Page 2 of 2
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:11 am
by timvw
aaronhall wrote:timvw wrote:Jenk wrote:For gamers, there's no alternative but to adopt Vista if we wish to stay in the gamers demographic.
Which proves that the majority of gamers doesn't have a problem with the Vista license...
That the majority of gamers will be forced to tolerate the license in order to "stay in the gamers demographic" doesn't imply that they like the licensing...
Being forced to tolerate the license is a simple consequence of 'staying in the gamers demographic', so it remains a consequence of their
own choices. If the license was really that intolerable they would give up their desire to stay in the gamers demographic...
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:44 am
by aaronhall
timvw wrote:Being forced to tolerate the license is a simple consequence of 'staying in the gamers demographic', so it remains a consequence of their own choices. If the license was really that intolerable they would give up their desire to stay in the gamers demographic...
Your original statement, though, is not always true. To tolerate something does not, by necessity, imply that you like or approve of it. Gamers will tolerate the license for the sake of not having to tolerate giving up the games they like to play.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:05 am
by Jenk
timvw wrote:aaronhall wrote:timvw wrote:
Which proves that the majority of gamers doesn't have a problem with the Vista license...
That the majority of gamers will be forced to tolerate the license in order to "stay in the gamers demographic" doesn't imply that they like the licensing...
Being forced to tolerate the license is a simple consequence of 'staying in the gamers demographic', so it remains a consequence of their
own choices. If the license was really that intolerable they would give up their desire to stay in the gamers demographic...
Not so.
Being forced into/out of a situation or circumstance by means of creating a fee to be in/out of it is what constitutes monopolisation.
Unless every game creator makes their games that will utilise DX10, will also leave them open to other platforms, this is a monopolisation on MS' behalf.
We all know the above will not happen. One of the orginial architects of DirectX, Alex St. John, has stated in public that the point of DirectX was to tether multimedia applications to the Windows platform and defeat Apple (and others) at multimedia.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:07 am
by RobertGonzalez
I think I would tend to go 100% Linux before I went along with that stupid license. That is just my opinion, as I still cannot see how Microsoft can tell you the software you bought is legitimate as long as your hardware works the way it should. Dude, it is your software. You bought the rights to install and use it when you forked over your cash. If you retire a system, the software is still yours unless you clearly agreed when buying the rights to it that the software was for a named machine.
Anyway, I feel the need to sit back and not worry so much about this. I doubt that I will ever get on board with such a silly idea. And thinking about it gets me steamed, so I am off to go get some more coffee.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:18 am
by Jenk
My main disliking for Vista (and in general Windows) is as an operating system, it does far too much. Especially Vista.
In my opinion, OS' should provide nothing but a layer between Application and Hardware. Nothing else. Obviously this is what we originally got from OS's and things have expanded, but when we see "brand new OS" such as Vista pimped about all over the place, when the _ONLY_ benefit to Vista over XP is the flashy desktop widgets (which will remain firmly off on my rig,) and market monopolising functionality.. well. It leaves you asking questions about the motives.
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:09 pm
by timvw
Jenk wrote:
Being forced into/out of a situation or circumstance by means of creating a fee to be in/out of it is what constitutes monopolisation.
There are more than enough other things where you have to pay in order to be 'in'. If the majority of gamers really had serieus issues with the license you would see a shift in their buying preferences.. As long as that doesn't happen i can only conclude the issues aren't serieus enough (to the majority).
(Notice that i'm not saying that i don't have issues with microsfts policy (not only licensing). I even agree that micrsoft does have a monopoly... But as long as there are enough people willing to buy their products nothing will change...
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:58 am
by Maugrim_The_Reaper
timvw wrote:There are more than enough other things where you have to pay in order to be 'in'. If the majority of gamers really had serieus issues with the license you would see a shift in their buying preferences.. As long as that doesn't happen i can only conclude the issues aren't serious enough (to the majority).
What are their buying preferences? A gamer does not have a preference for gaming, they can only have a preference for the gaming platform. Now look at platforms... A new console would cost an additional $300~ or more. Getting the game to work on Linux would take 2-3 years of waiting. It remains to be seen how Mac OS on Intel will effect the landscape. At the end of the day there are no reasonable alternatives for a gamer but to buy Vista or sacrifice the advantages of PC gaming.
You need to keep in mind that Microsoft IS a monopoly. In the presence of a monopoly, a buyers preferences often has a negligible impact. That's why governments generally introduce anti-competition laws and regulations to prohibit or discourage the formation of monopolies. Unfortunately Microsoft got to that status long before anyone got around to that...
It leaves you asking questions about the motives.
Share price.
If you retire a system, the software is still yours unless you clearly agreed when buying the rights to it that the software was for a named machine.
This was something of a confused point earlier. Microsoft cannot prevent you from using purchased software on one system no matter how it is changed and reconfigured. The license may impose conditions, but those conditions MUST be in accordance with the national law of the state in which the software is purchased. I would go further and say MS cannot define a single PC based on hardware at all - the very idea is ridiculous. They can only enforce that software be used on one machine at a time. If I switch my hard drive because it failed, and take the opportunity to upgrade my MB so I can use SATA drives - does that mean MS can stop me from using the software I purchased?
No, it doesn't. I'd have to ring them up, complain about the inconvenience, and tell them to activate my copy again. But I firmly believe they would not have a leg to stand on if they said no. I'd actually take some pleasure in visiting the Small Claims Court in fact.
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 3:30 am
by Jenk
Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2006 10:03 am
by RobertGonzalez
You beat me to it! Here is the article I got this morning from Information Week.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/sho ... =193501465