Manage updates with the Download App
Microsoft's shrinking license
Oct. 18, 2006 4:00 AM PST
With an eye to quelling piracy, Microsoft is making changes to its licensing terms in Windows Vista.
Under the changes, 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.
The license changes also apply to virtualization: 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.
To find out what people on the street make of it, we asked our Vista Views panel, made up of ordinary readers, this question: The move is designed to help Microsoft battle piracy. But is it too stringent?
Brian Scates
I don't mind Microsoft protecting its products from piracy, but I have to draw the line at the point it creates major headaches and inconvenience to legitimate customers. For PC enthusiasts like myself who do frequent overhauls of their systems, limiting installs to two is a serious problem. That kind of licensing would be considered completely unacceptable with any other software product, and I don't know why Microsoft thinks it's OK for Windows.
If they proceed with this licensing, I would expect it to backfire and result in more piracy, not less, as enthusiasts seek ways to circumvent it with hacked copies. Nobody pirates a legitimate copy of Windows anyway, so why punish the people who are actually paying for it? This would certainly put a damper on any enthusiasm I have for Vista. I'm willing to pay for it, but I'm not willing to pay for it more than once.
Brian Scates is the president of Web hosting company Foing.com.
Nate Ardle
No. I can't remember when I moved my operating system to a new computer anyway. When I buy a new computer, it always comes with a new operating system. No problem as far as I can see.Nate Ardle is a minister with an evangelical interdenominational ministry on the campus of the University of Michigan.
Jeff Rosado
The new licensing will have a limited effect on most people; however, I believe that tech enthusiasts will be the ones that have the biggest problem with it. While I do understand Microsoft's intent to combat piracy, I think that it could be implemented in a better way.If someone buys a copy of Windows, they should be able to install it on any single machine at one time, an unlimited number of times--but how to do this in a way that would stymie piracy? Perhaps if they developed a mechanism which would allow a user to uninstall Vista, or deactivate it on one machine, that would generate a special reinstallation/activation key that would be used to install it on a different machine.
As for the virtual machine licenses, I don't think this will have too much of an impact on general consumers, as the majority of people who will be running virtual machines will either be using the Enterprise version of Windows Vista, or will be using a developer's version via MSDN.
Jeff Rosado is the owner of a computer consulting company providing tech support and training to businesses and individuals in Pensacola, Fla.
Robert McLaws
Ed Bott and I first brought this up on our blogs, and our analysis has held up, despite efforts by certain pundits to claim otherwise.I'm really on the fence on this one. On one hand, I can see Microsoft's perspective that most people wouldn't run virtualization on Vista Home Basic anyways, so why worry about a license transfer there? And since XP didn't have the provision on transfers, it was abused profusely by piracy. From their perspective, they're just tightening the screws the same way they did for the security problems.
At the same time, there are a statistically significant number of people that will change motherboards often enough for this to be a serious issue to them. However small a percentage Microsoft thinks that will be, with the installed base they have, it's not an insignificant number of people. And the unfortunate thing for Microsoft is, those are the same people who tend to be influential, and those are the people that will scream the loudest.
Just remember, however, how forgiving Microsoft was over multiprocessor/multicore licensing. With 4, 6, 8-core chips on the horizon, they have made some good decisions, and credit should be given where it is due. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold their feet to the fire where appropriate.
So here's my counter-question: Should transfers be staggered by edition? Meaning that Home Basic would have one, Home Premium would have two, and Ultimate would have five? That would take into account the fact that most regular users won't swap out their motherboard regularly, but most enthusiasts will.
Robert McLaws is an IT consultant, community leader and Vista enthusiast. He has been running Vista enthusiast site Longhornblogs.com since 2002.
Joe Rud
Yes, these rules are too stringent. I believe that if a customer buys a retail copy of Windows (or any other software) that they are entitled to move that license around as they feel appropriate, as long as it is only installed on one machine at a time.I do agree, however, that OEM licenses should be limited to the machine they come with. My reason for this is that the customer is actually paying a lot less than retail for this software.
With a purchase of full-price retail software (several hundred dollars)
the user should be allowed to transfer the software as they desire.
Joe Rud is a computer industry professional from from St. Louis Park, Minn.
