Microsoft limits Vista transfers

Windows Vista may have new features for mobile computers, but the operating system itself is becoming considerably less portable.

Under changes to Microsoft's licensing terms, buyers of retail copies of Vista will be able to transfer their software to a new machine only once. If they want to move their software a second time, they will have to buy a new copy of the operating system.

In the past, those who bought a retail copy of Windows needed to uninstall it from any machine before moving it to another machine, but there was no limit to how many times this could be done.

"It was something that had been abused from a piracy perspective before," said Shanen Boettcher, a general manager in Microsoft's Windows Vista unit. "We're just being clear it's one move from machine to machine that you are licensed for."

The software company will use its antipiracy programs, including its recently announced Software Protection Platform, to enforce the new changes, Boettcher said.

Separate rules apply for the versions of Windows installed on new PCs, which is how most people get their copy of the software, Boettcher said. In most cases, copies of Windows purchased on a new PC cannot legally be transferred.

The license changes also apply to virtualization, in which a computer runs multiple operating systems, or multiple copies of the same operating system, at the same time. Customers can only transfer the copy of Windows once, including a transfer from one physical machine to a virtual machine, or from a virtual machine on one PC to a virtual machine on another PC.

"Virtualization is a new technology," Boettcher said. "We are going to learn more about the use cases as we move forward."

People who have specific questions can call customer support, he said.

Microsoft is also making some other changes as far as virtualization goes. Although any Windows version can serve as the primary, or host, operating system, only the Business and Ultimate versions of Vista can run as guest operating systems in virtualization. In Windows XP, each virtual instance of the OS required a separate license, but there were no restrictions on which versions could act as guests.

Large businesses that obtain Windows Vista Enterprise edition through a volume-licensing contract can run up to four instances of Vista on the same machine with a single license. Developers in Microsoft's MSDN program can also use more copies of the operating system for testing purposes, Boettcher said.

The change is significant for technology enthusiasts, as well as for Mac users running software, such as Parallels Workstation, that allows Windows to run at the same time as the Mac OS.

The rule change would not have an impact on Apple Computer's Boot Camp software, which installs Windows in a separate partition and allows users to run the Mac OS and Windows, but not at the same time.

Also as part of the changes, Microsoft extended the warranty for Windows. Buyers of retail copies of Vista will get a one-year warranty, which is typical of most Microsoft software, as opposed to the 90-day warranty that comes with XP.

Boettcher said that Microsoft has heard some concerns regarding virtual machine issues, but doesn't think the license changes represent a threat to Vista sales. "It hasn't come up as any kind of a blocker for adoption," he said.

[robbtuck]

Tell me again why anyone would want Vista?

So if I upgrade my laptop once, I'm ok, but do it again and I have to buy Vista all over again? Stupid! <br /><br />BEST WAY TO REDUCE PIRACY = LOWER YOUR PRICE MS!!!

[dragonfly8610]

Vista

Is it just me, or has anyone else taken stock in the fact that the name of the new Windows operating system can be construed to be "vista" (pronounced 'veestuh'), the last word in a Spanish phrase meaning "See Yuh!!!!!!?????

[fred dunn]

I can't think of a reason in the world...

Vista is under-featured, over-priced, over-due, a resource hog and is the biggest flop since the Itanium.<br />Hey that's an idea. Hey Microsoft why don't you make it just that much less attractive to use Vi$ta by requiring it use the Itanic processor.<br /><br />Go back to Microsoft BOB it was a better OS than Vista.

[bw94382]

You're right on the mark

The other way to reduce piracy is to start treating your legitimate customers fairly, and to fix the previous version of your product before expecting your customers to purchase the next version. There is no way am I going to purchase software under these terms. My prediction: the rate of adoption for Vista will be low. This means that developers will remain committed to supporting previous OS versions (which now by definition means previous IE versions), which will have the effect of further slowing adoption of Vista.

[rcrusoe]

And MS thinks Vista will take off faster than XP?

This is yet another reason to stay with XP, while we migrate to Macs <br />and/or Linux.

