Vista Licensing Changes Alienate Tech Enthusiasts

On Friday, I wrote a lengthy article for the SuperSite for Windows in which I communicated Microsoft's licensing changes for Windows Vista. In tech enthusiast circles, these changes--which include limiting the number of times a user can transfer a Vista license from PC to PC--were the source of a lot of controversy. However, it seems to me that the new license, or End-User License Agreement (EULA), was really just a clarification of the Windows XP license, and my original article reflects that. But based on a weekend's worth of email, it's now clear that a large and important group of Windows users will be alienated by the new EULA.

Here's the problem. In the XP EULA, users were granted the right to "move [XP] to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, [users had to] completely remove [XP] from the former Workstation Computer." Many people read this clause and assumed they had the right to move a single retail copy of XP from PC to PC as often as they wanted. Not so. "This clause was always aimed at very specific circumstances," Microsoft General Manager Shanen Boettcher told me. "Someone has a hardware failure, but still wants to run that copy of Windows on the new machine, for example." The intention, Boettcher said, was for users to perform such a new installation only in the event of a catastrophic hardware failure. A single copy of Windows is licensed for use on a single PC.

The Vista EULA has been "clarified" to be more explicit. Now, a user can "reassign the [Vista] license to another device one time." Microsoft told me that the actual process of transferring Windows from PC to PC hasn't changed since XP: You might be able to electronically activate Windows on the new PC, but if you can't, you can activate Windows over the phone. "[Now] we let them move a license, while being clear about what the license is intended for," Boettcher said. "In the past, we haven't been super clear up front."

I've never been a big fan of the Windows EULA, but given the inherent restrictions in the document and the fact that Windows users don't technically own their copy of Windows anyway (according to the terms of the license, you're granted only limited rights to use the product), I felt the Vista license change amounted to a simple clarification. Besides, it would affect a very small group of users. Last weekend, I heard from those users and I'm starting to see a very real problem.

The computer enthusiasts who are most apt to run into problems with the Vista EULA are the people who funnel the most money into the PC industry--the ones who buy expensive gaming PCs and regularly upgrade their systems. These enthusiasts are most likely to gravitate toward the most expensive Vista version, Vista Ultimate. In short, one might argue that Microsoft's new EULA will harm these people quite a bit, especially if their reactivation attempts are thwarted because of licensing problems.

Koroush Ghazi, the owner of TweakGuides.com, argues that if even 5 percent of PC users are affected by this change, we're talking about 50 to 65 million consumers. And again, these are the people spending money on the most expensive PCs and accessories they can get their hands on. These people are enthusiastic about technology and would otherwise be championing Vista. These are the people that Microsoft should be embracing, not alienating. And with mainstream PC makers such as Dell and HP buying boutique gaming-PC companies to find new revenue streams among these increasingly important customers, it's clear that Microsoft should be reaching out to them as well.

If you'd like to read more about this topic, both my original article and the excellent response from Koroush Ghazi are available on the SuperSite for Windows.

Licensing Changes to Windows Vista
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

Windows Vista's Enthusiastic Licensing Restrictions
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

End of Article

these "enthusiasts" will probably download one of the many hacks to skip the activation.

they are enthusiasts after all.

guruguru October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

One of the advantages of being a monopoly is that it makes absolutely no difference how many of your customers you pi55 off. What are these "tech enthusiasts" going to do except loudly complain? Switch to Linux? The Mac?

Heil no. They'll either find a way around the activiation, or they'll "write a strongly worded letter to Microsoft". And Microsoft will do nothing, because they don't have to.

I'm not sayin' it's right...I'm just sayin'.

lotsamystuff October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

All I have to say is, WGA is crap, activation is crap, and Microsoft's EULA's are crap. That is all.

Preseton October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

I'm switching to Linux!!!! Nah, just kidding...I'm microsoft's b:tch.

anonymous October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

Apples EULA's are very similar to Microsoft's except with Apple, you can't transfer OSX licenses AT ALL. READ THEM!! Microsoft at least lets you transfer it once for retail copies!

As for purchasing licenses and such. What would an enthusiast do with his old hardware? Sell it? Why can't you just sell the copy with the hardware?! If it's enthusiast hardware, selling the enthusiast copy of Windows with it is an easy sell! Then the buyer doesn't have to go out and buy it elsewhere.

Sell it with the hardware, recoup your cost, then buy another copy and quitcher b1tchin'!!

Too many times I hear of people trying to complain about this, but really it's just because they want to hang on to the old computer and buy a new one and use the same license over again while maintaining it on the old computer.
Of the "5%" of people that are enthusiasts, about "95%" of the people I talk to that fall under this category are like that.

