Vista retail - install limitations?

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of Windows...

PatriX wrote:
> I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
> annoyncies.
>
> 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
> this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?


As far as I know it's not a definite number of parts but varies, however
you should always be able to reactivate by phone if you have a
reasonable explanation.


> 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
> computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
> new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
> will have to buy a new license? Is this true?


Not at this time, same as above, however the EULA more or less states
that MS can do when they like when they like so who knows?


> I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
> procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of Windows...


I agree, I think it is a terrible business decision and hope that MS
reconsider or fix the problems with it before they discover the damage
it does to them the hard way.

I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
annoyncies.

1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?

If you make critical changes to the computer, it will require re-activating
Vista by telephone. Some of the hard parts include Hard disk, motherboad and
in some cases memory. Try not to do it too much since this can be attributed
by the person granting the activation request as suspicious behaviour. If
you are going to make major changes, trying doing once if you can I say.

2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
will have to buy a new license? Is this true?

If its a retail license, fine, you can remove it from your old computer and
install it on a new one.

I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of
Windows...

Most pirated versions of Windows that end users choose are Volume License
versions which are used by Corporations for mass deployment of Windows.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"PatriX" <> wrote in message
news:E5E91AC4-6588-47C5-AF51-...
> I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the
> activation
> annoyncies.
>
> 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again,
> is
> this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>
> 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my
> old
> computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once. If I buy another
> new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
> will have to buy a new license? Is this true?
>
> I really hate this kind of "protection" that Microsoft has added to the
> procuct. It's actually more convenient to use a pirated version of
> Windows...

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 10:18:00 -0800, PatriX
<> wrote:

> I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
> annoyncies.
>
> 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
> this true?


Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.

However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
doesn't represent any real problem.


> Can it be done an unlimited number of times?



Yes.


> 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
> computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.


That's wrong.

First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.

But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
along with the computer.

It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
Windows.


> If I buy another
> new computer again (and once again removes Vista from the old one) then I
> will have to buy a new license? Is this true?


*If* it's a retail license, no, it's false (see above). But with an
OEM license, yes, it's true the very first time you buy a new
computer, not just the second time.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> > 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> > within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
> > this true?
>
>
> Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
> not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
> if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
> reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.
>
> However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
> doesn't represent any real problem.
>

Actually, it DO represent a problem.
I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
it totally unacceptable to be required to:
1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
and then
2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.

Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?
Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
(I will have to call them almost every month)

Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.

>
> > Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>
> Yes.

Well, at least that's good.

>
> > 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
> > computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.
>
>
> That's wrong.
>
> First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
> With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
> often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.
>
> But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
> permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
> legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
> along with the computer.
>
> It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
> Windows.
>

Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
retail version.



I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
reasons for this:
1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
express myself in the most proper way
2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
treat the customers the way Microsoft do.



Off topic:
How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
they've paid for?
How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
you modify your hardware configuration?

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:34:03 -0800, PatriX
<> wrote:

>"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>
>> > 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
>> > within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
>> > this true?
>>
>>
>> Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
>> not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
>> if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
>> reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.
>>
>> However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
>> doesn't represent any real problem.
>>
>
>Actually, it DO represent a problem.
>I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
>it totally unacceptable to be required to:
>1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
>and then
>2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.

Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your
shoulder twisting your arms to use their OS.

>Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?

Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.

>Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
>(I will have to call them almost every month)

Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs
in an asylum.

>Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
>It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.

The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.

>>
>> > Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Well, at least that's good.
>
>>
>> > 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
>> > computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.
>>
>>
>> That's wrong.
>>
>> First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
>> With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
>> often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.
>>
>> But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
>> permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
>> legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
>> along with the computer.
>>
>> It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
>> Windows.
>>
>
>Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
>retail version.
>
>
>
>I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
>reasons for this:
>1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
>express myself in the most proper way

The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by
living in the milleu it is spoken in.

While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".

>2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
>treat the customers the way Microsoft do.

Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."

>
>
>
>Off topic:
>How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
>have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
>Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
>they've paid for?
>How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
>aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
>you modify your hardware configuration?

Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes
that it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a
rhetorical question.

Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal
pockets", so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat
attacking an elephant.

Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".
Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is
more of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like
your first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a
"religious statement of faith", rather than a "question".

This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS
in almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion
of yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others,
so making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
"question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.

I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.