Gary Knigge
I am very concerned about this very aggressive copyright protection scheme. I don't believe it is ethical for Microsoft to make legitimate users suffer in order to make it harder for software pirates. There are just too many scenarios where people will need to install the OS more than twice in the life of the Vista product. In fact, it seems very likely that a large proportion of people will do so.Clearly, Microsoft has a right to ensure that people using its products have legally acquired the right to do so. But I believe their customers also have the right to reinstall a piece of software as many times as necessary and for as long as they choose to continue to use the product.
As long as they are installing on just one computer, why should it matter to Microsoft if they've had a hard drive failure, purchased a new computer, or just want to install from scratch to eliminate some operating system problems?
I have been beta testing Microsoft Vista for several months. I cannot play a normal DVD movie rented from Netflix on my computer because Microsoft says it can't verify the copyright protection of the (mainstream ATI) video driver. Again, Microsoft is erring on the side of copyright protection rather than the side of trusting its customers.
Microsoft demands that we pay and then pay again. Are we beginning to wonder who the pirates really are? A reasonable company might find a way to protect software licenses that does not interfere with legal fair use by those who have purchased a product. It seems clear that as Windows becomes more and more the standard, Microsoft does not find it necessary to be reasonable. Living under a despot never did feel good.
Gary Knigge is an IT support person at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, specializing in Windows desktop support for faculty and staff.
Stewart Retsis
Far too stringent. If my computer needs formatted more than once, then I'm up a creek without a paddle.
As for hurting the sales figures, no chance--it's Microsoft, after all.
Stewart Retsis is a normal PC user who lives in Thurso, Scotland.
Kevin Faaborg
I think this change is WAY too strict. I can't change my motherboard, or RAM or anything else. Or how about a computer crash? I'm only allowed to have my computer crash once? Please tell me you have a way of controlling how often my computer crashes, Microsoft, and maybe I'll invest that money into Vista, but we all know this is no perfect world.With this main part in mind, my likelihood of purchasing Vista has dramatically dropped. In fact, at this point, I'm considering instead of bothering going to Vista, to instead just switch to OSX and be done with it. Microsoft has released so many things in regards to Vista that changes how an average user can use Windows, that I'm starting to reconsider my platform in general and that maybe I have invested enough money into Microsoft.
Microsoft, please don't make this true, or this may be the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of users.
Kevin Faaborg works in basic hardware and software guidance for a large financial corporation, but he has experience in more computer sales-based jobs.
Wayne Sharpe
Yes, I believe this is too stringent. People should be allowed to transfer to as many different computers as they wish provided that they have WIPED the past computer before they do the transfer.Wayne Sharpe is based in Ontario, Canada.
David Colon
My only major concern is if this applies when you upgrade your components such as your hard drive or video card, etc. as I have heard happens to others in XP where they had to reactivate their copy. As long as this isn't the case, then I really don't care about this license transfer thing. This would be the only way it would affect me and I'm hoping and expecting that this will be a nonissue.
As for the rest of the e-population that reads CNET.com: I'm willing to bet that this probably won't affect 95 percent of you. The other 5 percent are the ones that don't really respect the time and effort it takes to make an OS of this magnitude and feel that it's their right to be able to install it on as many machines as they would like. This is against the law not only for Microsoft's software but for any other pay software as well (unless otherwise noted in the EULA).
David Colon is a software developer in the QA department of a medium-sized government Web site application development company.
Wallace Wang
While Microsoft has the right to protect their software anyway they can, it's definitely a hassle for legitimate customers. Still, most people are just going to get Windows "for free" on their new PCs so the only people buying retail copies of Windows will likely be people building their own PCs.In that case, restricting Windows to a single transfer is definitely too stringent. Legitimate customers should be able to transfer their copy of Windows to as many machines as they want for their own use as they keep upgrading to newer and faster machines, but how can Microsoft verify this? They can't, which is why they're resorting to such draconian measures.
If you buy a retail copy of Windows Vista knowing this restriction
exists, then you can't complain. The answer is simple. Vote with your wallet
by either buying Vista anyway and getting stuck with this restriction, or
don't buy Vista and use Linux instead. All of Microsoft's antipiracy tactics have inconvenienced me long
enough. That's why I've dumped Windows and moved to Mac OS X. Whether it's a
"better" operating system is debatable, but it's just another alternative
for people who don't want to put up with Microsoft's nuisances any more.
Wallace Wang is a freelance computer journalist and author whose books include "Microsoft Office for Dummies" and "Steal This Computer Book."
