Paul Thurrot feeling the heat?

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...3896.html?Ad=1

Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@windowsitpro.com

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
"move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
[users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
wanted. Not so. "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 intention, Boettcher
said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

Sounds as if he is bring forced to see some sense at last on this matter!!!

Alan

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uZ$zdWU8GHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...3896.html?Ad=1
>
> Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
> by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@windowsitpro.com
>
> On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
> which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
> In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
> number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
> were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
> the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
> a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
> reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
> that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
> the new EULA.
>
> Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
> "move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
> [users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
> Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
> to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
> wanted. Not so. "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 intention, Boettcher
> said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
> event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
> licensed for use on a single PC.
>
> The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
> can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
> Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
> PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
> activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
> Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
> clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
> past, we haven't been super clear up front."
>
> I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
> restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
> technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
> of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
> product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
> clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
> Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
> real problem.
>
> The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
> the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
> industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
> their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
> the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
> argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
> especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
> licensing problems.
>
> Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
> percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
> 50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
> money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
> hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
> otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
> should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
> such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
> revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
> clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.
>
> If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
> and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
> SuperSite for Windows.
>
> Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

This is also a good article about Vista licensing.

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

--Koroush Ghazi
Owner/Author
www.TweakGuides.com
October 16, 2006

<quote>
Why are enthusiasts being ignored? Aside from the fact that we're talking about tens of
millions of people being affected, there also seems to be a bit of a contradiction. If
Microsoft genuinely believes the clarified restrictions only affect a small group of people,
then honestly why change them in the first place? It seems to me it only disenchants an
influential group of users, unfairly targeting their legitimate need to upgrade often to keep
pace with gaming and other requirements. PCs are no longer a 'box' that you buy, keep for 3
years and never upgrade or tinker with. An increasingly large group of people do upgrade their
machines often, and in fact companies like Microsoft, Nvidia, AMD and Intel do everything in
their power to encourage it.

</quote>

continued....

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



"Alan" <alan.larbalestier@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ulZf2lU8GHA.4604@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Sounds as if he is bring forced to see some sense at last on this matter!!!
>
> Alan
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:uZ$zdWU8GHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...3896.html?Ad=1
>>
>> Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
>> by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@windowsitpro.com
>>
>> On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
>> which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
>> In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
>> number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
>> were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
>> the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
>> a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
>> reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
>> that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
>> the new EULA.
>>
>> Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
>> "move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
>> [users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
>> Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
>> to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
>> wanted. Not so. "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 intention, Boettcher
>> said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
>> event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
>> licensed for use on a single PC.
>>
>> The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
>> can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
>> Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
>> PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
>> activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
>> Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
>> clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
>> past, we haven't been super clear up front."
>>
>> I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
>> restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
>> technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
>> of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
>> product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
>> clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
>> Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
>> real problem.
>>
>> The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
>> the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
>> industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
>> their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
>> the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
>> argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
>> especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
>> licensing problems.
>>
>> Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
>> percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
>> 50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
>> money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
>> hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
>> otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
>> should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
>> such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
>> revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
>> clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.
>>
>> If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
>> and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
>> SuperSite for Windows.
>>
>> Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp
>
>

MICHAEL wrote:

> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...3896.html?Ad=1
>
> Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
> by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@windowsitpro.com
>
> On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
> which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
> In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
> number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
> were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
> the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
> a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
> reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
> that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
> the new EULA.
>

Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel this article still fails to
distinguish between the OEM and retail licenses for XP. It implies that
there was no XP license that allowed you to transfer freely from one PC
to another. As I understand it, the XP retail license allowed this
explicitly (as long as it was only on one PC at a time), and that is why
it was much more expensive than OEM.

It is poossible that the new Vista license is not in practice much
different from the XP OEM license. But it sure is different from the XP
retail license.

David Wilkinson

Hopefully Microsoft will realise that all they are doing by making this
significant change is alienating a significant proportion of its supporters
including a large number of its own beta testers. It is really difficult to
see how this change to the EULA made by Microsoft will help reduce piracy.
For a large multinational company they do see to be out of touch with those
of us who are trying to be at the forefront of technological development and
improvement.Under the new EULA for Vista the only advantage for paying a
lot of additional money over the oem version is one additional transfer to
another pc!!!

