vista. [ MAJOR UPDATE. 1ST POST]

Ye' old general discussion board. Basically, for everything that isn't covered elsewhere. Come here to shoot the breeze, shoot your mouth off, or whatever suits your fancy.
This forum is not for asking programming related questions.

Moderator: General Moderators

Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

vista. [ MAJOR UPDATE. 1ST POST]

Post by Charles256 »

Yep guys. The OS being tied to your hardware is true. Just found out first hand. : mumbles and curses :

edit: A manager just called me and essentially said ignore the rep, he assured me I could move my copy of vista. I would have to phone support to activate it but it was perfectly fine and assured me if I had all ready bought another copy they would refund my money. So..false alarm. BAD CR reps!
edit to the edit : shame i had all ready wrote cnn,msnbc, and fox... :-/
Last edited by Charles256 on Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
nickvd
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Post by nickvd »

A more detailed explanation would be very handy for us sys admins :)
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

I know. I was just annoyed. Okay. Bottom line. You install Vista and it takes a snapshot of your hardware. That license is then bound to that hardware configuration. Period. No way to transfer it ever. I had heard that but found it very hard to believe, after talking to customer service today I found it is true. I wanted to move my copy of premium to another computer and install ultimate on this one but since the license key is bound to my hardware I can not.
nickvd
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Post by nickvd »

Fight it... it may be "legal" due to the EULA you agreed to, but it's (in my opinion) in violation of fair-use...
Charles256
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 9:06 pm

Post by Charles256 »

Gonna loan me some money for a lawyer?
User avatar
Chris Corbyn
Breakbeat Nuttzer
Posts: 13098
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2004 7:57 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Chris Corbyn »

That's shocking. How can that possibly be justified? As in, how have they (Microsoft) somehow lost money if you take your own licensed, legally purchased copy of windows and move it onto a new machine? I can't see any feasible reaosn how they can justify charging you to reconfigure something that has nothing at all to do with the software you purchased.
nickvd
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Post by nickvd »

User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Just so you know, in many states (I believe) in order to be enforceable, the EULA must be signed by all parties. There are probably some other loopholes for the creators of the software, but that's the gist.
User avatar
seodevhead
Forum Regular
Posts: 705
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Windermere, FL

Post by seodevhead »

Just wait for Vista Leopard.
User avatar
pickle
Briney Mod
Posts: 6445
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 6:11 pm
Location: 53.01N x 112.48W
Contact:

Post by pickle »

MS did this so that if I buy a copy of Vista, install it on my workstation & take an image of it, I can't then take that image & pass it around to my friends so they don't have to buy Vista. MS was just trying to reduce piracy, but of course found the most bone-headed way to do it.
Real programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write, it should be hard to understand.
User avatar
daedalus__
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1925
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2006 4:52 pm

Post by daedalus__ »

seodevhead wrote:Just wait for Vista Leopard.
Maybe they'll take a snapshot of your brain and tie it to your person.
nickvd
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Post by nickvd »

pickle wrote:MS did this so that if I buy a copy of Vista, install it on my workstation & take an image of it, I can't then take that image & pass it around to my friends so they don't have to buy Vista. MS was just trying to reduce piracy, but of course found the most bone-headed way to do it.
I'd like to see that be successful...

Unless they have an IDENTICAL system, it's rather doubtful that an image of an operating system from your system will work without problems on mine.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

d11wtq wrote:That's shocking. How can that possibly be justified?
Hey this information has been out there months before Vista was released. You had a preview of it when they released that Windows Authorization program for XP that caused all kinds of problems. And an even earlier preview with the initial launch of XP years ago with the activation system. Even XP had minimal hardware keyed activation that tried to prevent XP from being run on more than one computer. They just took it to the extreme with Vista.

Everyone has been warned about Vista but sadly the people making the warnings were thought to be crackpots. Sigh...

Just wait until people start complaining about Vista shutting down or going into Minimal Mode when they try installing new hardware drivers that are not WHQ Certified by Microsoft.

Or when new virus programs start causing Vista computers to shut down because they triggered the new authorization violation routines. :D Vista owners are in for some nasty surprises in the future. :D
nickvd
DevNet Resident
Posts: 1027
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:27 pm
Location: Southern Ontario
Contact:

Post by nickvd »

/me smells a class action suit coming in the near future.
User avatar
AKA Panama Jack
Forum Regular
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:21 pm

Post by AKA Panama Jack »

nickvd wrote:/me smells a class action suit coming in the near future.
We can only hope. :)
Post Reply