Vista license agreement is a joke

Garrot wrote: > http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p:// I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit hard on that single issue alone

[email hidden] wrote: > Garrot wrote: >> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p:// > > I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit > hard on that single issue alone > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/:// > I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit > *** that single issue alone [link lost in import]

I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bullshit. Mitch "mls067" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp >

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail XP is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of XP if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just backtracking and trying to confuse the issue.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote: > I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bullshit. > > Mitch Yea, just lay down and take it up the arse like you always do.

Garrot wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > > >>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp > > > Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail XP > is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of XP > if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just backtracking > and trying to confuse the issue.

I just replaced a Hard Drive (not my primary, a second drive) and added a gigabit NIC card and I had to re-activate Windows. Had no problem doing so, but I did have to do it. It's the first time I've had to do it, but I guess I'm one of the stupid people who actually owns and paid for 3 Retail copies of Win XP Pro. ;) -- Scott B. Husted http://www.Husted.cc

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp Oh yea, thanks for that url. Lots of people are going to find this "interesting" too.

Mitch_A wrote: > 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".

"Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Garrot wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: >> >> >> >>>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp >> >> >> Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail >> XP >> is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of XP >> if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just >> backtracking >> and trying to confuse the issue. > > I just replaced a Hard Drive (not my primary, a second drive) and added a > gigabit NIC card and I had to re-activate Windows. Had no problem doing > so, but I did have to do it. It's the first time I've had to do it, but I > guess I'm one of the stupid people who actually owns and paid for 3 Retail > copies of Win XP Pro. ;) > > -- > Scott B. Husted > http://www.Husted.cc

I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. As you say, it was simple but also VERY petty on MS's part I thought.

"Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:45312fcc$0$4672$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (32 lines)

> > "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Garrot wrote: >>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp >>> >>> >>> Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail >>> XP >>> is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of >>> XP >>> if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just >>> backtracking >>> and trying to confuse the issue. >> >> I just replaced a Hard Drive (not my primary, a second drive) and added a >> gigabit NIC card and I had to re-activate Windows. Had no problem doing >> so, but I did have to do it. It's the first time I've had to do it, but >> I guess I'm one of the stupid people who actually owns and paid for 3 >> Retail copies of Win XP Pro. ;) >> >> -- >> Scott B. Husted >> http://www.Husted.cc > > I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. As you say, it > was simple but also VERY petty on MS's part I thought. >

Hate it when you think of "that other thing" just after you hit "send"! :) How's this for petty - I updated the firmware of my DVD drive and had to re-activate just a few weeks ago! It will be interesting to see how far MS push the envelope. Are the poor fuckers starving over there are they?

[email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. That's because XP keeps track of minor changes. When you accumulate enough small changes they add up to a big change and trigger activation. Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are only issues to people who are careless. I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months. Andrew McP

jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Mitch_A wrote: > >> 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...

Garrot wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > >> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp > > Oh yea, thanks for that url. Lots of people are going to find this > "interesting" too.

NP, I think only time will tell. From what I got out of the article, the EULA only clarifies but doesn't change what we can do, and I emphasise "can do". According to this article we are under the same rules with XP, but I am using the same copy of XP on my 3rd build. It only exists on one computer at this moment but I have installed it on each major upgrade (motherboard, cpu, hard drive) without a problem. Yes I had to activate but I was never prevented from installing it (I'm not saying that XP has the ability to prevent someone from installing it multiple times as some are saying Vista will do)). Now here is something funny. I installed alcohol 120% and had to call Microsoft and do some 'splainin. The woman on the other end said she has never heard of that program triggering a re-activation. Mike

That's true that XP keeps track of changes but after 120 days of no changes, you start fresh with a new baseline based on the current hardware. Also if you change an item in the same category e.g. video card, you can change it as many times as you want and you won't be any more likely to have to activate. The likely reason that Byron and Scott had to re-activate when they changed their NIC is that the NIC counts for three "votes". See WPA info here: http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm It'll be interesting if Vista will work the same way. The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC owners upgrade their own computers. That may be true but how many upgrade their friends and relatives computers? I know that I've upgraded quite a few over the years. Also, how many people take their machines in to a computer store and have it upgraded. Bill "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> [email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: > >> I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. > > That's because XP keeps track of minor changes. When you accumulate > enough small changes they add up to a big change and trigger activation. > > Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have > which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must > have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades > XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are > only issues to people who are careless. > > I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months. > > Andrew McP >

As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still 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 "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:LobYg.35358$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> jason moyer wrote: >> Mitch_A wrote: >> >>> 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...

