Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft The Almighty Buck Your Rights Online

Windows XP EULA Discrepancies 69

Posted by timothy from the what-would-a-good-eula-look-like dept.
Greg Edmiston writes "I came across some interesting ambiguities upon reviewing the Windows XP EULA which turn common scenarios into potential EULA violations. Among the potential violations include VNC, dual-processor workstations with graphics cards, and running Gnutella. Just some food for thought."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows XP EULA Discrepancies More

Windows XP EULA Discrepancies

Comments Filter:

  • VNC (Score:3, Informative)

    by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @12:36AM (#5276991) Homepage
    It looks like VNC does violate the license. That's actually sensible since without that requirement you could use a high end windows desktop + VNC to run support apps for a dozen users. Windows does support virtual terminals so assuming the users didn't stomp on each other....

  • I'm thinking about a situation I heard about years ago. "By breaking this seal you agree to all liscences contained within."

    Shouldn't one be allowed to at least read a license before agreeing to it?

    Oh, yeah we already knew Microsoft is not a nice company, most of us don't use them any more...

    -Code
    • Supposedly, if you don't like MS's license, and haven't installed the software yet, you have the opportunity to return it. If you bought the software as an individual package, I believe you can send it back to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt and they'll refund your money.

      Bundled, now that's a different story. They will not refund your money if you purchased it as part of a computer system. (They did, for one or two people, actually; then they decided it wouldn't be cost-effective for them to have to field all those returns.) In that case, if you disagree with the EULA, you have to return the entire system as a unit. Now, just TRY doing that without being charged a restocking fee. I dare you.
      • I believe you can send it back to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt and they'll refund your money.

        Nope, as well as nu-uh.

        Now, if you had posted "I believe you can send it back to the store where you bought it and they will refund your money (if you haven't opened the box)." then I could agree with you - but if you never opened the box, how do you know if you agree or not with the EULA?

        MS sells the product to the resellers, then you buy it from the middleman. MS has their money, now you have to deal with the reseller.

        You don't agree to the EULA? OK, take it back to the reseller you bought it from (Don't send it to Microsoft, they don't even want to know - besides, they did not sell _you_ anything so CAN'T refund your money - they never had it in the first place; they sold to the store you bought from), and try to get a refund. Oh, you opened the box? Bzzzzzzt! Sorry, no refund. You might be one of those pesky pirates and made a copy of the software and now want your money back.

        As a side note, resellers are what is saving Microsoft's ass in most states on the monopoly thing. Most states say that only the people that bought directly from Microsoft can sue them if they illegally held the prices high because they were a monopoly.

        Did ANYONE buy their OS _directly_ from Microsoft? (I have not looked, does Microsoft even sell stuff directly, or do they redirect you to a reseller?)

        The companies that bought in the past are hoping to buy again in the future, so are not likely to piss off the seller (Microsoft) by instituting a lawsuit, and anyone else who bought from a third party at a price held artificially high by the monopoly has no legal recourse.
        • Actually, you're wrong. Microsoft will refund purchases made if you don't install the software and tell them you don't agree with the EULA. They have to, in order to keep the EULA valid. A few reports of their REFUSING to take it back, and if they ever decided to sue someone in court for violation, the defendant's attorney would bring it up that Microsoft routinely disobeyed its own EULA -- and the case would be thrown out.
    • There have been a few cases of this where the agreemnt came before any chance to read the license agreement. As far as I know, the courts have thorwn out each of these. While the store does not have to take the softare back once you open it, the software vendor needs to make you aware of the license agreement before you install it. If you dod not agree, and the store will not take it back, the vendor is supposed to refund the money. Here is a current suit against MS, Symantec and other vendors about "hiding" the EULA until you install it. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html

  • Sort of interesting (Score:3, Informative)

    by gizmo_mathboy ( 43426 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @12:41AM (#5277013)
    Interesting as this may be they only point that seemed most interesting was about VNC.

