Select a language to translate this page!
Powered by Microsoft® Translator
I’m very pleased to let you know you this morning (or afternoon, or evening, depending on where you are when you read this) that 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 can find the newly-revised retail license terms here, as I’m sure you’ll want to read them for yourself.
Our intention behind the original terms was genuinely geared toward combating piracy; however, it’s become clear to us that those original terms were perceived as adversely affecting an important group of customers: PC and hardware enthusiasts. You who comprise the enthusiast market are vital to us for several reasons, not least of all because of the support you’ve provided us throughout the development of Windows Vista. We respect the time and expense you go to in customizing, building and rebuilding your hardware and we heard you that the previous terms were seen as an impediment to that -- it’s for that reason we’ve made this change. I hope that this change provides the flexibility you need, and gives you more reason to be excited about the upcoming retail release of our new operating system.
Greta news indeed Mike, thanks a lot for the update.
This is great news! Thanks for sharing this Nick. It is nice to know that Microsoft has been listening, and hopefully this will ease the concerns of many in the enthusiast community who were concerned how this licensing might impede their upgrades.
Thank you for doing the right thing.
Absolutely great news! Yep, I was one that would be greatly effected by this. With the large number of hardware changes and formats I go through, every year.
Great News! Now I don't have to wait until I build a new system to install Vista.
Thank you Microsoft! I know I for one was not enjoying switching to Linux as the original Vista EULA was forcing me to do. Its good to be able to once again be back in the Microsoft Camp.
Thank you MS, and Nick White in particular.
I was pretty sure y'all would come to your senses on this (and have said so). And now you have. Excellent, excellent news.
Great news, everyone is happy with this change :-)
The Hallelujah Chorus is being sung a little early this year! Thank you! :)
This is good news. Great news in fact. This was my number one issue with Vista and would have kept me from buying an upgrade license.
I'm still a bit concerned about two things.
1) The virtualization clause(s)
2) Prohibition of DRM'd content inside a VM.
These are dramatic changes from XP's licensing. I think MS owes the community an explanation here.
#1 is going to cost MS a good number of Mac/Linux users to skip Vista. The restriction seems unneccesary as well. Anyone competent enough to run a VM'd environment has good reasons to want to do it. Someone willing to bootleg the OS doesn't give a hoot about the EULA anyway.
#2 just does not belong in the license for a general purpose OS. It feels "out of place" because it is!
My 2 Cents...
Great! As Microsoft partner I'm happy. Now we can capitalize on enthusiastic power users to push Vista into companies!
Great news! Now do us Lexmark owners a favor and cook up a driver for our Lexmark 3in1s that will work in Vista.
Brilliant, brilliant move!
Then again, I didn't expect anything less.
Thank you very much for taking the time to inform us of this change. I was quite worried about and thinking of giving up Vista. I will now most certainly get it.
And you are right Nick,I AM jealous. Any openings?
This is the sort of thing Microsoft needed to do to win back the hearts of the Enthusiast Community. Well played.
(For the record, I felt that the previous version of the EULA was written with the phrase "stab the Enthusiast Community in the heart" instead of "win back the hearts of the Enthusiast Community", which is very easy for lawyers to confuse.) ;)
Good, I'm happy I can actually do my yearly hardware upgrades without having to fork out an additional $300-$400 just to keep my OS license current.
I'm sure a heck not thanking you though. You should have never tried to pull a stunt like this in the first place. You've left us with a very bitter taste in our mouthes.
Okay I have an idea for really pumping up the good buzz about Vista. Randomly select Vista RC1 and other beta testers and give away a free copy of Vista! Not all beta testers, but just some - maybe give away ten copies per day in the first month that Vista debuts - either in November or in January. What do you think? Hey, I can dream can't I?
BTW, I'm currently running Vista RC1 on my home built PIV, my Mac Book Pro, and on my work PC a Dell GX620. With the exception of Vista running a tad too hot on the MacBook Pro, it seems to handle everything I have tried so far. All systems have 1 gig of RAM (the MacBook has two gig), and high end video cards. Love that Aero!
Better; much, much better.
As PlanetAMD64_Guru so accurately said, this is *precisely* what Microsoft needs to do to re-engage with the likes of us.
It's good to know you've listened to what we've said and though I also understand where mesostinky is coming from I will say well done. Perhaps in future releases you can consider EULA ramifications along with the actual technical/product testing during beta phases. People like us are probably a better audience to bounce ideas off than the lawyers.
Anyway, once it's released I can feel an order for Vista coming on, now I've just got to decide which version. :)
Let's recap the whole situation for a moment.
The XP (Home) EULA says:
"You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you
must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer."
The previous Vista EULA said:
"reassign the [Windows Vista] license to another device one time." 
In , Paul Thurrott argued that MS was not taking away any transfer rights/privileges in Vista. This is because those transfer privileges were already taken away in XP. Yes, apparently the XP EULA meant that you can only transfer *once*. He admits it was "vaguely worded". He backs all this up with an interview with "Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher". Shanen said that the clause was only intended for hardware failures. He said that "it's always been per device". The rest of that section explains that almost nobody would reach this restriction, therefore it is unimportant.
