Vista license transfers not as restrictive as initially reported

Those of you planning on upgrading to Windows Vista in January -- and yes, despite the supposed delay in shipments to hardware manufacturers, the commercial version of the OS is still on track for the stated rollout -- will be happy to learn that the seemingly unfair limitation on license transfers will not be nearly as severe as we first reported. According to a spokesperson in Microsoft's Licensing Department, simply swapping out a component such as a CPU or graphics card will not require you to re-activate Vista; only replacing a hard drive plus another piece of your rig at the same time will necessitate a re-activation. And instead of the single license transfer stipulation that we'd heard before, Redmond has now gone on record saying that you can re-install Vista up to 10 times without penalty -- and possibly more, though that will apparently be decided on a case-by-case basis. Of course, you still won't be able to pay for one copy Vista and run it on multiple machines simultaneously; but hey, that's to be expected, and trying it will get you every bit of functionality-crippling frustration that you deserve.

[7of7 @ Oct 26th 2006 4:08PM]

This should surprise no one. Most "news" that comes out about Vista is no more than FUD distributed willingly by the morons on the internet who would do anything to make Microsoft look bad. These are the same people who do the same thing to Sony. "OMG the PS3 eats babies!"

[greg @ Oct 26th 2006 4:09PM]

YAY now i have no worries when i buy this for my new build!!

[Farris @ Oct 26th 2006 4:17PM]

7of7, I absolutely agree with you. Reviewers and consumers alike do this sort of thing to big companies all the time, whether its Microsoft, Apple, Sony, etc. The problem is that if anyone makes a comment about it (like your comment, and the one Im writing now) they are immediately labeled as "fanboys" and dismissed.

Personally, I'm not upgrading to Vista unless it comes packaged with the beige box that I buy, in which case, I most likely won't be swapping out parts in.

[michael @ Oct 26th 2006 4:33PM]

what? you mean the FUD wasn't true? unpossible!

[disciple83 @ Oct 26th 2006 5:00PM]

The number one problem with Vista has nothing to do with the operating system itself, nor the company manufacturing it, it's the blogger's and fanboy's expectations and reactions to it in real-time. When XP came out, there weren't blogs like engadget or a competing operating system, or a large rival company with an underhanded smart-ass marketing attitude like Apple's. Information wasn't instantly accessible, and therefore, people had to wait patiently for material to become available. Microsoft is in the heap of crap it's in as a direct result of the internet's hype and hate toward's the company's past, not it's present. Yes, XP sucked it up on release, and every service pack/update was mostly bloatware that put a hole somewhere else, but that is also one of the reason's why MS is two years late. I believe they are actually making an attempt at releasing a solid piece of software.

Companies like Symantec and McAfee think that they can lobby their way into the core of the new OS, as if it's completely necessary. NOD32 doesn't require kernal access, neither does Sophos software.

It's BS like that that make tempers flare and all the flaming start. "well this wouldn't be a problem if you would just make your software secure"...Newsflash, OSX isn't invulnerable, it's just a tad bit more stable. Generally, if you have a problem, yes, you can restart it, but if that doesn't work, you are f***ed. Linux machines are secure because you need a Ph.D in neurophysics to use it. Any supergeek who uses Linux is capable of writing their own patch to the software should a problem occur, I am simply amazed that their aren't more problems with it since it open source.

I don't give a damn about what you think is the better OS, Windows, Linux, OSX, none of it makes a single bit of difference anymore. Macs aren't better graphics machines since the software is made for every machine and optimized for them equally. Windows isn't a better business solution because there are equally powerful offerings that all solve your problems and increase productivity. Linux works just fine for all the geeks who want genuine control over their system, and are basically paranoid of what they think is a government conspiracy set up by "the man".

Sadly, this is all in vain, as I know the second I hit submit someone will call me a fanboy of something and just perpetuate the cycle. In all honesty, I am just tired of the hype. Windows is still a beta, meaning it isn't finished, so I say people should lay off it until it actually gets here, quit knocking it cuz it doesn't run right on the computer you have which wasn't built for a new OS like Vista. Quit bitching cuz you can't install it on every machine you build. You can't have two machines share the same video card simultaneously, why should the operating system be any different? Because it's software? That's a piss-poor excuse.