    I've been ok with how win2k performs and I see no real reason to upgrade to winxp. I am actually working harder to move everything to linux and save windows for those machines I have to administer at work.

  • uhm, yeah... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @12:48AM (#5277035)
    But, seriously, who gives a shit what's in any MS EULA? We all know there's going to be bullshit in any MS EULA, just as we all knew they were going to try and patent their .NET stuff, just as we all knew they'd worm their way out of real antitrust punishments. I hate to sound pessimistic here, but c'mon, does the real world ever show up around here? Ignore EULAs (MS or not) and get on with your day.

    Yes, this'll hurt my karma, but I've got plenty to spare and this is actually therapeutic.

  • One non-issue (Score:5, Informative)

    by kruetz ( 642175 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @12:54AM (#5277063) Journal

    1.) "The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."

    It seems that Microsoft wrote this with dual-CPU workstations in mind. However, what qualifies as a processor? My graphics card has an on-board GPU which is as good as any.

    Well, I don't think this is an issue - the "product" is WinXP. Now, you're graphics card is not executing any WinXP code - WinXP is sending it dynamically-generated drawing instructions. To claim that WinXP is "being used" by the GPU doesn't seem to describe the situation. A more accurate description would be "WinXP is CONTROLLING the GPU".

    If I'm wrong, we're all going to piracy hell, because there a processors in our sound cards, network adapters, hard-drives and cd-roms, ... you get the idea.

    I'm sure they only mean processors that are capable of executing/running WinXP, which certainly ONLY covers your AMD/Intel CPU.

    I agree that the term "processors" IS ambiguous, but when it's coupled with the "may not be used by more than" phrase, I think it's quite clear that they're talking about PCs with more than 2 CPUs.

    But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.

    And since they mention IIS in their clause, doesn't it mean that as a web-server running IIS under WinXP - YOU CAN ONLY SERVE 10 PAGES SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    BUT THIS IS GOOD - REALLY. We can get Microsoft to take themselves to court over this one - if microsoft.com is using IIS under WinXP (and if not, they're not sleeping in the bed they've made) wouldn't you agree that it's highly likely that they have served more than 10 pages at one time? If so, Microsoft has broken their own EULA and as a result I don't see how they could take anyone else to court over this issue. So it may well be a complete non-issue.

    Still, EULAs need to be regulated so that you either can't lose all sorts of rights when you purchase software, OR the licenses is made available to you before your potential purchase.

    God I hate Microsoft's legal dept...

    • Re:One non-issue (Score:3, Informative)

      by jbolden ( 176878 )
      If so, Microsoft has broken their own EULA and as a result I don't see how they could take anyone else to court over this issue. So it may well be a complete non-issue.

      Licenses have no effect on the license holder. Microsoft can do whatever they want with their software regardless of any license restrictions.

      The other problem is dimes to dollars this doesn't show up in the server license.

      Now if Microsoft knew that somebody else was serving over 10 pages at a time using desktop and didn't do anything about it and then went after you might be able to make a case.

      • Licenses have no effect on the license holder.

        A EULA is a contract. An agreement between two parties. You bet it has an effect on Microsoft.

        • Microsoft does not need a licence to run their own software.

          In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft is also printing thousands or millions of copies of the software and SELLING them! That isn't exacly permitted by the EULA either :)

          -
        • Read above. There is only one party here. Your little comment supports my position.
    • What about the latest round of gfx cards (say, those that are directx9 compliant) that run pixel shaders?

      Pixel shaders being tiny programs?

    • Re:One non-issue (Score:3, Informative)

      by tbannist ( 230135 )
      As I understand it, EULAs are simply not enforceable. The purchaser needs to agree to the EULA before the purchase of the software or else it's not a legal contract.

      Two reasons:
      1) By contract law, all details of an agreement must be disclosed prior to offer and acceptance. In other words, before the purchaser agrees to pay money for the software.

