Vista license agreement is a joke

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

Garrot wrote:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

For Microsoft to enforce just these aspects of the Vista license,
it is going to need a pretty extensive database that can not only
identify the user of record as well as the computer system of record.
And it has to do so with sufficient redundancy to guarantee accuracy,
something that is woefully missing from the current method using WGA.

Just how does Microsoft intend to obtain this information, keep it
secure and not make a mockery of personal privacy?

Ghostrider wrote
Garrot wrote

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

For Microsoft to enforce just these aspects of the Vista license,
it is going to need a pretty extensive database that can not only
identify the user of record as well as the computer system of record.
And it has to do so with sufficient redundancy to guarantee accuracy,
something that is woefully missing from the current method using WGA.

Just how does Microsoft intend to obtain this information, keep it secure and not make a mockery
of personal privacy?

Its more likely they wont bother and will just attempt to do better
than they currently do and assume that thats better than doing nothing.

All they need to do is to make it hard to move the licensed copy to new
hardware more than once to encourage most to just buy another copy.

I paid a little more, but I own my copy of WinXP
Pro. It authorizes when I type in the proper number.
I'll be watching for that again, and avoid the license
that has to authorize online.

johns

"johns" wrote:


I paid a little more, but I own my copy of WinXP
Pro. It authorizes when I type in the proper number.
I'll be watching for that again, and avoid the license
that has to authorize online.

johns



Hackers will have published a patch before Vista is released.

There's no justification for struggling with a legal copy
of Windows.

Garrot wrote:


http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://


A Windows license is not an agreement, it's an edict.


Before Windows Product Activation, during the antitrust trial when
Bill Gates and company were doing a public relations campaign, this
is one of Bill Gates' anti-antitrust commercials (edited for
clarity).


"Twenty-five years ago, my friends and I started with nothing but
(rich lawyer parents and) an idea that we could harness the power of
the PC (operating system to leverage our applications)... Since
then, it's become a tool that has transformed our (personal) economy
and had a profound effect on how we (think we can do no wrong)...
Now our goal at Microsoft is to (mock justice and keep) the next
generation of (PC users dependent on us), to keep innovating and
improving (our methods for collecting money from all of you)... The
best (offer you can't refuse) is yet to come."


Besides just pirating Windows and so easily defeating Microsoft's
activation schemes, eventually the rest of the world will find a way
to wiggle out from under Microsoft altogether, and then the doo doo
will totally hit the fan here at home.

John Doe wrote:

Besides just pirating Windows and so easily defeating
Microsoft's activation schemes,

As much as I'd like to believe that, the way I see it is that any
organization or corporation with more than 15 employees is going to
keep their nose clean and buy Windows (instead of borrow it).
Ex-employees have a nasty habbit of going to the cops and telling them
that their former employer is running bootlegged or copied versions of
Windoze.

WPA has made it such that most home users and practically all corps
have no choice but to buy each and every installation of XP.

As for those of us who have figured out how to clone XP, or get our
hands on a valid license code, or out-right circumvent WPA, we're of
no consequence to MS.

eventually the rest of the world will find a way
to wiggle out from under Microsoft altogether

Not when MS continues to either buy, or squash, any or all competitive
threats.

if you object to it, don't buy it but don't whine about it. It is your money
do with it what you want.

"Garrot" wrote in message
...
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:08:16 -0400, BigJim wrote:

if you object to it, don't buy it but don't whine about it. It is your money
do with it what you want.

Simple man, Windows has a near monopoly on PC gaming. I have no choice!


BTW, Microsoft is now saying this same license has always applied to all
versions of Windows. They just didn't word it clearly. rolls eyes

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase..._licensing.asp

Windows transfer rights

There's a funny myth going around that says you have a right to transfer a
single copy of Windows XP (or any previous Windows version) to as many
computers as you like, as often as you like, and for any reason you like.
This myth exists because the Windows XP EULA is vaguely worded. It states,
"You may move [Windows XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the
transfer, you must completely remove [Windows XP] from the former
Workstation Computer." Pundits argue, incorrectly, that this EULA
implicitly allows any user to continually move a single copy of Windows XP
from machine to machine as often as they'd like. One online pundit decided
this meant that "there are no restrictions on the number of times you can
transfer the software from one computer to another in your household or
office." That person is, however, incorrect. As it turns out, the Windows
license is pretty simple: Windows is tied to a single device (typically a
PC), and not to a person.

"Ghostrider" wrote in message
...

Garrot wrote:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/index.php?p=116p://

For Microsoft to enforce just these aspects of the Vista license,
it is going to need a pretty extensive database that can not only
identify the user of record as well as the computer system of record.
And it has to do so with sufficient redundancy to guarantee accuracy,
something that is woefully missing from the current method using WGA.

Just how does Microsoft intend to obtain this information, keep it
secure and not make a mockery of personal privacy?

I smell the CPU identifier serial number making a comeback