Comments

1. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 1:41PM  

   I am apalled when I read thru the new license!  Can this be right?  Is MS really restricting to only 2 times resintallation?  Or is it 2 upgrades?  Nuts!  I bought WinXP Pro Retail (4 copies) so that I can upgrade my computers freely and still be legally licensed.  And if I upgrade to Vista, let's say I upgrade my mobo to a P985 board next year, and if intel came up with something else better which would require reinstalling Vista, then I can't upgrade my machine because I won't be licensed?  

   Heck, what's the major difference between the retail packs and the OEM license, then?  One extra installation?  What are the licensing people over in Redmond smoking?
2. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 2:19PM  

   Guys, I've been using, supporting, and even evangelizing your various products since the Win3x days. I use other OS's too, generally advocating a 'best tool for the job at hand' stance, but even so, I most often recommend MS OS's as the best tool for the job.

   So it's pretty sorrowfully that I read the recently-published Vista license. I've been running the Vista beta and RC versions, and I see a lot here to love. I see right through what a lot of others are labelling as eye candy alone, and find a lot of features I really want to use.

   But now you tell me that I'll pay $300 or $400 for a single copy (haven't yet decided for sure which version I want), and that copy will not be able to legally follow me through two computer upgrades to a third one. And this is where the value scale goes on tilt for me; it's just too much. I've always been able to clearly understand and extoll the extra value of a FULL vs OEM license, but now I can't do that, and it's a pretty painful change.

   I'm not one of the idealistic zealots who picks every possible nit with MS. I just want the great value proposition that MS has always delivered for me - the great value position I have defended cogently & patiently through the years against many FUDsters. For me, calm analysis of this license provision shows a scary change in that value proposition. If this license provision really does make it to RTM, it will almost certainly significantly reduce both my own use, and my recommendation of, Windows client operating systems.

   Microsoft certainly has the right  to set its pricing and licensing terms as it pleases.  But I really, *really* hope y'all reconsider this clause before RTM.
3. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 6:18PM  

   I can't tell you how disappointed I am that this is even being considered. I would understand it more if you had to activate - deactivate a license to upgrade or move it to another system to keep it from being mass installed, but to build an artificial barrier to dramatically shorten the lifetime of the license all together is just more than I’m willing to pay for. I really hope this is reconsidered. I've been looking forward to getting a copy of vista for home but if this is the licensing agreement that is included I’m not going to put myself in such a limited situation where I can’t upgrade my pc as I like.

   I think this kind of licensing is going to push people more towards piracy or other operating systems rather than encouraging them to buy legal copies. I just don't understand the logic here.
4. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:38PM  

   I have to agree with most of what has been said by others on the Vista license. If MS does not change this then I will stick with XP SP2. If I can't experiment with new hardware, or upgrade hardware, without having to purchase a new license, then its just not worth it.  

   Oh well, beta testing Vista was fun till it lasted.
5. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 9:47PM  

   Dear Vista team, why can't you allow a user to deactivate a machine? Urge, the music download site suppointed by windows media player 11 allows 3 PCs activated with the same account simultaneously. But it allows you to deactivate 1 pc per month so you can continue using the same account on a new PC.

   Why can't this be done with Vista activation?
6. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 13, 2006 at 11:26PM  

   I upgrade my PC 3-4 times a year and now with Vista I can't do that because Microsoft says I can't? This is the lamest thing MS has ever done. This info is all over the net. If it holds true, I doubt very much that Vista will hit that initial target base of 20%.

   I know I won't be buying it. I hate Jobs & Co., but my next purchase will be a Mac & OSX.
7. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 7:59AM  

   Hi. I'm a CEO of a large software company which is your Gold Partner.

   We were going to buy Vista for all employees and me myself for home. Also convinced many to buy it too.

   After this what I read about license and limitation for changing my hardware (which I do every 2 months or less even), just 1 hour ago I've decided and canceled all of 447 Vista preorders I had.

   NO CHANCE I will buy an OS under those terms and with such limitations that kill the very core nature of PC versatility and advantages.

   We're certainly going to consider and discuss business transformation to UNIX compatible OS like Debian Linux and Java.

   I must add, moving to Java from Microsoft (.NET) will be much cheaper solution for us than going Vista in production with such license.

   Microsoft, and mister nwhite, the move you just did just proved you are arrogant and greedy sons of.... [self-censored] and that you do not respect your customers.

   I see you are already loosing quite a big sum of customer base and with just considering this you lost many potential customers as not many will decide to go Vista after this, even if you do change planned license terms back to acceptable.

   As much as Vista was meant to be a huge move and evolution, that much this move literally cut it's success in half at least, and I believe will practically destroy Vista project.

   All the money we invested in Microsoft products, Microsoft certificates and moving our company to Microsoft Certified Gold Partner is made absolute rubbish and pointless investment with this license for your next product.

   We are now aware that our trust invested in Microsoft was our huge business miss.

   ATM I'm quite angry and I will restrain to swear and be very, very rude by just finishing the topic and going out a bit.

   Being extremely disappointed, we will not even grant you an honor of our official protest and complaint and all our contact will probably end this way and with silent contract break.

   In the name of the same protest I will not even sign myself here.

   Not Named,

   CEO of **********

   Microsoft (possibly ex) Gold Partner
8. Nick White

   
   Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 8:58AM  

   Hey everyone:  thanks for all your comments and know that I appreciate where you're coming from WRT our licensing terms.  I wanted to let you know that I'm monitoring this conversation closely and plan to provide more information via this blog next week.  Also know that my goal is for you have all the information at your disposal so that you can make educated decisions WRT purchasing and using Windows Vista.
9. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 11:28AM  

   Thanks nwhite.  And at least MS is blatantly clear this time around in the licensing terms.  And Thanks MS that making the choice of my next OS surprisingly simple.  Will be some Linux variant and definitely not MS.

   Will be a steep learning curve.  But as we all learnt from the financial industry, nothing, be it people or assets, cannot be replaced.
10. Duane

    
    Posted on: October 14, 2006 at 11:30AM  

    And isn't it quite interesting that there is not a single neutral comment on the licensing terms (I am not hoping positive comments here....)