      2) By contract law, both parties must benefit from a contract. Since the EULA provides no benefits to the end user, it is not a valid contract on it's own.

      So, if the purchaser signed the EULA before paying for the software he might have a real legal problem, but otherwise it's only enforceable by intimidation and threats.

      -
      IANAL
      • Right, the other point as well is that a contract is generally only binding on the parties to that contract. As your contract to purchase the product is between you and the retailer, Microsoft can't impose any terms on the deal because they're not a party to the contract.
      • Not quite. When you "buy" the software, you're making a contract with the retailer for whatever is in the box: manuals, CDs etc. Once you've bought it, you can do whatever you like with the contents of that box. Use it as a football, eat it, even install the software... whatever.

        However, when you agree to the EULA, you're making a new contract with the software company. Your benefit: by agreeing, they let you use the software, get upgrades, tech support etc. Their benefit: they get to control what you do with it.

        Now even if you argue that your contract with the retailer included a right to use the software, that doesn't mean that you don't benefit (legally speaking) from right to use it in the EULA. There's no restriction in law in making the same commitment to two people (eg. if I make a contract with you do do X, and I make a contract with another person to do X, then both of you can enforce that contract, even though I've not promised B to do anything new).

        A possible way around this is to install the software without agreeing to the EULA. Then you're just using your right under the contract with the retailer to use the software without extra conditions. The problem is figuring out (for a layman like me) how to persuade the software to install without needing to agree to the EULA...

      • I just posted this above, but it has bearing on this thread. There is a case in court right now about this with several companies, including MS. http://news.com.com/2100-1001-983988.html
    • But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.

      This recent /. article Remotely Counting Machines Behind A NAT Box [slashdot.org]
      shows how how it can be done (assuming a badly configured NAT).

      Ian.
    • But the other issues are rather worrisome. Especially #2 - "The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing"...". How the Hell are you going to know if someone's running NAT on their machine and their entire LAN of 500 PCs is accessing your machine?!? This one IS BULLSHIT.
      Yes, what you say is indeed bullshit. You -- and Greg Edmiston -- misunderstand this completely. It's not that your XP workstation may only connect to a maximum of 10 other devices, it's that a maximum of 10 other workstations may connect to your XP workstation when it's acting as a server. Microsoft is more than clear about this, and have been since NT 4.0, when it first came up. People were buying NT Workstation and using it as a server; MS changed the ELUA to prevent this -- if you want to run a server, buy NT Server (or, now, Windows 2000 Server; there is no XP Server). This is old news, and you're over-reacting. There are other reasons to be upset about this, but chill.
      And since they mention IIS in their clause, doesn't it mean that as a web-server running IIS under WinXP - YOU CAN ONLY SERVE 10 PAGES SIMULTANEOUSLY.
      Again, you're over-reacting. You can only serve 10 other workstations (simultaniously). If you want to set up a department web server on your desktop PC, only 10 of your co-workers may connect at once. More than that and Microsoft wants you to run a real server, so buy a used PC for $100 and run Apache on OpenBSD or Linux.
  • "File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services)" That refers to the built in services that come with XP. By using XP Home, you are only allowed a limited number of simultaneous connections to your IIS, ICS, and print server. That's what you get for using XP Home.
    • Think of it like this:
      Say you bought a car and it came with a EULA that said you where only allowed to go 50mph, so the speedometer only went from 0-50. However the car was capable of going 100mph with no modifications apart from pushing the gas pedal a little further down. Let's also say that the manufacture of the car also sold another model that was exactly like the one you bought, except that its' speedometer went form 0-100. Of corse the 'faster' model cost an extra $5000 In other words, they sell a product capable of doing something and then say I'm not allowed to it.

      I'd like to see the car company try to enforce this EULA that says I can't drive 100mph in my 'economy' model. When I buy something, I have the legal and moral right to use that product to its' full capacity, then modify it and use it some more!

