Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use 968

Posted by timothy
from the oh-that's-handy dept.
NiK0laI writes "TechWeb has posted an article regarding Vista's new license and how it allows you to only move it to another device once. How will this work for people who build their PCs? I have no intention of purchasing a new license every time I swap out motherboards. 'The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once. ... Elsewhere in the license, Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine. "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system," the legal language reads. Vista Ultimate and Vista Business, however, can be installed within a VM.'" Overly Critical Guy points out more information about changes to Vista's EULA and the new usage restrictions. "For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives, can't run in a virtualized environment, and can only share files and printers to a maximum of 5 network devices."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use

Comments Filter:
  • Two words... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by XaXXon (202882) <xaxxonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:41PM (#16415919) Homepage
    Fuck that.
  • A good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:43PM (#16415941) Homepage Journal
    If they make it hard enough to do your job, or piss off enough home users.. It can only be a good thing.
  • by mythosaz (572040) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:47PM (#16415993)
    For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.

    For developers, like me, it's going to be a matter of reading the fine print. I'm certain that there's a licensing mechanism for me to use HOME in VMWare/Virtual PC for a development environment -- it might require a unique license, or it might be as simple as me having an MSDN subscription.

    The "oh n0z, no vm for teh home!" panic is a bit premature.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MasterPoof (876056) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:48PM (#16415995)
    Seriously, WTF is this ? I can't move my liscenses to a different computer more than once ? And these restrictions on the network usage. "For instance, Home Basic users can't copy ISOs to their hard drives, can't run in a virtualized environment, and can only share files and printers to a maximum of 5 network devices." --- Granted I wouldn't buy Home Basic anyway, but this sounds more like a limited trial version to me.
  • Re:A good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mongoose Disciple (722373) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:48PM (#16416005)
    Eh, I'm sure a lot of us (being the Slashdot crowd) would be bothered by these things, but I honestly can't see 95%+ of Vista users even noticing.

    There are lots of great uses for virtual machines, but you don't need one to surf MySpace and YouTube, send e-mail, download porn, run Word, or any of the things the vast majority of home users will be using their PCs for.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:49PM (#16416013)
    There's no difference between hardware and a VM as far as the OS is concerned, what fucking business is it of Microsofts how their paying customers use the commodity product?

    Of course with DRM/TCPA, the only safe place for Vista is in a sandbox anyway!
  • That does it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by linguae (763922) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:56PM (#16416117)

    I mean, what is Vista about these days? First, they gutted out the Monad shell and WinFS, two features that would have possibly made me wait for Vista and get a PC instead of switching to a Mac. Secondly, they add new DRM restrictions that weren't present on Windows XP. Now, you can't even run the cheaper versions of Vista in a virtual machine due to licensing issues. As a Mac user, I don't feel like installing Windows natively with Boot Camp; I'd rather use a product like Parallels so that way I can run OS X and Windows simulataneously.

    I'm not trolling. I'm not anti-Windows either; I've been a Windows user up until a few months ago and liked my Windows experience. In fact, typing this in my MacBook, I miss certain Windows software, and I was looking at Vista news to see whether or not installing Vista on my computer was worthwhile. But this is my last straw with Vista. How can a company sit on their butts for 5 years, not update their operating system (other than security upgrades), and rest on their laurels with the next major version of their operating system is beyond me. Windows XP is ancient compared to OS X's and Linux's fast adoptation of new technologies, new innovative features (Expose, Spotlight or Beagle), new development tools (look at Python's and Ruby's penetration in Linux), new internet browsers (Safari, Firefox, Konqueror), etc. Five years in computing is an eternity. And after five years, all we get is a half-baked clone of OS X with more licensing restrictions, more DRM, and a higher price tag (why should I spend $399 for full-featured Windows Vista Ultimate when I can get OS X for $129 [yes, I know that $129 is subsidized by Apple, you can't run OS X on a PC legally, blah blah blah, but $129

    I was looking forward to Vista until recently. Now I wish Microsoft would delay it another year so that way they can release it with all of its promised features. They also need to cut the BS restrictions with licensing as well. It looks like MS has lost me as a customer. They will continue to lose me unless they port the Windows API to OpenBSD....