Alan


>
>

1984 is alive and well. Microsoft back when XP was introduced reassured
users that they could upgrade their computers without fear of going through
the reactivation process or not being able to continue using the OS. Now
they're saying that was never the case (even though they did say it at the
time). I know it isn't the case, because I've been accused of
"reactivating" XP too many times, of all things. How could you not
reactivate XP with the damn thing turning to garbage after a few months?

Anyway. I'm done with it. I've bought a Mac system and I'll be coverting
over to Linux for my other uses once XP becomes completely unusable. All
Mac or Linux needs now is for some inventive person to come up with some
killer aps that won't run on Vistsa.


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uZ$zdWU8GHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...3896.html?Ad=1
>
> Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts
> by Paul Thurrott, thurrott@windowsitpro.com
>
> On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in
> which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista.
> In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the
> number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--
> were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that
> the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just
> a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article
> reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear
> that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by
> the new EULA.
>
> Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to
> "move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer,
> [users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation
> Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right
> to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they
> wanted. Not so. "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 intention, Boettcher
> said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the
> event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is
> licensed for use on a single PC.
>
> The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user
> can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time."
> Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from
> PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically
> activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate
> Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being
> clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the
> past, we haven't been super clear up front."
>
> I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent
> restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't
> technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms
> of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the
> product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple
> clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users.
> Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very
> real problem.
>
> The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with
> the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC
> industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade
> their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward
> the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might
> argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit,
> especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of
> licensing problems.
>
> Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5
> percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about
> 50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending
> money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their
> hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would
> otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft
> should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers
> such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new
> revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's
> clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.
>
> If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article
> and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the
> SuperSite for Windows.
>
> Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

> Why are enthusiasts being ignored?

Because MS believes there is no where else to go. And as long as companies
keep making their software tied to only one OS they are right. I personally
cannot use anything but Windows because I have a half a dozen programs that
I spend 80 percent of my time using and they only work in Windows.

David Wilkinson wrote:

> Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel this article still fails to
> distinguish between the OEM and retail licenses for XP. It implies that
> there was no XP license that allowed you to transfer freely from one PC
> to another. As I understand it, the XP retail license allowed this
> explicitly (as long as it was only on one PC at a time), and that is why
> it was much more expensive than OEM.

According to the article, the XP retail license could only be transferred to
a machine after original install one time but that wasn't very clear in the
EULA. They supposedly have clarified this with the Vista license.

> It is poossible that the new Vista license is not in practice much
> different from the XP OEM license. But it sure is different from the XP
> retail license.

Not that different, again according to the article, not in the popular
understanding.
--
Tom Porterfield

Tom Porterfield wrote:

>> It is poossible that the new Vista license is not in practice much
>> different from the XP OEM license. But it sure is different from the XP
>> retail license.
>
>
> Not that different, again according to the article, not in the popular
> understanding.

Did you read this:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

David Wilkinson

"Kent" wrote:

> Anyway. I'm done with it. I've bought a Mac system

I am tempted towards a Macbook when I upgrade my laptop

Alan's reply:

>Under the new EULA for Vista the only advantage for paying a
lot of additional money over the oem version is one additional transfer to
another pc!!!<
this answered how I feel as I was going to purchase the full version, not
because I install/re-install every month or anything like that but Microsoft
has made me feel if I wanted to upgrade anything on my computer I would be
outside of the license if I had already transferred Vista to an upgraded
computer.

I read and listened to Paul Thurrott on his podcast when I went to his site
I was disappointed to read a full retail would not have much over the oem
copy. I am a home user and am even worried about doing too much with XP in
case I have to answer Microsoft - I was determined to purchase Office 2007 +
Vista full versions but now I wonder if the plot has been lost and the home
user is left with 'please ring us' I have never had to & I have 3 licenses
for XP Pro
I was going to install Vista at a fairly early opportunity but it now looks
as if I would be best to make sure all my hardware has been verified and I
will never need an upgrade..........................before I make the
purchase. I really thought a full retail would allow a home user to
re-install if something genuine happened.

I know I am not counted in the eyes of Microsoft even our beta testing isn't
really useful to them but I am a genuine compter user who only wants to enjoy
computing not worry all day in case Intel bring out a new chip which I might
want but this would make my computer new................. sad that we can't
be trusted.
Pirates don't care but I do

I guess I wouldn't be upgrading as soon as I thought I would