On 14 Oct 2006 11:09:09 -0700, jason moyer wrote: > 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". Email him and tell him what you think of his article, I did. The article is BS anyway. Here is what the XP Retail EULA says. Where does it say XP is tied to the first PC it is installed to? It clearly doesn't. 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > As the article says it's no different than XP. Yes it is. 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Product from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, lend or provide commercial hosting services to third parties with the Product.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: Personally I trust the author > P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bullshit spreading punk like the > OP. Thurott is a shill you dumb cunt.

Personally I trust the author Thurott is a shill you dumb cunt.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:34:51 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > NP, I think only time will tell. From what I got out of the article, the > EULA only clarifies but doesn't change what we can do, and I emphasise > "can do". But the XP retail EULA is clearly not worded as that article is suggesting. It is not a clarification IMO because the XP EULA clearly states I can transfer my copy of XP retail to another PC. It says nothing about how many times. Vista EULA says I can only do that once. How can they clarify an EULA that doesn't even suggest say what they are saying?

Quoted text (10 lines)

>According to this article we are under the same rules with > XP, but I am using the same copy of XP on my 3rd build. It only exists > on one computer at this moment but I have installed it on each major > upgrade (motherboard, cpu, hard drive) without a problem. Yes I had to > activate but I was never prevented from installing it (I'm not saying > that XP has the ability to prevent someone from installing it multiple > times as some are saying Vista will do)). Now here is something funny. I > installed alcohol 120% and had to call Microsoft and do some 'splainin. > The woman on the other end said she has never heard of that program > triggering a re-activation.

I had Winamp install trigger activation on me once. It was either Winamp or that damned Starforce shite.

"Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have > which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must > have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades > XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are > only issues to people who are careless. > > I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months. > > Andrew McP >

This is the issue for me. The only thing I need Windows for is to play games. Anything else can be done perfectly well on Linux or even on a Mac. Since games have pretty much become the same old thing just with different graphics, I'm thinking of installing Ubuntu and going with that. I never upgraded to XP because I had 2000 (which was the identical thing except that certain upgrades were never made available for it), except for the laptop I bought which came with it. I'm certainly not going for Vista, because I just don't need it.

"Bill Worrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC > owners upgrade their own computers. and how exactly did they even come up with that figure in the first place? I expect it was sucked out of the corporate thumb, just like the amount they supposedly lose through piracy.

Garrot wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: > > > > > > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp > > Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail XP > is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of XP > if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just backtracking > and trying to confuse the issue.

they changed the agreement, we bought the os when it came out without really knowing or understanding all the implications of the licence agreement; then, as it turned out they changed details of the agreement to further tighten their control over the os- the result was an increase in piracy, so, with a billion $ invested in vista, ms has not been too hardball about xp activation lately, because they realize they need as many people to buy vista when it comes out, activation is the poision pill you are buying when you buy vista- if they can fool you by telling you it's no different than the m&m that came with xp, they will

Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bullshit spreading punk like the OP. "Garrot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > > Personally I trust the author >> P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bullshit spreading punk like the >> OP. > > Thurott is a shill you dumb cunt.