But to answer the part which can be answered:

It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of
validating installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS
X, since OS X will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of
them are sold, making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions.
Apple loses no money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is
much like the food, drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no
money from it, since the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and
the food and entertainment are there as incentives to draw the
customers in, and keep them gambling and drinking. In the same way,
Apple makes its money by selling HARDWARE, not software.

Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something
must be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
investments high.

On top of that, Apple's are already expensive: charging an arm and a
leg for the OS would just put an Apple out of most folks' budget
ranges. The bean-counters in Cupertino know better than to go too far
on pricing.

Donald L McDaniel

Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin] wrote:
> I'm about to buy Vista Home Premium, but I'm concerned about the activation
> annoyncies.
>
> 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
> this true? Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>
> If you make critical changes to the computer, it will require re-activating
> Vista by telephone. Some of the hard parts include Hard disk, motherboad and
> in some cases memory. Try not to do it too much since this can be attributed
> by the person granting the activation request as suspicious behaviour. If
> you are going to make major changes, trying doing once if you can I say.

That's absurd. One should be able to update one's computer as one sees
fit and should *never* be construed as "suspicious behavior".

Alias

Donald, thanks for posting this reply, which I agree with. For some
reason, PatriX's reply to me never showed up here.




On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:18:23 -0800, Donald L McDaniel
<orthocrossATkomkastDOTnet> wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:34:03 -0800, PatriX
> <> wrote:
>
> >"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
> >
> >> > 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
> >> > within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
> >> > this true?
> >>
> >>
> >> Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
> >> not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
> >> if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
> >> reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.
> >>
> >> However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
> >> doesn't represent any real problem.
> >>
> >
> >Actually, it DO represent a problem.
> >I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
> >it totally unacceptable to be required to:
> >1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
> >and then
> >2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.
>
> Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
> OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your
> shoulder twisting your arms to use their OS.
>
> >Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?
>
> Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.
>
> >Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
> >(I will have to call them almost every month)
>
> Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
> often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs
> in an asylum.
>
> >Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
> >It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.
>
> The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
> drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.
>
> >>
> >> > Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >
> >Well, at least that's good.
> >
> >>
> >> > 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
> >> > computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's wrong.
> >>
> >> First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
> >> With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
> >> often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.
> >>
> >> But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
> >> permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
> >> legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
> >> along with the computer.
> >>
> >> It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
> >> Windows.
> >>
> >
> >Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
> >retail version.
> >
> >
> >
> >I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
> >reasons for this:
> >1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
> >express myself in the most proper way
>
> The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by
> living in the milleu it is spoken in.
>
> While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
> say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".
>
> >2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
> >treat the customers the way Microsoft do.
>
> Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Off topic:
> >How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
> >have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
> >Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
> >they've paid for?
> >How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
> >aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
> >you modify your hardware configuration?
>
> Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes
> that it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a
> rhetorical question.
>
> Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal
> pockets", so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat
> attacking an elephant.
>
> Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".
> Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
> an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is
> more of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like
> your first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a
> "religious statement of faith", rather than a "question".
>
> This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS
> in almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion
> of yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
> judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others,
> so making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
> "question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
> superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
> an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.
>
> I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
> post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.
>
> But to answer the part which can be answered:
>
> It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of
> validating installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS
> X, since OS X will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of
> them are sold, making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions.
> Apple loses no money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is
> much like the food, drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no
> money from it, since the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and
> the food and entertainment are there as incentives to draw the
> customers in, and keep them gambling and drinking. In the same way,
> Apple makes its money by selling HARDWARE, not software.
>
> Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
> its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something
> must be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
> investments high.
>
> On top of that, Apple's are already expensive: charging an arm and a
> leg for the OS would just put an Apple out of most folks' budget
> ranges. The bean-counters in Cupertino know better than to go too far
> on pricing.
>
> Donald L McDaniel

