Microsoft changes Vista EULA to appease modders; pirates still screwed

Don't ever say that Microsoft doesn't listen to its customers: Following intense backlash against the license transfer stipulations in Vista's EULA -- first we'd heard that only one reactivation was allowed, and then it was clarified as ten -- the software giant has decided to reword the pertinent passage, which now reads "You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices." Bam, that's it -- no limits on the number of transfers and none of that silly major upgrade versus minor upgrade distinction; now you can reinstall Vista ten times a day if that's your thing. As expected, you still have to purchase multiple copies of the OS if you want to run it on more than one machine, but at least now you can tinker with your PC without worrying about running out of reactivations or having to humiliate yourself by begging a Microsoft CSR to give you just one more install. Next step: everyone bitch and moan in the comments about how Vista is too expensive, until Redmond finally relents and starts handing out copies for free when you order a value meal at your favorite fast food joint.

[Thanks, Master Devwi]

[Ted Brown @ Nov 3rd 2006 4:16PM]

Twilight: You had no point to begin with. You're posting in the same comments section as all the other "never seen a naked woman" nerds.

Earl: You're comparing Dell's gaming machine with Apple's regular machine. Not that they have a gaming machine, but you get my point. I'm sure if you compared their inspiron line it would be a bigger difference. Also it's well known on the internet that there are always coupons to lower the price on dell computers.

And I think you're being silly not allowing XP on the internet. It's not like the second you connect, "OMG WINDOWS SECURITY HOLE. INSTALLING VIRUS NOW" pops up on the screen. Once again you should install a good browser like firefox or opera, and use just a little common sense, and you're fine. If you can't be bothered to use common sense, then install a good realtime anti-virus like Nod32, and a good realtime anti-spyware program like Windows Defender, or whatever other ones are out there. This way when you do click on that install link on the warez site, or you do open that email attachment from someone you don't know, you're realtime protection prevents it from being installed.

[AnthonyGennaro'sBlackTower @ May 18th 2009 10:45PM]

I just wish and hope that MS would just release an Op Sys that was F$%^ing Finished when its is shipped for sale. This way there wouldn't be 5 SP's already on the OP SYS HomePage even before the the thing hits the shelves! Vista was suppose to be Win 2000 Pro, but since it wasn't ready they called it XP. It still wasn't ready by Sp 3---then just they got impatient and finally released "VISTA" changed the look and the name, location and a ton of other stuff we have grown used to seeing since WIN95 and said,"THE BEST, THE FASTEST MS OP SYSTEM REVOLUTION SINCE WIN 3.1!!!!'s

That statement is meant tobe humor. Buy does anyone else but me feel that way about MS OPSYS's? I liked 2000 pro, too bad it has trouble running programs with duel process's--forgt about quads. XP was a little better but there was security hole that reminded me like the movie "EVENT HORIZON"

Do you think they will refund the EULA Fee's I already purchased? Right!

Anth

[Nick Eddy @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:45PM]

This is nice and all, but you know Vista is just *way* too expensive. /endqueuedbitch

[Johan @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:47PM]

So from what I understand, you get infinite reinstalls, but you have to uninstall it.

So what happens if your hard drive breaks?

Are you once again screwed?

[Nick Eddy @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:52PM]

Well, I'm not sure if the license is somehow tagged [installed] or [uninstalled] but I'm sure MS isn't stupid enough to do such a thing. They know we break stuff a lot :).

[ROFLROFFLES @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:46PM]

Vista is way too cheap. Should have jacked up the price by 1000% so that us Vista elites can brag about being unique....just like Mac users....

[bogphanny @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:50PM]

This is great news. MS, if you are listening, you have just got yourself a return customer. I hope for everyone's sake, this business model sticks (MS listening and reacting to customer feedback). The optimistic in me, feels a change in MS's attitude.

[opm @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:56PM]

"optimistic in me"
@bogphanny - that's just the chicken curry from lunch talking.

@Johan - stop and reread your comment. wow

[surfwax95 @ Nov 2nd 2006 5:57PM]

To #2:

My copy of OS X was $80...with no restrictions on the amount of uninstalls/reinstalls, oh and no activation!

OS X FTW!

[Killian @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:02PM]

me too... we win!

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:18PM]

surfwax: And you buy upgrades every year, and run that on overpriced apple hardware. What's your point? We all pay the same amount in the end.