On 14 Oct 2006 17:46:14 -0700, [email hidden] wrote: > > they changed the agreement, we bought the os when it came out without > really knowing or understanding all the implications of the licence > agreement; then, as it turned out they changed details of the agreement > to further tighten their control over the os- The only license I agreed to is the one that is contained on my pre SP1 retail XP disk so they can shove their changes up their arse's.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant > bullshit spreading punk like the OP. As if *anyone* gives a rat's arse what someone who trusts Starforce thinks.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant > bullshit spreading punk like the OP. I'll keep posting these until you wake up and smell the coffee. I give the below site more credibility than a Microsoft shill site anyday. http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

LOL... Your *proof* first paragraph is an apology for being wrong the first time and Im supposed to give credibility here? LOL.... I don't fn think so junior... Another layer of tinfoil might help.... Ill bet you could dig up plenty of proof of UFO's and the grassy knoll and every other liberal wanker conspiracy theory ever dreamed up.. You are the classic case of BC bud gone wrong! Mitch "Garrot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c6ahtzsfm0xg.1koky3khqo9k4$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:31:45 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > >> Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant >> bullshit spreading punk like the OP. > > I'll keep posting these until you wake up and smell the coffee. I give the > below site more credibility than a Microsoft shill site anyday. > > http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

Ooooooh a tough guy with an authority complex and no sense, what a combination. Your mommy must be so proud... You really shouldn't miss your regularly scheduled medications anymore ok. Buh-Bye loser! "Garrot" <[email hidden]> spewed on himself in message > > The only license I agreed to is the one that is contained on my pre SP1 > retail XP disk so they can shove their changes up their arse's.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:55 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > LOL... Your *proof* first paragraph is an apology for being wrong the > first time and Im supposed to give credibility here? LOL.... I don't fn > think so junior... At least they admit their mistake and make a correction. Paul's site just spreads BS about the XP retail license and sticks to it. Then the tosser follows it up by insulting computer enthusiasts. Screw him. > You are the classic case of BC bud gone wrong! Time for another doobie, thanks for reminding me.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:45:31 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> Ooooooh a tough guy with an authority complex and no sense, what a > combination. Your mommy must be so proud... > > You really shouldn't miss your regularly scheduled medications anymore ok. > > > Buh-Bye loser!

No one gives a fuck what some twat who uses Microsoft Live Mail as a news reader thinks. That's proof enough that you are a Microsoft weenie and is not to be trusted.

Hey MitchAsshole, I suggest you get one of these http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 and stick it on your big fat head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can get this time out.

Hey Mitch***, I suggest you get one of these http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can get this time out.

"Mitch.A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:fhhYg.14827$[email hidden]... > Ooooooh a tough guy with an authority complex and no sense, what a > combination. Your mommy must be so proud... > Taking into account the so called "authorities" on this shithole of a planet, an "authority complex" is simply a natural state.

Whilst on this subject, I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify the following - Do you need a seperate license for each and every seperate computer you own? (ie you pay extra for each computer) Will this be different with Vista? If so, this is an insane policy - it's like needing to own a different set of tools for every car you own - just nuts! I'm thinking about getting an eye patch with matching parrot real soon - some companies really ask for it don't they!? "Bill Worrel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (44 lines)

> That's true that XP keeps track of changes but after 120 days of no > changes, you start fresh with a new baseline based on the current > hardware. Also if you change an item in the same category e.g. video card, > you can change it as many times as you want and you won't be any more > likely to have to activate. > > The likely reason that Byron and Scott had to re-activate when they > changed their NIC is that the NIC counts for three "votes". > > See WPA info here: > http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm > > It'll be interesting if Vista will work the same way. > > The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC > owners upgrade their own computers. That may be true but how many upgrade > their friends and relatives computers? I know that I've upgraded quite a > few over the years. Also, how many people take their machines in to a > computer store and have it upgraded. > > Bill > > > "Andrew MacPherson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> [email hidden] (Byron Forbes) wrote: >> >>> I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. >> >> That's because XP keeps track of minor changes. When you accumulate >> enough small changes they add up to a big change and trigger activation. >> >> Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have >> which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must >> have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades >> XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are >> only issues to people who are careless. >> >> I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months. >> >> Andrew McP >> > >

Garrot wrote: > Hey MitchAsshole, > > I suggest you get one of these > http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 and stick it on your big fat > head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can > get this time out. Who is this Mitch A ? Is he a troll?