Throughout he refers to some "online pundit" who is misguided, throwing myths around, etc. This is Ed Bott on ZDNet. He replied to this article  who says he's read well in the area and that "I've never heard this claim made". He links to five places on the MS international websites, all of which talk about the transfer. None of them suggest any more than the original XP EULA that the transfer can only happen once. i.e. They don't mention any such restriction at all.
Paul Thurrott even posted somebody else's reply  to his article, but it hardly addressed the revisionism of his first article, only talking about how ridiculous this enthusiast thinks the restriction is.
On the Vista Team Blog, the new license prompted lots of feedback, almost all negative and much of it angry. The team only said that they would "help us all make informed decisions" and "clarify" (paraphrases).
Now we get a new license term replacing the one which caused the controversy:
"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."
Compare this to the XP version:
"You may move the software to a different device. After the transfer, you must completely remove the software from the former device." (I have replaced "Workstation Computer" with "device" and "Product" with "software").
Notice the similarity? However, according to Paul Thurrott and Shanen Boettcher, the second version means you can only transfer *once*, whereas the first version (according to this blog) means you can transfer unlimited times. Can somebody explain where the difference is?
So r3m0t stated we get new license terms:
The way I read the new terms they seem more favourable or equivalent to the Windows XP terms. Im no lawyer though, and you'ld probably need a good lawyer to understand all the fine print in any EULA.
I'm pleased that Microsoft appears to have listened, but that enthusiasm has been tempered somewhat by the paragraph that follows:
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows reassignment.
If I purchase Windows Vista Home Basic in January, and then upgrade later to Home Premium or Ultimate via the "anytime upgrade" option, does this mean that I'm basically screwed out of that upgrade after a single transfer to another "licensed device?" In other words, I'd be stuck with Windows Basic unless I forked over cash to Microsoft yet again for another "anytime upgrade?" I'd love to think that I'm wrong in this assumption, but the licensing terms don't seem to indicate that.
Why can't Microsoft simply admit that this entire notion was a mistake, and strike it from the licensing agreement completely? I was reasonably happy until running across the above-mentioned paragraph.
Glad to see Microsoft have seen the light. Lets take this in the faith it was done, and people running dodgy copies of Vista, report them to email@example.com
As an enthusiast who has always built his desktop PC's and ebay'd his old components, this is good news.
I second cwysong on an official clarification on virtualization rights for each Home SKU. My interpretation and that of a member of the Windows Server team is that Vista Home Basic and Home Premium may be used in a VM, but you need an additional license for that VM instance (sicne the license says you can't use the copy installed on the licensed device in a VM), wheras Ultimate allows the same license to be used both on a physical machine and a VM on that same machine.
Check here for the Windows Server team member's comments:
cwysong, #2 is likely in the license because it isn't generally a good idea to run such technologies in a VM. You basically weaken any protections you'd normally have since multiple instances of a VM may look the same (someone could copy your VM image and gain access to your rights managed data). You may also run into timing, performance (particularly with something like BitLocker), or other issues (the VM's drivers may not support such scenarios) that affect such technologies. In the case of a scenario like purchasing protected media inside a VM, depending on the service/license used your media may only be playable within the VM -- not a good situation if you can't sync to a device or the VM doesn't have enough performance to render the media.
Finally, there's the issue that MS probably doesn't want to support those scenarios currently bucause they haven't tested for such scenarios (and can't support every VM).
Let's get those virtualization terms clarified too, for us Mac users who don't want to pony up for the expensive versions of Vista.
In particular, I have an XP site license (legit) running on my Mac. There's no incentive for me to upgrade if I have to buy Ultimate.
For that matter, why not let people run one instance of Vista virtualized, even on the basic editions? Otherwise, you're encouraging people to install Linux and install Vista in a Linux-hosted VM.
Microsoft is listening to it's customers? Surely this is a first?
Anyway, hardware tinkerers and serial upgraders constitute a large percentage of the tech savvy crowd that have unofficially supported Windows and Windows users for years. Many of us provide the front line in support on how to resolve issues with Windows based machines, through forums, support groups, mailing lists - and even though just helping family and friends, which saves MS a vast amount of money in support requests.
It would be madness for Microsoft to piss these people off - and to potentially loose this wide base of expertise.
This is the best breakfast that wake me up from a nightmare for a long time :)
Thanks nWhite for your efforts in relaying our views and getting things changed.
Now I can go back from testing ubuntu (which is great!) to testing RC2 again......
Yay! I may upgrade after all.
How about fixing the Virtual Machine restriction too. It is just as ridiculous.
I must say, when I first heard about the terms I was extremely upset, I have been on the border about getting Vista when it comes out or within 4 months and that really pushed me towards no. This change really pushed me back towards yes, and giving the Microsoft Vista team a human face that is listening really helps, I (we) appreciate taking what we expect and enjoy into consideration.
Sometimes it’s hard to simply do the right thing. I’m very elated that Microsoft decided not to limit the installation of Windows Vista on a system.
As a system builder who loves tinkering on the latest technological advancement and the certain pride that comes with building a computer system that far exceeds the quality of pre-built systems out there (yuck!), I have to give Microsoft tremendous respect for the foresight in recognizing the contributions we as system builders contribute to the PC world.
