Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
mgh

Thinking of upgrading to Vista? Read this...

Recommended Posts

Guest Ozzie

>Thanks and kind regards to you, sir!>>It is always good to hear from folks who understand this issue>and care enough to join the battle.>>>The battle is indead far from over - those few words of appeasement actually change VERY LITTLE - if you read carefully - you will note the very meticulous mention of RETAIL Vista - NOT OEM Vista which I think it fair to guess that the majority of us heveThe scenario of going into your favourite Walmart or Dell or wherever you buy your computers has not changed one iota - the "box" that leaves their store is the "Device" that is registered and any change will require the purchase of a NEW LicenceRead carefully

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Kev_Is_Soaked

Yes, it does in fact only refer to the Retail version, however why would you complain? WinXP OEM has that exact same limitation. Why would you expect to pay less for the OEM version yet have the same benefit as someone who paid full price for a retail copy?I think your just being picky now. There was reason for complaint before, but MS have taken it back and the retail license back to where it should be. There is no reason to expect that the OEM version will have the same license as the retail version, what would the benefit of going out and buying retail have? OEM has always been limited over the retail versions, always have, always will.btw, I'm not 'on their side'... I was VERY vocal about the Vista licence and was just as miffed as you, but to expect the OEM license to be opened up as well is just not gonna happen.Think of it this way. Most users who buy a pre-built machine with the OEM OS installed are not exactly PC enthusiasts who build/upgrade machines on a constant basis. These people will probably purchase a new pre-built machine when it comes time for an 'upgrade'. So really, there is absolutely no problem for someone who buys the pre-builts. It's the enthusiasts like myself that were being kicked in the butt over the new license, but now that issue is resolved.btw: I'm not 'on their side'. I was VERY vocal about this issue in several arenas, and took a very hard-lined stance doing everything I could to enlighten masses of people in order to gain momentum. I was very annoyed with MS, yet with them taking back their initial mindset has actually settled most of us completely. Your just being picky now... seriously. OEM has always been limited, thus the cheaper pricetag.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Charlie

>I think your just being picky now. There was reason for>complaint before, but MS have taken it back and the retail>license back to where it should be. Couldn't disagree with you more, Kev. Have you so quickly forgotten about this part of the agreement?"The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software," it reads. "If after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of the software may be affected." This paragragh is THE most offensive part of the license, and nothing was said about modifying it in any way. But ANY remaining activation requirement gives Big Brother Microsft, not you, control over your computer. As I said before, activation is ugly and it is wrong. No paying customer with CD/DVD in hand or computer should ever need to contact Microsoft in any manner to complete the installation of software that they paid for.Yes, millions went along like sheep with XP activation. But it was no less unacceptable and should NOT be considered the standard by which future license agreements are measured.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Kev_Is_Soaked

If you are in fact running legit, is there any reason why you should be upset that the software calls home and asks if it's allowed to run? This is all it is doing really.... it's not Big Brother, it's not making sure your cleanly shaved and fully clothed in order to use your computer. It's not doing background checks to make sure your taxes and bills are up to date, and it's not making sure your homework is done before you play games. Nor is it making sure you have showed your wife how much you love her before allowing you to launch FSX. All it is doing, is checking it's own authenticity and asking a central server to verify it.There is nothing sinister about that. It's not 'big brother', it's not an invasion of privacy. Privacy is breeched when and if someone gains your personal details without your consent. Activation asks for your consent, even though it is NOT collecting any private details about you. All it's doing is taking the hardware hash that I explained elsewhere in this thread, and comparing that to the one the MS server obtained from you in the initial install... it's tracking changes to your machine, but it's not recording the actual parts, just that it has changed. Vista is more relaxed, the hardware hash is dependant on only the mainboard and hard drive. Check out my post somewhere in this huge thread and read about how Activation actually works, see for yourself that MS have done all they can to make sure Activation very efficient in terms of you privacy. Seriously, look over my post and see for yourself exactly what is being transmitted, you can't possibly still think that it is a case of Big Brother after your familiar with Activation and how it works.As for considering this to be the standard... I am sad to say, but it IS ALREADY the standard. There are hundreds of pieces of software that call home in order to verify themselves, some dont even mention it during install or in their EULA. Most high end software these days will talk out to a home server and verify itself now and then, some do it only at install, others do it randomly over time. It's nothing new really.If you are truely running legit, there is really no reason to oppose activation as it simply does not breech your privacy at all, especially in the 'big brother' way you describe. This is one part of the license agreement I actually agree with, because I buy the software I run and have no worries about what it is transmitting because I know it is all non-identifying data.... now if it transferred my credit card info to Microsoft then I'd be annoyed.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm in agreement with you there Kev,I personally don't mind if the software calls home now and then, if you are legit you really should have nothing to worry about. If something goes astray essentially you will be ringing them up telling them what was going on (you had a failure or a small upgrade) and then getting a new key. For the retail version things of course would be more lenient. If they get annoying then get angry and get your new key, after all if you are within the confines of the EULA they don

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Charlie

Ahhhhh....yes, indeed....the old "if you are innocent, you

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Kev_Is_Soaked

No, actually when I was in high school I was more into girls than anything else, let alone the Fourth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. I live in Canada, I enjoy very similar freedoms as you, but we don't study your constitution on a daily basis.... Besides the point. Let me bring a few things to light here. I am a 33 year old, professional IT consultant who has worked with large corporations in getting web infrastructure in place, secured and running. Software is part of my business, and I've been dealing with it for years... so I am no stranger to how things work in an electronic world such as this.Let me bring something to the forefront here. I do not think you truely understand what Activation is. Personally, I think that you got on the misled bandwagon and forgot to jump ship when it crashed. Forgive me for sounding like that, but it is how I feel when reading how insulting your post was. Being in Canada, and only being 33 years old does not make me some niave little girl.With that out of the way, let me address some of what you said."My computer hardware components ARE my personal details."I agree wholeheartedly. However Activation does not transmit any data refering to your hardware components at all. I'll explain later."Are you now the official designator of what personal details matter and which don

Share this post


Link to post

A nice rant but, like most rants misses most of the key points. It begins by arrogantly assuming that all posters here are US citizens and should have studied the Fourth Amendment in school. I'm neither in a US citizen nor in the US nor but I took the trouble to check the Fourth Amendment which says:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (My emphasis.)I also Googled and found a commentary on this Amendment.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/This explains:"For the Fourth Amendment to be applicable to a particular set of facts, there must be a ''search'' and a ''seizure,'' occurring typically in a criminal case, with a subsequent attempt to use judicially what was seized. Whether there was a search and seizure within the meaning of the Amendment, whether a complainant's interests were constitutionally infringed, will often turn upon consideration of his interest and whether it was officially abused. (My emphasis again.)The commentary seems to make it clear the the Amendment applies only to actions by the State and that there must be both a search and a seizure. This view appears to be supported by the cases cited in that link.It's doubtful if Microsoft is infringing this Amendment - it isn't the State and it doesn't seem to be seizing anything. Also, if you have a legal copy of the software then you have accepted the EULA allowing Microsoft to check this - if your copy is illegal then why shouldn't Microsoft stop you using it?You also mention the presumption of innocence. This only applies to criminal law. It doesn't generally apply to civil law. The test there is the balance of probabilities. Most people in day-to-day life in practice adopt that test. Do you insist on the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt before making any decisions about anything?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...