Welcome to The Windows Blog 

Windows Vista Team Blog

Closure of RC2, Feedback Handling in the New York Times, and Licensing Information for Windows

As you've probably already surmised, downloads of Windows Vista RC2 for the Customer Preview Program (CPP) have now closed and the links are no longer active.  We were bowled over by your response to RC2 -- in fact, we hit our download target (200K+) within 72 hours of propping the files!  This is an incredible response.

Special thanks go out to everyone who participated in the CPP by downloading and installing this new build, and please keep the feedback coming -- it makes a huge difference.

If you want another take on how your feedback helps and how the team tracks it, check out this story in the tech section of the New York Times.  (The story also has a good photo of the Life Cycle team -- that’s Sven Hallauer, Director of the Life Cycle team, in the black t-shirt, second from the left.  For more from Sven on the process of getting builds out to the public and what RC2 is all about, check out this podcast).

The amount of information coming out of the Windows Team between now and business availability in November is going to be daunting, but we’re really excited about Windows Vista and we know you are, too, so we’ll do our best to give you as much detail as soon and as often as we can.

On that note, today MS.com published the retail license terms for Windows Vista; you can find them here.  Two notable changes between Windows Vista license terms and those for Windows XP are: 1) failure of a validation check results in the loss of access to specific features (this is the SPP news you’ve likely been reading about this past week); and 2) an increase in our warranty period from 90 days to 1 year, which brings Windows in line with most other Microsoft products.

Comment 

Tags: , , ,

Comments

  1. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 12:07AM  

    When will beta testing for the next Windows "Fiji" start? Where should I keep a watch? Connect or Betaplace?

  2. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 1:40AM  

    someone -- Y'know, I have yet to read anything official from Microsoft even confirming the existance of a Windows code-named "Fiji".  All we know is that there is Vienna.

    Of course, once Vista ships, I do hope that the existance, or lack thereof, of Fiji is officially confirmed one way or the other.... (a note to the folks running this blog...)

  3. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 6:57AM  

    I know that beta 2 supports EFI and that the final release wont. Do RC1/RC2 also support EFI?

  4. Nick White
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 8:58AM  

    someone:  Keep an eye on this blog once we launch Windows Vista ;)

  5. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 10:45AM  

    So probably this the surprise MS has been planning for Vista...they'll support EFI after all.

  6. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 8:12PM  

    I reinstall windows at least once or twice a year. (Hopefully I won’t with Vista)  I also upgrade parts of my machine every year.  After reading through the new ELUA it became apparent that I will no longer be able to do this.  If this is really the case then I might not buy Vista for quite some time.  At least not till I get my new rig this coming winter or spring.

  7. Duane
    Posted on: October 12, 2006 at 9:42PM  

    After thinking about it some more I don't see how that will stand in court.  If a person buys an operating system then they can use it how they please.  If I bought a computer, found it didn’t work, returned it, bought another and then six months latter I decide to upgrade then I should be allowed to use the same license.  I don't care if it announces everyday over the net that I'm on comp A at this time but I should not be told what to do with my license.

  8. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 12:52AM  

    Hey so the corporate licences are no more, but seriously though guys governments use windows too.

    The Chinese or US governments isn't going to accept software that can be crippled by a product activation scheme and has to phone home every few days.  So do you have any info on the government licenses you will supply.

    Just curious.

  9. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 1:06AM  

    I'm an official dvds-mailed-to-me beta tester of Vista.  I have yet to install it because of these awful license restrictions.  I will get a FREE copy of Vista Premium.  I will not install this either.

    I think Microsoft wants everyone to use Linux or a Mac.  It's not like the company is broke.  Between Vista's tight licensing and unreliable Genuine "Advantage"[sic], there's no way people who know what they're getting into will want to use it.

    Instead of mitigating their reputation, Microsoft continues to reinforce people's stereotype of them as a company who mistrusts and abuses their customers.  When will they stop?

  10. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 2:11AM  

    I'm sure that really tough licensing will only harm consumers while pirates and hackers will get the Hacked Department of HomeLand Security Edition of Vista which needs no activation key, and bypasses Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) completely.

