Vista license agreement is a joke

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:32:45 -0400, Larry wrote:

> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what
> their TRUE intentions are here.
>
> -Larry

The woman quoted in the article is from Microsoft.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:42:11 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

> Can you read? Or is that too much to ask before inserting yourself ass
> first into the conversation?
>
> Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher was the interviewee. Unless it's
> directly from Bill's mouth it doesn't count? Sheeeesh.... The interviewer
> has zero to gain and everything to lose by misleading his readers.
>
> All this whining about Vista is based on BULL****. If you legally own XP
> and havent had any issues activating it then Vista will ALSO activate
> perfectly. As MS says the procedure for moving a license is EXATCLY AS XP.
> Why is that so hard to believe/comprehend?

Did you actually read the Vista EULA? It says you can only transfer it
*once* to a new PC. XP EULA doesn't say that so how are they the same? Pull
your head out of your ass before it explodes.

This I agree. MS is way to greedy. A home PC version of Windows shouldn't
cost more than $50-75. The over all cost of a decent yet basic PC is
doubled with Vista ultimate. Not cool at all. At some point enough money
is enough isnt it? Or does the cost of the machines overhead demand greed
at the expense of all else?

Mitch


"Ruud Dingemans" > wrote in message news:eh17en$fi0
>
>
> Well, primarily, "Making money" of course. As always - what else would
> you expect?
>
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank: -27)

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:48:34 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:


>
> How do you have XP setup/activated now? That's how you will activate/run
> Vista.

I told you I was going to keep doing this until you wake up and smell the
coffee.





http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...129TX1K0000532

quote:From past experience with Windows XP, a motherboard swap triggers
a re-activation. I've successfully reactivated the same copy of Windows XP
a number of times after a motherboard swap with no problem. But the above
terms seem to indicate that the third activation will fail, meaning you,
dear reader, get to feed the Microsoft machine more money.

Or not.

If anything could be calculated to drive the DIY community away from
Windows, this would be it. As it stands now, reactivating after installing
a new motherboard is a minor pain, but not a big deal. And what about when
you need to swap out a motherboard simply because the hardware failed? Does
that count as well?

Dwight Silverman, one of the writers for the interviewed Shanen
Boettcher of Microsoft about this topic. According to Silverman, Boettcher
is "very aware of the concerns over the licensing terms."

*Silverman also noted that Boetther said that Microsoft "doesn't plan
to back away."*

But Silverman gets it. In his conclusion, he pointed out that the DIY
community are very tech aware and tend to be significant influencers. We'll
just have to see if Microsoft feels the same way.

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

> Unless I've missed something, DX10 is no different to DX9. You might
> *want* the pretty new features, but you won't need them (it's not as if
> DX9 games are slow or ugly, after all). There may be a couple of titles
> who are "sponsored" to be DX10-only, but given the cost of Vista, it's
> going to have to be one hell of a game!

Pretty much every major release from 2007 onwards is going to require
DX10, and Vista by association. That includes Bioshock, Crysis, Alan
Wake, and Halo 2.

(jason moyer) wrote:

> Pretty much every major release from 2007 onwards is going
> to require DX10

I don't know about the others, but Crysis doesn't need DX10 (and that's
the only title on the horizon I'm interested in). It'll use it if you've
got DX10, but it's by no means necessary according to everything I've
read. For example...

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/cry...ml?sid=6150139

Andrew McP

I have officially thrown in the towel. Bye.