Windows Vista Ultimate (x86)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
1 GB RAM
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe MOBO
2 320 GB SATA HD
2 120 GB SATA HD
26” Widescreen HDTV LCD w/ Dual DVI (1920 x 1200)
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 GT Video Card SLI w/ Dual DVI
Audigy 2 THX Certified Sound Card
The virtual machine thing is the next thing that should go. This has almost as many people annoyed as the hardware upgrade restrictions did. Again support professionals (which include many individuals offering both formal and informal support, even down to the small workshop and office level) need to be able to access virtualisation technologies at all stages - so that if there are to be multiple different versions of Vista, we need to be able to access and support them all without the costs becoming prohibitively expensive. This is where virtualisation can often become useful. As things stand, it almost feels that MS is trying to drain blood out of a stone - when in fact in many cases, there is simply no more blood to be had.
I would counter argue the point that a virtual machine is a separate device (different hardware) than the original system and running the OS in an VM on the licensed machine WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RUNING THE OS on the same machine which provides the underlying platfrom for the VM software will actually break the one machine, one license rule.....
Although, Ultimate edition seems to be explicitly granted this right, this right does not exist for XP or XP Pro anyway so this wasn't something that is new.
But the fact that the Windows Anywhere Upgrade license transfer restriction did not get altered at the same time baffles me more......
Even worse than the restriction that still remains with the Windows Anytime Upgrade license transfer is another part of the licensing agreement. If I'm interpreting it correctly, if you buy the upgrade version of Vista, then you lose the right to continuing using the operating system that you're upgrading from.
Three very important titles in my software library will not work with the most recent release of Vista--and, Microsoft, if you're telling me that I lose the right to run Windows XP, on a separate partition, if I buy the upgrade version of Vista, then you can ***keep*** Vista. If I can't maintain an older operating system for compatibility purposes, then I want no part of Vista or its oppressive licensing scheme.
I hope to God that someone initiates a class action suit against Microsoft--four weeks ago, I honestly didn't feel this way.
I'm of the firm opinion that the outcry about the licensing term simply boils down to: "If I'm only running a single copy of Vista, I want to run it on whatever I wish."
I think Microsoft has addressed this problem very clearly, and I really have no problem with any of the rest of the licensing terms. I am very glad for this resolution, because my group is currently going to be starting some significant application development using the .Net framework. I was one of the strong proponents who advocated the .Net approach for our software.
I had two six hour meetings so far on this subject, and frankly there was more than one person advocating the abandonement of our .Net initiative in favor of a more generic approach. I am thankfull and relieved that I now look like less of an idiot--I have stopped updating my resume.
Delighted to see that Microsoft has seen the light and that the comments raised by sites such as HEXUS.net and their readers have been taken on board - so sincere thanks for that.
But, repeating what others have said here, two of the three original limitations that I was also most concerned about are unchanged:
* The restriction that sees partitions on a single hard disk treated as separate devices remains. So, seemingly, you still won't be able to set up a single copy of Vista on different partitions or drives on the same PC. Consequently, you'll have to buy a copy for each boot partition or boot drive if, say, you wish to have one version of Vista carefully optimised for heavy duty tasks such as video or sound editing and another set up for more general use.
Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?
* The Basic and Premium versions remain unable to work on virtual hardware - such as Parallels Workstation or VMware Workstation - even if that application is running on top of the original Vista installation. Ultimate will still be the only one of the three retail versions to allow you to use Vista this way.
These two restriction seem mean-minded given that the tax-inclusive cost of each retail version of Vista is so astonishingly high.
In the UK, prices (pre-order from Amazon) are £155 (US$296) for Basic; £190 (US$363) for Premium; and an outrageous £325 (US$620) for Ultimate.
So let's, please, get those two restrictions lifted before launch day next year and, please, let's try to get the pricing down to rather more reasonable levels for all three versions.
newscientist2000: I think you missed the point of my original post. The point is that (an employee of) Microsoft claimed that the XP EULA only allowed one transfer. (See the last EULA clause in my post). Now this blog claims (implicitly) that the new Vista EULA allows any number of transfers. (See the second-last EULA clause in my post). However, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. MS could easily bring back their limited-transfer plans in a big way in Vienna, and claim that *both* the XP and Vista license agreements ONLY EVER ALLOWED ONE TRANSFER ANYWAY. It's as though you need to talk to a relevant Microsoft employee in order to know what the license agreement is *supposed* to say, but doesn't.
wh5916: It is sad, but their might be a few technical problems with infinite transfer for Anytime Upgrade. After all, the webserver would have to store your license key with the level you upgraded to.
n4cer: Except for the comment that when you purchase media in a VM your usage may be limited to that VM, your reasons all seem bogus. The more likely explanation is that Microsoft don't want people to crack their DRM/BitLocker or even to inspect it in detail. A vM could allow you to track the CPU and RAM in great detail. They don't want to give you that help if you choose to (attempt to) crack MSDRM.
November 30th is now Vista Launch day !
Excellent comments from r3m0t !!!
I think for one you exposed Paul Thurrott with his pants down, especially the ludicrous (and somewhat lame) claim of "oh actually it always meant to say that, but didn't".