The Vista Views panel is being brought together by CNET News.com to discover what people on the street think about Microsoft's new operating system.
We're looking for a range of perspectives--from beta testers to business buyers to home PC owners.
Interested in joining the panel pool? Here's how it works:
Whenever key Vista news breaks, we'll e-mail a question to contributors. Sometimes, we'll ask a yes/no question and use the answers for a simple poll. Other times, we'll look for more in-depth feedback on Vista events. It doesn't matter whether you send us two pages or two sentences--we value your comments. And if you don't have an opinion on a particular story, or you don't have time to respond, that's fine too.
The feedback will often reach our readers. Our writers may quote panel remarks in stories. Or we may pull together comments--your two cents--in an article of their own. Occasionally, we'll ask contributors to take part in a weekly podcast to discuss their views with News.com editors and industry experts.
We want to know what our readers think, as Microsoft gets ready for one of its most important launches in years. If you haven't signed up yet, send an e-mail to us at vista-views@cnet.com.
Reader comment from Bill Johnson:
"Although some would probably think that Microsoft is going overboard with this one, I honestly believe that this will only help further prevention of piracy."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Will Vista stall Net traffic?
Reader comment from Brian Scates:
"Should Vista include IPv6 support, but not enable it, the driving force in desktop computing in the world would be hampering the worldwide adoption of a needed Internet infrastructure upgrade."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Leopard nipping at Vista's heels
Reader comment from Callum Jones:
"I think nothing should be copied--it just gives Apple fans another thing to point and laugh about. With MS doing that, we would be flooded with too many forum threads about Leopard vs. Vista. MS should sit down and focus on what they need to create, not re-create."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Bloggers to Microsoft: Take your time with Vista
Reader comment from Wallace Wang:
"We've been waiting over five years already for the successor to Windows XP, so we might as well wait a few more months for Microsoft to ship a secure, reliable operating system."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Symantec sees an Achilles' heel in Vista
Reader comment from Brian Clarke:
"Symantec needs to find a better business model than fear-mongering and profiting off of insecure operating systems from Microsoft."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Gates: 20 percent chance of Vista delay
Reader comment from Robert McLaws:
"Everyone has complained for years that Microsoft doesn?t listen to its customers. So why now is everyone complaining when they finally DO start listening?"
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Story: Gates to bow out at Microsoft
Reader comment from John Kneeland:
"Ideally, it would mean that Microsoft will focus less on adding new junk and instead focus on making the existing junk work well."
Read more Vista panel comments on this topic here.
Piecing together Vista
Videos
Windows Vista RC2
First Look: Vista still not ready for prime time.
October 12, 2006
Peek at Vista
New features are designed to appeal to nonbusiness users. February 22, 2006
Windows' chief answers questions from News.com readers. January 27, 2006
Blog
The latest Windows blog postings on News.com.
Design: Gautama Swamy
Production: Kristina Wood
software will be hurt by the virtualization license restrictions.
Does Microsoft not want us to test software on Home editions?
While, yes this can be done on the business and Ultimate
versions, generally there's regression testing on all supported
OSes. Using virtual machines with their Undo disk capabilities is
perfect for this kind of testing. But Microsoft licensing says
Home editions must run on physical machines. This means
using PXE or physical provisioning. That's just too high a
burden for testers. The quality of software of Home edition will
suffer as a result.
software will be hurt by the virtualization license restrictions.
Does Microsoft not want us to test software on Home editions?
While, yes this can be done on the business and Ultimate
versions, generally there's regression testing on all supported
OSes. Using virtual machines with their Undo disk capabilities is
perfect for this kind of testing. But Microsoft licensing says
Home editions must run on physical machines. This means
using PXE or physical provisioning. That's just too high a
burden for testers. The quality of software on Home editions
will
suffer as a result.
I already use Linux most of the time anyway. In office about 75% of time, at home about 90% of time. (Special thanks go to VMware Player.)
In the end, I use Windows only to play games. Though now that were rare events, since I have bought Nintendo DS Lite ;)
I for one don't intend to follow.
I respect their need for control over piracy but do not respect their means of doing so.
I have been a die hard windows fan and administer thousands of windows systems including servers and directory services but the changes that are coming along with Vista are too much for me. Sure I'll support at work but I'll also start into Linux for my personal use and then start working it into the enterprise slowly.