  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @07:56PM (#16416125) Journal
    Take a look at the EULA for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 if you own it. You can only transfer license to someone else once. Latest version called FSX is coming out with activation (which amusingly has already been cracked before official release - already been distributed and some stores have accidentally sold it) and there are rumours that multiuser play is going to require a subscription.

    What's new is that Microsoft seems to have convinced themselves of their own propaganda and think people will pay again and again endlessly for the same thing ala a subscription model, put up with restrictions that make the software useless in their personal circumstances, and that they'll still increase their profits because most people only do a handful of things and if they can do them will keep paying for them repeatedly.

    I suspect Microsoft's going to have to deal with a rude awakening from their DRM dream in the next few years. I'll be very surprised if this tactic works. It's very much the same thing you're seeing with music and movie distributors wanting to live some economic fantasy instead of deal with the reality that some people are theives and most people won't buy things that are totally useless to them or worse actually a time wasting pain in the neck to use. In the mean time we're all in for a rough ride.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:03PM (#16416231)
    This is the time that the Ubuntu crowd will really need to step up to the plate. They offer the premiere desktop Linux distribution at this time. If any Linux distribution will challenge Vista, it will be Ubuntu or an Ubuntu-based distribution.

    It'd be very beneficial to the open source community if Kubuntu [kubuntu.org] could be hyped as much as Firefox was. With even just a fraction of the momentum that Firefox once had, we may see the landscape change over night.

    I'd recommend Kubuntu only because it uses KDE, which at this time is a more mature and usable desktop than GNOME. I have moved several relatives to Ubuntu (using GNOME) and Kubuntu (using KDE). A couple of those relatives using GNOME visited the relative using KDE, and they wanted to switch after seeing how much better it was. So from my own experience and that of a few people I know, KDE would appear to be the best desktop to go with, thus Kubuntu is naturally the best distribution to choose.

    It'd take a lot of coordination and effort to pull something like this off. But I think it is well within the grasp of the Ubuntu community to get the word out about Kubuntu. The purchase of an ad in a major paper might be a good way to start, as it did help the Firefox community when they tried it.

  • by Xaria (630117) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:04PM (#16416247)
    Because it's a *home* product - they are licensing it for home use. This is their way of making businesses pay more for certain rights. They're perfectly entitled to do this from a legal standpoint, and as a home user I'd rather see business copping the higher prices for Vista rather than me.

    Note also that the warranty has increased - this is going to cost Microsoft money. It's about time (90 days is barely enough to put a machine through its paces, let alone find issues with your installation) but it's still a positive change.

    As for the "only transferring once" thing, I didn't see anything in TFA regarding motherboard swapping. For all we know there may be a more intelligent method to determine what a "new device" is.

    Whether we like it or not, we are paying for a *license* not an item. Big commercial products are even more rigid in their licensing, so while I don't like this I can understand and accept it. Let's see how it affects us IRL before we make too many judgements. Of course, if I can't replace a dud motherboard I'll be as abusive as the rest of you.
  • Thanks microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Unknown Poltroon (31628) * <unknown_poltroon1sp@myahoo.com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:04PM (#16416249)
    I'll be guilt free when in 7 years i finally feel the need to switch to vista and download a fully cracked and DRM free version off the file sharing site of choice. It must suck to be one of your paying customers.
  • Bone head maneuver (Score:5, Insightful)

    by syousef (465911) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:04PM (#16416265) Journal
    We all know what piracy really does is it devalues software (by increasing supply without increasing demand - nothing at all to do with physical stealing as they would have us believe).

    So to stop piracy they're going to make their software less valuable (less functional) which kinda defeats the point of preventing the piracy. Now you'll lose sales because less people will want your software because to a lot more people it's a useless piece of shit. Yep that'll teach them pirates.

    Love the new MS leadership. Quick Jim, lets press the self destruct button and lets get out of here before she implodes!
  • by rodgster (671476) * <rodgster @ y a h oo.com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:06PM (#16416297) Journal
    Clue -----> I didn't say I was singlehandedly trying to cause the collapse of MS via a small claims action. But I have no doubt it would cost them more in judgment + attorneys + sending a rep to appear in court (or suffer a default judgment) than the value of that copy of Vista.

