Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Vista to Allow "One Significant" Hardware Upgrade 641

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista to Allow "One Significant" Hardware Upgrade

Comments Filter:
  • So basically (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kennedy ( 18142 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:27PM (#16647509) Homepage
    MS is looking to hurt the pc enthusiasts who for all intensive purposes helped them create such a vast "empire"?

    aside from the various "grey" hacks and cracks that *WILL* come out of this - this is a very poor choice for MS imo.
  • by ByTor-2112 ( 313205 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:28PM (#16647539)
    When, oh when, will we be able to use what we paid for for what we want, within the limits of the law, without asking permission. Sheesh.
  • Of course... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by oberondarksoul ( 723118 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:29PM (#16647553) Homepage
    that all depends on how they choose to define 'significant'. Gamers who regularly upgrade their box are going to be unhappy at any rate; if a video card is considered 'significant', I can see storm clouds blowing. Of course, Microsoft won't care - they've got their money, and with the example of Halo 2, they can count on those purchases of Vista as given for the hardcore.
  • Cars (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nillawafer ( 1018564 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:29PM (#16647571)
    Anybody hear about the new cars? You buy them and you can only add one new component. After that, you've got to buy another one. Also, have you heard about the houses you can buy? You can only renovate them or add on to them one time. What?!? Doesn't make sense? That's because when you buy something you should be able to do what you want with it. The license is yours. When I buy a new car, I transfer my license the the new car. The license is mine.
  • I'm poor man (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Joebert ( 946227 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:30PM (#16647593) Homepage
    So does this mean I can't buy a 5 gig stick of ram now & another one later instead of a single 10 gig stick ?

    Man, it sucks being poor.
  • by hotrodman ( 472382 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:31PM (#16647615)

        As a small-business owner who spends all day just configuring/fixing/testing/developing/working, I can tell you right now.....This would pound the last nail into the coffin for using MS products for me. MS obviously doesn't care about people that have to make things WORK and have little time to do so. After I have spend a few hundred hours tweaking a mail server that will have to deliver 100,000 messages per day, or a web farm that has to work FLAWLESSLY and serve hundreds of millions of hits per month, this one thing that I would not want to have to deal with, especially when I have to add/change a network interface to accomodate a SAN development or some other change where we don't have time to worry about such nonsensical shit as "Will the OS allow us to do this"

      Screw that. My shop will stay Linux anyway, but that is just BS!
      - Eric
  • by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:31PM (#16647629) Homepage
    "... the company says that it is more forgiving now than it was with Windows XP."

    It's uncomfortable to be in the situation that when I want to upgrade my computer, I need to be "forgiven".

    --
    The best of the Bush comedy videos [futurepower.org]
  • ...if it wasn't for the fact that WINDOWS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO INSTALL NEW HARDWARE IN ONE TRY.

    The biggest benefit of a PC over buying something like a Mac was specifically upgrades. The ability to purchase a new video card for a relatively low price when games start requiring more than you can handle, etc. So effectively, this makes the PC lose its greatest benefit. That's absolutely ridiculous.

    Fuck you, Microsoft. Some of the other stuff that was new in their license kinda bothered me a bit, but it didn't really affect me much. But I'm a casual gamer, and this makes it impossible.
  • by CheeseburgerBrown ( 553703 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:34PM (#16647687) Homepage Journal
    This is nail number 128 in the coffin lid of the Universal Computing Device. Welcome to the machine.

    We will tell you when and where you may apply your licensed software. Do not try to trick us, because we will know. This hurts us more than it hurts you. It's for your own good. This is the only way we can protect our ability to deliver robust, secure software on-time and on-demand.

    ...Um. Scratch that.

    Thank you Linus. I mean, seriously. Thank you. Whose chaps would we be sucking if it weren't for you?

