I have read a lot about how Vista's EULA will only allow you to transfer to a new machine only once and how this will affect those of us who upgrade their computers fairly often. When I did the research I found that this is not talking about upgrading your computer. Worse case scenario for upgrading, you have to talk to a person to validate your software. This is just like Windows XP.
See the following website for more information: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp</a>
In the blog on the link above, Ed Bott quotes Microsoft's own website. Paul Thurrott called a Microsoft Product Manager. Microsoft's own documents contradict Paul Thurrott's information and the Product Manager's statements.
Hands in your pockets... Anyone who "buys" vista deserves MS controling their box and dictating their hardware upgrades. MS response to piracy is equal to their response to security flaws and windows development. A serious lack of imagination and a strong focus on the dollar and not on any value for the dollar. Piracy is all hype. Strange fact that 2006 is here and win98 is still most used OS in the world. I know. I was stunned too, and using a copy don't require hacking or pirating. People have got to think before blindly following the MS "reason" for needing to "own" your box and to tie their OS software to your boxes hardware for ID purposes and to thwart piracy. What a joke.
I would say anti-piracy. Anyone who "buys" Vista has to agree to have Microsoft making sure you are not gonna use its software in an illegal way, just like what happens with any other software company. I agree with you: Microsoft response to piracy is equal to their response to security flaws and Windows development. Has been improving greatly. You may say piracy is all hype, but that's not what every market study comes to conclude. Strange fact for me is that you say that Windows 98 is still the most used OS in the world as of 2006 when for, Market Share, the Operating System Market Share for September, 2006 is 85.56% for Windows XP and 2.24% for Windows 98 (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2" target="_newWindow">http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2</a>). Interesting, no? But I wasn't stunned, because I'm used to the ignorance of most people who criticise Microsoft. What I do think is that people like you must think twice before blindly criticising a company just because it's the market leader. What an ignorance.
Come on folks, the licensing restrictions will have little effect on anything but the most casual piracy by non-technical people.
Microsoft has a long history of steadily tightening licensing requirements as a way to increase revenue by requiring more licenses to be purchased. For example, when Office licensing eliminated concurrent usage and left only per seat, many companies had to buy two to three times as many licenses. Each major change in licensensing has increased the cost of their products.
In fact, if you look at the cost of a PC, is there any part, any program, OTHER than Microsoft products, that hasn't decreased in price over time?
Microsoft isn't as insanely profitable as it is for no reason.
I am an IT professional and I am moving OS's around constantly on the computers I own. It is no wonder I am moving more and more to Linux Products. The kicker is I am a Microsoft Certified Professional, what that tell you about my opinion of Microsoft anymore?
After 18+ years of putting up Wild Bill's BSOD's I'll be wiping my OS drives and installing some flavor of Linux on my families systems when XP starts nearing end-of-life.
*** Actually, two of my systems already dual boot (Windows/Linux) and the kids machines will follow in a few years;-)
As a PC/gaming hobbiest who has gone through an average of three motherboards per chassis and upgraded or replaced countless hard drives, video cards, NIC's, etc., it's unthinkable to be locked into a box!
In recent years, more game publishers have been going cross-platform (Windows/Linux) and my dependence on Windows diminishes every day.
I do like the suggestion of being able to deactivate and reactivate a license for portability.
But to pay as much as Microsoft wants only to loose my right to fair-use...it's not worth it!
Note to M$: I'm "buying" the OS not "leasing" it. I should have the same rights I have when purchasing a book, a board game or music!
I play a lot of video games!! I also don't like to wait for my PC to process! So I would consider myself in the top (extreme side) 10% of PC buyers.
In the last 3 years I've fried two MOBO's...purchased at least three SKT-478 and one SKT-775 CPU's. I can't remember how many EIDE HDD's and then SATA-150 RAID 0, 1, 10, now 5. I haven't even purchased any of the SATA-300's yet. I'm on my 3rd Video Card. And I'm currently running 4GB of OCZ ram.
So needless to say with XP, I had to call MS a few times. I'm running Vista on that machine now...it has its bugs but overall I was excited about buying. But now, with the whole 1 transfer thing I won't buying? Unless MS clairifies some things!!
If your MOBO goes out...my Dell D600 has gone out twice in 2.5 years...does that count as a transfer? What if you MOBO is no longer available? That happened with my Gigabyte, so I had to upgrade.
I also want some clairification on the whole CPU thing...is that 2 seperate chips? or 2 core's? What if the MOBO on my home PC has 2 sockets for the new Duo Core 2 chips...does that mean I have to buy server Vista(4 cores)? Not fair!! I know that Intel and AMD are both working on a Quad-core...Intel has a tri-core working now!
Anyway...I'm just unhappy with Microsoft and all the Hardware companies should be as well. The cost of a new MOBO is about $150 to $250, but if I have to rebuy Vista...then that just doubled my upgrade cost! This sucks!!! I'm starting to look at OSX or Red Hat. I won't buy MS office 07 either.