> Hey Mitch***, > I suggest you get one of these > http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 > head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can > get this time out. Who is this Mitch A ? Is he a troll?

Mitch.A wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

> Personally I trust the author P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant > bullshit spreading punk like the OP. > > > > "Garrot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:59:25 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: >> >> Personally I trust the author >> >>> P.Thurott(sp?) much more than a ignorant bullshit spreading punk like >>> the >>> OP. >> >> >> Thurott is a shill you dumb cunt. > >

Another BS post from Mitch AKA Allan 'The Traitor' Mayer. In the war on terror, Allan/Mitch are is on the side of terror. Search google and read how he threatened other user with death and admitted funding terror organisation. Cnut!

timmy thompson wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Garrot wrote: > >> Hey MitchAsshole, >> >> I suggest you get one of these >> http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 and stick it on your big >> fat >> head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can >> get this time out. > > > Who is this Mitch A ? Is he a troll?

Mitch AKA Allan'The Traitor'Mayer. In the war on terror, Allan/Mitch is on the side of terror. Search google and read how he threatened other user with death and admitted funding terror organisation. Cnut!

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:13:19 GMT, Trev B wrote: >> Another BS post from Mitch AKA Allan 'The Traitor' Mayer. In the war on > terror, Allan/Mitch are is on the side of terror. Search google and read > how he threatened other user with death and admitted funding terror > organisation. Cnut! Hey, I see AM made a post to flight-sim just a few days ago using his AM moniker.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:09:44 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

> Whilst on this subject, I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify the > following - > > Do you need a seperate license for each and every seperate computer you > own? (ie you pay extra for each computer) > Will this be different with Vista? > > If so, this is an insane policy - it's like needing to own a different > set of tools for every car you own - just nuts! > > I'm thinking about getting an eye patch with matching parrot real soon - > some companies really ask for it don't they!?

Basically that is what they are saying. Every two hardware upgrades you will need a new version of Vista. Just do as I will be doing and tell them to STFU and activate my copy of Vista, quick like.

On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:00:08 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote: > Taking into account the so called "authorities" on this shithole of a > planet, an "authority complex" is simply a natural state. Yea, a litle bit of paranoia is a good thing. Mitch is so 'effed up from late nights trouble shooting Windows he just does as the big man says.

expensive, high system overhead, questionable usage allowances I think I'll pass on Vista- I was going to buy it for a newer supersystem, but maybe I'll just transfer my XP onto it instead

Showing your ignorance in full glory yet again. Do you enjoy making yourself look like a fool over and over? I call it bad upbringing and your mommy and daddy should be held responsible instead of society paying the price. Buh-Bye sad little loser girl! > > Mitch AKA Allan'The Traitor'Mayer. In the war on terror, Allan/Mitch is on > the side of terror. Search google and read how he threatened other user > with death and admitted funding terror organisation. Cnut!

Mitch_A is just who he says he is. I don't need to make up a new ID daily to hide behind like some little girl. And who the hell are you? Mitch "timmy thompson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:r8jYg.19239$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Garrot wrote: >> Hey MitchAsshole, >> >> I suggest you get one of these >> http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4542 and stick it on your big >> fat >> head and help Microsoft sell the turd. They'll need all the help they can >> get this time out. > > Who is this Mitch A ? Is he a troll?

Larry Bakesmith/Freddy you need help man. Im not being a smartass either, you REALLY need help.... Even a fatgirl who lives in mommy's/daddy's garage, never had a job and is a stoner can get the help you need.... Just put down the pipe and open the yellow pages under "Psycho"....

A little bit of paranoia is good? ROTFLMFAO, the "I'm a progressive liberal retard" motto, LOL..... No need to say anything else on the subject as you prove your inability for rational thought with each word.... Paranoia = Psychiatric disorder and is quite un-healthy. It shows clearly in your senseless musings.... Better take another hit of your "medicine"...LOL Mitch "Garrot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nbtyzoz5rph2.9y108r6z8scs$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:00:08 +1000, Byron Forbes wrote: > > >> Taking into account the so called "authorities" on this shithole of a >> planet, an "authority complex" is simply a natural state. > > Yea, a litle bit of paranoia is a good thing. Mitch is so 'effed up from > late nights trouble shooting Windows he just does as the big man says.