Microsoft is just a bunch of programmers at heart and there is nothing they can do that others can't.
Borland had it right... treat the license like a book... only one user at a time...
Sell USB or Parallel dongles to allow the software to work on a single machine. Other companies have been doing this for years to protect their software. Why not you?
I would imagine that a dongle would be easy to hack if Microsoft released one, I think the way XP validates licenses works and if they could improve on this and not tie legitimate customers hands people would be more receptive to upgrading.
They get lost or cause compatibility issues with other software that posts to the I/O sockets.
The last time I saw a dongle was 13 years ago and the pain at loosing one during a move or having them "short out" is still fresh whenever the D-word is mentioned.
They're the bane of IT support!
PS - I am not a linux person but probably will be when XP is out of support.
I hope in the mean time MSFT comes to its senses and changes this limited installs.
MS is going to have to learn that people have real alternatives to Windows these days. The harder they try to hold on to their desktop monopoly the quicker they will lose it.
So, I am stuck with Windows. I can only hope that companies will release PC games are dying, and - instead of jumping to consoles, port their games to Linux in a traditional fashion. Until then, PC gaming is either going to involve piracy or is going to be VERY expensive.
For anything other than Gaming, you can use Linux or a Mac just fine.
I will never be upgrading to Vista, but I am worried what will happen when they decide to drop support for XP.
Seriously, how could you not have one of these after one motherboard, let alone two? Plus they're insured, so even if they don't work, they work.
"Fry me once, shame on you, fry me twice... somethin somethin bomb Iraq."
I hope the MPAA does not follow this same asinine logic.
Under the ms thinking, you buy a DVD and the license says that you can only play it in one DVD player ever. You get to "transfer" it to another player only once so if you want to play it in your bedroom you can only watch it there thereafter.
That would be insane but that is the same logic that they are using.
If they are truly "innovators" as they claim to be surely they can come up with a better way to verify that it is installed on only one PC at a time.
What happens if your motherboard dies? What about your hard drive? How do they define the PC that it is installed in? the main board, processor, HD, the case?
The more I deal with MS the more I hate them.
New License doesn't restrict you from installing Vista on same machine N number of time. What it's restricting is - HOW MANY MACHINES YOU CAN INSTALL IT UPON.
Which is pretty okay to combat piracy.
If your machine crashes, it's fine to Re-install Vista.. as many times you want. All you got to do .. is re-register your OS at MS Website/ through Phone.
The process gonna validate.. if the "CPU ID and Serial # combination" exists in the Database. If yes, it's fine. If NOT... MS gonna allow you this only twice and it will lock you out after that or what they call it as "reduced access" mode.
So, please get your records straight.
c|net.. you guys MUST validate each posting. It's ironical to read half-baked information on a webite like c|net. Please mentain your repo guys.
People are not going to pay attention to your point when your writing wouldn't pass muster in a grade 4 English class.
If anyone is willing to install Vista on more then one machine without paying extra then this limitation will drive them to get a free unrestricted copy of Vista. So it will increase piracy.
"What it's restricting is - HOW MANY MACHINES YOU CAN
INSTALL IT UPON"
No, what it's restricting is how many times you can "transfer" it
from one "machine" to another. You can still only run a copy on
one machine at a time. The issue is what constitutes a "machine"
- unfortunately for Winblows fanatics Micro$loth considers most
hardware upgrades as a new "machine" and that's the problem.
"If your machine crashes, it's fine to Re-install Vista.. as many
times you want. All you got to do .. is re-register your OS at MS
Website/ through Phone"
My god, I hope you're full of it on that one. I never heard of
having to re-register an OS because of a system crash. If that's
truly the case - well, enjoy your slavery sheeple. I've already
gone Linux because of these kind of draconian measures and
the only way vista will ever make onto any machine I own is if it's
pirated and necessary. Since the second provision there will
never truly come to pass, I will never corrupt any system I own
with this trashware.
"MS gonna allow you this only twice and it will lock you out after
that or what they call it as "reduced access" mode."
No, they'll let you do this ONCE. Fried motherboard? That's one.
Bad CPU? That's two. See the problem? The only way out of the
trap at that point is to buy vista again? What if your ethernet
card goes after that, or worse your motherboard again? No
thanks, I'll stick with an OS that works for me and not the other
way around.