End of speech.

[jalex_uk @ Oct 26th 2006 5:09PM]

Lol! No, sorry, that should read "Vista EULA *IS* as restrictive as reported." Thurrot is just a lousy apologist. Basically, you have to call their lousy support if you want to go and piss in a pot and you've already gone once in a day. Microsoft are holding your peace of mind to ransom for the sake of exercising their control freakery on you.
Drones break free - you don't need to be part of the collective to feel wanted. You are not Borg. You are human.

Well, most of you are, anyway...

[goingmac @ Oct 26th 2006 5:09PM]

Looks like i m going Mac....

[Ashish @ Oct 26th 2006 5:18PM]

This for me is awesome news because I believed the original news. Now this is really reassuring.
Although I will be definitely waiting a bit for the bugs - that will surely come to light at release - to be sorted out.
Crysis + DX 10 = bliss

[shon Dempsey @ Oct 26th 2006 5:34PM]

If im understanding correctly, you cant install the same license of Vista on one desktop and one laptop at the same time? Isnt that the same as having a music cd and having the same music on your iPod? rubbish.

[kurt @ Oct 26th 2006 5:34PM]

disciple83 you fanboy. :-) JK, good post

[Jeff @ Oct 26th 2006 5:39PM]

"This should surprise no one. Most "news" that comes out about Vista is no more than FUD distributed willingly by the morons on the internet who would do anything to make Microsoft look bad."

I think you have this backwards.

So a few days ago a news story broke that was so ludicrous that we all cried foul. Now MS responds with an only slightly less restrictive stance, and we all say "whew!" But think to yourselves what your reaction would have been if today's clarification had been the original news. It would have elicited the same outcry as before.

What's happened here is that MS has taken a negative news story and spinned it as a positive. The conspiracy theorist in me (and it doesn't take much to make this leap in logic) says that they did that by intentionally leaking the earlier lie, which they can then refute with a scheme that's still restrictive but seems much better in comparison.

Of course, OSX, Linux, Unix, etc. let you install the OS as many times as you want. There should be no limit at all. So I don't see this as a positive at all, except when put up against the original story. Now to who's benefit was that original story again?

[Sean P. Aune @ Oct 26th 2006 5:53PM]

disciple83 -

The only point I am going to contend with you is that Microsoft is famous for huge, empty promises. Face it, Microsoft can NOT write good code. End of story. Mind you, this is coming from someone that has used DOS and Windows machines since the late 80's and I am ready to jump ship to Mac.

The reason? You said it your self "it's just a tad bit more stable". The problem is, it's NOT just a tad bit more stable, it's a LOT more stable. 3 years ago we hired a new employee at the company I own and he asked if he could bring his personal Mac in to the office as opposed to using a PC, I told sire, if he wants to bring his own computer to do his work, who am I to argue. In the 3 years, 4 months he has been here, his Mac has crashed a grand total of 0 times. This coming January, it'll be 10 years old. Could you please tell me of a PC with that kind of track record?

And believe me, that thing gets a constant work out around here, all of our computers do. We have PC crashes here daily, programs quitting, error reports to send Microsoft, techs have been here fixing any number of problems on our Winboxes...and all the while, he sits in the corner, on his Mac, getting his work done with nary a crash.

So pardon me if I judge Microsoft by their not-so-glowing track record and switch to an OS that I used to laugh at, and now have a large respect for.

Otherwise, I did like your post, and no, I am not going to call you a "fanboy":-p

Sean

[Ted Brown @ Oct 26th 2006 7:31PM]

Wow guy, thanks for the anecdotal evidence! You friend who has a Mac that has never crashed at work has finally convinced me. Instead of upgrading to Vista, I'm going to "switch". I mean, if you friend's Mac has never crashed, then this proves how awful Micro$oft is.

