Everything you read is wrong

By Prosidius
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

Hmm, so let me get this straight. Replacing stuff like a video card or a CPU, granted not at the same time, shouldn't cause you to have to reactivate? Since that article said its algorithm takes into account mobo and hdd changes more so.

BTW, which verison of Vista will end up being equivalent to Win XP Prof.?

Vista Business (which will be available retail) is the direct equivalent to XP Professional. Vista Ultimate replaces XP Media Center Edition (and, unlike XP MCE, will also be available retail). Neither has the VM restrictions that Vista Home Basic or Home Premium does.

Experienced

Xab

Posted
Posted

Without taking it off the other two machines? If so, your a software pirate. I don't think discussing piracy is allowed on Neowin :|, but either way i can't understand why you would buy the software than violate the EULA. Isn't it cheaper to become an illegal user for free?

Heh that's your opinion. Mine is that Microsoft is wrong for trying to make you buy 3 copies of the same thing, so I'll put it on all of my computers.

I might not have read the entire thread lol

But, I know with the Beta's it can be installed on up to 10 PCs??

Does anyone know how many computers RTM will be able to be installed on??

-Rich-

Just one. Microsoft expects you to pay $400 for each additional computer you plan to own.

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

Limiting installation on virtual machines is going to be a pretty big nuisance to developers. When I was doing platform testing for a software company, I'd have tons of different installations of Windows on different VMWare images, running on different machines. Most of it was for confidence, but we'd still have on XP Home and an XP Professional all running automation on the software. With the changes you'd have to use the special versions of Vista on the VMWare images, but you'd have to have an entire machine set up just to test against Vista Home.

How does it affect developers (most of whom will have access to Vista Business or even Vista Enterprise, which are NOT subject to the same VM restrictions)? Quite honestly, I know of no reason whatever to have VMs of Vista Home Basic *or* Home Premium, even if you're a developer, when you have access to Vista Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate (especially given that there is *zero* real code difference between all the various flavors of Vista that wouldn't be linked to hardware/VM differences). Why would you even *need* to test against Vista Home Premium if you are testing against any other version of Vista? Back in the days that Windows XP was in beta, the vast majority of XP Home-specific testing was not even conducted until *well after* the RC phas of testing had been reached, as most of the testers were using the XP Professional codebase to do their testing against. Segue to now, and to Windows Vista. Most of the TAP testing, and all of the CPP testing, was done against Vista Ultimate (not Vista Home Basic or Premium, or even Vista Business). As a member of the CPP, all of my own testing has been done against Vista Ultimate. And if you are going to say *what about software intended for home users*, are you really going to honestly insist that no home users would dare use Vista Ultimate (or even Vista Business)? I dual-boot XP Professional and Vista Ultimate today; I will likely either continue to do so when Windows Vista launches (followed by a later complete shift to Vista Ultimate). And I do this on my home computer. It is highly LIKELY I am far from the only person that does this.

Grand Master

OPaul

Posted
Posted

How does it affect developers (most of whom will have access to Vista Business or even Vista Enterprise, which are NOT subject to the same VM restrictions)? Quite honestly, I know of no reason whatever to have VMs of Vista Home Basic *or* Home Premium, even if you're a developer, when you have access to Vista Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate (especially given that there is *zero* real code difference between all the various flavors of Vista that wouldn't be linked to hardware/VM differences). Why would you even *need* to test against Vista Home Premium if you are testing against any other version of Vista? Back in the days that Windows XP was in beta, the vast majority of XP Home-specific testing was not even conducted until *well after* the RC phas of testing had been reached, as most of the testers were using the XP Professional codebase to do their testing against. Segue to now, and to Windows Vista. Most of the TAP testing, and all of the CPP testing, was done against Vista Ultimate (not Vista Home Basic or Premium, or even Vista Business). As a member of the CPP, all of my own testing has been done against Vista Ultimate. And if you are going to say *what about software intended for home users*, are you really going to honestly insist that no home users would dare use Vista Ultimate (or even Vista Business)? I dual-boot XP Professional and Vista Ultimate today; I will likely either continue to do so when Windows Vista launches (followed by a later complete shift to Vista Ultimate). And I do this on my home computer. It is highly LIKELY I am far from the only person that does this.

It effects quality testing, i.e platform testing. Even though Enterprise and Business may be the same as Home, Product Managers don't always get that and for confidence will require testing to be done on the exact same version that customers will be using.

Apprentice

BelowSky

Posted
Posted

If you violate the EULA you're a pirate... Why spend money to become a pirate?

Usually, I don't read Microsoft EULAs (or any other company) and I don't care about them. But, however, I do care about if what I do will be harmful to Microsoft. I use Windows personally. I don't sell it and I don't steal it. I want Microsoft to know I'm a legal user when purchase Windows and I want the benefit of being a legal one.

I believe in that being able to transfer many times WILL NOT harm Microsoft as long as I'm using it personally. Thats why I asked if Vista actually have some way to check if I transfered my Windows more than once.

Grand Master

+LogicalApex MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Heh that's your opinion. Mine is that Microsoft is wrong for trying to make you buy 3 copies of the same thing, so I'll put it on all of my computers.

No, that is not my opinion. That is the definition of piracy that even Microsoft agrees with. You don't own Windows you license it! If you are in volation of that license agreement you are unlicensed and hense a pirate (as by not being licensed you are stealing it). You might try to say to youself "well i paid MS something so i'm not a pirate" and the fact is that is NOT the case, you are a pirate. That's why MS put activation and WGA in Windows; to stop pirates like you.