"So, please get your records straight. c|net.. you guys MUST
validate each posting. It's ironical to read half-baked
information on a webite like c|net."
Irony at it's best. If they did what you asked for here, your own
comments would have hit the bit bucket. Next time, use your
brain instead of your winblows fanboy appendage.
And I'd rather write half-baked comments than to BE baked. I'm almost 14 years clean and sober now and loving it. I recommend it.
Microsoft is a slave of capitalism.
The ultimate right and power belongs to consumers, who will cast their votes with their dollars. MICROSOFT AND ANY OTHER COMPANY MUST YIELD TO THE WANTS AND NEEDS OF THE CONSUMER OR THEY WILL SUFFER THE SAME FATE OF ALL OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES WHO DID NOT LEARN THIS LESSON.
By purchasing a product, you the consumer are casting a vote in support of the company and their business practices.
If you buy product x from an individual or company who treats you like crap, then you are saying with your dollars that it is acceptable for the individual or company to treat you in this manner.
When sales and profits decline, Microsoft will listen.
Bill Gates is rather obviously, a very smart man, he has seen the writing on the wall and has wisely stepped aside, he knows what is coming.
Consumers also have a power: it's called FAIR USE and the LAW. If I buy a product, I OWN IT. You don' tget to tell ME what to do with it.
If I want to buy a copy of windows, well two (you'll see why, bear with me) and make a really cool, sexy bra for my girl with them (holographic bras are really sexy when you're a geek like me), then that's my right.
Next thing you know, Microsoft will try to tell ME that she only gets to wear the bra twice!
No way.
Actually, wait a second. I kinda DO prefer her bra-less but that is off-topic.
your product.
Think of the millions of dollars in software that just schools have
invested in, that will only run on Windows. It is one thing to say,
"Oh, you just don't have to buy it." It is quite another to say that
you can afford to spend millions more in software for a new
platform and operating system, when you already own Windows
software. Does MS owe people who bought their product a duty
not to make it obsolete, simply so MS can make more money?
Yes, they do.
Whether you want to call it a monopoly or not, MS, effectively,
has a monopoly on OS software everywhere in the world. They
got it, defacto by getting to IBM first. Windows isn't the best
selling OS because it is a great OS, it is the best selling OS
because MS-DOS got to the IBM PC first and MS became the
defacto standard by doing so. After that, they just sat back and
raked in the money.
The number of Windows users who trash Windows just amazes
me. I regularly use MacOS X, IRIX and Solaris and I find them
more useful than Windows XP. [I prefer CLI Solaris to Windows,
any day.] Unfortunately, most people don't realize there is a
choice when they walk into Circuit City or Best Buy and there
isn't any choice, it is either Windows or Windows.
Because of this, MS owes the market a duty not to practice
predatory pricing tactics...
If this goes through, I am NOT BUYING Vista retail copy.
This is just to milk absolutely every last penny out of the Windows user community. Microsoft is afraid that if users buy a Mac to run Windows virtualized in the Mac OS, then eventually they'll realize how much better the Mac is and drop Windows for good. Likewise for Linux. Do yourself a favor and drop Windows now. Macs are what Windows aspires to be -- easy to use, elegant, and secure. Linux is good, too.
Push back against this insidious rights management now! Don't settle for software that puts their own interests far above their users' interests like Microsoft does. Use Macs or Linux instead.
Although I personally think Vista will eclipse Windows Millenium in terms of the greatest step backwards that's supposed to be an upgrade.... Most users who digest their own information and don't blindly accept all the slop that's force-fed them by the establishment will jump from the sinking ship that is Microsoft in favor of quality operating systems like Macs and Linux with this release even without such a horrible rights management anyway. This is sure to speed it up, though!
The answer: Because they are bought and paid for.
computer but retained the old OS. What about replacing the hard
drive..?? Where does M$ draw the line on the term "moving"..???
Well I know one thing for sure, Vista isn't going to be a headache
for me because I switched to a Mac already and I SURE AM GLAD I
DID NOW BEFORE I GOT STUCK WITH VISTA..!!!!
am i the only one who thinks that is just stupid
It's when you upgrade your computer, say a hardrive or motherboard, that things will get dicey. MS claims there is an algorhythm that determines what constitutes a "new" computer. Most people think a "new" computer means you go to the store and buy a new HP or Dell or whatever. But the fact is a new motherboard with a new processor is effectively a "new" computer, so a reinstall of the OS would constitute a "transfer" to a new computer.