    I am not just blowing smoke or trolling (like you are), I HAVE actually done this successfully before against another large corporation.
  • by davek (18465) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:06PM (#16416299) Homepage Journal
    Only when selling numbers are you able to dictate the exact details of how your product is used. What other marketable item exists where the seller has the full force of law behind it they say "this product can only be used for bla bla bla...". If I want to buy a sofa and use it as a bed, I can do that. If I complain to the sofa dealer about my back hurting, they won't listen to me, because they said it was for sitting, not sleeping. However, if my dealer is Microsoft, they call the FBI and put me in jail for violation of contract.

    Open source is the only software. When all you pay for is arranged numbers, you forfit all your rights of ownership to the dealer. At least, that's how it works these days...

    -dave
  • by phatvw (996438) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:10PM (#16416349)
    LOL! Folks are always so quick to jump on the bandwagon about how stupid Microsoft's policies are. But is this really such a big deal? Is it even news-worthy? Here is the reality:
    • MS wants to make money - just like everybody else
    • MS loses money for each support call - just like everybody else
    • VM marginally increases support costs due to incompatibilities
    • folks swapping hardware marginally increases support costs
    You could argue that only experts would ever swap hardware or use VM and that they don't call MS support. But there are a lot of people who call themselves experts who haven't a clue. Login to whatever tech site you want and there are DIY guides for whatever hardware config you want to build. A complete moron can use those guides, fail miserably, and then call Microsoft for support. Microsoft doesn't want to pay for that and why should they unless you pay a premium for those features?

    In addition, MS and everybody else wants to promote a subscription model for software - the more features you use, the more you pay. How is this different than any other vendor who charges for software? Linux isn't free. Somebody has to get paid to support the software and keep businesses running. Would you work for Google and run their linux boxes for free?
  • Re:THREE words (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy (216950) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:10PM (#16416353) Journal
    Actually, I LIKE the new license. This will make it much easier to talk the wife and the boss into switching to Linux, and force me to figure out how to setup Linux for a media center or get a Wii. Games? We will figure that one out later. All and all, a good decision by Microsoft I would say.

    Looks like they will certainly reduce piracy, as even a fully function version of the OS isn't fully functional and not even worth stealing.
  • by carrier lost (222597) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:12PM (#16416377) Homepage

    For the end-user, this is nearly a non-issue.


    What about gamers? People who change hardware more than underwear and mostly run Windows?


    MjM

  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportlandNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:13PM (#16416383) Homepage Journal
    I would be courting game developers, big time.

    Free tools, lots of give aways, maybe buy a game company.

    Gaming is the only reason to go with Vista anymore.

    I do know that Apple doaes have most of the major titles, but there release is late.

    I would also have advertisments that are about gaming on a Mac.
  • Re:My options (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pla (258480) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:17PM (#16416439) Journal
    My options

    You forgot #6 - Pirate a DRM-less, restrictionless, non-phoning-home VLK version, just like we all have for every version (that didn't come with the machine) since Win 95.

    No virtualization? "Home" users don't virtualize, with one exception - To save having to multiboot into Linux (and those fall into the extreme minority). Thus, this limitation amounts to "no painlessly trying out Linux allowed".

    5 client connections? Not sure about that one... Did they decide the whopping 10 from XP allowed too much power to the users? At least for the XP line, only an idiot would run a business on Home (or even Pro) anyway, when SBS 2003 costs relatively little to make a shop legal.

    As for license transfers... With OEM versions, you already can't transfer them. So that means this won't affect 99% of home users right from the start. As for upgrades... Much like XP's much-protested activation, this will vanish with the first service pack as soon as MS starts getting dozens, then hundreds, then potentially thousands of calls a day from people who made one upgrade too many and have a dead system. MS can throw lawyers at any problem, but they can't afford to piss too many users off.


    So, most of these seemingly-offensive policies depend entirely on the fact that most of their users won't even notice the change. Then again, if these affect so few people - Why bother?
  • by Pharmboy (216950) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:23PM (#16416513) Journal
    Most people expect a new version of an operating system to have more features, not less.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:27PM (#16416575) Homepage Journal
    Your not sacrificing anything with linux I don't

    Maybe you don't, but what if I want/need to:

    - Play games (Tux Racer doesn't count)
    - Use Photoshop (don't say Gimp)
    - Use 3D Studio Max (yes, there are some alternatives, but 3ds Max is an industry standard)
    - Etc