  • by loimprevisto ( 910035 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:37PM (#16647759)
    When, oh when, will we be able to use what we paid for for what we want, within the limits of the law, without asking permission. Sheesh.
    When you switch to Linux, of course.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:39PM (#16647805)
    When we stop buying products that limit the ways in which we can use them.
  • by Shados ( 741919 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:40PM (#16647827)
    I didnt read the article, but the little bits above says that the algorythm is more forgiving than XP. in XP you can change almost everything and it doesn't notice... You think changing your videocard will trigger anything in Vista?
  • by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:44PM (#16647931)
    You can get what you paid for. You paid for a license.

    I never understood the idea of selling software, until I realized that software is never sold. For Microsoft, selling software would make no sense, because they couldn't really tell you not to decompile it, as long as you weren't breaking patent or copyright laws. Naturally, Microsoft doesn't want this to happen, since it would allow people to figure out their various proprietary protocols and formats [and then write a description and have somebody else implement...], as well as turn a "home edition" into a thousand-user server.

  • windows activation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pompatus ( 642396 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:46PM (#16647955) Journal
    Windows activation is a joke anyway. You can keep using the same cdkey, you just have to call their 800 number. It's been awhile since I've done it, but they ask you a stupid question like "is this copy of windows installed on any other computers". I think once they asked me why I was reinstalling and I stated "reformat because of a virus". Let them argue that. If they complain you've called too much complain that their OS is too virus prone and keeps making you reformat. I don't know which is easier to do, get the anti-activation crack or call the 800 number.
  • by linguae ( 763922 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:47PM (#16647973)

    It looks like forced activation and DRM is the wave of the future. MS gained their monopoly by creating an operating system (DOS and Windows up and including 2000) that can be ran on any old PC. MS used to not care about charging you for another license of Windows when you upgraded your PC multiple times; they figured that it was great that you were using Windows instead of OS/2, NEXTSTEP, DR-DOS, or the other alternatives at the time. Since they gained 95% market share, they repay you by implementing restrictive activation schemes that get worse with each release of Windows.

    I say, no thanks. Me and thousands of other people will still hold on to our Windows 2000 disks. Even though I don't use Windows anymore (too bad Boot Camp for Mac doesn't support Windows 2000), I know plenty of people who haven't gone to XP because of this. Activation negatively inconviences (and sometimes even locks out) those who legally buy their software (no activation scheme is perfect); those who illegally obtain their software can just download a cracked version or a corporate version of it. I don't want treated as a pirate as a customer. But that is how MS wants to treat us. Oh well. I'm not buying any new versions of Windows or Office for this Mac; I'm sticking to Windows 2000 and Office 2000.

    Viva Windows 2000!

  • by The Creator ( 4611 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:47PM (#16647979) Homepage Journal
    Before Microsoft has spent more money supporting a licenced customer than thay gained from the sale?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30, 2006 @04:55PM (#16648123)
    If you're serious about changing, there's really little reason to wait that long. But I suspect you're like the posters who say "If the Republicans get voted in again, I'm moving to Canada... and this time I really will!"
  • Re:Cars (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmorris42 ( 1458 ) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:02PM (#16648237)
    > Also, have you heard about the houses you can buy? You can only renovate them or add on to them one time.
    > What?!? Doesn't make sense? That's because when you buy something you should be able to do what you want with it.

    Sorry dude, the infection has already spread. Go buy a house, cash money. Think you own it? Only if you bought a chunk of land in a very red state far away from any town.... of course most places like that are subject to being declared a wetland, wildlife preserve or national park with no prior warning.

    That house you think you bought was probably built by a developer in a major development project. They retained first dibs on it, selling you limited 'rights'. And if you will notice you agreed to annual fees to a 'homeowners association' that can and will tell you exactly what sort of renovations you can and can't do, what vehicles you can park, etc. Many even regulate against you erecting a TV antenna.

    And if that isn't enough, if your home is inside a city you may only use it for non-commercial purposes. And regardless of whether you live in a city/town, don't forget you get the 'right' to pay and pay property taxes to find any and all crazy schemes the government can invent.

