le Pingoin,
Who in their right mind uses Windows for anything serious?
The London Stock Exchange share trading system, TradElect. That was running on Windows 2003, with .NET and C# programs written by Microsoft and Accenture.
At least until their recent high profile crash, when I believe wheels were put in motion to replace it.
Current day applications include ATMs ("cash machines"), the vast majority of those have Windows running in embedded format.
Various large companies use it for their ERP and SAP systems.
FOR,
if it were still possible to get an ongoing renewed license for (say) XP which still suits many applications for older clunkers.
That sort of thing is still available for Volume License business customers, your license allows downgrade to one or two versions back.
Many EULAs, especially shrink-wrap EULAs, closely resemble contracts of adhesion. Software companies attempt to disavow any responsibility or obligation at all, while attempting to hold users to all sorts of restrictions
If you were in their shoes, would you not attempt to do the same ? A good lawyer will always draft a fair contract, whilst at the same time making a reasonable attempt to minimise potential future liabilities for his client.
If you think about the nature of software, given the target price point of your average Microsoft product for home users, I don't think Microsoft's LoL (Limitation of Liability) clauses should come as any surprise.
Finally, you should remember the jurisdiction under which the contract operates. From memory, many Microsoft licenses operate under US law, which may have a different point of view when it comes to EULAs and LoL.
Computer operating system choices are driven by application choices, and the very vast majority of desktop applications run only on Windows.
I'm with le Pingoin here. You've dug your own grave by choosing Windows applications and insisting on keeping them.
And that's what Microsoft gambles on. The company knows that its licensing might not withstand close scrutiny
Somehow I think it's not a gamble. And irrespective of licensing, I think most courts would recognise the need to differentiate between retail, OEM and volume licenses and hence the need for more restrictive agreements for some.