This is a stupid mistake reminds me of a famous quote. -- "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!"
Yes, I will also definitely switch to Mac or Linux, should this new restrictive licensing tactic for VISTA come to pass . I, like so many individuals, build my own computer (often to rid of proprietary software). I purchased ONE license of XP. That is enough. I typically reinstall the OS, 2 to 3 times a year. I've had 2 crashes with the last 12 months; coupled with worm/virus issues, meritting an overhaul. I format/reinstall at least once a year whether I need to or not (usually a system needs to do so, in my opinion, with all the 'crud' that builds up in registry and other quarters). This is where I will draw the line. I will not be held over a barrel by Microsoft, when I legitimately reinstall the OS, per my discretion, on the same computer - hardware or software upgrades, etc. Wake up $M$ and listen to the users' outcries. Like one user already stated, "now who is the pirate?"
It sure looks like extortion to me. If I have Vista and my harddrive dies then now I have to buy a new copy of windows. If I bought a non OEM copy I can at least have one hard drive failure. I have had a hard drive fail and had to reinstall XP. Now Microsoft has found a way to make us buy more copies of windows. They are not content with being a monopily now they want us buying multiple copies. All they want is our money.
I may hold off on the Vista upgrade because of this. I have 5 legal copies of XP (home and Pro) in my house now, all in use, and I may keep it that way. Of course, 3 of these computers will not run Vista at all...
I have replaced my CPU and MB at least twice since I first installed XP, one was a defective MB. One hard drive replacement for the OS install drive and at least 2 for the data drives. If I read things correctly I would have had to purchase 2 more copies for the same computer. Not acceptable at all!
I have been following Microsoft's new Vista License closely and my wife and I have decided that we will not be purchasing any new computers with Visa installed. Her next computer will be an Apple while mine with by a home-built Linux box (I dual boot Linux and Windows XP at this time). I am sorry about this as I feel that Microsoft has some of the finest software on it's platform, but it is just too draconion. It is not that I mind paying for software, all three installations of XP at my house are legit and pass the Windows Genuine Advantage, it is that I have finally tired of this company assuming that I am a crook with me having to prove through one program after another that the software is legit. I have been using computers since CP/M days and have never felt as abused by a vendor as I have by this. I am sorry it has come to this Microsoft. Goodbye.
Microsoft are their own worst enemy. The most effective way to combat piracy is to make the software affordable. The biggest reason for piracy is the expense.
Windows XP Professional is currently retailing here for between ZAR1200,00 and ZAR1500,00. Vista is projected to cost upwards of ZAR2000,00 (according to a Microsoft SA representative at a presentation on 10OCT2006). That is 50% of the hardware costs on a new P4 rig at today's prices.
That is just stupid. They are pricing themselves right out of the market and then to add insult to injury they only want to allow 2 activations? I estimate 75% of the re-installations done in my workshop are related to OS corruption in one form or another. When Microsoft have a 100% stable OS that no longer self-destructs for no apparant reason then they can dictate how many activation per license, until then, forget it.
I honestly believe Linux is the way to go from here.
I date from the same time period as Bill Gates. When he was in the Altair Club at Harvard, I was in the Altair Club at Cornell. The original Idea of an operating system was as an aid to programmers. Instead of having to write each and very program in machine language (those 1's and 0's). we could write a program using the word COPY and rely on the Operating System to break taht one word down into all the dumb repetitive work involved in transferring the contents of one register to another. When we had no standard Operating System, each program had to be "compiled" (translated to machine language to operate. By the way, this is how Bill got his start, he wrote one of the most efficient, "nifty" little basic compilers for the Altair I have ever seen. It also says something about Bill that, contrary to the custom of the time, his compiler was not freeware, but he expected to be paid for it. My memory ma be faulty on this, but I think he was the first to try to get paid in money, rather than bragging rights. What we now call an Operating System from Microsoft is an Operating system with practically all the programs you will ever need written into the operating system. That's one reason it crashes all the time. When a car was just a small engine lashed onto a frame that was little more than two bicycles attaced to each other, any reasonably bright person could fix his own machine. There were just too few thingsto go wrong. Add all the improvements that we have made to the automobile, and no one except an expert can work on it. The thing has comuter controlled everything, and when it breaks it goes to the dealership. People seem to have an innate need, "if it aint broke, add more stuff until it is!" What I want out of an Operating System is a simple system to run my computer's software. Let me choose what software I want to run, and just as a perk make sure the Operating System lets me know which program doesn't run well with another. Don't crash, just say "problem detected between program A and program B." Wow! If all I was purchasing was the OS, not the OS with a GUI interface, a wordprocessor, a calculator, a browser, a firewall, a defrag system, a volume control, a sound recorder, a media player, and god knows what else, the thing would sell for $25.00. Who in the world bothers to pirate a $25.00 program? Bill, your Idea of a flexible OS with "stubs" that other programs could attach to ws another stroke of genius. But why try to occupy all the stubs yourself. Stay with the OS as just the OS, and develop separate programs to do separate tasks. If somebody wants his or hers in a different way, let them. Succeed by excellence and innovation, not by trying to kepp everyone out of your playground. By the way, I bought your original compiler, and anything that comes out of Microsoft thatis that good, gets purchased. Sad to say I have abandoned Microsoft Office in favor of Open Office and will not be making the transfer to Vista. I'll stay with XP on the two machines that have it until you no longer fix bugs, then they will join Linux. I think you just overreached yourself, too bad.