    So yes, shrink wrap EULAs are horrible, but only because you can't see em until you pay, but we already bent over and surrendered the idea of property rights a century ago.
  • Re:So basically (Score:2, Insightful)

    by justinlindh ( 1016121 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:05PM (#16648297)
    Intents and purposes. I sincerely doubt you meant to say intensive purposes.

    I've had to re-activate Windows XP several times, as I've been known to tinker with the hardware quite a bit. It takes about 10 minutes to call their support center, tell a support rep an ID, and have them open the key up for re-registration. A small pain? Sure. A reason for anti-MS zealots to bicker? Absolutely. A serious show stopper? Not even close.

    Like it or not, this is GOOD news as the new key authentication is more lax than XP. Might not be as open as you'd all like, but it's an improvement.

  • by agentcdog ( 885108 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:06PM (#16648339)
    Hardware junkies like to tinker... that's why they've always used PCs instead of macs. Now they're switching to linux so they can tinker with the OS too. I don't know any hardware junkies that would drool over a mac. Mac users like things to "just work". That is not what hardware junkies want.
  • by newt0311 ( 973957 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:11PM (#16648417)
    no kidding. MS is now starting to behave as if they own your computer. What I find really interesting is that this helps linux a lot. right now, the biggest problem with Linux adoption (IMHO) is the application barrier to entry, ie. the lack of availability of games and other professional software. Interestingly enough, it is precisely the people who use such software who are also inclined to upgrade their hardware. so, MS is alieanating one of the most locked in segments in the entire market. This could be interesting. Maybe graphics card support for Linux will improve thanks to this (hope so. it is a pain not having DRI right now).
  • by ettlz ( 639203 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:12PM (#16648431) Journal
    Thank you Linus. I mean, seriously. Thank you. Whose chaps would we be sucking if it weren't for you?
    • Richard Stallman (GNU)
    • Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD)
    • Jordan Hubbard (FreeBSD)
    • Matt Dillon (DragonFlyBSD)
    • The Regents of the University of California
  • Re:Virtualization (Score:4, Insightful)

    by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:12PM (#16648437)
    Actually, I formulated a theory that the reason Microsoft included the "no VM" clause was to slow the spread of Linux. An acquaintance of mine recently asked for help with getting Office to work on his Linux machine (OOo wasn't rendering some old but important documents properly). After several attempts with wine, we finally used win4lin, which is just QEMU in a nicer shell. He has a valid XP license, and that worked just fine for him. This type of thing would be illegal in Vista.

    Of course, Microsoft is pushing hard. Soon, they will push too hard, and mass migration away from them wills start to occur (I know, I know, this has been said since 1992...).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30, 2006 @05:42PM (#16649009)
    How does switching to a mac help in this scenario? When was the last time you put together a Mac from parts and bought an OEM copy of OS X to install on it?
  • by Ant P. ( 974313 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @06:07PM (#16649461)
    Now imagine that DRMed OS gets laughed into obscurity and nonexistence.
  • by pugh ( 631207 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @06:13PM (#16649581)
    You should be more pissed off at your phone guy than Microsoft. Small Business Server 2003 is a package that's intended to be used in a certain way. It's considerably cheaper to buy everything included this way than to buy all of the parts separately, but it's subject to significant restrictions as to how you can use it. That's the deal. Shouldn't your phone guy have looked into that when he bought it on your behalf? I'm no Microsoft apologist but that's the way they choose to sell it and they are entitled to do that. If you don't want to agree to their terms, use something else.
  • Hasta La Vista MS (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 30, 2006 @06:13PM (#16649587)
    Normally I don't post on Slashdot's MS threads because of the anti-MS tendencies and flame-fests which erupt, but there is some serious gravity for MS users here.

    I play at least one hour of PC games daily. Because the majority of games I play are written specifically for Windows, I've used 3.11, 95, and XP exclusively at home for the past 10 years. In that time, I have never, repeat, never had a configuration of PC components (hard drives, motherboard, processor, memory) stay the same for the life cycle of a Windows release.

