Coffeehouse Thread

55 posts

No Upgrading?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    LightRider

    Is this true? Are we enthusiasts unable to upgrade our systems without ponying up more dough for you guys? This is almost as bad as the WinFS news... Why are you trying to hurt your fans?

    Referring to http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/10/12/2240214.shtml

  • User profile image
    Massif

    You'll have to be move specific, what are you talking about?

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    I have read that too. I mean that you can only upgrade the hardware once, before you need ot buy a new version of Vista. It's a little bit sad, although I haven't done much hardware updates with WinXP. In most cases you get also Vista when you buy a new PC.

    I don't like that certain versions of Vista don't run in a VM. That is really sad.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Apparently TechWeb have an article describing how you can only move your Vista licence to another device, and restricting the two cheapest versions from running in a VM.

    I can see a fuss arising from this, but it doesn't bother me that much, although I'd rather have an easy way of transfering all of the OEM XP Pro licences I seem to have collected (about 6) to whatever PC (or VM)  I wish.

    I do wish there were some news items where we could post C9 threads like 'WOW - Vista to have extra funky cool feature X' or 'Microsoft have decided that Home is half price' or something.

  • User profile image
    Massif

    I don't think anyone using the cheapest editions is seriously going to be using a VM, so that's not exactly a problem.

    But I can see that only allowing one move of the OS from one piece of hardware to another is a serious problem. Although I suppose it depends how it's done, if I re-install Vista after a failure does the license limit me to doing that once? Or is this a sort of - "you've bought a new PC and we'll let you transfer Vista to it" - restriction.

    Weird terms, but who seriously obeys the license to that extent anyway [6]

  • User profile image
    littleguru

    Massif wrote:
    I don't think anyone using the cheapest editions is seriously going to be using a VM, so that's not exactly a problem...


    Why shouldn't I buy the cheapest Vista version and install it in a VM? To save some money Smiley

  • User profile image
    Custa1200

    Massif wrote:
    I don't think anyone using the cheapest editions is seriously going to be using a VM, so that's not exactly a problem.

    But I can see that only allowing one move of the OS from one piece of hardware to another is a serious problem. Although I suppose it depends how it's done, if I re-install Vista after a failure does the license limit me to doing that once? Or is this a sort of - "you've bought a new PC and we'll let you transfer Vista to it" - restriction.

    Weird terms, but who seriously obeys the license to that extent anyway


    WRONG!!!

    This seems aimed squarley at the VMWare and Parallels users. I don't particularily feel like having to shell out top $ to run Windows on my Mac. I require Windows to test in IE, run VS2005 and maybe one or two little apps that are not Mac OS X. This license agreement affects ME directly in what options I have to run windows in a VM.

    Apart from that, I have not even activated my Boot Camp install of XP on my MacBook Pro, becuase it says I have used up all my activations. Thing is I have ONLY ever installed my XP Pro into Parallels ONCE and activated it from there. I honestly can't be bothered atm to ring support and get activation in it, seen as Parallels does everything I need with Windows.

    Will I be able to run Vista in both enviroments on the same machine??

    On another note, has anybody seen Australian pricing for the 3 million versions and upgrade path Matric yet? I currently have XP Pro on the Macbook and MCE on my HP.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Custa1200 wrote:
    

    Apart from that, I have not even activated my Boot Camp install of XP on my MacBook Pro, becuase it says I have used up all my activations. Thing is I have ONLY ever installed my XP Pro into Parallels ONCE and activated it from there. I honestly can't be bothered atm to ring support and get activation in it, seen as Parallels does everything I need with Windows.

    Will I be able to run Vista in both enviroments on the same machine??



    Boot Camp is a physical machine, Parallels is a virtual machine. Therefore you are installing your copy of XP onto two machines which is not allowed under the terms of the license. If you want to do both then yes, you absolutely should need to buy two copies.

  • User profile image
    Custa1200

    AndyC wrote:
    
    Custa1200 wrote:

    Apart from that, I have not even activated my Boot Camp install of XP on my MacBook Pro, becuase it says I have used up all my activations. Thing is I have ONLY ever installed my XP Pro into Parallels ONCE and activated it from there. I honestly can't be bothered atm to ring support and get activation in it, seen as Parallels does everything I need with Windows.

    Will I be able to run Vista in both enviroments on the same machine??



