Maybe more significantly, though, hardware vendors dropped the ball and let a lot of us down. They put computers on the market that were preloaded with Vista but which ran it abysmally. My Sony Vaio TX compact notebook is a case in point. Perhaps to save money, perhaps in a rush to get Vista-installed machines on the market, or perhaps for some other reason that escapes me, these computers hit the shelves and gave a lot of folks a terrible first impression of Vista. If my only exposure to Vista had been the little Sony as it came out of the box, I would have thought it was an awful OS, too.
"Even a piece of junk will qualify" for the "Windows Vista Capable" designation, wrote one employee in an e-mail that Tilden read out loud.
Another employee, Mike Nash, currently a corporate vice president for Windows product management, wrote in an e-mail, "I PERSONALLY got burnt. ... Are we seeing this from a lot of customers? ... I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."
Jim Allchin, then the co-president of Microsoft's Platforms and Services Division, wrote in another e-mail, "We really botched this. ... You guys have to do a better job with our customers."
I had problems with XP, and still do. I don't agree with the authentication process for XP, never did.
With Vista it looks like they are getting even more intrusive into what I do, and hence, until I have to, I'm not buying a Vista machine.
Which is why for my next computer I'm actually looking at a computer I can wipe and install Linux on.
I had problems with XP, and still do. I don't agree with the authentication process for XP, never did.
With Vista it looks like they are getting even more intrusive into what I do, and hence, until I have to, I'm not buying a Vista machine.
Which is why for my next computer I'm actually looking at a computer I can wipe and install Linux on.
What is the problem with Authentication? Unless your OS is stolen, then there should be no problem.. XP installs, and then uses online activation.. You can also use the free call in to activate if you want..
Once activation happens, the Hardware imprint of your PC drops from MS after 120 days, and you can then install the OS on a new PC (a new main board is considered a new PC).. The way around this is to have a Volume License Key.
What is the problem with Authentication? Unless your OS is stolen, then there should be no problem.. XP installs, and then uses online activation.. You can also use the free call in to activate if you want..
Once activation happens, the Hardware imprint of your PC drops from MS after 120 days, and you can then install the OS on a new PC (a new main board is considered a new PC).. The way around this is to have a Volume License Key.
Now if your install CD is say a Dell OEM disk, then that is coded for a specific hardware imprint to match what is recorded on the CD.. if the Hardware does not match, then it won't install or activate properly.. since it was licensed OEM and not to you.
All activation does is to make sure that the Microsoft software you have is legitimate and not stolen.. and even then there are ways around it..
The point of the matter is DRM in XP does not work, all Activation does it to make sure your copy is legit and not being installed on 2 or 3 machines within a month.. That's it.. after 120 days, install again on a new machine..
Same goes for Vista based PC's.. exact same method as XP.. so what is the problem unless your OS is not purchased.. DRM in XP doesn't do anything that I know of.. I can copy DVD's and CD's all day long without a problem and no information about what I am doing is being sent online to anyone in either OS..
where's the problem?
For some of us it is an issue with allowing Microsoft control of our systems. Micrososft decides whether I am entitled to install the software on my system after a given upgrade. Microsoft decides if I can continue using it after they stop supporting it. I have even had Windows tell me that I couldn't copy a disk that I had legal rights to copy. Microsoft is a convicted abusive monopolist, I don't trust them to control my system. They have yet to demonstrate honesty and corporate integrity.
It is my system, provided I stay within the law I am the one who is entitled to control what I do with it. Microsoft is not the legal authorities and should not be acting as if they are.
A EULA should not be allowed to take away rights that I have under the law. A company should not be able to effectively rewrite the law to give them power and take it away from their customers.
Software is covered by copyright law and the companies that make software should not be able to add unilateral extensions to their rights under the copyright laws at the cost of removing my rights without my willing consent. Activation does exactly that.
Recently my brother-in-law who sells computers had the same problem except Microsoft refused him the codes. So he told them outright they could *&^% themselves and he would install his Redhat on all SIX systems. At that point they gave him new codes for all 6 machines - just in case he needed them for the other 5 later.
I had problems with XP, and still do. I don't agree with the authentication process for XP, never did.
With Vista it looks like they are getting even more intrusive into what I do, and hence, until I have to, I'm not buying a Vista machine.
Which is why for my next computer I'm actually looking at a computer I can wipe and install Linux on.
What is the problem with Authentication? Unless your OS is stolen, then there should be no problem.. XP installs, and then uses online activation.. You can also use the free call in to activate if you want..
Once activation happens, the Hardware imprint of your PC drops from MS after 120 days, and you can then install the OS on a new PC (a new main board is considered a new PC).. The way around this is to have a Volume License Key.