Of course I guess my anecdotal evidence wouldn't convince you otherwise: I've had my current install of Windows XP for over a year, and it has not crashed one time. I'm currently testing Vista RC2, and aside from some nvidia driver problems, it is currently running very well.

I also find it hard to believe that your friend has been using the same Mac for 10 years. So you're saying that he is still using his Mac from 1996?

I think the problems you have at your office have less to do with Windows, and more to do with shitty software. Let me guess.. you are running McAfee or Symantec/Norton?

[tiuk @ Oct 26th 2006 5:56PM]

How do you define "the same time"? Could someone just put in a new hard drive, boot up, shut down, and then install the rest of their stuff?

[Peter @ Oct 26th 2006 6:14PM]

It appears that the EULA is just as restrictive as first reported. I haven't seen any report of a change to the EULA.

It looks like the news is that MS is saying their enforcement using WGA or product activation won't be as strict as the EULA allows them to be. I don't think that's enough for me to feel warm and fuzzy. I don't want to use a product whose EULA terms would makes me a pirate, even if the product activation allows it.

[Sean P. Aune @ Oct 26th 2006 7:41PM]

His Mac is from 1997, I forget the model number. And no, I am not running McAfee or Symantec/Norton, and as for "shitty" software, let's see, today Messenger Live crashed...earlier this week Firefox crashed...I have had frequent crashes with Adobe Image Ready CS2...Excel crashed last week. And this on my less than a month old Dual Core running 2 gigs of RAM.

Darn me and my "shitty" software. If XP hasn't crashed on you in a year, I applaud you because you're doing something correctly, and I applaud you, but for your success story with XP, how many stories are there like mine?

I was not trying to convince anyone to switch, I was merely replying to someone else's "anecdotal evidence" and stating what I plan to do. You're happy with Vista? Good for you, have fun, I'm looking forward to my dance in the world of Macs.

[disciple83 @ Oct 26th 2006 8:31PM]

Sean, I appreciate your attempt at perpetuating the cycle, it only goes to prove how right I really was. However, you're going to have to clarify what you mean by crashing a machine, because I know very well, as a designer trained to use a Mac by one who uses a Mac for graphic design, I know that a computer, a Mac running OS 9 no doubt, would surely need to restart his machine every good couple of hours, after saving the work of course, because the cache would be ungodly large and simply impossible to manage on a machine that is incapable of being upgraded. When I say crash, I mean the machine can't boot, and if it does, erratic behavior is inevitable and your good friend the G3 user of 10 years would likely need a new machine for productivity reasons. You cannot sit there and tell me that a G3, even one running Tiger, is capable of withstanding that kind of use without collapsing under its own load times, I am amazed you are still in business.

Just so you know, my XP box hasn't crashed since I built it 4 years ago, Maybe it's because I can take care of a computer, who knows. That's not the point here, you will not get me to rage on and on about how much your mac can whip my pc, they are equal now. Your firefox client crashed because you keep looking up kiddie porn. Messenger live crashed because, well, you keep looking up kiddie porn. The software does its job based on what it's programmed to do, it is because you abuse the system. You simply cannot blame the software for your own shortcomings, you can't. If you try, people like me and Ted will just call you a dumbass fanboy, like I just did, and tell you to quit bitching and learn to use the machine, or stop using it.

I can see why you think Macs are better now. When you f*** one up, all you have to do is just pull the power plug, or buy a new one, because Macs are sold to stupid people with large amounts of cash who do not wish to learn for themselves. They are "designed" that way. They do not increase productivity anymore than a PC or a Linux box, you are completely blind if you cannot see the Office:Mac box sitting at the end of the shelf covered with Windows boxes of Office. You cannot hardly find a Box containing Adobe Creative Suite 2 or Lightwave or Maya anymore for Mac unless you go to a Mac store. Why? I want to be clear on this one, just for you, Sean, Macs are not special. They are not superior, they are a white box wrapped in wishful thinking and blissful ignorance, along with a false sense of security. Its the same thing, really, trust me. The reason why Apple says that their machines are invulnerable to attack is because if and when it does come under one, (because you look up kiddie porn, remember?) you can ship it to Mac where they can fix it for you, because you are too naive and illiterate to fix it yourself. Sadly, that isn't your fault, it's Apple's because they exploited the fact that you are naive, and you are slowly coming to realization of this, and it makes you angry.