Byron Forbes wrote: > I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. As you say, it > was simple but also VERY petty on MS's part I thought. Hopefully it wasn't a USB nic, since you wouldn't be able to activate it online.

On 15 Oct 2006 08:13:50 -0700, [email hidden] wrote: > expensive, high system overhead, questionable usage allowances > > I think I'll pass on Vista- I was going to buy it for a newer > supersystem, but maybe I'll just transfer my XP onto it instead always wait for the first service pak.

I've had a good look at Vista RC2 and there's just nothing there that's a worthwhile improvement over XP. It looks a bit better but if I cared about making XP look better I'd go and buy 'Windows Blinds' or something. XP was a quantum leap over Win98/ME by comparison.

Someone wrote: > This is the issue for me. The only thing I need Windows for is to play > games. I'm going to want to play Bioshock, plus the next generation of racing sims using DX10. DX10 is Vista proprietary. As much as it sucks, you're either going to stop playing new PC games or upgrade.

> 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... I change computer hardware more than some people change their underwear. LOL Would be a major headache for me. I guess I am already asking myself if I really need it. Similar to 64 bit windows.. no apps I use utilize it so who cares. Is Vista going to improve GTR2 ,Rfactor performance. Can or will they be optimized for DX10 ?? Steve P

[email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: > As much as it sucks, you're either going to stop playing > new PC games or upgrade. Unless I've missed something, DX10 is no different to DX9. You might *want* the pretty new features, but you won't need them (it's not as if DX9 games are slow or ugly, after all). There may be a couple of titles who are "sponsored" to be DX10-only, but given the cost of Vista, it's going to have to be one hell of a game! Andrew McP

Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what their TRUE intentions are here. -Larry "mls067" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:996Yg.1620$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> [email hidden] wrote: >> Garrot wrote: >>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p:// >> >> I will suggest they will have to change that as vista sales will be hit >> hard on that single issue alone >> > > > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp >

Activation isn't what's at issue here. -Larry "Scott B. Husted" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (24 lines)

> Garrot wrote: >> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:05:56 -0500, mls067 wrote: >> >> >> >>>http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp >> >> >> Well, that is even more crap from Microsoft. They are saying even retail >> XP >> is tied to a single device. Why the fuck would we buy retail copies of XP >> if it is tied to a single device just like OEM? They are just >> backtracking >> and trying to confuse the issue. > > I just replaced a Hard Drive (not my primary, a second drive) and added a > gigabit NIC card and I had to re-activate Windows. Had no problem doing > so, but I did have to do it. It's the first time I've had to do it, but I > guess I'm one of the stupid people who actually owns and paid for 3 Retail > copies of Win XP Pro. ;) > > -- > Scott B. Husted > http://www.Husted.cc

I've had to re-activate after simply upgrading NIC drivers! Then again, I completely replaced my Win2k3 server box and my copy of Win2K3 Server installed and activated without a whimper. -Larry "Byron Forbes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:45312fcc$0$4672$[email hidden]... > I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate. As you say, it > was simple but also VERY petty on MS's part I thought. >

Yep, it will be time to move away from new games. To be honest, I'm worn out by gaming right now, having enjoyed gaming for over 20 years, so perhaps I'm luckier. I'll be looking to the new generation consoles for my gaming needs, and that wont be including the XBox's. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Someone wrote: > >> This is the issue for me. The only thing I need Windows for is to play >> games. > > I'm going to want to play Bioshock, plus the next generation of racing > sims using DX10. DX10 is Vista proprietary. As much as it sucks, > you're either going to stop playing new PC games or upgrade. >

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 "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1SLYg.22263$2g4.9223@dukeread09...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what > their TRUE intentions are here. > > -Larry > > >

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 "Mitch.A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:DDOYg.337$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> 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 > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:1SLYg.22263$2g4.9223@dukeread09... >> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what >> their TRUE intentions are here. >> >> -Larry >> > >> >>

Mitch.A wrote:

Quoted text (15 lines)

> 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....

