Everything you read is wrong


Recommended Posts

I'm here to tell you that virtually everything you've read online about the changes to Windows Vista's end-user license agreement (EULA) is wrong. Microsoft is limiting your rights to transfer Windows to new PCs? Wrong. Microsoft is limiting your ability to upgrade your PC? Wrong. Microsoft is limiting the Vista versions you can install in virtual machines? Well, that one is partially correct. But there's a reason.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/503343-everything-you-read-is-wrong/
Share on other sites

Paul Thurrott's article doesn't refute any of the restrictions in the new EULAs pointed out by previous articles. It just downplays them by saying that they'll only affect a tiny and percentage of unimportant enthusiasts (which would include, for example, people at Neowin, and pretty much anyone who would read Paul Thurrott's article in the first place).

Not that it's going to make any difference, sites like Digg with their linux fanboys won't propagate this story to refute what was said.

And they shouldn't, Paul's article is wrong.

I sent him this mail:

Hi Paul,

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". The

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]

Paul Thurrott's article doesn't refute any of the restrictions in the new EULAs pointed out by previous articles. It just downplays them by saying that they'll only affect a tiny and percentage of unimportant enthusiasts (which would include, for example, people at Neowin, and pretty much anyone who would read Paul Thurrott's article in the first place).

Yep, I totally agree. And so does paul "Yes, a small group of enthusiasts who change hardware regularly will be adversely affected by the Windows licensing terms" :blink:

I find it very funny that throughout Paul's whole article all he did was marginalize Microsoft's new restrictions. If Microsoft felt these changes would have such a small effect, then why make them? But, as he said opinions are a dime a dozen so i'm offering mine.

I wonder what understanding of a contract or law does Paul have? He starts out arguing that the license in vista was intended to be as strict as Vista, but, for some unknown reason, it turned out to be worded very liberally. He then argues that since it was intended to be stricter we should just smile and be happy with this change. Why? This change results in less rights for us. It is not our job to "read Microsoft's mind" and figure out what their intending in their license agreements. There is no argument that the XP license is a lot more liberal on changes to subsequent computers (provided you only have it on one at a time).

Then his argument about Virtual Machines does not even mention Microsoft's real reasoning. It was added as a direct stab at Apple, plain and simple. It is also disgusting that he lightly hints at breaking the EULA on this issue with his, "There is nothing technical preventing you from doing so, of course.", comment. Violating the EULA makes you as wrong as the guy who downloaded it for free from a torrent site, except you were stupid enough to shell out a few hundred bucks as a pirate. This section has been added to the Vista EULA to counter Apple's Bootcamp setup. Otherwise, the only people installing Vista on VMs is developers and the like. They should be allowed to test their stuff on every version of Vista and probably will be through MSDN licenses.

Hmm, so let me get this straight. Replacing stuff like a video card or a CPU, granted not at the same time, shouldn't cause you to have to reactivate? Since that article said its algorithm takes into account mobo and hdd changes more so.

BTW, which verison of Vista will end up being equivalent to Win XP Prof.?

Hmm, so let me get this straight. Replacing stuff like a video card or a CPU, granted not at the same time, shouldn't cause you to have to reactivate? Since that article said its algorithm takes into account mobo and hdd changes more so.

BTW, which verison of Vista will end up being equivalent to Win XP Prof.?

Business and Ultimate in some ways. Enterprise is only for large corporations.

Scirwode

Boot Camp is not a virtual machine, it's a front end to their BIOS compatibility layer in the new Mac's EFI (Y)

I'm not 100% sure how BootCamp does the backwards compatibility with at least the BIOS, but i thought it was emulating the standard BIOS that PCs use. Since Microsoft's explanation of Virtualization is very broad it can very well fall under that imho as Virtualization dosen't always have to be done in software (and they specifically add hardware).

This is the section of the EULA that leads me to say it was a stab at Apple (emphasis is mine).

USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the

licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

I still say it outlaws bootcamp...

I'm not 100% sure how BootCamp does the backwards compatibility with at least the BIOS, but i thought it was emulating the standard BIOS that PCs use. Since Microsoft's explanation of Virtualization is very broad it can very well fall under that imho as Virtualization dosen't always have to be done in software (and they specifically add hardware).

This is the section of the EULA that leads me to say it was a stab at Apple (emphasis is mine).

