ie8 fix
madison

The Ed Bott Report

Ed Bott
Home / News & Blogs / The Ed Bott Report

Surprises in the Windows 7 license agreement

By | December 29, 2008, 2:17pm PST

Over the weekend, I had a chance to spend some quality time with the leaked Windows 7 build that’s zipping around the Internet. No one at Microsoft will confirm whether this code is the same as the beta due to be officially released in early January, but it bears every earmark of being the real thing.

One of the first things I did before installing the software was to read the end user license agreement (EULA), carefully. Most of it was boilerplate, but I found a few surprises hidden within the legalese, including a revision code at the end, “EULAID:Win7_B.1_PRO_NRL_en-US,” which indicates that this is indeed Beta 1. Here’s a summary of some other interesting additions:

  • You can install as many copies as you want. The agreement specifically waives any restriction on the number of copies you can install:

    You may install and use any number of copies of the software on your premises to design, develop and test your programs for use with the software.

    I expect this wording is from a build specifically released to software developers. This wording might change to a more general “for evaluation only” clause in the public beta release.

  • Don’t use it in a production environment. That’s generally good advice for any product with a beta label on it, but in this case it’s explicitly covered in the agreement:

    You may not use the software in a live operating environment unless Microsoft permits you to do so under another agreement.

  • The software expires on August 1, 2009. Although I’ve read reports from other testers of a different expiration date, the copy I looked at includes a “Time-Sensitive Software” clause that reads in part: “The software will stop running on August 1, 2009. You may not receive any other notice.” That timeout date adds further credence to the notion that the final release will be ready in May or June.
  • It’s OK to install in a virtual machine. The license agreement for the original release of Windows Vista includes some truly opaque wording about installing in a virtualized environment. This wording was significantly cleaned up for the Vista SP1 license agreement, and this same language appears in the Windows 7 EULA. The “Use with Virtualization Technologies” section is straightforward:

Instead of using the software directly on the licensed device, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device.

  • You’ll need to take a few extra steps to lock down your privacy. In section 4, the license agreement specifically notes that some features that normally require you to opt in are instead turned on by default:

    Because this software is a pre-release version, we have turned on some internet-based features by default to obtain feedback about them […] You may switch off these features or not use them.

    Most of the services on the list are fairly benign and involve little risk of divulging personally identifiable information. However, if you work with sensitive data files you might want to turn off the Customer Experience Improvement Program and automatic error reporting options.

  • Activation and validation are alive and well. Anyone who was hoping that Microsoft would back off from its hard-line antipiracy initiatives might be disappointed. The license agreement specifically describes activation and links to a privacy statement that says activation is required for Windows 7. The lengthy section on validation is identical to the one in Vista SP, including the bold-faced warning:  “You are not permitted to circumvent validation.”
  • No benchmarks allowed. As in previous beta releases of Microsoft operating systems, the license agreement includes a prohibition on speed tests:

    You may not disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without Microsoft’s prior written approval.

Of course, most people don’t bother to even read license agreements, so it’s unlikely that this one will be followed strictly. In fact, I suspect that some people have been clicking their stopwatches feverishly over the past few days in anticipation of another round of benchmark results, regardless of what the EULA says.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “The Ed Bott Report”

Topics

Software, License Agreement, Microsoft Windows 7, Microsoft Windows, Agreement, Tools & Techniques, Management, Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

87
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Surprises in the Windows 7 license agreement
beijing2008 14th Sep
Overall, very nice, very nice. Chanel Tote Bags
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Benchmarks would be pretty silly at this point.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 29th Dec 2008
You can expect that a lot of the core OS is dumping detailed logs in circular files, or armed to produce detailed core files that hinder performance, etc.

Do you think the "you can install on as many machines as you want" will make the production EULA? grin

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Come on ...
MisterMiester 30th Dec 2008
Do you think the "you can install on as many machines as you want" will make the production EULA?

