Upgrade your computer, and lose your Vista license

http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/193300234

I guess Vista just went from "annoying package that at least includes DX10 and one or two other interesting features", to "Whoops, there's just no way I can justify buying this".

Considering XP requires me to reactivate once I install a couple of the drivers that didn't come with the OS, causing Windows to detect new hardware, even reinstallations without upgrading any hardware could become a problem.

I guess that's how much Microsoft trusts their consumers. Anyone want to bet on how much software pirates are going to be hindered by this?

 

Yeah, that does seem to be the real shame of it. I think it's safe to say that the software pirates will find ways around this, and basically the only being who are going to get jerked around by this will be the people who actually do purchase legitimate licenses.

I really hope that this isn't going to be as strict as they make it sound; it seems crazy to me to think that if I build a PC and buy Vista to put on it, if I later on upgrade to a newer motherboard or something that I can't just transfer my Vista license to the "new" machine but instead would have to buy a new copy.

 

Well, it will definitely increase usage of the phone activation method, as legitimate consumers will be locked out from online activation by too many "system upgrades" (which is the norm anymore IMO).

 

If that is the case, then Microsoft should prepare for a class-action lawsuit as well. We purchase it, we can transfer it however many **** times we please. If not...then I'll sue and/or chargeback with my credit card.

What happens when a computer we have dies? Buy another copy and throw the old one away? I've used the same copy of XP on five different computers (I always purchased XP Home and then used my XP Pro copy). Don't worry, I downgraded it back to Home when I sold the machine. I'm honest with my software, so don't worry.

Anyway, if this is true than Microsoft might just be finding a lot of people sticking with XP in the long run or migrating to another OS (Linux?) if their copy is invalidated from a transfer (at least I would hope so). I'm not going to buy another copy of Vista (probably Ultimate since I would use both business and MCE features) just because they say so.

Get too greedy, and you'll end up getting nothing. Bill Gates needs to learn that now.

And what of the comsumers who re-install their OS because of all the OEM bloatware? That'll probably blow away their second chance activitation scheme right off the bat! I'm sure consumers will cry foul to companies who load bloatware then...or just yell at Microsoft.

What about consumers who need to re-install because their OS was infected with spy-crap? That'll be fun...! BUY VISTA, THE MOST SECURE OS IN THE WORLD. BUT WHEN IT DOES GET CRACKED, AND IT WILL, BUY ANOTHER COPY SO YOU CAN RE-INSTALL VISTA!!!

 

You know what, I forgot to mention this: I do support Microsoft protecting their revenue...but the day their screw over the common customer...

 

you can't have a class action suit for an agreed-upon license. you buy the license, you agree to the terms. the end. there is nothing actionable there.

let's be reasonble

also, microsoft has announced many many things in the past regarding licensing that have never come to fruition or were heavily modified by the time they reached the market

bill gates has nothing to do with the day to day operations of microsoft and spends most of his time running his charity and giving billions of dollars away to worthy causes

can we drop the the unnecessary hype and act like adults now?

 

Yeah, I doubt you can do much about a license you agreed to when you bought the product. Of course in some countries at least, there are still rules regularing what kind of licenses are legal (Which is causing Apple quite a bit of trouble with their Ipods), and there *may* be some trouble for Microsoft there.

That said, I don't really see any "unneccesary hype", and I think it's quite reasonable to be worried about this kind of license restrictions.

 

it's all hype right now.

nowhere in the "article", nor in the license agreement (did anybody even read it?) does it say that upgrading hardware will kill the OS.

 

I did download and read it, but the relevant part is quoted in the article.

Under REASSIGN to another device, section a. states:

""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,""

The point here is that it clearly states "one time" for the first user to reassign the license. There is no other provision int he license for further reassignment of the license to another device.

The only other thing allowed is for the first user to do a one time transfer to a third party, with no provision for further transfers (so one couldn't conceivably get around this by "transfering" it to a third party and then letting them "transfer" the license back to them later on.

That's the point really. Why are you saying it is hype? Do you interpret this differently? I think MS is pretty clear in it.

It doesn't say that it will "kill the OS", but that isn't really relevant, because it literally only allows a one time transfer to another device.

