Vista to Allow "One Significant" Hardware Upgrade

fiorenza writes "Ars Technica spoke with Microsoft concerning the controversial changes in Windows Vista's licensing, and they have learned that Vista will permit one 'significant' hardware change before requiring users to either appeal to Microsoft support or purchase another license. Automatic re-activation online will fail after one use. Microsoft is using a new algorithm to monitor hardware changes and enforce licensing compliance, and the company says that it is more forgiving now than it was with Windows XP."

Re:So basically

[Anonymous Coward]

"for all intents and purposes"

Not exactly news

[Sassinak]

This is really funny but not really news knowing MS.

See this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_ vista_eula_analysis/ [theregister.co.uk]

and this: http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/10/24/045 6/5625 [gripe2ed.com]

and this: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158 [zdnet.com]

MS is doing their best to kill Vista when/where they can. I wonder if they have OS/2'itis.

My Windows activation experience

[rehtonAesoohC]

I purchased one copy of Windows XP Professional a long time ago, and since then I have installed it on at least 5 machines of mine or family.

I did upgrade my computer at one point, and the activation failed, so I called Windows support. I was quickly connected to some outsourced support technician who asked me the CD key of my XP CD, as well as the serial number and release (I think?) number. After giving him this info, he gave me a new CD key, which I assumed to be one shot only, like the previous one I had.

I have since learned that this is apparently a get-out-of-jail-free CD key, because I am able to install the same CD onto any machine with any hardware configuration and always pass Windows activation. And if Vista will be more lenient than XP was, then heck, I'm more than happy!

Re:Virtualization

[brunascle]

yeah, they thought of that too...

as it says in the EULA [theregister.co.uk], you cant use the Home or Premium versions with virtualization. only the $400 Ultimate version. but, apparently, there's no technical restrictions keeping you from doing it, just legal.

Not to mention

[dptalia]

requiring all benchmarking to follow Microsoft's rules [theregister.com]. And not allowing virtualization for it's home versions.

Re:no one really knows

[LordKronos]

Here's an example of how it worked in XP:

"User swaps the motherboard and CPU chip for an upgraded one, swaps the video adapter, adds a second hard drive for additional storage, doubles the amount of RAM, and swaps the CD ROM drive for a faster one.

Result: Reactivation is NOT required."

And here is another example of how it worked (or rather, didn't work) in XP:

Upgraded from a direct connected single hard drive to a RAID card and 2 drive mirrored array.

Result: had to waste time on the phone with Microsoft getting a new key to install again. The previous key had only ever been used 1 time.

Re:Long Live Windows 2000, I guess

[couchslug]

That Win2K disk is also good for data recovery.
Just install on top of your borked XP system without reformatting. :)
I have all the live CD alternatives, but if you only have a Win2K disk you can still save your stuff.

Re:Cars

[kfg]

You do not have a license on your car; although there are many involved. The manufacturer has and retains all relevant licenses. You acquire none. If you copy intellectual property embodied in the car without obtaining a license from the rights holder you will be in violation of the law.

What you have on your car is a title.

KFG

No Biggie

[Toreo asesino]

I think i've re-activated my copy of XP about 5 times already - mostly because of new hardware. You call a free-phone number and they just ask you "how many computers have you installed it on?". If you're dumb enough to not say anything over 3, they'll give you a new key.

It's not like the big Billy G has tapped into the line with a lie detector ready to call in a SWAT team or anything. Well, if he was, it was very convincing - anything's possible I suppose.

Re:So basically

[plover]

MS is looking to hurt the pc enthusiasts who ... helped them create such a vast "empire"?

Sorry to disappoint, but the hobbyists are now decades removed from the empire builders. The hobbyists' desires no longer add value to the PC. The true empire builders are now the businesses who order 10,000 Dell PCs and the 10,000 Windows licenses to go with them. If you want to have an impact on the future direction of Windows, go work for one of the Fortune 500 companies and bend the ear of one of the resident Microsoft reps. Like any business, they only listen when it's money talking.