You need serious, SERIOUS, help.

Larry wrote: > Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what > their TRUE intentions are here. Well, primarily, "Making money" of course. As always - what else would you expect? Regards, Rudy (GPLRank: -27)

What happened to me? What happened to you? You chimed in on this thread and basically said you didn't even read the article yet you somehow twist that into me being annoying? How does anything you said in your reply make any sense after reading the article mentioned? Let me refresh your memory with this quote. >>>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 "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:wfQYg.22272$2g4.920@dukeread09...

Quoted text (51 lines)

> 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 > > "Mitch.A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:DDOYg.337$[email hidden]... >> 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 >> >> >> >> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:1SLYg.22263$2g4.9223@dukeread09... >>> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what >>> their TRUE intentions are here. >>> >>> -Larry >>> >> >>> >>> > >

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:32:45 -0400, Larry wrote: > Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft what > their TRUE intentions are here. > > -Larry The woman quoted in the article is from Microsoft.

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:42:11 GMT, Mitch.A wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> 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?

Did you actually read the Vista EULA? It says you can only transfer it *once* to a new PC. XP EULA doesn't say that so how are they the same? Pull your head out of your ass before it explodes.

This I agree. MS is way to greedy. A home PC version of Windows shouldn't cost more than $50-75. The over all cost of a decent yet basic PC is doubled with Vista ultimate. Not cool at all. At some point enough money is enough isnt it? Or does the cost of the machines overhead demand greed at the expense of all else? Mitch "Ruud Dingemans" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:eh17en$fi0

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > Well, primarily, "Making money" of course. As always - what else would > you expect? > > Regards, Rudy > (GPLRank: -27)

On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:48:34 GMT, Mitch.A wrote: > > How do you have XP setup/activated now? That's how you will activate/run > Vista. I told you I was going to keep doing this until you wake up and smell the coffee. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,2030003,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532 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.

Andrew MacPherson wrote: > Unless I've missed something, DX10 is no different to DX9. You might > *want* the pretty new features, but you won't need them (it's not as if > DX9 games are slow or ugly, after all). There may be a couple of titles > who are "sponsored" to be DX10-only, but given the cost of Vista, it's > going to have to be one hell of a game! Pretty much every major release from 2007 onwards is going to require DX10, and Vista by association. That includes Bioshock, Crysis, Alan Wake, and Halo 2.

[email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: > Pretty much every major release from 2007 onwards is going > to require DX10 I don't know about the others, but Crysis doesn't need DX10 (and that's the only title on the horizon I'm interested in). It'll use it if you've got DX10, but it's by no means necessary according to everything I've read. For example... http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/crysis/news.html?sid=6150139 Andrew McP

I have officially thrown in the towel. Bye. -Larry "Mitch.A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:CLVYg.17042$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (83 lines)

> What happened to me? What happened to you? You chimed in on this thread > and basically said you didn't even read the article yet you somehow twist > that into me being annoying? How does anything you said in your reply > make any sense after reading the article mentioned? Let me refresh your > memory with this quote. > >>>>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 > > > > "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:wfQYg.22272$2g4.920@dukeread09... >> Mitch, I don't know what has happened to you, but you've become quite the >> annoyance of late. >> >> I don't know where the guy that I used to enjoy racing with went, but I >> wish he would come back. >> >> -Larry >> >> "Mitch.A" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> news:DDOYg.337$[email hidden]... >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >>> news:1SLYg.22263$2g4.9223@dukeread09... >>>> Just another persons interpretation. I want to hear from Microsoft >>>> what their TRUE intentions are here. >>>> >>>> -Larry >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> >> >>

Andrew MacPherson wrote: > I don't know about the others, but Crysis doesn't need DX10 (and that's > the only title on the horizon I'm interested in). It'll use it if you've > got DX10, but it's by no means necessary according to everything I've > read. For example... As far as I know, Bioshock will, and that's a game I've been anticipating for 7 years now (the spiritual successor to System Shock 2). Eventually developers are going to stop wanting to deal with legacy code/hardware or will want to use new features in DX10 (or DX10.2a, or whatever) and you'll find that DX10-required software is the rule rather than the exception. It's been that way for every previous version of DX, and I'd be surprised if it weren't eventually the case again. 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.