[Earl @ Nov 2nd 2006 10:58PM]

@Ted B:

What overpriced hardware? Macs cost is comparable to PCs nowadays...
What "upgrades" are you talking about? The new OSX versions? I'd rather get consistent new features every year or so, than be stuck with some broken POS Win OS for 5 years (you know, the one that spends more processor time on spyware, malware and anti-virus software than the OSX)

[AndrewG @ Dec 26th 2006 11:28AM]

Earl,

Please stop confusing corporations greed and users stupidity with the Operating system.

If you go out and buy Windows and install it with the basic options, it won't take more than 80mb of ram and it shouldn't be using ANY processor(I'm assuming you actually meant ram.) OS X uses a bit more than that and when you start doing stuff, OSX just gobbles up the ram. The benefit in OSX is how it manages it.

Now if you bought a HP, Dell, Sony, etc.....those companies have already signed agreements and contracts with all those spyware and virus prevention companies that just want to make money off of the users problems. If they can make the user think that "if the program doesn't get rid of the problems then it much be Microsoft's fault", well then they've probably just generated more money for themselves when the users upgrade virus protection and all that crap software that's preloaded. That's including anything by Symantec too. That anti-virus has screwed up quite a few clients computers, interferes with other apps sometimes, and just uses a ton of RAM when it's doing nothing.

You only need to do these things after a fresh install and you won't have any major problems.
1)Install AVG Free edition as your antivirus, although I think you have to buy the 64bit version but it's worth it. It stays around 5 or 6mb of ram usage and doesn't have a lot of seperate processes. It updates faster and is simpler and more efficient than Nortan too.

2)Use your routers firewall and make sure you computers on the network can share information but other unnecessary ports aren't open.

3) Don't use Bearshare, Grokster, Kazaa, etc unless you want more trojans or a crazy slow system.

Aside from a bad power supply, I haven't had a single bluescreen since I started using Windows2000 on my good PCs I build. (when I was messing with SCSI hardware-raid cards and also an incompatible ram/motherboard combo I would get random lockups though....WinXP still occasionally manages IRQs pretty bad if you've got a lot of devices.)

[Keith Sheehan @ Nov 2nd 2006 11:31PM]

I'm still waiting for the $199 5-license Family Pack. That's one thing Microsoft has yet to copy from Apple, much to the detriment of us multiple-computer users.

[fuscob @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:07PM]

@surfwax95:

From the OS X License Agreement:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time.

That sounds pretty much exactly like what Microsoft has just done. I'm not getting the difference here.

[Brandon @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:17PM]

I think the difference is that Apple doesn't have activation hoops for users to jump through when they install OS X. As far as I know, installing a single copy of OS X on 5 Apples would be as simple as... well installing it on 5 Apples. No catches.

I've never done this, so I could always be wrong.

[Ryan @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:18PM]

Thats exactly what it means. Besides, you do you "uninstall" an OS? You just format the drive and install or re-install over top of it. They will obviously be flagging if a license is being used and will know if it being used more than once at the same point in time. All they want is for you to buy the OS for the machine you are going to be using it on.

[Matthew Rasmussen @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:07PM]

@surfwax95

True, but how many companies were competing to make the computer for you? The problem with Apple is there's nobody that they compete with... if you're buying their OS, you've already bought their hardware. That's not to say it's not solid software and hardware, but this is also a reason that there isn't much concern about activation -- you've already bought their product.

I used to be a PC zealot. I don't see myself as one anymore. Since the advent of OS X, Apple has done a lot of good things. However, their business model smells kind of like a monopoly. I think that they make solid hardware and software, that's right for certain people. Myself, I can't get over certain things about the OS (Maximize just doesn't feel right, IMO...) and I know how to take care of a computer. So far I'm impressed with Vista (running RC1 x64 right now, in fact) and will definitely be purchasing. I'm glad to see that they're improving and taking community feedback.

[Warhorse @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:15PM]

By all that's holy... what is MS doing? Trying to keep customers? Now that is just silly!

[Alex @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:17PM]

Doesn't answer the virtualisation issue, so I guess Parallels (Mac OS X) and VMware (Windows) users are still out in the cold with their evil communist virtual machines?

[Matt @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:17PM]

your mom is over priced hardware...

[ren @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:24PM]

It is a start. It is nice to know that MS is listening. I reinstall my OS at least once a month for practice.

