Of course, we all know Microsoft has been hurting for money, and any policy
they come up with, no matter how inconvenient, invasive, or greedy is
reasonable because they know what's best for us all right?
They treat us like criminals, and have redefined the word license. Yep they
lead the way all right. That's why now we increasingly can't even buy a
lousy song or recording that isn't licensed to a particular device. BS I
say, BS!
BTW: this email response is copyrighted. If you respond to it, and include
a copy in your response, you are breaking the terms of the license which is
only granted for one reading and no copying. Violators will have to pay
big! (smile wink)
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of George Bell
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] FW: VISTA "Upgrade" Drops Compliance Checking,
Requires Old OS to Install
Oh boy! What a shame. You won't be able to simply buy an upgrade for your
brand new system, and share an XP disk between friends.
Sorry, but finally Microsoft are leading the way, and of course other much
poorer software developers, who have been ripped off for ages now, will
follow.
Not before time!
George.
________________________________
From: Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher McMillan
Sent: 29 January 2007 20:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VICUG-L] FW: VISTA "Upgrade" Drops Compliance Checking, Requires
Old OS to Install
Importance: High
Vista "upgrade" drops compliance checking, requires old OS to install
1/28/2007 3:11:14 PM, by Ken Fisher
<http://arstechnica.com/staff/palatine.ars>
Microsoft's quest to closely control the way Windows Vista can be used on
PCs has taken a turn for the worse as new information indicates that the
company is breaking tradition when it comes to Windows Vista upgrades. With
Windows Vista, users will not be able to use upgrade keys to initiate
completely new installations. It is a change that will affect few users, but
enthusiasts will certainly be amongst those pinched.
Upgrade versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Premium, and Starter Edition
will not install on any PC unless Windows XP or Windows 2000 is already on
the machine in question. In years previous, upgrade versions of Windows
could be installed on any PC. If a PC did not have an older version of
Windows installed, users could provide an older installation CD of Windows
for verification. After dropping a qualifying CD in the CD-ROM drive, the
installation routine would verify the disc and you'd be on your way. With
this approach, one could use an "upgrade" copy of Windows to lay a new
Windows install on a computer.
One again, Microsoft appears to have made licensing decisions without
considering how people actually use their products. Last fall the company
trotted out changes to its retail licensing that would have punished users
who frequently upgrade their PC hardware
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061102-8140.html> had the company
not relented. Now Microsoft seeks to complicate our ability to start a
crisp, new install with an upgrade version. Why?
A 'per device' obsession
Microsoft has been adamant in recent years that Windows is licensed per
device and not per person. One practical ramification of this viewpoint is
that the company typically does not allow users to install one copy of
Windows across multiple machines, even if only one machine is in use at a
time. According to Microsoft, only the full retail license of Windows Vista
can be transferred to new devices ( retail pricing here
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060905-7663.html> ). OEM versions
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070124-8696.html> are ostensibly
tied to motherboards, and upgrade versions are now technically tied to
previous installations.
What does all of this mean on a practical level? Users who purchase upgrade
copies of the aforementioned versions of Vista will find that they can only
upgrade PCs that already have Windows installed. KB930985
<http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/930985/en-us> clearly states:
"you cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean installation of Windows
Vista." According to Microsoft, this happens because Windows Vista does not
check for upgrade compliance. If you do not have a previous installation of
Windows available, Microsoft recommends that you "purchase a license that
lets you perform a clean installation of Windows Vista."
For its part, Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process
should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS, since otherwise the
only option for disaster recovery in the absence of backups would be to wipe
a machine, install XP, and then upgrade to Vista. This will certainly make
disaster recovery a more irritating experience.
Fortunately, the change will not mean that users cannot install Windows
Vista to a new directory. Windows Vista's upgrade process includes the
option of backing up previous installations, and in fact, in some scenarios
a "clean" upgrade is required
<http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060730-7384.html> . "Clean" or not,
the requirement that the previous OS be installed puts a bit of a damper on
those of us that like the do periodic system refreshes.
What does Microsoft hope to gain out of all of this? I can only speculate.
First, the change prevents a dual-license situation with all of the free
Vista upgrade coupons out there. If things worked according to the old
scheme, people with upgrade coupons would essentially get a "free" OS
because they could install the Vista upgrade anywhere, and continue to use
the version of Windows XP that came with their computer. Did Microsoft fear
that this would happen quite a bit? It seems like an unlikely scenario.
Second, and likely more important to Microsoft, this should make it
difficult for users to use a single upgrade copy of Vista throughout the
years. I'm quite sure many of you in readerland have done exactly that in
years past: build a computer, use your Windows upgrade disc. Build a new box
three years later, use that same upgrade disc. Microsoft's preference would
be for users in such situations to either purchase OEM copies for each new
machine, or pay for a full version of the retail product.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher McMillan
Rehabilitation Engineer
http://www.ceektechnology.com
http://ceektechnology.spaces.live.com
[log in to unmask]
203 404 7275 Work Number
203 286 2156 Fax Number
Chrismcmillan Skype Username
[log in to unmask] MSN Messenger Username
________________________________
Leave list: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at http://listserv.i cors.or
g/archives/vicug-l.html <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html>
Send questions on list operation to [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 28/01/2007
13:12
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/655 - Release Date: 28/01/2007
13:12
________________________________
Leave list: [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at http://listserv.i cors.or
g/archives/vicug-l.html <http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html>
Send questions on list operation to [log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
Signoff: [log in to unmask]
Subscribe: [log in to unmask]
|
