Topic: Will Vista Suck?

[Nemesis]

Sacks? Saks? You know Saks fifth avenue.

Some expensive store I've never been too.

One of those "trendy" and "fashionable stores?  I just don't do trendy or fashionable.  No wonder I don't know of them.

[Just plain old Punisher]

Sacks? Saks? You know Saks fifth avenue.

Some expensive store I've never been too.

One of those "trendy" and "fashionable stores?  I just don't do trendy or fashionable.  No wonder I don't know of them.

Hell neither do I. I do go to some nice stores to get my business clothes...but hey you can't look like a bum when you're workin right? But those are all outlet stores...so the price is like half off. Other than that, shoes at target or walmart, clothes at outlet stores.

[Nemesis]

Hell neither do I. I do go to some nice stores to get my business clothes...but hey you can't look like a bum when you're workin right? But those are all outlet stores...so the price is like half off. Other than that, shoes at target or walmart, clothes at outlet stores.

Who is going to tell a Klingon how to dress?

[Just plain old Punisher]

A guy who doesn't have very long to live.

[Commander Maxillius]

If you upgrade your system(s) incrementally like I do Vista will suck as any time you replace the motherboard you have to factor in the cost of a new full install of Windows.  XP activation kept me from converting to XP (except the laptop I bought before Christmas which came with XP).  New Motherboard = New Windows will block me from using Vista.   Hasta la Vista Microsoft.

Huh?  That isn't how I understand it... of course we just have a Microsoft Site license, and have been talking implementation with a two MS techs.

What would they know...

:-)


GE-Raven

Link to Microsoft doc file on Microsofts site.

Quote from that file

An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs

12.     If I upgrade some of my PC components, do I have to purchase a new operating system?
ANSWER.  The answer depends on the components that are upgraded or changed in the PC. The operating system licenses must remain with the device that retains the motherboard, chipsets, and chassis that include the serial number of the device. The operating system may be installed on a new/replacement hard drive as long as the operating system is first removed from the old hard drive. 

That is pure and utter crap!    If I had a couple thousand dollars laying around I would rent a few billboards in heavily traveled places and put bits of Microsofts EULA on them, especially those pieces of pigs' entrails above.  I mean wtf, now you can't upgrade your own f--king machine?!?



-Maxillius the PROUD Mac User

[Mr_Tricorder]

This is why I'm sticking with Linux and Windows XP.  I just hope M$ doesn't try to push people into forced upgrades from XP to Vista in the near future, like dropping XP support or anything like that.

[GE-Raven]

Odd... that wasn't the licensing package we are being quoted.  For us it will simply be # of seats (for servers # of processors).  So we can have 500 computers if we sell 200 and buy 200 more we put it on them...  no fuss no muss, no authentication process, etc.

However since the VAST majority of money lost to piracy is by Non- US piracy and the second area is people buying once cd and putting it on every machine they ever own.  I can see this policy targetted at the "home" audience.

That being said, I can see the "truth" in a new motherboard = a new computer.  Now I personally believe a licenses is a license.  Therefore if you have the software on 1 machine you can switch it to as many single machines as you like so long as no more than 1 machines has it at a time.  My guess is that if challenged this idea will fail in many states.

GE-Raven

[Dracho]

I buy their product it's licensed to ME, not my machine.  My machine didn't BUY it.  If I want to put it on another machine, so long as I don't put it on two at one, I'm well within my rights.


Someone with some money and time to burn will challenge them on this.

[Mr_Tricorder]

For home users, Microsoft has always said that you can only have Windows running on one computer, but until now they have never arbitrarily defined one single component as "the computer".  XP's authorization process made upgrading hardware a pain, but it was at least possible and legal without having to by a new copy of Windows.  With Vista, upgrading your motherboard is out of the question and replacing a faulty motherboard will probably be a major ordeal because the burden of proof is on you to show that you're replacing a bad board, not upgrading a working one, and I'm sure some of you know from experience how easy it is to convince Microsoft that you're not doing anything illegal.

[Dracho]

I went out and bought a legal copy of XP Pro, but want to run CD_Key hacking tools on it just to make myself feel better.   

[FRA.E.Kehakoul_XC]

err those MS cd keys are a joke, they can be generated in your head with the simplest math.

Besides,let them define the "Computer",.. you got a vote by not buying that OS.not upgrade and not use software thats explicit written for it.
I dont think i will install vista,i just hope i will be able to resist in the future.