I mean, come ON, is MS short on lawyers who can word a relatively simple set of rules clearly? If so, where do I apply? :)
n4cer: I agree, I think the *intended* effect of those clauses in the Home Basic and Home Premium licences is to say that you cannot *reuse* the same licence key within a VM Guest OS as you are using for the Host OS - you must obtain a new licence for each Guest OS. The *wording* however is so poor that it seems to be suggesting that you are not permitted to use Home Basic or Home Premium as a Guest OS, period. That's what people are so angry about.
If that is the intent, the wording needs to be corrected. I realise that this needs to be finalised very quickly so it can RTM, but it must be corrected to meet the real intent.
I don't agree with this restriction - as I said on a Channel 9 Coffeehouse thread, adding virtual machines to a physical machine reduces the overall capabilities of a system rather than extending them, so I don't see why I should have to buy additional licences to use VMs. In the end, Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot, by restricting some hobbyist developers, who don't have the resources to buy Ultimate or multiple Home Basic or Home Premium licences, from testing their creations in a clean environment.
The section about DRM in a VM seems to be advice not to use the DRM features within a VM, which presumably is some technical limitation within those features (probably that the TPM module is not virtualised). If this is the case, the software needs to have a warning about running in a VM (tricky) and the restriction placed in a README or other documentation, but it does *not* belong in the EULA.
Good news. I feared that the previous set of terms would really come back to bite people (but especially me :->) in the ass a few years down the line.
Bring on Vista!
r3m0t, in the case of BitLocker, performance and weakened security are real concerns. Performance is a given. You're taking an already slow process (accessing a virtual harddrive) and slowing it even more by adding encryption/decryption on top.
For the case of weakened security, BitLocker uses boottime metrics to determine whether someone has tampered with the system and whether or not it should release keys to decrypt the harddrive. If it can't differentiate between a VM running on your computer and a VM on an attacker's computer, you have added security from BitLocker. The attacker can copy your VHD(s), run it on their system in VPC and BitLocker may boot the system normally, not knowing it's in a different system (note: I have not actually tried this scenario). Secure Startup isn't so secure anymore.
Support and testing are also real issues. If MS advises you not to run in such scenarios, this frees them from any obligation to support you if you choose to do so and also limits their test matrix.
RE: Cracking/Analysing their rights management technology
In the case of BitLocker, there are technical documents and blog posts from the dev available online that decribe how it works and the encryption algorithms used.
For technologies like WMDRM, sure they want to protect their investments and those of their customers, but there are legal protections that go beyond the EULA for dealing with entities that would distribute software that compromises those technologies.
Brilliant news indeed.
As a modder this would have added to the problem I already have (Living in gibraltar I have to call the UK to reactivate any time my main board changes (which is often in the extreme overclocking world I live in) as the Spanish free fone is a) not free and b) in spanish lol
Thanks MS :D
Not only I will be able to use Vista IRL, I have learned to take the time to actually read the EULA before I agree to it....
Now could someone do me a favor and give those lawyers a good kick somewhere? The EULA is a legally binding document and this one is still very poorly formulated. Specifically the one time restriction still seems to apply to transfering the software to another person(like when you sell the computer with the software)and to upgrades. If this is by design, my guess is you're going to hear some more shouting about it, if it's a "miss" someone should loose their bonus.....
Oh, one more thing: the part about publishing benchmark results, when I do that, you're most welcome to publish your own results about my software, as that is currently non existent. Really, what are you going to do? Publish benchmarking tests of Doom III if they publish benchmark results on how that runs on Vista?
<<<The restriction that sees partitions on a single hard disk treated as separate devices remains. So, seemingly, you still won't be able to set up a single copy of Vista on different partitions or drives on the same PC. Consequently, you'll have to buy a copy for each boot partition or boot drive if, say, you wish to have one version of Vista carefully optimised for heavy duty tasks such as video or sound editing and another set up for more general use.>>>
This concerns me as well, as I currently have two installs of Windows XP on the same system, on two separate hard drives. One is purposely stripped down, with not even an anti-virus program running, for audio/visual work.
Now, in this Vista licensing agreement, we're being told that only one copy of Vista can be run on a single machine.
What's the difference whether I have a single Vista install on my one computer system, or four if I choose to run them? And I'm not about to spend money on this overpriced Vista operating system more than once, just for the privilege of having different installs on the same machine, each optimized for a specific function.
I'm already having problems enough this year, with the two Windows XP reinstalls that I've done, using my legitimately purchased (from a local Target store, not Ebay or some other odd channel) June 2002 copy of Windows XP Home Edition.
On both occasions, when online activation was attempted, I was informed that the number of activations for my registration key had been exceeded...um, excuse me? I PAID for XP, and if I want to reinstall 100 times during the life of the software product, that's my right as far as I'm concerned. Both times this year, I've been forced to call and speak with some barely intelligible rep from India, to activate my legitimate, purchased copy of Windows XP.
I'm weary of Microsoft at this point, and am sorry I ever defended or recommended the company to anyone.
Mike, I agree that the wording should be clearer WRT virtualization rights, and that the implication of "licensed device" clause in the current agreement as I understand it is that (in the case of Home Basic/Premium) you can't reuse the same license. A better wording wold be something like:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. A virtual (or otherwise emulated) environment is considered to be a seperate device. You may use the software within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. You may not do so to share this license between devices.
