Topic: Vista Bashing: the New National Pastime?

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Then there's the fact that I have to go in and change all the automatic settings (I hear it's next to impossible with Vista) when I intstall it in order to disable half the junk they have running. That's BS.

and the list goes on and on.

No actually it is NOT that hard, most people I can see saying that since you have to get used to the new interface and the changes in locations of things.
Disable the Services is simple enough, same as XP
MSConfig is still the same
Turning off Automatic Updates is different, but still easy enough
Windows defender is easily disabled once you explore a bit and see it
UAC is easy also to disable if you really need to.
I run Vista Ultimate on my laptop. I have Memory down to XP levels, boot up time at XP levels, and overall efficiency about the same as XP levels as well. From all my exploring of Vista, it is no different then any OS

As well, the internet is slowly progressing toward IPv6, so sooner or later XP will have to go as while it can support some IPv6, it wont stand up in the IPv6 world.

[Nemesis]

When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software.

An interesting theory, one that software companies like to present as fact. 

Tell me when I go to the store and say "I would like to buy a copy of program X" why am I never corrected?  Why do I get a bill of sale for "program X"?  Why is the contract not presented to me before the "purchase" to read and sign? 

A judge has now ruled that software is sold not licensed. Link to full article (Link to earlier discussion thread where I mentioned this lawsuit)

"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."

Where is the mutual assent in the software "license"?  The buyer does not get to see it in advance.  The seller (software copyright holder not the retailer) is not even aware of the deal until after the software is registered or activated so there is no mutual assent. 

That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.

No arrangement made for the return of the software when the license expires means the software is sold. 

By what right does a software manufacturer claim the right to control my usage of that software so long as I stay within the law?

[marstone]

When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software. As such, the EULA clearly states that the intended and designed use is for 1 computer system. If you are going to install on multiple machines, then Microsoft EULA states that you will need to buy 1 copy for each machine, or call MS and buy individual keys for each machine ($35 each) or buy a Volume License Key for multiple machines. If you change more than 4 points of hardware within 120 days, then essentially you have built a new machine, and your EULA for the OS does not allow for that.. However after 120 days, the MS Activation Server dumps System ID keys about the registered computer's hardware and you can upgrade your system all you want or install to a different computer. Within 120 days, you can upgrade Video, Memory, add PCI and USB devices, and even replace the CPU, however replacement of the Main board constitutes replacing the whole computer due to different Bios and Northbridge and Southbridge.. and Activation will fail (essentially you built a different computer).. however after 120 days, it doesn't matter.

The same is true for Vista..

In other words, if you are planning an upgrade.. upgrade the machine before you install XP or after the 120 days are up and install / reactivate once all your upgrades are done.. plain and simple.

I do this all the time.. I have had 0 problems on activation .. also with MS working with me and without cost on system that have bad main boards found after activation.. I really can't complain.

question I have is why should I have to wait 120 days to upgrade my machine?  If I can afford a new video card a month after I get my machine, why shouldn't I do it.  Then upgrade a bigger harddrive.  It is a limitation artificially made by MS for micro managing the systems.  I actually have more licenses for XP then I am using right now, so it doesn't bother me but why should I have to wait to do upgrades just doesn;t make sense to me.

[toasty0]

When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software. As such, the EULA clearly states that the intended and designed use is for 1 computer system. If you are going to install on multiple machines, then Microsoft EULA states that you will need to buy 1 copy for each machine, or call MS and buy individual keys for each machine ($35 each) or buy a Volume License Key for multiple machines. If you change more than 4 points of hardware within 120 days, then essentially you have built a new machine, and your EULA for the OS does not allow for that.. However after 120 days, the MS Activation Server dumps System ID keys about the registered computer's hardware and you can upgrade your system all you want or install to a different computer. Within 120 days, you can upgrade Video, Memory, add PCI and USB devices, and even replace the CPU, however replacement of the Main board constitutes replacing the whole computer due to different Bios and Northbridge and Southbridge.. and Activation will fail (essentially you built a different computer).. however after 120 days, it doesn't matter.

The same is true for Vista..

