Re: The Microsoft stranglehold on its users....
- From: "zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <zzbunker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 May 2007 14:25:56 -0700
On May 15, 12:13 pm, Straydog <a...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(see below)
Glad I kept all of my old software...
(also note that -- at the bottom -- he's getting netbot attacks; I have
found references in the media to private corporations that don't like
someone sometimes feel that they have a right to launch attacks over the
net whenever and however they feel like it)
----
Subject: [Ed Foster's GripeLog] Motherboard Replacements and Windows OEM EULAs (fwd)
========================================
ED FOSTER'S GRIPELOG
The Reader Advocate Column
========================================
Motherboard Replacements and Windows OEM EULAs
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
By Ed Foster
If you decide to replace the motherboard in your computer, should you
have to pay Microsoft again for the OS that came with the system? Well,
in Redmond they think so, and that probably doesn't come as much of a
surprise. What I do find a bit surprising is that Microsoft has chosen
not to inform end users, not even in the darkest depths of the Windows
EULAs, of this policy. Instead, computer manufacturers have just quietly
been told that, hey, that's the way it's going to be.
PCs were invented for people who know next to nothinig
about software and electronic security.
So what you''re payig for is not a new OS, but a
new computer.
A reader who is a system builder under the Microsoft Partner Program
recently grew concerned over what his and his customers' rights are
under the Vista EULA if they want to replace a motherboard. Comments
that he had seen in system builder discussion groups seemed to indicate
that if the end user wants to upgrade the motherboard - a common enough
desire these days given what a memory pig Vista's turned out to be - the
system builder must make the customer pay for another Vista license. The
reader contacted Microsoft's partner group and was told that, yes
indeed, a new motherboard requires a new license.
This caused the reader to wonder if his customers are being treated the
same under this policy as a Dell or HP customer would be. "Doesn't the
End-User's license always read the same whether a Tier 1 or a System
Builder makes the computer?" the reader wrote. "I know the Tier 1's have
different rights than we system builders do, but do their users have
different rights, too? I say all this because when Dell had that big
recall over swelling/leaking capacitors, I was on a crew that
subcontracted with Dell's contractor to replace 150 motherboards and
hard drives. As I read what Microsoft is saying, if these had been MY
computers the company had bought, they'd have also had to buy 150 Full
Retail copies of Windows! Dell certainly didn't send any additional
licenses of Windows to that customer."
In researching the reader's questions about this, I found a number of
discussions referencing materials on Microsoft's OEM website that
confirm what the reader was told by saying that an "upgrade of the
motherboard is considered to result in a 'new personal computer' to
which Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from
another computer." Not being an OEM myself though, I found I was unable
to a Microsoft page that described this policy. If Microsoft is telling
its OEMs this, shouldn't it also be telling the OEMs' customers?
Another thing I found odd was that many participants in the system
builder discussions continually asserted that the Vista OEM EULA
mandates that a new license fee be charged for a replacement
motherboard. But after studying all the versions of the Vista OEM EULA I
could find, there seem to be no references to motherboards at all. Of
course, similar to the XP OEM EULA, the Vista EULA says the copy is
licensed permanently to one device and cannot be transferred to another
computer. But it doesn't say anywhere that changing the motherboard
makes it a new device. So what really is Microsoft's policy on
motherboard replacement and Windows' licensing?
Fortunately, I was able to find a Microsoft official who was gracious
enough to look into the reader's questions for me. "The rule is in place
to protect the OEM, or in this specific case the System Builder, so that
as computers are upgraded, the System Builder is not obligated (per the
EULA) to support a version of Windows that may be on what is essentially
a new PC," wrote Tom Moran, director of customer and partner experience
for Microsoft Operations. "Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of
the hardware components on your customer's computer and the end user may
maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system
software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the
motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard essentially results in a new
computer, to which the original operating system software cannot be
transferred. This is not the case if the motherboard is replaced (same
make/model) due to a defect."