Now would that be as many machines "per user" or "per seat" or "per owner" or "per organization" or "per vendor" or "per $INSERT"?

I get really confused with these worth as much as the paper they are printed on EULAs. wink
0 Votes
+ -
Benchmarks show
daengbo 31st Dec 2008
(Obviously violating the EULA) Benchmarks show that Win7 B1 is faster than either earlier builds or Vista SP1 (which is as fast as XP SP3). If the Beta is slowed down, then Win7 will be really fast.
0 Votes
+ -
You ar right, but can't draw final conclusions.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 31st Dec 2008
For all we know, major subsystems are simply stubbed and to be added, etc, so it works both ways (or could). Either way, until the RTM build is released, fuzzy benchmarks are OK to show trends, etc, but you can't rely on them.

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Surprises in the Windows 7 license agreement
MR.Picaba 31st Aug
The most superb clue for a Used Acura Seattle trouble is certainly Used Honda Seattle and Used Toyota Seattle repair.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Surprises in the Windows 7 license agreement
beijing2008 14th Sep
Overall, very nice, very nice. Chanel Tote Bags
0 Votes
+ -
Why? I really wonder...
Linux User 147560 29th Dec 2008
"# No benchmarks allowed. As in previous beta releases of Microsoft operating systems, the license agreement includes a prohibition on speed tests:

You may not disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without Microsoft?s prior written approval."

Seems odd to me... devil
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Standard stuff
Ed Bott 29th Dec 2008
The software is developed for features, not speed, at this point. So as TripleII points out, the benchmarks would be pretty silly.

Nonetheless, people do publish benchmarks. I would be much more impressed with someone who actually consulted with Microsoft during the preparation of any tests to find out whether there are specific issues that might affect test results. But so far, I have not seen anyone perform that basic step, which used to be commonplace years ago.

I'm not talking about getting permission, only with getting information.
0 Votes
+ -
Benchmark Kiddies
honeymonster 29th Dec 2008
You are right Ed. These days "benchmarkers" seems to
be clueless journalists with agendas (looking at you,
Kennedy) who only know how to double-click an
automated benchmark suite.

The most common mistake I have seen is the failure to
realize that both Vista and (I assume W7) will try to
use the GPU to achieve the best balance between FPS
and graphical quality. This means that Windows may
switch on features of the graphics adapter which will
lower FPS. Generally FPS above 70 is a waste of effort
and if FPS can be traded in for improved graphical
quality it makes a lot of sense.

Vista supports DX10, Windows 7 supports DX11. In none
of the benchmarks I have seen have the "researcher"
even considered this. If W7 switches on DX11 features
(improves quality) and that causes FPS to go down
because, it becomes meaningless to compare FPS in
"game benchmarks". Unless the researcher can guarantee
that the game was executed with the exact same
rendering settings in both instances.
0 Votes
+ -
*sigh*
3vi1 31st Dec 2008
That's not how DirectX works. Applications requests a specific version when you instantiate it (Direct3D10Create...). There are no benchmark programs that support DirectX11, so they're all going to be using the DirectX10 API.

The OS *cannot* override this and will not add DX11 features to a DX10 program. The OS will *not* turn on new functions at the expense of framerate as that will TRASH backwards compatiblility more than it will help. Only optimizations in the pre-existing APIs functions would have any effect, which could only *help* the W7 benchmarks.

Also, the OS does not override the other settings (resolution, aliasing, etc) requested by the software. You can override them at the driver, but that's not the default.
0 Votes
+ -
condescending jerk
thissitesux 31st Dec 2008
you gave a good technical answer
but whenever someone responds with 'sigh' they're being a condescending arrogant jerk

so -1 for you
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree...
914four Updated - 4th Jan 2009
I for one fully understand the sigh; when someone is being pedantic, it's one thing. But the French have a word, "cuistre", which more or less means "a pedantic orator who doesn't understand his oratory topic of choice and embarrasses his audience through his lack of knowledge", and IMHO someone like that certainly deserves a sigh.

