear and I'm afraid that your vision of the future of personal computing is way out of synch with mine, and, I suspect, many others like me.
what a shame after all of this time being with this project, i cannot get the rc2 to install, and to date NO help has been forth coming. Why????
nWhite. It is Friday now..... No hurries but any clarification with your team? Anything to share at all?
i'm a home/student and buisness user from croatia.
i wanted to buy vista, but after reading here i just gave up.. sorry cant accept such license that actually disrespects legal customers.
HAHAHAHA. We are talking about EULA here and you started turning about some "startup sound". I mean WTF?! Who the heck cares about startup sound? That's the least of your problems nwhite(Microsoft).
Looks like the Vista ship will be remembered in software history like Titanic was in naval.
Good job Microsoft. Windows OS EULA (r)evolution just eat it's brightest child.
I waited for a week to comment hoping that some further clarification would be given to the new licensing terms. I only own 4 copies of WinXP Pro and had looked forward to upgrading to Vista. However, I like many who have commented upgrade my system as time goes on rather than buying a box and letting it sit for years. I've been playing with Fedora Core because I was concerned about DRM restrictions. However, it seems my concern was misplaced and I should have been worried about the EULA. If this policy isn't changed I won't upgrade.
err "You really think that doing this you'll increase PIRACY ?! "
It was DECREASE PIRACY...sorry :)
Yeah Santiago, you're right...I mean...VISTA is a really well done SO, especially for the closed kernel thing...I always loved to have this thing...I'm one of the security repart managers of a big italian industry and I really can assure you that this VISTA really liked us...but I don't really think I'll buy VISTA with this new EULA...I've a desktop and a laptop and I DON'T WANT to buy 2 licences...that's all...
Microsoft, the world is full of gamers or pc-enthusiastics that change hardware every week (LOL) and you really can't force them to buy 21321312 licences...I'll repeat...the best thing to so is to let home users to use their own licence with 2-3 computers...and I can assure you'll get toons of new users...
You really think that doing this you'll increase PIRACY ?! No way guys...You'll increase PIRACY if you'll leave the EULA as it is now because ppl will NEVER ACCEPT to pay twice for the same computer...
How can I say this? Simple...I'm just reading 10 famous european FORUMS and noone of the members want buy your SO cause of this EULA...
Microsoft...think about that...but really...
to kritscha: you´re right. The new licence won´t pass the EU. Maybe that´s the point why point 15 & 16 are missing in that licence description.
But what will happen, will Vista not get shipped to Europe or will there be a diffrent Licence for the european versions?
Especially the clause about reselling will harm german law.
Simply said, such restrictions from the building company is not practicable in Germany.
1) When you buy something you can resell it whenever you like,
and 2) like wykinger said: When something you bought doesn´t work, like after second Hardwarechange, than it is broken and has to be exchanged for free by the Distributors or Developers.
Well, maybe I should however buy a Licence, it could be the cheapest support ever made by MS ;-)
Please think about it, ´cause you done a very good job on that new VistaOS. Don´t let the ship sink because of such annoying resriction-bullsh..
Another thing...you'll probably say: "Well, €450 it's for the Ultimate edition"...you're right but for the basic Home I'm sure it'll costs NOT less than €200 which is a lot!
Guys..the point is...I don't care to pay those moneys...I care of the fact that I want MY OWN WINDOWS VISTA to use with my private computers! Quite everyone have a Desktop and a Laptop...with this EULA I'm forced to buy 2 licences! At least, with XP I was able to use one computer at a time, with the same licence...but now :(
I still think that private users should be able to buy a product and use it at least on 2 computers...expecially with an ULTIMATE version! What's the problem with it?! That's what I don't get... -.-
I agree with most of the post above. I change my hardware about 2-3 times a year and even reinstall my OS (mostly more than one at a time) 5-6 times a year. If this won´t be possible with Vista, why should i buy it. That will be a castration of all pc-enthusiastics. I have joined the CPP and found that Vista is quite great, b.u.t. n.o.t. t.h.a.t. w.a.y., MS. For my private use of an OS, Vista already died. For my professional use... what do you think, how many companies are deaf,dumb and blind to depend on an OS which can´t be easily reinstalled after a hardwarechange ? And nevertheless, everyone who thinks an unhackable software can´t be reality is right.
If MS drops the prices about 60% and drop the activation circus they would probably raise their annual win and get more customers than they ever imagined!
no no no...I can talk for lots of europeans here and I can assure you, Microsoft, that this is a B I G mistake... You absolutely CAN'T force me to buy a RETAIL licenze and use it only twice!! I mean...I'm italian and here a RETAIL licenze will costs NOT less than 450€ !!!!!!!!!! I can assure you that there're TOONS of ppl that are thinking to use a cracked version, and they're right! I mean...I pay 450€ and I'm still NOT free to use it as I want?!? You should do a thing like this:
I'm a home user...perfect...do a licenze which I can install Windows on a maximum of 3 pcs!! Why this is not possible?! Antipiracy behavior?!? I can assure you that you'll see the piracy increased...
You should show more respect to the home users...gamers and modders are all home users and with this EULA you'll force them to use a cracked version...Think about that...