Two new motherboards later, your OS goes into a restricted mode, and you'll have to call MS to get permission to reactivate vista. That's the Hell of it, right there. Who wants the hassle? Why would MS want the hassle?
Five years ago, I was running a Pentium III 500Mhz, today Core
Duo 1.83Ghz. I don't know about you, but I think that dramatic
changes in hardware, require dramatic changes in OS system
software...
Oh, wait, I already have that - I have been running MacOS X, with
upgrades approximately every year, for the last five years.
There is a reason my Windoze boxes sit, unused, except when I
am forced to use them under threat of death...
Firstly, it isn't just that simple. Windows is about as stable as a two legged table. I've lost count of how many times I've had to reinstall XP for this reason or that. The most common reason why I have to wipe Windows out and reinstall is because of 3rd party copy protection such as StarForce or SecuROM which gets installed without meaningful disclosure by some game publisher then wrecks the OS.
IS MS telling me they can guarantee some 3rd party publisher isn't going to mess up my install? I doubt it. And what happens when that third game I'm reviewing thrashes the OS? I have to pay another $400 for Vista again? FAT CHANCE. I'll have the my lawyer and the State Attorney General on that faster than a fly on horse dung. This draconian measure will simply lead to more lawsuits against MS for unfair business practices, consumer fraud, and violation of the statutes of warranties of merchantibility.
Having said all that, I think a few pieces of misinformation need to be disspelled. First off, users who reload a machine several times WILL NOT be impacted by this change. Again, I'm talking about a simple reformat/reload.
However, if you change out a major hardware component, such as a Motherboard or CPU; or several minor components such as a harddrive, videocard, and install more RAM--all at the same time--these kinds of changes WILL affect you.
While I also understand and respect Microsoft's licensing rights (though I disagree with how much I have to pay to acquire those rights), there has to be a line drawn somewhere with respect to licensing.
Look, I bought a $400 piece of paper (i.e. the Windows license). Why shouldn't I be able to apply that license to any computer hardware I like so long as I abide by the license rules of one copy per CPU at any one time?
Where this licensing scheme will backfire is with hardcore gamers who often buy many pieces of hardware within even a one-year period. I think M$ needs to get their heads out of the clouds (or where ever else it might be... ;) ) and come back to reality. Are they trying to alienate hard-core gamers and other power-users?
I bet if every hard-core gamer switch to Linux (if it were possible to do so and still play that awesome game), they would feel the squeeze. Well, wake up M$, because that's what's going to happen. When you ppol crazy stuff like this, this will call more attention to FOSS, more developers to FOSS, improving FOSS's quality and gain FOSS marketshare taking it away from you (MS).
As for me, you lost me a long time ago. I will start becoming much more active in Linux development (Mono for Linux anyone) and help improve the OS anyway I can; anything to have a free, open source alternative to an otherwise great operating system.
Before I get flamed for that last statement, a great OS is highly dependent upon one's needs for an OS. For examlpe, Windows is great because it IS easy. However, Linux is great because of it's maximum and limitless flexibility. It all depends on for how you want to use it.
I'm sorry to see such a powerful company to resort to such bullying of its consumers. If you want to stay relevant, you will change. Otherwise, you will quietly fade into the background (anybody remember DEC, UNISYS, Tandy, etc.?).
Aside from Vista itself (I don't care what anybody says, I've used it, it's AWFUL in so many ways. I do NOT need an OS telling ME I am stupid all of the time. I need an OS to get out of my WAY so I can get things done!), All of this DRM and copy protection MS is putting into Vista is going to backfire on them in a HUGE way.
What Microsoft has never seemed to figure out was that it was Window's openness (yes, including the ability to copy it easily) that made them #1 in the first place.
If Apple and Linux market share is what MS is after, they're going to get it alright, in exchange for their own.
Oh, and I keep reading "I tried Linux and it's great!" so ok, ok, I finally tried Linux. And guess what? It IS really really nice!
I tried Ubuntu and Suse (the open version) both. I was really, really impressed!
Microsoft, listen up: you're really screwing up. As for Vista, after 5 years of development, that's the BEST you can do? It's honestly THE most bloated piece of I-don't-know-what I've ever eXPerienced.