+1 from me
0 Votes
+ -
No surprise you would find something common odd.
ye 29th Dec 2008
This is beta software and you find it odd? It's also not that odd even for released software.
0 Votes
+ -
I can't imagine that clause would hold up in court
Michael Kelly 30th Dec 2008
I agree that benchmarks in a beta are not useful data, but even though that clause does appear in production releases as well, it has about as much legal standing as the EULA itself. Perhaps even less, because this is taking away an actual constitutional right (freedom of speech) without signed consent from the consumer. Most of the other restrictions of a EULA do not take away constitutional rights as this one does.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Aimed at competitors
Ed Bott 30th Dec 2008
I agree that trying to enforce this against the press would be pointless and morally wrong.

Historically, the point of this sort of license agreement is to stop competitors from making claims about the product. This sort of clause used to be common in database products and may still be. The idea was to prevent the competition from claiming their product is faster than yours.

My guess is that this license provision would be much more defensible if the action were against a competitor.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't agree with that either
Michael Kelly 31st Dec 2008
I don't see anything wrong with a competitor making factual statements about their products. Now if they were to make non-factual statements or were to draw non-factual conclusions based off misleading benchmarks then that would be a different story. But that would also be liable and/or slander, and you don't need a EULA for protection against that.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Commercial speech
Ed Bott 31st Dec 2008
Commercial speech is subject to many more restrictions than ordinary speech.
0 Votes
+ -
lawyer fulltime employment act
_JimB_ 31st Dec 2008
The problem with benchmark claims is that while the actual facts may be true the conclusion might be false. The only thing that can be done is no matter what the claim is, you immediately sue to get the claim quashed at least until you can vet it. The difference is with a eula the issue is clearcut, without it, you have to actually go thru a trial.
0 Votes
+ -
How can having it in the EULA make it clear cut
Michael Kelly 31st Dec 2008
when the EULA itself is not clear cut? The EULA is not a signed document nor a verbal agreement nor a legal statute. I do not see any federal judge revoking anyone's freedom of speech without any of those.
0 Votes
+ -
Factual but misleading is the issue.
GuidingLight Updated - 31st Dec 2008
It prohibits a competitor using benchmark results as they could claim

"Benchmarks show Vista slower then our X-X-X-X"

That is the factual statement they are required to make, and may be 100 percent accurate, without the information that it was a Beta vs RTM version being benchmarked.

With that info left off the consumers is mislead to believe both sets of numbers are from the versions that sits on the store shelves that they will be purchasing.

And in the end the actuall finished Vista RTM vs X-X-X-X RTM benchmark could show that Vista is actually the faster of the two
0 Votes
+ -
A beta is not an actual product
Michael Kelly 31st Dec 2008
Claiming a benchmark on a beta rather than the released product is like an auto making claims about a test model before the actual release of the car. So no it is not factual data to release the beta benchmark rather than the actual product's benchmark when comparing to another actual product.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, Beta is not an actual product.
GuidingLight 31st Dec 2008
But is it illegal to compare the two without having to mention that straight out?

I am sure that as long as they place the tiny, tiny statement at the bottom of the commercial it would make it legal, but many might miss it.

By stating that you can not use benchmark numbers from the beta would pretty much iliminate that problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Non factual information ... like "Get The Facts"?
Amelioration 31st Dec 2008
Considering that MS will say absolutely anything, factual or not, that they feel portrays them in a better light, I find the whole thing rather amusing.

There are areas in which the financial markets have no place. One of these is the dumbing down of a nation in the name of Corporate self interest. MS is king of that. It will come back to bite the nation, not the propagator.
0 Votes
+ -
The #1 paid program
rtk 31st Dec 2008
for the iPhone is iFart, and #3 is iBeer.

http://www.edibleapple.com/ifart-developer-makes-40000-in-2-days/

If you want Idiocracy style dumbing down, look no further than Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple fanboy
mjolnar@... 1st Jan 2009
Why is it every time there is a article about MS, we get the Apple fanboys trying to say that everything MS does is either wrong, deceitful or illegal.

