Comments

1. raid517

   
   Posted on: November 02, 2006 at 9:04PM  

   The virtual machine thing is the next thing that should go. This has almost as many people annoyed as the hardware upgrade restrictions did. Again support professionals (which include many individuals offering both formal and informal support, even down to the small workshop and office level) need to be able to access virtualisation technologies at all stages - so that if there are to be multiple different versions of Vista, we need to be able to access and support them all without the costs becoming prohibitively expensive. This is where virtualisation can often become useful. As things stand, it almost feels that MS is trying to drain blood out of a stone - when in fact in many cases, there is simply no more blood to be had.
2. marshall

   
   Posted on: November 02, 2006 at 10:23PM  

   I would counter argue the point that a virtual machine is a separate device (different hardware) than the original system and running the OS in an VM on the licensed machine WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY RUNING THE OS on the same machine which provides the underlying platfrom for the VM software will actually break the one machine, one license rule.....

   Although, Ultimate edition seems to be explicitly granted this right, this right does not exist for XP or XP Pro anyway so this wasn't something that is new.

   But the fact that the Windows Anywhere Upgrade license transfer restriction did not get altered at the same time baffles me more......
3. wh5916

   
   Posted on: November 02, 2006 at 10:59PM  

   Even worse than the restriction that still remains with the Windows Anytime Upgrade license transfer is another part of the licensing agreement. If I'm interpreting it correctly, if you buy the upgrade version of Vista, then you lose the right to continuing using the operating system that you're upgrading from.

   Three very important titles in my software library will not work with the most recent release of Vista--and, Microsoft, if you're telling me that I lose the right to run Windows XP, on a separate partition, if I buy the upgrade version of Vista, then you can ***keep*** Vista. If I can't maintain an older operating system for compatibility purposes, then I want no part of Vista or its oppressive licensing scheme.

   I hope to God that someone initiates a class action suit against Microsoft--four weeks ago, I honestly didn't feel this way.
4. arakitai

   
   Posted on: November 02, 2006 at 11:13PM  

   I'm of the firm opinion that the outcry about the licensing term simply boils down to: "If I'm only running a single copy of Vista, I want to run it on whatever I wish."

   I think Microsoft has addressed this problem very clearly, and I really have no problem with any of the rest of the licensing terms. I am very glad for this resolution, because my group is currently going to be starting some significant application development using the .Net framework. I was one of the strong proponents who advocated the .Net approach for our software.

   I had two six hour meetings so far on this subject, and frankly there was more than one person advocating the abandonement of our .Net initiative in favor of a more generic approach. I am thankfull and relieved that I now look like less of an idiot--I have stopped updating my resume.

   Yay!
5. BobCrabtree

   
   Posted on: November 02, 2006 at 11:59PM  

   Delighted to see that Microsoft has seen the light and that the comments raised by sites such as HEXUS.net and their readers have been taken on board -  so sincere thanks for that.

   But, repeating what others have said here, two of the three original limitations that I was also most concerned about are unchanged:

   * The restriction that sees partitions on a single hard disk treated as separate devices remains. So, seemingly, you still won't be able to set up a single copy of Vista on different partitions or drives on the same PC. Consequently, you'll have to buy a copy for each boot partition or boot drive if, say, you wish to have one version of Vista carefully optimised for heavy duty tasks such as video or sound editing and another set up for more general use.

   Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

   * The Basic and Premium versions remain unable to work on virtual hardware - such as Parallels Workstation or VMware Workstation - even if that application is running on top of the original Vista installation. Ultimate will still be the only one of the three retail versions to allow you to use Vista this way.

   These two restriction seem mean-minded given that the tax-inclusive cost of each retail version of Vista is so astonishingly high.

   In the UK, prices (pre-order from Amazon) are £155 (US$296) for Basic; £190 (US$363) for Premium; and an outrageous £325 (US$620) for Ultimate.

   So let's, please, get those two restrictions lifted before launch day next year and, please, let's try to get the pricing down to rather more reasonable levels for all three versions.
6. r3m0t

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 2:29AM  

   newscientist2000: I think you missed the point of my original post. The point is that (an employee of) Microsoft claimed that the XP EULA only allowed one transfer. (See the last EULA clause in my post). Now this blog claims (implicitly) that the new Vista EULA allows any number of transfers. (See the second-last EULA clause in my post). However, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. MS could easily bring back their limited-transfer plans in a big way in Vienna, and claim that *both* the XP and Vista license agreements ONLY EVER ALLOWED ONE TRANSFER ANYWAY. It's as though you need to talk to a relevant Microsoft employee in order to know what the license agreement is *supposed* to say, but doesn't.

   wh5916: It is sad, but their might be a few technical problems with infinite transfer for Anytime Upgrade. After all, the webserver would have to store your license key with the level you upgraded to.

   n4cer: Except for the comment that when you purchase media in a VM your usage may be limited to that VM, your reasons all seem bogus. The more likely explanation is that Microsoft don't want people to crack their DRM/BitLocker or even to inspect it in detail. A vM could allow you to track the CPU and RAM in great detail. They don't want to give you that help if you choose to (attempt to) crack MSDRM.
7. Barolo

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 4:47AM  

   November 30th is now Vista Launch day !

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6110958.stm
8. Chanchao

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 4:51AM  

   Excellent comments from r3m0t !!!

   I think for one you exposed Paul Thurrott with his pants down, especially the ludicrous (and somewhat lame) claim of "oh actually it always meant to say that, but didn't".  

   I mean, come ON, is MS short on lawyers who can word a relatively simple set of rules clearly?   If so, where do I apply? :)
9. Mike Dimmick

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 5:10AM  

   n4cer: I agree, I think the *intended* effect of those clauses in the Home Basic and Home Premium licences is to say that you cannot *reuse* the same licence key within a VM Guest OS as you are using for the Host OS - you must obtain a new licence for each Guest OS. The *wording* however is so poor that it seems to be suggesting that you are not permitted to use Home Basic or Home Premium as a Guest OS, period. That's what people are so angry about.

   If that is the intent, the wording needs to be corrected. I realise that this needs to be finalised very quickly so it can RTM, but it must be corrected to meet the real intent.

   I don't agree with this restriction - as I said on a Channel 9 Coffeehouse thread, adding virtual machines to a physical machine reduces the overall capabilities of a system rather than extending them, so I don't see why I should have to buy additional licences to use VMs. In the end, Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot, by restricting some hobbyist developers, who don't have the resources to buy Ultimate or multiple Home Basic or Home Premium licences, from testing their creations in a clean environment.

   The section about DRM in a VM seems to be advice not to use the DRM features within a VM, which presumably is some technical limitation within those features (probably that the TPM module is not virtualised). If this is the case, the software needs to have a warning about running in a VM (tricky) and the restriction placed in a README or other documentation, but it does *not* belong in the EULA.
10. d_jedi

    
    Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 5:44AM  

    Good news.  I feared that the previous set of terms would really come back to bite people (but especially me :->) in the ass a few years down the line.  

    Bring on Vista!