Comments

1. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 7:29AM  

   Paul Thurrott's article very eloquently explains what I've wanted to post on this blog since the flury of licensing comments began.

   What he failed to say explicity was "you're getting your undies in a bunch for nothing AND if you're part of the 5%  PC enthusiasts group you can still install Linux if you don't like the EULA".
2. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 7:59AM  

   I think you guys at Microsoft really need to reconsider the amount of limitations that are put into the Vista OS.

   In the years that I've owned Windows XP, I have had software trip activation 1 time. I've had to reinstall many times, particularly this year, and I had to call support just to reinstall my OS.

   Now you're saying that I can't upgrade my computer and transfer my Vista license over? That has got to be the most outrageous thing I have ever seen--and for months I have been touting Vista to my friends, colleagues, coworkers, and VP of Technology at work.

   I've been a part of the beta program for well over a year, and I have seen Vista come a long way with product features that I have been touting to others as a really nice thing to have, especially Network Access Protection.

   I'm a single voice of computing in my company and social networking. I have worked intricately with the Vista OS and have a strong command of its new features and its upgrades. And my voice as I speak to others is highly respected. If I said one bad thing about the Vista OS, it could very well convince a very large amount of people to not buy the OS.

   Something as simple as a friend coming to me and asking if they should upgrade--up to whether or not the VP of Technology at work puts any financial thought into changing over the PCs before they are forced to.

   I think you guys should take a play from the id software book, notably Marty Stratton. In an interview regarding Quakecon 2006, Marty had stated that there is no real measure to the amount a "good showing" can have to that 1% of base. Your marketing teams can't measure it, but the effect is enormous.

   That 1% of consumer base is extremely powerful. We tell everyone whether or not a product is worth investing in, because our voice is trusted. We are the ones posting on forums, blogs, news websites, chat channels. We are the ones preaching it at our friends and colleagues.

   What we say matters--and if you think otherwise, you guys need a new marketing team.
3. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 8:58AM  

   I am one of this 5% PC enthusiasts and a hardcore gamer. I must change my hardware 4 or 5 times a year because of the requirements of games. I also can`t use Linux or such other OS, because most of the games will nor run on this plattforms.  I also can`t stay at Win XP, because MS will never support it with DX10.

   Also what shall i do, when MS don`t let me upgrade my hardware without purchasing,every 2 times i do this, a new Vista copy for CHF 500,- (Switzerland ,ultimate upgrade)

   The gamers must have the ability to upgrade and/or change there hardware otherwise the PC will no longer be atractive for gamers and the market for PC-games and pc components will be massivly decrease.

   With this terms, Vista will be the end for the PC as an games plattform...
4. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 10:20AM  

   I think Microsoft has to do better with thier licencse because if I can not upgrade my computer 2 times without buying a new Vista then I may as well stay with XP! I think some one at Microsoft has GOOFED BIG TIME!
5. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:39PM  

   "More information?"  "Fully informed?"  It seems to me that nwhite and his superiors are completely missing the point.

   We are angry at the terms of the EULA *on their face.*  And as I have seen nothing in the EULA that says anything to the effect of "as amended by whatever is posted on a particular random blog," there is nothing further that you could offer, because it is simply not a part of what you expect us to press F8 at.  

   Let us not mince words here:  the "further information" you refer to cannot be anything but an attempt to hoodwink customers into signing onto the EULA as it is written.  And if we were to be sated by additional such "clarifications" about why we shouldn't be concerned about the *actual language of the EULA*, we likely wouldn't be complaining to begin with.

   You have reached the point of no return.  You can either change the EULA, or you can keep it as it is.  However, if you choose the latter, no amount of marketing-speak will change the outcome of that decision;  the amount of business your current EULA will lose you will not change in any appreciable way.  At the end of the day, it is the EULA and the EULA alone we are expected to sign.

   Now, if you'll excuse me, I only have fourteen months to migrate and become accustomed to an alternative OS I'd rather not use before my XP installs reach their end-of-life.
6. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:56PM  

   That way Vista should be it wont be allowed in Germany.

   Too much grabbing of personal data, to much sending

   back to MS (i´ll loop back all adresses from MS to 127.0.0.1 so what?) and best: if vista allows onely 1 HW-change, and i got to change secound time, and then Vista aint working anymore,

   it´s a fault of vista and then grips german warranty and you have to give me a new Vista. That may cause "outdated" Vistas at E-Bay en mass.

   On the other Hand, even Gamers,who have to change HW often, wont buy Vista. Thinking how MS beated IBM´s OS2???

   OS2 was the better OS allready running at 32 bit, but MS

   Windows 3.1 with 16bit won. There was onely 1 reason for it:

   Games,games,games.

   What if Vista will be so bad to the Gamers?

   Answer: Another OS would grap its chance. Maybe not as good as Vista, but surely kicking Vista out of the market.

   And gaming can be done at consoles, too.

   Leaving games for gaming,theres no longer any reason not to use linux.

   So MS has slowly to start thinking what the cusomer want to have, cause its the customers money you depend on.
7. Duane

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 12:59PM  

   Guppy06, exactly.  nwhite, no offense but this is not an issue a single person can fix.  It probably takes the whole legal department to come up with these terms.  You won't be able to give new additional info that is not on the EULA, unless, of course, that MS is changing the EULA.

   And fat chance of that happening.
8. Nick White

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 2:17PM  

   Hey magamiako:  I understand where you're coming from -- despite being small in numbers, you who read this blog are big in influence.  In fact, that's the reason that I have a job :)

   My hope is that by continuing this conversation with you all here on the blog, I can become one of those "trusted voices" as well.
9. Nick White

   
   Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 2:25PM  

   Hey Marshall and Guppy06:  nothing ever gets done, inside MS or outside, by one person alone.  As I stated before, I'm working with my colleagues to get a better idea of the true meaning behind the language in the EULA so I can share that with you and you can come to a more informed decision than could be made by taking only the interpretations currently being discussed on the internet (which are not fully informed and in some cases, flat wrong) into account.

   Stay tuned.

   And BTW, no offense taken -- you'll have to do more than that to offend me.
10. Duane

    
    Posted on: October 16, 2006 at 3:52PM  

    If the EULA needs to be "clarified" or "explained," then the EULA is flawed.  The language of the EULA must stand on its own merits because it is all that is agreed to by the end-user.  As curious as I may be to see these attempts at "clarification," these additional blog postings or press conferences or what have you cannot be a part of my purchase decision here because it is the EULA and the EULA alone that must be agreed to.

    If these clarifications, whatever their nature, are not to be a part of the EULA's binding language, then they aren't clarifications at all.  And even if these further press releases move in a direction that I am happy with, if Microsoft is not willing to make them binding by putting them into the EULA, then I am not willing to bind myself to that EULA.