    Redmond cannot match the hardware manufacturer's ability to innovate and get a product to market quickly, either because of their organization's nature or the nature of the O/S software business. Yet, according to their PR, they will seek to bind their users to their slow inception to release cycle and penalize their licensees with extra costs should they seek to exploit any new hardware innovations.

    For the past 20 years, the MS PC's advantage over other architectures has been the ability to upgrade hardware peicemeal. If MicroSoft abolishes this, I see no reason why not to consider a Mac as my next computer. I'll just build/purchase a NAS running on Linux to avoid Apple's uncompetitive storage costs, switch to console gaming (Sony or Nintendo) and not look back. Yes, I would love to switch to LINUX as my main O/S, but it doesn't support communicating with my DSLR and getting its RAW formatted images. Plus, I'm hooked to the Adobe Photoshop workflow for better or worse.

    It seems to me that Redmond is committed to making their O/S the worst choice for enthusiasts and custom machine builders. This is not a wise move, as we are the first contact for friends/family/business colleagues who look to our opinions for all things computers. DRM (although Apple suffers from this too), activation, broken security... it's all added up to me definitely not purchasing Vista even for DirectX 10 support. But this is the last nail in the coffin, now I couldn't even possibly consider purchasing Vista only to have to turn right around and purchase another license when I upgrade my video card.

    The more you tighten your licenses MS, the more users will slip through your fingers.
  • by Extide ( 1002782 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @06:16PM (#16649639) Homepage
    MS isnt to blame here, it is your admin to blame. It is part of the EULA that SBS needs to be a DC. Throwing software on a server without even understanding things like that will get you in situations like that. It really doesnt matter who the vendor of the software here is.
  • by gameforge ( 965493 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @06:22PM (#16649727) Journal
    But you infer that he is alone in his decision.

    There are a lot of huge business who buy thousands of bulk licenses, and they are MS' favorite customers.

    But worldwide, there are probably millions of small businesses who are subject to the same decision; that will impact MS VERY significantly.

    This reminds me of a decade ago when people used AOL instead of local dial-up because "AOL has 8 million customers... your local ISP has about 2000... clearly, they're America's favorite choice" but neglect that adding up the many local dial-up ISPs everywhere constitutes tens of millions of customers.

    MS won't change their mind because this one guy is switching his little business to Linux. But when thousands of his competitors, parteners and peers do, they'll start thinking about it.

    I don't see why you can't tell Windows "Hey, I'm going to switch hardware now, please deactivate my old license on this (point to HD and folder) installation and switch it to this new hard drive/computer/set of hardware". If Windows phoned home periodically to check its authenticity, like it does when you update it, MS might have to upgrade their WGA servers & whatnot, but it would prevent all this aggrevation. If the deactivated license tries to update (or just phone home on schedule), it locks them out and directs them to MS support.

    I feel fucked because people pirate Windows all the time, get to play all their games & whatnot (the only reason I have Windows, plus a few full feature drivers that aren't there under Linux) and know how not to get screwed by malware, but I actually paid for it against my will because it was the right thing to do, and yet I'm worried sick about what happens if my HD dies, or I want to move my install to another disk or something. You can call them once or twice, but if you do it all the time, they get suspicious don't they? I don't want to be flagged as a (potential) pirate. I'm used to reinstalling Windows a couple of times a year (albeit less often with XP), and I'm fine with that.

    They sure aren't working very hard to come up with an adequate solution to their problem... I may not be their favorite customer, but I still paid like $150 for an OEM XP Pro, and I feel like what they're doing isn't ethical. That should be reason enough to find a better solution. Yeah I know, nothing's perfect and they don't have to.

    I salute MS with my long finger.
  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Monday October 30, 2006 @07:10PM (#16650453) Homepage Journal
    From now on, everyone who complains that editing Unix config files is too hard will be directed to this post. Thank you.
  • by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @07:46PM (#16650921) Homepage Journal
    "I am altering the deal...pray I don't alter it any further."