    The biggest problem with Linux is that it severely lacks blanket support by large software and hardware developers (including solid driver support for many things). This is what happens when you have a desktop market share that many companies truly consider irrelevant. Yes, Linux has a lot to offer on the desktop, but as of yet it is not on equal footing to Windows (or even Apple in most cases [such as graphics design, drivers, etc]).
  • Re:Two words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EvanED (569694) <evaned.gmail@com> on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:28PM (#16416581)
    Can someone explain where the ISO comment came from? I can't find anything that would seem to prevent anything regarding ISOs. "ISO" doesn't appear in the document, nor does "CD." "Image" and "Media" don't appear in any related context.
  • by gregleimbeck (975759) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:34PM (#16416679) Homepage
    At $150 per support call to bangalore, I find it hard to believe that they really lose money on a support call.
  • by r3m0t (626466) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:48PM (#16416861)
    The license says you can only transfer the software once, and with the agreement. But the person you transfer it to can also transfer it once themselved, because they are bound by an agreement between Microsoft and them, not between Microsoft and you.
  • by mgkimsal2 (200677) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:54PM (#16416919) Homepage
    It's got more of a long term effect. If people can't legally virtualize the basic/home versions, QA testing on those versions will suffer. Yes, technically, they may be the same products, but I'm confident there will be some little niggling issues that only crop up under certain configurations on one version or another. If the only legal way people can effectively test their software on the 'basic/home' versions of Vista is to purchase multiple copies for multiple machines, they may not do that, and opt only to ensure testing of their products on the 'ultimate' version(s). Given how little some software seems to have been tested, this may not be noticeable in some markets, but it likely will be in others.
  • Re:THREE words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BVis (267028) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:58PM (#16416987)
    Today, a lot of companies do not use MS software (office & developer stuff, both) primarily because they do not want to be locked-in.
    Name three.

    The prevailing attitude is that you must use Windows, regardless of how painful it is. Everyone else uses Windows, and the business of business is business. CTOs and CIOs don't want to hear about OpenOffice or Samba, etc, because it just muddies the waters they're paid to keep clear.

    That, and frequently the executive suite is a logic-free zone.

    So long as people are stupid and ignore the facts, Microsoft will be in business. So they'll be around, fucking us in the ass sideways, for years to come.

    (I only use Linux at work, but that's because my boss is too cheap to buy Windows, because the IT manager before me lost the OEM media for my work laptop. I still might not have used Windows, but I didn't have a choice in the matter. He also won't pay for a real business-class internet connection or real phone service, and forces us to use a cablemodem and Vonage. I've stopped listening to him when he tells me his sales people have had calls drop out on them. I just remind him that I offered him an alternative that he didn't take, because it would increase our fixed costs $300 a month. That shuts him up until the next time. Logic-free zone, anyone?)
  • Re:And then.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shawn is an Asshole (845769) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @08:59PM (#16416999)
    Don't encourage copyright infringement. Encourage alternatives like OS X and Linux.
  • Subscription Model (Score:2, Insightful)

    by RincewindTVD (1011435) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:04PM (#16417071) Homepage Journal
    I would agree with your points, but most subscription models require a much lower inital cost...

    And the 'feature' of having only 5 devices accessible over a network (home basic) seems to be a large inital price for less features.

    It's a nice thought, but the implementation is not somethine I want to deal with.
  • by mjwx (966435) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:04PM (#16417079)
    But users will switch not in upgrade cycles but when the user feels the need to change. This will be when an OS becomes so restrictive that the learning curve of a different OS becomes easier than living with the OS they already know.

    When the average user gets an error message saying "you don't have a license to play this content" or "you don't have sufficient privileges to do $WHATEVER" then they will call their geeky friend/family member to "fix" the problem. The problem of course being Vista, the solution be Linux. I suspect a similar sequence of events will occur if MS security turns out to be a dog.

    If all this scaremongering about MS is untrue then these events will not come to pass but if all that has been said on /. is true when the average user is perceiving the restrictions on their own PC then their will be a call for change.