They are just machines. There is no difference between them. If their truly were, Apple wouldn't let you freely download a program that would enable you to make your Mac a PC. Now, let Microsoft do it's job, and quit telling it how to do it and that it will never be as good as a Mac. If it wasn't, people wouldn't be using it.

[Sean P. Aune @ Oct 26th 2006 11:00PM]

Bringing kiddie porn in, even as a joke, negates anything worthwhile you have to say. If you want to have a mature conversation without the baseless accusations, fine, but in this day age, even JOKING about kiddie porn is tasteless.

[Tim @ Oct 26th 2006 8:37PM]

Funny how no one thinks it odd to have to re-install your OS 10+ times. It's terrible that we demand so little from our software....

[LongStar @ Oct 26th 2006 8:47PM]

Is still crap , i understand the no muliltiple machines running the same OS with same key , but only 10 re-activations? , i format my system more than 10 times in a year , no thanks , i will wait until Vista is cracked and pirated , just like my cracked Media Center edition running on my iMac.

[Murc @ Oct 26th 2006 10:56PM]

If 10 times isn't enough for you.......if its anything like XP tech support, some dude in India will pickup the phone (whom you can barely understand), and he will give you a new productkey to be used another 10 times...I've done this several times with XP.

[Michael VH Chong @ Oct 27th 2006 12:44AM]

Very true, Sean. disciple83 can be all intellectual in your arguments but bring up baseless juvenile finger pointing accusations just make you look and sound like a moron. And kiddie porn comments? Not funny, tasteless, and vile.

[keith waddington @ Oct 26th 2006 11:30PM]

I love posts like disciple83

it's stuff like that makes this place so entertaining. still, I'm glad I don't have to sit in the same room with him.

waddo

[ren @ Oct 27th 2006 12:17AM]

I reinstall my XP operating system once a month for practice, to clean the harddrive of all unauthorized scripts, and to install new freeware that has been improved.

Microsoft can give all the cupons it wants, lie to the newsmedia about its earnings after it cheats the numbers and it still will not change the fact that people are not going to spend that big money on Vista with all the media restrictions, limited installations, and hassle experienced with registration and updates of legal copies of the OS.

Face it MS, the only reason many use XP is for DirectX games.

[Kamal @ Oct 27th 2006 2:08AM]

Don Dodge from Microsoft's Emerging Businesses Team will be speaking about Open Source at HBS in November. Check out www.cyberposium.com if interested.

[Peter Payne @ Oct 27th 2006 3:22AM]

It's very, very nice being a Mac user. I have one disc that can install OS X on any of my 15+ machines, and the only thing I need to worry about is using the MacBook Pro version that came with my MBP if it's newer than the "general" release. Not having to buy a zillion licenses for everything is one main reason why Macs are cheaper, not more expensive, than if we ran our company with PCs. Plus, I can say honestly that every one of my employees has more fun with the Macs than if we used Windows. Hard to quantify, I know, but remember that old commercial for Mac vs. (IBM) PC, saying "That's not fair, people like using the Mac."

[Thoth @ Oct 27th 2006 4:32PM]

Of course Apple isn't going to care how many times you install their OS. It will only work on THEIR hardware. If you could install OSX on any and every machine that you stumbled across you had better believe Apple would handle their licensing differently. Windows can do just that and so they have to be stricter with how, where and on what you can install their software.

And, I am willing to bet that it is that same universal compatibility that causes all of the much maligned problems with security and stability when it comes to Windows OSes. If Microsoft only had to worry about compatibility with one hardware configuration the BSOD would never have been seen. So we will see how secure and stable and wonderful MacOS is when they no longer restrict the hardware it is run on.

[Homan @ Oct 27th 2006 6:21AM]

"Sean, I appreciate your attempt at perpetuating the cycle, it only goes to prove how right I really was."