    Of course Windows XP licensing started strict, then got less strict then got more strict so Microsoft may yet change their mind based on feedback from customers.  Microsoft is a very fast acting company when responding to customer outcrys such as the Large Xbox controller before the controller S.

    I liked that the student edition of Office could be installed on 3 computers, pitty the Pro version could only be installed on 2 (1home, 1 laptop).  The truth is that if product activation and WGA really works and reduces piracy then Microsoft should allow one key to install on more than one computer in a household, say up to 3 computers at a time.

    Infact this is what they should be doing with licensing, beefing up WGA so that it cant be bypassed by hacks while either allowing customers to install Windows on more machines or giving them a cheaper version of Windows.  To do anything less is suicide, as more and more old secondary computers in peoples houses will end up running Linux instead of Vista(with all the fancy Aero glass stuff turned off).

  11. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 2:15AM  

    Hey mhornyak, can I get your FREE copy of Vista Premium from you.  I'll install it on my machine :-)

  12. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 4:20AM  

    I cannot believe that you are going to restrict reinstallation/transfer of Vista licenses to two machines essentially. What is going to happen for the enthusiast market? Ok, I want to upgrade to a new processor in a year. Oh wait... I can't, I just upgraded my hard disk a year ago. Sorry, you have to buy a new license. Have a motherboard burn out, and want to upgrade to a new processor/mobo? Sorry, but you have to get a new license.

    I guess you can see where this is going. All these licensing restrictions and caps on what we can do is just going to piss the consumer more and more off. Sure, maybe this will only apply to 1% of the market, but this is like the frog in the boiling water; are we going to lose all our freedom?

    Essentially, what you're telling us is this: The 1% of you users can't be trusted, so we're going to punish the rest of the 99% out there.

    Please don't make me switch to that operating system...

  13. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 5:50AM  

    If what I've read about the licence agreement is true (only getting to transfer the licence to another machine once) then this will be enough to make me stay away from Vista.

    I upgrade my machine on a yearly cycle, usualy graphics. hard disk one year, then motherborard/cpu/ram in alternate years. Sometimes sooner when there's a step change like PCI express.

  14. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 7:05AM  

    I have to agree - I've been testing Vista on RC1 and I like it - I'm not particularly into eye candy but I like the features of Vista. However, I also like changing components in my PC and tinkering with it. If the licensing model being touted is correct I will *not* be purchasing Vista (to my regret.)

    Surely one of the great strengths of the PC is the ability to change components, it is, essentially, a modular platform. Crippling that ability (within a very expensive OS) is a retrograde and ill-conceived step.

  15. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:22AM  

    Christ, this is a bad idea!

    My mobo on my current PC failed this year and after replacing it I was forced to format and re-install Windows.

    So if I was using Vista, when I want to upgrade, I'll have to throw away my legitimate licensed copy and buy another one?

    Thats madness(!)

  16. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:31AM  

    Can someone from the Vista team reply to this, just in case i'm getting hysterical over nothing???

  17. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 11:48AM  

    "The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device,"

    Could someone from the product team tell us exactly what the above quote means? I most certainly will need to tranfer the license to a new device more than once. If I am not allowed to do this, I will not waste my money on an operating system I can't use in a couple of years.

    I'm sure the pirates you are trying to stop will have no problem finding a way around this limitation, while the rest of us get burned.

  18. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 11:58AM  

    Billy Gates gone wild.  I think a lot of people will turn their backs on Vista and use XP till it dies.  Even if MS will stop supporting XP, the community will still try to make some support for it and hate Vista at the same time.  Also, as usual, the hacker community will hack it anyway; there is no program in the world that was not hacked.  So with first few month of Vista release some hacker dude will make it free for people :)  It always happened and will always happen, no matter how strict MS security is.  Billy read peoples' comments, try to understand them, make MS as people friendly!  Make it cost at most $150 for Vista and a lot of people will most likely BUY Vista, not steal it.  Think before you act and stop being greedy!

  19. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 12:07PM  

    Microsoft must be getting licensing advice from the Recording Industry and Hollyweird.  I don't understand why the prices of these items are not just made affordable.  Things sell when they are affordable.  Make it an offer no one can refuse.  vladdilla, you are right on the money, $150, and everyone upgrades.