[dagwud]

Faster Takeoffs.

Of course, Vista will take off faster than XP. They're forcing people to buy multiple copies.<br /><br />I know people who build a new PC every year. They build it themselves, and they add the latest and greatest hardware. They're NOT going to want to buy vista every other year.<br /><br />Looks like my next Thinkpad will be running Linux.

[Drewzilla]

I went to an Apple Store tonight

I have always been an advocate of MS and Windows even through the dark years of Windows 3.0, ME, spyware, virus, etc.<br /><br />Recent decisions at Microsoft that make it more difficult to operate their software is the beginning of the end of my loyalty.<br /><br />Though saddened by their decisions, I am excited to migrate to products from companies that value their customers.

[dagwud]

Faster takeoff, but artificial.

Part of the faster "take off" will happen simply because Microsoft is forcing people to buy more copies than they would have bought previously.

[m.meister]

Cow is running dry

It seems quite clear that Microsoft is determined to get every <br />last drop of cash from Vista that it can.<br /><br />These restrictions make one question the very integrity of a <br />company. It will only get MORE EXPENSIVE to use Windows. I'm <br />sure this new policy approach will be attached to other software <br />from Microsoft as well.<br /><br />Microsoft has its monopoly, and it's going to use it to draw every <br />last penny out of your pocket.<br /><br />After all, you should feel lucky to have the privilege to run <br />Microsoft products. Now pay up!

[Jim Hubbard]

How much longer?

How much longer will consumers allow Microsoft to bully them? How much longer will it be before they have finally had enough?<br /><br />It is precisely because of actions like these that Microsoft products will be hacked more than ever.<br /><br />Nobody in thier right mind would buy a used Windows Vista PC because, under this licensing, they can never get rid of it. If they cannot transfer the OS to a 3rd party, nobody will buy it from them (except for pocket change).<br /><br />If I buy a license, I should be able to do damn well what I please with the license. When that license restricts what I can and can't do with it, I have essentially purchased nothing.<br /><br />With this licensing scheme, Microsoft is pursuing it's stated goal of software-as-a-service without calling it that.<br /><br />Microsoft is crooked and rotten to its very core. But, it's not Balmer's fault, or Gate's fault...it's just how public corporations are run in the US. <br /><br />US corporations typically rape the customer for all that they can while firing them and outsourcing thier jobs, because this quarters' profits are all that matter to them. To them, customers are cattle and long term profitability and brand loyalty are not even on the radar.<br /><br />To celebrate this article, I will build my first dedicated Linux server this weekend and start on the road to building online apps that everyone can use - independent of parasitic corporations like Microsoft.<br /><br />I think I'll try my hand at Bindows first. It looks like you can make no-install apps that look like desktop apps and run in IE or Firefox using Bindows. Some big players are already using it, so why not me?

[lkrupp]

No choice.

"How much longer will consumers allow Microsoft to bully them? <br />How much longer will it be before they have finally had enough?"<br /><br />The average consumer will knuckle under quite nicely, thank you, <br />because Microsoft is all they know. Change is out of the question. <br />They will pay and they will like it.

[fastdodge]

"Trusted Computing"

Microsoft is a major sponsor of Trusted Computing. This is Microsoft's answer to open source software. You might want to look at all the things M$ is doing, like WGA, sponsoring SCO which is trying to destroy open source, etc.. <br />This is where we are really in trouble. M$ has vendor agreements in place with most PC manufacturers which will ensure VISTA's place in the universe. Others will migrate to VISTA just to keep up with ?improvements? MS makes to open standards to make them better (better for M$'s bottom line). The engineer in me wants to know how do you configuration manage 6 to 8 different versions of the same OS which is supposed to bigger than XP? Anyone understand the KISS principle? <br />?We are Microsoft Prepare to be Assimilated?

[mattumanu]

One transfer... What exactly do they mean?