Jim Allchin denies RTM next Wednesday so ignore the above.. :D
Hmmm.... well allegedly RTM is out next Wednesday so time is (apparently) short....
New start-up sound? Is that part of the new Vista EULA now? which section is that in?
I’d like to state for all of you who've contributed to the comments on this post, that your reactions have not gone unnoticed, but rather, we've heard you loud and clear on this issue. I cannot promise that we'll ultimately be able to devise a solution to any or all of your concerns around the Windows Vista EULA, but I would call your attention to our response to the issue of the new start-up sound.
I fear Microsoft woul'd act here like the three monkeys" don't want to see, dont' want to hear and at last they don't want to speek to us.
There are three simple questions from "bsdmonolith" and we only want three little answers with yes or no. But more than a "promise" from Nick White to explain until this week, we have nothing...
There will be no such thing as "community death". In the gaming community case, developers will just switch to OpenGL and alternative OSes.
OpenGL is now used for many popular games: Doom series, Quake series, World of Warcraft etc.
The Enthusiast Community will be the real victims here. Paul Thurrot's assumptions in his WinSuperSite article are valid <i>for the mainstream user</i>. However, as Koroush Ghazi pointed out, they are not where the lion's share of revenue is generated. It is the Enthusiast Community that spends money on the components with the highest margins. Who buys physics coprocessors? Dual video cards? Auto overclocking motherboards? Does the soccer mom go out and buy a boutique computer or $400 aluminum chassis? No. She buys a PC on sale at Best Buy, Circuit City, or Walmart. She uses it till it cannot be repaired by her children or her "techie friend" (usually a member of the Enthusiast Community), 4-6 years on average. I personally know many folks still running Windows 98 because the PC still works and they can't bring themselves to spend money on a new one when this one is perfectly fine, except slow.
Conspiracy theorists may find that the recent acquisitions of Alienware (by Dell) and VoodooPC (by HP) are really attempts to position themselves in preparation for this nightmare EULA.
How long do you think the (soon-to-be disenfranchised) Enthusiast Community will wait to use a pirated copy? I think I could count the millisenconds on one hand.
Fix the EULA. Prevent the death of the PC Enthusiast Community.
It is SOOO simple:
nwhite just has to answer 3 simple questions...
I will put it this way as I'm enough of the marketing babble.
Q#1: Can I replace my motherboard infinite times and still use the same Vista I bought the very first time?
Q#2: Can I replace any of my hardware infinite times and still use the same Vista I bought the very first time?
Q#3: Can I buy a new PC, sell the old one, infinite times and still use the same Vista I bought the very first time?
A#1: If any answers on those questions is NEGATIVE, I will NOT BUY Vista.
For games I WILL use pirated copy and for work I WILL move to Linux+Java from Windows+.NET.
nwhite, can you please answer my simple questions?
I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Guppy06 - I hear ya and agree with the thrust of your post - my point was that we're still (AFAIK) waiting for a more definitive statement on the EULA as Nick White's post on the 16th implied that there are many incorrect assumptions about the EULA at the moment.. I know you've posted that any clarification about the EULA renders it a faulty document at source and I also agree with that, however what I'm waiting for is something from 'the horse's mouth' about what we can and can't do...
Now, how accurate Nick White's take on this is, I don't know but my point was that until we get a bit more detail/confirmation then we're speculating... I'm not a lawyer and therefore I'm not fluent in legalese..
My position is that I would like to buy Vista when it is released, if however the EULA proves to be as restrictive as we're currently fearing then I simply won't be buying it.. I'm already going over to things like Open Office because of costs and intrusive licensing considerations so maybe the OS is the next logical choice..
If Koroush Ghazi is right about the worldwide numbers of techie enthusiasts then Microsoft is going to lose a big bite of the cherry if they enforce the EULA as we currently believe it to apply... I've liked Vista (RC1) so far but given my turnover of PC innards I won't be tied-down to two changes only. (Nor do I think I'd sell my soul; I doubt it'd be worth the price of Vista Ultimate anyway!) ;)
What ever - With that EULA Microsoft will destroy completely the PC components and PC games market. Any enthusiast how has not completely lost his sin of reality like Microsoft, won’t buy Vista, because he can’t upgrade his Hardware more than one time.
I don’t understand why MS acts like this. We are the people who pushes the most money in this market and they are treading us with all they have…
Pollaxe, I think it would be a mistake to allow any of these upcoming "clarifications," whatever they may be, convince you to purchase Vista, if for no other reason than because Microsoft isn't putting their signature on it.
For example, the current favorite theory put forward by those like Thurrott is that, while the EULA doesn't *allow* multiple transfers, Microsoft won't *enforce* that clause. But for how long? Because Microsoft's "magnanimity" isn't in the terms of the EULA itself, there is nothing preventing Microsoft from changing their minds, and, because you hit F8 to the terms of the EULA *as written,* you'd be up a creek.