 

Can you read that license on the packaging, before you buy it? Does it allow you to reject terms of the license and still return the software? It's also completely precluding the doctrine of first sale, which is pretty murky legally. They treat Windows both like a copyright/licensed item and a physical product, depends on which is more beneficial to them. So I don't see why there isn't a possibility of legal action against them, especially if things become so onerous that a lot of "average" consumers are bitten and unable to get things resolved with Microsoft.

 

Windows XP checks whether you have "moved to a different machine" by creating a kind of checksum from the hardware on your computer. There's no other way to do it, which means Vista must do the same.

That means that if the hardware changes sufficiently (XP allows you to change one piece of hardware every 30 days or something like that), it will count as a "move to new computer". In that case, XP kicks in and requires reactivation.
And Vista will do the same, but also remove your free "move to new computer", because as far as Windows is concerned, it is a new computer now.

Of course they may tweak the actual requirements (maybe allowing you to change, say, two pieces of hardware at the same time), but the fundamental problem is the same. The only way the OS or MS can check whether you're running on the computer that Windows is licensed to, is by checking your hardware. And if the hardware changes enough (new harddrive and graphics card, for example, and maybe installing a driver that allows Windows to recognize the network card), it counts as an installation on a new computer.

You're right though, it won't "kill the OS". It'll just run in a limited functionality mode. You can call it hype, slander, rumour, gossip or anything else you like. But it comes from MS themselves, and they seem pretty clear on the subject.
So how do you interpret the license agreement?

Of course, you can probably get away with phoning them up and ask them in their divine grace to bestow unto you another activation, just like with XP.

 

Now I'm going to become a Mac convert for sure after reading that. No way am I ever going to pay £250 for an OS only to have it stop working after upgrading or switching my rig.
Good move microsoft. It's not like most people are running pirate copies of your OS and causing your profits to significantly fall. At least not yet, because me and my friends probably will have to pirate your OS now after that announcement.

 

the point is that nobody here knows how "device" is defined which is the operative word.

the language is most likely meant to avoid users moving OS from machine to machine to machine to machine. that would be the obvious intent. to think that microsoft would build a mechanism that forbids the user from upgrading their hardware is simply foolish.

 

[Slightly off-topic]
Sorry, but what are you talking about? I've swapped out hard drives, video cards, sound cards, capture cards, and NICs, and never, not once, have I ever had to reactivate XP.
[/Slightly off-topic]

 

It's a good thing that the license does define "device" then (what was that you were saying about whether anybody here actually read it?):

So there you go. The "device" is the physical hardware system that you are installing Windows Vista onto.

I think that is actually the bigger point though; not so much just simple hardware upgrades, etc. but that if your computer fails and you need to build a new one, you will only be able to transfer your Vista license once. So basically, if you are someone who builds new computers somewhat regularly, your Vista license will only be something you can transfer the first time you build a significantly new computer. After that, it becomes tied to that physical hardware, and no other transfers to a newer computer are permitted.

So, for the kind of PC enthusiast who builds a new computer every year, for example, it means that they will need to buy a new copy of Vista once they get to building their third computer, for example, even if the older computer is no longer going to be used.

This is something new compared to XP at least, where you could continue to transfer your XP license to a new device.

-Zadillo

 

I think only a changed CPU, or motherboard will set it off.

 

It should.

 

ok, smartass... why don't you define "physical hardware system" ?

bam

you've been lawyered

 

I think that's right..... I have been able to do RAM upgrades and hard drive installs without setting it off, but when I had to install a new CPU (because my old one died), I had to reactivate XP.

-Zadillo

 

Umm, what exactly about "physical hardware system" do you need a definition of? The physical part? The hardware system part? I'm not trying to be a "smartass" here, but I'm saying that IS the definition of a "device" in this license. It basically does seem to be a reference to any hardware system that Windows can be installed on (i.e. a desktop computer, a notebook, etc.).

I think the point they are making in defining it as a physical hardware system is because later in the license they specifically talk about when it can be installed on a virtual hardware system using virtualization software installed on a physical hardware system (device) - (in the license at least, it seems like the Home Basic version can't be installed on a virtual device, but the Premium version can).

-Zadillo

 

wonder if the price of XP will go down or up once Vista is released...

 

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

According to this, the Visa EULA is more clear. The intention was never to allow XP to be installed an infinite amount of times, but the EULA was so vague that that's what ended up happening anyway. Vista just makes it clear that you can only transfer the license once. This applies to a completely different machine.

