Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries 439
applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."
Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE (Score:5, Insightful)
For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.
Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE (Score:4, Insightful)
I just know I'm gonna get modded down for this, but who cares?
Wait. Who said that OS X is 'always activated'? That's true if you run OS X on only Apple hardware, but switch to some non-Apple hardware and your 'AlwaysActivated(TM)' turns into 'NeverActivated(TM)'. OS X should work with any hardware, just as Solaris does. (And, yes, Solaris Sparc will work on Sparc-based clones that are not manufactured by Sun)
Why do people want to give Apple a break for exhibiting the same behavior that Microsoft gets lambasted for?
because it doesn't (Score:4, Insightful)
(Personally, I don't think it would be good for anyone if they did.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So?
I buy a MacIntel. This gives me a legitmate copy of OS X.
3 years goes by, the MacIntel is beginning to become obsolete and I need something newer.
I could either whitebox the machine and save money, or buy Apple's latest offering.
With OS X's DRM, I'm locked into Apple hardware. That's right vendor lock-in. Without OS X, I won't be able to get at my data, either.
Now what's the difference between Apple's behavior and Microsoft's, e
Re:because it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
You're locked into your existing hardware and possibly your existing OS (if newer versions of OS X won't run on your old Mac). No one is threatening to render your old Mac unusable.
-b.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the mac dies, and I don't have another one, and I need to load up the OS to get my data, then how am I going to accomplish that? The only reason I can't just move the disk to any wintel machine is that Apple has deliberately made it incompatible.
Just another reason why, though it may take twenty years or more, FOSS will
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're worried about that, choose UFS instead of HFS+ when initially installing the OS. UFS is readable by a lot of BSD and Linux boxes. If you ask me, Apple has bent over backwards to make things compatible - they could have just locked everyone into their proprietary HFS+ system. But not only will OS X read UFS volumes, it will even boot from them.
-b.
Re:because it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
The only way your Mac gets disabled is if it dies a natural or unnatural death, totally independently from Apple. If Apple decided that your Mac will only work when it has a working Internet connection and they can disable it on a whim, then I'd agree it's the same thing.
Re:because it doesn't (Score:4, Interesting)
And don't start whinging about not being able to reinstall your copy of OS X on new hardware, you can't do that with an OEM copy of Windows either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
3 years go by and while that MacIntel is going to be "obsolete" it will still work. You will still have access to both it and all your files on it. Additionally, you can throw that sucker on the network and get at it with *NIX (via ssh), or windows (SAMBA, puTTY, whatever). Hell, you can even make it into a glorified FireWire external hard drive. So you can buy a whitebox and...get all your files off it! Sweet Jesus, where did all the vendor lock-in go? Now I suppose a guy like you is anal, and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:because it doesn't (Score:5, Funny)
I'm with you, brotha. I legally purchased Leopard almost a year ago, and I'm STILL unable to install it on my Commodore 64. Apple says it's not supported hardware!
When will these multi-national corporations understand that I have the freedom and right to use the software on any machine I see fit? Greedy short-sighted companies like Apple don't understand that they'd made a TON of money if only people could use OS X on a GameCube or a PSP or a toaster. Think about how many toasters there are in the world! There's a HUGE potential market for OS X unbundled from Apple hardware!
Lock-in sucks, and I won't support any computer company that doesn't put forth the money, time, and effort to make their software run on every possible combination of electronics hardware in the world.
They're stifling my constitutional freedom of liberty!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the entire difference.
I just spend 10 hours trying to get ATI's fglrx drivers running on my 1-year old ASUS Pundit-R based entirely on an ATI chipset. ATI: "go talk to ASUS" - ASUS: "Go talk to ATI" - me: "Go talk to nVidia".
Apple doesn't compete in this space.
Re:because it doesn't (Score:5, Insightful)
It shouldn't matter. If I go and buy the complete OS X product in a box, I should be allowed to run it on my toaster if I can figure out how to do so. Whether or not Apple would be keen to support my toaster configuration is another story. But to have licensing restrictions as to what I can do with a product after purchasing it is counter to basic consumer rights.