I still say it outlaws bootcamp...

Boot Camp is not virtualization. It just adds a BIOS-compatibility module to the EFI. Virtualization means that multiple operating systems are running at the same time on the same hardware.

Limiting installation on virtual machines is going to be a pretty big nuisance to developers. When I was doing platform testing for a software company, I'd have tons of different installations of Windows on different VMWare images, running on different machines. Most of it was for confidence, but we'd still have on XP Home and an XP Professional all running automation on the software. With the changes you'd have to use the special versions of Vista on the VMWare images, but you'd have to have an entire machine set up just to test against Vista Home.

thank you for posting this, it helps people see that they should only rely on official sources because an amateur's eye is basically speculation. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that but people should consult multiple sources in order to avoid confusion.

Yep, I totally agree. And so does paul "Yes, a small group of enthusiasts who change hardware regularly will be adversely affected by the Windows licensing terms" :blink:

Exactly my thoughts upon reading it. He just tries to say that the people who it's going to affect are not great in number, but it's basically all of us who are tech enthusiasts.

Yep, I totally agree. And so does paul "Yes, a small group of enthusiasts who change hardware regularly will be adversely affected by the Windows licensing terms" :blink:

When Windows examines changes to the system, the two most heavily weighed components are the PC's motherboard and hard drive, in that order. If you change both of these components at one time, Windows will almost certainly assume it's running in a new computer and cause you to reactivate. "It's that old question, 'When does a boat become a new boat?," Boettcher asked, rhetorically. "When every plank has been replaced, is it a new boat?" In the case of a Windows XP and Vista-based PC, there is an algorithm that examines hardware changes and, based on an internal score, determines whether a reactivation is required.

When that happens, Windows will attempt to reactivate electronically. If that fails, the user will need to call and reactivate manually. This is the same under Vista as it was under XP, though again the algorithm has been updated to be less strict.

The point is it affects even less people than it does for Windows XP.

I have a critical question here:

Despite what Vista EULA says, will I be able to transfer Vista twise or 4 times for example?

I mean, will Vista have some sort of a "checking algorithm" or is it just a text in an EULA?

I'm asking because in the XP EULA (as Paul claims), Microsoft did NOT permit unlimited transfer and yet users can transfer as many as they can without any problem.

I have a critical question here:

Despite what Vista EULA says, will I be able to transfer Vista twise or 4 times for example?

I mean, will Vista have some sort of a "checking algorithm" or is it just a text in an EULA?

I'm asking because in the XP EULA (as Paul claims), Microsoft did NOT permit unlimited transfer and yet users can transfer as many as they can without any problem.

Unless they retrain Apu at the Microsoft Activation Hotline, you'll just be able to call in and tell them you bought a new motherboard, and that it's only installed on the same computer, and they will give you the activation code. I've installed my copy of Windows on 3 PCs just by calling each time and telling them I bought new stuff.

Boot Camp is not virtualization. It just adds a BIOS-compatibility module to the EFI. Virtualization means that multiple operating systems are running at the same time on the same hardware.

Thanks! After a good read i learned that Apple's bootcamp isn't Virtualization or Emulation (i was thinking it was emulation). Thanks for the heads up to you and the other poster who mentioned it to me earlier.

I have a critical question here:

Despite what Vista EULA says, will I be able to transfer Vista twise or 4 times for example?

I mean, will Vista have some sort of a "checking algorithm" or is it just a text in an EULA?

I'm asking because in the XP EULA (as Paul claims), Microsoft did NOT permit unlimited transfer and yet users can transfer as many as they can without any problem.

If you violate the EULA you're a pirate... Why spend money to become a pirate?

Unless they retrain Apu at the Microsoft Activation Hotline, you'll just be able to call in and tell them you bought a new motherboard, and that it's only installed on the same computer, and they will give you the activation code. I've installed my copy of Windows on 3 PCs just by calling each time and telling them I bought new stuff.