      • Re:Not all devious (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dago ( 25724 )

        You can buy a car and own it afterward.

        However, you can only buy a software license and own this license. Then, you can do whatever you want whith the license (eat it, stick it on the wall,...). The software, you can only use if you respect the term of the license.

        If the license stated that you can only use the program dressed in black and you run the program dressed in black and white, than you just violate the license and the copyright law.

        Yep.

        Really.

        • > You can buy a car and own it afterward.

          Oh really ... if you need a license to drive it on a public road THEN you don't really own it. License means permission from THE OWNER.

  • ok... (Score:3, Funny)

    by DonFinch ( 584056 ) <s2djfinc@@@vcu...edu> on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @01:11AM (#5277137)
    They break many laws of our society...I'm not getting misty eyed over the eula. Kind of like a crack whore saying sex before marrige is a sin...
  • 3.) "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."


    Microsoft could also argue that you may not use the product for anything other than for NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop, since using any devices attached directly or indirectly would cause code to be executed, which is expressly prohibited in this clause. This would make the PC fairly useless.

    Sounds like Microsoft got a cut-price lawyer to create their licensing agreement.
    • you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,

      I may be totally misunderstanding this language, but wouldn't the above prohibit running ANY kind of server on the "Product"?

      I mean, I'm not sure how they're defining "Device", but wouldn't a webserver allow other devices to "access" executable software residing on the Workstation Computer? Add PHP or a CGI perl script and it even "run"s executable software...

      W

      • Re:Silly Clauses (Score:4, Informative)

        by walt-sjc ( 145127 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @07:31AM (#5278346)
        Um, well Yeah. This is the EULA for "workstation" products. You need to buy "SERVER" if you want to run server apps. MS has mdae it quite clear for YEARS (since NT4 came out) that this was the case.

        These are not the two you are looking for. Move along.
  • I'm not running a dual processor system, but in addition to my Radeon 8500, I also have an processor on my Audigy. 3 Processors means I'm violating my license!
    • There are processors in your hard drive, your keyboard has processors at either end of the cable, there is a processor in your mouse. etc. etc.

      Everybody knows that isn't what they meant. I'm not running SMP on my SparcStation (which would be a violation since it runs the free version of Solaris) because of the various embedded controllers throughout the hardware. Why do people insist on being ridiculous when it comes to Windows?
  • "Don't hand out free copies."

    After that it's my dough and my copy to do w/ as I please is it not?
    • Some people [gnu.org] would have you think differently. We here at reality would propose calling such people "fucking morons", but then would be labeled "troll", so instead we are going to call them "fucking idiots"
    • Without explicit language referencing such follow-up action, your one liner certainly seems to allow me to make, sell for 1 cent and thereby distribute copies of the first copy.

      My point is that the base logic in these things must, by default, address undesired actions specifically, not by inference. The issue is that they only serve to do two things: 1.) reassure honest users as to the wrong thing 2.) lay a case for the law in the event someone starts distributing copies for a living.

      Anyone recall that guy that worked for MS, who took advantage of being able to order zero cost boxes of software, and them made a million reselling? Of course his stupidity got him caught, but the langauge in his contract (do not abuse, yadayadayada), is what allowed him to be cuffed and deloused. The language....that's all that matters when the time comes to knock down the front door. And if the language is too loose or otherwise open for interpretation, John Law won't be too anxious to kick a door....well, not usually.
  • From the license:
    "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."

    And the circumstances the author has in mind that is a breach of the license:

    "A workstation connected to (a) an FTP server, (b) an SMB server, (c) a mail server, (d) four web servers, (e) a Palm Pilot, (f) streaming Windows Media radio, (g) a NetMeeting conference, (h) another workstation via Internet Connection Sharing, and (i) the Windows XP Activation server *grin*."