  20. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 12:35PM  

    I must agree with some of the earlier posters here. I'm not as concerned with the initial price as I am with not being able to upgrade my hardware as often as I like or need to. This is a deal breaker for me. I'll stay with XP Pro til the retail upgrade terms are more favorable.  

  21. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 1:41PM  

    I am apalled when I read thru the new license!  Can this be right?  Is MS really restricting to only 2 times resintallation?  Or is it 2 upgrades?  Nuts!  I bought WinXP Pro Retail (4 copies) so that I can upgrade my computers freely and still be legally licensed.  And if I upgrade to Vista, let's say I upgrade my mobo to a P985 board next year, and if intel came up with something else better which would require reinstalling Vista, then I can't upgrade my machine because I won't be licensed?  

    Heck, what's the major difference between the retail packs and the OEM license, then?  One extra installation?  What are the licensing people over in Redmond smoking?

  22. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 2:19PM  

    Guys, I've been using, supporting, and even evangelizing your various products since the Win3x days. I use other OS's too, generally advocating a 'best tool for the job at hand' stance, but even so, I most often recommend MS OS's as the best tool for the job.

    So it's pretty sorrowfully that I read the recently-published Vista license. I've been running the Vista beta and RC versions, and I see a lot here to love. I see right through what a lot of others are labelling as eye candy alone, and find a lot of features I really want to use.

    But now you tell me that I'll pay $300 or $400 for a single copy (haven't yet decided for sure which version I want), and that copy will not be able to legally follow me through two computer upgrades to a third one. And this is where the value scale goes on tilt for me; it's just too much. I've always been able to clearly understand and extoll the extra value of a FULL vs OEM license, but now I can't do that, and it's a pretty painful change.

    I'm not one of the idealistic zealots who picks every possible nit with MS. I just want the great value proposition that MS has always delivered for me - the great value position I have defended cogently & patiently through the years against many FUDsters. For me, calm analysis of this license provision shows a scary change in that value proposition. If this license provision really does make it to RTM, it will almost certainly significantly reduce both my own use, and my recommendation of, Windows client operating systems.

    Microsoft certainly has the right  to set its pricing and licensing terms as it pleases.  But I really, *really* hope y'all reconsider this clause before RTM.

  23. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 6:18PM  

    I can't tell you how disappointed I am that this is even being considered. I would understand it more if you had to activate - deactivate a license to upgrade or move it to another system to keep it from being mass installed, but to build an artificial barrier to dramatically shorten the lifetime of the license all together is just more than I’m willing to pay for. I really hope this is reconsidered. I've been looking forward to getting a copy of vista for home but if this is the licensing agreement that is included I’m not going to put myself in such a limited situation where I can’t upgrade my pc as I like.

    I think this kind of licensing is going to push people more towards piracy or other operating systems rather than encouraging them to buy legal copies. I just don't understand the logic here.

  24. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:38PM  

    I have to agree with most of what has been said by others on the Vista license. If MS does not change this then I will stick with XP SP2. If I can't experiment with new hardware, or upgrade hardware, without having to purchase a new license, then its just not worth it.  

    Oh well, beta testing Vista was fun till it lasted.

  25. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:47PM  

    Dear Vista team, why can't you allow a user to deactivate a machine? Urge, the music download site suppointed by windows media player 11 allows 3 PCs activated with the same account simultaneously. But it allows you to deactivate 1 pc per month so you can continue using the same account on a new PC.

    Why can't this be done with Vista activation?

  26. Duane
    Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 11:26PM  

    I upgrade my PC 3-4 times a year and now with Vista I can't do that because Microsoft says I can't? This is the lamest thing MS has ever done. This info is all over the net. If it holds true, I doubt very much that Vista will hit that initial target base of 20%.

    I know I won't be buying it. I hate Jobs & Co., but my next purchase will be a Mac & OSX.

  27. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 7:59AM  

    Hi. I'm a CEO of a large software company which is your Gold Partner.

    We were going to buy Vista for all employees and me myself for home. Also convinced many to buy it too.

    After this what I read about license and limitation for changing my hardware (which I do every 2 months or less even), just 1 hour ago I've decided and canceled all of 447 Vista preorders I had.

    NO CHANCE I will buy an OS under those terms and with such limitations that kill the very core nature of PC versatility and advantages.