ERRMMMMM... No it doesn't!

[Cam @ Oct 27th 2006 9:36AM]

If the revised licensing policy is for "re-installing" the OS to 10x or potentially more instead of "transferring," Microsoft in the long run may have to let people "reactivate" their OS without capping the number of times people can reactivate their OS. Especially considering how many times computer enthusiasts or even the average computer user upgrades or reformats their hard drive.

[Earl @ Oct 27th 2006 12:00PM]

@ disciple83:

How are you going to say that only "stupid people" use OSX, when Win OS dominates 90% of the market? I can promise you that those 90% are not "smart enough" to "take care" of their computers. Quite honestly, why the f*** would I want to buy an OS (ie Win XP) that I need to "take care" of, when there is an OS that is capable of taking care of itself (OSX)?
I know how to "take care" of Win OS's just fine. I actually do a bit of side work for colleagues who own Win XP and don't know how to "take care" of them. About once a week I make my rounds removing trojans, worms, and spyware. Then defragging, HDD clean up... etc. All that s***? Not a concern on my iMac. Why? Cause OSX don't get spyware, with crazy pop-ups. OSX also handles the routine maintenance of your computer during non-peak hours (ie 3am). My iMac is only restarted after software updates. It is on 24/7 until some update comes from Apple.
While not invulnerable to worms and stuff, I have only seen "proof of concept" worms, virus, etc... and only one virus that you have to be a complete moron and install it yourself.
So, in terms of productivity, which is more productive: An OS that handles it's own maintenance, or one you have to "take care" of properly?
Oh and cost? Look at a Dell with same/similar hardware to an iMac. The cost is comparable. I forget the specifics, but I had to get some new computers for my job over this past summer. I did some price comparisons and I was even shocked at how there isn't much difference from a Mac. So I convinced my employer to get iMacs and she is extremely satisfied.

[mike @ Oct 27th 2006 12:52PM]

These kind of hassles I am not willing to deal with. I will wait till I can download a copy of windows on some torrent site and basically screw off Microsoft........If I paid a few hundred dollars for your operating system, I'm not jumping thru hoops to install it. Frankly Microsoft should be jumping thru hoops to get me to be a customer.

[Desides @ Oct 28th 2006 11:26AM]

"Not as restrictive as initially reported," eh? YOU DON'T SAY!

Internet blogs: amplifying bullshit for at least five years. See Kotaku for a live demonstration.

[Jeffrey Byers @ Oct 28th 2006 10:53PM]

About stability. Two points:
1) Problems with your computer are often the result of non-Microsoft software. Microsoft has way, way more apps that work with it. If OS X could run the same number of programs, it is certain that many errors, stability issues and security issues would occur.

2) CRC. Cyclic Redundancy Check. When you send e-mail over the internet each packet has a small bit of code that checks to see if it has been altered on the other end. If the Operating System had bits of code spread throughout as well as redundant copies of critical files/lists then the Operating System could literally scan itself for errors like the sci-fi nano-bots that repair cells by looking for damaged DNA. This is the sort of novel change that I expect from a future OS.
CRC-based Operating Systems would wipe out viruses, trojan horses, corruption of any sort and eliminate piracy. Any deviation in the code would result in the computer contacting a server and re-writing it. This would be an invisible process which can be logged.

And that's my opinion.

[neil @ Oct 30th 2006 6:27PM]

I suppose i know a lil bit more about Vista atleast than the folks who commented above. I dont have any specific comment about vista but....
jus a laud laugh at disciple83 basically for 2 thigs...
Yes, XP sucked it up on release, and every service pack/update was mostly bloatware that put a hole somewhere else(which is right),
I believe they are actually making an attempt at releasing a solid piece of software (which is the most crapy thing i can imagin). any ways let me know comment on anything...you can see the result in just another few months...so y break heads for some thing thats not released..!!

[Chris @ Nov 2nd 2006 12:33PM]

Well Tim, over the course of several years you can upgrade every part of your PC to keep up with the times. And somtimes these upgrades require a reinstall to account for the new hardware.