[fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:39:36 +0800, Man-wai Chang ToDie
<toylet.toylet RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:

>
>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/Microsoft-s-Licensing-Madness

M$ didn't just start getting ultra greedy. Even XP will "tilt" when
changes reach a certain mysterious point (it once happened to me when
I uninstalled a video driver prior to installing an updated version).
But a call to M$ is usually enough to get back in business.

This Vista restriction is ominous, though. I build my own computers
and make hardware and software changes rather often. Limiting system
reassignments to only once would force me to abandon my #1 hobby or
pay M$ through the nose to keep it going. I made a decision even
before Vista was released to snub it and stick with XP as long as I
can.

Thank goodness I've passed the point of caring about games!

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

It's like trying to paper train an old dog.
No matter what the government says or
does, M$ is going to pee on the carpet,
and that is that.

What IBM did for the government was right.
They took Linux, and developed their own
version for their servers. I don't know why
they did not complete the transition to the
Federal PCs. Instead, they hacked W2k
to talk to their servers and left it there.
Dell was able to sneak one past them,
and got the contract, but Dell tech support
really fell on its face, and the Feds got
tired of nothing working at all, and Dell
making excuses. IBM got it back briefly,
but then HP edged them out ?????
What you want already exists at IBM.
They just need to complete the transition
to IBM Linux, and make it work on decent
hardware. If HP shoves Vista down the Feds
throats, I would support "nationalizing" the
computer industry. It is too critical to our
way of life now. Tell M$ to go write video
games for the Xbox500.

johns
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

"johns" <johns321.DeleteThis@moscow.com> wrote in message
news:3879ab23-f13d-47f5-83e1-5908d5b05ff7@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> To what extent has the "Vista Only" machines
> been recended ? For example, the Compaq Presario
> is Vista Only ... with no drivers available for XP ..
> and they will void any warranty if you try to install
> XP. As I understand it, Vista Only means "NO
> BIOS" is needed for anything .. mobo, video card,
> ... it is already in Vista. And M$ has total
> ownership of that hardware. Which says to me
> I will not even be able to go to vendors like NewEgg
> and buy a video card that is Vista Only, and build
> my own machine. I will ONLY be able to buy a
> Vista Only PC from a certified Microsoft Builder
> ... like HP. Compaq Tech ( Shhhh ! ) told me
> that in the future, the video cards for Vista and
> Dx10 will be embedded on the mobo, and that
> is why ATI ( and NVidia ) are getting in bed with
> AMD and Intel .... embedded video hardware.
> And that is also why Microsoft is now writing
> video games ... and/or diverting video gaming
> to the consoles. I also heard rumor that Vista
> Sp1 was aimed at Vista Only hardware. M$
> had to retro-fit Sp1 to Vista Compatible, and
> it did not work. So, they have pulled it off the
> shelves. Another rumor: ( you'll like this one ):
> HP owns Compaq ( the beginning of Vista Only ),
> and now HP has the Federal Contract to supply
> PCs to the Feds. The Feds refused to upgrade
> from IBMs Win2K. They have never used XP.
> This one will go all the way to the White House.
>
> johns


---------------


It is time that the government intervened and stopped this
monopolistic nonsense by Microsoft. I'm ready to dive into
Linux, though I think it is overly complicated and not user
friendly. I would love to see a competing operating system
arise and knock the Microsoft tyrant square on its ass.

Ed Cregger
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

"Man-wai Chang ToDie" <toylet.toylet.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:47bd62dd$1_2@rain.i-cable.com...
>
> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/Microsoft-s-Licensing-Madness
>
> --
> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.24.2
> ^ ^ 19:38:01 up 9 days 9:38 0 users load average: 1.10 1.05 1.01
> ºî ´© (CSSA):
> http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/


That article is from October 2006, and the quote was taken out of
context and refers only to the anytime upgrade versions. Here's
a direct quote from the EULA.

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.
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

"Ian D" <taurus RemoveThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:D7-dnfo80KoH1yLanZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Man-wai Chang ToDie" <toylet.toylet RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in
> message news:47bd62dd$1_2@rain.i-cable.com...
>>
>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/Microsoft-s-Licensing-Madness
>>
>> --
>> @~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
>> / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be
>> with you!
>> /( _ )\ (Xubuntu 7.04) Linux 2.6.24.2
>> ^ ^ 19:38:01 up 9 days 9:38 0 users load average: 1.10
>> 1.05 1.01
>> ºî ´© (CSSA):
>> http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa/
>
>
> That article is from October 2006, and the quote was taken
> out of
> context and refers only to the anytime upgrade versions.
> Here's
> a direct quote from the EULA.
>
> 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.


I'd rather they go back to the old days when once purchased,
you could install it on as many devices as you pleased.

I don't blame them for not wanting you to share it with
friends and customers. It would be illogical to think
otherwise, but I resent having to pay for each computer that
I own.

It should be easy enough for them to track a customer's
license and ensure that that license only is submitted for
activation from the same web address.

Ed Cregger
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

In message <HpZvj.81049$Mu4.18695@bignews7.bellsouth.net> "Ed Cregger"
<ecregger DeleteThis @bellsouff.net> wrote:

>I'd rather they go back to the old days when once purchased,
>you could install it on as many devices as you pleased.