A change in that clause may require a change in this clause:
2. 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.
to also include a virtual (or otherwise emulated) environment as a licensed device, or they can insert a part "d." to the INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS clause to include language specific to the software's use in such environments.
I also agree that virtual machine rights should be included in the home SKUs under the same license as long as they are running on the same physical device. While it's true that many home users won't use this capability, it can be useful, and would be welcome since Virtual PC is free, and it has to be addressed eventually with hypervisors and application virtualization coming from MS in a few years. If support is an issue, Microsoft could stipulate that VM useage on the Home SKUs is allowed, but not supported.
How the folks at Microsoft didn't realise this to begin with is absolutely beyond me. The fact that it was suggested in the first place tarnishes my opinion of MS, I mean, come on...
This is great news! Thanks for sharing this Nick.
I originally said NO to Vista just because of the "transfer rule." I now say a heartly YES.
I am sort of shocked (I didn't think MS cared about "us", but incredibly happy over the change in the EULA !!
It's a shame that there's people here that can't just say thanks, without bitching
Thanks for listening Microsoft.
After hearing the initial licencing terms I decided not to buy vista or any microsoft products for that matter for home use. As I'm training to become a software engineer I'm kind of stuck on the windows plaform at work. But even there I would have found a way to switch to a different platform (using mono for instance). If I can't add/remove/replace hardware as many times as I like, windows is not the operating system for me.
With this change I can purchase a copy of Windows Vista :)
Thanks for the clarification r3m0t on your comment.
I am very pleased with the change in the licensing, however I too am concerned with the 'Virtualization clause'. I run two RC1 installs and a single RC2 currently as I test different software and driver compatibility. I would like to continue to do the same with the RTM version as I test patches and service packs.
n4cer: Thank you for explaining why BitLocker on a virtual machine is insecure.
Your reasoning seems to be that Microsoft is protecting all of us from making a silly mistake such as trusting BitLocker on a VM to secure all our data. They are doing this by "advising" us not to do it, or indeed, not to use BitLocker on a VM at all.
This "advice" comes in the form of a legal contract. (Legal in some countries, anyway...)
You may be aware of a registry key in Vista (RC1 at least) which allows you to run Aero on any graphics card, instead of trusting the MS hardware detection. On an underpowered computer, all you need to do is open regedit, change this key, then switch from Aero Basic to Aero. Of course, MS hardware detection actually *is* always right, and your full Aero will run like a dog. *BUT IT'S MY CHOICE TO TURN IT ON*. Maybe you should suggest a change to the EULA which prevents people from running Aero on people's computers when Vista thinks their computers are inadequate?
Maybe the EULA should tell me that my Windows password(s) must be resistant to dictionary attacks?
Maybe the EULA should tell me that I must run a virus scan on any attachments I receive through Windows Mail?
Maybe the EULA should tell me not to run any unsigned drivers? In fact, it already does! (See the deliberately vague "technical limitations" clause.)
Chanchao: Assuming that the manager Thurrott quoted is a real employee, and that he really said what he did, then it's not just Thurrott caught with his pants down.
Better than the previous terms ! thanx !
Thanks for being not quite so evil, Microsoft.
Due to the EULA changes, I was originally planning on waiting until I next upgraded my PC before I bought Vista. That would've been very disappointing.
Now, I can happily pick up Vista on day 1 knowing I'll be able to continue using it even through future upgrades.
Thanks for listening! :D
hi, im a pc user, and i use only windows on my pc, and i reed about the license terms of vista, i cant believe they give us 2 chances to install, i've reinstalled my xp about 10 times, because the virus, the performance (at time windows become slowly) and the news is i cant install more than 2 time vista (in the same pc) !! its microsoft nuts !? i cant believe that. they have to release or try another idea. i will buy vista, and i can use the software in (one) pc only, so many times i need to reinstall i want. thats commun scence i think.
XP was almost the final straw with its activation feature, which makes it a royal pain when you want to buy a new PC.
Then, the price of Vista is outrageous, especially considering that that division has something like an 85% profit margin. There is no reason for it being so expensive.
So my last XP box is my last Windows box. No more Windows. Linux Forever. Yayy!!!
Are there differances between the EULA rules for the full retail and the upgrade. I think the only way I will be able to afford vista will be to buy the upgrade.
<<I originally said NO to Vista just because of the "transfer rule." I now say a heartly YES.
It's a shame that there's people here that can't just say thanks, without bitching>>
Did you try reading the entire revised licensing agreement, and not just the single portion that was quoted in the topic that started this thread? ***That's*** why people are bitching.
Microsoft cares? Try reading the entire licensing agreement, and not just the single portion that they reworded.
I am also very pleased this change has taken place, but like so many others, I'd like a clarification, change to the virtualization licensing.
I can't imagine not having the right to use my soon to be bought Vista Ultimate in one, two,... VMs on the same device.
As mentioned before Virtual PC is free and not having this ability would severely limit those of us who make a living supporting Windows machines, testing patches, software,...
I do appreciate the change in the EULA as a step in the right direction. It means I will now consider purchasing Vista instead of riding XP til it's end of life.