Now if your install CD is say a Dell OEM disk, then that is coded for a specific hardware imprint to match what is recorded on the CD.. if the Hardware does not match, then it won't install or activate properly.. since it was licensed OEM and not to you.
All activation does is to make sure that the Microsoft software you have is legitimate and not stolen.. and even then there are ways around it..
The point of the matter is DRM in XP does not work, all Activation does it to make sure your copy is legit and not being installed on 2 or 3 machines within a month.. That's it.. after 120 days, install again on a new machine..
Same goes for Vista based PC's.. exact same method as XP.. so what is the problem unless your OS is not purchased.. DRM in XP doesn't do anything that I know of.. I can copy DVD's and CD's all day long without a problem and no information about what I am doing is being sent online to anyone in either OS..
where's the problem?
Then there's the fact that I have to go in and change all the automatic settings (I hear it's next to impossible with Vista) when I intstall it in order to disable half the junk they have running. That's BS.No actually it is NOT that hard, most people I can see saying that since you have to get used to the new interface and the changes in locations of things.
and the list goes on and on.
When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software.
"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."
That case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.
When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software. As such, the EULA clearly states that the intended and designed use is for 1 computer system. If you are going to install on multiple machines, then Microsoft EULA states that you will need to buy 1 copy for each machine, or call MS and buy individual keys for each machine ($35 each) or buy a Volume License Key for multiple machines. If you change more than 4 points of hardware within 120 days, then essentially you have built a new machine, and your EULA for the OS does not allow for that.. However after 120 days, the MS Activation Server dumps System ID keys about the registered computer's hardware and you can upgrade your system all you want or install to a different computer. Within 120 days, you can upgrade Video, Memory, add PCI and USB devices, and even replace the CPU, however replacement of the Main board constitutes replacing the whole computer due to different Bios and Northbridge and Southbridge.. and Activation will fail (essentially you built a different computer).. however after 120 days, it doesn't matter.
The same is true for Vista..
In other words, if you are planning an upgrade.. upgrade the machine before you install XP or after the 120 days are up and install / reactivate once all your upgrades are done.. plain and simple.
I do this all the time.. I have had 0 problems on activation .. also with MS working with me and without cost on system that have bad main boards found after activation.. I really can't complain.
When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software. As such, the EULA clearly states that the intended and designed use is for 1 computer system. If you are going to install on multiple machines, then Microsoft EULA states that you will need to buy 1 copy for each machine, or call MS and buy individual keys for each machine ($35 each) or buy a Volume License Key for multiple machines. If you change more than 4 points of hardware within 120 days, then essentially you have built a new machine, and your EULA for the OS does not allow for that.. However after 120 days, the MS Activation Server dumps System ID keys about the registered computer's hardware and you can upgrade your system all you want or install to a different computer. Within 120 days, you can upgrade Video, Memory, add PCI and USB devices, and even replace the CPU, however replacement of the Main board constitutes replacing the whole computer due to different Bios and Northbridge and Southbridge.. and Activation will fail (essentially you built a different computer).. however after 120 days, it doesn't matter.
The same is true for Vista..
In other words, if you are planning an upgrade.. upgrade the machine before you install XP or after the 120 days are up and install / reactivate once all your upgrades are done.. plain and simple.
I do this all the time.. I have had 0 problems on activation .. also with MS working with me and without cost on system that have bad main boards found after activation.. I really can't complain.
question I have is why should I have to wait 120 days to upgrade my machine? If I can afford a new video card a month after I get my machine, why shouldn't I do it. Then upgrade a bigger harddrive. It is a limitation artificially made by MS for micro managing the systems. I actually have more licenses for XP then I am using right now, so it doesn't bother me but why should I have to wait to do upgrades just doesn;t make sense to me.
When you buy 1 copy of XP or Vista, or any OS for that matter.. you buy the License, not the software.
An interesting theory, one that software companies like to present as fact.
Tell me when I go to the store and say "I would like to buy a copy of program X" why am I never corrected? Why do I get a bill of sale for "program X"? Why is the contract not presented to me before the "purchase" to read and sign?
A judge has now ruled that software is sold not licensed. Link to full article ([url]http://www.out-law.com/page-9151[/url]) (Link to earlier discussion thread where I mentioned this lawsuit ([url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163381028.msg1122883827.html#msg1122883827[/url]))Quote"Not only has Autodesk failed to surmount the thorny issues of privity and mutual assent inherent in its contention that its License binds Mr. Vernor and his customers, it has ignored the terms of the License itself," said the ruling. "The Autodesk License is expressly 'nontransferable.' License: Grant of License. Autodesk does not explain how a nontransferable license can bind subsequent transferees."