By the way, Microsoft loves the big orders. They make boatloads of money with no expense. The nice thing about business customers is those 10,000 people already have their own support structure, and only a handful of headquarters people are authorized to call MS and bitch about problems. Microsoft can afford to spend a bit of money helping them, (making them look like they have gold-plated service,) and yet doesn't have to answer to the 9,995 idiots who would otherwise be punching the f'ing monkey and installing spyware.

Re:Virtualization

[dgatwood]

If you do the virtualization correctly, it should be impossible for the host OS to know that it is running inside a VM. As far as Windows is concerned, it is running directly on top of hardware. The fact that the hardware in question does not actually exist in meatspace is merely a conceptual distinction, not a functional one.

Re:So basically

[Americano]

The PC enthusiasts may have helped Microsoft along, but let's be honest -- Microsoft's bread & butter today is businesses, the companies that buy copies of Office & Windows by the dozens, hundreds, or thousands, not the guy with three computers in his basement who enjoys tinkering. As somebody pointed out already, the enthusiasts are probably already using something other than Windows.

For a business, given that most large businesses with a rolling upgrade/replacement plan, they will buy a PC, run it on someone's desktop for about 3 - 5 years unchanged, and then decommission it, this "1 major upgrade" is overkill. The enthusiasts still running MSFT products due to gaming may be a vocal minority, but:

1. This policy is *more* lenient than the current XP policy.
2. It's not that hard to get it reactivated.

I don't see this hurting that many people, or giving rise to any "more" of a gray market than already exists.

This is a real non-issue

[kaoshin]

For Windows XP (pre SP1) a "significant hardware" change required an immediate reactivation. With the introduction of SP1, it stayed the same, except you were given a 3 day grace period to activate. Changes made to GPU, NIC, RAM, CPU, IDE, SCSI, HDD, or CD/DVD would result in a change in the hardware hash that is submitted to Microsoft, but only on the home edition of windows or on a professional edition that does not have a corporate volume license key. The corporate license for XP is not affected by hardware changes at all.
Allowing one significant change for anyone is in fact more lenient than they were previously, as long as they continue to allow unlimited hardware changes for corporate users. For them to do otherwise would be crazy.

"The change of a single component multiple times (e.g. from video adapter A to video adapter B to video adapter C) is treated as a single change." - Microsoft [microsoft.com]

As long as the above still holds true, you could update your video card multiple times and it would still only register as that one significant change. If however, you also upgraded your soundcard it would register as a second change and would require reactivation.

"Approximately 2 percent of activation requests are due to hardware changes or other reactivations." - Microsoft [microsoft.com]

I'd wager that most people who are the kind of folks to upgrade their hardware also have corporate licensed editions of windows or are smart enough to know how to reload XP Pro or at least smart enough to pick up a phone and call Microsoft.

Re:Virtualization

[Sancho]

If you actually read the relevant portion of the Vista license instead of listening to all of the anti-Microsoft rhetoric, you'll find that the wording is such that you can run Vista in virtualization--as long as you aren't using the same copy of Vista as both host and guest. This is a departure from XPs license, which did not differentiate, and thus allowed you to run the same copy of XP on as many VMs as you wanted, so long as they were all on the same physical machine (lots of people considered this to be a loophole--looks like Microsoft did, too).

Tagging for this story

[Necroman]

Anyone else notice the tags that are on this story?

assholes, vista, microsoft, windows, drm (tagging beta)

.... Oh Slashdot, I <3 you.

Re:New Hardware Found.....

[SkaOMatic]

Parent (NerveGas) says:

Yep. Just because we didn't need to authenticate users, the machine keeps shutting itself off. Isn't that user-friendly?

It's common knowledge that 2003 Small Business edition requires being promo'd to Primary Domain Controller. It's in the License Agreement. It's been in dozens of bulletins and technet articles and the like. It's in the FAQ for the product.

That specific version of 2003 is a price-break deal for small businesses. It includes editions of Exchange and SQL tailored to the needs of these entities. The price break comes with a few limitations, and the DC requirement to ensure the discounted license isn't abused.

You saved money by installing this lesser version. You can't expect its full feature set. Don't like it? Scrap your system and go Linux.