Thanks for your post - I enjoyed reading it and I very much agree. From Windows 95 onwards I've forever cursed all the garbage bestowed upon me that I didnt need / want / had better sources for and watched it increase in bulk over consecutive OS's to a point where I just give up trying to uninstall half of it and just dont use it or try and disable what can be disabled. There was no internet but in many ways my best pc days were back in pure Dos or in and out of Win 3.0 / 3.1 and Dos. Things were fast on a good machine and it was always (for me) fun squeezing that conventional memory for all it was worth and watching the gains slowly mount for your programs. You the user actually had control of everything, viruses didnt exist, and computing was a tangible experience and you learnt so much.
Bill has always wanted to turn the PC on like a tv set, that it should be just as intuitive, just as important, and be just as easy to serve content to. He still hasnt managed most of that and wont for a while - though flash ram looks likely one enable one vision. Anyway Bill using your age old analogy, if your TV needs more than two repairs in its like you dont throw it out and buy a new one. If you need to move it into two new houses it doesnt suddenly refuse to power up because its no longer sure if the third house is really where YOU live.
Strip out the programs, divide the cost of them and the operating system up and subtract for each from the amount you charge currently for the packaged OS. If your programs are good enough people will buy them as well as the OS, and some may prefer the packaged option so keep that as an option too. If they arent good enough then you are on notice they need work, or that possibly nobody is interested in Mr Clippy or the rabid St. Bernard searching for lost files.
Then you can lock down the PROGRAMS you sell and leave the essential Operating System able to be used the way it should be - with all fair use to legally licensed users available.
We all know programs are going to be internet based in a short time but as Steve Balmer said recently the one thing that will still always be needed is a way to lock all the hardware components together and operate a functioning base system. Thats still all many of us want. That's exactly the attraction of Linux to many, not the fact it is free. With internet based programs for either download or run on external servers this may be the last series of OS packages that come out in this way. Miss the opportunity to transform to the new environment and continue to load every possible application inside the OS and make many inextricable and you could lose the battle entirely. Someone will do a you Bill, and come out with some new simple operating system and create the shell required for people to totally ignore Microsoft altogether. It could even end up actually being a Linux derivative. These licensing provisions if carried out wont help save a platform bloating off in the wrong direction. If I dont want to install it at all will it make any difference if I could have installed it an indefinite number of times or just twice?
Video drivers and disc space format limitations aside it was incredible how fast windows 3.1 ran on a lower end dual core system when I did some brief testing of some software a few weeks ago.
In 14 years cars have gotten faster, safer, more reliable and more efficient. PCs have gotten much much faster, capacities for everything have increased enormously. Program are slaved over for much much longer and the end result isnt really any speed increase, isnt really much more functionality (with the exception of the internet which is a different ball park) we word process and write code and spreadsheets much the same, but we are far less safe in our PC environment now and seem to have as many or more problems with software and hardware on the whole as ever. Whats the difference between the car and the PC that caused the rift in real advancement?
I liken it to the space program. In 23 years we have developed a new method or transporting man to space, newer and better and more capable we were promised. Its killed more people, cost trillions more than budgeted for, done hundreds less trips than expected and completed a fraction of the tasks we wanted it to do. We love it dearly but in 2010 we are going to retire it and move on to a brave new world and a brave new design. Right back to the Saturn 5 rocket/Com/Lem that got the damn job done and saved lives. Because sometimes if it aint broke lets F$%k with it till it is just doesnt cut it anymore and someone sees sense.
I know this doesn't fix M$ licence PROBLEM but, if you have to play games on XPee while all game companies but EA tranfers to linux/UNIX just make an image of your hard disk with <U> Image for DOS <U>.
And in less than 5 min you got a fresh pre activated and driverd system for only like 15 bucks. After those few years hopefully lots of games will be making linux native games. (I don't think that it is the third party is responsible for emulating the game; wich never works.)
Also I knew this was coming so I baugt a mac mini it is good for surfing the web and typing papers. Apple has more native games than linux but not much so I don't recomend switching to apple unless you don't play games but why spend $650 on a computer that you could build for $200?