One other concern. I've got the same question as "mcampb209" I own two copies of XP Pro and two copies of XP home installed on various computers. I plan on buying upgrade versions one at a time to replace these installations eventually.
As long as I buy the proper upgrade in the first place and don't resort to using Windows Anytime Upgrade I am assuming I can still change all the hardware I want as long as windows resides on one PC. Is this correct?
Of course the new draconic limitation on installing the OS on more than one partition on the same computer and the new draconic limitation of being able to sell you computer with Vista only once, also have to go. Needless to say no such limitations ever existed in XP.
See also the discussion at http://shellrevealed.com/forums/3/4555/ShowThread.aspx
The second of the above limitations prevents you from transferring your computer with Vista on it for example to another family member more than once and in practice makes it much more difficult for you to sell your computer even once. As explained in a previous post on this thread,
According to CNet's http://news.com.com/5208-1016-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=22083&messageID=193621&start=-36
this means that
"Nobody in their right mind would buy a used Windows Vista PC because, under this licensing, they can never get rid of it. If they cannot transfer the OS to a 3rd party, nobody will buy it from them (except for pocket change)."
This reminds me of the joke about the poor man that comes to a Rabbi and complains that his house is very small and crowded, and the Rabbi tells him to get a goat and put it also in his house. After a week, the guy comes again to the Rabbi and the Rabbi asks him how are
things now, and the guy replies that it is even more horrible now, having to put up also with the goat in the house. So the Rabbi tells him to now remove the goat, and the guy immediately feels that it is much better now. So if you think about it, the fact that Microsoft introduced
and then removed the goat of the one time reinstallation does not make this a happy ending yet. The above limitations must also go of course.
Of course the new draconic limitation on installing the OS on more than one partition on the same computer and the new draconic limitation of being able to sell your computer with Vista only once, also have to go. Needless to say no such limitations ever existed in XP.
By the way, at least some of the above limitations are also apparently illegal, both in the US and in Europe, as you can see in the discussion at http://shellrevealed.com/forums/2/4555/ShowThread.aspx
yaronm1: They are not "illegal". They are merely not legal. Microsoft is not doing anything illegal with these terms. The terms are merely void. Microsoft knows this: see terms saying "unless this term is void by local law."
The issue is whether one void clause leads to an entirely void contract. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability .
yaronm1: You, and "Jim Hubbard" who commented on CNet, misread the EULA. If your suggestion were true, the clause would be void in almost every country. What it says is:
"The first user of the software may
make a one time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party. The first user must uninstall the software before transferring it separately from the device. The first user may not retain any copies.
Before any permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must include the proof of license." (Note: different clauses apply to Windows Anytime Upgrade)
After you transfer the software (without retaining any copies) you are no longer under the agreement. The "third party" is under a new agreement between themselves and Microsoft. In this agreement, the "third party" becomes the "first user".
I could write loads about how disgustingly vague the contract is. Hmm...
If you are correct that would be great, however a clarification by Microsoft on this clause is obviously needed.
However, If indeed your interpretaion is correct then what is the point of this clause anyway?
And I still don't see how your interpretation of this clause can be correct, because how can the third party buyer be considered again "the first user"? This would make the words "First user" become meaningless.
r3m0t, Anyway, even if you are correct, this clause still has to be fixed in a way that leaves no doubt about this, since obviously the words "The first user" can be interpreted to mean "the first user that buys this particular copy of the software".
Nice one Microsoft, this issue was going to be a real problem for me as I often upgrade my machine. Vista is now going to be my main O/S from now on!
good news but ......
what about the public releasing of benchmarks. If I need to ask permission to on how, what,why,and result of a product then maybe the product is trying to hide something.
Hey mcampb209: the EULA applies to retail versions of the OS.
I feel a bit better about the licensing restriction regarding using Vista on only a "single hardware partition or blade," after reading a link awhile ago that seemed to define "hardware partition," in the eyes of Microsoft, as an extension of a server with its own separate processor and memory. Hopefully this means that an additional copy of Vista can be installed on a standard desktop computer or laptop, on a separate partition or hard drive. I want a convenient, easy to access, "stripped down" install for audio/video use...and I don't want to purchase two copies of Vista for use on a single computer...that's pushing my wallet and patience a bit too much.
I want to like Vista, I honestly do...if, for no other reason, because uploads with Vista are noticeably faster than Windows XP, on my own system. I just wish that Microsoft would do a bit more to make the license easier to accept. I would never, for instance, purchase a Vista "anytime upgrade," as the stipulation for transferring it to only one additional "licensed device" still remains in the newest licensing agreement.
There will be no difference. This EULA is for the retail version (FPP - Full Package Product) which means that you have to buy it in retail trade. The FPP are two versions the “Full“ and the “Upgrade”.
Hope that helps clear your question…
yes it does...thanx kritscha
I was worried I would have to sheel out even more money for a retail copy when all I want is an upgrade copy.
no drm and trusted computing!Microsoft it does not respect privacy and the freedom of all its customers! it is violation of all the human rights.
Another solution, not there is a dialogue with users, not there is liberty!
We are disposed to collaborate for one various solution in order to fight the piracy.
