Just an idea

There are a lot of people complaining about the restrictions in the EULA for
the fuill retail version of Vista ( I have also been one of those
complaining)

The main complaint is generally that the EULA only allows one transfer which
will disadvatage the people who frequently upgrade their system. and force
them to buy Vista twice if they upgrade more than once.

Well what if MSFT charged these people a small fee for additional transfers
instead of the the full price of Vista they would make their customers happy
and at the same time some people may be more inclined to pay a small fee as
oposed to using pirated versions

Just a thought

Hi,

Can't speak for others, but I have no problems at all on the concept itself.
Of course, it depends on what is the price for the base installation and for
each additional installation, right?

It's not uncommon for doing "pay by usage", or installation, in this case.

Think about it - if the fee is relatively small for users to care, one is
more likely to play around and upgrade the system, and in the process, the
company makes more than it can realize and the customer would have realized
(people don't pay much attention to smaller amount of money on each payment
vs. a larger amount).

This is my proposition based on preliminary thoughts:

Increase the initial number of transfer/upgrade to a reasonable level (which
can be discussed), and then charge a small fund for beyond that level.

I understand that there is no such thing called "reasonable level", but just
enough to cover the "averaged number" of accidental breakdowns or major
upgrades during the life of using a PC.

A company like MS must have all kinds of data that can calculate the
averaged numbers of these incidents, and as long as it included those
considerations, normal consumers probably wouldn't argue much about it (at
least I won't).

But that's not for WGAN. I support WGA but not WGAN.

Just a thought.

"Will" <imagine_44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsBA3BE9F-6B37-40FF-8914-A7A139ADBC12@microsoft.com...
> There are a lot of people complaining about the restrictions in the EULA
> for the fuill retail version of Vista ( I have also been one of those
> complaining)
>
> The main complaint is generally that the EULA only allows one transfer
> which will disadvatage the people who frequently upgrade their system. and
> force them to buy Vista twice if they upgrade more than once.
>
> Well what if MSFT charged these people a small fee for additional
> transfers instead of the the full price of Vista they would make their
> customers happy and at the same time some people may be more inclined to
> pay a small fee as oposed to using pirated versions
>
> Just a thought

"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23IqrgnL%23GHA.3860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> Can't speak for others, but I have no problems at all on the concept
> itself. Of course, it depends on what is the price for the base
> installation and for each additional installation, right?
>
> It's not uncommon for doing "pay by usage", or installation, in this
> case.

I don't like the "one transfer" limit and feel Microsoft is trying to
force early adopters and enthusiasts to pay twice for the same
product, and force one copy of Windows on every single computer.
Windows did not force this in the past. Retail versions of XP can be
removed from one machine and installed on another as many times as you
want - one computer, one license. That's fair and reasonable.

This new agreement is unreasonable.

It's like Sears telling me I can only use my Kenmore dishwasher in one
apartment or house. If I move I have to buy a new one?

Or the government saying I can only use my drivers license to drive
one specific car, and that I can't drive a rental or any other without
paying again?

That's just rediculous and blatantly wrong.

Microsoft grants a license to use Vista on one computer. Which one
computer I decide to use it on as an operating system is irrelevant.

> Think about it - if the fee is relatively small for users to care,
> one is more likely to play around and upgrade the system, and in the
> process, the

Any amount of money is extra money to pay for a product that has
already been paid for with the initial purchase. It doesn't matter if
it's a license or not. Do you want to pay a fee to drive your
girlfriends car? And then pay again to borrow your friends van? Or how
about an extra few bucks to move the dishwasher to the new home?

For all practical purposes, the software is mine to use. It's their
software, and they own it, but imposing such limits is detrimental to
customer satisfaction and might become one more factor that helps to
promote open source.

Linux has made a lot of headway in the last few years with more user
friendly interfaces like Gnome and KDE in Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. A few
more years of development and we might not need Windows. I played with
them recently, and if I had to I could switch, but they're still not
ready to compete for consumer desktops.

But if things continue to improve, I can see a day when Microsoft will
have competition. Right now they have a monopoly, and they know it,
hence this new licensing scam.

I think MSFT definately have to have a good look at it and make the
adjustments needed to make it fair for those who frequently upgrade or
change their system.
Even if that means charging a small fee for transfers that fall outside of
their new EULA, that would at least protect the consumer from having to buy
multiple copies of vista.