As for upgrading components, apparently Vista's checksum algorithm is actually less strict than XP's, prompting reactivation less often than XP. However, if you do happen to change a component in your computer, you may have to call Microsoft to clear it up, just as with XP. Of course, if you do build a new computer, I would imagine that you could just replace the mobo and hard drive first, call MS and tell them you had a power surge or something so you had to buy new componets, get it reactivated, and then add your other new components as you go along. The two big components that require reactivation are motherboard and hard drive in that order.

As for reinstalling on infected computers or bloatware-infested computers, your hardware doesn't actually change, so you should pass the checksum the same way as in XP. Vista only limits you to reinstall on a completely different computer once, but does not place a limit on reinstallations on the same computer. I plan on sending an email to Paul Thurott asking for clarification in this regard, but this is what it appears to mean to me.

 

from the horse's mouth - as one says
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpactiv.mspx
&
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx

cheers ...

 

here is one more article about hardware change scenarios that would trigger a re.activation
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=102260&seqNum=5&rl=1

cheers ...

 

Except there's usually a time limit on how often you can replace how many pieces of hardware. If you don't mind taking a month to upgrade your computer, that might work.

Anyway, maybe it's just me, but I don't like the idea of having to phone Microsoft and "explain myself" just to be able to install the product I bought from them. Talk about criminalizing your customers.

Correction, it *shouldn't* change.
Like with XP, it might change if Windows can't initially recognize all hardware on the system. So it activates with the initial hardware setup, you install a driver or two, and suddenly, more hardware pops up, and you have to activate again.

Sure, that is what they *mean*.
I'm more concerned about what it means in the real world. XP's restrictions were only supposed to apply when you installed on a new computer as well, but everyone and their uncle ran into it just when upgrading one or two pieces of hardware, or when reinstalling Windows.
What Microsoft *intended* doesn't really matter.

First, which XP? The (usually pirated) Corporate version doesn't have this check at all. Second, if you install everything a bit at a time, it won't get triggered. And third, "less important" hardware such as NICS or sound cards doesn't carry the same weight in their checksum algorithm as stuff like CPU and motherboard does.

 

Of course a CPU or motherboard swap would trigger a reactivation, but when swapping out those parts, a reinstall would be in order. However, you didn't specify what components you were changing (and most people don't routinely swap CPUs or motherboards), so I went with the components most people swap.

My OEM versions of XP Home and Professional have never forced a reactivation. Even after swapping components and performing a reinstall, I never had to call Microsoft to activate my OS. Only after passing the 20 something number of installations have I had to call to activate Windows. I know that the later releases of XP have tweaked what causes reactivations, but my copies are very old (back when online retailers were selling OEM versions just before the official release - remember that, years ago?) and don't suffer from those changes.

Since corporate versions don't require activation, it's fairly obvious that reactivation would not apply.

 

totally agreed

cheers ...

 

I wonder as well. I remember a while back seeing Windows 2000 Pro on sale at NewEgg, and it cost a few bucks more than XP Pro at the time.

 

Most pieces of software only have the EULA on the disc...which means you have to open the box and put the disc into the computer. Then you read the EULA and decide to return it. But, the store will not let you return opened pieces of software.

Catch-22.

This is mainly what I'm concerned about:
I like to buy the premium OS, but only one copy.

So I purchase a computer with the lowest OS (Home), and install my personal EXTRA copy of Pro.

Buy a new machine, and I'll upgrade the new machine to Pro and downgrade the old machine to Home before I sell it.

However, if I can only transfer Vista (Ultimate or whatever) one time...I would have to buy an additional copy once I get my third Vista laptop.

That could happen because I actually need an upgraded machine, or I have to get a factory replacement from the laptop manufacturer (we all know they will break over time). This once-in-a-lifetime transfer might even be triggered by a re-install for all we know...XP certainly requires another activition (and Microsoft counts that too).

I'm trying to be adult about this...but it does bother me.
I know Bill Gates isn't at the head of Microsoft anymore, and I know he isn't responsible for it...it is just my expression...sorry for the confusion.
I respect Microsoft for protecting its software, but they don't respect us.

But I do not think it is fair to limit the number of times that you can reinstall your OS on a machine, or transfer it to another machine. That is wrong.