During the late 70s and early 80s, Avis ran an add saying "We are #2 so they tried harder." Hertz countered with "our opponents claim they are second best, we agree with that."

Apple is so far behind MS its hard to call them 2nd best. Linux in a much better second choice, or 1st for that matter.
0 Votes
+ -
seems that what an Eula is.
sjbinaz 31st Dec 2008
Spells out what your rights are. You sign privacy agreements with your employer without screaming about rights to free speech. And why is an agreement on a leaked pirated copy which may ( or may not ) become the final product anything to get worked up about?
0 Votes
+ -
The key word there being "sign"
Michael Kelly Updated - 2nd Jan 2009
Yes I may sign an employment agreement, but I signed my signature on the dotted line, implying I read it, understood it, and accepted its terms before employment commenced.

You don't do that with a EULA. You do not come across it until after you finalize the purchase and open the box. It is not legal for a seller to change the terms of a sale after the transaction takes place, and essentially this is what happens with a EULA. If a term is not disclosed and agreed to at the time of sale, then it is not binding.

This can easily be fixed by requiring a contract laying out the terms of the EULA to be signed before the transaction is complete. Many software houses do this. Only the lazy ones who think they are above such things do not.
0 Votes
+ -
Being told who, what, which, where, why and when is odd.
Amelioration 31st Dec 2008
Especially when it's ONLY a computer software vendor.

Unless a certain nationality wakes up and smells the coffee, it will have nothing except Muppet consumers clicking on things as its front line for future progress and development.

I can almost hear the politicians already : "Learn. Train. Educate. We need more I.T. expertise."
0 Votes
+ -
It is quite obvious as to why any company requests that
GuidingLight 31st Dec 2008
In Beta form, it may be much slower/incomplete then the final RTM version.

At that point a competitor/detractor could claim their Operating System is "better" by releaseing Beta benchmark numbers to their RTM benchmark numbers.

What is odd is that you did not pick up on that as it is standard operating procedure in any business.
0 Votes
+ -
Good gracious.
Amelioration 31st Dec 2008
What are you, a string puppet?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Surprises in the Windows 7 license agreement
V@... 29th Dec 2008
The express editions of Visual Studio also prohibit benchmark results. As do any CTP releases.

Most of the items pointed out in your blog, are targeted specifically at developers and testers. None of these made it into the Vista EULA when it was RTM, but most were in the Beta/RC1 & 2.
0 Votes
+ -
These aren't surprises at all
frgough 30th Dec 2008
neither will it be a surprise that Windows Activation, the hard-line anti-piracy tool Microsoft is using to cut down on revenue losses due to piracy will also be part of the most expensive version of Windows yet.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Most expensive yet?
Ed Bott 30th Dec 2008
What makes you say that?
0 Votes
+ -
That you even ask
frgough Updated - 30th Dec 2008
shows you're an ideologue. Vista is more expensive than XP which was more expensive than 2000. Every time MS has increased "antipiracy" in its Windows product, it has raised the price. Windows 7 will be more expensive than Vista. Bank on it.

Of course, you'll find some way to explain it away, but that's not a surprise, either.
0 Votes
+ -
Most expensive?
notsofast 30th Dec 2008
I don't know how you made that determination.

Are you comparing the most expensive version of each OS? That hardly makes sense, given that Ultimate has things that XP didn't have (for example, Media Center).

The upgrade version of Home Premium, which has more stuff than XP Home had (but lacks some things that business users and enthusiasts might want) and costs about the same as an XP Home Upgrade.

I'm the first to admit that Ultimate is overpriced and underdelivered on Ultimate Extras (but since I got it with Technet for a very very low price, I can't complain).