If however they continue with this EULA as it is now then by the time Vista
is 75% through it's life cycle there will be a massive amount of redundant
copies of the software out there, and technically these copies will not be
able to be activated anymore unless a new license is purchased, and with all
those copies out there chances are they'll be given away to friends or sold
on ebay which will only tempt people to use cracks and use these copies
illegally

Thats why I say they should let people transfer after paying a small fee
instead of paying the full price.

But having said this unfortunately this is definately a case of MSFT putting
their shareholders first at the expense of the consumer


"Will" <imagine_44@yahoo.com> wrote in message
newsBA3BE9F-6B37-40FF-8914-A7A139ADBC12@microsoft.com...
> There are a lot of people complaining about the restrictions in the EULA
> for the fuill retail version of Vista ( I have also been one of those
> complaining)
>
> The main complaint is generally that the EULA only allows one transfer
> which will disadvatage the people who frequently upgrade their system. and
> force them to buy Vista twice if they upgrade more than once.
>
> Well what if MSFT charged these people a small fee for additional
> transfers instead of the the full price of Vista they would make their
> customers happy and at the same time some people may be more inclined to
> pay a small fee as oposed to using pirated versions
>
> Just a thought

Well,

I agree with you all, as a tiny consumer by myself, I was hoping next to the
best

> It's like Sears telling me I can only use my Kenmore dishwasher in one
> apartment or house. If I move I have to buy a new one?

I agree with you and could understand it totally. But some people might
jump in and say (already happened) that you cannot use this analogy because
it is for "physical" products but not for IR thing.

In any case, we all get the idea.

>> Right now they have a monopoly, and they know it, hence this new
>> licensing scam.

Another way to look it is that I don't know why there isn't a second BG?

To be honest, I am very disappointed by the rest of tech companies including
Linux supporters. Fortunately, I left the tech industries for a while even
I am still an enthusiast.

Lack of competent competition is the main cause of today's problems, and I
truly don't blame the company for all of it.


"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message
news:5oidnVauzvFEwt3YnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@golden.net...
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23IqrgnL%23GHA.3860@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>
>> Can't speak for others, but I have no problems at all on the concept
>> itself. Of course, it depends on what is the price for the base
>> installation and for each additional installation, right?
>>
>> It's not uncommon for doing "pay by usage", or installation, in this
>> case.
>
> I don't like the "one transfer" limit and feel Microsoft is trying to
> force early adopters and enthusiasts to pay twice for the same product,
> and force one copy of Windows on every single computer. Windows did not
> force this in the past. Retail versions of XP can be removed from one
> machine and installed on another as many times as you want - one computer,
> one license. That's fair and reasonable.
>
> This new agreement is unreasonable.
>
> It's like Sears telling me I can only use my Kenmore dishwasher in one
> apartment or house. If I move I have to buy a new one?
>
> Or the government saying I can only use my drivers license to drive one
> specific car, and that I can't drive a rental or any other without paying
> again?
>
> That's just rediculous and blatantly wrong.
>
> Microsoft grants a license to use Vista on one computer. Which one
> computer I decide to use it on as an operating system is irrelevant.
>
>> Think about it - if the fee is relatively small for users to care, one is
>> more likely to play around and upgrade the system, and in the process,
>> the
>
> Any amount of money is extra money to pay for a product that has already
> been paid for with the initial purchase. It doesn't matter if it's a
> license or not. Do you want to pay a fee to drive your girlfriends car?
> And then pay again to borrow your friends van? Or how about an extra few
> bucks to move the dishwasher to the new home?
>
> For all practical purposes, the software is mine to use. It's their
> software, and they own it, but imposing such limits is detrimental to
> customer satisfaction and might become one more factor that helps to
> promote open source.
>
> Linux has made a lot of headway in the last few years with more user
> friendly interfaces like Gnome and KDE in Ubuntu and OpenSUSE. A few more
> years of development and we might not need Windows. I played with them
> recently, and if I had to I could switch, but they're still not ready to
> compete for consumer desktops.
>
> But if things continue to improve, I can see a day when Microsoft will
> have competition. Right now they have a monopoly, and they know it, hence
> this new licensing scam.
>