Windows Vista - This copy is not genuine message

[mixture]

Yo don't have to prove anything, you state why you consider the contract to be unreasonable, they say why they think it reasonable and it's up to the judge to decide on it's reasonability

And by the time you employ a half-decent lawyer to do that, you might as well just buy the proper licenses !

[AnthonyGA]

I think you would have a hard time trying to prove that Microsoft license agreements were unreasonable.

I'm not so sure. 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, which does not make for a valid contract.

If you don't like it, go to Linux or Apple OS X. That's the simple answer.

Unfortunately, it's not an answer at all. Computer operating system choices are driven by application choices, and the very vast majority of desktop applications run only on Windows. And in the case of Apple, a company that tightly controls both software and hardware (whereas Microsoft only controls the OS), it's out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as being tied to a specific vendor is concerned. Linux is just a hobby OS, so it won't work, either.

My view is that I've seen an increase in crack-down activity by Microsoft and others in the software industry over the last few years.

Ever since BillG left the company a dozen years ago, Microsoft has been riding on borrowed time, with a singular lack of innovation and many poor business decisions. Steve Ballmer is a businessman, not a technician or visionary, and he keeps making serious mistakes. Increased auditing of licenses is just one awkward and inadequate way of trying to prop up the revenue stream. Nevertheless, I don't recall ever hearing of criminal complaints against end users or end-user organizations, and I know that many large organizations are using pirated products, especially in certain regional markets (and Microsoft generally knows this). The fallout from antagonizing large accounts or bad PR from actions taken against individuals can completely eclipse any recovery from actions against people who aren't respecting their contracts (if any).

If SteveB weren't a major shareholder in Microsoft, he would have been in the unemployment line a long time ago. Many of the natives are restless, although shareholders don't care too much as long as the company stays profitable from quarter to quarter (long-term health is irrelevant).

And by the time you employ a half-decent lawyer to do that, you might as well just buy the proper licenses !

And that's what Microsoft gambles on. The company knows that its licensing might not withstand close scrutiny, and that even if it won in the government's courtroom, it could lose in the courtroom of public opinion.

[FullOppositeRudder]

And by the time you employ a half-decent lawyer to do that, you might as well just buy the proper licenses !

An outcome which of course most people would accept if it were still possible to get an ongoing renewed license for (say) XP which still suits many applications for older clunkers. A lot of these still exist, since XP was apparently the last 'reliable' versions of windows which still had enough 'dos' present to run some applications for which no W7 version has been or ever will be forthcoming.

Still, I doubt that that would ever happen. Enforced redundancy is built into the computer game wherever you look. The wastage is enormous, but that's what we accept - however reluctantly. (sigh)

Linux is looking better all the time.

regards,
FOR

[le Pingouin]

Unfortunately, it's not an answer at all. Computer operating system choices are driven by application choices, and the very vast majority of desktop applications run only on Windows.

Sounds like you've opted for solutions that rely entirely on Windows so are locked in. It might be the majority that you're locked into using but "vast" & "majority" it ain't overall.

And in the case of Apple, a company that tightly controls both software and hardware (whereas Microsoft only controls the OS), it's out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as being tied to a specific vendor is concerned. Linux is just a hobby OS, so it won't work, either.

I'm sure those running web servers, super computers & ATC consider it a hobby OS Who in their right mind uses Windows for anything serious?

[mixture]

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.

[le Pingouin]

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.

Being replaced by a Linux based system. Thank you & the now sacked LSE CEO for supporting my argument

[oldbeefer]

After a crash with an OEM Vista laptop, and a reinstall from a Vista disc, the validation failed. Got through to MS who refused to validate it and suggested I called the manufacturer. This I did - the only option they gave me was to purchase another disc and key for 30 quid. Googled the probelem and, reluctantly, cracked the problem. No hardware had been changed on the machine, so this refusal to validate seems a bit odd to me.

[AnthonyGA]

I'm sure those running web servers, super computers & ATC consider it a hobby OS

I specifically mentioned desktops, saying nothing of servers.

Linux is fine for servers, although real UNIX or (in some cases) a mainframe would be even better.

Sounds like you've opted for solutions that rely entirely on Windows so are locked in.

I have more than a hundred applications installed on my computer, and only a handful of them exist in versions for any operating system other than Windows. If I used a Mac, almost all of these applications would not be available to me, and the situation would be even worse with Linux. Since I base my choice of operating system on the applications I wish to run, Windows is the logical—arguably the only viable—choice. Not only do these applications generally not exist in versions for any other platform, but there are no suitable substitutes for them on any other platform.

This problem is painfully obvious for people who must use desktop machines for productive work. It is often not at all obvious to people who are more interested in playing with an OS than with getting real work done. Two different user communities.

If you were in their shoes, would you not attempt to do the same?

No. I have been in similar shoes, but I have not done the same. I have a conscience. Asking people to pay money for something and then disclaiming responsibility for everything except a tear in the cardboard box in which I provide the product is not ethically tolerable to me, and enforcing such a lopsided contract could be problematic.

The London Stock Exchange share trading system, TradElect. That was running on Windows 2003, with .NET and C# programs written by Microsoft and Accenture.

It amazes me that anyone would be stupid enough to try to implement systems of this kind with Windows, .NET, and other such junk. I can understand why Microsoft and Accenture would push it, because that's what they have available, and they don't really know anything else, but the client at least should have done the research necessary to avoid this mistake.

Mission-critical enterprise-level systems are best implemented on mainframes, but a whole generation of so-called IT experts has grown up without even realizing that mainframes exist, so naturally they are too naive to see their suitability to this sort of application.

Being replaced by a Linux based system.

So they still don't know what they are doing. Hopefully they'll be able to squeak by with Linux, if that be their desire, but again, a mainframe is the proper solution. It's expensive, but you get what you pay for.

[le Pingouin]

AnthonyGA, you seem stuck in an old paradigm.
New York, NASDAQ, Tokyo, Singapore Exchanges & others use Linux. Or are you saying none of them have a clue either?

[hellsbrink]

I have more than a hundred applications installed on my computer, and only a handful of them exist in versions for any operating system other than Windows. If I used a Mac, almost all of these applications would not be available to me, and the situation would be even worse with Linux. Since I base my choice of operating system on the applications I wish to run, Windows is the logical—arguably the only viable—choice. Not only do these applications generally not exist in versions for any other platform, but there are no suitable substitutes for them on any other platform.

And are you trying to say that there aren't equivalents on other systems for the overpriced Winblows software you use?

[Mike-Bracknell]

Do you think you can keep your holy OS wars off here? I come here to relax, not to have half-baked ideologists try to tell me how to compute. I can do that sort of crap in my day job thanks.

[Mr Optimistic]

Have to agree

Nothing is perfect but did want to suggest forget Vista and move on to Windows 7.

[mixture]

I can't be bothered to continue this debate.

Think we'll all have to agree to disagree and move on.

P.S. I agree with Mr Optimistic.... I can't believe anyone is trying to make Vista work for them.... should be using Windows 7 .... it's what Vista should have been !