I am still trying to find my favorite distro for desktop use I recomend Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop>> or what ever it is called it is $50 and it has all the cool 3D stuff that windows took 7 YEARS to get.
I am NOT sorry windows I have been waiting for vista for several years but 1 os with no changes gives me alot of time to play with linux and I have tested many distros and If gaming companies get smart there will be no contest ???free or not free???
Just to keep blog going what about Direct X-->> what will replace it? Can Open GL be good enough??
Of building a new system and buying it. A friend recommended it to me and it looks like everything I want. I used to game a lot but not much anymore so it is primarily productivity apps and the internet.
I agree with you on the GUI, SLED looks cool and for $50/yr/system you can't beat it.
Policies like this are the reason I switched to Mac
I think the point here is that moving (Not Copying) a purchased copy of Vista from one computer to another is not piracy no matter how many times it is done. If Microsoft wants to combat piracy, they should focus on solutions that do so without cutting away at traditional rights afforded users who obey the law.
I have been a Windows user since 3.1 and recently switched to Mac specifically in response to Microsoft's WGA program. I have never once used an illegal copy of Windows on any of my computers and I objected to having yet another program running in the background for no other purpose than to phone home to the mothership and tell them that I'm not stealing from them. I paid Microsoft for an OS, I shouldn't be forced into running spyware that ensures just like yesterday, and the day before that, this copy of Windows is legal.
I was a long time fan of Microsoft's. I work for a company developing software using their .net platform. I was as entrenched in their platform as anyone and their stepping over the line caused them to loose me. I've become so at odds with their business practices and their new habit of DRMing the customer to death, that I've sworn to myself that I'll never buy another one of their products.
In my opinion, they should start worrying more about the day when more people like me start voting with their wallets and less about restricting users in the name of combating piracy.
I've just installed Ubuntu Linux on the same computer I am testing Vista on, and it works. My office may move towards Vista, but now that Linux is mature enough for an easy install, I may finally be diverging at home. As a tech support person, I drove the adoption to Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows XP at my office, and during those upgrades, there was alot of experimentation, builds and rebuilds until we were comfortable it was ready for release to our users. If Vista makes it difficult for me at home, I'm not sure how much of a cheerleader I can be at work. Especially now that I am starting to use Linux more and more as my primary OS at home. Microsoft needs to be careful how it treats the people who lead the way for them, those of us who live at the cutting edge.
I've read most of the comments and reviews. The truth is - the system is not infallible. Just like any OS - I don't care if it's Linux, OSX or Windows - the fact is, it can fail. This might come through hardware crashes, conflicts, viruses, etc. Sure-it is legal to reinstall my copy of vista on the same machine repeatedly, with the original CD and my original license key. But, the online authentication does not allow for that. The online authentication limits and controls this. I have, as a technician, reinstalled XP over 27 times on the same computer, with a copy of my xp disk (probably about 4 copies by now, tearing them up through repeated use), because I am constantly putting my pc through hell as part of my troubleshooting efforts for my clients. Oh, by the way, those are also Microsoft's clients, who they don't support or have the mental capacity to support. It's my work that keeps them having users. If I wanted to spend hundreds and hundreds, I could get my MSDN subscription, get a volume license and go from there - but it doesn't make sense as a support technician working on a small-time basis to do that (especially when a lot of my work is done for little or no cost, depending on the situation). Should I pay because of viruses? Nope. Should I pay because of a hardware failure? Nope. But, will Microsoft force the suppliers of their OEMs to guarantee that service? Nope. Will Microsoft guarantee a replacement of their CD for valid users should a virus eat out my hard disk? Nope. This is what we called a 'half-baked' policy. A true EULA, would be all-encompassing, to include unaccountable situations. There are random acts of hardware failure that command the destruction of a CD, or an operating system on a hard disk. But, instead of stopping piracy, Microsoft is punishing users. That is the difference. There is a clear distinction between keeping honest people honest and just flat out stepping on honest people in an attempt to squash the piraters. Let's try something new - a license EULA, that requires a user to buy a license, and can use ANY copy of Vista. Sound terrible? How is that terrible when universities are authorized to implement this policy? How is that terrible when corporations are authorized to implement this policy, or OEM providers for that matter? How is it a bad idea, when Microsoft is currently doing it? It's not. What it comes down to is this: the almighty $1 dollar bill commanding 'how' we live. Sorry to be preachy about Capitalism, but Microsoft wants there to be enough 'suckers', without good, working computer skills, scared to death to break the law because they're honest people, to keep paying for that $300 disk. They want the extra cash. It's been a technique Bill has used successfully for many years now - creating himself a multi-billion dollar kingdom. Again though, it requires stepping on the faces of honest users. I will continue to support the mindframe, that if a user comes to me with a valid license of Vista, and needs a reinstallation, and between their hardware supplier and Microsoft they are offered no support, to provide them that support. If a valid license costs $25 at an educational