The reality is that for most home users, they're paying the same or less for Vista. OEMs probably pay a bit more on the licenses, but I'm not sure if that's more or less than XP was 3 or 4 years ago when XP was the only OS they sold.
0 Votes
+ -
5 dollars
KrazdKiller 31st Dec 2008
this is what it cost microsoft as of the end of 2007 to product each copy of xp including. want to talk about a profit margin? vista currenly runs around the same for each copy. want to talk about a profit margin. and now we have windows 7 most likely by 2010 running about 6 dollars a copy to make, i am willing to bet that a oem disc will run close to 200 dollars retail. want to talk about a profit margin.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
BS
Ed Bott 31st Dec 2008
The $5 figure is the cost of goods, which is the manufacturing cost of the media and packaging. To calculate the actual cost, you need to factor in development, support, R&D, security, partner relations, etc.

It's a hell of a lot more than 5 or 6 dollars, and you know that.
0 Votes
+ -
Do we know that?
mdsock@... 31st Dec 2008
I'll grant that all of things you mention add to the cost. Although I'd question partner relations, most of that is advertising/PR. It may add to their cost, but since it often doesn't benefit me in any way (and may cost me, when they use the funds to "encourage" some partners to install Windows when it isn't wanted or needed), I'm not as inclined to include that even if it is a cost that justifies a higher price to me. Especially from a monopoly ? for as long as that lasts, given the tepid reception of Vista and questions I've been hearing about just how much Windows 7 improves on its predecessor.

But I'd like to see your numbers that justify "a hell of a lot more". Given the hundreds of millions of copies sold, what is the actual unit cost per license? And Microsoft has admitted to, what, 85-90% profit margins on Windows? And that presumably includes OEM licenses, which are the bulk of the ones sold and at a much lower price point.

So it's certainly "more", probably "a lot more", but to accept "a hell of a lot more", I'd need to see some numbers.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Admitted?
Ed Bott 31st Dec 2008
Nice loaded word there. How about the reality, which is that Microsoft as a public company reports its gross profit margins every year, which are based on revenues minus cost of goods. That might actually be meaningful for a car company or an airplane builder but not for a software company.

And partner relations has as much to do with developing drivers and software as anything else.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Again, you're wrong
Ed Bott 30th Dec 2008
Simply repeating something, louder, doesn't make it true. The price of Windows Vista in the editions that are commonly sold is identical to that of Windows XP in nominal dollars and is actually lower thanks to inflation.
0 Votes
+ -
DEFLATION is the key here.
Amelioration 31st Dec 2008
Deflation, whilst bound to be portrayed as a monster in the media, will provide a correction to the cyclic unsustainable financial infrastructure that is the log jam and disabler of people and actions in everyday life.

The numbers don't need to get bigger and bigger. If a mortgage costs me $10 per month, I'll be happy on a $30 salary (assuming everything else is relative).
0 Votes
+ -
Many Vistas - and completely pointless
Kaiwai Updated - 31st Dec 2008
You either get the super castrated version and find that
there is a single solitary feature in the one up from it but
you can't justify the extra $200. You decide to put out for
the Ultimate version only to find that your 'ultimata extra's'
aren't so ultimate after all - in fact they turn out to be oh-
so-bloody pedestrian you wonder why you purchased it in
the first place.

Here is a clue to Microsoft; two versions, Windows Client,
Windows Server - end of story, full stop. No, no, no, don't
bloody argue with me, two versions, and two versions only.
If you want to differentiate (code for making more money
off the customer) - then sell add on services for those who
want super-duper deluxe support.

You're a technology company - time that you locked the
bean counters in the room and tell them that the only job
for them is to count beans; their views on how the beans
are used are of no interest to management. You bean
counters aren't managers, you aren't engineers, you're
oxygen thieves and space wasters, be happy you've even
got a job since you add nothing to the bottom line of the
company.
0 Votes
+ -
MS a technology company?
dabble53 31st Dec 2008
ROFLMAO - MS has NEVER been a technology company. They are first and foremost a marketing company.
Although I agree, 2 versions are more than enough, if it truly was a technology company.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree, but...
akaltman@... 31st Dec 2008
There is NO WAY ON EARTH that Windows 7 is anything more than lipstick on Vista the Pig. They would need a complete rewrite to make it a good product, and they haven't had enough time. So, yes: This is clearly marketing, and not technology.