[Neal @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:26PM]

@ Johan - They put that in there so there was no loophole with thinking you can leave it installed on the old drive or old PC when you transfer it. If you *did* leave it there, you wouldn't be able to use it, as when it called home to the activation server next, it would see that the key has been used with another install, and would prompt you that you need a key if you wanted to keep that copy in use.

Short answer - if your drive dies, you are not hosed, you can install this on another drive without uninstalling the old version, just understand that the old version will deactivate due to 1 license allower per install per key.

[Shunnabunich @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:44PM]

@ Ted B - 1996 called. They want your "informed" opinions back. :)

@ Brandon - Up until my friend's house got broken into and his G4 tower wrecked, it was running a copy of Tiger from the same DVD I'd purchased to install on my own PowerBook. In fact, it was installed on his machine first (if I remember right), and both worked without a hitch. No clue if that will change with Leopard.

Personally, I think it's a shame that Microsoft feels (and really is, I guess) so trapped into keeping legacy compatibility in their OS products, because it continues to severely hurt the quality of what they end up coming out with. The "new" MS is not the same beast as the "old" MS, and if they were given a chance to start over, to write a new OS from scratch without having to worry about keeping Windows' old, rotting, bloated, obsolete foundations in place...who knows, they might come out with an OS worth using.

As it stands now, though, it's simply the most fuss I've ever seen about a service pack. *shrug*

[Knowonehere @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:52PM]

this also explains why in the sys req's it is a requirement to have an internet connection for vista. i presume when installing on a paid for version, then it makes you connect to the internet before finalising the instalation? still, lets faec it there are enough hackers and pirates out there to get through this, and i dare say someone with good windows setup knowledge will get through it somehow...but still M$ try....

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:52PM]

Shunna: Oh I'm sorry, I guess Apple's website has incorrect prices. I also missed the memo that allowed me to install OSX on my custom built [and affordable] PC.

Also it's nice to know that you think everyone should "share" their operating system license. I don't think it's asking too much that a company requires you to purchase a copy for each computer. Especially when you guys go on and on about how little it costs to by OSX, you'd think your friend could have made the purchase. But right... you wouldn't be making the same complaints if Microsoft got rid of activation.

[kyler @ Nov 2nd 2006 6:58PM]

Ubuntu is software libre. You are legally entitled and encouraged to copy, share and redistribute this CD for yourself and your friends. Share the spirit of Ububtu!

i think i'll be just fine without vista, thank you.

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:01PM]

Knowonehere: I know you Mac guys don't understand this because most people don't pirate OSX (I mean, you can only use it on Apple hardware, and it comes with every purchase), but there actually is a lot of piracy going on with Windows. It's actually possible to buy a computer without windows installed, and build your own without windows installed, so there are a lot more people who have the incentive to pirate windows. Sure there are still people pirating it to upgrade from an older version, but it's mostly just cheap asses who don't want to pay for a license on their new l33t gaming rig. Not that I think most of Microsoft's activation policies prevent internet downloading, but it still protects against casual copying.

Oh and, Micro$$$oft, ami rite?

[apeguero @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:02PM]

How about giving us a Family License automatically with the purchase of any version of Vista? What I mean is, sell me Vista for the regular price and allow me to upgrade 3 or even 5 of my PCs at home to use Vista. As long as they're for the same person in the same residence, let's say. Doesn't Apple allow that with OSX? That would be really nice. That way Redmond can alleviate the Justice Department of hundreds of thousands of innocent criminals confused with the pirate peddler in the streets or even with the pirates in other countries that are selling copies for the cheap.

[Droo @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:04PM]

I'm pretty sure it was Steve Jobs who said that he'd rather someone pirate his OS than pay or pirate someone elses.

If OS X was ever released as a product you could buy and use on other systems, or if OS X compatible machines were available from retailers like HP or EMachines, I think Microsoft would need to rethink the way they do things for sure. OEMs pay a very MINOR cost for the Windows OS compared to if we buy it retail.

Apple's model doesn't make this likely, but I would appreciate that day to come where they decide to team up with a major IHV to offer OS X compatible hardware.

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:10PM]

apeguero: It's not a bad idea, but then how would Microsoft know if the 2nd or 3rd or 4th activation is from the same household?

Droo: If Apple ever did the unthinkable and allowed the installation of OSX on other vendor's computers, they would end up changing their policy, not the other way around. They would finally be faced with real piracy problems, and not just Apple Computer owners downloading the next version.