When, exactly, were those days? They sure weren't in the old mainframes
of the 70s, nor in the license of DOS and Windows in the 80s and 90s,
and most definitely not in 2000.

>I don't blame them for not wanting you to share it with
>friends and customers. It would be illogical to think
>otherwise, but I resent having to pay for each computer that
>I own.

I happen to agree, and am gravitating heavily toward per-user licensing
rather then per-installation. Per-user is popular on PDAs, although
less common in the PC world.

>It should be easy enough for them to track a customer's
>license and ensure that that license only is submitted for
>activation from the same web address.

Web address? What exactly are you talking about?
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

"johns" <johns321.RemoveThis@moscow.com> wrote in message
news:3879ab23-f13d-47f5-83e1-5908d5b05ff7@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> To what extent has the "Vista Only" machines
> been recended ? For example, the Compaq Presario
> is Vista Only ... with no drivers available for XP ..
> and they will void any warranty if you try to install
> XP. As I understand it, Vista Only means "NO
> BIOS" is needed for anything .. mobo, video card,
> ... it is already in Vista. And M$ has total
> ownership of that hardware. Which says to me
> I will not even be able to go to vendors like NewEgg
> and buy a video card that is Vista Only, and build
> my own machine. I will ONLY be able to buy a
> Vista Only PC from a certified Microsoft Builder
> ... like HP. Compaq Tech ( Shhhh ! ) told me
> that in the future, the video cards for Vista and
> Dx10 will be embedded on the mobo, and that
> is why ATI ( and NVidia ) are getting in bed with
> AMD and Intel .... embedded video hardware.

Well your Compaq Tech was close. The CPU (central processing unit, or
microprocessor) will eventually be obsolete. Truth is, it is already
obsolete. GPUs, or graphics processing units (the microprocessor on the
video card, some of them already built into motherboards) are getting so
powerful that they can handle all the CPU functions (as well as GPU
functions) quite easily. Eventually, it will be redundant to install a
"video card" and a "CPU".

When you only need one chip to perform both functions, what is the point of
an expansion card to mount it on? That's why the video chip will soon be on
the motherboard. Will it be built into the motherboard? Possibly. When
you are upgrading the GPU and CPU (which will soon be both on one chip), the
cost of upgrading the motherboard is negligible on top of that. So we very
well could see motherboards with everything built into them soon. Even
storage!!! Kiss the hard drive goodbye... solid state storage isn't cheap
enough for mainstream yet. But it's just a matter of time.

So your compaq tech knew half the story, but he didn't understand, or didn't
explain, the reasoning behind the embedded video. Now you know... the CPU
is going the way of the dinosaur. And this has nothing to do with Vista, or
even Microsoft. The hardware is changing. GPU will replace CPU
oon. -Dave
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

"DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam.DeleteThis@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:tr61s3dslo4qvnhhg7o2tj9lk6nbpfn4v3@4ax.com...
> In message <HpZvj.81049$Mu4.18695@bignews7.bellsouth.net>
> "Ed Cregger"
> <ecregger.DeleteThis@bellsouff.net> wrote:
>
>>I'd rather they go back to the old days when once
>>purchased,
>>you could install it on as many devices as you pleased.
>
> When, exactly, were those days? They sure weren't in the
> old mainframes
> of the 70s, nor in the license of DOS and Windows in the
> 80s and 90s,
> and most definitely not in 2000.

***I could install DOS on as many computers as I wanted.
Legally? Well, that's a different matter. I care about the
real world, not their legalise.
***

>
>>I don't blame them for not wanting you to share it with
>>friends and customers. It would be illogical to think
>>otherwise, but I resent having to pay for each computer
>>that
>>I own.
>
> I happen to agree, and am gravitating heavily toward
> per-user licensing
> rather then per-installation. Per-user is popular on
> PDAs, although
> less common in the PC world.
>
>>It should be easy enough for them to track a customer's
>>license and ensure that that license only is submitted for
>>activation from the same web address.
>
> Web address? What exactly are you talking about?

***All right, I used the wrong term. Why? Because I'm
getting old and have a bad case of CRS Syndrome. There I go
again, I can't remember the name. The identifying number for
your account that begins with 207... Oops, just remembered
that that changes constantly these days. I'm sure they'll
think of something. <G>
***

Ed Cregger
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 20:41:43 -0500, Larc <larc-news.TakeThisOut@saturnlink.net>
wrote:

>The honest truth is that M$ is NOT an honorable company. Their income
>is first and their customers are last! It's extremely difficult to
>respect their copyright rights when they are in no way deserving of
>that respect. I'm sorry another company has not produced a suitable
>OS to replace Windows (don't kid yourself: Linux simply doesn't fill
>the bill no matter what any of its lunatic fans may claim). Vista is
>nothing more than an armed bandit, taking money without returning
>acceptable benefit to the user.
>
>If ever a company has richly deserved ultimate defeat, it is M$!!!

Sorry about this post. It's not completely mine. A relative who had
my permission to use my computer edited a post I had written to make
the language stronger than I had intended. I incorrectly assumed he
had sent it without making any changes.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
 >> Stay informed about: [fw] New Vi$ta licensing terms