I upgrade my system periodically. I think this policy is misguided at best, considering the fact that hardrives fail. I know a system where the hardrive failed more than once in the computers life cycle and needed to have the operating system reinstalled. This new setup could make that very difficult. How would MS know it's a reinstall? And never mind hardrives, what happens if you decide you want a new motherboard? I was looking at new motherboards this morning, found an ASUS I'd love to have with an Athlon 64 and 4 gigs of memory, Crossfire config, 2 gig FSB... If I had vista and I'd already had to reinstall due to a hardrive failure, I couldn't upgrade to this new motherboard without purchasing a new liscense?<br /><br />I'm thinking my next computer will be a mac. At the very least a mini mac.

[Jim Hubbard]

They'll know because they're watching...

The only way a scheme like this can work is if Vista sends a "heartbeat" back to Microsoft. That way they can disable multiple copies that use the same license via the lifeline that Vista sends back to Redmond.<br /><br />The next question is....how do we know that license info is all that they are sending back to big brother?<br /><br />We don't.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Apple maybe, maybe not...

I swear, it's like there's someone from Microsoft standing behind me, pushing me into an apple store. Insisting that I not buy Microsoft.<br /><br />I've been using a PC with Windows ever since Commodore went out of business (a LONG time ago). That's at least one pretty long-time customer Microsoft will loose, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.<br /><br />I'm not an Apple fan. Before I made any decisions I'd have to check into the Mac hardware upgrade scene (if there is any such thing). But they are looking more and more as the only alternative available.

[Hardrada]

Do you trust Microsoft?

Remember, this is the company that has repeatedly used extremely unethical business practices to sustain their desktop monopoly. When you upgrade to Vista, keep in mind that if Microsoft ever decides you or your company are a threat to their bottom line, they will in all likelyhood use your dependence on their software against you.

[Glichez]

I agree!

I think that overall we will see more and more people switching to a more reliable Linux and a more technologically advanced MacOS. Best of luck to Microsoft.

[Madrone]

Yes I do

I trust them fine as a consumer.<br /><br />Even though I upgrade my computers I've never once needed to switch the same copy of windows to another machine, and if for some reason I did they have a number you can call to clear it up.<br /><br />Sometimes I think people just want to hate microsoft even though the thing in the news doesnt really matter to any legimate user

[mjm01010101]

PR Mess

What is the real story here?<br />news.com's account differ's from Paul Therrott's account, both quote similar sources.<br /><br />Can you transfer more than once to a machine. as in, can I remove from machineA, place on machineB, remove from MachineB, place on machineC?<br /><br />We need a Microsoft page that clarifies this, or this OS is not being considered by our organization.

[Mergatroid Mania]

It Was Very Clear

I thought the article and original source material was very clear.<br /><br />The answer is "no".<br /><br />You can go from A to B, but that's it. You are not allowed to go from B to C.<br /><br />And since when you install you have to get a key or something from Microsift within a time period or Windows Vista will operate in "lame" mode, then they will have a count of how often it has been installed. And, since they snoop on your computer and Windows can snitch the information to Microsoft every time you do a Windows Update, they will also know what hardware you're running it on.<br /><br />IT'S TIME FOR A NEW O/S THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH WINDOZE and NOT made by MS!

[HobbesDoo]

Why even bother with Vista

With all its implementation flaws and restrictions why even bother <br />with Vista? If you need a stable Microsoft OS stick with Windows <br />2003 and even XP for desktops. If you want the best of both world <br />go with Mac OS X on Apple hardware. It works better than anything <br />out of Microsoft and you can run Office if you have to. I'm really <br />surprised Microsoft is still doing business the way they're going.

[pgp_protector]

Why Bother

I'm still undecided about Vista, I hate there new licensing systme. But why bother<br /><br />1) Perental Controls built in. You can restrict access by program / ESRB Rating / Time Control on Internet access<br />2) Software Compatability. For Children, there is Not a good selection of Educational Games for Linux, and I've already got the Hardware, so don't really want to buy new hardware to go to Mac.<br />3) 64Bit Support for Personal use, tried Linux 64Bit, and could never get the WiFi Drivers to work with 64Bit, constant answer given, run 32 Bit version of Linux.

[Glichez]

Microsoft has really done it...