[Droo @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:31PM]

Ted B - People already use hacked copies of OS X on non-Apple hardware, a simple torrent search can reveal this, even with patches for AMD-based hardware. Apple still makes a fair deal of money from the other software they offer, as they acquire the majority of GOOD software products on their platform. Trust me, if Microsoft was selling their OS at 100$ (in the retail channel), people would be more willing to pay for it.

You won't hear me argue about Apple's hardware pricing. However - The Mini and Macbook are often better/similarly priced than their Windows comparatives, but the Macbook Pro, iMac and Mac Pro are extremely expensive.

I also agree with other posts that ask where the 'Family license' is for the Windows OSes. We'll just stick with XP here instead. It's not like tomorrow games will no longer work on XP and I'd sooner just buy a gaming console and pocket the difference of a high-end video card and a copy of Vista, amongst other upgrades.

Microsoft's just killing the gaming industry on the Windows platform ultimately.

--D

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 7:45PM]

Droo: I'm well aware of the hacked copies floating around the internet, but how many people do you know that are running this? It doesn't work on a lot of hardware, and even if it does it's a lot of work getting it installed and running with all your drivers. Trust me, I tried ;) I'm sure there would be more people willing to pay for windows if you could get it for 100 dollars (which you can on newegg but I'm sure you already know that), but we both know it wouldn't stop the cheapasses like Shunna and friends who won't support the evil M$ corporation, or who are just cheap in general.

The mini is pretty cheap, but it's also seriously underpowered and doesn't include a monitor. And the regular Macbook... yeah it's pretty well priced, I even considered it for my next laptop, but it lacked certain options that I wanted.

And yes I agree that Microsoft needs a family license like Apple sells, but there would still be Mac fans complaining in forums, and there would still be people pirating it.

I am a PC gamer, so I take offense to your PC gaming remarks :P We've all got computers at home, so is it really that much of a cost difference adding a video card to your computer rather than buying an XBOX 360? But, no offense intended, you are a Mac guy, so I guess gaming is not really possible in your case. Even though you can now install windows on a Mac, they still don't have very good video cards so PC gaming isn't in your best interest. (sorry if you aren't a Mac user, I'm just assuming)

Also, you're right for now but there will be games that require Vista sooner rather than later. At this point in time Direct X 10 is for vista only, so you won't be playing games that require that. Also Halo 2 has already been confirmed vista only.

[Droo @ Nov 2nd 2006 8:06PM]

The 100$ copies of Windows on Newegg are not retail copies. When I say Retail I mean actually going out to a Staples, etc. and buying a copy. Microsoft outright says they don't want you to go buy OEM copies for existing machines, even though they give no incentive to not do so. Same disc, same license (less support you don't even really want anyway), so I don't see why they don't just sell a support-less copy of Windows at Staples.

I am certainly not 'a Mac Guy', I am a UNIX guy and a WINDOWS guy. I've been a Windows IHV and a Unix Tech for nearly 2 decades and am a Windows User at home, amongst other things. I was that guy who bought the Geforce2 when it first came out for 400$, once upon a time. I gave up being that person eventually, it's an expensive situation.

However, my 200$ Xbox serves for a lot of gaming (and media playing). A Xbox 360 at 400$ will last probably 3 years. Show me where most of these gamers keep most of the parts of their computers for half that. The console-only games have gone up in numbers in recent years too and in some cases you can't play online unless you own the console version of the game.

By the way, my Macbook Pro has a Radeon X1600 256mb GDDR3 video card. It does XPlane (a known video-intensive hog) just fine. The Macbook and the Mini definitely should have a video card option admittedly. However, in my tour of machines available at Circuit City and Best Buy, damned if I can find a machine with a REAL 3D card. I saw some Xpress 200M, some Geforce 6150, and a whole lot of Intel GMA 950. None of these qualify as a REAL 3D card, though some qualify more than others. I mean even the 1500$ computers too. By the way, the laptop offerings aren't much better, most of those are some integrated onboard solution too. The X1600 is not the X1900, but to suggest it 'isn't a very good video card' and 'PC gaming isn't in your best interest' is ill-informed. The iMac also offers the 128 or the 256mb flavor of the X1600, your option.

