MS isn't populated with complete idiots (Yes, I know this will generate numerous counter comments), they're just trying prevent users from reselling old licensed copies of Vista. If the end result is that the market starts seriously looking to alternatives to MS, then they may look for a new means of controlling the OS. And clearly the intention isn't to prevent Vista users from upgrading hardware. I'm not going to worry about it. If it comes down to it, I just won't upgrade to Vista, and if I buy a new machine I'll downgrade to XP.
No. On the contrary, this is specifically designed to prevent hardware upgrading so that Microsoft's profits won't taper off in-between OS releases.
How many years is it going to take Microsoft to release a new OS after Vista? 6? 10?
Where is their OS revenue going to come from if customers buy one copy of Vista and then transfer it in each hardware-upgrade they do for those 10 or so years? It's going to come from not allowing customers to upgrade their computers more than once....which is a lesson they learned from XP.
Yeah, I've thought about that, since I find XP adequate to my needs. But you know M-soft will cease to support XP at some point after Vista comes out (yes, I understand one may can run XP w/out support, but isn't it possible due to hacks and viruses that fixes might be needed at some point?)
I doubt you'll make that mistake. Vista-capable computers will have more horsepower, and have to be updated less. Upgrades on other systems are never simple, either.
Creators of copyrighted works have always been looking for ways to kill the secondary market, since it hurts their sales.
But the legality of such terms is in question. First Sale was established in the early 1900s, but they try to get around it by saying there's no sale, only a license (but the license is sold to you, duh). This clause may be invalid depending on where you live.