call support and transfer the license. MS simply clarified the EULA with
Vista (and added virtualization). Personally I trust the author
P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bullshit spreading punk like the
OP.
Quote:
"The Windows XP EULA appears to implicitly allow infinite transfers because
it doesn't explicitly explain how many times one might transfer a single
copy of XP. As it turns out, infinite transfers wasn't the intention. "This
clause was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft general
manager Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still
wants to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example."
The problem, of course, was that some people felt they could install a
single copy of Windows as many times as they wanted. "It's always been per
copy, per device," Boettcher said. And if you do actually have a
catastrophic PC failure, you'll be able to transfer your license just as
before. The process, as it turns out, hasn't changed at all. "The escalation
process is exactly the same in Vista," Boettcher told me. "You have to call
support. It just wasn't clear in Windows XP. But we wanted to do the right
thing by the customer. So we let them move a license, while being clear
about what the license is intended for. In the past haven't been super clear
up front."
When Windows examines changes to the system, the two most heavily weighed
components are the PC's motherboard and hard drive, in that order. If you
change both of these components at one time, Windows will almost certainly
assume it's running in a new computer and cause you to reactivate. "It's
that old question, 'When does a boat become a new boat?," Boettcher asked,
rhetorically. "When every plank has been replaced, is it a new boat?" In the
case of a Windows XP and Vista-based PC, there is an algorithm that examines
hardware changes and, based on an internal score, determines whether a
reactivation is required."
Pretty clear to me but then again it's not 4:20 here in Cali yet...
Mitch
>>> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bullshit.
>> I don't see what's been clarified in that article. The entire point
>> seems to be that the author doesn't give a shit about the small segment
>> of the market that is effected in a bad way by the Windows EULA or
>> product activation. It's less "this isn't true" and more "this doesn't
>> effect me so why do I care".
> I don't think this article is relevant to most of us, but as you say to
> the majority of Windows users who wouldn't know a graphics card from a
> processor let alone open the machine up.
> The article is correct for most users and any general hysteria about Vista
> licensing is unfounded, although for those with the nouse to update their
> hardware on a regular basis it may be a different story...