[Sarmad Siddiqui @ Nov 2nd 2006 8:29PM]

Ted and Droo...wow I'm impressed. I think thats the first time I've seen a civilized discussion about windows and macs on these comments.

Now hopefully it stays that way.

[Danny @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:03PM]

haiyaaa....why u guys quarelling each other between mac os and windows... from my point of view it's just the matter of individual preference....both macz and windoze i think it depends on the user it self...mac user ofcourse would think mac is better.. vice -versa...eaach of em has diffrent ways of using.... both have advantages and disadvantages....

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:04PM]

Droo: I know you meant retail, I was just saying it is possible to buy an OEM copy online for a much reduced price. This way you get a price closer to what Dell pays. I only paid 120 dollars for my copy of XP Pro. Really you're just paying for the box if you walk into staples.

I'd also say that most gamers upgrade their card about every 2-3 years. (note: I'm not including crazy people in the hard op forums) Not that I don't agree an Xbox 360 or PS3 is a cheap solution for someone who doesn't have a computer or doesn't want a gaming PC, but I could never replace my PC gaming with an xbox. I prefer keyboard and mouse, and the selection of PC Games. Also I like being able to have the "latest" in graphics every year.

Also I know the Macbook Pro has an X1600, but it's not exactly top of the line in graphics performance and it's not going to play games at high resolutions at high settings. I would be fine if that particular card was in the Macbook, but you'd think especially the 17 inch Macbook Pro would have a better card.

Yeah don't get me started on those bestbuy/circuit city computers. I must be jaded because when i'm looking for laptops, I'm looking online, and looking for a laptop that actually has some kind of video acceleration. Unless I'm mistaken the Macbook line is the first time Apple has ever included any kind of real video card (Radeon 9150, barf).

And if you do believe that an X1600 can deliver great gaming performance, then why are you spending 400 dollars on a video card for your computer? I just bought one of those for my sister for 115 dollars. Now if you mean an X1900, or a Geforce 7900, then yeah. But I don't think anyone who wants a gaming pc is going with a Mac, and I think generally Mac owners arn't big PC Gamers.

Sarmad: Yeah me too. I may be a windows user, but I'm more than open to discussion. I've probably responded too many times today, but sometimes I get tired of that "M$" comments I always see on engadget discussions.

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:22PM]

Oh well it lasted for about 20 minutes =/

[Matt @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:28PM]

haha ive been dieing for someone to say apple products are over priced hardward and you happened to be the one to day it so i called your mom it... yes apple products are over priced BUT they are still the best

[Rick @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:39PM]

I use both OSX & Windows XP, OSX is far superior. I can get more things done, more easily & quickly on OSX than XP. If MS wants to get more $ from me, naw will opt for OSX at home.

[Ted B @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:33PM]

Yes it's totally worth the extra money for the shiny apple case. You also get to be one of the chosen few to use Mac OSX. With this you not only a bigger penis, but you get to post in internet forums about why you are better than Windows users. Cool! :)

[Matt @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:40PM]

i love your sarcasm. butttttt os x is still better! windows=small penis os x=large penis

[Ted Brown @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:43PM]

Rick: I respect your opinion even if I disagree
Matt: I know you are just trying to get a rise out of me, so I'll stop with you. But enjoy your delusions of grandeur.

[Matt @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:45PM]

ahh big words

[Ted Brown @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:46PM]

Had to google that one, eh?

[Matt @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:53PM]

i thought about it

[Nathan @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:48PM]

No way, this is just typical marketing, you put out a press release saying you can't do something then when it has had enough impact and time to filter through to as many people as you think will care you counter that announcement with announcement that iw will actually be allowed and bam it's the customers got something for free. Awesome MS are cool for letting me do something that I should have been able to do all along. YAY!!

[Ted Brown @ Nov 2nd 2006 9:50PM]

Yeah man, fight the power. If only Apple had a big thinker like you working for them.

[Nathan @ Nov 2nd 2006 10:51PM]

Yeah I know, my Marketing skills are totally being wasted.

Let's not make this a Mac versus PC thing when it isn't. I could be a Linux user or just as likely use Windows.

****NEWS FLASH**** There are people who own PCs and use Windows that hate Microsoft too.

[Hugh Jass @ Nov 2nd 2006 10:47PM]

Just because their quote doesn't specify how many times you can transfer the license does *NOT* mean it is unlimited! You're jumping to conclusions exactly the same way you did about the Playstation 3 controller replacement story.