-Larry

"Mitch.A" > wrote in message
et...
> What happened to me? What happened to you? You chimed in on this thread
> and basically said you didn't even read the article yet you somehow twist
> that into me being annoying? How does anything you said in your reply
> make any sense after reading the article mentioned? Let me refresh your
> memory with this quote.
>
>>>>Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what
>>>>their TRUE intentions are here.
>
> This article CLEARLY involves direct quotes FROM A MICROSOFT GM Larry. Do
> you think it's faked by P.Thurott? That's a much bigger stretch of the
> imagination than reality allows and anything more on that idea is simply
> unreasonable.
>
> How do you have XP setup/activated now? That's how you will activate/run
> Vista. Ive upgraded my PC countless times since 2002 and reinstalled the
> same version of XP Pro after each upgrade and the only MS requirement was
> call the MS call center in India and go through 5 mins of number hassle.
> That's exactly what you will do with Vista as the procedure is UNCHANGED,
> this was stated directly from an MS rep in the article...
>
> And that only happens with major upgrades. Between upgrades I use
> BartPE/DriveImage to create a bootable CD from which you can restore
> Driveimage partition backups. Works perfect every time and I expect it
> will be patched to work just as well in Vista.
>
> Mitch
>
>
>
> "Larry" > wrote in message
> news:wfQYg.22272$2g4.920@dukeread09...
>> Mitch, I don't know what has happened to you, but you've become quite the
>> annoyance of late.
>>
>> I don't know where the guy that I used to enjoy racing with went, but I
>> wish he would come back.
>>
>> -Larry
>>
>> "Mitch.A" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> Can you read? Or is that too much to ask before inserting yourself ass
>>> first into the conversation?
>>>
>>> Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher was the interviewee. Unless
>>> it's directly from Bill's mouth it doesn't count? Sheeeesh.... The
>>> interviewer has zero to gain and everything to lose by misleading his
>>> readers.
>>>
>>> All this whining about Vista is based on BULL****. If you legally own
>>> XP and havent had any issues activating it then Vista will ALSO activate
>>> perfectly. As MS says the procedure for moving a license is EXATCLY AS
>>> XP. Why is that so hard to believe/comprehend?
>>>
>>> Area51, The Grassy Knoll, Lockness, etc, etc all fit perfectly with your
>>> non-argument....
>>>
>>> It's funny to see the same bunch scrambling to post how they won't run
>>> Vista blah blah blah. Ya know the exact same bunch that ran W98se for
>>> years after XP was released cause it was "good nuff".... Most kiddies
>>> here can't go any farther back than that LOL..
>>>
>>> Who gives a **** if anyone here is going to run Vista or not BUT don't
>>> come around handing out bags of bull**** telling everyone it's gold and
>>> not expect to be called out by the actual truth..
>>>
>>> Mitch
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Larry" > wrote in message
>>> news:1SLYg.22263$2g4.9223@dukeread09...
>>>> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft
>>>> what their TRUE intentions are here.
>>>>
>>>> -Larry
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

Andrew MacPherson wrote:

> I don't know about the others, but Crysis doesn't need DX10 (and that's
> the only title on the horizon I'm interested in). It'll use it if you've
> got DX10, but it's by no means necessary according to everything I've
> read. For example...

As far as I know, Bioshock will, and that's a game I've been
anticipating for 7 years now (the spiritual successor to System Shock
2). Eventually developers are going to stop wanting to deal with
legacy code/hardware or will want to use new features in DX10 (or
DX10.2a, or whatever) and you'll find that DX10-required software is
the rule rather than the exception. It's been that way for every
previous version of DX, and I'd be surprised if it weren't eventually
the case again.

Aside from that, and while I doubt I'll buy Vista until I have DX10
compliant hardware down the road, it would seem like Vista is a pretty
huge leap over the OS/2-based family of Windows OS's with their
inefficient and non-secure bloated kernels and device handling.
Supposedly the goal for the final build of Vista is for Vista's
re-written DX9 and the emulation layers for previous DX's to run faster
under most hardware configurations than they do under XP SP2. Whether
that's true or marketing drivel I don't know, but I'm really surprised
at the level of negativity Vista has gotten so far when by all accounts
it would seem to be as close to a new OS as microsoft has gotten since
Windows 95.

Mitch.A wrote:

> As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still
> call support and transfer the license. MS simply clarified the EULA with
> Vista (and added virtualization). Personally I trust the author
> P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bull**** spreading punk like the
> OP.

Now that I've read the actual changes to the EULA, I have to admit I
don't really see the big deal. I can't say I've ever purchased an OS
and installed it on more than one computer at a time, and I'm going to
guess that MS will continue to sell site licenses as they've always
done.

Someone wrote:

> Yep, it will be time to move away from new games. To be honest, I'm worn out
> by gaming right now, having enjoyed gaming for over 20 years, so perhaps I'm
> luckier. I'll be looking to the new generation consoles for my gaming needs,
> and that wont be including the XBox's.

I dunno if going the console route is the answer, but I find I'm
interested in fewer and fewer games nowadays for any platform. If it
weren't for simulators, classic franchises (i.e. Civilization IV or
something), and the odd gem I doubt I'd still play anything. I'm not
sure if that's because I'm hitting 30 soon or because it seems like
fewer and fewer games are targeted at adults.