    Hmmm, that got mod'ed mostly as "Funny", yet when I read it, chills ran up and down my spine.

    I think there's rather more truth than not in the parent post. Remember, Microsoft owns that "copy of Windows" on that CD; you do not. Microsoft just lets you use it, for a fee. That's the deal, and they reserve the right to alter the deal at any point. That's what the EULA says, and the congress and the courts have largely agreed with them (or been paid to do so; it amounts to the same thing).

    Beware the Dark Side. Once you turn down that path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
  • Re:MOD PARENT UP. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Pharmboy ( 216950 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @09:24PM (#16651879) Journal
    The problem is the corporations, and the government that allows these things to go on.

    Sorry, gotta lay the blame squarely on myself for this one. I bought Microsoft products for many years. It won't happen again, I promise. Now that I have taken care of .000001% of the problem, it's your turn. Is it too inconvenient to not use Microsoft products? Then quit bitching. It is called capitalism, and you vote with your dollars. If you "elect" Microsoft, live with it.

    It is NOT the government's responsibility to insure I don't buy products from companies that have bad policies. It is mine. I don't need, nor want, the government to get involved whatsoever. Most governments tend to fuck up anything they get involved in.
  • by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Monday October 30, 2006 @10:22PM (#16652373) Journal
    You are a small business owner who maintains mail servers that deliver 100,000 messages per day? Hmmmm...

    I don't have to ask what kind of 'small business' you are in. It would be different if you, say, were admining boxes from businesses with, say, 10,000 employees delivering said 100,000 messages. It's plain what you are.
  • by Slyfoot ( 1020559 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @12:24AM (#16653335)
    This Slashdot headline caught my eye because it perfectly epitomizes why I've grown disgusted with Microsoft: "Vista to Allow 'One Significant' Hardware Upgrade" Now I'm not a Microsoft hater. I don't think Bill Gates is the Antichrist, and I don't think Linus Torvalds is the second coming of Ada Lovelace. But ever since Windows introduced their WPA in Windows XP, I have lost a lot of respect for the Redmond juggernaut. Recently I switched to Linux as my primary operating system, and except for the occassional old game on a DOS partition I'll be doing everything I need to do in Linux from now on. Heck, DOSBox runs just dandy on my distro. I've lost respect for Microsoft, but you know what I've gained with Linux? A powerful operating system, sure, but what I'm going for here is control. If I have two PCs, I don't have to feel the slightest twinge of guilt about slapping the same copy of Linux on both machines. I don't have to feel like a criminal by hunting down a WPA crack in the event that the Almighty M$ decides to stop supporting my operating system. I don't have to feel pressured into upgrading to a more expensive OS just because my operating system, which works perfectly fine, is now deemed "obsolete." And I don't have to worry whether that OS I downloaded via Bittorrent has been laced with viruses and trojans by malicious script kiddies. And I don't have to worry about any license except the GPL, nor any copyrights except the copylefts. I'm not gloating, and I'm not giving MS the finger. I'm just happy I jumped ship. I'm also happy to be the one who has the final say about what I can do with my operating system and my software. I can alter it, copy it, give it away, and download it all to my heart's content, with a clear conscience and a fatter wallet. How's that for a significant upgrade?
  • Acts of God? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Tuesday October 31, 2006 @12:28PM (#16659205)
    A year ago my PC got hosed by a lightning strike. I had to replace everything except the sound card.

    Under this act of God, beyond my control, M$ would have required me to call and beg for a new key.

    No thanks. It was overwhelming enough to purchase a tower, reinstall the OS and the apps, and recover from backups. And that was during a job hunt so the PC was critical to my career during a very stressful period. The last thing I needed is to deal with re-activating the OS.

    My upgrade path after W2K will be Mac. I have no desire to jump through activation hoops. Brilliant M$, you've just reduced your monopoly on the PC OS market...!

"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker

Working...