In other words, if you are planning an upgrade.. upgrade the machine before you install XP or after the 120 days are up and install / reactivate once all your upgrades are done.. plain and simple.

I do this all the time.. I have had 0 problems on activation .. also with MS working with me and without cost on system that have bad main boards found after activation.. I really can't complain.

question I have is why should I have to wait 120 days to upgrade my machine?  If I can afford a new video card a month after I get my machine, why shouldn't I do it.  Then upgrade a bigger harddrive.  It is a limitation artificially made by MS for micro managing the systems.  I actually have more licenses for XP then I am using right now, so it doesn't bother me but why should I have to wait to do upgrades just doesn;t make sense to me.

You don't have to. No law says you have to. Just keep in mind that you agreed to. 

[toasty0]

When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software.

An interesting theory, one that software companies like to present as fact. 

Tell me when I go to the store and say "I would like to buy a copy of program X" why am I never corrected?  Why do I get a bill of sale for "program X"?  Why is the contract not presented to me before the "purchase" to read and sign? 

A judge has now ruled that software is sold not licensed. Link to full article (Link to earlier discussion thread where I mentioned this lawsuit)

"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."

Where is the mutual assent in the software "license"?  The buyer does not get to see it in advance.  The seller (software copyright holder not the retailer) is not even aware of the deal until after the software is registered or activated so there is no mutual assent. 

That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.

No arrangement made for the return of the software when the license expires means the software is sold. 

By what right does a software manufacturer claim the right to control my usage of that software so long as I stay within the law?

Nice ruling. What I'd like to see is the EULA for that product.

[marstone]

If I can call MS and get a key for $35 so I can run its OS on a new computer, why do I have to pay around $200 when I buy one in the store if I am only buying the license for the program and not the software?

[Nemesis]

Nice ruling. What I'd like to see is the EULA for that product.

Link to EULA

You don't have to. No law says you have to. Just keep in mind that you agreed to.

Is it a valid agreement though? 

Consider the software EULA.  Does the software author make a deal with the distributor authorizing them to sign further licenses? If not then what right does the retailer have to sell licenses?  If yes then does the distributor do the same in regards to the retailer?  If there is no such chain of agreements authorizing the retailer to sell licenses then there is no sale of license. 

Does a EULA as currently presented in retail software fullfill the requirements of a contract?

1) an agreement, and 2) consideration.

The agreement component involves offers, counter-offers, and eventually what contract law calls the "meeting of the minds."

It does not appear to me that it does as there is no "agreement" under this definition as there is no discussion of the terms  with anyone authorized to change them.  There is no presentation of the terms until after the payment (consideration) is made and typically no refund after the terms are known.

You may find this old lawsuit interesting.  In 1908 Macy's was charged with violating the license in a book they sold by selling it for under $1. 

From the judgement in that case:

The owner of the copyright in this case did sell copies of the book in quantities and at a price satisfactory to it. It has exercised the right to vend. What the complainant contends for embraces not only the right to sell the copies, but to qualify the title of a future purchaser by the reservation of the right to have the remedies of the statute against an infringer because of the printed notice of its purpose so to do unless the purchaser sells at a price fixed in the notice. To add to the right of exclusive sale the authority to control all future retail sales, by a notice that such sales must be made at a fixed sum, would give a right not included in the terms of the statute, and, in our view, extend its operation, by construction, beyond its meaning, when interpreted with a view to ascertaining the legislative intent in its enactment.

Is the EULA substantially different than the book case cited above?  I think not, in each case a copyright holder is attempting to limit the ownership rights of those who made a legitimate purchase.  I think that unless laws are changed ultimately software licensing will be divided into 2 categories:

1/ Actual licensing between corporations.

2/ Retail sales like other copyrighted works.

[toasty0]

I forgot to mention one of my other favorite features of Vista is Readyboost.

[Dash Jones]

EULAs are not binding agreements for several reasons.  First for it was not made in the presence of one or more witnesses, second a lawyer was not present to judicate and give legal adherence and or advice to the signees, and finally, especially in cases of Windows being pre-installed on computers, the person buying the computer made no agreement to adhere to anything, except normally a bill of sale from the computer maker (who are the ones, if anyone, with an agreement with MS), infering that the sale of the computer is also a sale of any material on said computer.

