News - Remember, the Windows 7 Release Candidate won't last forever

[Rob_B]

Only just changed over myself, I had one of the £45 PC world copies on release but just couldn't be bothered. Was a pain backing everything up but got there in the end.

So you didnt follow the guides out there to trick it into an ugrade?... Did mine last night, took aaaaages but all my data/etc is there

[Jimbo75]

I've got about dozen machines running here (and yes, I mean at home). Do I buy one copy and expect to use it on 12? What if it was 50? Or 1000?

That isn't my point. I will only be using one copy of windows at any one time, or one machine at any one time. If I owned a laptop instead of two desktops I could do work, play, anything at any time using the same single copy of windows.

This isn't about running HTPC's in different rooms using the same copy of windows.

Now because I have two desktops instead of one laptop I can't do that? If I am only ever using one copy of windows at a time, I should only need to pay for one copy of windows. That's how it works with everything else, only microsofts greed prevents me from doing it with windows.

[Jimbo75]

Your steam example is perfect.

Steam activates itself everytime you try to start a game, no net, no luck.

There is NOTHING stopping you doing the same with windows, only thing is the activation involves un-installing and re-installing the OS.

Its simple and makes perfect sense to charge for one runtime per machine.

Why have a laptop and a desktop that have a seperate HDD, or RAM or TFT when you could just swap em, if your never using them at the same time, whats the problem.

You really think not connecting to the inet is a realistic option?

Oh come on, you can't be serious. There is no good reason why I shouldn't be able to use a single copy of windows on both of my machines so long as I am not using both at once. NO good reason.

[Funkstar]

That's how it works with everything else, only microsofts greed prevents me from doing it with windows.

Doesn't work that was for Adobe products.

Anti virus apps and other utilities don't work like that, unless they come in a special pack with multiple licenses. These are cheaper than buying X copies of the single user edition usually.

And the point is not that you specifically don't use a multiple PCs at the same time, it's that the majority of people in this position would use their two PCs at the same time because the chances are they would be in the same household and partner/spouse/family members would use one with you used the other.

[Funkstar]

NO good reason.

Other than Microsoft just don't want you to. That's their decision.

[Jimbo75]

Other than Microsoft just don't want you to. That's their decision.

Sure it's their decision, same as it's my decision not to buy Windows 7 because of their greed.

[Jimbo75]

And the point is not that you specifically don't use a multiple PCs at the same time, it's that the majority of people in this position would use their two PCs at the same time because the chances are they would be in the same household and partner/spouse/family members would use one with you used the other.

I can't connect to steam and play on two different pc's at the same time. Why shouldn't windows be like that?

Why can't I log on to windows at my friends place? I can log on to Steam, World of Warcraft or anything like that - just not on two machines at the same time.

So why isn't windows like that?

[Saracen]

That isn't my point. I will only be using one copy of windows at any one time, or one machine at any one time. If I owned a laptop instead of two desktops I could do work, play, anything at any time using the same single copy of windows.

This isn't about running HTPC's in different rooms using the same copy of windows.

Now because I have two desktops instead of one laptop I can't do that? If I am only ever using one copy of windows at a time, I should only need to pay for one copy of windows. That's how it works with everything else, only microsofts greed prevents me from doing it with windows.

Actually a lot of stuff works like this, so it isn't just MS. There are exceptions, though.

Borland used to (might still, I haven't checked) used to do what you want for their language products years ago. For instance, the old Turbo Pascal and Turbo C products .... their analogy was that it was like a book. You can have it on multiple PCs, providing only one is in use at a time. Like multiple people can read the same book, but it's damn inconvenient if technically possible for multiple people to be reading at the same time.

The difference, of course, is between a product like a language tool and an OS. Wit the former, either you're using it or you aren't, and if you aren't, you could be doing something else with the PC. With an OS, though, whatever you're doing with the PC, you're using the OS.

And the full Windows licence does allow you to have it on multiple machines, but not at the same time. Or you can get specialist licences that allow multiple machine use, but only for specific purposes, like test environments or development.

It's all in the licence conditions, because that's what you pay for - a licence to do certain things.

[menthel]

Sure it's their decision, same as it's my decision not to buy Windows 7 because of their greed.

