[HAL9000]

Today Microsoft announced they may pull out of China, will support Linux and now they're reversing their draconian licensing terms for Vista. What the heck is going on up in Redmond?

[antiRepublicrat]

What the heck is going on up in Redmond?

"And Ballmer's heart grew three sizes larger that day."

[Anti-Bubba182]

" What the heck is going on up in Redmond?"

Perhaps customers made their displeasure known in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

[TChris]

What the heck is going on up in Redmond?

It's called business. You tick off your customers too often and they quit spending their money with you.

[observer5]

Well, Vista's license limit will remain "for idiots only"... hehe

[Question_Assumptions]

The real crown jewels of Microsoft are Office, SQL Server, Visual Studio/.NET, and Outlook, not Windows. If the whole world abandoned Windows, Microsoft could port all of those applications to Linux, the Mac, or any other OS that's worth the trouble and still make a fortune. The business world may originally have adopted DOS and Windows because it ran on cheap non-proprietary hardware (and because IBM spent money pitching the platform to business before they lost control of it) but businesses stick witn Windows because of Office and Outlook, not because they love the OS.

[conservativepoet]

Glad to hear this.

[untrained skeptic]

Locking the OS to the hardware makes their anti-piracy efforts much simpler.

I can understand why they would want to do it. I just find it unacceptable to have to repurchase Windows if I change too many parts in my computer and Windows recognizes it as a different computer, or if I decide to upgrade to a new computer and decide that I don't need Windows on the old one anymore.

Fortunately there are enough consumers that also feel that locking Windows to the hardware is unacceptable that it would be a bad business decision for Microsoft to do so.

However, I hardly consider a company making efforts to limit the ability of people to pirate their products draconian.

Windows has it's merits and it's flaws, but considering all that it does, as well as the continuous effort to supply security fixes, driver updates, and even some feature updates, I can't really complain about the nominal price of the OS.

If you think that nominal price is too high you can try Linux or one of the other free alternatives. However, they also have their good points and their limitations.

[theFIRMbss]

>Microsoft announced they may pull out of China, will support Linux and now they're reversing their draconian licensing terms for Vista. What the heck is going on up in Redmond?

And they announced that in two years, when Gates retires, the new CEO will be Hippie Girl! And the Zune will download all Grateful Dead songs free!

[mysterio]

Funny, I bought XP a couple years ago and installed it on a computer, which then crashed a few days later (non XP related). When I tried to install XP on my old computer, it wouldn't let me.

If I pay for software, I should be able to install it on every computer in the house. If I can't do that, then I won't buy the software.

[antiRepublicrat]

And some news in the other direction. Here are some tidbits: Vista's .NET will have the same censorship clause relating to benchmarking. Yes, you buy software, you test software, but you are not allowed to tell anyone about the tests unless you follow specific procedures. Worst part, the benchmark terms are on a web page that Microsoft could change at any time. IOW, you don't just agree to one license when buying Vista, you accept any changes to it that Microsoft may decide to make in the future. That can't be legal.

Then of course there's the known fact that users of either Home version can't run it in a VM. There's nothing technical preventing it, Microsoft just doesn't want you to. You also can't use BitLocker or any MS DRM-based application (like media player) from within a VM.

It also denies the doctrine of First Sale, in that you can sell your license to one other person, but that person isn't allowed to further sell it.

At least it does admit that consumer protection and other laws may trump these draconian terms. But you test that at your own risk, just little ol' you vs. big multibillion dollar corporation with an army of lawyers.