As far as I know, MS has never ever successfully prosecuted a soul of a single personage (as opposed to business) for an infraction of their so called EULA in a LEGAL court (not civil, that's legal) proceding.

[Pestalence_XC]

So you are saying that you could write a program, copywrite the material in the program, put it on the market for sale, and 1 person buys a copy and puts it into a torrent and 100,000 other people DL it for free and you get the proceeds from the sale of 1 copy?

And you are fine with this?

EULA is available for people to look up, it is in the paperwork of the computer to read before you even turn the thing on.. failure to do so is your own fault.. If you don't agree with the EULA, then return the computer / software ..

My prebuilt system had EULA in the box on paper.. so stating that the end user is not aware of EULA when they buy a prebuilt computer is pure weapons grade bologna-um.

the EULA is set up to where you have to agree to accept it by either turning the computer on, or clicking I agree in the Licensing box. If you feel you need a lawyer present, they by all means hire one to go over the EULA before you click I agree.. It is at your expense, not the software manufacturers.

You see all your claims about EULA not being legal nor binding is weapons grade bologna-um.. Software companies have not yet started to truly enforce EULA of their products (EULA is written by lawyers for the respective companies in accordance to the laws of the state the software manufacturer is in. Usage of the software is agreeing to be held accountable by the laws of the state that the software was created), however with more and more theft, I am sure we will see quite a few court cases in favor of the software developer based solely on the EULA.

[Panzergranate]

I've had zero trouble from Vista for the year that we've had  the new laptop.... however friends with X(tra) P(roblems) always have tales of woe. One just hates XP with a passion.

Like I said, I've had zero problems with Vista.... so far.

[Lepton]

So you are saying that you could write a program, copywrite the material in the program, put it on the market for sale, and 1 person buys a copy and puts it into a torrent and 100,000 other people DL it for free and you get the proceeds from the sale of 1 copy?

And you are fine with this?

Why are you bringing software piracy into this?  You're such a drama queen, citing the most extreme example possible and appealing to people's pride.  We are talking about individuals who purchased software being able to have full use of their hardware free of install constraints or individuals selling a single install disk of software that they legally purchased to another individual.  We are not talking about mass distribution of software by illegal means.

No one's talking about "violating" an EULA for piracy, but merely for having full use of what they bought.

[Pestalence_XC]

That is exactly what I am talking about..

MS installs to 1 machine.. you can upgrade that machine with Video, CPU, RAM, Sound, PS TV Tuner.. etc.. however you change the Mainboard, which had a different CMOS and BIOS.. then essentially you have built a new computer.. EULA does not allow for you to install the OS to that computer, only your previous one (given that the OS was installed to the previous system first)..

You are suppose to, by EULA, contact MS and buy an new product key for the new system.

Now paying $159.99 for the OS of XP does not mean you bought the software.. it means you paid for the shipping of the software, the packaging, the book, the case and the CD the OS was burned on to along with their pretty holographic gold foil ... Plus the licensing key to unlock the software. the XP sticker for your computer and most importantly the convenience of the OS being in the store (Store markup)..

You can always DL the OS directly from Microsoft after paying the $35 for the license key from their MSDN Library.. they will provide you a direct DL URL...

The OS itself belongs to MS and they have the right to recall it or discontinue it at their leisure.. Now big companies that have the OS contracted with MS would have legal recourse if the OS stopped working tomorrow.. but the End Users do not have Contracts with MS and MS is protected by EULA.

Just like Linux.. the IP holder can turn it off tomorrow and no one can say a thing without having a contract stating that the OS will operate for X amount of years.

The EULA is to get people to purchase the software more than 1 time if they have multiple computers.. or if you do not want to buy multiple copies, then they want you to call in and buy a VLK to cover all of your systems or purchase multiple keys if you have 3 or 4 computers..

It is all sales and marketing of their software.. not your software. Just like people are suppose to have the right of jacking rent from $500 a month to $1000 a month on an apartment just because they can get more money.. the Software companies have the right to adjust their marketing so that they make money and one marketing method is the EULA drawn up by their lawyers.