With any form of contract, you have to rely on your own judgment (or legal advice from your own lawyers) on whether or not to sign it. Listening to the advice of the other party about the terms of the contract, especially if they're the ones that wrote it, is just asking to be taken advantage of (does the name Faust ring any bells?). If a particular clause *might* be to your detriment, you need to assume that it *will* be, until you get something saying otherwise *in writing.* But putting these things in writing in the EULA is exactly what these forthcoming "clarifications" seem designed to avoid.
It is ultimately your credit card we're talking about, but the price tags on the retail versions of Vista are just too high for me to be willing to take the "pray they don't alter them any further" stance.
What I really want for the terms to be....
Is for MS to license Vista on a per concurrent machine basis.(physical or virtual)
For example, something like this I can accept:
1) The copy of Vista cannot be simultaneously installed on more than 1 machine concurrently, with the exception of a reasonable duration of transition period (let's say maybe 3 days to a week). And that is for the sole purpose of transferring settings and files to the new active machine.
2) Upon transfer to a new active machine, the existing copy of Vista on the previous machine must either: a) be removed completely, or b) be activated with a different valid licensed Vista key within the transition period.
Or something to that effect. In terms of resaling rights, should be something like what the XP licensing is right now.
And activation I can deal with and to make this scheme work, MS can probably do something like this:
1) Create a hardware mesh value like they currently do.
2) Upon initial activation, the computer send the mesh value to a central MS DB together with the license key (I know some people may have problem with this but just a suggestion)
3) Connect to the MS DB to update and cross check periodically and upon significant hardware change.
4) If the MS DB contains a different hardware mesh value than the old Mesh value on the machine and a new mesh value on the machine with the same key, online reactivation fails. User need to call in for reactivation. And if that fails, Vista goes into trial mode for 180days (which is what a lot of MS products trial duration is).
5) If the machine cannot connect to MS DB for more than 180 days for whatever reasons (for example no internet access), then the user will have to call in to reactivate..
But I would rather MS just do without the activation as I truely believe that activations won't stop piracy but a better supported product, easier, clearer, and more flexible licensing terms will.
An excellent riposte by Koroush Ghazi.
I would hope Microsoft would want to engage with the tech enthusiast market as well as the more general leave-well-alone brigade..
*If* the interpretation of the EULA proves to be exactly or close to what we all fear then it's far too restrictive to be a viable OS for anyone who changes components regularly...
However, we're all still speculating, so I'm waiting for clarification - as is my credit card.
Further info for those who thing Vista licensing and XP licensing is the same:
not necessarily. According to the guidelines MS gave system builders, MS clearly consider a new motherboard as a new machine and not an upgrade. Although the guidelines pertains to XP OEM Licensing, there is nothing to indicate that MS considers differently with Vista.
Let's say you upgrade next year to a i975 board for the Intel QX6700 (assuming you have a 975 board with an old VRM that does not support VRD11 now.....). MS will consider that as 1 transfer. Now, let's say you want to upgrade later in the year to Intel's X38 chipset (FSB1333), you won't be able to because that's a different motherboard. As far as MS is concerned, that will be ANOTHER TRANSFER. But of course, we enthusiasts consider that as upgrades.
"The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device,"
I believe this is what you're talking about. Part of the EULA for VISTA. To me this reads as you can change the OS from one computer to a totally different, seperate computer once. Not just upgrading the parts in your existing computer.
And then if you read THIS portion of the EULA:
'Some changes to your computer
components or the software may require you to reactivate the software. The software will
remind you to activate it until you do.'
That sez you CAN do upgrades and only MAY have to REACTIVATE. Not buy another disk, not buy a new license. Just maybe you might have to simply reactivate. That's because you're only upgrading your existing machine. Not taking the OS to a new one.
There's a big discussion going on in a lot of other forums about this same subject. And it seems to me that everyone is focusing on the wrong part of the EULA for current machine upgrades.
I can't edit my comment - can you edit it and remove the HTML and fix the link - remove %22. Maybe a note to say HTML is not supported would be good ;)
Nick, while you're at it, also have a look at this <a href="http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/microsoft_vista.html" target="_blank">Greed: Microsoft Vista to Kill Computer Book Market</a>
I hope you can get us some clarification asap. I've been on a lot of boards, blogs, etc, and people aren't happy at all. Surely MS's aim is not to "milk" people now. I hope the managers further up will realise this EULA won't do MS any good. Don't underestimate the influence a minority can have. If these changes in the EULA are as described on other tech news site, it might bring some short term success for MS, but LONG TERM it won't work and people will switch to another OS.
What this is doing, is simple. $$$$$
We all know the pirate community will find the HACK for Vista'a WPA. It is only a matter of time. Making Vista basically OEM +1, will only force the pirate community to create the hack quicker.
I, for one, change motherboards, video, hard drives very regularly. This license is totally abhorrent to me. It is another step MS is taking and shows it's true greed colors.
The XP version of the EULA is proper and fair. I have a copy of the software, I agree it should only be on one PC. The method MS uses to make sure it is only on one PC I agree with (except for false positives). But, which PC is my business. Not theirs. EVER!
Can you say UNACTIVATE! Gee, it's only been requested a zillion times!! But, there is no MS profit in unactivation.
True colors are very bright at MS. Very bright indeed.