    We're certainly going to consider and discuss business transformation to UNIX compatible OS like Debian Linux and Java.

    I must add, moving to Java from Microsoft (.NET) will be much cheaper solution for us than going Vista in production with such license.

    Microsoft, and mister nwhite, the move you just did just proved you are arrogant and greedy sons of.... [self-censored] and that you do not respect your customers.

    I see you are already loosing quite a big sum of customer base and with just considering this you lost many potential customers as not many will decide to go Vista after this, even if you do change planned license terms back to acceptable.

    As much as Vista was meant to be a huge move and evolution, that much this move literally cut it's success in half at least, and I believe will practically destroy Vista project.

    All the money we invested in Microsoft products, Microsoft certificates and moving our company to Microsoft Certified Gold Partner is made absolute rubbish and pointless investment with this license for your next product.

    We are now aware that our trust invested in Microsoft was our huge business miss.

    ATM I'm quite angry and I will restrain to swear and be very, very rude by just finishing the topic and going out a bit.

    Being extremely disappointed, we will not even grant you an honor of our official protest and complaint and all our contact will probably end this way and with silent contract break.

    In the name of the same protest I will not even sign myself here.

    Not Named,

    CEO of **********

    Microsoft (possibly ex) Gold Partner

  28. Nick White
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 8:58AM  

    Hey everyone:  thanks for all your comments and know that I appreciate where you're coming from WRT our licensing terms.  I wanted to let you know that I'm monitoring this conversation closely and plan to provide more information via this blog next week.  Also know that my goal is for you have all the information at your disposal so that you can make educated decisions WRT purchasing and using Windows Vista.

  29. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 11:28AM  

    Thanks nwhite.  And at least MS is blatantly clear this time around in the licensing terms.  And Thanks MS that making the choice of my next OS surprisingly simple.  Will be some Linux variant and definitely not MS.

    Will be a steep learning curve.  But as we all learnt from the financial industry, nothing, be it people or assets, cannot be replaced.

  30. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 11:30AM  

    And isn't it quite interesting that there is not a single neutral comment on the licensing terms (I am not hoping positive comments here....)

  31. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 12:23PM  

    Yeah coupled with the fact that the installation of software can force you to reactivate in XP, if the license is stricktly inforced on Vista this could be a problem for many many users at home and in corporations who would get caught out.

    Vista is a good product, a very good product from what I have seen.  However home users are going to be confused enough with 32bit and 64bit versions, and the increased security features of Vista.  If the new WGA flags customers to often, which it may them Microsoft will have a lot of unhappy customers.

    Microsoft should show more faith in its customers, and focus its efforts on attacking pirates instead of people who actually buy its software.  Sure if a product key has been used 100 times and is posted on the internet then deactivate it.  However if someone upgraded or transfers their retail license from one computer to another, to limit a paying customer to 2 hits is crazy.

  32. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 7:36PM  

    Depending on what Vista considers a "device" as mentioned in the license, it seems to me that new license could kill Vista as far as the gamer or custom PC builder markets are concerned.

    And it doesn't sound good for PCs without internet access either. (Seems to me like that whole call home thing is an invasion of privacy, and likely problematic if a particular PC has no internet access at all.)

    So that license restriction, combined with the insanely high price tag, in my opinion will likely encourage people to use illegal hacked versions, if they use Vista at all. (I'm no hacker, but it seems to me that the more Microsoft tries to prevent their software from getting hacked, the more likely people will try just so that they can say they did it. The old "forbidden fruit" routine.)

    Of course, in the OEM market it'll probably still sell since John Q. Public won't likely know about this license restriction until it comes back to bite him. Unless of course it gets on CNN and local news stations.

  33. Duane
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 11:37PM  

    Well, if I were to buy Vista, I will not be buying the RFP anymore as it is probably going to be over 100% the price of OEM and post no significant advantage over the OEM package in terms of computer/component upgrades.......

    It is already very ridiculous that MS consider almost every mobo upgrade (except if your mobo failed) as a new computer.

    Of course, most of the comments here are from legitimate users which intends to be probably licensed.  Otherwise, we probably won't even care about the licensing terms.....

