gogogadgetearl . vista license transfer
2006.10.14
-
**Originally from the login customization screen comments**
OK, I didn't know where to post this, so I found the next closest thing, a post about computers. Have you seen this? Simply Absurd. There goes my chance of upgrading or recovering from a crash anytime soon.
o posted by: claryam
o [ 2006.10.13 | 2:23:05pm ]
have faith, there will always be *a way* around such things. though at initial reading, it is quite upsettings. either microsoft will come to its senses, or (more likely) within a few months of it first release, there will be hacks for ways around it.
o posted by: casey
o [ 2006.10.14 | 7:44:47am ]
That's just it. I don't want a hack this time, I want to go legit, to have my own copy and not have to be constantly looking for cracked patches or temporary solutions. It's crap like this that only makes it harder for "bad people" to do the right thing, while giving good people the opportunity to turn likewise.
o posted by: claryam
o [ 2006.10.14 | 11:08:01am ]
to me, it depends on your definition of "legitimate." i agree with you. i plan on getting a true copy of vista ultimate. and, if it so happens that, for some reason, i need to reinstall it on a third machine, in my mind i'm still legitimately doing so, even if i have to use a work-around of sorts. it's not my fault some Microsoft people have their heads up their arses.
plus, from what i read, and based upon how it previously was done, the transferrable license is generally automatic, meaning Microsoft does not have to actually get involved (you uninstall windows from one machine and then install it on a different computer--license transferred). it seems very possible that all that will be needed is for an owner of a legit copy to call old Bill up and say 'gimme a new key' or something and then everything is kosher again.
o posted by: casey
o [ 2006.10.14 | 2:35:52pm ]
moving thread to own post :-)
o posted by: casey
o [ 2006.10.15 | 1:03:52am ]
****
What about you guys? What are your thoughts on Vista limiting license transfers? Would you consider it ethical to use a "not-exactly-legal" program/file/hack to reinstall a product you actually own? to me it's like purchasing a music cd, making a copy of it, accidentally breaking the original, decide to make a copy of the copy, and then being notified that if one of those breaks i can't make another backup copy. that seems absolutely asinine to me, especially in the case of Vista, where you aren't even having 3 copies out at one time.
comments
-
- [ 2006.10.16 | 8:06:22am ]
-
well, to be honest, with all the crap that's been surrounding vista - especially around it's release - i'm seriously considering re-visiting linux. where the legalities and freedoms of using windows are getting more and more restrictive, linux is seeming more and more free [both literally and metaphorically]. plus, with the strides that ubuntu is making with user-friendliness, it's really making the transition easy.
if it gets to the point where i can't re-install windows due to legal issues [and we all know that a fresh windows install means a healthy computer], then i'm switching to linux without turning back. it's honestly worth the trouble of learning linux to get away from software that won't let me get full use from a product that i paid good money for.
to take it one step further - if i had the money, i'd go out and buy a mac in a heartbeat. seriously: in a heartbeat. it's got the roots of unix, and the face of a beauty. it's not perfect, but at the fingertips of those with open minds, it seems to be soaring over the competition.- [ 2006.10.16 | 12:27:02pm ]
-
i have become somewhat of a fan of macs much for the same reason (and i have installed ubuntu on a secondary machine and am slowly getting used to it).
considering vista, however, i did not think about this until today:
i wonder what the restrictive licensing will do for organizations like the one i work for, a college. every day we "image drop" some faculty member's computer. generally, that computer stays with the same person, but quite often the computer is transferred to another faculty member. though it would be rather easy to continue our current process, unless an arrangement is made between WKU and Dell or Microsoft, doing so with Vista could be seen as violating their transfer limitation.
**in short what we do is make a standard ghost image from one machine that we then replicate on practically any and every University bought computer. every computer initially comes with Dell's XP Pro, but we have an arrangment with Dell (I think it's them) for us to install our image, erasing theirs, therefore every license is legitimate.**
i am not entirely sure how we do it currently when a computer is transferred to a different user--if we go ahead and purchase a license for that new user (which i doubt), or if we use the unlimited transfers for Pro, as drew mentioned above. hopefully, microsoft is aware of this situation (as i am sure many schools and organizations have similiar setups) and plan on allowing such institutions some leninancy in license transfers.- [ 2006.10.16 | 8:54:08pm ]
-
with the case of schools, I don't see a place like Western upgrading to a Vista client anytime soon, and I mean years after its release. The compatability issues between things like Novell, PatchGuard, and the new Vista Kernal would be impossible to remedy and regulate if MS doesn't do anything about opening up their kernal source to security companies as demanded by the EU as well as American antitrust laws.
Plus, Vista is too bloated of an OS to be running as a lab machine, and with all of its gadgets and gizmos and power requirements, the cost for upgrading the machines would be more than Western is willing to invest. I mean, seriously, it's about to become a 1-A football school, they can't afford to put money into things like education aid, they gotta be thinking about box seats and expanding the stadium.
To be honest, I really don't see MS letting up on the whole unlimited licensing thing, especially since they won't even allow 3rd party companies access to their core components for absolutely lawful and necessary internet security systems. The entire industry has gotten so greedy with their products lately that it doesn't even seem worth going window shopping anymore because I know that it won't be long before everywhere you turn will require a minimum deposit just to look around in the stores, (Apple vs Microsoft, Sony's batteries, and Sony everything else for that matter, HD entertainment restrictions, RIAA, American cars and gas laws, check out Ford's BOLD program, the bold part of Ford at this point is their continuing effort to make the biggest gas guzzlers on the planet when the rest of the world is going green so that Ford can make a buck off oil companies.)- [ 2006.10.19 | 1:27:03pm ]
-
I stand in utter awe and humiliation of my ignorance of the Kernal lockouts for Vista. The licensing thing still stands, I don't think it will open up, and I think it's total crap. Here is why:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/carroll/index.php?p=1611
http://www.stepto.com/default/log/displaylog1.aspx?ID=258- [ 2006.10.19 | 2:19:25pm ]
honestly, I think that the licensing system should be like that of XP. Home got you five transfers before deactivation, while Professional got you unlimited transfers. It could work the same way for the Home Ultimate, just give it a professional license. I mean, the people who are buying the Ultimate version of Vista are basically going for the same system security as the business version, but they want it to look better. I would pay the price for a fully pimped, legit copy of Windows that I am free to use on whatever machine I build or destroy. Of course I would only use it for my machine, as I have used a "borrowed" copy of XP Pro to redo many other people's machines. I would probably continue that since chances are, if the machine needs to be worked on, then it is old and doesn't meet the Vista specs anyway.
This limited stuff is only punishing the people who are tech savvy, or big hardware buffs. Microsoft sees the majority of people looking for Vista buying a system with a preinstalled version on it manufactured by the big companies like HP or Dell, (notice I said HP first, Dell is on my crap list). These people don't care how it works, as long as it does, and if it fails, they can have someone work on it under warranty. MS knows this, and are catering this new OS to those Apple-type people who don't like Apple, but also don't know anything about computers like most Apple users.