Re:because it doesn't (Score:4, Informative)
Not only am I legally allowed to install Mac OS X on my toaster, I can give people patches that let other people install it on their toasters: See Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
No, that was very clear that you were buying that.
The very first thing I did with My mac-mini was install Linux on it. I then proceeded to install Mac OS X Panther (obtained via a broken 166mhz iMac) and Tiger on top of it using MOL. Apple can forbid me to do this all they like, it still isn't illegal, and still shouldn't be.
The problem is that laws change. They change simply by having enough people believe that they already have (Just ask OJ "if he did it"), and right now, you believe the law has changed.
Once you believe all they have to do is worm some text into a thousand line document that was at least partially on the screen when you clicked a button, you've had that meeting of the minds they're always talking about, and suddenly, that law actually does apply to you.
Yes Virginia, the solution really is that simple: Ignore that EULA. Click I accept but do not read it. Know that it is false and unenforcable and lies, and you will be safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people want to give Apple a break for exhibiting the same behavior that Microsoft gets lambasted for?
Perhaps because Apple is not exhibiting the same behavior in this case? I hope you can appreciate the difference between 1) Windows Vista may stop running on a PC it was intended to work on because Microsoft decides that you're running a "non-genuine" copy; and 2) Mac OS X never works on a machine that no one, most relevantly Apple, ever said it would work on.
OS X should work with any hardware, j
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yet another WINDOWS GENUINE DISADVANTAGE (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt we'll see a large desktop migration to Linux just because of Vista, but we'll certainly se
Upgrade (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Upgrade (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)
I use Linux where I can, and where I can't I try to use OSX rather than Windows. Still, there are times where I have to use Windows. I have no choice.
In the end, I'm not on a quest to end closed-source software, or even get rid of Microsoft. I just want Microsoft to stop doing crappy things to hurt their own customers, and if they won't, then I think their customers should organize a formal boycott. We should make an example out of them for other software companies to see: Pull something like this activation/WGA crap, and your customers won't put up with it. Microsoft isn't the only offender, and all the activation, forced registration, dongles, etc. in the software industry is ridiculous. It hurts customers, but real pirates just find a way to circumvent these restrictions.
I'd like to start a website where people can voice their annoyance, sign a petition, see others' opinions, and generally organize a formal boycott. I'm sure lots of tech-savvy Windows users will not be upgrading anyway, but I think it's important to send a message to Microsoft as to why. However, I'm sure that there's someone out there who is more militant and web/tech savvy than I am, who'd do a better job setting it up.
Re:Upgrade (Score:4, Insightful)
What you should do instead is start a campaign to educate whomever is in charge of making platform decisions at companies/schools/governments.
What you're talking about would still be a "boycott". I am, in fact, the decision-maker for an IT department, and I can tell you that I am not going to be upgrading to Vista anytime soon. I've talked to some of my peers (in other companies), and they aren't exactly eager to upgrade, either. When I suggest a "formal" boycott, I'm saying that instead of just not-buying Vista, we could publicly talk about why we aren't buying it, in order to spread the word and raise awareness of these issues. The truth is, your Directors of [whatever] and Chief [whatever] Officers aren't all PHBs who make arbitrary decisions. However, many of them aren't reading obscure Slashdot postings, and if general public awareness is very low, they might not be aware. They aren't hearing about it on the news, and Microsoft has their marketing people out in force. I believe that this is one instance where fear, uncertainty, and doubt is valid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't boycott it. This is really a non issue. Mickeysoft will release their program will all its activation and DRM bugs. And someone will just come up with a patch that will fix it for them. It was the same way when they released that genuine advantage bug, someone came up with a patch to fix it. The activation bullshit in windows XP/x64/2003 was the same way. I have half a dozen patches that fix that bug.
Even then there might not be no patch needed. Sometimes there is a hole in the bug that you
Re:Upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, you're still paying money to businesses who are putting their resources towards efforts to make your life harder, rather than efforts to make your life easier. For every "fix" or "work-around", you're still exerting extra effort where you just shouldn't need to. You're making your software buggier, and your music lower-quality for what it essentially 0 net-gain for anyone. And by buying the products that do this, you're sending the message to these companies that it is acceptable behavior, and that their efforts are good.