    Boot Camp is a physical machine, Parallels is a virtual machine. Therefore you are installing your copy of XP onto two machines which is not allowed under the terms of the license. If you want to do both then yes, you absolutely should need to buy two copies.


    Can I get somebody from Microsoft to validate that? I don't believe any XP licensing took into account anything to do with physical and virtual in the EULA. It is installed on only one computer, Only one copy is EVER running at once.

    So is that why they give away Virtual PC on Windows now, they expect people to buy as many licences as virtal machine they run? I am sure I have even seen Microsoft advocate testing other configs in a virtual machine on XP. So by what you say for a developer to test something on XP under a different config in VPC they are expected to shell out for another license? I don't think so.

  • User profile image
    Massif

    Of course, if you've got an MSDN subscription you can happily have 1 million copies of XP running VMs. (Provided they're for development and testing purposes only, and are only being used by people with MSDN subscriptions.)

    So they can happily suggest you run tests on VMs.

    But as far as running you standard OS on a VM, then it's still a machine, whether it's virtual or not. You can't claim that simply because they're running on the same physical hardware that a VM doesn't count as a seperate machine. If you've got two VMs running on the same PC, then you're going to need two licenses.

    Now I could just about see that a developer may want to test under Vista Home, and may want to do that under a VM to save money - but it begs two questions:

    1: Do you really think that a test under a VM is a good test? Certainly you can test under a VM during development, but does testing software under a VM running an OS guarantee that it'll run on real hardware using the same OS? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one - is this a good way of testing?)

    2: What kind of cheap-assed development are you doing here? If you're doing a home-grown app, then you could probably - justifiably - claim that you don't have the resources to test under Vista. (If you can't afford Vista Ultimate) And you'd have to rely on getting either some (cheap) hardware to test it out - or users submitting bugs.

    Now that second question's a bit unfair, and it does seem to be punishing the home-brew market if bedroom developers aren't going to be able to test on Vista.

    But apart from testing that your app runs on Vista, what over use would you have for putting a cheaper version of Vista into a VM? (And how can an OS tell it's being run inside a VM anyway?)



    Never have I weighed in so heavily on something I know so little about btw. But hey, many people seem to do it all the time.

  • User profile image
    Skriker V1.0

    If this is true MS are being really GAY!!! (the non homosexual sense)

    I also remeber the same info being passed around at XPs launch.

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger

    Eah, funny EULA!  Big Smile Big Smile Big Smile

    In short words - "Pay A LOT, get nothing"! I think it's newest Microsoftish slogan. "People ready (to pay) business"? Big Smile

    Result (version A):
    - Nobody reading EULAs
    - Vista KeyGens/Cracks/Hacks FOREVER!
    - Everyone has Vista Ultimate for free
    - Microsoft sucs

    Result (version B)
    - Everyone reading EULA
    - "WTF!?!?"
    - nobody installing Vista
    - Windows XP FOREVER!
    - Microsoft sucs

    Long live MS! Or... Long(!) Live(!) MS! Cool

    PS: I have just small simple question for MS: Are you idiots?
    I think question is simple enough...

    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Massif wrote:
    
    Do you really think that a test under a VM is a good test? Certainly you can test under a VM during development, but does testing software under a VM running an OS guarantee that it'll run on real hardware using the same OS? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one - is this a good way of testing?)


    For a certain class of testing, i.e. the "will this code work in principle on a Vista Basic machine", I'd say yes it most definately is. In fact, it is in many ways the best way of testing since it's easy to roll back to an OOB install. Of course, that doesn't apply to all testing, but it does to a fairly large chunk of it.

  • User profile image
    ZippyV

    Like I said before, it's not the alternatives who are going to convince people to switch to another os, it's Microsoft itself who is going to push people away.

    Instead of creating cheap family licenses they had to put more restrictions in the EULA. I don't see the reasons for doing that, Microsoft is not going to win anything by those restrictions.

    There are 2 ways to shoot yourself in the foot: use a small gun to shoot a tiny hole in your foot, it may heal after a while OR you can use a bazooka to blow your whole foot off.

  • User profile image
    Custa1200

    Massif wrote:
    

    Of course, if you've got an MSDN subscription you can happily have 1 million copies of XP running VMs. (Provided they're for development and testing purposes only, and are only being used by people with MSDN subscriptions.)

    So they can happily suggest you run tests on VMs.