institution for a fully registered copy, but a CD costs $300 in the store - sorry, but it's not Microsoft who's losing out, it's their marketing company who creates a $275 box that doesn't get the added revenue. Somehow, that doesn't break my heart. There is a resolution for Microsoft: Ownership. That is the process in which a user has a personal feeling of security through the possession of their 'own' copy that belongs to them. That is a standard that has been in place for quite some time as well. Should Microsoft be worried that their $275 marketing department will suffer? I would say certainly not when there are going to be tens of millions of users that will want that security of their 'own' copy. Finally, the biggest issue: Vista on one pc or another. I buy a CD, and it doesn't matter what CD player I put it in to listen to it, I have unlimited rights to listen to it. I buy a book, and I can read it wherever I choose. I purchase software, it shouldn't matter what system I use it on, it's mine to use. The real problem (as Microsoft sees it) is a single user with one registered copy on multiple machines. Got news for Microsoft - EULA's, licensing and the such needs to be on a per user base, not on a per machine base. The reasoning (I'll use an example): The local broadband company here was trying to charge users on a per computer basis for their connection to the internet through the broadband router. Eventually, it got passed around between the users, that due to NAT, there was no way for the broadband company to detect this. They decided it best to quit discriminating against the uninformed versus the informed. Because, it was discrimination - period. It was wrong, and it was a capitalist driven tactic that violated a users' personal rights to a subscription. If we are to view an EULA as lack of ownership of the software, but rather, a subscription - then surprise - we get to use it however we choose. Doctors place magazines they subscribe to in their waiting rooms without paying added costs - because if you check the laws under 'subscriptions', Microsoft is already in the wrong. As long as their pointless EULA is going to deprave a user the right to 'own' the software and to use it as they see fit, but rather make it a limited subscription to the software, then the user, within reason, can install that software where ever they choose. Just like a subscription to XM satellite being played on any XM radio, a newspaper subscription being used in libraries for free distribution, and so on. (Additionally, by the mere fact this is a 'subscription' to the use of another's intellectual property - note that it is not a licensing issue, since licensing of patents, for example, enables the licensee to use the patent however they see fit - the need to 'own' the original CD Rom suddenly becomes moot at best. Just thought I'd throw that last part in for fun :) -cyber
What it was a technology monster-leading company, now become a bureaucratic dinosaur... "Leaded" by most of sluggish, lazy and magnificent executives trusts because they have the banking accounts full of merits that briefly understand.
The MS of today is exposed as if it had people who lack imagination
Making more difficult legal users´s experience, because they do not find the way to treat piracy and its consequences, in a lucrative way for the corporation
If MS continues with this primitive license policy, then us, the consumers should demand: NO patches Needs, NO system faults; No unpredictable operations; Non virus vulnerability; No MS indemnity if the software is responsible of perjury to his licensee. In instance, request a software free of defects.. Or what!? Would us accept to rent a DVD that it screens jumps. Or a Plasma TV with several bad pixels or colors that would change unpredictably?.. Not to recall the answer GM´s VP gave to Bill when he unhappily compares Car´s industry with IT industry&
As consumers, we should have demanded Why do we have so many software on the shelf, of license we paid, with patents that had been reused over and over, and meanwhile we are still been charged for parts of the same?. It isnt a way to give them all back, and get a refund for those? Why should we finance all this marketing garbage of a dominant monopoly, and cant demand, suit, or excel our rights against faulty, and poor software quality? Besides the fake promises we heard?
Linux is not good enough to become a new paradigm in desktop, but of course, MS should thanks its existence. That has help MS bypass the old Clintons era, where lawsuits against MS´ monopoly where actions filled over and over by Sun, IBM, Netscape, and others players.
Of course, expect a change! Beside this is utopia today, while MS leads the API.. But all imperiums had fallen sooner or latter, and the history is written again.
What it was a technology monster-leading company, now become a bureaucratic dinosaur... "Leaded" by most of sluggish, lazy and magnificent executives trusts because they have the banking accounts full of merits that briefly understand.
The MS of today is exposed as if it had people who lack imagination
Making more difficult legal users´s experience, because they do not find the way to treat piracy and its consequences, in a lucrative way for the corporation
If MS continues with this primitive license policy, then us, the consumers should demand: NO patches Needs, NO system faults; No unpredictable operations; Non virus vulnerability; No MS indemnity if the software is responsible of perjury to his licensee. In instance, request a software free of defects.. Or what!? Would us accept to rent a DVD that it screens jumps. Or a Plasma TV with several bad pixels or colors that would change unpredictably?.. Not to recall the answer GM´s VP gave to Bill when he unhappily compares Car´s industry with IT industry&
As consumers, we should have demanded Why do we have so many software on the shelf, of license we paid, with patents that had been reused over and over, and meanwhile we are still been charged for parts of the same?. It isnt a way to give them all back, and get a refund for those? Why should we finance all this marketing garbage of a dominant monopoly, and cant demand, suit, or excel our rights against faulty, and poor software quality? Besides the fake promises we heard?