And that of pretty much every other piece of commercial software that isn't a game out there? This isn't just MS you know. Also, can you not see the big flaw? in your arguement? Lets say you are using your desktop for one thing and then you decide to look up something else on your lappy? You are then using 2 instances of windows. Your friend grabs your lappy to surf round your house whilst you are on your desktop? Same again. See, you can say, 'oh that would never happen' all you want but that is why they do it. By extension of this it also stops people with 50 systems using 1 OS license on the whole lot. The software companies have to make their money too, its what capitalism is made of. could you imagine windows for communists?

[shaithis]

Until something fundamental happens in the world of software licensing, I can see the same arguments happening over and over.

I do hate how the software companies want it both ways.......you do not own the software, you merely are licensing the IP to use but you still need 1 copy per PC, even though you aren't using both machines simultaneously.....hell Microsoft will even want you to buy a separate license for any VMs you are running.....even if you want to run a W7 VM on W7.....

It's easy to understand the arguments from both sides

[Jimbo75]

And that of pretty much every other piece of commercial software that isn't a game out there? This isn't just MS you know. Also, can you not see the big flaw? in your arguement? Lets say you are using your desktop for one thing and then you decide to look up something else on your lappy? You are then using 2 instances of windows. Your friend grabs your lappy to surf round your house whilst you are on your desktop? Same again. See, you can say, 'oh that would never happen' all you want but that is why they do it. By extension of this it also stops people with 50 systems using 1 OS license on the whole lot. The software companies have to make their money too, its what capitalism is made of. could you imagine windows for communists?

So you think it's ok to have to pay twice because your friends might grab your laptop while you are using your desktop?

You're not listening. Windows could very easily have a sign off feature so that you automatically get signed off one pc when another signs on. Why doesn't it?

And please, Microsoft makes more than enough money - in fact they make monopoly profits while ripping people off using their "one machine licence" nonsense. Well they won't be making any more off me with that attitude.

[Jimbo75]

Until something fundamental happens in the world of software licensing, I can see the same arguments happening over and over.

I do hate how the software companies want it both ways.......you do not own the software, you merely are licensing the IP to use but you still need 1 copy per PC, even though you aren't using both machines simultaneously.....hell Microsoft will even want you to buy a separate license for any VMs you are running.....even if you want to run a W7 VM on W7.....

It's easy to understand the arguments from both sides

That's pretty much it. To be honest it's high time the EU were really taking Microsoft and others to task over this.

Just think in a couple of years you will probably be paying for Windows 7 on your desktop, laptop, smartphone all while your work pays for it on their workplace computers too.

[Funkstar]

Why doesn't it?

Because system profiles are local and not across a network or even the internet. This is a good thing. You think people would be happy that every system login they have in Windows is sent back to Microsoft and stored on their servers?



Pull the internet connection and bang, no longer able to log in at all.

[menthel]

So you think it's ok to have to pay twice because your friends might grab your laptop while you are using your desktop?

You're not listening. Windows could very easily have a sign off feature so that you automatically get signed off one pc when another signs on. Why doesn't it?

And please, Microsoft makes more than enough money - in fact they make monopoly profits while ripping people off using their "one machine licence" nonsense. Well they won't be making any more off me with that attitude.

You have missed the point, really you have. Would you be happy if you got signed off because of that? Its just not realistic or workable.

If you don't want to use MS products, then don't but coming up with these unworkable ideas and then slagging off the company really doesn't help. We all know the position we are in with MS. They are a company operating in a capitalist society- their reason for existance is to make money for the shareholders. They will therefore operate as they see fit (within the law, and what they are doing is well within that) to achieve this aim. Its the society you live in!

[jim]

So you think it's ok to have to pay twice because your friends might grab your laptop while you are using your desktop?

You're not listening. Windows could very easily have a sign off feature so that you automatically get signed off one pc when another signs on. Why doesn't it?

And please, Microsoft makes more than enough money - in fact they make monopoly profits while ripping people off using their "one machine licence" nonsense. Well they won't be making any more off me with that attitude.

Your second point is ridiculous.

You want Microsoft to force you to sign off from PC 1 if Windows is running on PC 2. Anybody with any sense would disconnect from the internet, and then they would be unable to force the sign-off. So they'd have to force you to sign off as soon as you lost internet connection.

That would go down well... really well.

[dangel]

I sense much anger in this one..