And I'm not going to pay another $100, $200, $300, or more on every or every other laptop purchase...just so that I can continue using Vista (Ultimate) on my new (or upgraded) machine.

 

My understanding regarding this limitation in Vista is that it is mainly for corporate users so that they can't ghost 100 machines from 1 copy of the software, as was done with earlier versions of Windows.

It's not meant to be directed at the single end-user, which doesn't mean we won't get caught in that web.

However, Vista's not even on the market yet, some of this language may (or may not) be retooled when it is rolled out. People are free to buy it or to buy a competing OS.

While I understand MS's need to protect their intellectual property and their financial position, I agree with previous posters that they could end up shooting the goose that lays the golden egg if they get too restrictive in their policies.

 

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

This is a pretty good article that a tech enthusiast wrote in response to all this stuff regarding Vista's license. Personally, I hope they change it. This stuff is getting out of hand with all the anti-piracy. As said in the above article, if MS really believes that only 5% of the population upgrades their computers, why are they so out to get that 5%? And the fact that a piece of software that a user buys in fact is tied to their computer, not them, is absolutely ridiculous. I understand that this is the way this stuff goes a lot, but it's getting to be really annoying now.

This whole situation would be like me making a game, telling the user when they install the game that it is best played on an nVidia 7900GT, and then when the user upgrades their ATi x1300 to an nVidia 7900GT, telling them that they can no longer play the game because the game was 'tied' to that specific hardware configuration (ie the config with the x1300). That never happens, and for good reason. Microsoft needs to stop biting the hand that feeds them, or you could see a lot more people switch over to something like Linux (enthusiasts that is) and hack their way into gaming via Linux. And as much as MS likes to have conflict with Mac, they hate Linux infinitely more than they hate Apple. Why? Because it's free and runs on anything... which is a serious threat to Microsoft.

 

Windows XP is now around 6 years old. In that kind of time span, it's not uncommon to replace motherboard more than once.

ohmygosh, one person *might* have a pirated version of Windows. That like totally justifies treating the rest of us as criminals, and restricting our access to the product we bought (if I was going to buy Vista, anyway, which, at the moment, I'm not too convinced about)

 

Sorry I haven't read through all the pages of this, but I thought that was what they tried to originally do in XP. You modify hardware and then you have to call in to have it registered or whatever.
I've never had to do that on any machine that I've had using XP Pro. And I have a few legal licenses of it. And I've changed hardware a bit in both (soundcard, video card, hard drives, hard drive controllers and the like) and not once has it said to call in to get the system relicensed, at least not after it's initial activation.

More annoying is that I had a problem wtih my Sager, and tryign to fix it, I had to reboot and try several different video drivers. After the 8th reboot or so, it told me that I need to register online to activate windows in order for me to boot. Well, hell, I didn't have any network drivers installed and I couldn't boot into windows. Way to go on that one...

 

So what you're saying is that you've never had that problem, except you're having it right now?

It's the same issue. Installing drivers causes Windows to recognize new (or "lose" existing) hardware, which makes it think you swapped something in or out. So if you keep it up, it'll ask you to reactivate.

You can still phone them to get it activated though.

 

My only problem with MS is this:

1. I buy a product/licens but still they decide how I use this product

2. If I buy a car nobody asks me to pay for the car again if I modify my car or change the seats in it. So in general I can do with whatever I want with my car. But with MS I'm limited.

3. I hate how they mistrust us / the consumer. And to be honest I really understand why people rather use pirate versions...No limits. The good consumer gets all the trouble and the bad guys just have a blast (they rarely get cought)

 

SomethingLame, for what it's worth, that isn't unique to MS; most all software you buy has some sort of restriction somewhere about how you can use it.

 

Yes true but MS just takes it the steps further were they control how I use and when I use, and were I use it. And that is no matter how honest I am as a customer.

 

Can't it just go by what the Motherboard?

I mean thats how my old Dell Reinstall Windows ME CD worked. Cus it would not install on a non-dell. (Correct me if I'm wrong)


Anyway, Windows future is dimming down bigtime. Vista has to be the first OS to rely on Beauty and Overkill security as it's major selling point.

 

The motherboard? Then pirates will just buy identical motherboards and install it on all the computers in their house, and the Microsoft will collapse from the lost revenue! Think of the children, LIVEFRMNYC! Why do you hate your country? </sarcasm>