  34. Duane
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 7:34AM  

    Microsoft needs to address the questions being asked in the comments in this forum. There are a lot of enthusiasts who change their hardware every few months. New motherboards, new videocards, additional memory. How will these users be affected? Secondly will there be a family edition of Windows Vista so that customers with families can install this onto two or three PCs?

  35. Duane
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 7:37AM  

    Well I'm shocked to know that Microsoft managers (probably nwhite too) know nothing about software and market.

    If they think activation is a problem for crackers, their knowledge is very, very limited.

    Vista will be hacked not much longer after first RTM. The funny thing is that people who would otherwise buy Vista will just use pirate copy because of so funny license terms.

    Come on, this just makes life harder for those who buy it. There is no and will never be a single program that is uncrackable. Never ever.

    By this license terms, you actually force people to go pirate.

    And you should realize that. Negative publicity you got by even publishing this kind of license just a month or two before release will just ruin a lot of sales.

    Home users won't give up on DirectX10 if license rejects them.  They will just use a pirate copy.

    Wake up Microsoft until it's too late for your sales manager.

  36. Duane
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 8:48PM  

    Surely an April fool?!

    This is like asking drivers to invest in a car, with the caveat it can only be taken for a drive twice before needing replacement!

    Actually most discouraging - this does nothing to assure me that this MS OS is going to be capable of enduring reliability/longevity as publishers seem to infer that its software will have a shorter lifespan than the average PC hardware...!!!

    Crazy.

    In echo of other comments thus far, this change (if actualised at product release) would be sufficient to preclude my upgrading and will likely only further spur pirateers to do the world a favour. Built-in obsolecence gone mad...

    Still, if this is to become a commercial reality, it will at least provide a strong commercial context to enable MAC OSx and Linux to make up some ground. Perhaps ole Bill misses a bit of competition and wants to obtain some more?! Certainly this would seemingly be the only likely outcomes. It will surely only be the stupid/careless who end up buying Vista on this basis and no doubt the according commentary arising will appropriately fit such folly.

    Reconsider or accept significant commerical ramifications arising.

    Further, I'd like to join my voice to bsdmonolith that this announcement has made out corporate IT strategy a nonsense. Lots of red faces abounding for thinking that MS provided a good long term bet. Our CIO has already said that if this is how it's going to be, it's going to be bye bye to all in-house .NET development and hello to free LINUX training for all. Such a pity when the technologies seemed to be moving in the right direction that other, lesser import issues are now going to wholly overshadow and write off the achievements.

    Still, plenty have said LINUX/OpenOffice deserved more of a go than they were commercially getting - looks like MS are going to honour this sentiment with a little commercial suicide to engender their making up some ground!!

    Unbelievable...

  37. Duane
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 10:27PM  

    nwhite, THANKS for letting us know our comments are being heard - it really is appreciated.

    I've already said my peace above, but let me add this one more request - whatever you guys decide about this licensing clause, I really hope you'll go to greate lengths to explain the usecases, and the reasons for doing it that way!

  38. Duane
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 10:37PM  

    If you read nwhite's post, he only promised to keep a close eye on this thread and GIVE US MORE INFORMATION on the licensing.

    In other words, not likely that he will be relaying the comments here to high up.  In any case, even if the wizard (or jerks) in the ivory tower hears this, not likely that they will change the terms.  They answer to sales target alone.

  39. Nick White
    Posted on: October 15, 2006 at 11:44PM  

    Hey Marshall:  you can rest assured that many, many of my colleagues, both senior and otherwise, are monitoring this conversation closely and will help me to provide readers with more information so that you're fully informed when making a purchasing decision.

    Please read the aforementioned comment again, as it says more than you imply.

  40. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 4:27AM  

    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

    ^An article by Paul Thurrott on Vista licensing...

  41. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 7:29AM  

    Paul Thurrott's article very eloquently explains what I've wanted to post on this blog since the flury of licensing comments began.

    What he failed to say explicity was "you're getting your undies in a bunch for nothing AND if you're part of the 5%  PC enthusiasts group you can still install Linux if you don't like the EULA".

  42. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 7:59AM  

    I think you guys at Microsoft really need to reconsider the amount of limitations that are put into the Vista OS.

    In the years that I've owned Windows XP, I have had software trip activation 1 time. I've had to reinstall many times, particularly this year, and I had to call support just to reinstall my OS.

