The Windows Vista RETAIL EULA ( Basic/Home/Ultimate) Section 15a specifies that only a Single re-activation is allowed - no exceptions are stated. This is a legal document 'signed' by the licenseee when the OS is installed. Thus this restriction is binding on BOTH parties. If Microsoft permits even ONE legitimate licensee with a valid, legitimately purchased and fully working copy of the Retail Vista to re-authenticate more than the stated ONE time (for more than one different hardware configuration that is recognized by Vista as 'different'), then section 15a becomes 'de facto' legally void. Following such a violation by Microsoft of their own EULA, any denial by Microsoft of subsequent requests for more than one activation from other legitimate licensees of Vista becomes the basis for a class-action lawsuit.

Microsoft have created their own legal nightmare by replacing the (unlimited) number of 'workstation computer' transfers in the Retail WindowsXP EULA with the Retail Vista EULA Section 15a. Must have been added by Steve Ballmer, when he got around to something other than throwing chairs. Certainly he will have signed-off on it. Microsoft should give him a real job - janitor, car-park attendant......

Would those guinea-pigs that purchase a Retail copy of Vista and manage to extract more than one re-authentication by Microsoft for more than one different hardware configurations please fully document their experience? A fat dossier of all such violations of Section 15a of the Vista Retail EULA by Microsoft, legally attested, would make a class-action suit (re Section 15a) a slam-dunk.

So Microsoft is out of the kindness of their stony $$heart$$ going to allow up to 10 Retail Vista re-authentications for hardware changes -- maybe... ? That's nowhere in the Vista Retail EULA - only ONE is allowed, so why stop at 10 ? --- having violated and effectively voided their own EULA, Microsoft cannot legally stop at any arbitrary number.

Microsoft has been adding spin of their own claiming that Vista license terms are 'identical to XP, but now made clearer'. Paul Thurrott ( one of the self-appointed gurus on Windows) claims that one of his buddies at Microsoft stated directly to him that Retail WindowsXP actually has.... 'a built-in limit of one re-authentication, but it is not enforced'. That is a lie, not borne out by Microsoft's own documentation. See Ed Bott's blog:-

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

The only terms that are legally enforceable are those in the associated EULA, 'signed' by the licensee on installation. The Retail Windows XP EULA has no limit at all on the number of 'workstation computer' transfers by any single licensee. A legitimate licensee of Retail Windows XP has the RIGHT to request any number of legitimate <workstation computer> transfers and Microsoft does NOT have any legal right to deny the request.

First off, if you blow a HD or mobo transfer you can end up with a couple of reactivations by phone down the drain pretty easily.

Secondly, reactivation is "at their discretion". Dunno about you, but trust and Microsoft are not words I put together very often. It's too late after you find out you have to pay again to rethink your choice.

Hello MS, welcome to the modern age of "common language" legal documents. If you say "can't transfer" but you mean "can transfer 10 times" then use that language. The "trust us it will work the same way" is not reassuring at all.

I see this as a "oops our revenue is falling, stop reactivating guys" kind of money booster down the road a year or two when sales drop. And it is a sure thing that government monopoly watchdogs NEED TO INTERVENE. I wish they'd get a clue here. This is clearly a use of monopoly status to harm consumers because their options for recourse are so limited. This doesn't have the glamour of legal action against bundling, but rather is clearly trying to force you to pay for the same software twice or more.

Being the legal owner of 5 copies of XP, I don't go down the road of copyright infringement. But this heavy handed and obvious legal vaguity designed to increase revenues would likely push many, many users down the path of circumvention fast. And while I was likely to upgrade 1 of the machines on release, that's not going to happen. I've had enough painful episodes of machine transfers as it is. For me, whenever a new machine comes into the house, every household member gets an upgrade. That happens fairly often, but if you add that up with a few hardrive upgrades and you have a fair amount transfers over time. I've always kept things neat and labeled with who's machine has what license and so forth. But if one changeover gets the message from MS that I have to pay 1-2k to get everything back to right again, that's going to be outrageous. And worse, to have to "trust them" that they won't "at their discression" decide not to reactivate is insane at the cost level we are talking.

If they intend not to do this, if they truly are looking out for the legal and honest consumers too, then PUT IT IN WRITING. Don't tell some websites "hey we won't really be that mean to you", and "don't worry trust us, it will be just like before". If it was going to be "just like before" they would not have changed the legal text. Clearly they have a plan in mind, and clearly they are being very vague and leaving it to "their option" on whether you deserve to be reactivated. That is outrageous abuse of honest consumers. And it will keep a lot of people using XP for a long time to come. Which, in turn, will keep a lot of companies also using XP for a long time to come. Nobody wins.

This is pathetic for a company that makes money hand over fist as they do. It's horrid for honest consumers and will turn many honest ones into dishonest folks for very understandable reasons. It will hurt sales, and further magnify Microsft as the heavy handed, not to be trusted beast that it has become. That then makes Microsoft say "see all those pirates, that's the reason we have to do this". But that's a chicken and egg issue by that time, but they will be too far along the path to see it. Stupid, arrogant, greedy, and abusive of power are all the wonderful things we can attribute to Microsoft. They've earned this level of bad press. And, far and wide I'm passing this news around.

There are a quite a few out here who's thoughts on this matter can influence thousands of users to either switch to Vista or not. And it's a very poor choice, Microsoft, to give those of us with that power a very bad impression of your product.