Mitch.A wrote: > As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still > 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. Now that I've read the actual changes to the EULA, I have to admit I don't really see the big deal. I can't say I've ever purchased an OS and installed it on more than one computer at a time, and I'm going to guess that MS will continue to sell site licenses as they've always done.

Someone wrote: > Yep, it will be time to move away from new games. To be honest, I'm worn out > by gaming right now, having enjoyed gaming for over 20 years, so perhaps I'm > luckier. I'll be looking to the new generation consoles for my gaming 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 adults.

On 17 Oct 2006 15:23:40 -0700, jason moyer wrote: > Now that I've read the actual changes to the EULA, I have to admit I > don't really see the big deal. I can't say I've ever purchased an OS > and installed it on more than one computer at a time, and I'm going to > guess that MS will continue to sell site licenses as they've always > done. 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.

Garrot wrote: > 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 Nothing in the part of the EULA you quoted indicates that: > 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different > Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must > completely remove the Product from the former Workstation > Computer. 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.

[email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: > the spiritual successor to System Shock2 I loved SS1 but disliked SS2, so I'm not holding my breath on that one. > inefficient and non-secure bloated kernels And Vista is obviously different. The 2.6Gb download tells you that. ;-) Andrew McP

On 17 Oct 2006 21:24:34 -0700, jason moyer wrote: > 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. 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.

"jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Someone wrote: > >> Yep, it will be time to move away from new games. To be honest, I'm worn >> out >> by gaming right now, having enjoyed gaming for over 20 years, so perhaps >> I'm >> luckier. I'll be looking to the new generation consoles for my gaming >> 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 adults. >

It's mainly a "been there and done that" thing along with a host of highly unspectacular and non revolutionary titles.

It's not about installing it on more than one machine at a time. It's about: 1. You build computer. 2. You install Vista. 3. 6 months later, you upgrade motherboard. Vista Re-Activates and this is your ONE allowed transfer. 4. 6 months later you upgrade again. You now need to go purchase a new copy of Vista because you have used up your one allowed transfer. That's what all the fuss is about. This limitation never existed with non-OEM versions of Windows in the past. -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Mitch.A wrote: > >> As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still >> 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. > > Now that I've read the actual changes to the EULA, I have to admit I > don't really see the big deal. I can't say I've ever purchased an OS > and installed it on more than one computer at a time, and I'm going to > guess that MS will continue to sell site licenses as they've always > done. >

Read section 15. -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>> 4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different >> Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must >> completely remove the Product from the former Workstation >> Computer. > > 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. >

It's worse than that. You build a new machine, install and activate Vista and then the motherboard dies. You RMA it and install the new motherboard. That's it. You cant make any changes now that would invoke product activation because the OS wont work anymore. Forgot to install the nic before you activated? Tough luck, go and buy Vista again. Not going to do it. I can do everything I want on Linux (except play DX10 games) and I think it's time to look seriously at the upcoming generation of consoles for games from now on (and that wont include XBox). "Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bOrZg.22540$2g4.14109@dukeread09...

Quoted text (36 lines)

> It's not about installing it on more than one machine at a time. > > It's about: > > 1. You build computer. > 2. You install Vista. > 3. 6 months later, you upgrade motherboard. Vista Re-Activates and this > is your ONE allowed transfer. > 4. 6 months later you upgrade again. You now need to go purchase a new > copy of Vista because you have used up your one allowed transfer. > > That's what all the fuss is about. This limitation never existed with > non-OEM versions of Windows in the past. > > -Larry > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... >> Mitch.A wrote: >> >>> As the article says it's no different than XP. We (hobbyists) can still >>> 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. >> >> Now that I've read the actual changes to the EULA, I have to admit I >> don't really see the big deal. I can't say I've ever purchased an OS >> and installed it on more than one computer at a time, and I'm going to >> guess that MS will continue to sell site licenses as they've always >> done. >> > >

Unfortunately, it's all about stopping piracy. MS is determined to stop people from pirating it's software. Personally, I feel if MS really wants to stop piracy, it should price it's OS's much cheaper. I wouldn't mind paying $25-50 for each copy, but I refuse to pay $200 for each. That would be $800 for the 4 PC's I have. That is why most people pirate. I do believe greed is MS's prime concern with Vista. MS is carrying it's monopoly way to far.

