Eyes Wide Open: The Myth Of Ms Vista Sales

[Khleerm]

So far, from what I've read of the way in which Vista handles DRM, the bias is heavily in favor of Microsoft's business partners. So I'm assuming consumers will grow weary of the onerous nature of DRM, once the daily reality of Vista starts to set in. I thought that was bad enough....

But then today, I came across the new Vista License Terms, and these I find downright unconscionable. This new approach by Micro$oft, to me at least, is quite disturbing, though I'm sure many others won't care about the nitty gritty.

But I do imagine most savvy consumers will want to be made aware of this before they plunk down their money on Vista only to find their former Windows XP disc is now as useful as a coaster.

Here is the evidence to illustrate my point.

************************************************************************

[note: this links to a PDF file]

MICROSOFT LICENSE TERMS

WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC

WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM

WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.

************************************************************************

Now here are two articles that discuss this. The first is very compelling and worthy of consideration while the second is more illustrative, but does include bloggers commentary which might also be interesting to read:

Windows Vista's new spin on licensing Has among it's finer points, this to say:

"Microsoft has, for some time now, been moving slowly but intentionally toward a new model for consumer operating systems sales....where licensing is...to be "permission to use" rather than any kind of ownership."

************************************************************************

The second article, and I've found several others which affirm it, Upgrade to Vista, Lose Your XP Key? Informs us that, "Microsoft has set a lot of restrictions on Vista, but if this latest one holds true, it could mean the difference between upgrading or not for some people. Apparently if you buy an upgrade version of Windows Vista for your XP machine, Windows Vista will invalidate your XP key (so you won't be able to set up a dual-boot option nor will you be able to use that version of XP on another machine). Not only that, but if you ever uninstall Vista, you won't be able to fall back on your copy of XP anymore. Nice way to entice the upgraders, MS."

I would now like to solicit your opinions: Do you agree with this new license agreement by Micro$oft, or not? Will you upgraders to Vista agree to be leasees- and nothing more - accepting that you merely bought right(s) to use Vista? Or do you object? Your [consumer] opinions please..... What say you Thaivisa forum?

Edited January 31, 2007 by Khleerm

[Rice_King]

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.

Sorry to interrupt this Microsoft-bashing thread for an important news flash.

Most (if not ALL) software IS licensed and NOT sold.

Case Point:

From their corporate website, here is Apple's Licensing Agreement for their MAC OS X.

1. General.... "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself."

Now I would like to solicit YOUR opinion: Do you find Apple's licensing agreement "downright unconscionable" as well? Are you okay with that?

Edited January 31, 2007 by Rice_King

[Guest Reimar]

All software you buy or get on wich way ever, except the one you order for develop for your self, is never your one, ou're a licensee only.

But the "bad" speech in the EULA of MS is:

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.

Just SOME right only! What that is meaning? Normally you HAS the right to using the software you paying for but SOME rights sounds like much less than to have a right!

Edited February 1, 2007 by Reimar

[cdnvic]

It means you don't have the right to disassemble it, copy it, reverse engineer it, etc...

Good god, I can't believe the freakin panic about Vista.... you'd think a comet was about to hit the earth rather than a software release.

[Khleerm]

Most (if not ALL) software IS licensed and NOT sold.

Now I would like to solicit YOUR opinion: Do you find Apple's licensing agreement "downright unconscionable" as well? Are you okay with that?

No, I do not. For one very good reason: When I do upgrade to Leopard, it's as good as guaranteed they won't be so draconian as to invalidate my Tiger disc and disallow my using that older version whenever I please.

What irks me about the new M$ business plan is their forcing obsolescence down the throats consumers throats.

[cdnvic]

What irks me about the new M$ business plan is their forcing obsolescence down the throats consumers throats.

When they sacrificed some security for backward compatibility, people complain. When they take out some backward compatibility in favour of a more secure operating system, people complain.

What happens if you want to load Tiger or Leopard on different hardware? Apple has their own issues with forced compliance.

If you want to use a Mac, do it and be happy, but judge Vista for its DRM until you see whats coming in Leopard.

[Khleerm]

Good god, I can't believe the freakin panic about Vista....

No panic here. And far be it from me to tell people which rat hole to dump their monies down....

But you can sure color me in disbelief that, activating an ugrade simultaneously deactivates your last purchase. The author of my second link appraises the move well, when he notes "Microsoft has gone down a path that restricts the user's options in ways that are less than desirable, in ways that involve inconvenience and a certain amount of ambiguity and unease for the consumer—just like its corporate software licensing practices do."

I suspect many people will have no idea of what are the implications between purchasing upgrade version and the OEM.