I will certainly tell all of my friends about this move in the wrong direction. Is microsoft really trying to battle piracy? It would certainly seem to me that they are directly promoting it in such a move. At the same time they are being counterproductive in the promotion of their new OS. Your thoughts please?

[rsolomon]

Windows Vistaa

You can bet your sweet bippy I won't be buyng Vista! Who need this <br />aggravation?

[mattzayat]

That does it....no upgrade

What are they thinking? If MS made decent software that does not get corrupted, I would have no need to reinstall. It's already a hassle with XP, now I have to buy a new copy every other time I change a piece of hardware or reinstall because Windows is corrupt! I'll stick with XP. MS will not get my money unless they change or clarify this license policy.

[ds1pelfrey]

Consumers thinking of Upgrading need to know this

Consumers thinking of upgrading to Vista, or of purchasing a new PC that comes with Vista should be aware of this. I have compared the EULA of Windows XP Professional. See page 2 (Item 4 Marked transfer). Now on Windows Vista look at page 6, Number 15 concerning re-assign to another device. Both PDFS can be found here: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx" target="_newWindow">http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx</a>) <br /><br />When I buy a computer, I typically look at long term upgradability. What threshold by Microsoft dictates a new system? (IE replacing CPU, motherboard, adding a new video card/hardrive...) Besides upgrades, a component failure could go as one strike against you for transfering with Vista.<br /><br />I would love to see a grass roots effort letting consumers know the extreme limitations that Microsoft is trying to cram down our throats.<br /><br />Perhaps if enough IT departments, and general consumers decided to boycott upgrading to Vista until the EULA is fixed... That might send a message to Microsoft. I would suggest folks who absolutly need a Windows box to buy a few copies of XP while we can. It will definitly be the last Microsoft product I purchase.

[fred dunn]

Those upgrading deserve what they get...

ABSOLUTE BLOATWARE.

[PCCRomeo]

Everyone just move to a Mac right now...

I'm glad I did, but that's another story. What about those that <br />upgrade their PC to Vista and end up having to recover it down the <br />road because of all the junk Windows has built up? They can't <br />reinstall Vista after doing so? Talk about POINTLESS!! I have never <br />been able to keep a PC running for more than a year than needing <br />to recover it, why should Vista be any different???! I guess I'll just <br />keep XP on my HP but thanks anyway Microsoft!

[catch23]

Quit the FUD

it really is idiotic. Even with an OEM license, you can reinstall on the same hardware thrice weekly if you want. <br />Moron; if the only argument you can come up with to switch to the Mac is to make up ludicrous stuff about Vista, you are proof positive why people choose MS.

[Tomcat Adam]

Too expensive.

My Windows machine was only a couple hundred bucks, and runs like a beauty.<br />Unfortunately, the cheapest Macs I can get here are well over $2000 CAD.<br /><br />And yeah, this will be a big disaster once MS starts rolling out their usually flawed updates.

[AMPerez]

MSFT needs to rethink their pricing...

I'm not a Mac fanboy, Linux either, less for Microsoft, but - $399 for an OS, IMHO is a bit on the crazy side. For business, okay - for John and Jane Doe? You've got to be kidding.<br /><br />Time to buy an Apple.

[MacGregory]

That's the LEAST they need to rethink!

Monopolies usually react, they don't think.

[kgh120]

Best word for this.... Insane.

Microsoft Vista needs to decide what it wants to be... <br /><br />1. A monopoly OS platform that therefore SHOULD be flexible and reasonably priced<br /><br />2. A niche app that is expensive, restrictive, and targetted at a specific wealthy market group who has little choice in alternatives.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they want to be #1 while abusing their customers as if Vista were #2.<br /><br />I suppose if you are MS, you see this as best of both worlds. If you are a non-business customer, you see this as abusive more from an abusive monopoly. Keep XP until Linux matures a bit more, then move away from MS. Clearly they don't give a crap about any of us.