    Now you're saying that I can't upgrade my computer and transfer my Vista license over? That has got to be the most outrageous thing I have ever seen--and for months I have been touting Vista to my friends, colleagues, coworkers, and VP of Technology at work.

    I've been a part of the beta program for well over a year, and I have seen Vista come a long way with product features that I have been touting to others as a really nice thing to have, especially Network Access Protection.

    I'm a single voice of computing in my company and social networking. I have worked intricately with the Vista OS and have a strong command of its new features and its upgrades. And my voice as I speak to others is highly respected. If I said one bad thing about the Vista OS, it could very well convince a very large amount of people to not buy the OS.

    Something as simple as a friend coming to me and asking if they should upgrade--up to whether or not the VP of Technology at work puts any financial thought into changing over the PCs before they are forced to.

    I think you guys should take a play from the id software book, notably Marty Stratton. In an interview regarding Quakecon 2006, Marty had stated that there is no real measure to the amount a "good showing" can have to that 1% of base. Your marketing teams can't measure it, but the effect is enormous.

    That 1% of consumer base is extremely powerful. We tell everyone whether or not a product is worth investing in, because our voice is trusted. We are the ones posting on forums, blogs, news websites, chat channels. We are the ones preaching it at our friends and colleagues.

    What we say matters--and if you think otherwise, you guys need a new marketing team.

  43. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 8:58AM  

    I am one of this 5% PC enthusiasts and a hardcore gamer. I must change my hardware 4 or 5 times a year because of the requirements of games. I also can`t use Linux or such other OS, because most of the games will nor run on this plattforms.  I also can`t stay at Win XP, because MS will never support it with DX10.

    Also what shall i do, when MS don`t let me upgrade my hardware without purchasing,every 2 times i do this, a new Vista copy for CHF 500,- (Switzerland ,ultimate upgrade)

    The gamers must have the ability to upgrade and/or change there hardware otherwise the PC will no longer be atractive for gamers and the market for PC-games and pc components will be massivly decrease.

    With this terms, Vista will be the end for the PC as an games plattform...

  44. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 10:20AM  

    I think Microsoft has to do better with thier licencse because if I can not upgrade my computer 2 times without buying a new Vista then I may as well stay with XP! I think some one at Microsoft has GOOFED BIG TIME!

  45. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:39PM  

    "More information?"  "Fully informed?"  It seems to me that nwhite and his superiors are completely missing the point.

    We are angry at the terms of the EULA *on their face.*  And as I have seen nothing in the EULA that says anything to the effect of "as amended by whatever is posted on a particular random blog," there is nothing further that you could offer, because it is simply not a part of what you expect us to press F8 at.  

    Let us not mince words here:  the "further information" you refer to cannot be anything but an attempt to hoodwink customers into signing onto the EULA as it is written.  And if we were to be sated by additional such "clarifications" about why we shouldn't be concerned about the *actual language of the EULA*, we likely wouldn't be complaining to begin with.

    You have reached the point of no return.  You can either change the EULA, or you can keep it as it is.  However, if you choose the latter, no amount of marketing-speak will change the outcome of that decision;  the amount of business your current EULA will lose you will not change in any appreciable way.  At the end of the day, it is the EULA and the EULA alone we are expected to sign.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I only have fourteen months to migrate and become accustomed to an alternative OS I'd rather not use before my XP installs reach their end-of-life.

  46. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:56PM  

    That way Vista should be it wont be allowed in Germany.

    Too much grabbing of personal data, to much sending

    back to MS (i´ll loop back all adresses from MS to 127.0.0.1 so what?) and best: if vista allows onely 1 HW-change, and i got to change secound time, and then Vista aint working anymore,

    it´s a fault of vista and then grips german warranty and you have to give me a new Vista. That may cause "outdated" Vistas at E-Bay en mass.

    On the other Hand, even Gamers,who have to change HW often, wont buy Vista. Thinking how MS beated IBM´s OS2???

    OS2 was the better OS allready running at 32 bit, but MS

    Windows 3.1 with 16bit won. There was onely 1 reason for it:

    Games,games,games.

    What if Vista will be so bad to the Gamers?