    BTW, I am a Linux supporter.
  • by suso (153703) * on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:12PM (#16417145) Homepage Journal
    Maybe you don't, but what if I want/need to:

    - Play games (Tux Racer doesn't count)
    - Use Photoshop (don't say Gimp)
    - Use 3D Studio Max (yes, there are some alternatives, but 3ds Max is an industry standard)
    - Etc


    What's funny is that you are obviously tired of hearing people respond with what software replaces Photoshop or Half Life 2, but I'm tired of hearing comments like yours, from people who haven't been paying attention to the Linux software world while its has been catching up over the past couple years. When it comes down to it all:

    *Doom 3, UT2004 and other games come with Linux support (UT2004 came with it out of the box)
    *Gimp has color management support out of the box
    *Blender kicks ass and is no harder to learn that 3D Studio Max (Screw industry standards, isn't "the troubles of being locked in" what this article is about)

    So I think nmb3000 and all the others like them can eat crow. Linux kicks ass. If you doubt it, keep the suggestions coming and OSS programers will keep track of them and fix those problems in a year or two and we can have the same argument again.

    BTW, at work we bought 4 Dell 37" LCD TVs for a monitoring display. The Windows installation that came on the Dell PC that we bought with them had trouble recognizing the resolution for the TV. Linux OUT OF THE BOX did slightly better and at least gave me some higher resolution options than Windows did OUT OF THE BOX!
  • by graymocker (753063) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:18PM (#16417195)
    MS can abuse gamers as much as they want because gamers are the very definition of a captured demographic.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:18PM (#16417201)

    Fortunately for MS, they can't practically enforce most of these restrictions.

    They can when you have a TPM in your machine... which most people getting new PC will have.

  • by LordEd (840443) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:27PM (#16417299)
    When I added ram, I had to reactivate. When I switched video cards, I had to reactivate
    That's strange because I've done both to my existing system since its initial install (replaced onboard with a pci-e radeon card) and upgraded from 512 to 1024, and I didn't have a reactivation request at either step.

    I can understand a reactivation with a motherboard swap, but not with a RAM upgrade.
  • by UnrefinedLayman (185512) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:28PM (#16417313)
    You said:
    just because they grant a right to some versions doesn't mean you don't have that right when it isn't explicitly granted
    But this is not correct. If you take the time to read the EULA, you'll see the section:
    SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement.
    If the EULA doesn't say you can do something, then the EULA says you can't do it.
  • by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:31PM (#16417341)
    It sure would be nice to get someone from MS to talk to. Someone who isn't going to sputter out marketing hype and techno babble. No, just geek to geek. I would have some down to earth questions to ask instead of listening to the echo chamber. I would ask some questions I haven't yet seen on this story in addition to some that people here are asking. Honest questions wanting some honest answers.

    My questions would go something like this:

    Microsoft, I think you got a pretty good OS and I know that you know you have one too, so let's cut the hype here and talk like normal (geek) folks instead of marketers. Now, your EULA obviously makes sense from your standpoint, but there a few of us out here scratching our heads. For example, some of us build our own machines and like to upgrade our parts fairly often. Now, when we purchase your OS, we expect that license to go with us as we make our 'rigs better. However, as I understand your license, we can install Vista and only really do one upgrade before our license goes up in smoke. From our viewpoint that really doesn't seem fair to have to spend an additional $300+ for the OS for doing something simple like upgrading a $150 motherboard, or adding an additional $100 of RAM. What options are there out there for those of us who would like to have Vista, but not substantially increase the cost of upgrading hardware? Is our market segment too small for you to worry about?

    Some of us are developers and need a low cost solution to test our software against. As I understand the EULA, I won't be able to install Vista on a VM unless I buy one of the more pricier versions. I really feel like I've been painted into a corner here because buying a lesser version meets my needs as far development is concerned, but your EULA doesn't allow that. Did you take us into consideration when creating the EULA, and will any cheaper solutions exist for developing on your platform?

    Etc, etc. Cmdr Taco, can you set something up??? Or are the Microsofties as repulsed by /. as Bill Clinton is to Bill O'Rielly?
  • by Fantasio (800086) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @09:39PM (#16417435)
    Virtualization is currently the biggest threat to Windows and at the same time Microsoft cannot afford to alienate (too much) its corporate users. They know they cannot forbid corporate users (nominal buyers of Vista Business edition) from using virtual machines, they may have plenty of technical justifications for doing it.

    The dangers of virtualization come from the home users, because it enables them to switch easily to Linux. Some time ago Microsoft tried to prevent double-booting for that reason. Now, with virtualization it's even much easier to work with the two OS. Too many home users currently stay with Windows because of the games, or because it's too much work to rebuild a personal environment.