Linux is not good enough to become a new paradigm in desktop, but of course, MS should thanks its existence. That has help MS bypass the old Clintons era, where lawsuits against MS´ monopoly where actions filled over and over by Sun, IBM, Netscape, and others players.
Of course, expect a change! Beside this is utopia today, while MS leads the API.. But all imperiums had fallen sooner or latter, and the history is written again.
I think it is irresponsible for Cnet to post this as the first item on the Vista oppinions section because Microsoft has since revoked this restriction.
Manage updates with the Download App
See the following website for more information: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp</a>
In the blog on the link above, Ed Bott quotes Microsoft's own website. Paul Thurrott called a Microsoft Product Manager. Microsoft's own documents contradict Paul Thurrott's information and the Product Manager's statements.
Anyone who "buys" vista deserves MS controling their box and dictating their hardware upgrades.
MS response to piracy is equal to their response to security flaws and windows development. A serious lack of imagination and a strong focus on the dollar and not on any value for the dollar. Piracy is all hype.
Strange fact that 2006 is here and win98 is still most used OS in the world. I know. I was stunned too, and using a copy don't require hacking or pirating.
People have got to think before blindly following the MS "reason" for needing to "own" your box and to tie their OS software to your boxes hardware for ID purposes and to thwart piracy. What a joke.
Microsoft has a long history of steadily tightening licensing requirements as a way to increase revenue by requiring more licenses to be purchased. For example, when Office licensing eliminated concurrent usage and left only per seat, many companies had to buy two to three times as many licenses. Each major change in licensensing has increased the cost of their products.
In fact, if you look at the cost of a PC, is there any part, any program, OTHER than Microsoft products, that hasn't decreased in price over time?
Microsoft isn't as insanely profitable as it is for no reason.
*** Actually, two of my systems already dual boot (Windows/Linux) and the kids machines will follow in a few years;-)
As a PC/gaming hobbiest who has gone through an average of three motherboards per chassis and upgraded or replaced countless hard drives, video cards, NIC's, etc., it's unthinkable to be locked into a box!
In recent years, more game publishers have been going cross-platform (Windows/Linux) and my dependence on Windows diminishes every day.
I do like the suggestion of being able to deactivate and reactivate a license for portability.
But to pay as much as Microsoft wants only to loose my right to fair-use...it's not worth it!
Note to M$: I'm "buying" the OS not "leasing" it. I should have the same rights I have when purchasing a book, a board game or music!
In the last 3 years I've fried two MOBO's...purchased at least three SKT-478 and one SKT-775 CPU's. I can't remember how many EIDE HDD's and then SATA-150 RAID 0, 1, 10, now 5. I haven't even purchased any of the SATA-300's yet. I'm on my 3rd Video Card. And I'm currently running 4GB of OCZ ram.
So needless to say with XP, I had to call MS a few times. I'm running Vista on that machine now...it has its bugs but overall I was excited about buying. But now, with the whole 1 transfer thing I won't buying? Unless MS clairifies some things!!
If your MOBO goes out...my Dell D600 has gone out twice in 2.5 years...does that count as a transfer? What if you MOBO is no longer available? That happened with my Gigabyte, so I had to upgrade.
I also want some clairification on the whole CPU thing...is that 2 seperate chips? or 2 core's? What if the MOBO on my home PC has 2 sockets for the new Duo Core 2 chips...does that mean I have to buy server Vista(4 cores)? Not fair!! I know that Intel and AMD are both working on a Quad-core...Intel has a tri-core working now!
Anyway...I'm just unhappy with Microsoft and all the Hardware companies should be as well. The cost of a new MOBO is about $150 to $250, but if I have to rebuy Vista...then that just doubled my upgrade cost! This sucks!!! I'm starting to look at OSX or Red Hat. I won't buy MS office 07 either.
This is a stupid mistake reminds me of a famous quote. -- "Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!"
I have replaced my CPU and MB at least twice since I first installed XP, one was a defective MB. One hard drive replacement for the OS install drive and at least 2 for the data drives. If I read things correctly I would have had to purchase 2 more copies for the same computer. Not acceptable at all!
Windows XP Professional is currently retailing here for between ZAR1200,00 and ZAR1500,00. Vista is projected to cost upwards of ZAR2000,00 (according to a Microsoft SA representative at a presentation on 10OCT2006). That is 50% of the hardware costs on a new P4 rig at today's prices.
That is just stupid. They are pricing themselves right out of the market and then to add insult to injury they only want to allow 2 activations? I estimate 75% of the re-installations done in my workshop are related to OS corruption in one form or another. When Microsoft have a 100% stable OS that no longer self-destructs for no apparant reason then they can dictate how many activation per license, until then, forget it.