[annanemas]

Say 'Bye to Standalone Vista Sales

This hits system builders and modders especially hard, who also happen to be the only ones likely to buy Vista separately to install on self-made systems. If do-it-yourselfers can't put Vista on the machines we build and rebuild, then there is no incentive for us to buy Vista when it comes out. We'll just keep souping up our Windows XP systems longer or hold onto our money longer while we save up to buy brand new top of the line machines. Meanwhile, a few of is will get bored and start building Linux systems instead. Microsoft had better not be counting on our revenue stream anymore.

[mattumanu]

Exactly!

I like to mod my system, and I've been looking at getting a new motherboard. It's always been cheaper in the long run to modify and existing system than to buy a new one, but with the new licsense scheme it might be cost prohibative. What if my hardrive crashed more than once after installing a new board? How will vista understand these situations? Will it look at a change of motherboard or hardrive as a "transfer"? We don't know because Microsoft hasn't said anything other than they are going to limit transfers.

[fred dunn]

People also ask us for recommendations...

because we support others either personally and/or professionally. When someone asks me about Vista they get an earfull and it is not good.<br /><br />For all of you builders and modders what do you think of M$ idea of having the Major PC vendors selling "Vista Ready" systems so that the end-user can install Vista?<br />Can you say FIASCO?<br />This will be a Public relations nightmare for all involved. When someone comes to me with this issue I'm just going to tell them they made a mistake trusting Microsoft.

[larryflowers]

CNET and Readers Are Both Wrong

CNET, I trust you guys all the time, but this time you got it wrong.. Check Paul Thurrott's article at <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><br />where he does a very careful breakdown of the new EULA. The story is a bit of a rable rouser.

[mattumanu]

nope, his article confirns what I feared...

Quote:<br /><br />~~What's more amazing is that the number of people who actually try to do this is incredibly small. Since you can't transfer a copy of Windows that comes with a new PC anyway, less than 10 percent of all Windows licenses are transferable at all. And of those, only a tiny percentage of users have ever tried to even transfer a Windows license once. The only people that really need to do this regularly are hardcore PC enthusiasts who change their machine configurations regularly. In short, this new restriction isn't all that new and it won't affect any mainstream users.~~<br /><br />Well, who am I then? I'm a modder and this doesn't help me out at all. Another thing...<br /><br />Quote:<br />~~And if you do actually have a catastrophic PC failure, you'll be able to transfer your license just as before. The process, as it turns out, hasn't changed at all. "The escalation process is exactly the same in Vista," Boettcher told me. "You have to call support. It just wasn't clear in Windows XP. But we wanted to do the right thing by the customer. So we let them move a license, while being clear about what the license is intended for. In the past haven't been super clear up front."~~<br /><br />I can't think of anyone who's ever had to call "support" to transfer windows to a new machine. They've just popped in thier copy of XP and installed it using their registration information from the original install.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Have you actually read this article?

Listen, and I quote:<br /><br />"The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single copy of XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention."<br /><br />You believe this? They're saying, oh, we jusy MENT something else. We had always INTENDED it to be for only one machine (wink wink, nudge nudge). BELIEVE us! We're honest folk!<br /><br />Let me ask you this: If microsoft had been calling the colour Red...Blue...for years (10 or 20 years), and suddenly one day they said "Oh by the way, we always MENT red was red, not blue...haw haw, believe us. HONEST!<br /><br />Would you believe that too? Are you telling me Microsoft MENT something other than what it said in the EULA and didn't correct it?<br /><br />Since Vista is going to be a Microsoft snitch anyways every time you update it, this means I will only get two computer upgrades before I have to go and spend over $200 on their o/s again. What am I getting out of it? I'm spending over $400 (in this case) and what do I , as a consumer, get? Do I get an upgraded o/s that will run faster? NO. Do I get a slimmer o/s that will run with less resources? NO. Do I get a more reliable o/s? Again, NO.<br />I upgrade my computer, I get a new video card (faster graphics), a new CPU (faster apps), additional RAM (more multitasking), and a new Windows (nothing, no benifit at all except it reduces my back account by over $200). Wait a minute, why should I have to buy something I already own? Why shouldn't I be able to use the same copy of the o/s I've always used? After all, the person who buys my old components from me has to have his own copy of Windows anyways, why should I be forced to give him mine?<br /><br />Well man, I won't do it. Sorry.<br /><br />Listen up all you developers, if you can reverse engineer what current video games running on Windoze require, and stick it in Linux (or something), I'll be first in line to buy it.