If you buy Vista, even if you crack it, you're telling Microsoft that their product is good. Buy pirating it and cracking it, you're telling them that their product is good, but that their "piracy protection" isn't good enough, and that they should put more resources on that front. But the only way to tell them that these "features" are unacceptable is to refuse to buy it or use it. And what will you have lost anyway, by not using Vista? What does Vista actually give you that Windows XP doesn't? Incompatibility and the need to buy new versions of the software you've already bought.
If Microsoft isn't servicing your needs, then you need to let them know. Even if we all simply refuse to buy it, Microsoft will claim that the reason Vista isn't selling is due to piracy, and their lobbyists will put forth a case that this means we need more restrictive laws on software use. It's important that, instead, we make a public case that Vista is not a good product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems that being a pirate there's really nothing to lose. In all other situations, you lose.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Get rid of all the annoyances that cripple the software (there are REALLY GOOD WinXP distributions out there in torrent sites which come patched to fix the WGA problem).
2. Get the software FAST (torrent distribution technology is really fast)
3. Get a better value distribution (Have you seen those WinXP distros that provide common applications like nero burning rom and lots os bundled drivers for scsi and the like?, oh and the Service Packs) and elim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But I got really pissed of Windows when it told me that my copy of XP was pirated... when it came PREINSTALLED in my HP Pavillion ZV5000 machine... which has a Microsoft Windows XP Proffessional 1-2CPU sticker under it. Oh, And it wont allow getting into my computer "windows can not verify the genuinity of this software"... FUCK YOU!!.
For me that would be a reason to instantly replace the original version with a pirated one. If they sell you a copy that is DOA then I think you have the right to replace
Re: (Score:2)
Does the EULA (Score:2, Insightful)
Could this be illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
-b.
Re:Could this be illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could this be illegal? (Score:5, Informative)
MS has never tried something like *this* before. If they deactivate, they're probably overstepping some hitherto invisible line. Just wait until some gov't agency's or some Federal judge's copies of Windows get deactivated. I think that using extortionate tactics like this will get MS into some deep legal shite.
-b.
Re:Could this be illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet both arms and both legs that Microsoft has this one covered legally. The writing of EULAs has become a finely honed art. They will cover this in the EULA, and there won't be a damn thing that people who have agreed to the EULA can do about it.
The only real escape is not to use Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, the first time BigExec or Mr.Senator gets his product accidentally deactivated, well, it probably actually won't change anything, but it'll make headlines and hopefully reduce the number of people moving to Vista. I wonder how long Dell will allow peo
Re: (Score:2)
Unfair business practice perhaps, violation of rights by denying people access to their data maybe, but I don't think extortion is the right term.
Is 'uncaring barstards' a legal term? That might fit....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem solved!
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that a certain number of business will purchase Vista/Orifice 07, if only because it comes with new computers. Then will come the pushes for "standardisation" and "interoperability" which will cause more businesses to upgrade. And what about the latest games that will be Vista-only in 2008. You will be assimilated, sadly.
Best move is to switch to MacOS (less restrictive licensing, since the hardware essentially is the d
Want a standard? Try ISO/IEC 26300 (Score:2)
"standardisation"? Which internationally recognized entity publishes the human-readable exact definition of a conforming Microsoft Word or Microsoft Excel file? Real standardization is ISO/IEC 26300, the OASIS ODF spec. With "ISO" being a buzzword (even in Tetris [tetman.com]), bus
WalMart (Score:3, Interesting)
The *only* way MS will change their ways is if they see a hit to "the bottom line". Unfortunatly I fear that, just as with Wal*Mart
Heck, Walmart now sales PCs with Linux preinstalled now.
Right now Linux and MacOS are not options for much of the computer-owning/using population. Why? Games. Virtually none of the games most commonly played right now function in *either* platform.