I honestly believe Linux is the way to go from here.
I-ntruders
S-pam
T-rojans
A-dware
By the way, this is how Bill got his start, he wrote one of the most efficient, "nifty" little basic compilers for the Altair I have ever seen. It also says something about Bill that, contrary to the custom of the time, his compiler was not freeware, but he expected to be paid for it. My memory ma be faulty on this, but I think he was the first to try to get paid in money, rather than bragging rights.
What we now call an Operating System from Microsoft is an Operating system with practically all the programs you will ever need written into the operating system. That's one reason it crashes all the time. When a car was just a small engine lashed onto a frame that was little more than two bicycles attaced to each other, any reasonably bright person could fix his own machine. There were just too few thingsto go wrong. Add all the improvements that we have made to the automobile, and no one except an expert can work on it. The thing has comuter controlled everything, and when it breaks it goes to the dealership. People seem to have an innate need, "if it aint broke, add more stuff until it is!"
What I want out of an Operating System is a simple system to run my computer's software. Let me choose what software I want to run, and just as a perk make sure the Operating System lets me know which program doesn't run well with another. Don't crash, just say "problem detected between program A and program B." Wow! If all I was purchasing was the OS, not the OS with a GUI interface, a wordprocessor, a calculator, a browser, a firewall, a defrag system, a volume control, a sound recorder, a media player, and god knows what else, the thing would sell for $25.00. Who in the world bothers to pirate a $25.00 program?
Bill, your Idea of a flexible OS with "stubs" that other programs could attach to ws another stroke of genius. But why try to occupy all the stubs yourself. Stay with the OS as just the OS, and develop separate programs to do separate tasks. If somebody wants his or hers in a different way, let them. Succeed by excellence and innovation, not by trying to kepp everyone out of your playground. By the way, I bought your original compiler, and anything that comes out of Microsoft thatis that good, gets purchased. Sad to say I have abandoned Microsoft Office in favor of Open Office and will not be making the transfer to Vista. I'll stay with XP on the two machines that have it until you no longer fix bugs, then they will join Linux. I think you just overreached yourself, too bad.
Bill has always wanted to turn the PC on like a tv set, that it should be just as intuitive, just as important, and be just as easy to serve content to. He still hasnt managed most of that and wont for a while - though flash ram looks likely one enable one vision. Anyway Bill using your age old analogy, if your TV needs more than two repairs in its like you dont throw it out and buy a new one. If you need to move it into two new houses it doesnt suddenly refuse to power up because its no longer sure if the third house is really where YOU live.
Strip out the programs, divide the cost of them and the operating system up and subtract for each from the amount you charge currently for the packaged OS. If your programs are good enough people will buy them as well as the OS, and some may prefer the packaged option so keep that as an option too. If they arent good enough then you are on notice they need work, or that possibly nobody is interested in Mr Clippy or the rabid St. Bernard searching for lost files.
Then you can lock down the PROGRAMS you sell and leave the essential Operating System able to be used the way it should be - with all fair use to legally licensed users available.
We all know programs are going to be internet based in a short time but as Steve Balmer said recently the one thing that will still always be needed is a way to lock all the hardware components together and operate a functioning base system. Thats still all many of us want. That's exactly the attraction of Linux to many, not the fact it is free. With internet based programs for either download or run on external servers this may be the last series of OS packages that come out in this way. Miss the opportunity to transform to the new environment and continue to load every possible application inside the OS and make many inextricable and you could lose the battle entirely. Someone will do a you Bill, and come out with some new simple operating system and create the shell required for people to totally ignore Microsoft altogether. It could even end up actually being a Linux derivative. These licensing provisions if carried out wont help save a platform bloating off in the wrong direction. If I dont want to install it at all will it make any difference if I could have installed it an indefinite number of times or just twice?
Video drivers and disc space format limitations aside it was incredible how fast windows 3.1 ran on a lower end dual core system when I did some brief testing of some software a few weeks ago.
In 14 years cars have gotten faster, safer, more reliable and more efficient. PCs have gotten much much faster, capacities for everything have increased enormously. Program are slaved over for much much longer and the end result isnt really any speed increase, isnt really much more functionality (with the exception of the internet which is a different ball park) we word process and write code and spreadsheets much the same, but we are far less safe in our PC environment now and seem to have as many or more problems with software and hardware on the whole as ever. Whats the difference between the car and the PC that caused the rift in real advancement?
I liken it to the space program. In 23 years we have developed a new method or transporting man to space, newer and better and more capable we were promised. Its killed more people, cost trillions more than budgeted for, done hundreds less trips than expected and completed a fraction of the tasks we wanted it to do. We love it dearly but in 2010 we are going to retire it and move on to a brave new world and a brave new design. Right back to the Saturn 5 rocket/Com/Lem that got the damn job done and saved lives. Because sometimes if it aint broke lets F$%k with it till it is just doesnt cut it anymore and someone sees sense.
