Vista licensing - will it kill enthusiasts interest ?

[zridling]

Here's a link to Vista's just completed licensing terms. Attached is the Ultimate version's PDF. Page 6, #15 is the point we're interested in.

[zridling]

More interesting responses here. We're not alone!

[Carol Haynes]

More interesting responses here. We're not alone!

-zridling (October 17, 2006, 04:36 AM)

Can I suggest everyone shoots over there, registers and makes a comment - the more feedback MS product managers get the more likely they are to change things before VISTA is formally released. Once the EULA is actually in force the chances of getting anything changed are probably minimal so shout now for all you are worth.

[NeilS]

As I understand it WGA will be mandarory in Vista - MS have already said that computers that don't pass WGA will have basic functionality disabled in VISTA - I am only surprised it has taken them this long to start doing that. Wait to hear the outcry when the false positives start meaning people can't use their systems at all.

-Carol Haynes (October 17, 2006, 03:53 AM)

I think we might be at cross purposes here, although it's probably my fault for overloading the term "mandatory".

So yes, I have no doubt that WGA will be mandatory in that it will attempt to phone home whenever it feels like it (although they might limit this to minimise complaints about it wasting people's bandwidth) and, if the activation check returns a "no" answer, they will disable stuff, probably even the OS itself (except maybe Safe Mode).

The other "mandatory" that I was talking about is what happens if the WGA check fails to reach the activation server, due to limited or no internet access (a fairly common occurrence in offices). If MS makes the reaching of the server mandatory as well, then WGA is going to break for a lot of people. I find it hard to imagine MS wanting to go this far, but maybe I just need a more fertile imagination.

[Robert Carnegie]

As far as I recall, the licence is for the lifetime of one motherboard.

They can make you do this, if you use their product.

Retail is tedious for them.  They want to deal with PC manufacturers who buy a million licences at a time, or big corporations who buy into their rolling upgrades program - which annoyed a lot of people when no upgrades were rolled, so you were buying nothing.  But they can make you do this.

They are addicted to money, I think.  PC industry growth was sky-high for years and Microsoft revenue soared.  There was never anything like it.  But once everyone has a PC and a copy of Windows, what can you sell them?  How do you keep the money addicts, the shareholders, happy?  Well, you sell a new version of Windows, and you try to get more money from each customer every time.

In this they aren't different from other businesses.  Everyone wants to get money from customers.  But Microsoft has special ways to do it - lock in the customers so that to participate fully in society, to pay your taxes, to draw your salary, to access public media, you have to use Microsoft software.

Home software rental is coming, I'd say.  There may even be PCs with coin slots.

[Carol Haynes]

Another interesting article relating to all the security competition talk which perhaps sheds a bit of new light on the issue (well it did for me) ...

http://WindowsSecrets.com/comp/061023

[Carol Haynes]

The other "mandatory" that I was talking about is what happens if the WGA check fails to reach the activation server, due to limited or no internet access (a fairly common occurrence in offices). If MS makes the reaching of the server mandatory as well, then WGA is going to break for a lot of people. I find it hard to imagine MS wanting to go this far, but maybe I just need a more fertile imagination.

-NeilS (October 17, 2006, 05:30 AM)

Hopefully they will have the sense to have a server check in WGA checking so that if the server is unreachable they don't do anything at all. Maybe they could insist that a check has to be completed within 3 days (as for reactivation now) but then the responsibility is with them to make sure their servers are never down often enough to cause problems.

[Josh]

Knowing microsoft, servers going down wont be a problem. They have enough money and a large enough server farm to get this accomplished. Hell, You should have seen the MCSE 2000 upgrade video where they demo'd Microsoft upgrading the REDMOND domain to Windows 2000. Was a HUGE DATA CENTER, and I do mean huge.

[JavaJones]

Carol, interesting article. I agree it raises some good points and alternate perspectives. I don't think the case for kernel access is made entirely convincingly, but it's swayed me a bit more than Mcafee and Symantec's ravings, at least. Quotes like this are a bit too blanket and misleading though

That means zero bugs in all the Vista kernel code, zero bugs in all the drivers that Microsoft supplies, and zero bugs in any third-party drivers that you happen to install. If a single one of those pieces has a bug, then the bad guys can get into the kernel.

As if *any* bug in a driver would cause a vulnerability. No, IE, Windows, etc. have 1000's of bugs - a relativey low percentage are exploitable vulnerabilities! Nonetheless I would agree that vulnerabilities will exist. The only question is whether they can be patched. If so then I still think that's the best solution, provided patches are timely. The real issue the article raised is whether Symantec, etc. products without access to the kernel could clean a kernel infection, and I'm guessing not. That seems like a much more legitimate reason to have kernel access than pre-emptive scanning IMO. It seems like there is much less of a chance of a good workaround for that.

- Oshyan

[mouser]

looks like ms realized this limitation to transfer was insane and unacceptable and fixed it:

On Oct. 16, Microsoft issued the new user license for Vista, including terms that would have limited the ability of those who buy a boxed copy of the operating system to transfer that license. Under the proposed terms, users could have made such a switch only one time.

However, the new restriction prompted an outcry among hardware enthusiasts and others. Microsoft is returning the licensing terms to basically what they were in Windows XP--users can transfer their license to a new PC an unlimited number of times, provided they uninstall and stop using it on the prior machine.

from http://news.com.com/...1900.html?tag=cd.top


it's a good thing too because i wouldn't use any program that wouldn't let me transfer it to a new pc on retirement of the old one, or let me upgrade my hardware.