I know I don't, and I know of noone else who buys and plays games much. Many of those who are game players have playstation
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
My experiences with Vista are rather different from yours. I like a good portion of how the interface has changed. I don't like how much has changed (re: the control panel, or how they split lots of the configuration options up into spearate windows, cluttering up what was once rather tidy (but could have been improved further)). It's never crashed on me (not even once!), though it did take a few betas before it supported the onboard sound in my HP z2308wm laptop. ATI has yet (to my knowledge) to make their graphics driver support OpenGL, so I have been unable to play City of Heroes/Villains in it.
In my job, I've also been running it on a Dell GX280 (P4 3.6, 1gb RAM, 80gb SATA) with little problems either. Very soon we'll have our Vista Enterprise edition for me to load up on the PC to evaluate how soon we are going to switch (lets just say it's not going to happen at *least* for the coming year).
Oh, by the way...I was running on 2Ghz athlon64 with 1gb of ram, Gamer's video card and SATA hard drive and performance was abysmal. Turning off the Aero features made clicking between file browsing windows a little less painful, but still not very responsive. I didn't see any benefit to the Aero features for the average user anyway. Based on this experience, I am declaring Vista the most skippable Windows version since ME. Hopefully, MSFT will come back and redeem themselves with a truely worthly OS like they did with Win2K.
Either your computer is screwed up in some way, or you used a fairly early beta (and, if that is the case, you really should try a much more "final" version before being so venemous while speaking of the product). I'm sure it has it's problems, but it's not quite *that* bad.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, fellow froggies (Score:5, Funny)
Croak Different (Score:3)
I hear the newts over in the Linux pool have the ideal temperature though...
The amusing thing about this is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The amusing thing about this is... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true. Largely, the reason for EULAs is so that software companies can claim full rights over everything and no responsibility so that they can absolve themselves from lawsuits no matter what happens on your computer. Whether they cause a problem by accident, purposefully, or not at all, they don't want to be sued.
The problem is, when you pair this with something like Microsoft's activation/WGA scheme, it means that they can cause otherwise working software to cease to work for any reason whatsoever and the user has no recourse.
Personally, I think that Congress should pass some laws that would replace a basic/general EULA, i.e. software makers aren't responsible for most things unless they make claims to the contrary or cause purposeful damage. Instead of EULAs, we should have a general consensus of what rights/responsibilities/powers we generally grant to software authors vs. their customers. Then we should allow EULAs in certain circumstances where they're merited, but not allow other terms to be in EULAs. For example, no EULA should grant spyware and virus makers to take permanent control of a user's PC.
However, my point is that EULAs are stupid. It's an issue that should be worked out by lawyers and law-makers, because it makes no sense for end-users to be entering into legalistic license agreements, different individually for every piece of software they run, when nobody understands what the terms actually allow.
And in no case should Microsoft be allowed to cause my computer to stop working because an automated system is suspicious that my license might possibly be invalid.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The inactivation of most software won't render the computer almost totally unusable. OS's should be held to a higher standard. At least there should be an option that copies all data in the C:\Users (the replacement for Docs & Settings) folder to an external drive given an admin. password if Windows gets deactivated.
-b.
Windows Vista? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Windows Vista? (Score:5, Funny)
I believe he would rather squirt you a picture of his kids.
never get that far (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd be willing to bet that it would never get this far and MS would just take care of it. They wouldn't be afraid of someone suing them over a license. That's petty to them. Maybe if a company sued because their software was legal and got a false positive on being illegal and it caused down time, now that's something to sue about. It's a shame that Microsoft doesn't care about their customers enough to make sure things like this wouldn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if a company sued because their software was legal and got a false positive on being illegal and it caused down time, now that's something to sue about.
Even then, how many companies have the resources to sue Microsoft? The US government and EU can't get Microsoft to concede on simple points, and you think a small business owner in Des Moines is going to be able to bring a substantial fight against MS's army of lawyers?
Re: (Score:2)
The average home user probably will never do much to the operating system after initial purchase and activation. If all they ever do is run their Windows Update, the only time they'll get screwed is when WU hoses their computers, or if they chang
computer crash? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Legalese isn't the only problem (Score:4, Interesting)
My stuff on external drive. (Score:3, Interesting)
O rly? (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the new vogue in EULAs nowaways was a clause stating that by using the software, you give up the right to any litigation?
