Ok, not Coding News but News just the same

Windows users are raising concerns about Microsoft's new licensing for Windows Vista that will allow them to transfer a Vista license to only one machine other than the computer for which it was purchased.

The new licensing has caused confusion, especially for power users who rebuild their computers with new components several times a year, or who plan to upgrade their computers more than once in the lifetime of the OS. Users are demanding clarification from Microsoft about how scenarios like these will play out under the new licensing.

More Below

Cheers

A Sample Scenario

"My question about the one-time transfer is, what constitutes a machine?" asks Windows user Roger Halstead. "I have four machines and they are running legal copies of XP Pro. Those four machines are in a constant state of upgrade. I have to reactivate the OS around three or four times a year due to upgrades."

Halstead says that if he is not allowed to continuously upgrade his machine without purchasing new licenses, then "Vista will not be a viable operating system for me."

"I can stay on XP Pro, which I probably will [do] as long as I can, but what happens when MS no longer supports XP?" he asks. "If I have to do a reinstall, will I be able to get it to work?"

Unfortunately, Microsoft has so far been unable to answer these kinds of questions from users. Contacted Wednesday to clarify Vista's licensing in such an instance, by this morning Microsoft's public relations firm still did not have an answer.

More Confusion

Don Smutny, a software developer for the DST Technologies division of DST Systems in Kansas City, Missouri, considers the one-license transfer a message from Microsoft that "they don't care if you ever run Vista."

He, too, says it isn't clear what, for Microsoft, constitutes a new PC that would require another Vista license purchase. With XP, it's considered a license transfer with "every motherboard, CPU or hard-drive upgrade," he says. If Microsoft follows the same tack with Vista, things could get extremely complicated and pricey for users, Smutny says.

He adds that this kind of move from Microsoft is the sort of thing that would inspire users to switch to an alternative desktop if transferring and using Windows applications on that platform was easy.

"If someone could come up with a Linux distribution that was just as easy to use as XP, and included Windows-emulation software that would allow users to play their Windows-based games without a large performance hit, then you will finally see the shift of OS use that the Linux folks have been saying is 'coming soon' for the last 10 years," Smutny says.

'Arrogant'

Smutny isn't the only user who is downright angry with Microsoft for its new licensing practice. Another Windows user, Mark Smith, who has his own business developing custom data-acquistiion and analysis packages for industrial applications, says the policy shows how "arrogant" Microsoft has become.

"It knows that governments (both the U.S. and E.U.) are essentially powerless to effect any changes to the Microsoft status quo," he wrote in an e-mail. "It also knows there are no real competitors (Apple and Linux notwithstanding). So its new attitude is 'To hell with the customer, we're going to do whatever we want because the customer has no choice but to buy Vista.'"

Like Smutny, Smith says that he, too, has been on the lookout for years for a viable alternative to Windows so that he does not have to do business with Microsoft.

"I've tried all the competitors and hoped that IBM would have stuck it out and created a viable competitor; they were close," he says. "There certainly is a huge market, so we can always hope."