Comments

1. n4cer

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 6:02AM  

   r3m0t, in the case of BitLocker, performance and weakened security are real concerns. Performance is a given. You're taking an already slow process (accessing a virtual harddrive) and slowing it even more by adding encryption/decryption on top.

   For the case of weakened security, BitLocker uses boottime metrics to determine whether someone has tampered with the system and whether or not it should release keys to decrypt the harddrive. If it can't differentiate between a VM running on your computer and a VM on an attacker's computer, you have added security from BitLocker. The attacker can copy your VHD(s), run it on their system in VPC and BitLocker may boot the system normally, not knowing it's in a different system (note: I have not actually tried this scenario). Secure Startup isn't so secure anymore.

   Support and testing are also real issues. If MS advises you not to run in such scenarios, this frees them from any obligation to support you if you choose to do so and also limits their test matrix.

   RE: Cracking/Analysing their rights management technology

   In the case of BitLocker, there are technical documents and blog posts from the dev available online that decribe how it works and the encryption algorithms used.

   http://blogs.msdn.com/si_team/default.aspx

   For technologies like WMDRM, sure they want to protect their investments and those of their customers, but there are legal protections that go beyond the EULA for dealing with entities that would distribute software that compromises those technologies.
2. costabunny

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 6:27AM  

   Brilliant news indeed.  

   As a modder this would have added to the problem I already have (Living in gibraltar I have to call the UK to reactivate any time my main board changes (which is often in the extreme overclocking world I live in) as the Spanish free fone is a) not free and b) in spanish lol

   Thanks MS :D
3. cyanna

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 6:33AM  

   Fantastic news!

   Not only I will be able to use Vista IRL, I have learned to take the time to actually read the EULA before I agree to it....

   Now could someone do me a favor and give those lawyers a good kick somewhere? The EULA is a legally binding document and this one is still very poorly formulated. Specifically the one time restriction still seems to apply to transfering the software to another person(like when you sell the computer with the software)and to upgrades. If this is by design, my guess is you're going to hear some  more shouting about it, if it's a "miss" someone should loose their bonus.....

   Oh, one more thing: the part about publishing benchmark results, when I do that, you're most welcome to publish your own results about my software, as that is currently non existent. Really, what are you going to do? Publish benchmarking tests of Doom III if they publish benchmark results on how that runs on Vista?
4. wh5916

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 6:46AM  

   <<<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.>>>

   This concerns me as well, as I currently have two installs of Windows XP on the same system, on two separate hard drives. One is purposely stripped down, with not even an anti-virus program running, for audio/visual work.

   Now, in this Vista licensing agreement, we're being told that only one copy of Vista can be run on a single machine.

   What's the difference whether I have a single Vista install on my one computer system, or four if I choose to run them? And I'm not about to spend money on this overpriced Vista operating system more than once, just for the privilege of having different installs on the same machine, each optimized for a specific function.

   I'm already having problems enough this year, with the two Windows XP reinstalls that I've done, using my legitimately purchased (from a local Target store, not Ebay or some other odd channel) June 2002 copy of Windows XP Home Edition.

   On both occasions, when online activation was attempted, I was informed that the number of activations for my registration key had been exceeded...um, excuse me? I PAID for XP, and if I want to reinstall 100 times during the life of the software product, that's my right as far as I'm concerned. Both times this year, I've been forced to call and speak with some barely intelligible rep from India, to activate my legitimate, purchased copy of Windows XP.

   I'm weary of Microsoft at this point, and am sorry I ever defended or recommended the company to anyone.
5. n4cer

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 6:52AM  

   Mike, I agree that the wording should be clearer WRT virtualization rights, and that the implication of "licensed device" clause in the current agreement as I understand it is that (in the case of Home Basic/Premium) you can't reuse the same license. A better wording wold be something like:

   --------------------

   4.  USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES.  A virtual (or otherwise emulated) environment is considered to be a seperate device. You may use the software within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. You may not do so to share this license between devices.

   -------------------

   A change in that clause may require a change in this clause:

   -----------------

   2.  INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS.  Before you use the software under a license, you must

   assign that license to one device (physical hardware system).  That device is the “licensed device.”  A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.

   -------------------

   to also include a virtual (or otherwise emulated) environment as a licensed device, or they can insert a part "d." to the INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS clause to include language specific to the software's use in such environments.

   I also agree that virtual machine rights should be included in the home SKUs under the same license as long as they are running on the same physical device. While it's true that many home users won't use this capability, it can be useful, and would be welcome since Virtual PC is free, and it has to be addressed eventually with hypervisors and application virtualization coming from MS in a few years. If support is an issue, Microsoft could stipulate that VM useage on the Home SKUs is allowed, but not supported.
6. NeilC77

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 7:18AM  

   How the folks at Microsoft didn't realise this to begin with is absolutely beyond me. The fact that it was suggested in the first place tarnishes my opinion of MS, I mean, come on...
7. Michael_Moor

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 8:45AM  

   This is great news! Thanks for sharing this Nick.

   ---------

   http://www.dl4all.com
8. sunset

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 9:20AM  

   I originally said NO to Vista just because of the "transfer rule." I now say a heartly YES.

   I am sort of shocked (I didn't think MS cared about "us", but incredibly happy over the change in the EULA !!

   It's a shame that there's people here that can't just say thanks, without bitching
9. chopsnsauce

   
   Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 9:27AM  

   Thanks for listening Microsoft.

   :)
10. Lenux

    
    Posted on: November 03, 2006 at 10:09AM  

    After hearing the initial licencing terms I decided not to buy vista or any microsoft products for that matter for home use. As I'm training to become a software engineer I'm kind of stuck on the windows plaform at work. But even there I would have found a way to switch to a different platform (using mono for instance). If I can't add/remove/replace hardware as many times as I like, windows is not the operating system for me.

    With this change I can purchase a copy of Windows Vista :)