Re:O rly? (Score:4, Informative)
Other options (Score:4, Insightful)
Check out Sabayon [sabayonlinux.org]
They said the same thing about XP. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, if you dont like it dont use it. For the non geeks this is a good thing as is the whole bundle of software signing and certs that Microsoft is trying to get out there. People dont want to have to understand how the computer works, they just want to download software and have it do its thing without sending porn spam to half the country. If things like this worry you or you think they're not needed. Then perhaps Windows is not the right OS for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft had best find a way of NOT blocking LEGITIMATE COPIES then.
Because false positives will lead to negative perceptions, not just among the usual MS-bashers but among the masses of the unknowing average consumer as well.
If that happens, it's going to take a long time to repair MS's reputation... and that's assuming it can be salvaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Bottom line... Microsoft will not be selling Vista, simply licensing its use. The ability to disable Vista will be there.
Bottom line... I hope that this does help stem unlicensed Windows installations, and makes Microsoft more profitable. After all, I am a shareholder.
Bottom line... I won't trust any of my data to Vista. Indeed, I only have a single instance of XP firewalled and secured for some sp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Except that if it stems unlic'd installs, it might make MS *less* profitable since the people who were previously using pirated copies will just move to something more free and less obtrusive. Thus lowering MS's market penetration.
-b.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They said the same thing about XP. (Score:5, Informative)
Not. It is not.
Even if you run a non-genuine version of XP, Microsoft cannot turn off your XP. They will deny will some updates in the Microsoft Update but not deny you access to your computer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We were not fear mongers, we were MS customers who went to tech shows and heard/read the proposals for WGA and reacted appropriately. I give credit to MS for at least backing off those tactics due to customer disgust (At least in the OS, they
Can Microsoft handle it? (Score:2, Insightful)
To be honest (Score:4, Interesting)
1) A linux box that I use for important data - tax records, personal documents, any think like mp3's, etc.
2) A windows box that I use for entertainment (certain games) and at large companies. Since computers have been powerful enough for home use since about 2000, I can't see paying more than $499 for this and then $200 for a video card. The hardware would cost me $400 to scratch build (and $200 for the card) so I guess the OEM is splitting the $99 with Microsoft. Going forward, i'm less and less likely to use Windows computers for anything important. I'm too concerned about snooping, losing access to my own data, etc.
3) And a console for pure gaming on my big screen TV.
---
To reach this point, I've converted about 99% of my software to java, open-source applications.
Openoffice
Audacity
Gimp
Azureus
Firefox
and a few other minor programs.
I have two documents that I have to use Word for. I'm considering splitting them down into smaller documents.
Re:To be honest (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should I build houses for the homeless for free?
Why should I add another $50 bucks on to Bill's pile of unused money?
Is it better to trade my time on opensource stuff for others time on opensource stuff than my money (which took my time to earn) for microsoft's products?
Re:To be honest (Score:4, Interesting)
Both of these conditions are not always satisfied. The rest of this reply relates to those cases where they are.
A lot of people are financially compensated for writing free software. Or to admin infrastructure systems (build, download, mailing list hosts, etc.). The people picking up the tab obviously realize a bottom line benefit, so this will likely increase.
And even financial compensation comes in other forms than a direct revenue stream. For instance, I'm close to releasing two pieces of software. Originally, they were both written to scratch local itches, and they get the job done. They could be better, but once they were good enough, progress on them slowed. If either piece attracts any developer interest, I'll end up with better software, for what I think will be a minimal investment of my time. Giving it away is simply the most sensible approach, from a ROI viewpoint. Even though I'm unlikely to see a revenue stream from either project, any success for either project will, on balance, save me time and effort. Lower overhead is a Good Thing.
Another win from the same example is that both of these pieces of software are something solid to point to, which is directly related to my field, most of which is NDA'ed to death. That's probably a Good Thing as well.
This is why.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Unauthorized deactivation? (Score:4, Interesting)
I won't allow some company in some foreign country to control whether I have access to my data or not.
Microsoft Wouldn't Do It (Score:2)
I don't like MS as much as the next guy, but proclamations like this just make MS look good.