But thanks to Judge Koller-Kotelly, Microsoft keeps its virtual monopoly. Apple sells just enough for Microsoft to claim a free market, but who's kidding who.

With its monopoly, Microsoft is more a an industry bully than a marketing company, and any 'technology' they do inadvertently produce is released to lock their customers into their products.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have to confess that I do not use the Netscape browser. This browser was driven off the market by Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Agree 2 versions - But go back to the idea of a "Plus" pack
TG2 31st Dec 2008
Agree with the concept of two versions, stand alone client, and server.

But put it in the windows 9x days when they offered "Plus" for 20 bucks as an add on with some extra frills.

I mean that could then turn into "plus for business" and "plus for home" and "plus premium" ... so maybe restricting them to TWO OS versions, and maximum of TWO plus pack types.. (LOL)
0 Votes
+ -
Amen to That as well!
XweAponX 31st Dec 2008
I forgot all about the "Plus" pack- There was actually a Plus pack for XP that was released for the very early editions, I have it backed up somewhere. Most of it cannot be used, but it does have an ASF and WMA converter that reads right through DRM garbage.

"Agree with the concept of two versions, stand alone client, and server. But put it in the windows 9x days when they offered "Plus" for 20 bucks as an add on with some extra frills."

Actually, in later versions of XP like the versioins that have Service Pack 2 included- there is that 'Valuepack" - If you browse the XP CD, there are a few goodies you can install, one of them being the NETBEUI (Spelling) protocol that allows certain Networked programs to fucntion.
0 Votes
+ -
Amen to THAT
XweAponX Updated - 31st Dec 2008
"you can't justify the extra $200. You decide to put out for the Ultimate version only to find that your 'ultimata extra's' aren't so ultimate after all - in fact they turn out to be oh-so-bloody pedestrian you wonder why you purchased it in the first place."

Actually, Ultimate Edition is the only version that is even close to XP Pro. XP Home has no manager snap-in for Local Users and Groups.

Vista Home has no LUAG Module either. So, yes, it IS worth the 200 extra bucks just to get that. Part of my misson the last 8 years has been to update XP Home edition to Pro or Media Center Edition whereever possible, because XP Pro, just by having that module, is worth any extra cost. I agree that there ought to be no "Home" versions.

I think you got the right idea:

"Here is a clue to Microsoft; two versions, Windows Client, Windows Server - end of story, full stop. No, no, no, don't bloody argue with me, two versions, and two versions only. If you want to differentiate (code for making more money off the customer) - then sell add on services for those who want super-duper deluxe support."

I agree. None of this "multiple choice" crap- OSX is OSX and there is no "OSX Rasberry" or OSX Grape" or "OSX Vanilla Buttcrack"- All "Home" versions of XP and Vista need to be eliminated, all of most obnoxious problems with XP have been with Home edition. All of the obnoxios problems with Vista are in the "home" versions.

Scrap the Home versions, make it Windows Server or Windows Client, not "Windows Client Peanut Butter Flavour" or "Windows Server special Darth Vader edition" - Like MS has got going with the 8 and up versions of Vista I have seen.

My new mission has been, where I am denied access to Windows XP Drivers so I can delete Vista off my clients computers, has been to upgrade the Vist-crap Home edition installations to Ultimate Edition- Because Ultimately, Ultimate Edition is the most stable of the Vist-DooDoo Platforms, and it is the easiest to actually repair.
0 Votes
+ -
"...cut down on revenue losses due to piracy..."
Alan(UK) Updated - 31st Dec 2008
Apart from a few people who find it easier to circumvent the activation than to make their paid-for version work in the authorised manner, the reason that people circumvent the the activation process is to avoid paying for the software. Culprits?