Microsoft had to draw the line somewhere. "Understanding that end users,
over time, upgrade their PC with different components, Microsoft needed
to have one base component 'left standing' that would still define that
original PC - the motherboard, in essence, is the 'heart and soul' of
the PC," Moran wrote. "In the case with Dell that your reader mentions,
the situation was evidently caused by a defective motherboard, and the
replacements would have been just that - direct replacements vs.
upgrades. A replacement of a defective motherboard would not require a
new license, while an upgrade would."
Moran agrees that Microsoft needs to explain this policy on a webpage
that is accessible to the general public, and he hopes to help make that
happen in the near future. And certainly it's good to see that the
reader's concern that his customers were being treated differently than
those of Dell or HP is not the case, and that Microsoft acknowledges
that replacing a defective motherboard should not require the OS to be
re-licensed.
Nonetheless, there are any number of contentious issues raised by this
policy. Just for example, if you replace a motherboard because it
doesn't have enough memory to run Vista beyond a slow crawl, is that a
discretionary motherboard replacement? How do you suppose Microsoft's
product activation, authentication, verification, and future copy
protection schemes are going to be able to tell if the old motherboard
was defective or not? And under what law does Microsoft have the right
to decide when your changing a component requires you to give them more
money? It's certainly not copyright law, and since there's nothing in
their EULA about it, it's not contract law either. If Microsoft can do
this, why can't the people who made your car stereo charge you for
moving it to another vehicle?
Yes, there is a lot to debate here, but on one point there should be no
argument. Customers have the right to know about any policy that might
cost them money before they purchase a computer with bundled Microsoft
software. Not only should Microsoft explicitly state their motherboard
replacement policy in their EULAs and on their website, but computer
manufacturers should warn customers of the potential consequences should
they "choose" Vista as their operating system. After all, we do have
choices, don't we?
========================================
Read this column on-line and post your comments athttp://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/5/15/090/55315
Got a gripe? E-mail me at Fos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
========================================
Recently in my weblog:
Anonymous Posting Returns, I Hope
This weekend we began a new phase in the battle against link spam on my
GripeLog website. And, fingers crossed, so far I am optimistic that we
are slowly getting to the point where we can once again have the kind of
open discussions we all want without netbot attacks ruining it all.http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/5/14/11037/7128
College Kid Learns Lesson About Dell Warranty
What is it about Dell and schools? Last year we had a story (see "Dell
Gets a Failing Grade in School") about the failure rate of Dell
computers in a high school. Now our recent discussions about useless
extended warranties prompted another reader to relate his experience
with a Dell intended for use at college.http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/5/10/15859/6864
Paid Verizon Bills Don't Always Stay Paid
It's a good idea to check your monthly phone and Internet bills to make
sure the vendor isn't running up too many gratuitous charges. This
apparently goes double with Verizon, as two different readers have
recently discovered that Verizon's bogus charges can include bills that
you've already paid.http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/5/7/94257/00713
Insecurity Over More Security Questions
With phishing scams and other forms of identity theft targeting our bank
accounts, financial institutions are increasingly adding additional
security checks. But one reader wonders if asking you more questions
isn't just a recipe for more points of failure.http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2007/5/4/01155/99718
========================================
Copyright 2007 Ed Foster's GripeLog. You are granted permission to
forward this column to friends who would have an interest in this topic.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter, please visit:http://www.gripe2ed.com/mailman/listinfo/edfoster
_______________________________________________
Edfoster mailing list
Edfos...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx://www.gripe2ed.com/mailman/listinfo/edfoster
.
- References:
- The Microsoft stranglehold on its users....
- From: Straydog
- The Microsoft stranglehold on its users....
- Prev by Date: Re: Team player issues
- Next by Date: One more Linux story for BMJ & Morris...
- Previous by thread: Re: The Microsoft stranglehold on its users....
- Next by thread: What will they outsource next?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