    But as far as running you standard OS on a VM, then it's still a machine, whether it's virtual or not. You can't claim that simply because they're running on the same physical hardware that a VM doesn't count as a seperate machine. If you've got two VMs running on the same PC, then you're going to need two licenses.

    Now I could just about see that a developer may want to test under Vista Home, and may want to do that under a VM to save money - but it begs two questions:

    1: Do you really think that a test under a VM is a good test? Certainly you can test under a VM during development, but does testing software under a VM running an OS guarantee that it'll run on real hardware using the same OS? (This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one - is this a good way of testing?)

    2: What kind of cheap-assed development are you doing here? If you're doing a home-grown app, then you could probably - justifiably - claim that you don't have the resources to test under Vista. (If you can't afford Vista Ultimate) And you'd have to rely on getting either some (cheap) hardware to test it out - or users submitting bugs.

    Now that second question's a bit unfair, and it does seem to be punishing the home-brew market if bedroom developers aren't going to be able to test on Vista.

    But apart from testing that your app runs on Vista, what over use would you have for putting a cheaper version of Vista into a VM? (And how can an OS tell it's being run inside a VM anyway?)



    Never have I weighed in so heavily on something I know so little about btw. But hey, many people seem to do it all the time.



    I have all the MSDN subscription I want at my work, but by choice, at home I use Mac OS X, it is flat out a more usable OS (although I am also waiting for my Mac Mini to be delivered to work, to sit next to my Dell, funny coz it will smoke my 10 month old Dell 3.8Ghz and can put as many OS on it as I want to keep Massif happy). I use it for basic development at home and to learn more bout the tech we use at work. If we did not develop using MS solutions at work I probably would not even bother having Windows machines at home either, I went 9 years without having them and it's only due to work circumstances that I feel I need to use both again.

    Seen as Microsoft has long dropped the ball on IE for Mac OS (at which time I thought the Tasman engine of IE5 Mac was streets ahead of Trident in IE5.5 and subsequently in 6.0) I need to test IE7 against things. I also need to test IE6 against things, and the only way to do that his to have multiple copies of the OS seen as they so "wisely" have attached the browser to the OS so tighly that you cannot run a different version of their browser in the one OS without having quirks of it's own making it realistically unusable.

    But back on topic here, my main concern is I only "need" to run Windows Vista in a VM on my Mac, and for that convenience I need to shell out for features I don't need. Sad I am still undecided what version I will buy for the HP, but this rate I might not bother upgrading anything.

    Would still like to get confirmation from somebody at Microsoft regarding using one copy of Windows XP on a single machine and also running a VM instance off that license on the same machine?


  • User profile image
    Custa1200

    ZippyV wrote:
    Like I said before, it's not the alternatives who are going to convince people to switch to another os, it's Microsoft itself who is going to push people away.

    Instead of creating cheap family licenses they had to put more restrictions in the EULA. I don't see the reasons for doing that, Microsoft is not going to win anything by those restrictions.

    There are 2 ways to shoot yourself in the foot: use a small gun to shoot a tiny hole in your foot, it may heal after a while OR you can use a bazooka to blow your whole foot off.


    Gotta love Apple's Family 5 pack Smiley

  • User profile image
    BlackTiger
    If you stumbled and fell down, it doesn't mean yet, that you're going in the wrong direction.
    Last modified
  • User profile image
    Rossj

    BlackTiger wrote:


    The Article wrote:
    But if it works, it could be worth more than $5bn as people using pirate copies finally pay up.



    I can see why they're doing it, but if someone is using a pirated copy of Windows and they start losing functionality what do you think they will do?

    a. Scour the Internet looking for software to disable it.
    b. Keep using pirated copies of XP.
    c. Look around for something else to use instead that can be pirated more easily.
    d. Feel guilty and go spend $100 or whatever at the local store.

    Now I suspect that if anyone takes option C they aren't going to choose OSX because the cost of Mac hardware is (barely) more than the cost of the software they are using (probably Ultimate if they pirated it - after all it isn't like they have to pay for it).

    There are likely to be two likely outcomes to this - pirates stay with XP, or they consider Linux.

    "200X is the year of the Linux Desktop" is a running joke,  but I suspect more than a handful of pirates might switch when faced with a new computer that has degraded functionality because they pirated Ultimate to replace Home.  Whether it is enough to make even a 1% increase in Linux desktop usage who can say?

    So my question to Microsoft, which is more important to you - Vista marketshare, or less Piracy?


Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.