[Valjean]

On the "rights" issue I'd just add that it's the same with most intellectual property. When you "buy" a movie you really buy is a DVD with some rights to view that movie. The use is restricted. Same with music. When you buy a book you don't have full rights to do what you want to the content or IP in the book.

[solo siam]

You are UPGRADING your previous software, not purchasing a new OS so I don't see what the problem is, I'm guessing it deactivates your old software to stop you running the old OS on another computer, which is fair enough IMO. I've never been a big fan of OS upgrades, I'm pretty sure most people purchase an OEM or Orginal copy.

In terms of the DRM, yes it does suck but I doubt MS put it in for fun, pretty sure that the movie and music associations had more to do with that than anyone else, one day they will cross the boundary (they may already have with Vista) and people will simply stop buying originals and purchase DRM free pirate copies.

[cdnvic]

No panic here. And far be it from me to tell people which rat hole to dump their monies down....

Oh, another self-congratulatory Apple user dumping on MS....what a shock

[Khleerm]

You are UPGRADING your previous software, not purchasing a new OS so I don't see what the problem is, I'm guessing it deactivates your old software to stop you running the old OS on another computer, which is fair enough IMO. I've never been a big fan of OS upgrades, I'm pretty sure most people purchase an OEM or Orginal copy.

That's the crux of it: I think the majority of upgraders will presume they are purchasing a new OS. Upgraders assume they're saving a bit by sprucing up their existing machine.

This new more aggressive business model necessitates a consumer reappraisal- buying a new machine with a new OS probably makes more sense, now, than upgrading.

Again, will the upgrade buyer be aware of the consequences....

Edited February 1, 2007 by Khleerm

[Khleerm]

the way in which Vista handles DRM, the bias is heavily in favor of Microsoft's business partners.

Apparently if you buy an upgrade version of Windows Vista for your XP machine, Windows Vista will invalidate your XP key

I would now like to solicit your opinions: Do you agree with this new license agreement by Micro$oft, or not?

Good god, I can't believe the freakin panic about Vista....

[/b]

Oh, another self-congratulatory Apple user dumping on MS....what a shock [/b]

On the contrary, there was no mention here of Vista's user experience, GUI, or stability. We have here a case of aggressive defense. The 'dumping on Ms' was a projection of your insecurity no doubt.

[Simmo]

Prediction: Everyone will be using Vista in 18 months and noone will give a hoot about DRM & licensing. I remember the same stink around the Win2000 to XP release.

[Rice_King]

I think the majority of upgraders will presume they are purchasing a new OS. Upgraders assume they're saving a bit by sprucing up their existing machine.

Again, will the upgrade buyer be aware of the consequences....

Upgrade versions of the Microsoft OS are just that, UPGRADES. Unless the user has been living under a rock for the past decade (since, at minimum, the release of Windows 95) they are savvy enough and know EXACTLY how the Windows upgrade process works. Clueless users upgrading to Vista will be "schooled" very quickly in the meaning of the word "upgrade."

That's progress.

[Valjean]

On the contrary, there was no mention here of Vista's user experience, GUI, or stability. We have here a case of aggressive defense. The 'dumping on Ms' was a projection of your insecurity no doubt.

I think there have been a few posts on this subject - at least it seemed that way to me. But I'll add to my earlier post:

For me the user experince in about 4 months is much improved. If your PC can take the upgrade I think it's worth doing.

I like the Vista and the Aero UI - maybe this is part just liking something fresh. After all I started with CPM and TS-DOS and have done I don't know how many upgrades and enjoy something new. There are lots of little things that make it easier or smoother.

Stability is fine. If you upgrade on a laptop you do have to appreciate that there is good amount of software and drivers that the maker; HP, Toshiba, etc., provide for things like power management, hot keys and such. So there are some issues with doing a wipe and clean generic Vista install on a notebook. I tink this is much less of an issue with desktops because they are so much more generic.

[nikster]

8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.

Sorry to interrupt this Microsoft-bashing thread for an important news flash.

Most (if not ALL) software IS licensed and NOT sold.

Case Point:

From their corporate website, here is Apple's Licensing Agreement for their MAC OS X.

1. General.... "You own the media on which the Apple Software is recorded but Apple and/or Apple’s licensor(s) retain ownership of the Apple Software itself."

Now I would like to solicit YOUR opinion: Do you find Apple's licensing agreement "downright unconscionable" as well? Are you okay with that?

I wonder what this has to do with the original topic? Are you trying to say "yes, its bad, but others do it, too"? Or "it's not bad because Apple is doing it"? Or are you just trying to start a "Mines OS is bigger than yours" flame war?

Apart from the point you were trying to make, you chose a bad example. There is a huge difference between

A "You have _some_ rights to use the software" (some!)

and

B "We retain ownership of the software"

B is standard fare for software. Of course if you buy a copy of OS X you don't suddenly become the sole owner of OS X and can start to duplicate it, sell it to others, and sue everybody else who's selling it. That's a no-brainer, and all software is sold like that.

