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/$159), are the two most-affordable retail editions of the operating system scheduled to appear on store shelves in January 2007.
Although the Vista team's blog did not point out these changes, it did highlight others. "Two notable changes between Windows Vista license terms and those for Windows XP are: 1) failure of a validation check results in the loss of access to specific features; and 2) an increase in our warranty period from 90 days to 1 year, which brings Windows in line with most other Microsoft products," wrote Vista program manager Nick White.
Specifically, the Vista license calls out the ramifications of a failed validation check of Vista.
"The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software," it reads. "If after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of the software may be affected."
Vista's new anti-piracy technologies, collectively dubbed "Software Protection Platform," have met with skepticism by analysts and criticism by users. Under the new program, a copy of Vista that's judged to be in violation of its license, or is counterfeit, is disabled after a set period, leaving the user access only to the default Web browser, and then only for an hour at a time.
My point is that if apple was so much better than microsoft, and if there was such a deluge of angry microsoft customers they'd have a bigger market share.
Using Windows emulators, I can't see why not. Or you could go the dual-boot route. Your call.
And you are a better person for it! :o)
Me, I'm a cheap bastard and still buy eMachines and flush the Micro$loth OS out with a fresh Linux install. And I just love it when the droids at Fry's insist that what I'm doing is impossible...that these boxen "don't support Linux." (I've got 14 systems here that say otherwise. Nyak!)
(1) Low end - Open source is doing to them what they did to IBM 25 years ago with the original PC. It's forcing MS to move up the value-chain as newer low-cost entrants take over. They have no choice - they couldn't bring out another OS that just does the same thing; no one would "upgrade" to buy a new license.
(2) High end - Early proponents of 'thin clients' like Larry Ellis, et al were too far ahead of their time. Google is demonstrating the power of what a concentrated collection of IT PhDs can invent/create in the way of functional utilities served through massive server farms.
Ditto large installations like investment banks, etc. They don't need the features/complexity of Vista - they need stable platforms+fat servers from which they can hire their **own** finance PhDs to develop proprietary analytics, etc.
For execs running these types of firms, they're probably hearing from consultants about how they need to create their own internal 'Google' ops, while at the same time avoid spending time & money on some crazy Vista upgrade.
In a way, it's somewhat analogous to Roger Smith investing in robots at GM in the 80s instead of focusing on cars. They got so behind the curve, they'll probably never recover. Ditto today's companies: the key is to focus on how to best develop/deliver applications for one's specific company using the technology/techniques perfected by Google.
I will not be getting Nanny State Vista.
[Update, Fri. Oct 13, 11:00 am: The initial version of this story erroneously mischaracterized the way Microsoft's Vista license applies to user of the OS in a virtual machine, stating that there was a blanket ban in effect. This is incorrect; we regret the error. The updated version of this story removes all references to a VM ban, including a change in the headline, removal of a virtual machine reference in the lead paragraph, and the deletion of the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the original story.]
"For all the bluster from the mac crowd about microsoft, apple still has like 3-4% of the market and microsoft 90%."
There is no doubt that Microsoft is a very innovative company and that has made them a market leader. I think where they have fallen short is with security (based in part as I understand it because of their developement paradigm), and their license fetish.
With regards to security, for example, an OS should not be compromised because of an email or a hole in media player, but because (as I understand it) they share code back and forth between apps for developement efficiency (which makes sense), that is what happens.
There is no doubt that Microsoft should reap the reward for the development work (internally and through acquisitions) they have put into the OS. But I think they are going a bit overboard with restricting the ability to move licenses bacause imho, if I have bought the license, I should be able to install it where ever I want (as long as I am not using it in more than one place as I believe if one has one license, it should be used in one place as agreed) and I should not be restricted where I do this.
I am also concerned about the future impact of this on the after market. Even today, there is a glut of hardware out there that is perfectly usable, just not able to run the latest and greatest. Folks can either turn to linux or if they desire to stay Microsoft (which many do), they use an older OS like win95/98//ME/NT. They understand they do not have support for it, but they know what they want to use it for and it works for them. If they have a valid license, why not. It sounds to me with Vista that this kind of approach will not be possible. Personally, I would like to see Microsoft offer some heavily discounted licensing option for the after market, but this is a topic for another thread I am sure.
Does any of this open up the door for Linux or MacOS? Probably not at the moment, but in the future, who knows? Netscape was once on top and now, who uses it?
This is a pretty funny spoof that hits all 3 OSes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAJDbV9Vfs&NR
I'd be inclined to agree with your assessment if both OS's had an equal number of third-party developers making product for each platform. But Apple pretty much handicapped itself with this onerous licensing back in the late 1980s. That wrongheaded move so many years ago still plagues Apple to this day. It's going to take a long, long LONG time to recover from that. Fortunately, the iPod seems to have buoyed the company long enough that it may yet survive one of its most stupid mistakes.
I think you're a little behind the times on user-friendly Linux. Red Hat is only available as a server-focused, and very expensive distro. Fedora has replaced Red Hat as the desktop focused, free version. I would recommend SuSe as an RPM based desktop distro.
Debian wouldn't be my first choice either for a user-friendly distro. Ubuntu is derived from Debian and smooths off Debian's rough edges.
Linspire and SuSe are the only two distros I have seen in stores in some time.
You are right about security things, but i believe vista is addressing it. The thing about windows xp and beyond, is that the windows kernel itself is very powerful, in fact some would argue more powerful than the linux kernel, the problem is the interface on top of it.
There's also the problem of developing applications for macintosh. As a programmer i've always found windows much easier to develop for than a macintosh. Not to mention programming a game on windows is a lot easier than doing it for a macintosh, and ther's a ton of money in video gaming.
"You are right about security things, but i believe vista is addressing it."
That is my understanding as well, and hopefully, it is improved.
Maybe I should just keep my Commodore 64.
LOAD "*", 8, 1
RUN
I read once that Russia was using the Commodore 64 for guidance computers on their ICBMs...never knew if that was true or not, but thought it was funny. Personally, I mis my Timex Sinclare 1000.
That's interesting, because the PDF that the site references, which is a download from microsoft.com, says for both editions of Vista Home (am I the only that thinks two home versions is psychotic?):
4. Use with Virtualization Technologies: You may not use the software installed on a licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) system.
For Ultimate, it says that you can, but you cannot use anything protected by MS DRM.
How am I misunderstanding the paragraph from the PDF?
No kidding! :o) I switched over to Slackware after years of working exclusively with SunOS/Solaris. I was a major Solaris x86 hound until Sun Microsystems horked the x86 community back in 2002. By the time they relented, I'd moved on and never looked back.
I found redhat very easy to install and use, and will be running out this Christmas and picking up a cheapo machine from Fry's to run a Unix box once again. With all this junk MS is doing, it looks like any version of *nix is going to be worlds better then dealing with MS.
Agreed. I've been expanding my own home computing environment and even picked up a Mac Mini along the way. Not a bad piece of hardware for $600. Snagged the GCC computer for the platform and have been compiling my own tools for the system. Works pretty darned nice. I'll probably keep using it with MacOS until the edition I'm running is no longer supported...then I'll just load FreeBSD on it and run it as a mailserver or a DNS until it croaks.
thanks!
I agree entirely. When Vista was first announced there were supposed to be a lot of very cool new features in it, like the new file system they were crowing about. One by one these features were dropped until all that's left is eye candy and some under the hood networking and searching improvements. After running the beta for about a month I went back to XP and have no current plans to change again.
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.