Waethorn October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

One of the best ways to learn an OS is to "play" with it, knowing that if all goes to heck, you can re-roll the OS and restore any data from a backup.

This is how I've learned every version of Windows, DOS, Mac OS Classic, Mac OS X, and several flavors of Linux.

For tech enthusiasts, the ability to reroll your machine at any time, with no hassle other than the actual work, is the cornerstone to our interest and growth in the field.

With XP's product activation, some of that fun went away whenever you had to call up MS for an activation code.

With Vista, it looks like we're going to have practically no flexibility. Why would I want to "play" with Vista now when I might not be able to reinstall my OS? Why would I want to run Vista when I buy new hardware upgrades from NewEgg verey few months?

Vista will be the end of Windows-based Tech Enthusiasts who "play" at home.

I'm sure corporate test labs will be fine so long as they're running Longhorn Server's licensing app, so my comments are geared at enthusiasts with a small "lab" at home, which, at some point of the other (or currently), many of us here do.

Obligatory Pro-Mac Comment: At least Mac OS doesn't nag for a product key or require any form of activation.

vandil October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

You can still "play" with the OS. You'll be reinstalling your OS on the same machine, so that doesn't involve transferring the license at any point. The number of times I've installed/reinstalled windows is huge (used to be tech support and of course I "play" with my own machine) and not once have I had to phone up MS for activation.
I'll ignore your last comment. It's been shot down many times before.

Benn21uk October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

Sorry, I just can't resist this one:
"One of the best ways to learn an OS is to "play" with it, knowing that if all goes to heck, you can re-roll the OS and restore any data from a backup.
This is how I've learned every version of Windows, DOS, Mac OS Classic, Mac OS X, and several flavors of Linux."

I agree with you completely. So I went out, got a PC with a lot of RAM, installed Virtual PC (or VMWare), and I've set up a Linux virtual system, a Windows 2003 virtual system, and a Vista virtual system.

I can't seem to figure out how to set up my MacOSX virtual system. How do I get OSX installed? Can you help me?

jersey72 October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

I am unintereseted in bashing or praising Microsoft. But I feel strongly that Mr Thurrott is missing a point here.

Reading the XP licence as quoted in the main article, I am left in no doubt that it authorises the installation of one copy of XP on any single PC.

Microsoft now argues that this was not the effect of the XP licence. With respect, this argument is simply wrong. The law gives effect to the words actually used in a contract, not to Microsoft's (or anyone else's) un-expressed intention.

This is obvious to anyone with any legal training. Presumably Microsoft's lawyers have had lots of legal training. I am therefore left asking why, despite the clear legal position, Microsoft has put it about that the XP licence meant something wholly different from what, in fact, it plainly achieved.

The only answer occurring to me, is that Microsoft means to persuade consumers and businesses that it has not changed the Vista licence from the XP version. In fact, of course, it is a very profound change; and one which, if implemented successfully, may be expected to generate significantly higher returns for Microsoft.

As long as it is understood that Microsoft is "spinning" the position to suit its marketing requirements, then so be it: people can make up their own minds.
But what I find a little disquieting, is Microsoft's apparent willingness to re-write history to suit its current commercial interests. More disquieting, is the apparent reticence of "industry insiders" to question - or even notice - that a manufacturer's version of events may simply be self-serving and wrong.

I hope that Microsoft re-thinks its proposals. Ifnot, I hope that "industry insiders" give to this issue the scrutiny which it deserves. For example, what if my PC breaks down? What if I simply want to upgrade? Must I buy a fresh copy of Vista for the replacement? No well advised consumer, or business, would knowingly buy Vista on this basis: the licence would be a mere trap for the unwary.

tmorshead October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

Paul, is good that you realized that the small minority affected actually counts. Specially because I had decided not to ever visit one of your sites again unless you stopped worrying about MS customers and starter worrying about your own customers (us).

I'm not a tech enthusiast, I'm a real developer that does real things for real people. If we are such a small minority, then why does MS is changing the EULA (an spinning the change as the "original intention"... how sweet) for such a small number of people. This really makes our life more difficult when it comes to own a legal version of Vista and I want to pay for it because MS has done a great job.

By the way, your argument about one not owning the software is bogus. If I follow you logic, I should pay for ALL the software in may machine every time I buy a NEW computer and I remove the software from the old computer to install it in the new one. Imagine how much money every person would spend... now imagine people buying a new computer every 15 years then.

bond07 October 16, 2006 (Article Rating:

)

See More Comments 1 2 3 4

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.