"Microsoft Vista is not an option "

[BigWarpGuy]

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36653
"I HAVE REALISED that I can not move to Vista, ever, Microsoft is forcing me to Linux. "

An interesting point of view.

[pianowizard]

Microsoft, in possibly the most shortsighted move in the company's history, decided to lock Vista down to the first PC it is installed to and not allow you to move it legally.

That sounds scary! Can anyone confirm it?

[GomJabbar]

Straight from the Gorilla's mouth, downloaded today (I checked the Vista Ultimate version):
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/us ... fault.aspx

15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the software and
install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between
devices.
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.
16. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY.
a. Software Other Than Windows Anytime Upgrade. 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.
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. You may transfer the software directly to a third
party only with the licensed device. You may not keep any copies of the software or any earlier
version.
c. Other Requirements. 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.

So it seems the author quoted above is in error, and has old information. The thread posted below shows that Microsoft backed down from their initial stance.
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=32816

[jdhurst]

I haven't been able to get to the link yet, but whenever Microsoft has locked an OS to a PC for that PC only, it has been called OEM. My four XP Pro systems were OEM. That has generally worked as XP has lasted long enough for this to be reasonable.

However, if you purchase a non-OEM copy, there may legal recourse if they refuse to activate it on a new PC. I would be looking for money back if I had paid a non-OEM license fee.

The same issue holds in Office, and I purchase non-OEM licenses and legally move Office as I need to.

I guess there will have to be some test cases to evaluate, and Vista is still too new to really know. ... JD Hurst

[kulivontot]

I don't understand why activation is such a problem. If you bought the OS, then you should have nothing to worry about. What's wrong with a company trying to prevent people from stealing its software? Is that so wrong? Yes, if you swap out a motherboard every single week, then you might run into a problem, but honestly who the hell does that? In all honesty, I don't think Microsoft is going to tell you to go screw yourself if you have a valid copy of windows and you have activated one too many times. In my experience with activation for reinstallation of windows, the worst case scenario is talking to a customer service guy for about 5 minutes and getting a new activation number. However, if you're the IT guy at a small business and you try and activate 40 copies of Vista in a span of a week, they will probably be suspicious. I see this sort of move as anti-consumer only if you haven't paid for the software, in which case, Microsoft has nothing to gain from you using Windows.

[margolin]

This is no longer true. From MS themselves:
See Here

[RUSH2112]

I've been running Vista for a few months, but I am indeed thinking about roughing out the driver problems with Linux and switching back to that. I can't say that I would want to go back to XP after using Vista, but I think that if you can get it configured right, GNU/Linux is still the superior OS.

[tomh009]

As long as it runs the apps you need (and that set will vary by person), Linux can be great.

Now, I run a bunch of servers for a web site, with FreeBSD/amd64, and I just bought a new database server. But since MySQL isn't well tuned on FreeBSD, I was thinking of running Linux. Downloaded Fedora Core, made a CD, booted. Found out that it didn't recognize my RAID controller. Hmmm, OK. So I went to look at the hardware compatibility list -- and couldn't find one. Couldn't find one for SuSE or Ubuntu, either. What the ...??? How am I supposed to know what drivers are included?

It looks like I'll be running Solaris x64 instead on the database server. Even if supports less hardware, at least I can tell what hardware that is. (And it's still not as SysV-ish as Linux ... which is good for me!)

[BillMorrow]

yet another reason to begin the shift from windows to linux..

read my post here:
http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?t=36527

[arni]

I don't understand why activation is such a problem.

Actually i think it's not a problem by itself. But on the other side it's really annoying. I read thru this article. It's completely wrong what the author states.

MS changed the eula. It's nothing more than that you are not supposed to run to os on more than one pc. Even if you change some hardware the only thing could arise is that you have to reactivate your pc. And even when you have to call ms, why worry when you have a legit copy?

And let's face another point of view. How long has Adobe been forcing it's users to activate their software? It's even more annyoing. I had to reactivate adobe a several times, especially after rolling back an acronis image. That's a real pain.

The only option would be to take the move to open source software.

