on Vista?
Posted on 10/13/2006 7:22:58 AM PDT by Señor Zorro
Microsoft has released licenses for the Windows Vista operating system that dramatically differ from those for Windows XP in that they limit the number of times that retail editions can be transferred to another device and ban the two least-expensive versions from running in a virtual machine.
The new licenses, which were highlighted by the Vista team on its official blog Tuesday, add new restrictions to how and where Windows can be used.
"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," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once.
The new policy is narrower than Windows XP's. In the same section, the license for Windows XP Home states: "You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer." There is no limit to the number of times users can make this move. Windows XP Professional's license is identical.
Elsewhere in the license, Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine. "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system," the legal language reads. Vista Ultimate and Vista Business, however, can be installed within a VM.
Vista Home Basic, at $199 for a full version and $99 for an upgrade, and Vista Home Premium ($239/$159), are the two most-affordable retail editions of the operating system scheduled to appear on store shelves in January 2007.
Although the Vista team's blog did not point out these changes, it did highlight others. "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; and 2) an increase in our warranty period from 90 days to 1 year, which brings Windows in line with most other Microsoft products," wrote Vista program manager Nick White.
Specifically, the Vista license calls out the ramifications of a failed validation check of Vista.
"The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software," it reads. "If after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of the software may be affected."
Vista's new anti-piracy technologies, collectively dubbed "Software Protection Platform," have met with skepticism by analysts and criticism by users. Under the new program, a copy of Vista that's judged to be in violation of its license, or is counterfeit, is disabled after a set period, leaving the user access only to the default Web browser, and then only for an hour at a time.
Most Windows users who try a Mac prefer the Mac. The marketshare is because of several reasons, including IBM's muscle in the early days, an open architecture for hardware (and Compaq reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS), Microsoft's love for backwards compatibility (which is one reason for the numerous problems in Windows), and some pretty bad management at Apple in the 90s.
I thought Linux was designed to run on Linus Torvalds' old 386.
I haven't had Windows crash either in quite a while, and I have about 6-8 machines, home and office, running Windows 2000 and XP. All run office apps and many run hard core digital photography and video or legal specific apps (accounting/practice management), some of which aren't very well written or have serious memory leak problems (e.g. firefox). I, too, have had *nix (mostly BSD) based systems up and running as servers virtually non-stop and I would never run MS anything on the server side. Desktop systems are different entirely.
Don't assume your experience is universal. Many, if not most, of the problems with Windows crashes are hardware related. Many other ones are application related. For some reason, Adobe Premeire blew completely up and brought an instant reboot (something I've never experienced before) when I tried to do something with it a couple of years ago. I haven't used it since and don't plan on it.
True. I think it's closer to half a million, running a customized Linux.
Microsoft's product activation takes a snapshot of major hardware components on your system. It looks at the following at least:
The CPU is only one factor. It looks at the whole system, and changine enough of it is considered a move.
The official Vista terms of use: (Home Premium version)
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_66716c9b-88ec-4a8b-bf56-31a72651b7a3.pdf
I always find this to be an interesting excuse. "most or the problems with windows crashes are hardware related". Funny that the same hardware that crashes windows often runs just fine under Linux.
All of my stuff just works. My laptop runs and reboots cleanly even when I'm an idiot and forget to plug it in and let it die in a not very graceful manner.
On another note, my wife's family came to town this weekend and stayed with us. We couldn't get thier windows laptops up on our wireless network. He's a serious geek, yet we ended up just plugging in a cord to our router and going with that. We've got three Linux laptops that work fine with wireless, but no matter what he did, he couldn't get his up. I wasn't much help, as I don't do windows anymore and couldn't much help besides giving him my SSID and pass, and telling our router to allow his MAC on the network. I thought windows was supposed to be easy to use. Guess secured wireless doesn't count.
I change things around too. Vista is a disaster for tinkerers. XP was bad enough with its "phone home" BS
It looks pretty much the same as the one at the link and it still includes the prohibition against VMs in both Home editions.
Just curious, by why doesn't Apple count? I've seen it used quite successfully in a number of businesses, complete with microsoft office products running on it, sometimes better than they do on Windows.
Yep, I just thought it'd be informative to provide the raw data straight from the source.
Personally I don't care if MS wants to restrict VM usage to Pro versions. I am concerned about the transfer wording, because like many others I home-build and upgrade much more often than I change OSs. Some people are telling me that there's nothing to worry about, but the wording *is* different. I'm not ready to panic in any direction - I'm in no hurry and I can wait for someone else to find out what theoretical interpretations of wording actually turn out to mean in reality.
business software which is in any way specialized has to run in a wind ows environment. Emulaters work today but may not with upgrades (and MS intentional incompatability designs)
It is also a niche system with only one hardware source. Even with monopolyware from MS, I still come out more financially efficient than paying for a pretty box from Apple.
Time is money. It is all about availability and price. Apple looses on both counts in the business world.
You mean like accounting or point of sale? Both are available for OS X.
It is also a niche system with only one hardware source.
That can be a problem if your organization demands multi-sourcing.
Even with monopolyware from MS, I still come out more financially efficient than paying for a pretty box from Apple.
That is not necessarily true. Macs undercut PC price in many instances.
Time is money.
True. Macs take less time to maintain and have better usability, which means more productivity. Save your time, save your money, go Mac (if other factors allow for it).
>>Funny that the same hardware that crashes windows often runs just fine under Linux.<<
One thing has nothing to do with the other. I run FreeBSD servers on a Pentium II and another web server on a K6. You couldn't run Windows XP effectively on these, much less on these with as little as 64M of RAM.
Please read the post I was responding to for the proper context.
IIRC, it still needs 512 ram...
Dang, guess I can't run it after all...8^)
No like software for non retail applications. There are no Mac versions.
Mac might undercut but I KNOW I can get an out of the box unit for my staff without any hassles. Also I don't have to hire a computer person to put the new computer on the network.
Also upgreades or replacement parts don't require an official apple boutique retailer.
It is all rather accademic. When the super majority of the market is Windows based then that is where the least costs lie. If I go to a conference, the hotel business center runs windows computers not mac.
Once the mac computers start selling Vista installed and running top of the line intel chips then perhaps Mac would be viable.
That's quite possibly true for your specific needs, but you can't make it a general statement.
Mac might undercut but I KNOW I can get an out of the box unit for my staff without any hassles. Also I don't have to hire a computer person to put the new computer on the network.
A Mac is a lot easier than a PC for that. It's also easier to set up, and especially maintain, servers. The tools that come with OS X Server are like getting a 2003 box and buying a bunch of extra management software. Plus enterprise management software for OS X tends to be cheaper (the PC tools to implement Apple's Remote Desktop or XSan are very pricey).
When the super majority of the market is Windows based then that is where the least costs lie.
Then how can Macs undercut other OEM PCs?
If I go to a conference, the hotel business center runs windows computers not mac.
That might be a specific reason for some people to get a PC, but it doesn't apply to most (especially those who bring their laptop).
Once the mac computers start selling Vista installed and running top of the line intel chips then perhaps Mac would be viable.
They're already using those chips. As for Vista, what OS X user in his right mind would want to downgrade? He already has a mature version of what the yet-to-be-released Vista wants to be (and may be in a few years, but by then OS X will have moved on).
on Vista?
Visual C++?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.