[Dracho]

The only reason I don't run Linux is the lack of games for it.  Let someone sell an emulator that'll allow me to play all my PC games on Linux and I'm gone from MS forever.

[Nemesis]

Odd... that wasn't the licensing package we are being quoted.  For us it will simply be # of seats (for servers # of processors).  So we can have 500 computers if we sell 200 and buy 200 more we put it on them...  no fuss no muss, no authentication process, etc.

I would suspect that it does not apply to site licenses as they are typically for a set number of computers rather than specific computers

However since the VAST majority of money lost to piracy is by Non- US piracy and the second area is people buying once cd and putting it on every machine they ever own.  I can see this policy targetted at the "home" audience.

That being said, I can see the "truth" in a new motherboard = a new computer.  Now I personally believe a licenses is a license.  Therefore if you have the software on 1 machine you can switch it to as many single machines as you like so long as no more than 1 machines has it at a time.  My guess is that if challenged this idea will fail in many states.

GE-Raven

My problem with the whole software EULA is the way the software companies are changing the rules of copyright.  If I buy a CD or a DVD or an old fashioned LP I can listen to it on any player in the world that I have access to.  I can loan it to my friend.  I can sell it on E-Bay. 

Somehow copyright when applied to software is used to say I don't own what I bought.  The creators still own THAT copy and can control what I do with it.  Typically they claim that I can't loan it, sell it or move it to another computer.  They also claim the right to take MY COPY away if I don't follow their rules.

Why can't I take my spare copy of Windows 98SE and loan it to a friend?  Why can't I take the Windows off of one computer (delete it that is) then install it on another?  Why can't I sell it on E-Bay without fighting Microsoft in court?   Why do the rules of copyright suddenly change because it is software?  Why does the RIAA think that they should be able to rewrite the rules by putting DRM on a CD?  Why are our politicians letting this happen instead of slapping these predatory companies silly for presuming the power to create laws?

[Just plain old Punisher]

The only reason I don't run Linux is the lack of games for it.  Let someone sell an emulator that'll allow me to play all my PC games on Linux and I'm gone from MS forever.

All PC Games are written to use Direct X...so that would be a no go for linux.

To be honest with you, it isn't difficult to port a game over to various OS's. They do it all the time with Playstation and PC games. The reason why linux doesn't do it is because there aren't enough linux users to warrant the cost.

[Javora]

The only reason I don't run Linux is the lack of games for it.  Let someone sell an emulator that'll allow me to play all my PC games on Linux and I'm gone from MS forever.

All PC Games are written to use Direct X...so that would be a no go for linux.

To be honest with you, it isn't difficult to port a game over to various OS's. They do it all the time with Playstation and PC games. The reason why linux doesn't do it is because there aren't enough linux users to warrant the cost.

It seems like DRM might have something to do with it as well...

[Overmind]

err those MS cd keys are a joke, they can be generated in your head with the simplest math.

That's because there Keys are in a very large number.
If you make a more sofisticated generation algoritm, the number of keys that comply with that algoritm lowers.

[Nemesis]

Microsoft has made an interesting annoucment about IE 7.  Apparently in spite of all the insistance that IE had to be integrated into the OS they are now separating IE and Windows Explorer once more.  This will result in IE 7 being usable on XP when it had previously been announced that XP would not get IE 7. 

Now the question is why? 

My answer is that Vista is late because they have reached the point where so much unrelated material has been poured into the same mix that it is now unworkable and MS is finally being forced to modularize the OS.  Separate IE and Windows Explorer into unique programs once more.  Perhaps separate out other things as well.  I don't expect it (at least for Vista) but would like to see MS separate the OS and GUI as they were in the beginning and still are for Linux and BSD (I don't know about the Mac).  OS, GUI, file manager and web browser were integrated for marketing reasons and to allow them to bypass anti-trust law not for technical reasons. 

Designing because marketing wants it that way is not a viable long term way to design an evolving system and they are now paying the price (billions of $$)

[Mr_Tricorder]

... I don't expect it (at least for Vista) but would like to see MS separate the OS and GUI as they were in the beginning and still are for Linux and BSD (I don't know about the Mac)...

From what I understand, the Mac OS and GUI are separate since they decided to scrap their previous Mac OS (up to and including OS 9) and start fresh with a modified version of FreeBSD for OS X.  However, I don't know if it is actually possible to successfully remove the GUI from the Mac OS.  I'm not a Mac expert by any means, though, as I've hardly ever actually used one.