Thanks to slimy for the submitting this news story to us.
Paul Thurott has published an article clarifying the rumours circulating around the Internet about the differences in the EULA of Windows Vista to Windows XP.
The article shows that Microsoft has clarified some misunderstandings from XP's EULA, and has actually loosened up its rules on what causes reactivations during upgrading. The article also addresses the issue of installing Vista on virtual machines, and the differences between the rights of customers who purchase Windows with a new PC and those that buy it at retail.
Link: Neowin Forum Discussion
Continue at: Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
Paul Thurott has published an article clarifying the rumours circulating around the Internet about the differences in the EULA of Windows Vista to Windows XP.
The article shows that Microsoft has clarified some misunderstandings from XP's EULA, and has actually loosened up its rules on what causes reactivations during upgrading. The article also addresses the issue of installing Vista on virtual machines, and the differences between the rights of customers who purchase Windows with a new PC and those that buy it at retail.
Link: Neowin Forum Discussion Continue at: Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
"You may move [Windows XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove [Windows XP] from the former Workstation Computer."
"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"
It doesn't matter what the "intention" was, if Microsoft's legalese doesn't prohibit the number of times this transfer can occur, it is infinite. The Vista EULA will be more restrictive in this area vs XP. Paul is flat wrong to think otherwise.
Pauls excuse seems to be that because enthusiasts are a minority (And will all get retail versions of Vista Ultimate anyway because that would really prove how 1337 they are
Yes, it's saying you get one freebie. Yes, you also can continue to move it. It's that way now, and it'll be that way in Vista.
So what if the wording got tighter, the reality did not.
Also, how you do know the wording is tighter but the reality is not? Given Product Activation, MS can, should they choose, only allow one transfer in Vista. If they decided to implement this in XP, you'd have fair grounds to challenge this based on the contents of the EULA. What do you do in the case of Vista then? That is the reality.
Yes, it's saying you get one freebie. Yes, you also can continue to move it. It's that way now, and it'll be that way in Vista.
So what if the wording got tighter, the reality did not.
The reality and the wording are the same. If they word it one way, that is the way it will be once you accept the EULA. You can't write I contract, have someone sign off on it, and later tell them "oh sorry, I meant this instead".
Microsoft is further limiting your rights to transfer Windows to new PCs? Wrong.
Microsoft is limiting your ability to upgrade your PC? Wrong.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
I agree
Hmm, so basically I can't buy a copy of windows. I must teach my computer to do that for me... weird
Last edited by Tikimotel on 14 Oct 2006 - 14:05
Enforcing internet activation of a product belongs to a world where I don't wanto live, but I guess Microsoft must do what they can for their shareholders now that Linux gets desktop friendly.
He says: "well, it's obvious that people who mind installing windows on a virtual machine are enthusiasts that will have vista ultimate".
Anyway, I suppose whoever install windows on a virtual machine just to do some testing, won't even think of activating.
The XP obviously didnt limit your ability to "transfer" the license to another device. And from my point of you, that's how it should be. If you completely remove XP from the former computer, then why can't you use it? Maybe the device is the licensed one, but YOU are the one using it. So if for any reason XP is removed from that computer or that computer is no longer useable, then microsoft should let you install YOUR copy somewhere else, AS MANY TIMES as you can't, as long as there's only ONE active copy.
Vista clearly limits the transfer thing to ONE transfer. XP clearly didn't limit it explicitly, although it mentions "a transfer" and it doesnt say "after every transfer".
I can't imagine this is a typo, so I'll assume you wrote what you meant to. It's from your point of view, not your point of you.
Anyways, I doubt there's going to be any changes from Microsoft about it if it only affects a small portion of users especially if their original intentions were this, then it would be an obvious move to fix the wording.
I have some comments on the EULA article. Please read past the boring
intro of this mail, to get to the (I hope) more interesting part.
Here's a copy of the XP Home EULA:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
Let me quote article 1 and 1.1:
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and
run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a
workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"
Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on
any single Workstation Computer.
So if I translate that it says that MS gives me the right to use
Windows one computer. The right is tied to ME. "I" get the right to
use the software.
Then we see article 13:
13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a
different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer.
That gives me the right to move Windows to different computer, as long
as I remove it from the former.
Now to your article, I quote:
"That person is, however, incorrect. As it turns out, the Windows
license is pretty simple: Windows is tied to a single device
(typically a PC), and not to a person."
Where does it say so in the EULA? It seems to be based on the next
quote(s), including one from MS:
"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. "This clause was always aimed at very specific
circumstances," Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher told me.
"Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of
Windows on the new machine, for example."
So what it comes down is that is was not the INTENTION to allow users
to infinitely move Windows to new PC's. This IS however the case, with
the current EULA! Nowhere in the EULA can you find the text that
limits the amount of transfers.
In the Vista EULA it clearly states you can only move it one time.
Infinite and one are a big difference. I really don't understand why
you make it seem different in your article.