They just wouldn't revoke an OS license for many reasons:
1. ANY copy of the OS in use is a win for MS. They don't want to make it impossible to steal. Just hard enough so fewer people can steal it. As protection schemes are cracked, they have to come up with another. They have to keep up appearances.
2. Revoking the wrong desktop/server will generate too much fear and drive no
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Any copy WAS a win, 20 years ago. They already are number one. You already have to have their OS (for most applications). You will not choose an alternate system if you can't steal it. You will buy. Nobody I know chooses Linux because he can't pirate Windows (people choose it for the increased liberty).
2. Revoking will essentially generate nothing. People have been writing about DRM/TCPA/Palladi
What happens is.. (Score:2)
Uhh, nothing! You are hosed. I am pretty sure Windows XP Pro already does this, thanks to that Window Genuine Article(?) update. After I installed a LEGAL XP copy windows went to validate and it said, sorry, you are SOL because it was already registered (I had installed it on another machine that died). I had to find another copy to use, which I happened to have because I installed Ubuntu on another machine the OS CD came with...
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the situation would come about because some over zealous user think his/her system is 'running slow' and decides to re-install the OS. Of course, they use the CD from a different users system and cannot activate.
Re: (Score:2)
Who owns it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not at all sure this is true. Not that, maybe, it makes all that much difference in practice in this particular instance.
If they own it, its an asset, it must have value, be on their books, be depreciated. None of which is true. But it is on your books, and you can depreciate it, write it off against taxes and so on. If we're saying, it is theirs, you have licensed it, by a one time payment with no further obligations to them, how does it differ from a sale except in name?
I suspect that legally what is going on is that you have bought your copy alright. Its just that what you have bought is a product with certain features/limitations, of which activation is one.
This probably doesn't matter when it comes to the present situation, because product activation and so on are just part of the product. But if it were a case of stopping you from moving it from machine A to B to C, it might. If they were to tell you what machine to install it on, it might matter also. Or, whether you can run it under Wine. In all those cases the difference between them and you owning your copy might matter a lot. But not in terms of what features it has.
All the same, I think you bought your copy, and you really do own it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
False. Not all assets depreciate; furthermore, assets such as the Vista code do not have a set value, as it is completely dependent upon sales. Finally, it's not a physical asset, so no physical inventory can be taken; therefore, no asset depreciation can be calculated according to standard practices.
Well, that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a way out of this... (Score:2)
The key words are POSSIBLY & PROBABLY (Score:2)
Two things (Score:2)
Second, MS is screwing up. I probably like MS more than 90% of the people here.
Piracy is helping MS not hurting it. If they stomp out piracy they
are going to stomp out some of their user base.
Losing that user base will hurt them badly in the future.
This needs TV commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
This needs to be expressed as a TV commercial. An entire business shut down because something went wrong with Vista licensing, with people on the phone to Microsoft support. Listening to music on hold.
Or some guy in a strange city with a laptop that won't work, unable to get help. He calls Microsoft and gets the "visit us on the web at www.microsoft.com" pitch, and he's frantically getting coins from a cafe owner to feed into a pay phone while on hold.
Unplug your Windows box! (Score:3, Interesting)
Worried about all that activation crap? Unplug your Windows box from the net! I did, and you can too.
Here's whatcha do.
Doesn't really work for online gaming yet, but it will just as soon as the guys at VMWare fully support DX9.
Enjoy!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The law differentiates between general public viewing and private 'electronic mail' to minors.
Yeah, but if you're going to be running Windows in a VM, why run it as the host OS as well? You might as well run it on Linux or OS X and then you have the application sets of both OS's. I use OS X as my base OS on my laptop and run Windows and Linux in VMs on top of that. This provides me the capability to use a wider set of applications and features. I sometimes even run OpenBSD in my VM to test a simulation o
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Only compelling reason is that Direct3D acceleration only works if both the host OS and the guest OS are both Windows. Info here. [vmware.com]
But yeah, if you're not interested in DirectX games your setup is ideal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Online games have had policies more draconian... (Score:3, Interesting)
We've been here before (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what cracked copies of Windoze are for.
-b.