    The threat for the Windows quasi-monopoly is the Linux box with a few Windows virtual machines for the games and legacy software, and this threat comes from the home users, not from the corporate side.

    The second threat is that a VM is essentially a throw away environment, a characteristic which is bad for the Microsoft business. For example, they cannot force users to keep WGA: so difficult to eradicate from a real machine, so easy to eliminate on a VM. With VM machines it's also very difficult to track usage and personal info.

  • by sleeper0 (319432) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @10:05PM (#16417731)
    Hehe, ok.

    Since I've already once, I'll let you read it this time.

    Where in the EULA does it specifically allow me to create an ISO image of a CD containing photgraphs I have taken and copy it onto my hard drive? If this is not expressly permitted by the EULA, does this mean you believe it's forbidden? Do you think Microsoft would tell you it was forbidden to this if they were asked? If not, where is the language written that applies to my photographs and not my legal backup? If thats not there, then where is the language explicitly forbidding the legal backup to be stored on my hard drive? If you can't find any of those, well then, you've got your answer.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 12, 2006 @10:19PM (#16417851)
    Generally I'd avoid feeing the trolls, but in this case... preach on brothah!

    Another fatism that irks me... fat asses with handicapped parking passes, so that they can park CLOSER to their destination. Hello, fat ass... park at the FAR end of the parking lot and WALK YOUR FAT ASS across the parking lot.

  • by Martin Blank (154261) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @10:28PM (#16417961) Journal
    And an interface that requires varying amounts of getting used to, especially if you're already coming from an Adobe/Macromedia background.

    I don't come from an Adobe background, and I found that The GIMP was not just counterintuitive. It was downright infuriating. Nothing made any sense for me except for basic file operations. The next day, I went to one of the graphics guys at work to look at Photoshop, and it was beautifully easy to get the basic things that I wanted. Eventually I found GIMPshop, which helped, but it took a long time from my initial experience to lose the grudge of a horribly broken interface. The basic functionality of any program should be clear to a new user, even if it takes time to master those functions.
  • by 26reverse (305980) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @10:52PM (#16418213)
    My big argument against getting a Mac has always been about hardware. With PCs, I knew I could switch video cards, network cards, sound cards, etc whenever I wanted. But Mac always had a (perceived) hardware lock in. (I'm certain that's not strictly the case, anymore... but it always felt that way).

    When I found myself in the market for a laptop, I seriously considered the PowerBook/MacBooks - since laptop hardware tends to be locked down anyway. (if it weren't for the heat issues, I would've gone that route, too.)

    But this? This was the last excuse I had for my desktop PC. Heck, this case has changed it's innards so often, I've had to change its host name TWICE (just for kicks, really... but I realized, twice, that the insides had been completely reworked, and it warranted a name change). With Vista locking you down, there's no reason to swap hardware. If there's no reason to swap hardware, why not just buy the Mac instead?

    Besides - didn't WinXP have similar rules initially about swapping things around? Didn't most people buy a legitimate version of XP and then "borrow" their corporate license... it's ethically legit. I own a copy. I don't want the damn hassle of constantly "calling home" to say that "yes it's legit". I understand a need to protect their property (or whatever they deem as "their property"). But treating everyone like a criminal right off the bat. Ignore the little man. Ignore the hobbiest. And they were trying to NOT make it look like they were a bunch of heartless, greedy, corporate suits...
  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @11:01PM (#16418289)
    Most people expect a new version of an operating system to have more features, not less.

    Most people won't give a damn about the restrictions in Vista that obsesss the Geek.

    They don't change motherboards every alternate Tuesday. They have no interest in maintaining multiple operating systems. They will never reach the limits on home networking.

  • by Cameron McCormack (690882) on Thursday October 12, 2006 @11:39PM (#16418613) Homepage
    Tell that to the Gnome people. :/
  • Re:Off Topic (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Cramit (609487) <CMSpooner@@@gmail...com> on Friday October 13, 2006 @12:27AM (#16418983)
    Closing the Lid to put the Laptop to sleep is present in all modern Mac Laptops. There is two reasons as far as I know. 1) Closing the lid and grabbing the laptop is a very natural action. It helps preserve battery life. 2) Having the lid open helps the laptop dissipate heat; heat that trapped might damage the screen.
  • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Friday October 13, 2006 @01:59AM (#16419539)
    the first thing I did when it was done was image the hard drive to a network store. For the record, XP Home SP1 takes at least 6 reboots to patch, plus hundreds of MB of downloads, plus hours of installation time. Add in a goodly amount of applications and it's the better part of a day

    1) There is NOTHING in the EULA that prevents you from doing this. Microsoft's OWN ONECARE application does this even.

