This is to those who don't understand what the fuss is all about.
We are not complaining about most users being affected. We, the ones who are complaining are being affected. This has nothing to do with percentages, although Jason's percentage of users affected seems pretty low. Remember, we're talking about the retail OS
license, not the OEM licenses which come with retail machines. I'd bet there are more of us (techies) who will be buying retail copies rather than buying a whole new machine.
I agree most people will not be affected adversly by this license. This is not the point. "Most" does not mean "all." We are complaining, because it affects us. If I buy Vista, Microsoft is telling me in a legally binding document (even though I didn't sign
anything, but that's a completely different issue) I am not allowed to transfer my OS license to a new machine more than once. I don't care if we are a small percentage of users. We are still getting ripped off.
I am not going to assume Microsoft will allow me to re-activate anyway. That is not what the license says. I don't know about other people, but I will not gamble $200-$400 of my money and see what happens later.
If Microsoft comes out and says something like, "Whoops, that isn't what we meant," and they change the wording to allow me to use my copy of software for more than the next two years (I build myself a new machine about every year), I'd be happy to buy a copy
of Vista. If it turns out this restriction stays, I will not buy a copy. Vista has some nice things I'd like to use, but XP works just fine, and Mac OS X is looking really nice these days.
I was not happy about XP's activation "feature," but I was not one of the ones who said they would not buy a copy. I can still use XP the way I want to. This is not so with Vista. Microsoft is telling me I need to re-purchase the expensive software in the future.
This is a big deal to many users, and Microsoft needs to say something about it.