[mgee99]

Wow... What a Pro Microsoft Site!

The site itself raises cause for bias concern.<br />The fact is that in law, there are no implications, except those adequately described. Contractual obligations are spelled out so that it is clear on the part of both parties... thus explicitly ensuring the conditions of the agreement. Up until now, ?while it may not have been the intent?, Microsoft provided for the controlled movement of the license from "PC" to "PC", as long as the End User met the terms, in that they only operated one copy, removing those previously installed.<br />This has all changed and the world needs to wake up to this, grip loosing, paranoid, controlling mentality... Oops, I didn't say than did I?

[robert1275]

Paul Thurrott's comments are wrong

Paul Thurrott's comments are just plain wrong. Read these comments:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158&#38;tag=nl.e589" target="_newWindow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158&#38;tag=nl.e589</a>

[fred dunn]

Show it in Writing....

Just because one person interprets the EULA one way doesn't necessarilly make it true.

[fortcityp]

Both wrong?

I read the article and I'm laughing my buns off. It basically says you <br />dont have the right to do what you've been doing with XP and <br />Vitsa's EULA just clairifies that. Funny. How does it feel to know <br />that your past practices have always been considered piracy by <br />Redmond. LOL. Glad I use a Mac.

[guano77]

Paul Thurrott's Journalistic Integrity Called into Question

Why would anyone listen to anything Paul Thurrott says. <br /><br />"...Paul Thurrott? He doesn't link to his sources (or even mention them, for that matter), he doesn't investigate anything her hears, he just posts whatever he can get his hands on (XP Reloaded, anyone?)"<br /><br />You can read the rest of the post at this link<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2005/10/04/14781.aspx" target="_newWindow">http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/robert/archive/2005/10/04/14781.aspx</a>

[Mergatroid Mania]

That's the straw...I won't buy Vista over this.

This is So Microsoft!<br /><br />I constantly upgrade my pc. In one upgrade, I can change the main board, RAM, CPU and video card. This makes it a new computer as far as the OS is concerned. They're going to tell me after upgrading my computer twice, I have to purchase their software again? I really don't understand who they think they are! I just don't get it. I know they are a monopolistic, money grubbing lame excuse for a company but this goes too far! If I purchase a piece of software, I expect to be able to run it on any PC I own, as long as it's only installed on one machine at a time.<br />I wonder what company will be making money from us former Microsoft customers? Apple? A Linux company? I'll make due with what I have til something else comes along or Microsoft changes their tune.

[dstalon]

Re:That's the straw

I agree, I also upgrade my computer motherboard, cpu, etc as new hardware comes out. I am very concerned about this new policy. I sure as heck am not going to be buying a new version of Vista every time I do a major upgrade (or every other time). This is rediculous. Software purchasers have no rights anymore it seems.

[bknepher]

MS misses the point

All hardware fails. All computers need to be updated. I've used Vista beta 2 and RC1. Since I LIKE to change hardware on a regular basis, sometimes just because it's my job to understand how the hardware and drivers interact, Vista will not be a part of my future. Too bad; it is pretty cute. There are LOTS of choices offered by the open source community. Try them!

[Gayle Edwards]

Microsofts "policy" is in direct violation of the Law...