And about the several claims that "the number of people who actually
try to do this is incredibly small" and because of that it doesn't
really matter all that much. Well, it does! "a tiny percentage of
[Windows] users" is still a LOT of people. Even MS know this. The best
way for me to explain is to quote a MS developer: "One in a million is
next Tuesday". He says that a bug that affects one in a million users
has next tuesday priority. That's how seriously MS takes a tiny
percentage. http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archiv.../30/104165.aspx
Why are you defending MS in this??
I agree that MS bashing is easy and that MS should get the credits
when they do something good for the user. But this is NOT good! Don't
make it seem like nothing much has changed!
I hope you will seriously respond to this mail, and if you agree to
update your article.
Kind regards,
[ME]
In the past he has repsonded to mails like this quite well. I'll post here if I get a reply...
Calling Microsoft to get a clear answer would of course be like calling the IRS for tax advice, or the RIAA for digital rights advise....
So can anyone point to an article that gives a better summary?
--h
your absolutely right! who here wants to donate 90% of their salary to help gates feed his poor company?
For as little as $1000 a day, you can help the poor starving microsoft. As a thankyou for your donation, you will get a kick in the @ss as well as a lousy OS.
I just cant stand people that care more for the welfare of a corporation, rather than actual people. Do you really think the wealthiest man in the word give a shiat about losses?
your absolutely right! who here wants to donate 90% of their salary to help gates feed his poor company?
For as little as $1000 a day, you can help the poor starving microsoft. As a thankyou for your donation, you will get a kick in the @ss as well as a lousy OS.
I just cant stand people that care more for the welfare of a corporation, rather than actual people. Do you really think the wealthiest man in the word give a shiat about losses?
he didn't get rich by not giving a **** about anything
In the past I've had to call MS to "reactivate" because I changed keyboards, mice, moved pci cards around, or even just changed which usb port my keyboard was plugged into...
The article mentions that most pc users get their windows with a new PC.... maybe its that anyone who knows anything about computers knows that u can buy the oem version for half off???
This article kind of ticks me off because it shows that this is truly going to be a DRM OS.. ie you dont actually own it as a product, you are like purchasing the rights to use it in a certain way?
from what I've seen(from my own testing) the only thing I even like about vista(at home) is DX10... :p
I love pauls site and read it regularly, I'm saddened to see him take sides with MS on this issue as it will definately affect me in all my hardware changes
Bull. I have never seen XP need to reactivate for such minor issues like that.
That's the way it is for nearly all software, movies, music, etc. You don't own the actual software; you're just buying the right to use it.
there is a choice you make when you buy the half off version. and thatis you don't get all the rights you get with a full license.
there is a choice you make when you buy the half off version. and thatis you don't get all the rights you get with a full license.
When you buy the OEM version of Windows, you always have to buy some piece of hardware along with it. If you buy a power cord, then you can only use that copy of Windows on the computer that has that power cord.
Fair enough, I think.
This is only going to create more piracy as people in many countries (say it happens in EL Salvador or Honduras, where it may not be as easy to get an activation person on the phone cheaply or readily) encounter activation problems and find that they cannot use their computer. In many under developed countries people build cheap PCs, they have no Dell's or Gateways, what do they do if they change something? SO if I want quad AMD I will have to buy a new copy of Windows on top of the Motherboard and the CPU? just because the current Vista can only be used on my current model? I should buy the right to use at one time only, not concurrent. A CD, a DVD dos not become illegal if I play it in a new radio or player......where you put it is your business as long as it is a single and only present installation for your personal use.
Paul has disappointed me enormously, but then of course, does he pay for his copy or does he get complementary ones?
The license is based on sockets, not numbers of cores. One cpu socket, one cpu. The number of cores is irrelevant.
Paul basically starts the article by explaining how everything you've heard online is a bunch of hogwash, and then later confirms each and every component to be correct. First, according to Paul, this doesn't even matter... since Microsoft is gracious about providing the 90% of us discounted OEM copies that are sold with our computers, we could never transfer those anyway, so that's fine. What's that, your eMachine's motherboard is toast and you replaced it with an aftermarket board and you want to use the Windows Vista license you're entitled to, well you can't, you're screwed!
Next, Paul passes off the details of retail copies as being insignificant too... because, as you see, 90% of Windows users are on OEM copies, which leaves us with a tiny little 10% of customers on retail copies. After all, Windows isn't that widly used, so what could that little 10% ammount to? Oh, how about 40 MILLION USERS!!! So I guess it's ok to screw them too!
Moving on... one of the only useful pieces of information in this article states that again, Microsoft has been gracious enough to relax activation to primarily check the hard drive and motherboard. That's great (assuming Windows Genuine Advantage doesn't shoot you down), so that means the only group we have to worry about now is a fraction of that 10% of retail users, those fringe wacko enthusiasts that *gasp* OPEN THEIR COMPUTERS!!!! ... so again, by usage stats, lets say this group makes up 2% of overall Windows users, why that would only be screwing a mere 8 MILLION USERS.