    There is no issue here. The license refers to *incoming* connections from other devices to the workstation running XP Pro, not *outgoing* connections to other devices from the workstation, as the author describes.

    Microsoft obviously want to discourage people from running servers from the XP Pro operating system (which is designed for workstation use) to encourage the purchase of more costlier Windows Server and Advanced Server operating systems.

    • Microsoft obviously want to discourage people from running servers from the XP Pro operating system

      It's more than discouraging. It's prohibiting. Big difference.

      (At least, it usually is. For Microsoft they are frequently the same thing.)

      W
      • It's more than discouraging. It's prohibiting. Big difference.

        No, it's not prohibiting. The license allows a maximum of ten devices to connect to a XP Pro box, more than enough connections for development and testing of a site served by IIS. If you plan to make the site accessible on the internet, then moving it to one of Microsofts server operating systems seems reasonable to me.

        Note that license does not restrict the use of services that did not come with the product. It makes no restriction whatsoever on the number of devices connecting to, say, an Apache service on the machine.

  • 1. He posts the full text of the EULA on his website. Bets on how long it stays up?

    2. Is there a "clearinghouse" site where we can post EULAs from various products (and the modifications to the EULAs, like when a Service Pack install changes the terms of your unsigned agreement)?

    A quick Google search found nothing ("eula clearinghouse", "eula repository", "eula listing"...).

  • Funny.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ejungle ( 398309 )

    It's good to know that Microsoft can hold AOL hostage any time they like:

    4.)Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue any Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Product.

    This statement is too vague to get worked up about, but could entitle Microsoft to block access to Internet-based services which it does not agree with.

  • FUD, FUD, and more FUD (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Blkdeath ( 530393 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @04:37AM (#5277787) Homepage
    Sorry, guys, but this one's bunk.
    1.) "The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."

    Microsoft's NT-based products have always (to my reccolection) been licensed on a per-processor basis. That's part of the reason to justify Server -> Advanced Server -> Datacenter. They're referring to the system processor, otherwise known as a central processing unit, or CPU. The nonsense about graphics cards, GPUs, pixel shaders, etc. is bunk. As has already been pointed out, they are not running Windows, Windows is running them.

    2.) "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections."

    Not a discrepancy, per se, but a limitation imposed so that you may be forced to upgrade the license to a server-class if you're serving a large quantity of clients. The wording is relatively specific, actually, considering it's a Microsoft EULA. I can clearly understand that they are referring to a local network server situation.

    3.) "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

    "This is not a mainframe. Use your own computer." They don't want you to set up a dozen dumb terminals and use them to run a Windows XP desktop. In the cases of WinVNC / VNC Server, it generally takes over the active desktop, rather than replicating the desktop out for a separate session. In a nutshell, if you're at a keyboard and staring at a monitor and there's a Microsoft Windows XP interface displayed on same monitor, and you are the only one using this interface, you should pay for a license for Windows XP.

    4.) "Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue any Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Product."

    This one's almost too insulting to respond to. "Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue ... " - discontinue [reference.com], people. Read. Learn. They are not preventing you from viewing aol.com, they are acknowledging that at some point, Windows Update [microsoft.com] might not exist any more. Example; Windows 95, and soon-to-be Windows 98. I bet if you looked, you'd find similar clauses in their EULAs. It's known as "CYA" - Cover Your Ass. They don't want to be tied to a web service for the next four decades because somebody read and agreed to an antique EULA.

    This is not news. This is FUD, and not even intelligent FUD, at that. Please, Slashdot, don't fan the flames unless warranted.

    • Re:FUD, FUD, and more FUD (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      OK, some of this is FUD, but there are real restrictions going on here.

      Blkdeath>They don't want you to set up a dozen dumb terminals and use them to run a Windows XP desktop

      The language also seems to remove the possibility of running a single instance XP over VNC from Linux. Of course they let you use Linux in this way from their own framework, but *they control* how you do it.