[egibbs]

MS changed the eula

But only after a lot of criticism. The fact is they wanted to lock it to one PC for an OEM license, but got too much pushback. So they went halfway and just tightened up the EULA terms a little. Next time (SP1) they will be a little bit tighter still, and before you know it (SP2?) they will have what they wanted from the start.

The problem is not activation or licensing alone. It's (as Bill said) the whole TCPA/Palladium creeping control freak syndrome. If you're not a pirate what do you care if your monitor has to be whitelisted to view HD video? If you're not installing pirated software what difference does it make if the OS will only allow you to install or run approved software. What's the problem with IBM/Lenovo only allowing whitelisted HDDs unless you are trying to copy pirated material or unapproved software to the drive (which HDD controllers soon won't allow)?

The point is PCs used to be incredibly liberating (and disruptive) machines that allowed ordinary people to do incredible things. We are allowing them to be turned into locked down entertainment centers in the name of "Digital Rights." Digital rights for who? For the media content owners. Ordinary users have no Digital Rights.

They came for the pirates, but I was not a pirate so I said nothing.

Ed Gibbs

[kulivontot]

I can understand being upset about most DRM concerns. yes, if you can't burn a CD with the music you legally bought off itunes, that's really annoying. If you have to buy a new monitor to play those fancy protected HD-DVD movies, then that also would be annoying. But the purpose of activation in windows isn't limiting by any means. It merely ensures that you only get the benefits of using the software if you actually pay for it. I can understand if Microsoft were to install a rootkit that monitors your activity and transmits your status every half hour or so, but to my knowledge, they don't do any such thing. You only have to activate once and your genuine status is only checked when you attempt to use new software that Microsoft is supplying for free to legitimate users. In short, other DRM technologies that limit your actual usage (like music files, HDCP, etc) provide will provide a hassle for legitimate users. However, activation of Windows or Office should pose no issues to anyone who has a legitimate copy of the software. They do not lock you into purchasing new Microsoft-only hardware or certain software. The moment activation actually starts restricting my usage of my PC, I will agree with you that it is too much. But as it stands now, Microsoft has no intention of doing so.

[egibbs]

So you've never heard of the Windows Genuine Advantage phones home issue?

Here is the problem with activation - it's a Trojan horse. Yes, there is nothing wrong with having to prove you are not a thief every time you want to use something you bought. But it doesn't end there, that just the foot in the door.

WGA is the next step, and you will need to be running the latest version of it to get patches. And those patches, service packs, and WGA updates themselves come with EULAs that modify the EULA you agreed to when you installed Windows.

Some of those changes to the EULA give MS the right to modify certain features of Windows - for example to refuse to play or view files that are not approved, to delete or refuse to save unapproved files, to report the presence of unapproved files, etc.

Mind you - I have no problem in principle with stopping piracy of either software or content. I am scrupulous about adhering to license terms, and I pay for content. Some people (my kid, for example) think I'm a nut for paying for stuff that I could easily get for free. My problem is that the way DRM is being implemented is an open invitation for abuse of power. Here is a potential scenario...

It's a couple years from now. DRM has been fully implemented giving the owners of content rights the ability to control or revoke access at will, with Microsoft as the gatekeeper.

In a remote Chinese province farmers upset at a cut in Government subsidies stage a protest, and the local authorities over react. There is rioting, shooting, hundreds of civilians are killed. Local residents take cell phone videos of the carnage and write a series of dispatches that are quickly picked up by wire services and news networks.

Then the Chinese authorities show up as the Beijing offices of Microsoft (China) with a duly authorized court order demanding the revocation of rights for all footage, reporting, etc. of the incident. MS has no legal option but to comply, and around the world news clips, video files, and documents cease to work or disappear from hard drives.

The next court order is for the IP addresses and GUIDs of all machines that had the illegal content on them. Again, MS has no legal recourse so they provide the information. Using the data the Chinese government identifies the sources of the reporting and those in China that passed it on, and they quietly disappear. A series of follow-on court orders make sure that any reporting of the coverup is also covered up.

Think this scenario is an exaggeration? Been watching the news lately?

Feel free to replace the Chinese Government with the boogeyman of your choice - Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton Administration, North Korea, Russian Federation, etc.

Ed Gibbs

[ARD]

Ed Gibbs is a prophet.

This will happen.