Posted 02/22/2008 at 04:25:02am

In my warped way of viewing our world the consumer is getting a less valuable benefit than bargained for with Vi$ta as he/she (me included) is not clearly made aware of the limitation of the Vi$ta license. IMHO, this is a less than fair and greedy move by M$ that ought to be decried. This is a company that has moved from overtly doing things in a bullying, self-serving manner to a more aggressive position of doing sneaky things that are even more self-serving through weasel-wording and fine print in their EULAs. I guess if M$ can't earn and win the market, and their revenues, by providing excellent value they need to resort to trapping and locking in the consumers they can "persuade" (trick/force) into their OS platforms (nearly everyone buying a new PC still, but with a small sliver of movement toward alternative solutions). I see an interesting similarity between this little Vi$ta cash dig, and the new (& improved) Windows 2003 Server Terminal Service that can be enabled quite nicely as with previous Server OS platforms from M$. But after 180 days an additional TS CAL license must be purchased for each connected TS session to allow it to continue to work. When I had turned on TS for a client's 2003 Server OS I saw nothing disclosed about that little time bomb at the time of it being enabled, nor did I see anything on the license agreement that made that additional fee clear. I think I happened to spot it in an article - and I recall the surprise of some of my associates when I brought this forth several months ago in a technical forum. This is what I refer to as, "Oh, by the way...", extortion pricing. And the TS CAL, "Oh, by the way...", gouge is precisely what pushed me away from Windows Server OS into the World Of Linux for a File Server platform wherever possible. The newly exposed Vista license gouge is what will push me even deeper into Ubuntu Desktop Linux and Mac machinery for folks that do not absolutely have to use Windows. As an aside, I recall back when PC manufacturers were putting DOS/Windows OS on every PC lest they be sued by Micro$coff for perpetuating piracy potential of their unprotected OS platforms. Now that M$ activation and their Genuine Advantage solutions are in place, why don't the manufacturers allow consumers to acquire PCs without any OS so an End User can install their own OS (like with Servers)? Yeah, I know, that would result in a tech support nightmare for the manufacturers. Nope, we end up having M$ OS shoved down our throats whether we need/want it or not, and no effective recourse in getting our money back from M$ if we opt to not use their OS. It is time for a consumer revolution re: OS choices, and onerous license agreements. I am voting with my dollars for Mac and Linux, and doing what I can to persuade folks to move to Mac, or migrate to Linux. mrgmhale