It funny that this is the crap that paying customers have to go through yet Pirates have it rather easy. You go to your favorite warz site and download Vista cracked. OMG I upgraded my hard drive 9 times for some reason and I want to upgrade again. No problem your Vista is pirated. It's unlimited!

It's like Microsoft wants people to pirate Vista cause it would make more sense then actually buying the restricted version.

meant as a a reply to #2 i have one system at work, on my company network, running a program for a wide format scanning and printing device, and all the other software my company installed on it after i placed it on it network,that baby locks up daily. i have to do a reboot every day to get it to run properly, so xp can get corrupted. and need a fresh install.

This is DAMNED ridiculous! If you pay 2 or even THREE hundred dollars for an operating system you should have a license to use it on at least ONE PC - it doesn't matter WHAT hardware is in it or if you sell the PC (formatting it first) you've paid for that license.

These more restrictive non transferrable licenses are just plain unfair - and more and more people WILL pirate their OS because of it.

Well one might have said so in the first place!

What a PR screw-up -- they managed to irritate one of the most easily irritated (and VOCAL) groups of people out there, all for no good reason. Heck, given that they've already suffered the PR hit, maybe they should just stick with the terms as originally perceived and screw everyone over anyway.

But I guess I have to give them credit for not being as stupid/greedy as they first appeared.

I'm pretty anti-pirate, anti-copyright infringement and so on but if there's a crack that allows me to run my legally purchased copy of Vista on one PC there's no doubt I'll use it if MS suddenly decides I'm running an illegal OS.

what about when you do the general format and instal xp again like every 2 months

I bought my XP several days after if was released. I have to support it afterall. Since then, I've reinstalled it ... maybe into the double digits, but we're talking about at least 4 motherboards here too (which demand a new install with XP). So this is good news to me.

I had a friend with a valid XP home key that MS decided wasn't valid under WGA anymore. That's it, too bad, buy a new license you rube. How ridiculous is that? It's going to happen more with Vista.

I agree with all u guys, if your reinstalling XP every 2 months, u either have faulty hardware, or don't know how to use a computer properly. U might wanna take a basic computer course or something.

Talk about not being able to take "yes" for an answer.
All the MS haters get pwned once again.
Think im wrong?...just check out the tantrums getting thrown on the TR front page a few days ago when more of this anti vista FUD came swirling around the Net.

#15...I'm not saying this to be a jerk.... you don't actually buy thier product in the sense that you own it and can do as you please, you own that plastic disk, not the contents...you simply are buying a license from M$ that allows you to use their software and you are agreeing to their terms when you do so.

I dislike it just as much as anyone because i like to reinstall instead of running AV/Spyware/defrag ect. and if i want to reinstall 10x a year cause my comp is whorin' all over the net, i should be able to without begging Bill for permission.

Imma wait for all the reviews to come in before I decide to buy or warez, i just upgraded to XP pro from 98SE 4-5 months ago so i'm not in a hurry to get a new OS anyway

For starters there are absolutely ZERO reasons for upgrading to Vista short of Direct X 10. Or if they have something built into Windows that will manage the registry (freakin mess!).

People will crack Vista, you will find a program, much like in XP, that will crack the activations. So why does it even matter?

Furthermore, OS XI. The all purpose Mac OS which will work on all systems, support Windows, Linux, and Mac programs etc. So I think I might just leave Windows behind and get the right one this time.

This up to 10 times thing is really putting me off of buying this OS. If I have hardware problems or whatever, I could "run out" of installs.

For hardcore system enthusiasts, keeping a ghosted, activated copy of Vista with no drivers could be a good way of being able to swap around components and machines with the minimum amount of hassle.

Where did they deduce that from? The instant you install your drivers and the thing calls home and logs you in, when you reload the ghosted copy on a system with another set of hardware and it calls home you are still busted and counted for 3 installs... that is the way Windows XP WGA works now.

This is just marketing speak. Nothing is in writing but the EULA, and the eula is what is says and M$ is just trying to smush the noise because multiple installs are only going to hamper .5% of the people they sell to.

I don't like the thought of being at Microsoft's mercy even though I actually bought their product. And this bit does nothing to change that.

Just because some monkey in the licensing department said it, doesn't make it true. Why would the EULA say one transfer if they're just going to say "oh we didn't really mean that"? Unless they plan to later implement strict enforcement and wanted the EULA to say one transfer right from the start, so if they change policies to allow more transfers, they're being generous, and if they enforce it, well the license says it.

Incidentally, if I just change out a motherboard/CPU but am still using the same hard drive, according to this, that shouldn't count against the transfer limit. Even though I'd have to probably Repair install or do a complete wipe.

Unfortunately, hard drives are the most failure-prone component in a system. Tying activation to the motherboard probably makes more sense, since you'll generally need to reinstall Windows and reactivate anyway, if you upgrade the motherboard.

I still wondering -- how is that not restricting enthusiasts.. :-)

Vista has a 'call home and check' feature a la WGA right? If so limited installation only serves one purpose, selling additional keys when MS feels like it, because with a call-home system there should be no way to install on multiple systems. I'd just as soon they explicitly explain a call-home system in the EULA and have unlimited installs, the only people who wouldn't are those pirating it. Any silly 'omggg MS is spying on me' complaints are just cover for installing on multiple machines. 'Up to x times' is still lame no matter what, just make it unlimited number of times and usable on one machine at a time only.