Here is MS' definition of Piracy from their piracy website.

http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/how_types.mspx

End-User piracy: When users copy software without appropriate licensing for each copy. This includes both casual copying and distribution between individuals, and companies who do not strictly monitor the number of software licenses they install and do not acquire enough licenses to cover their software installations. It also consists of unlicensed PCs caused by customers who have the misperception that their Volume License covers the full Windows desktop operating system, which it does not; Volume Licensing provides only for Windows desktop upgrades.

Usually, I don't read Microsoft EULAs (or any other company) and I don't care about them. But, however, I do care about if what I do will be harmful to Microsoft. I use Windows personally. I don't sell it and I don't steal it. I want Microsoft to know I'm a legal user when purchase Windows and I want the benefit of being a legal one.

I believe in that being able to transfer many times WILL NOT harm Microsoft as long as I'm using it personally. Thats why I asked if Vista actually have some way to check if I transfered my Windows more than once.

If you follow the license agreement then you are not stealing it. If you violate the license agreement and continue using it than you are stealing it. Doesn't matter how much money you've given MS to make yourself feel morally better. Fact of the matter is the same. You are licensing, no license for Windows (due to violating the EULA) and your using Windows (or any other software in which you are violating the EULA) means your stealing.

Are you actions harmful? It is generally accepted by society that stealing is harmful to the victim of the theft.

Grand Master

Smigit

Posted
Posted

who got that figure of $400? If you have 6 pc's surely all of them dont need Vista Extreme Edition and nor would they all NEED Office 07. Just get the right OS for each machine or only upgrade them one at a time along with pc updates so you can get it OEM. Its not like one didnt follow that same procedure to get XP which isnt any cheaper than Vista unless you feel you absolutly need the Extreme edition.

Mentor

+mrbester MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

blah blah blah snipped

That's why MS put activation and WGA in Windows; to stop pirates like you.

Here is MS' definition of Piracy from their piracy website...

Here's mine: the act of larceny and/or brigandage on the high seas.

EULA's that cannot be understood by a lay person are unenforceable, just like any contract. Try arguing that it is enforceable when someone clicked through some legalese that meant the software developer had droit de seigneur over any and all unwedded females in the user's family. In addition there is precedent for an entire contract to be declared null and void if 1) a part of it is not agreed and 2) the contract cannot be changed (as in a EULA, it's either there or it isn't, you can't agree to part or a EULA).

Grand Master

+LogicalApex MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Here's mine: the act of larceny and/or brigandage on the high seas.

EULA's that cannot be understood by a lay person are unenforceable, just like any contract. Try arguing that it is enforceable when someone clicked through some legalese that meant the software developer had droit de seigneur over any and all unwedded females in the user's family. In addition there is precedent for an entire contract to be declared null and void if 1) a part of it is not agreed and 2) the contract cannot be changed (as in a EULA, it's either there or it isn't, you can't agree to part or a EULA).

Can you cite the case(s) or statute(s) where that criteria is established? Currently we don't know how enforcable EULAs are as they are interpreted differently by different courts. The Supreme Court has yet to issue anything final (or accept a case involving EULAs). But "unreadable" contracts being null and void def. makes not sense, as you explain it. How many people can read and understand their cell phone contract? or the contract they sign to use PayPal? Dosen't mean they are not bound by those contracts! Hell most people don't even read the contract they sign to use their credit card or bank account. Simply because the majority of contracts they sign are unreadable by them. That does not make them immune to the contract...

Mentor

+mrbester MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

What would be the point as you obviously didn't look at my location. In civilised parts of the planet it is considered unreasonable to hold someone to a contract when they don't understand it. This places an unfair burden on the user. Paypal's contract is pretty open, but if people don't read the agreement that they sign for a credit card or bank account, that is really their fault. The big difference is that you have a big piece of paper in your hand (with lots of small writing on it) but that it is structured in a way that even if there are difficult concepts they are organised into various subsections. You also have as long as you like (say, a week?) to look at it, whereas with a 7K EULA you have as long as your patience allows to fight your way through it in order to see if the program you're trying to run actually does what you want it to in the way you want it to. There are instances of EULAs having such bibble as by accepting it you waive your right to a refund if the program isn't to your requirements. These are illegal as they violate statutory rights. As you can't strike that particular bit (you might have no problem with the rest of it) the entire contract is unenforceable. See?

Grand Master

+LogicalApex MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Sorry i didn't look at your location, although reading it now only adds to my confusion.

It all depends on how your laws are structured. I won't go too much into a comparison as i really don't know how they are structured. EULAs usually have two important clauses in them that make them a grey area in the law. The first is they always have a clause stating that if the courts strike our any part the rest remains in full effect, so the striking out of the return policy bit wouldn't render the EULA dead. The other important part is they subject you to the laws of a jurisdiction of choice for the software company. I think outside the US and Canada that venue is the UK court system for MS (don't quote me on that though). So if your laws or courts don't put limits on the choice of venue clause you might not have much, if any, protection from your local laws.

Grand Master

FloatingFatMan

Posted
Posted (edited)

So if your laws or courts don't put limits on the choice of venue clause you might not have much, if any, protection from your local laws.

To sell a product in the UK, the product manufacturer must comply with UK retail law, which includes the statutary rights which can NOT be bypassed, willing or unwillingly, by either the manufacturer, retailer, or consumer. Any breach of those statutory rights renders any contract, legally binding or not, as null and void.

I'm fairly certain that limiting Vista to a single transfer would come under the "Not fit for purpose" section of those laws...

Edited by FloatingFatMan
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.