A, on the other hand, is new - it explicitly states that you have only some rights to use the software. In other words, you can't use the software as you please.

The practical difference is that if you buy a copy of OS X, you are allowed to install it on any machine you like. If you move to a new machine, you can install it there, too.

Windows on the other hand is tied to the hardware it's first installed on. I find this very annoying. But then again, no-one's forcing me to buy Windows Vista.

Edited February 1, 2007 by nikster

[cdnvic]

On the contrary, there was no mention here of Vista's user experience, GUI, or stability. We have here a case of aggressive defense. The 'dumping on Ms' was a projection of your insecurity no doubt.

Nope, just getting weary of hearing the mac self admiration society dumping on Windows and Windows users constantly. I say if an OS works for you be happy and shut the he11 up about it.

I'm not going to dump on macs in retaliation because I like both mac and windows, and in any case find those kind of arguements immature and silly.

Edited February 1, 2007 by cdnvic

[Rice_King]

I wonder what this has to do with the original topic? Are you trying to say "yes, its bad, but others do it, too"? Or "it's not bad because Apple is doing it"? Or are you just trying to start a "Mines OS is bigger than yours" flame war?

What does it have to do with the original topic? I was addressing the OP (and the TITLE of this thread), "The software is licensed, not sold." Are you okay with that? It seemed he was under the impression that this was some sort of "revelation" and that Microsoft had invented the clause. It is NOT. As we know, you cannot OWN software, just USE it.

Why did I choose Apple to illustrate? I used Apple's licensing agreement because (now think about this) who else could I make a reasonable comparison to? What other company keeps Bill awake at night? Other than Open Source, Apple is the only major player currently providing an OS to the masses.

As for a "flame war." I would NEVER get into a pi$$ing contest over such a useless "my OS can beat your OS" argument. If I had wanted to do that, you would have seen me posting to your threads long before this Nikster.

FYI: I would not trade my Apple iPod (running Linux) and iTunes for two new Zunes! (Well, maybe I would. But I would sell the Zunes and use the dough to buy a new video iPod.)

[Khleerm]

I'm not going to dump on macs in retaliation because I like both

Such a kind and benevolent platform agnosticator you are. Users are fair game, but leave the hardware out of it. Is that it? A rather amusing stance you have there...

[Khleerm]

Prediction: Everyone will be using Vista in 18 months and no one will give a hoot about DRM & licensing. I remember the same stink around the Win2000 to XP release.

Now there's a wager in the making.... I disagree.

For those unaware upgraders, chagrined by the forfeiture of their XP license, the long lapse between Vista and the next release of the-Windows-OS-to-have will be time enough for them to have forgotten and forgiven, no doubt.

But, in the interim, people really DO just want a seamless user experience without having to think too much about nitty-gritty things like licenses. People expect 'plug and play' today. Which is why I think, in the next 18 months, there will be many who get stung by DRM. I say there will be a measurable increase in frustration at their upcoming 'plug-n-license-restriction-DON'T-play' experience.

However significant or insignificant that may turn out, they are still saddled with the choice of ownership for several more years.

[cdnvic]

I'm not going to dump on macs in retaliation because I like both

Such a kind and benevolent platform agnosticator you are. Users are fair game, but leave the hardware out of it. Is that it? A rather amusing stance you have there...

No, I don't dump on Mac users either, except the ones who are constantly ragging on Windows and stroking themselves raw over their Macs. Gets old after awhile. Doesn't do the image of Mac users any good either.

[ollyrosee]

Prediction: Everyone will be using Vista in 18 months and noone will give a hoot about DRM & licensing. I remember the same stink around the Win2000 to XP release.

i doubt that as this version is too secure for the pirates to use long term ,if you do use a snide version you wont be able to get updates as it will invalidate it and you get a crippled PC . 90% of games are said not to work with vista .

so i suspect there will be a lot of hooky XP users that wont be upgrading. 30% hooky in the uk and 90% in LOS ??? This version is said to be too secure ,they have gone over the top on security and made it a nightmare to use .

[Khleerm]

Vista gives a view of a new world

Internet law professor Michael Geist casts an eye over the fine print in Windows Vista and is concerned at what he finds.

From the BBC

Vista, the latest version of Microsoft Windows has made its long awaited consumer debut. It incorporates a new, sleek look and such novelties as better search tools and stronger security.

Early reviews have tended to dam* the upgrade with faint praise, however, characterising it as the best, most secure version of Windows, yet one that contains few, if any, revolutionary features.