Where is the mutual assent in the software "license"? The buyer does not get to see it in advance. The seller (software copyright holder not the retailer) is not even aware of the deal until after the software is registered or activated so there is no mutual assent.QuoteThat case was the first to look at what is a licensing arrangement and what is a sale, Jones said. It found that in cases where a company expected the material to be returned – as it would if loaning a print to a cinema for display – that was a license arrangement. Where it never expected the material to be returned – such as when a studio allowed actress Vanessa Redgrave to have a print in return for money – that was a sale.
No arrangement made for the return of the software when the license expires means the software is sold.
By what right does a software manufacturer claim the right to control my usage of that software so long as I stay within the law?
Nice ruling. What I'd like to see is the EULA for that product.
You don't have to. No law says you have to. Just keep in mind that you agreed to.
1) an agreement, and 2) consideration.
The agreement component involves offers, counter-offers, and eventually what contract law calls the "meeting of the minds."
The owner of the copyright in this case did sell copies of the book in quantities and at a price satisfactory to it. It has exercised the right to vend. What the complainant contends for embraces not only the right to sell the copies, but to qualify the title of a future purchaser by the reservation of the right to have the remedies of the statute against an infringer because of the printed notice of its purpose so to do unless the purchaser sells at a price fixed in the notice. To add to the right of exclusive sale the authority to control all future retail sales, by a notice that such sales must be made at a fixed sum, would give a right not included in the terms of the statute, and, in our view, extend its operation, by construction, beyond its meaning, when interpreted with a view to ascertaining the legislative intent in its enactment.
So you are saying that you could write a program, copywrite the material in the program, put it on the market for sale, and 1 person buys a copy and puts it into a torrent and 100,000 other people DL it for free and you get the proceeds from the sale of 1 copy?
And you are fine with this?
:police: A couple of people are coming very close to personal attacks. :police:
There is no need for that. Attack the message not the messenger. Be polite and diplomatic. It really isn't that hard.The responsibility falls on you to control your passions, not for the board members to endure it.
I can buy and sell other copyrighted material. Books, CDs, Baseball cards, etc... I should be able to buy (or sell) a used copy of 3D Studio Max. Autodesk says that I can't. That they deserve to get paid twice for the same set of disks, manuals, and all of the other stuff that the original purchase price pays for.
A lot of the time that I post, I play devil's advocate.. not stating my personal opinion very much.. I just try to see things from a different point of view.
I like to flair the conversation so I can get to the nitty gritty of what people think..
I continually reformulate my ideas based on logical thought and reasoning..
so if anyone takes offense to what I post. I apologize.
Couple of things.
1.) You can reinstall Windows XP on any other computer, as long as you've removed it from the computer it was previously installed on.
(I've reinstalled the Windows XP - no Service pack 1, STRAIGHT Windows XP so many times over the last several years that I think I've lost count. Microsoft has never given me any issues, even though when I call them to activate and they ask me "Is this the first time you've installed the software" and I answer "Nope." )
2.) The EULA for Autodesk was poorly worded, and hence why it was struck in a Court of Law. It happens.
3.) Pestalence is correct in that the EULA, just as is *any* other software game, application, or program, is a license to USE the software. The point of a EULA is to prevent intellectual property theft by reverse engineering.
IE: ToastyO buys a copy of Linux. ToastyO then takes that copy of Linux and reverse engineers it. He then markets that as his own product. What has he done? Has he done the work of those who created LInux?
No.
Should he be entitled to do whatever he wants with the software just because he paid $59 for it?
Of course not.
EULA's are a for of protection for Intellectual Property rights, and I'll remind everyone what's on the back of the US Dollar?
LET THE BUYER BEWARE.
It has ALWAYS been the consumers responsibility to
A.) Understand what he is purchasing
B.) Ensure what he is purchasing has what he wants for the price
PERIOD.
I laugh at the concept of it being Microsoft's fault that DELL, HP and GATEWAY installed MASS PRODUCTION OS images that had AMD drivers loaded for INTEL based chipsets.
You know what I find in this thread? I find more evidence of society's trend to put the responsibility for their actions everywhere else but with THEMSELVES.
Regards,
2.) The EULA for Autodesk was poorly worded, and hence why it was struck in a Court of Law. It happens.
3.) Pestalence is correct in that the EULA, just as is *any* other software game, application, or program, is a license to USE the software. The point of a EULA is to prevent intellectual property theft by reverse engineering.
IE: ToastyO buys a copy of Linux. ToastyO then takes that copy of Linux and reverse engineers it. He then markets that as his own product. What has he done? Has he done the work of those who created LInux?
No.
Should he be entitled to do whatever he wants with the software just because he paid $59 for it?
It has ALWAYS been the consumers responsibility to
A.) Understand what he is purchasing
B.) Ensure what he is purchasing has what he wants for the price
PERIOD.