Just ... wow ... I have a lot less respect for both Paul and Microsoft after reading this article.
</rant>
I will gladly purchase the retail version provided that I can transfer it anytime I decide to replace my HD/MB... but only once? another $450? psshhttt
He fails to address why the arbitrary Home VM restriction is in, and fails to realize the huge number of software companies that use VM's as testing platforms. Now they can suddenly not test their software on Home Basic/Premium without invalidating their licenses. Great thinking, and PT conveniently misses this fact.
Another interesting part that often pops up in defensive articles like these is the fact that he tries to justify a decision in the license because "it was like that in the XP", so "it's only clarified now". Like a poor decision in XP would even justify a poor decision that got better clarified in Vista. That's far from clear in many cases.
Last edited by Chad on 14 Oct 2006 - 22:20
Last edited by Chad on 14 Oct 2006 - 22:20
i don't understand why everytime i ghost my hdd to another one, i have to reactivate. a new hdd doesn't mean new pc! i could understand if the mobo changed or something (like a firmware update) but a hdd?
BTW - don't ghost your vista installs, people. it screws with previous versions. can anyone recommend a tool to use with vista for drive cloning without messing with vsc or buggin me for an activation?
i'm running out of space and need to gho.. er clone my drive soon.
- M$
Last edited by Chad on 14 Oct 2006 - 22:20
DON'T USE IT
so many morons here, unbelievable
Sometimes its not a question of just not using it. Future software will require windows vista, and it will be a necessity. Remember that whole monopoly thing?
Grow up
Last edited by Chad on 14 Oct 2006 - 22:21
Things like
"argument is widely misunderstood"
"but that's not reality"
"this device-based emphasis has not changed"
"As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention"
"Many people incorrectly believe this to be the case"
The icing on the cake is
"What's more amazing is that the number of people who actually try to do this is incredibly small"
I Have lost ALL respect for Paul for writings such a fact-less article full of excuses and shotgun defenses.
On the issue of VM..
" the reality is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM."
Well I say to MS and Paul is that there is NO LEGITIMATE REASON to prevent say, Vista Home Basic from running in VM. What is the point of this.. what if I am one those few peoples that want to try this out. How the **** does it bother MS..
I am extremely bothered by MS direction with Windows. Why do there have to be 4 different versions?? Why so many arbitrary and useless restrictions.
It is only going to get worse with more DRM and more restrictions.... We need Linux to be a viable alternative to windows and mac os real soon.
This claim of his is unsourced. Perhaps even made up? Among computer enthusiasts it's very common at least and it'll hurt those. Sure, it's just a talk you're going to have with Microsoft, but if it restricts you in only 1 license transfer, you've actually violated it once you've replaced enough hardware components twice. And once you've violated the license, it's no real difference to Microsoft if you just pirate it. You're no legit customer anymore. Because you cared too much about having a good system.
Just 1 license transfer is a damn low limit.
Microsoft says:
Yes, or in other words, a major part of a community like Neowin. Customer support can perhaps handle it and have you remain a legit customer after all is said and done and you've rebuilt your computer enough once too much, but the whole thing is that I don't want to mess around with Microsoft for reconfiguring components in my system. I've bought the components, I've bought Vista, what the hell is the problem? How about just having your activation server check if more than 1 computer at a time use 1 retail key? Who cares about license transfers? It's parallel key *usage* that matters most, and is most indicative of piracy. Pirates don't transfer keys as a way of piracy; that's waaay too much of a hassle as you'd have to remove the Vista install from the former computer. The whole idea is just another case of Microsoft's overzealous protection scheme.
As for his Virtualization licensing:
How about testing software on an edition your customer might run?
To easily test software on clean systems is the whole point we, and many others, use VM's at our company.
I can't believe Paul missed that.
Additionally, Paul fails to address the reason why MS has this arbitrary restriction in at all. Why not remove it?
Last edited by Jugalator on 14 Oct 2006 - 23:40
Heh, and if i actually read people's posts befor I did would have seen that everyone else thinks this too... rendering my post repeditive. ;P
Last edited by necrosis on 15 Oct 2006 - 01:54
"to point out that the licensing terms for Vista haven't really changed all that much from XP. What's really happening is that Microsoft is clarifying the license."
clarifying = change
"For a certain segment of the Windows community--those individuals who are highly technical in nature, build their own PCs, and upgrade their hardware very regularly, the Vista licensing terms are going to seem draconian and unnecessary."
not only is it going to seem unnecessary, but it's going to cost "us geeks" another $450 should we decide to upgrade our MB/HD more than once...
what a dip****, to downplay a problem and call the people that will be reading his article a non-important minority..
with every twisted eula.
with every new drm.
with every restriction you help make sure you are ignored by the industry.
we are looking for an alternative and it shall come.
make your monoply last longer by being kind
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.