Maybe Microsoft will too before its too late.
And in less than 5 min you got a fresh pre activated and driverd system for only like 15 bucks. After those few years hopefully lots of games will be making linux native games. (I don't think that it is the third party is responsible for emulating the game; wich never works.)
Also I knew this was coming so I baugt a mac mini it is good for surfing the web and typing papers. Apple has more native games than linux but not much so I don't recomend switching to apple unless you don't play games but why spend $650 on a computer that you could build for $200?
I am still trying to find my favorite distro for desktop use I recomend Suse Linux Enterprise Desktop>> or what ever it is called it is $50 and it has all the cool 3D stuff that windows took 7 YEARS to get.
I am NOT sorry windows I have been waiting for vista for several years but 1 os with no changes gives me alot of time to play with linux and I have tested many distros and If gaming companies get smart there will be no contest ???free or not free???
Just to keep blog going what about Direct X-->> what will replace it? Can Open GL be good enough??
I agree with you on the GUI, SLED looks cool and for $50/yr/system you can't beat it.
I have been a Windows user since 3.1 and recently switched to Mac specifically in response to Microsoft's WGA program. I have never once used an illegal copy of Windows on any of my computers and I objected to having yet another program running in the background for no other purpose than to phone home to the mothership and tell them that I'm not stealing from them. I paid Microsoft for an OS, I shouldn't be forced into running spyware that ensures just like yesterday, and the day before that, this copy of Windows is legal.
I was a long time fan of Microsoft's. I work for a company developing software using their .net platform. I was as entrenched in their platform as anyone and their stepping over the line caused them to loose me. I've become so at odds with their business practices and their new habit of DRMing the customer to death, that I've sworn to myself that I'll never buy another one of their products.
In my opinion, they should start worrying more about the day when more people like me start voting with their wallets and less about restricting users in the name of combating piracy.
-cyber
The MS of today is exposed as if it had people who lack imagination
Making more difficult legal users´s experience, because they do not find the way to treat piracy and its consequences, in a lucrative way for the corporation
If MS continues with this primitive license policy, then us, the consumers should demand: NO patches Needs, NO system faults; No unpredictable operations; Non virus vulnerability; No MS indemnity if the software is responsible of perjury to his licensee. In instance, request a software free of defects.. Or what!? Would us accept to rent a DVD that it screens jumps. Or a Plasma TV with several bad pixels or colors that would change unpredictably?.. Not to recall the answer GM´s VP gave to Bill when he unhappily compares Car´s industry with IT industry&
As consumers, we should have demanded
Why do we have so many software on the shelf, of license we paid, with patents that had been reused over and over, and meanwhile we are still been charged for parts of the same?. It isnt a way to give them all back, and get a refund for those?
Why should we finance all this marketing garbage of a dominant monopoly, and cant demand, suit, or excel our rights against faulty, and poor software quality? Besides the fake promises we heard?
Linux is not good enough to become a new paradigm in desktop, but of course, MS should thanks its existence. That has help MS bypass the old Clintons era, where lawsuits against MS´ monopoly where actions filled over and over by Sun, IBM, Netscape, and others players.
Of course, expect a change! Beside this is utopia today, while MS leads the API..
But all imperiums had fallen sooner or latter, and the history is written again.
The MS of today is exposed as if it had people who lack imagination
Making more difficult legal users´s experience, because they do not find the way to treat piracy and its consequences, in a lucrative way for the corporation
If MS continues with this primitive license policy, then us, the consumers should demand: NO patches Needs, NO system faults; No unpredictable operations; Non virus vulnerability; No MS indemnity if the software is responsible of perjury to his licensee. In instance, request a software free of defects.. Or what!? Would us accept to rent a DVD that it screens jumps. Or a Plasma TV with several bad pixels or colors that would change unpredictably?.. Not to recall the answer GM´s VP gave to Bill when he unhappily compares Car´s industry with IT industry&
As consumers, we should have demanded
Why do we have so many software on the shelf, of license we paid, with patents that had been reused over and over, and meanwhile we are still been charged for parts of the same?. It isnt a way to give them all back, and get a refund for those?
Why should we finance all this marketing garbage of a dominant monopoly, and cant demand, suit, or excel our rights against faulty, and poor software quality? Besides the fake promises we heard?
Linux is not good enough to become a new paradigm in desktop, but of course, MS should thanks its existence. That has help MS bypass the old Clintons era, where lawsuits against MS´ monopoly where actions filled over and over by Sun, IBM, Netscape, and others players.
Of course, expect a change! Beside this is utopia today, while MS leads the API..
But all imperiums had fallen sooner or latter, and the history is written again.