    2) Transferring to a device, means you can't install Vista Home on another machine, and if you do INSTALL it there, that machine becomes the LICENSED copy machine - you know how ALL OTHER SOFTWARE LICENSES WORK.) It says NOTHING about backups or Images of your system...

    3) These are ONLY ridiculous if you are stupid enough to belive the FUD and not take the time to read the license yourself which says NOTHING about preventing users from doing things like this.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13, 2006 @02:09AM (#16419585)
    You prefer totally unencrypted VNC to 128 bit SSL encrypted RDP? Or is there some other thing I'm not aware of? PCAnywhere's not much better than VNC, with its 40 bit symmetric encryption...
  • by Alpha232 (922118) on Friday October 13, 2006 @02:27AM (#16419681)
    I don't see that it is mentioned anywhere if this is the OEM License or the Retail License. With prior OEM Licenses, we could not install that copy/key onto another machine because they were effectivly sold as wholesale blocks intended for that machine only. If this is the Retail License then there will be severe backlash, but if this is about an OEM License, then it is better for the end user.
  • by UnrefinedLayman (185512) on Friday October 13, 2006 @02:39AM (#16419761)
    It's not about what I believe, it's not about what I think. You made a factually incorrect statement while bitching about the EULA, I corrected you. If you've already read it once then I'm not sure how you missed the clearly typed information that contradicted you. It's in the GP if you'd like to see it.

    You keep making that error, too, because you asked me "do you believe it's forbidden?" What part of "you may use the software only as expressly permitted" is unclear? Or "Microsoft reserves all other rights?" It's an EULA; it's legalese. This is what lawyers use to cover their asses in court. The answer to your question, which is printed in the EULA, is as clear and encompassing as it gets.

    Seriously, who modded this guy insightful? He read the EULA, decided its most clear passages on what rights are permitted and denied magically does not apply to him. It's not insightful for someone to say "Thanks for the teacup!" when you've handed them a 2x4.

    I didn't say that the EULA made any sense, at all, or that it was enforceable, or that Microsoft would ever necessarily enforce any of the terms of the agreement. I did not say I agree with it. I did not do anything except show you how your argument, based as it was, did not hold up to scrutiny
  • by klaiber (117439) on Friday October 13, 2006 @02:43AM (#16419783)
    So I cannot run Vista in the Parallels virtual environment on my Intel Mac; I have to use dual-boot? How inconvenient! Is that to make sure that users don't defect to Apple too quickly? Because I have to tell you, it's nice to run in Mac OS X all the time, and just fire up a virtual machine for the occasional Windows-only app. Rebooting is a heck more tedious.

    Of course, I suspect that Microsoft's real reason for this is to make sure that enterprises cannot get the benefit of virtualization without paying Microsoft an extra fee (by buying the unencumbered version).

  • Re:Two words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LKM (227954) on Friday October 13, 2006 @02:45AM (#16419795) Homepage

    I'm a Mac user. I read these articles because

    1. I'm generally interested in what's going on with computers. I'm interested in news about Microsoft's OS as well as about Linux or the Mac, even though I mainly use a Mac.
    2. People tend to ask me for help when something goes wrong with their computers, so it's good to know some things about Windows, too.
    3. At work, I sometimes have to use Windows, whether it's to test some HTML in IE6, or to test some Java application in a Windows environment

    I tend to chime in during these conversations to remind people that most of the time, they don't have to run Windows. There are alternatives.

  • by Myria (562655) on Friday October 13, 2006 @03:45AM (#16420125)
    You may install unsigned kernel drivers, but your Video Path no longer counts as Protected and you may not play DRM'd disks.


    You may not install unsigned kernel drivers on Vista 64.

    Vista is not "full" or "riddled" with DRM.