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:18:23 -0800, Donald L McDaniel wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:34:03 -0800, PatriX
> <> wrote:
>
>>"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>
>>> > 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my
>>> > computer within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate
>>> > Windows again, is this true?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
>>> not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
>>> if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
>>> reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.
>>>
>>> However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
>>> doesn't represent any real problem.
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, it DO represent a problem.
>>I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I
>>find it totally unacceptable to be required to: 1) Pay an unreasonable
>>price for an operating system and then
>>2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.
>
> Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
> OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your shoulder
> twisting your arms to use their OS.
>
>>Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?
>
> Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.
>
>>Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
>>(I will have to call them almost every month)
>
> Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
> often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs in
> an asylum.
>
>>Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
>>It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.
>
> The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
> drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.
>
>
>>> > Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>Well, at least that's good.
>>
>>
>>> > 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista
>>> > from my old computer, then I will only be able to install Vista
>>> > once.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's wrong.
>>>
>>> First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
>>> With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
>>> often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.
>>>
>>> But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
>>> permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
>>> legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
>>> along with the computer.
>>>
>>> It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
>>> Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
>>retail version.
>>
>>
>>
>>I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are
>>some reasons for this:
>>1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
>>express myself in the most proper way
>
> The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by living
> in the milleu it is spoken in.
>
> While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
> say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".
>
>>2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable
>>to treat the customers the way Microsoft do.
>
> Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."
>
>
>>
>>
>>Off topic:
>>How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy
>>countermeasures have gone so far that honest users will suffer? Has
>>anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
>>they've paid for?
>>How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
>>aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple
>>when you modify your hardware configuration?
>
> Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes that
> it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a rhetorical
> question.
>
> Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal pockets",
> so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat attacking an
> elephant.
>
> Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".
> Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
> an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is more
> of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like your
> first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a "religious
> statement of faith", rather than a "question".
>
> This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS in
> almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion of
> yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
> judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others, so
> making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
> "question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
> superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
> an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.
>
> I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
> post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.
>
> But to answer the part which can be answered:
>
> It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of validating
> installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS X, since OS X
> will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of them are sold,
> making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions. Apple loses no
> money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is much like the food,
> drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no money from it, since
> the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and the food and
> entertainment are there as incentives to draw the customers in, and keep
> them gambling and drinking. In the same way, Apple makes its money by
> selling HARDWARE, not software.
>
> Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
> its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something must
> be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
> investments high.

Well I'll tell you one thing. Excessively making customers lives
miserable also puts a dent into the revenue stream. I for one will not be
upgrading my roughly 10 XP licenses I own. I'm planning on having a
single machine around for Vista testing and that will be pretty much it.

So in this particular case, I hope that they are preventing at least 9
pirated copies to just break even on the revenue lost from sales to me.

And yes, I realize little me isn't significant in the larger picture.
However, throw in enough people like me and eventually it adds up.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

��事��出�日�ん�����
��事忘れ�������ら

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 13:34:03 -0800, PatriX
> <> wrote:
>
>> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:
>>
>>>> 1. I've heard that if i replace more than 3 hardware parts in my computer
>>>> within 90 days, I will have to call Microsoft to activate Windows again, is
>>>> this true?
>>>
>>> Sort of, but not exactly. First, it's 120 days, not 90. Second, it's
>>> not simply the number of parts, it depends on what they are. But yes,
>>> if you change a lot of hardware within 120 days, you will have to
>>> reactivate by a voice call to an 800 number.
>>>
>>> However, telephone activation isn't hard or time-consuming, and
>>> doesn't represent any real problem.
>>>
>> Actually, it DO represent a problem.
>> I am one of those "geeks" who buys new hardware 1-2 times each month. I find
>> it totally unacceptable to be required to:
>> 1) Pay an unreasonable price for an operating system
>> and then
>> 2) Not be allowed to use my computer the way I want to.
>
> Microsoft is not doing that at all, sir. You may or may not use their
> OS, depending on your wishes. They are not standing over your
> shoulder twisting your arms to use their OS.

No, the are standing over everyone's shoulder making sure that they use
what they paid for in the way that MS wants them to and you, of course,
buy it hook, line and sinker.

>
>> Is it easy to reach Microsoft on that number?
>
> Very easy, unless you live in the boondocks of Africa somewhere.

There should be no reason to call MS for permission to use something one
paid for, period.

>
>> Will they be "suspicious" about me modifying my hardware all the time?
>> (I will have to call them almost every month)
>
> Personally, I believe someone who has to fiddle with his hardware that
> often is NOT just a "geek", he is also a complete "freek" who belongs
> in an asylum.

Your opinion in this regard is meaningless and the computer hobbyists
have a right live and do what they want with their computer hardware.
>
>> Is there any way to convince Microsoft not forcing me to do these calls?
>> It will cost them money and a lot of frustration for my part.
>
> The money they must spend for your piddling little support calls will
> drown in Microsoft's Revenue stream.