Otherwise.. there would be nothing but free software on the Net and stores will close down and so will software companies because EULA means nothing....

[Nemesis]

Pestalence_XC if EULAs are ruled invalid as I believe they should be then (like books before them) they revert to being covered by standard copyright law.  Under that law one may use the software on 1 machine at a time without being judged to have violated copyright.  Under that law if I take the program off one machine and install it on another I am not in violation of copyright and am not a pirate. 

When the book publishers placed a EULA in the books they claimed it had the force of law but judges said otherwise.  In a number of cases so far various EULA terms have been struck down but no one has yet fought over the validity of the EULA as a whole so it has yet to be ruled either way. 

I do not believe the software industry assertion that the EULA as used and presented constitutes a valid contract licensing my use.  I believe and expect eventually to (bar changes in the law) have the courts agree that I purchase copies of software just as I purchase copies of other copyrighted materials and have ALL the rights that copyright law bestows upon me as a purchaser of a product that is under copyright.  I don't believe that software companies can create law by slapping a EULA on something and claiming that it is legally binding and that they have the right to strip from me rights that I have under the law.

[Dash Jones]

Actually, in some areas EULA's really aren't worth the time companies spend typing them.  All an EULA is, is fear mongering.  The reason companies don't try to enforce them is because they know they can't, EULA's don't have any legal strength.

The businesses know that, this is why when I do a business contract between my business and another (for example, let's use Microsoft since they seem to be at the center of this, and even THEY still do business how I'm about to describe) I can't just slap down a piece of paper and say...by coming in this room you automatically agree to what I've put in this contract, if you disagree you can hand me back all the stuff I already have given you and I may or may not pay back the money.  NO, instead they take the contract, have their people look at it, send me back a counter proposal, and then I look at it with my people.  Then we get together, hammer it out, and then there is a LEGAL precedence where we have to have witnesses and an authorizing Legal authority to authorize it in order to make the contract valid.

Handshake agreements are normally not held up in court.  It's the actual paper and the signatures that matter.

[Rod ONeal]

I can buy and sell other copyrighted material. Books, CDs, Baseball cards, etc... I should be able to buy (or sell) a used copy of 3D Studio Max. Autodesk says that I can't. That they deserve to get paid twice for the same set of disks, manuals, and all of the other stuff that the original purchase price pays for.

[marstone]

<snip>  (Worded poorly, but can't think of another way to write it.)

And heck if you are true that we don't buy the software, then the torrents being put out should be no problem since it was never sold it can't be stollen.

[Nemesis]

A couple of people are coming very close to personal attacks. 

There is no need for that.  Attack the message not the messenger.  Be polite and diplomatic.  It really isn't that hard.

The responsibility falls on you to control your passions, not for the board members to endure it.

[marstone]

A couple of people are coming very close to personal attacks. 

There is no need for that.  Attack the message not the messenger.  Be polite and diplomatic.  It really isn't that hard.

The responsibility falls on you to control your passions, not for the board members to endure it.

I am not trying to attack Pestilence.  He is one against alot so I give him lots of credit.  I think he does a great job of taking the other side of this discussion, he really should get paid for it.  He is good at it.  If my last post is taken wrongly, I am sorry.  (hmmm, no little icon to end with I can see that will fit)  Did a snip on my last post as it was poorly worded, but ATM I am at a lose of how to word it better.

[marstone]

I can buy and sell other copyrighted material. Books, CDs, Baseball cards, etc... I should be able to buy (or sell) a used copy of 3D Studio Max. Autodesk says that I can't. That they deserve to get paid twice for the same set of disks, manuals, and all of the other stuff that the original purchase price pays for.

Also don't forget even if you are just paying for a license,you are passing your license to someone else so only one copy is being used on one machine.  Back in the olden days ('80's) it was put out that the copywrite on software was to be considered the same as a book copywrite.  Anything a person could do with a book you could do with software.  Of course that was back in the time you didn't install programs and ran them from disks, so when you passed a disk to a friend to play the game, you didn't have it on a harddrive.