> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what
> their TRUE intentions are here.
> -Larry
> -Larry
> Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher was the interviewee. Unless it's
> directly from Bill's mouth it doesn't count? Sheeeesh.... The interviewer
> has zero to gain and everything to lose by misleading his readers.
> All this whining about Vista is based on BULLSHIT. If you legally own XP
> and havent had any issues activating it then Vista will ALSO activate
> perfectly. As MS says the procedure for moving a license is EXATCLY AS XP.
> Why is that so hard to believe/comprehend?
Mitch
> Well, primarily, "Making money" of course. As always - what else would
> you expect?
> Regards, Rudy
> (GPLRank: -27)
> How do you have XP setup/activated now? That's how you will activate/run
> Vista.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2030003,00.asp?kc=ETRSS021...
quote:From past experience with Windows XP, a motherboard swap triggers
a re-activation. I've successfully reactivated the same copy of Windows XP
a number of times after a motherboard swap with no problem. But the above
terms seem to indicate that the third activation will fail, meaning you,
dear reader, get to feed the Microsoft machine more money.
Or not.
If anything could be calculated to drive the DIY community away from
Windows, this would be it. As it stands now, reactivating after installing
a new motherboard is a minor pain, but not a big deal. And what about when
you need to swap out a motherboard simply because the hardware failed? Does
that count as well?
Dwight Silverman, one of the writers for the interviewed Shanen
Boettcher of Microsoft about this topic. According to Silverman, Boettcher
is "very aware of the concerns over the licensing terms."
*Silverman also noted that Boetther said that Microsoft "doesn't plan
to back away."*
But Silverman gets it. In his conclusion, he pointed out that the DIY
community are very tech aware and tend to be significant influencers. We'll
just have to see if Microsoft feels the same way.
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6150139
Andrew McP
-Larry
>>>>Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what
>>>>their TRUE intentions are here.
> This article CLEARLY involves direct quotes FROM A MICROSOFT GM Larry. Do
> you think it's faked by P.Thurott? That's a much bigger stretch of the
> imagination than reality allows and anything more on that idea is simply
> unreasonable.
> How do you have XP setup/activated now? That's how you will activate/run
> Vista. Ive upgraded my PC countless times since 2002 and reinstalled the
> same version of XP Pro after each upgrade and the only MS requirement was
> call the MS call center in India and go through 5 mins of number hassle.
> That's exactly what you will do with Vista as the procedure is UNCHANGED,
> this was stated directly from an MS rep in the article...
> And that only happens with major upgrades. Between upgrades I use
> BartPE/DriveImage to create a bootable CD from which you can restore
> Driveimage partition backups. Works perfect every time and I expect it
> will be patched to work just as well in Vista.
> Mitch
>> Mitch, I don't know what has happened to you, but you've become quite the
>> annoyance of late.
>> I don't know where the guy that I used to enjoy racing with went, but I
>> wish he would come back.
>> -Larry
>>> Can you read? Or is that too much to ask before inserting yourself ass
>>> first into the conversation?
>>> Microsoft general manager Shanen Boettcher was the interviewee. Unless
>>> it's directly from Bill's mouth it doesn't count? Sheeeesh.... The
>>> interviewer has zero to gain and everything to lose by misleading his
>>> readers.
>>> All this whining about Vista is based on BULLSHIT. If you legally own
>>> XP and havent had any issues activating it then Vista will ALSO activate
>>> perfectly. As MS says the procedure for moving a license is EXATCLY AS
>>> XP. Why is that so hard to believe/comprehend?
>>> Area51, The Grassy Knoll, Lockness, etc, etc all fit perfectly with your
>>> non-argument....
>>> It's funny to see the same bunch scrambling to post how they won't run
>>> Vista blah blah blah. Ya know the exact same bunch that ran W98se for
>>> years after XP was released cause it was "good nuff".... Most kiddies
>>> here can't go any farther back than that LOL..
>>> Who gives a shit if anyone here is going to run Vista or not BUT don't
>>> come around handing out bags of bullshit telling everyone it's gold and
>>> not expect to be called out by the actual truth..
>>> Mitch
>>>> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft
>>>> what their TRUE intentions are here.
>>>> -Larry
Aside from that, and while I doubt I'll buy Vista until I have DX10
compliant hardware down the road, it would seem like Vista is a pretty
huge leap over the OS/2-based family of Windows OS's with their
inefficient and non-secure bloated kernels and device handling.
Supposedly the goal for the final build of Vista is for Vista's
re-written DX9 and the emulation layers for previous DX's to run faster
under most hardware configurations than they do under XP SP2. Whether
that's true or marketing drivel I don't know, but I'm really surprised
at the level of negativity Vista has gotten so far when by all accounts
it would seem to be as close to a new OS as microsoft has gotten since
Windows 95.
Maybe it dosn't affect you but it does affect other people. Retail XP EULA
doesn't say that you can only transfer it once, Vista EULA does so Vista
EULA is not just a clarifiation of XP EULA as Microsoft claims, it is a
major negative change for many people. Hardware enthusiasts may be only 5%
but that 5% amounts to millions of users.
As far as I can tell, that just means each license of Vista can be
installed on one machine at a time. Which is pretty much the norm
AFAIK for software licenses.
And Vista is obviously different. The 2.6Gb download tells you that. ;-)
Andrew McP
I suggest you go read the Vista EULA that was posted to the web by
Microsoft. It clearly states that you can only tranfer Vista to a new PC
once.
>> Yep, it will be time to move away from new games. To be honest, I'm worn
>> out
>> by *** right now, having enjoyed *** for over 20 years, so perhaps
>> I'm
>> luckier. I'll be looking to the new generation consoles for my ***
>> needs,
>> and that wont be including the XBox's.
> I dunno if going the console route is the answer, but I find I'm
> interested in fewer and fewer games nowadays for any platform. If it
> weren't for simulators, classic franchises (i.e. Civilization IV or
> something), and the odd gem I doubt I'd still play anything. I'm not
> sure if that's because I'm hitting 30 soon or because it seems like
> fewer and fewer games are targeted at ***s.