UE users refuses Windows Vista and drm and trusted computing!
Oh my, microsoft you've made the right decision, which will sell you millions of copies of this OS (Probably of the "Ultimate" variety). I for one will be buying it now.
colddog15, you don't need to ask permission to do benchmarks. You do need to disclose the tools, techniques, and methodology used if you intend to publish the benchmarks.
This isn't unique to Microsoft, and is best practice for analytical publications so that others may review, repeat, and refute your findings and methodology.
Microsoft must change the papers on the DRM and Trusted Computing. Two possibility:
- to remove DRM and trusted computing from its plans
- to remain outside from Europe!
We have gotten tired ourselves of being taken in turn and of being it deals you as dogs from Microsoft and all those who have joined to the Trusted computing and from the major. WE want to be free to decide what to use on OUR computer, that it is software, music or film!
NO DRM AND TRUSTED COMPUTING!LIBERTY FOR ALL!
Maybe they should address the BitLocker situation (and future such situations) in a similar context and just say it's an unsupported scenario, inform about the risks if any, and leave it at that. But data security (or lack thereof) has potentially large implications. Running unknowingly in an environment where there is no protection could be catastrophic. If security ceases or is limited while running in a VM, MS needs to advise people of this somehow so they won't get dragged into court for it later (not that they can't still get dragged into court, but at least they have some coverage).
I'm not saying I like or endorse the limitations. I'm just saying that I understand why they're there (to inform the user, to limit the support matrix, and for coverage of MS and its partners). BitLocker, et al., is an extreme case as I can't see why there'd ever be a need for running it in a VM besides testing. The VM clause, on the other hand, is a limitation on something I believe has value no matter the SKU you're running (I think it needs clarification at the least because of its many interpretations), similar to the previous transfer clause.
Many Thanks to the Microsoft Team for changing the License Agreement.
I realize their concerns over the software pirating community, which itself is a multi-million dollar industry, but I wonder if raising the price and encrypting a better security algorithm is the way to go.
Most of us on this blog upgrade our hardware on a regular basis, sometimes just because we want to and others because we have to.
Take for instance the new Vista, after beta testing rc1 & 2 I find that of the five home computers I built two will need major upgrades for the upcoming Vista release.
With the EULA of XP this didn't pose to big of a problem since you could install it on 10 different computers before I ran into EULA problems (XP HOME and XP PRO). Now with the new Vista it looks as though it will cost me over $2,000.00 US dollars to upgrade my home network. That's not so bad... if I were the CEO of (insert fortune 500 Company HERE)...but since I'm not there goes the new Vista upgrade!
Problem no.2. My son has a very promising career in the software testing business when he gets older, because this kid is a Master at locking up a system. Not a month goes by that I don't have to re-install everything on his computer.( Hey, NICK if you guys need a beta tester I've got one for you. He'll work for Pizza and Mountain Dew !)
My little solution to the piracy issue would be to rewrite your algorithm to create a system security code generated by the customers IP address. In the case of a DNS server it would be a little more difficult but it's still possible.
This way the consumer could change hardware to their hearts content without affecting their EULA.
Point no.2. One famous quote, though I forget the author, said " there are two ways you can make a million dollars, one is to create a product and sell it for a million bucks or make a million products and sell each for one dollar", my point is if Microsoft lower the price for Vista to say a weeks salary of a Wal-Mart employee (you get the picture) then this piracy thing would simply fade away. Why would someone pay for a hacked copy of Vista when they could buy the genuine thing for say $99.95 or so !
I'm also a customer of Visual Studio C++ and Basic.
Splitting programming between Windows and Linux, and believe me, when Microsoft offered Visual Studio Xpress for free, the Linux community was stunned!
Although Linux has some good points, it doesn't come near the quality of a Microsoft Product. (I know I'll probably get some serious flame from this but if the truth hurts then...)
Anyway love your products, been a fan since the Disk Operating System so I don't see myself changing, I just won't be upgrading to Vista, my budget can't handle it.
"Always remember, everyday above ground is a good day!"
Good. So does that mean I can buy a new Dell XPS, delete Vista (remember OEM copy) from it, then slap that copy of Vista on a cheapo computer where it belongs?
When the original license agreement was released I was so upset. Both my husband and I are gamers. We upgrade both PCs all the time. It meant we'd have to either fork out a lot of money, or stay on XP.
Thanks for making it possible for people like us that could not afford to keep paying everytime we upgrade the PC... :)
I hope you have a fun time celebrating RTM during attending Microsoft Roadshow "Ready for a New Day" - Microsoft's Launch of Windows Vista, the 2007 Microsoft Office system and Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 events in Romania!!
How do I actually transfer licenses, would there be deactivation button somewhere? So I can activate my copy on other computer?
Will it also available to Office 2007?
Hey klop: You'd need to check the Office Web site for activation information. For Windows activation, you must first remove the software from the original hardware (this applies to FPP versions only) and then activate it on the new hardware.