    Answer: Another OS would grap its chance. Maybe not as good as Vista, but surely kicking Vista out of the market.

    And gaming can be done at consoles, too.

    Leaving games for gaming,theres no longer any reason not to use linux.

    So MS has slowly to start thinking what the cusomer want to have, cause its the customers money you depend on.

  47. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:59PM  

    Guppy06, exactly.  nwhite, no offense but this is not an issue a single person can fix.  It probably takes the whole legal department to come up with these terms.  You won't be able to give new additional info that is not on the EULA, unless, of course, that MS is changing the EULA.

    And fat chance of that happening.

  48. Nick White
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 2:17PM  

    Hey magamiako:  I understand where you're coming from -- despite being small in numbers, you who read this blog are big in influence.  In fact, that's the reason that I have a job :)

    My hope is that by continuing this conversation with you all here on the blog, I can become one of those "trusted voices" as well.

  49. Nick White
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 2:25PM  

    Hey Marshall and Guppy06:  nothing ever gets done, inside MS or outside, by one person alone.  As I stated before, I'm working with my colleagues to get a better idea of the true meaning behind the language in the EULA so I can share that with you and you can come to a more informed decision than could be made by taking only the interpretations currently being discussed on the internet (which are not fully informed and in some cases, flat wrong) into account.

    Stay tuned.

    And BTW, no offense taken -- you'll have to do more than that to offend me.

  50. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 3:52PM  

    If the EULA needs to be "clarified" or "explained," then the EULA is flawed.  The language of the EULA must stand on its own merits because it is all that is agreed to by the end-user.  As curious as I may be to see these attempts at "clarification," these additional blog postings or press conferences or what have you cannot be a part of my purchase decision here because it is the EULA and the EULA alone that must be agreed to.

    If these clarifications, whatever their nature, are not to be a part of the EULA's binding language, then they aren't clarifications at all.  And even if these further press releases move in a direction that I am happy with, if Microsoft is not willing to make them binding by putting them into the EULA, then I am not willing to bind myself to that EULA.

  51. Duane
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 10:36PM  

    Guppy06, well put.  Let's hope whatever "new" information that nwhite is going to "inform" us with is included in the "new and improved" EULA.  If not, maybe all of us reading the EULA needs to go back to school to learn how to interpret the EULA the MS way.

  52. Duane
    Posted on: October 17, 2006 at 2:30AM  

    Dear Mr. Nwhite

    I think most of us are bothering on point 15 of your EULA. (15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.

    a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may

    reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device

    becomes the “licensed device.)

    This point is more than clear. What should we interpret in the term “The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device ONE TIME.”

    There is no way for interpretation, or misunderstandings. It is clear MS will not allow us to change our hardware more than ONE TIME. If we do so, we must purchase a new copy/license of our Vista version.

    That the reason why we can’t accept your EULA. This should be the worst point of all your limitations for me. The WIN XP EULA never used a word that we only can change our hardware or “device” one time and now with Vista…

    What shall we do, to buy Vista and trust your or Mr. Paul Thurrott word that if we change our hardware more than one time that we only have to phone the support and our Vista copy will reactivated? Your EULA bring it to a clear point and if we accept the EULA we never have any change to demand the reactivation of our copy or rather to become our right…

  53. Duane
    Posted on: October 17, 2006 at 4:54AM  

    What business would allow a supplier the power to deactivate a resource on which the company relies? WGA and activation effectively gives microsoft the power to hold companies to ransom. If they were to sue Microsoft for some reason then Microsoft could revoke their licences and shutdown their business, without having to go to court. This is an outrage!

    With regard to WGA on home users PCs the situation is even worse, because the don't have the influence or resources that a business may have. Microsoft has given itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner with this licence. They have the power to arbitrarily, and without proof declare a users licence to be breached, shutdown their computer and deny access to their data.

    The single PC restriction for the lifetime of the licence is totally unreasonable because the definition of what constitutes a PC differs in the minds of the user and microsoft. To a user their PC is that collection of parts that they currrently use, but if they change some of their parts it's still their PC. Having to buy a new licence for a PC just feels wrong when you already think you have one, and this will upset users no end. Please reconsider this licence!

  54. Duane
    Posted on: October 17, 2006 at 6:15AM