We know how you look down on anyone that's different from you so you
don't have to repeat it again and again.
>
>>>> Can it be done an unlimited number of times?
>>> Yes.
>> Well, at least that's good.
>>
>>>> 2. I've also heard that if I buy a new computer and remove Vista from my old
>>>> computer, then I will only be able to install Vista once.
>>>
>>> That's wrong.
>>>
>>> First, recognize that there are two kinds of licenses, Retail and OEM.
>>> With a retail license, you can move it from computer to computer as
>>> often as you want or need to. There are no restrictions.
>>>
>>> But the biggest disadvantage of an OEM license is that it is
>>> permanently tied to the first computer it's installed on. It can never
>>> legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away, except
>>> along with the computer.
>>>
>>> It's for that reason that I recommend against buying OEM copies of
>>> Windows.
>>>
>> Ok, at least that's good to know. It seems like I will be "safe" with a
>> retail version.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sorry if the language in my post appears unfriendly, but there are some
>> reasons for this:
>> 1) English is not my native language, hence I do not always know how to
>> express myself in the most proper way
>
> The best way to learn a language is to immerse yourself in it by
> living in the milleu it is spoken in.
>
> While "the most proper way" is valid English grammar, Americans would
> say "the best way", as in "good", "better", "best".

Um, English isn't just spoken by Americans. The US President is a good
example of an American who can't speak English in the most proper way.

>
>> 2) As a professional software developer I find it totally unacceptable to
>> treat the customers the way Microsoft do.
>
> Here in the States we would say "the way Microsoft does."

In England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, they say "the way
Microsoft do" because Microsoft is more than one person.

>
>>
>>
>> Off topic:
>> How wise is it to release a product where the anti-piracy countermeasures
>> have gone so far that honest users will suffer?
>> Has anyone tried to sue Microsoft for not letting them use the software
>> they've paid for?
>> How come Apple's OS X is a superior Operating Systems in almost every
>> aspect, and still is both cheaper and does not require you to call Apple when
>> you modify your hardware configuration?
>
> Question 1: This is not a question, since it intrinsically assumes
> that it is not at all wise to do such a thing. i.e., it is a
> rhetorical question.

And that assumption is correct.

>
> Question 2: I'm sure some have. But Microsoft has deep "legal
> pockets", so I wonder how far they got. It would be much like a gnat
> attacking an elephant.

And you think that's a good thing?

>
> Question 3: Proper English grammar would be "Why is Apple's OS X...".

False. His English is just fine.

> Additionally, your question is another rhetorical one, not calling for
> an answer, since it contains its own answer. Realistically, it is
> more of a "declarative statement", than a question, and is much like
> your first "question". Personally, I would consider it to be a
> "religious statement of faith", rather than a "question".

Or a good point.

>
> This last "question" intrinsically states that OS X is a "superior OS
> in almost every aspect", when that is nothing but a personal opinion
> of yours. There is no particular central authority of any kind which
> judges the quality or usefulness of one OS in relation to any others,
> so making such a statement is rather pretentious. Additionally, the
> "question" calls for no other answer than "You're right: OS X IS a
> superior OS to Windows in almost every aspect." You don't really want
> an answer: you want reassurance that OS X is better than Windows.
>
> I don't believe you will get that from very many folks who regularly
> post in these newsgroups. Try going to comp.sys.mac.advocacy instead.
>
> But to answer the part which can be answered:
>
> It is Apple's choice to not require activation as a method of
> validating installations of OS X. This is simply not needed with OS
> X, since OS X will only run on a single machine: An Apple. Few of
> them are sold, making it not very profitable to sell pirated versions.
> Apple loses no money by selling its OS at such a low price. It is
> much like the food, drink, and entertainment in casinos: They make no
> money from it, since the money makers are alcohol and gambling, and
> the food and entertainment are there as incentives to draw the
> customers in, and keep them gambling and drinking. In the same way,
> Apple makes its money by selling HARDWARE, not software.
>
> Additionally, OS X is not widely pirated, as Windows is. Pirating of
> its software causes a major dent in its revenue stream. Something
> must be done in order to keep the value of Microsoft's stockholders'
> investments high.

FUD and a lie. MS made billions with Windows when it had no "copyright
protection".

>
> On top of that, Apple's are already expensive: charging an arm and a
> leg for the OS would just put an Apple out of most folks' budget
> ranges. The bean-counters in Cupertino know better than to go too far
> on pricing.
>
> Donald L McDaniel

Well, then, that leaves Linux as the obvious choice.

www.ubuntu.com

Alias