The "U.S. Supreme Court" has already ruled that customers DO "own" the software that they buy. <br /><br />Despite Microsofts (and its perennial "defenders", or should I say "shills") claims, Microsofts, "EULAs" (End User License Agreements) CANNOT "...trump the law". MOST "legal experts" (and quite a few Attorney-Generals) seem to agree, quite conclusively, on this point.<br /><br />Simply put, ...denying a consumer the use of THEIR-OWN PROPERTY, after they have purchased it, ...OR trying to control its application, is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the LAW. PERIOD...<br /><br />No, IFs... ANDs... or, BUTs...<br /><br />Frankly, MOST of the claims in "Microsofts" "EULAs", regarding "Microsofts products" are, complete, LEGAL-HOGWASH. And their EVER-EXPANSIVE, claims of continued "ownership" and control, of the "products" they sell, are COMPLETE LEGAL-GIBBERISH (it has only been leant an air of familiarity, ...by Microsofts endlessly-repeating these LIES for decades).<br /><br />Our company has already adopted an official determination to tell our customers to avoid "Vista", at almost any cost, (due to the high cost of "upgrading", PERPETUAL "product authentication", "mandatory driver signing", extreme "DRM" restrictions, and ridiculously-complicated "Licensing", etc, etc, etc...).<br /><br />In fact, as a company, we are currently engaged in acquiring more extensive "Linux" expertise, as quickly as possible, ...because, frankly, we are expecting "Vista" to be the last-straw that finally topples Microsofts... HOUSE OF CARDS.<br /><br />Some are looking forward to the impending-spectacle of LAWSUITS, LITIGATION, COUNTER-SUITS, (and more than likely... some hastily-crafted legislation obviously-designed, primarily, to protect Americas largest software company). But, the seemingly-unavoidable collapse of such a POWERFUL (and obscenely-corrupt), multi-billion dollar company ...is going to be a nightmare to work-through.<br /><br />Too bad its looking more, and more, inevitable, every day...

[lkrupp]

Har, har, har.

You will knuckle under just like the rest of the "outraged" users. <br />You have no place to go and you know it. Microsoft knows it too.

[geneecooper]

Supreme Court decision

Citation of this case????? Trying to do legal research on line sucks unless you have a Fancy subscription, I suppose???

[geneecooper]

Supreme Court decision

Citation of this case????? Trying to do legal research on line sucks unless you have a fancy subscription, I suppose.

[geneecooper]

Supreme Court decision

Citation of this case????? Trying to do legal research on line sucks unless you have a fancy subscription, I suppose.

[geneecooper]

Supreme Court decision

Citation of this case????? Trying to do legal research on line sucks unless you have a fancy subscription, I suppose.

[geneecooper]

Supreme Court decision

Citation of this case????? Trying to do legal research on line sucks unless you have a fancy subscription, I suppose

[MrHandle]

Virtualization

It seems to me that with the coming of virtualization, consumers will have choices of multiple operating systems to run. I would think this would open up the door for newcomers (perhaps even Google) to slip in and create some new and interesting OS. It's my view that people will need to rely on MS much less as this begins to happen, and their policies will just start eroding their user base. This is just my opinion, and I certainely can be wrong, but I think my hunch is pretty solid.

[matt_parker]

Virtualization from Microsoft is Crappy After Thought!

From what I can tell it will only support Microsoft's Windows anyway. Check out real virtualization from Sun. Sun already has a fully matured, robust, secure and stable virtualization called Containers. Containers allow you to run Windows, Linux or Sun applications without the apps knowing any better. Each app. is totally isolated from the others. So, you eliminate conflicts between say Oracle and SQL and if someone hacked into your Oracle as a DBA, for example they could get out of Oracle. No viruses, blue screen of death, etc. etc. and it is free! Also, Sun soon is release a domain capability that works with their T1 processor that will allow up to 20-something domains that are all running different OSes (Linux, Solaris, Windows). VMWare is also good, but I prefer containers and hardened domains (I think they are being called). Moreover, Solaris 10 will soon natively support Linux applications. Couple this with ZFS (128-bit file system that no longer requires partitions - volume manager is eliminated), Predictive Self-Healing, and Dynamic Tracing. You can unplug the box from the server while it is running and never have to check the filesystem. fsck now longer exists. inodes no longer exist. All block id information is no longer stored on the block being identified. It is now stored in the parent block. In this all-or-nothing setup, consistency is based on the whole tree! The most incredible OS on the planet by several years! This is what $2 billion a year in R&#38;D produces!