      MS>Internet-based services provided to you or made available to you through the use of the Product."

      Blkdeath>..don't want to be tied to a web service

      Then MS could make everything perfectly clear with an extra clause, e.g. ...available to you *from MS* through the use of the Product.

      When you are in a court of law, judges and juries notice such details.

    • "You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for File and Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote access

      This just slays me. For the last two years I am just dumb-struck by how much MS is pushing us back in time, not forward. For all their PR and hype about how wonderful things are, it is all just BS lately. Only 10? Hmmm - I seem to recall Windows for Workgroups 3.11 being able to handle at least 50 -- more actually, depending on what you were doing. We had printers and file locations shared off Win3.11 computers all over the place. I remember, one room full of dumb terminals, with just a floppy boot disk, a shaved down copy of WordPerfect 5.1, and a few NET USE commands that allowed a whole department of secretaries access to file storage and printing. I cannot fathom with all of the technological leaps and bounds that have occurred in the last decade why they are doing this, other than greed. Maybe it's "If they exceed 10, then they have to buy more OS licenses, or better yet a server" WTF????

      At a time when more and more families have multiple computers in the house, the older ones being passed down to the kids, why on earth would they pull this now? I have 7 computers at home, my entire house is networked, even the garage. What about smart refigerators, tvs and such, that allow you to print whatever out? I'll tell you what MS, I'll allow as many computer connections to my shared printer as I please, and if your OS locks me out after 10, then I will think it truely a piece of trash. And the home version -- utterly useless -- another grab at getting more $$ out of innocent families and consumers who don't know any better, to force them to go back and pay $100 more for the Pro version. Nice work MS.

      While I'm on my rant, let me throw in a little 2K bashing. Don't get me wrong, I think some of the functionality built in to AD is pretty sweet, if you wanted to use it. But MS has decided it is the ONLY way to get things done. In the past, there were many ways to approach a task, and as a consultant you got to pick which method of computing/access/production worked best. But those options are gone now. Like printing. It's cool that you can manage printers and assign them to people, if that's what you wanted to do. But tell my again, why, why, why, in this day and age, I am writing VB scripts just to get a network printer out???? I handle enough user accounts, I really don't want to manage computer accounts now too. That should be my choice. And now of course, the home user is faced with the lovely task of managing user accounts. Really a bad move MS.

      Does anyone remember back when, if you wanted to get a printer to work you had to go to the back of the book and get the printer codes? Or modems, you needed the AT command to access one. Those days are long gone, and I don't miss them. But here I am, using little VB scripts that seem vaugly familiar to the old batch files of days gone by. And what is that stupid ConPrt utility again?? Why on earth do I have to leave the OS, go to a resource kit, just to be able to allow users (who don't have access to the printer folder) to print? Come on MS - this is not rocket science. We have been setting up printers for so many years now. It's real simple, when a printer is installed, you ask: Is this printer just for you, or for everyone who sits here? Third party vendors have been doing it for years. I have a team of 5, and not one of them understands VB scripting, but they were great little ghosters, knew how to put printers on and move the computers out. Now they can't make a move unless I get everything ready for them. Utterly useless, unless of course, I send them out for training and pay big buck for some MS classes - or maybe this is part of the big picture too?

      For all of it's advanced possibilities, I often feel like I am back in mainframe land. And why do I think that this home/pro thing is not working? Because of 'word on the street'. I have long lost count over the number of home users I know who tell me they can't stand XP, have spent hours upon hours on the phone with tech support, just to get something as simple a shared printer connected, which they had working fine until they tried to bring XP into the mix. And then they spend even more $$ to bring it in to a shop, to have the drive reformatted so they can put Win98 back on!

      That actually felt good -- thank you.
      • Maybe it's "If they exceed 10, then they have to buy more OS licenses, or better yet a server" WTF????