I'm a techie, work in I.T. and have the typical techie's love / hate feelings towards Microsoft. Thing is, I'd buy a license for my personal use if it wasn't for all the Genuine Advantage & activation stuff. But I love my gadgets and PCs and am CONSTANTLY upgrading, modding etc. I WILL NOT be calling the MS hotline every couple weeks or so to re-activate my OS when the online re-activate fails because I went from PATA to SATA, or from sata to 3GB sata, or from 800 FSB to 1600 FSB, new moboard, etc, etc..... Also I don't think that Vista allows me (in RTM) to install across more than 1 PC per copy. If MS sold an affordable (consumer volume license?) license that installs on 3 to 5, or 5 to 10 pcs per license like other software products I'd buy it. I'd encourage friends and family who I am constantly helping with free tech support to buy it, and I would install it and support it for them. As it stands now though... I believe its better to switch to another OS than use Vista / XP as intended by MS. I also believe its better to switch to another OS than to participate in the constant cat & mouse game of utilizing illegal cracks, hacks, or leaked keys followed by MS patches to close those holes. To boil it down: if the user isn't much of a techie (Grandmas) I tell them to get a Mac. If they ARE the type that likes to tinker I point them in the direction of Linspire, Ubuntu, or Fedora or one of the other fine Linux distros... Its a shame because Vista looks pretty good otherwise..
Have I understod things correct that I may change hardware as many times I like to without having to buy a new copy of Windows Vista.
Posted by Nick White
Hey klop: For Windows activation ...
What is FPP?
how do i remove the software? by formatting the harddrive?
then when I activate on other computer, my previous license will be automatically deactivated?
sorry but i can't find a way to edit my post.
Let's say I buy a retail Vista Ultimate (using my own money) and activate it on a PC in my work place.
then I got fired or got a new PC, so I will need to take away my license to other machine (my personal PC or office's other PC)
removing is easy, just format it, and fire up the company volume licensed Windows XP.
The confusing thing is, how do I exactly make Microsoft servers know that I removed the software from the previous PC and then will let me activate on another machine?
regarding office, would you mind share the link, I'm getting lost on Office website, which is crowded with how to use office tips and tricks.
I have a quick question with regards to Windows Vista licensing?
I'm planning on a vacation in the US next year. I would like to purchase a retail version of Windows Vista Ultimate Edition in the US and take it back for use in the UK.
Will it be permissible to do this? (assuming I comply with UK cutoms laws and pay appropriate taxes, duty etc). Are there any licensing restrictions that preclude such use?
Hey klop: FPP = fully packaged product, also known as the retail product version. You can only activate the software on one device at a time, so reformatting will remove your first instance of it, allowing you to re-install it on another (or the same, reformatted) device.
Hope this helps.
Hey SimonM: I'm not a licensing expert, but I'd suggest reading the license of the UK version before purchasing it, just to be sure.
Currently I am using a 'Windows 2000 Pro Upgrade' version (previously NT4 Full Version).
Is this version available for me to use the 'Vista Upgrade' versions? If so, what is the proceedure, install Win2Kproupgrade disk when prompted? Or will this require calling in with Serial keys? I am trying to plan my upgrade path, as my hardware is compliant with Vista (barely :P ). I plan on making some hardware upgrades over the year to improve my Vista experience, and with the licensing changes, it finally looks possible.
Is it possible to upgrade from an OEM version of Vista to a retail version?
For example, if I acquired a Vista OEM version with a laptop, for example, and wanted to have a full retail version to use on my desktop, could I pay an upgrade fee to convert my OEM version to a retail version (providing I remove the OEM version from the laptop after upgrade)?
I constantly upgrade my system and with Windows XP I have to reactivate at least twice a year if not more. Why can't y'all create a wizard to upgrade things like motherboards so I dont have to reactivate? Or is that functionality built into the add new hardware wizard (which I haven't thought to try until now)?
I'm still a bit confused over this. I built my own PC, and I upgrade parts of it about once a year - sometimes the whole thing!
As I am the system builder, I've always used and OEM copy of XP, but it seems that with Vista the OEM licence is still restricted.
Can anyone clarify?
I am considering upgrading my OS to Vista but still do not understand one important issue. I currently have a licensed version of XP installed 4 times on my PC - each for a different purpose. (I.E. Multi-boot system)
Will I be able to install vista in a multi-boot configuration on my pc with one license (as you would expect) or does the EULA prohibit this?
I have been looking for an answer to this for ages. Any responce would be appreciated and a link to an official statement from microsoft would be most welcome.
Thanks a million
Hey "Nick White",thx for share
could someone please reply to nigelmercier's comments as I to am confuesed as to the new change to the contract does this mean we can upgrade the OEM version of vista more than once or are we expected to pay £220.00 for a retail version (as if thats ever going to happen!!)
I recently bought two new computers with a free upgrade to vista; however, I just learned that the vista upgrade I have cannot be run in a virtual machine without violating the liscense agreement unless I upgrade to the most expensive version of vista (vista business).
This is completely unacceptable. I cannot afford this high cost. Making this cost saving option available to the big corporations while eliminating it for the small guy who cant afford the "most expensive" is wrong.
I perform high volume scanning and ocr. I dont know if vista will run these programs or support my scanners (or other devices) nor do I want to risk the downtime that could occur if a problem should arise. It also appears that vista could significantly lower performance of these applications due to the high resources required at the operating system level.
Nick, give the small guy a chance