While those reviews have focused chiefly on new functions, for the past few months the legal and technical communities have dug into Vista's "fine print".

Those communities have raised red flags about Vista's legal terms and conditions as well as the technical limitations built in to the software at the insistence of the motion picture industry.

Hard look

The net effect of these concerns may constitute the real Vista revolution as they point to an unprecedented loss of consumer control over their own PCs.

In the name of shielding consumers from computer viruses and protecting copyright owners from potential infringement, Vista seemingly wrestles control of the "user experience" from the user.

Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge.

During the installation process, users "activate" Vista by associating it with a particular computer or device and transmitting certain hardware information directly to Microsoft.

Even after installation, the legal agreement grants Microsoft the right to revalidate the software or to require users to reactivate it should they make changes to their computer components.

For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software".

Michael Geist

In addition, it sets significant limits on the ability to copy or transfer the software, prohibiting anything more than a single backup copy and setting strict limits on transferring the software to different devices or users.

Vista also incorporates Windows Defender, a security program that actively scans computers for "spyware, adware, and other potentially unwanted software". The agreement does not define any of these terms, leaving it to Microsoft to determine what constitutes unwanted software.

Once operational, the agreement warns that Windows Defender will, by default, automatically remove software rated "high" or "severe" even though that may result in other software ceasing to work or mistakenly result in the removal of software that is not unwanted.

For greater certainty, the terms and conditions remove any doubt about who is in control by providing that "this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights".

For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in the software".

Those technical limitations have proven to be even more controversial than the legal ones.

Image problem

In December 2006, Peter Gutmann, a computer scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand released a paper called "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection".

The paper pieced together the technical fine print behind Vista, unraveling numerous limitations in the new software seemingly installed at the direct request of Hollywood.

Mr Gutmann focused primarily on the restrictions associated with the ability to play high-definition content from the next-generation Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs (referred to as "premium content"). He noted that Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content when played on most computer monitors.

Mr Gutmann's research suggests that consumers will pay more for less with poorer picture quality yet higher costs since Microsoft needed to obtain licenses from third parties in order to access the technology that protects premium content (those license fees were presumably incorporated into Vista's price).

Moreover, he calculated that the technological controls would require considerable consumption of computing power with the system conducting 30 checks each second to ensure that there are no attacks on the security of the premium content.

Microsoft responded to Mr Gutmann's paper earlier this month, maintaining that content owners demanded the premium content restrictions.

Said Microsoft: "If the policies [associated with the premium content] required protections that Windows Vista couldn't support, then the content would not be able to play at all on Windows Vista PCs."

While that may be true, left unsaid is Microsoft's ability to demand a better deal on behalf of its enormous user base or the prospect that users could opt-out of the technical controls.

When Microsoft introduced Windows 95 more than a decade ago, it adopted the Rolling Stones Start Me Up as its theme song. As millions of consumers contemplate the company's latest upgrade, the legal and technological restrictions may leave them singing You Can't Always Get What You Want.

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

*******************************************************************

Comment: This author seems as concerned as I. To me, the key quote is, "Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs without the user's knowledge.

Granting that "holds the prospect" is purely speculation, it will be interesting to see if Microsoft becomes so brash.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Khleerm

[Khleerm]

More news on the Vista EULA -

From the: Parallels Virtualization Blog

Note: This applies to Mac users of Parrallels Desktop.

Be aware of these restrictions for running Vista on Parrallels.

"Here's the technical legalese from the EULAs:

For Vista Home Basic and Home Premium Editions:

“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”

For Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions:

“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.”

In short, this means that if you’re a user and you want to run Vista virtually, you MUST buy the highest end versions of Vista, or you’ll be in violation of the Microsoft EULA.

Edited February 2, 2007 by Khleerm

[cdnvic]

they have gone over the top on security and made it a nightmare to use .

First time I ever heard MS accused of that.

[kayo]

On the "rights" issue I'd just add that it's the same with most intellectual property. When you "buy" a movie you really buy is a DVD with some rights to view that movie. The use is restricted.

Ah. That'll explain why I couldn't get Jessica Alba to have passionate sex with me. And I spent all that money on Sin City, too!

Edited February 2, 2007 by kayo

[cdnvic]

On the "rights" issue I'd just add that it's the same with most intellectual property. When you "buy" a movie you really buy is a DVD with some rights to view that movie. The use is restricted.

Ah. That'll explain why I couldn't get Jessica Alba to have passionate sex with me. And I spent all that money on Sin City, too!

You couldn't?

Silly wabbit.... that only happens in the unrated version.

[kayo]

Pantip??

[ollyrosee]

<br />

they have gone over the top on security and made it a nightmare to use .

<br /><br />First time I ever heard MS accused of that. <img src="style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> <br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2007/01/30/vista_games/