        Heh. This weekend I was upgrading a hard drive in an NT 4.0 server from 8GB to 36GB. I added the new drive to the SCSI bus and booted up with my newly acquired Partition Magic boot disk purchased from CompUSA just hours before. I proceded to copy the partitions onto the new drive. I then rebooted to the new drive to make sure it worked before growing the partitions to fill the drive. I was surprised to find that when I tried to run Partition Magic again it informed me that the product was not compatible with the "Server Edition" of windows, and that I needed to buy Server Magic instead. Server Magic does the same things as Partition Magic, but costs $400 more. Obviously Partition Magic works just fine with NT server, because I had just used it when the first disk in the system was blank, they had just put a check in there such that if you had deep enough pockets to buy NT server you'd have to pay $400 more for their partition utility. I would have been less pissed off about it had they stated the limitation clearly on the outside of the box, or if Server Magic were not so rediculously priced and was actually available at the local store, but it still seems wrong somehow.

        Anyway, in short, it's not just Microsoft who charges you more for the same code based on what you're going to use it for.

        --

        BTW, I got around the stupid limitation by pulling a SCSI disk from one of the workstations and sticking it on the SCSI bus with a lower ID than the new drive. Then I just made my changes to the NT server disk and put the workstation drive back. Not a very good checking system apparently.

  • I'll say this once (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr.Sarcastic ( 240974 ) on Tuesday February 11, 2003 @05:16AM (#5277885) Homepage
    EULAs usually are not worth the paper their printed on. Just BUY the software and the EULA does not apply. If you go to Microsoft and LICENSE software it will apply. Check it out here [linuxjournal.com]
  • 3.) "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."

    I guess this means that running Apache, or FTP is only allowed if you ensure that there are not .exe files available for download since you are not allowed to "permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software"

    I guess this also could rule out synchronising your Palm or Wince PDA - the little helper application will execute the Outlook .exe inorder to get your email.

    Bugger eh.

    Steve.
  • Microsoft's EULA is a joke. Just listen to the operator giggling at you when you try recieve the refund clearly offered within the EULA if you do not agree to its terms.

    This is of course refering to the long running (losing) battle against the "microsoft tax" for GNU laptop users.

    In the end, the EULA will only be used as ammo against anyone that particularly ticks microsoft off, it doesn't mean a thing to the everyday user.
  • "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."


    Aren't your keyboard, mouse and montior "devices". Don't you use the monitor to "display" the product's user interface. Doesn't the mouse "access" the user interface. Therefore, if you are using a typical desktop situation you will need at least 4 windows XP licenses (for mouse, keyboard, monitor, and CPU).
  • the local laws have precedence on such issues (except maybe in some 3rd world country). So anything which is in a contract (EULA in this case) is considered to be null if that part is contradicted by some local law. That is why in many civilised countries there is a clause which says: If some parts of this contract are otherwise stated by the law, then these parts are automatically void, but the rest of the contract remains in place. The huge EULAs / contract with many complex clauses could be reduced to a halfpage contract if the void garbage would be taken out. But they are formulated this way just so the persons who have no clue about the laws might get scared. That is why I have my legal insurance which provides free consultans on any legal matter of mine. :) So they can take their EULA and stick it where the sun don't shine. *rant* And since we are at EULAs, why the heck do Windows upgrades come with an EULA?!? The law require hidden bugs to be fixed for a product you buy. And AFAIK in most countries the law extends the warranty indefinitely when it comes to hidden bugs. Since when do I have to agree to anything so I can get their garbage of a product fixed?!? *rant end*

  • So what's this mean to a dual processor setup with hyperthreading? Looks like four processors to Windows...

    • It means absolutely nothing - Windows XP can tell the difference between a physical CPU and a virtual (Hyper-Threaded) CPU. Hence, per-processor licensing counts are only applied to physical processors, not virtual ones.
  • This deal criticizes Microsoft yet right below it is ad for MS Servers?? What's the deal here? If you're going to criticize don't compromize.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close