Stopping piracy by stomping all over the honest customer doesn't make sense. Unless you're a monopoly of course. "Zed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UNuZg.25985$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Unfortunately, it's all about stopping piracy. MS is determined to stop > people from pirating it's software. > Personally, I feel if MS really wants to stop piracy, it should price it's > OS's much cheaper. I wouldn't mind paying $25-50 for each copy, but I > refuse to pay $200 for each. That would be $800 for the 4 PC's I have. > That is why most people pirate. > I do believe greed is MS's prime concern with Vista. MS is carrying it's > monopoly way to far.

Larry wrote: > Read section 15. Well that's certainly a giant load of crap.

Andrew MacPherson wrote: > I loved SS1 but disliked SS2, so I'm not holding my breath on that one. Weird, I hated SS1 but love SS2 still. :D > And Vista is obviously different. The 2.6Gb download tells you that. ;-) How much of that is down to hardware support? I mean, a set of freeBSD iso's (which I love) is about half that, each set supports a single architecture, and the hardware support is about as minimum as you can get (I still can't use half the hardware I have, and I haven't done a serious upgrade in almost 3 years). Solaris for Intel is like what, 3-4 gigs now for the installer? I seem to remember needing 5 or 6 CD's to install that a year or so ago. 2.6 gigs for the installer for an OS that supports multiple cpu's and every kind of hardware you can imagine doesn't seem that big of a deal to me. And really, even if the install itself has a huge footprint, I'm more interested in kernel security and efficient device access than hard drive space.

jason moyer wrote: > Larry wrote: > >> Read section 15. > > Well that's certainly a giant load of crap. > ooh ooh ooh liberal!!! -mitch a

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:14:07 -0400, Larry wrote: > Stopping piracy by stomping all over the honest customer doesn't make sense. Never has and never will. They are too dumb to get it.

Thus the point of the conversation :) -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Larry wrote: > >> Read section 15. > > Well that's certainly a giant load of crap. >

"Garrot" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:14:07 -0400, Larry wrote: > >> Stopping piracy by stomping all over the honest customer doesn't make >> sense. > > Never has and never will. They are too dumb to get it. Do American's think the government should intervene here? Has the government given the fuckwits a legal pen (for the right price) and told them they can write up any laws they like? WTF? Might be time for other governments to band together and form their own software organization. All participating countries give their citizens this OS FREE. I nominate Russia to get the ball rolling - a good communist country! :) I think it's about time certain American and other capitolistic country's businesses were conquered and dominated by communism! :) Go commies Go!

My guess is that piracy will go thru the roof - as it should. Go Robin Hood! :) "Zed" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:UNuZg.25985$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Unfortunately, it's all about stopping piracy. MS is determined to stop > people from pirating it's software. > Personally, I feel if MS really wants to stop piracy, it should price it's > OS's much cheaper. I wouldn't mind paying $25-50 for each copy, but I > refuse to pay $200 for each. That would be $800 for the 4 PC's I have. > That is why most people pirate. > I do believe greed is MS's prime concern with Vista. MS is carrying it's > monopoly way to far.

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote: > I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bullshit. > > Mitch Yea, like this article does. As I told you, Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft shill. Smelling that coffee yet? http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

Crispy Critter wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:23:51 GMT, Mitch_A wrote: > >> I'ts nice when someone finally cuts right through the "net" bullshit. >> >> Mitch > > Yea, like this article does. As I told you, Paul Thurrott is a Microsoft > shill. Smelling that coffee yet? > > http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

Hey, where did Mitch go ???