Without taking it off the other two machines? If so, your a software pirate. I don't think discussing piracy is allowed on Neowin :|, but either way i can't understand why you would buy the software than violate the EULA. Isn't it cheaper to become an illegal user for free?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The sweet release of death has never looked more appealing.
    • Meh, just another dongle-haven downgrade compared to my Surface Pro 7+. Whenever I decide to upgrade in the next decade or so, it certainly won't be another microslop Surface with this enshitification trend they've been having after the Surface Pro 7+. Hopefully a future generation of the Framework 12 will be a real upgrade...
    • This could exactly be how our Sun ends but it's not as simple by Sayan Sen Image by Drew Rae via Pexels An international team led by Université de Montréal (University of Montreal) PhD student Érika Le Bourdais has found that the ancient white dwarf star LSPM J0207+3331 is still pulling in planetary debris, even though it has been cooling for about three billion years. White dwarfs are dense, Earth-sized stellar remnants left behind when Sun-like stars exhaust their nuclear fuel and shed their outer layers. The star, located 145 light-years away in the constellation Triangulum, is the oldest and coldest white dwarf known to have a surrounding disk of dust. The star was first spotted in 2019 by a citizen scientist through the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 project. Its cool temperature immediately suggested that it was very old, since white dwarfs gradually lose heat over time. Using the W. M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, astronomers later confirmed that the star shows infrared signals consistent with dust rings formed by asteroids breaking apart under its strong gravity. Such infrared excesses occur when a star emits more infrared light than expected, often because warm dust surrounding it absorbs and re-radiates energy. “This discovery challenges our understanding of planetary system evolution,” said Le Bourdais. “The fact that we still see planetary debris being accreted three billion years after the star became a white dwarf suggests that asteroids, comets, and even planets can remain in orbit around these stars for a very long time.” Spectroscopic analysis—a technique that studies light to identify the chemical elements present in an object—revealed thirteen heavy elements in the star’s atmosphere: sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and strontium. Normally, heavy elements sink quickly in hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, making them hard to detect. “We expected to see only a few elements, but we found dozens!” explained Le Bourdais. The research paper adds more detail. The absence of carbon features suggests the debris came from a carbon-volatile-depleted source. The abundance pattern shows slight deficits of magnesium and silicon compared to iron but otherwise resembles Earth-like material. This points to a differentiated rocky body—one whose materials have separated into distinct layers such as a metallic core and rocky mantle—with a metallic core fraction higher than Earth’s. In other words, the star is accreting the remains of a large rocky object, similar in structure to Earth or the asteroid Vesta. “White dwarfs offer one of the only ways we can directly measure the composition of exoplanets,” said Patrick Dufour, co-author and professor at Université de Montréal. “When planetary debris come too close, they are torn apart by the star’s gravity and end up polluting its atmosphere, leaving a detailed chemical fingerprint of its composition.” The team also detected weak Ca II H & K line core emission, making this only the second known isolated polluted white dwarf to show this feature. These are specific spectral signatures produced by ionised calcium and can indicate unusual physical activity in a star’s upper atmosphere. The finding suggests that extra physical processes may be happening in or above the star’s upper atmosphere. The study stresses the importance of including heavy elements in model atmosphere calculations, since leaving them out can distort the inferred structure and lead to inaccurate stellar parameters. Earlier work suggested the star’s infrared excess came from two dust rings. The new analysis shows that a single silicate dust disk—a ring composed largely of rock-forming minerals rich in silicon and oxygen—can explain the observed signal at 11.6 μm, simplifying the picture of the system’s structure. The question of how debris ended up falling into the star so late remains open. One idea is that giant planets in the system slowly destabilised smaller bodies over billions of years. Another possibility is that a passing star disturbed the orbits of debris. “Future observations with the James Webb Space Telescope or archival data found in the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission could help distinguish between a planetary rearrangement and the gravitational effect of a close stellar encounter,” said John Debes, co-author and researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dufour noted that hydrogen-rich white dwarfs are the most common type, and the coolest among them are the oldest stars in the galaxy. “We didn't have the habit of looking for signs of accretion in them. This unique case motivates us to expand our search to more of these stars.” The findings show that even after billions of years, planetary systems can remain active and complex. Substantial accretion events—the gradual accumulation of surrounding material onto a celestial object—can still occur long after a star’s death, offering a rare window into the composition and fate of distant worlds. Source: University of Montreal, IOPScience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Doesn't DDG mainly use Bing?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Apprentice
      JoeyNeo went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Week One Done
      oliviaexpo earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      482
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      228
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      68
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      58
    5. 5
      neufuse
      56
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!