    Vista has the ability to mark a process as "protected". Such processes cannot be tampered with by anything, regardless of privilege level. The only right granted to administrators to such processes are "terminate" and "set priority". The kernel, in ci.dll ("Code Integrity"), continuously hashes the code pages of all such protected user processes. If any page changes, the kernel immediately bugchecks. This mechanism is severely obfuscated so as to make it difficult to work around. The mechanism has absolutely no value to preventing malware; in fact, it gives an opportunity for malware to hide if they can get around the digital signature requirements.

    If this isn't DRM, what is?

    Melissa
  • Re:Two words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bert64 (520050) <bert@noSPAM.slashdot.firenzee.com> on Friday October 13, 2006 @04:32AM (#16420407) Homepage
    Just look at all the wasted time and effort involved in trying to enforce licensing restrictions...
    The cheaper versions actually cost MORE to produce, because of all the effort that went in to restricting them.
    And you just know, a cracked version will be out very quickly and all the people who run pirate copies will just continue to do so.

    You don't get all this wasted effort with open source... The time spent writing licensing enforcement can instead be spent improving the product, and similarly the time spent by third parties cracking these restrictions could also be spent improving the product itself.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kestasjk (933987) on Friday October 13, 2006 @05:08AM (#16420597) Homepage
    I'm not even going to address whether the EULA FUD is true, others have done that elsewhere.

    1). If you can only back up your compressed music FROM YORU OWN CDs two times, what will you do after that? You'll probably rip it again. And again and so on as long as you need. Which means you're wasting and paying for electricity that you shouldn't need several times over. Perhaps in the end it only costs each user $5 of electricity to re-rip their entire CD collection. But considering all the MS users, that's a lot of wasted electricity, and a lot of extra pollution.
    CD players need to read the CD every time, where's the environmental outcry about that?

    2). Two Hardware upgrades: Most people will say "fuck that" and go buy a new computer. What will they do with the old one? Toss it away into their dumpster. The computer will end up in some dump seeping nasty chemicals into the ground. They'll buy a new computer (more environementally harmful chemicals used to make the plastic, RAM, and especially CPU) and be happy for another two upgrades, after which they'll go buy another computer etc etc.
    If this were true maybe it would discourage people from buying upgrades, and less harmful chemicals would need to be used.

    3). If businesses pay more, that'll be less money they can pay their workers, which means there's less income distribution. More and more $$$ goes to MS [needlessly] and sits in the hands a few elite managers.
    If a company actually fires workers so they can buy Windows you have to wonder how useful those workers were.

    If this wasn't modded Insightful I'd swear it was a joke..
  • Re:Two words... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pdbaby (609052) on Friday October 13, 2006 @05:16AM (#16420649)
    You don't get all this wasted effort with open source... The time spent writing licensing enforcement can instead be spent improving the product, and similarly the time spent by third parties cracking these restrictions could also be spent improving the product itself.

    Certainly not. In open source software I just get 10 different apps to control the bloody volume levels of my soundcard :P Not the same, but everybody wastes a load of effort somewhere, I guess

  • by Pecisk (688001) on Friday October 13, 2006 @05:23AM (#16420689)
    It is interesting that GIMP has stired real love/hate theme every time it has been discussed. For me, it is contrary - I love GIMP shortcuts, I love it's seperated windows, I dig it all functions... I know lot of simple users who use it without any problem. Yes, I like GIMP and see NOTHING wrong with it.

    It is quite interesting also that mentioning GIMP as "easy to use" it somehow asking for flame war in sorta Photoshop versus GIMP, as this thread shows. Photoshop guys or simply someone who thinks that app should tell user how to work in five mins (every teacher in secondary school would play down such attitude, but hell, computers must be different, right?), won't even try, because they are confused how this could work.

    But it works. I have worked with whole Adobe suite bunch, GIMP, Inkscape, lot of other commericial apps for working with pictures and graphics and I can say that GIMP interface is something unique and clever in this field. Sure, it has some rather important flaws, but they are not seen at first moment.

    HOWEVER, I am not saying that those who dislike GIMP, are wrong. Simply generalising this is not right thing to do, because people has different tastes, way to learn and way to do things on computer.
  • Re:Two words... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tony Hoyle (11698) <tmh@nodomain.org> on Friday October 13, 2006 @06:30AM (#16420985) Homepage
    So when a customer reports a bug that shows up only on Vista Home I'm supposed to do *what* excatly.

    Tell them to get lost because microsoft won't let us setup a VM to test their fault?

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

Working...