The court further enjoined the company from including with its products "any language restricting the right to publish the results of testing and review" unless the company first gives the Attorney General 30 days notice. The court also required Network Associates to provide it with evidence of its sales, so that the court can set penalties and costs.
In striking down the above clause as "deceptive" and "not merely unenforceable, but warrant[ing] an injunction and the imposition of civil sanctions" under New York's Executive Law and General Business Law, the court noted that on at least one occasion, Network Associates had used the clause to quell a critical review. That review, published in 1999 by Network World, had compared Network Associates "Gauntlet" firewall software unfavorably to five other firewall products. Spitzer's suit described how Network Associates had demanded a retraction of the negative review, citing the language of the now-prohibited clause.
Reynolds asserted that even though it had infringed Lasercomb’s copyright, it should not be found liable because Lasercomb had misused its copyright in the license agreement for the software, and the court agreed.
And yet, after these isolated rulings, EULAs continue to florish. Why is that?
Naw, think the post was about me, I had alittle in there about you being a mouth piece for MS (as stated poorly worded).
And yet, after these isolated rulings, EULAs continue to florish. Why is that?
Because the EULA as a concept has not yet been fought in court, just individual clauses.
Until it is fully fought and invalidated it is a valuable weapon that companies can use to intimidate others into compliance with their will. Then of course they will be claiming that they thought it was valid.
So, really, what courts as a rule have done is not invalidate EULAs, but just poorly constructed portions of EULAs? Can I assume from that lack of decision that on the whole the courts are not against EULAs?
So, really, what courts as a rule have done is not invalidate EULAs, but just poorly constructed portions of EULAs? Can I assume from that lack of decision that on the whole the courts are not against EULAs?
No. Judges rule on what is brought before them. When a challenge is made to a subsection of the EULA that is what is ruled on. Even if the judge could clearly tell that the WHOLE EULA was invalid that claim is not before him and he cannot rule on that issue. So far I know of no cases where the EULA as a whole or the concept of a EULA has been challenged, merely sections. Therefore there has been no ruling on the validity of the concept of EULAs to this point that I am aware of.
I am aware of several sections of EULAs being ruled against but none ruled for at this point.
So, really, what courts as a rule have done is not invalidate EULAs, but just poorly constructed portions of EULAs? Can I assume from that lack of decision that on the whole the courts are not against EULAs?
No. Judges rule on what is brought before them. When a challenge is made to a subsection of the EULA that is what is ruled on. Even if the judge could clearly tell that the WHOLE EULA was invalid that claim is not before him and he cannot rule on that issue. So far I know of no cases where the EULA as a whole or the concept of a EULA has been challenged, merely sections. Therefore there has been no ruling on the validity of the concept of EULAs to this point that I am aware of.
I am aware of several sections of EULAs being ruled against but none ruled for at this point.
So, even though there have been challenges to sections of various EULAs, no one or group has sought a wholesale challenge to the concept of EULAs?
So, even though there have been challenges to sections of various EULAs, no one or group has sought a wholesale challenge to the concept of EULAs?
So, even though there have been challenges to sections of various EULAs, no one or group has sought a wholesale challenge to the concept of EULAs?
To the best of my knowledge there has not yet been a challenge of the EULA as a whole.
To challenge the EULA as a whole in court you would need a reason that was affected by the whole concept not just by one subsection. So far most of the cases that I am aware of have been started by the company suing over the violation of one element of the EULA and therefore that was the only issue before the court. In the remaining cases the subsection was being challenged by the end user.
It would be difficult to come up with a case to challenge the EULA as a whole. Anyone who did come up with such a case also needs the money and motivation to fight the case. So far that hasn't happened. At some point I hope it does and settles the issue one way or the other.
I do see how Microsoft dropped the ball. I do not agree with them removing older DirectX compatibility from Vista or the way that they are changing the networking, I do understand why they are doing it.Well with the networking, they are just slowly removing support for IPv4 making room instead for IPv6 networking.
QuoteI do see how Microsoft dropped the ball. I do not agree with them removing older DirectX compatibility from Vista or the way that they are changing the networking, I do understand why they are doing it.Well with the networking, they are just slowly removing support for IPv4 making room instead for IPv6 networking.
While of course leaving normal IPv4 compatability in place since much of the network still uses IPv4, MS is going to phase IPv4 to basic network connectivity as IPv6 takes over, they to me, have just done it too soon. IPv4 addresses are going to sooner or later run out, and I also am probably going to go nuts when I have to start setting static IPv6 addresses too.. :P
That's probally because Octal (base 8 maths) has been obstelete in computing since the mid-1980's!! ;D
Put it this way.... they don't even bother to teach it at colleges and universities these days.