Upgraders - I suspect that Microsoft makes more money out of people who try to upgrade legitimately and fail and have to go out and buy new hardware - with the OS installed - than they lose to those who upgrade without paying.

DIY'ers who want to save money/don't think that they owe Microsoft a living/insert excuse here. If Windows activation was too difficult to circumvent, these people might pay for it or might look for a softer alternative.

Third-world rogue white box makers: these people are never going to get the discounts that Dell et al get. So again these will be looking for a softer option.

Microsoft has exploited piracy to create its monopoly - it seems as if the are now trying to lose it.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft creates it's own piracy problems
XweAponX 31st Dec 2008
"DIY'ers who want to save money/don't think that they owe Microsoft a living/insert excuse here. If Windows activation was too difficult to circumvent, these people might pay for it or might look for a softer alternative."

That's damned right, and the same thing to Adobe and any other company that creates difficult activation processes that are simply rediculous to begin with, and ludicrous to end with. If I pay the $400 retail cost for XP Pro or Vista UE, then I think I should be able to install the thing and not have to continually keep PROVING that I bought it. I suppose I ought to prove to Von's or Albertson's that I Bought a loaf of bread, and to to Validate the bread I have to bring the poop from the bread back to Von's to be "activated." Then Von's flips a switch at the counter that allows the nutrients from the bread to enter my bloodstread: So if I "downloaded" or bought a pirated loaf of bread, it will pass through me without doing what Bread is supposed to do (Actually, such a rediculous concept may intrigue weight-loss patients).

Sound Abdurd? Heck yeah. The way Microsoft has the market rigged is that the System Builder- The person like myself who builds new systems several times a year - Virtually has to buy a new Licence each time he builds a new system. Even the company who builds a line of PCs - And Here, Microsoft hands 50-dollar or less OS licenses to Dell, HP, Sony, Acer, IBM, Compaq so that they can undercut the custom computer builder by several hundred dollars, and in case anyone has not noticed the compleat XP systems Dell offers for sometimes Under $500- Which include Flat Screen Monitor, Keyboard/Mouse and Speakers... They can offer that because Microsloth sells the Licenses to Dell for maybe $25 dollar per full computer system... I'd like a Dell rep to come here and deny that they get the Licenses from Dell for considerably less than the user has to pay! User: 400 dollars per OS. Dell: 25 bucks per OS!

Let's see: What would anyone choose? Vista Ultimate Edition... Almost 500 buckls retail... Or a system from Dell that has it already included, for 400 to 600 dollars, and a monitor-to-boot?

It is because the "Big Computer Makers" are given the OS for way less than even half of what we have to pay for a license- This not only pisses me off, but it causes me to NOT pay Microsoft once red cent and it causes me to use and re-use my original XP disk and my original Product Key over and over again, and I think I have installed, activated and validated this particular XP disk maybe 300 times since 2005, that sounds about right. And each of the machines it went on, that are still on-line, can at any time go to WindowsUpdate.com and get any downdates that are available.

Well, to blazes with that! Also, even if I have an Original XP disk with NO service pack, and I bought it back in 2001, I should be able to use my Product ID even today and the Product ID shoudl be the only thing I have to deal with, instead of having to pee in a bottle and give blood to Microsoft each time I need to re-install XP, and in the lifetime of any XP system, you are looking at at least 10 ro 15 "In-Place Installs"

Vista conveniently cannot be installed "In Place" and therefore cannot be repaired back to the way it was before it got hosed. Instead we get the "Automated System Repair" fucntion that is included on the Vista Install DVD... and Guess what? Guess what you do NOT get when you buy Vista through the auspices of Dell/HP/Sony/Compaq?

That is correct... They do NOT give you a Vista install DVD.
0 Votes
+ -
Did They Include The "Pay Per Use" Clause In The EULA?
itanalyst2@... 30th Dec 2008
wink.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix