Why Has Windows Vista Been Built?

[VetLegion]

I remember reading that Windows XPs main competition wasn't Linux or BeOS or Mac OS or some other of the dozen or so operating systems, but other Windows versions: 2000, 98 and even the occassional 95. People just found it not worth the time and money to upgrade.

So, if we assume that competition is still way behind, and it is, why did Microsoft spend billions to build and Vista? It would have made sense to keep selling XP at least until Linux desktops caught up with it, which would have meant ~2012, and then release Vista.

Who can offer an explanation as to why they built Vista this early?

[alva]

Just a wild guess here but might it be 'cause they wat to make money?

[VetLegion]

Well they're going to compete with XP so they win some and lose some, doesn't seem too smart. Or maybe it is, as a price discrimination thingie - build a luxury car for those who want more than to drive from A to B. But still it cost a fortune, they better have a market for it. I know I have a couple more years in my XP before I pension it.

[Provost Harrison]

I suppose it's the same reason people continue breathing I suppose - it's what they do...even if there was never a real need for it.

[chequita guevara]

One day I went to the store and was looking at laundry detergents. I noticed that about half the bottles had the same exact shape. Only the color and the labels differed. So I check, and indeed, half of the twelve types of detergent were made by the same company. Out of the twelve, there were only five manufacturers. So, by increasing the number of products, two manufacturers increased the amount of market share they had. Instead of 1/5th of shelf space, one had 1 half of shelf space, another had 1/4th of all shelf space.

I hope that answers your question.

[SlowwHand]

Because some people think new is better.
I already disagreed with some people here over this Vista.

[Jon Miller]

What I would be interested in Vista on is my Laptop, as I heard there are advancements in that OS for Tablets.

However, considering my laptop is slower than I would wish (Core Duo 1.866 GHz + 1 GB ram), I am not sure if I want to upgrade.

It does say Visa ready on it though.. but probably if I upgrade I Will want to buy another Gig of ram.

JM

[Proteus_MST]

Another reason is,
to sell their product at a higher price.

Vistas OEM versions can only be activated for a signle system configuration and, after the first activation you can only use it on this system (it will revert into a limited mode of use after you change a (single?) component).

Therefore Microsoft is putting an end to the widespread sale of (cheap) OEM versions to customers (I think most versions of XP running on private computers at the moment are OEM versions) and force the customers to buy the more expensive normal versions of the OS (as long as these users don´t plan to keep their system unchanged forever )

MS also wanted to enforce a policy that you can use even the normal versions of Vista only on 2 systems (or more exactly for 2 computer upgrades) so that everyone would have been forced to buy new licenses for Vista if they upgraded their computer more often. But after being heavily criticised for it they reverted this policy (or, as they prefer to say, they "clarified it" )


If they introduce Vista now and then after 2-3 years stop their activation service for Windows XP they can still force the XP users (if they upgrade their hardware) to choose between buying Vista or switching to another OS (with the majority of XP users probably choosing to buy Vista)

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Another reason is,
to sell their product at a higher price.

Vistas OEM versions can only be activated for a signle system configuration and, after the first activation you can only use it on this system (it will revert into a limited mode of use after you change a (single?) component).

Therefore Microsoft is putting an end to the widespread sale of (cheap) OEM versions to customers (I think most versions of XP running on private computers at the moment are OEM versions) and force the customers to buy the more expensive normal versions of the OS (as long as these users don´t plan to keep their system unchanged forever )

MS also wanted to enforce a policy that you can use even the normal versions of Vista only on 2 systems (or more exactly for 2 computer upgrades) so that everyone would have been forced to buy new licenses for Vista if they upgraded their computer more often. But after being heavily criticised for it they reverted this policy (or, as they prefer to say, they "clarified it" )


If they introduce Vista now and then after 2-3 years stop their activation service for Windows XP they can still force the XP users (if they upgrade their hardware) to choose between buying Vista or switching to another OS (with the majority of XP users probably choosing to buy Vista)

That's inconsistent with my understanding... I had thought that Vista was like XP, in that if you change something significant it will indeed complain, until you register the new configuration as the official one with microsoft (for copy protection). I'm not sure they could get away with limiting the hardware changes you were permitted to make without giving a way of still using Vista fully...

[Proteus_MST]

They de facto try to getaway with it

...
he upshot is that this winter you buy Vista, install it at home, and at some later date you can also install it on one other PC (provided that you no longer use the original PC that contained Vista). Subsequent transfers are not allowed. After transfer, your newly "licensed device" does not gain another "one time" transfer right. It's not a cycle, in other words. I've seen this interpretation offered online, but when I checked into it with Microsoft, I was told that it is indeed a one-transfer lifetime limitation.
Same as it ever was?

One key bit of information that has been lost in the shuffle pertains to the applicability of the retail license. This license is quite different from the OEM license that accompanies new PCs—the way in which more than 90% of all versions of Windows are sold. Thus we must immediately note that the retail license affects far fewer users than the OEM license.

Indeed, Microsoft's OEM license for Windows forbids any device transfers at all. A new Gateway PC with Windows is accompanied by a license that forbids you from using that copy of Windows Vista on any other hardware. This isn't new with Windows Vista, either. Microsoft has been using this kind of language in their licenses for several years.

When asked about this approach to licensing, a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars Technica that the emphasis is on per-device licensing. "With Windows Vista, Microsoft has provided clearer language about the association of the software with a specific device—i.e., one machine, one license—and new provisions for making backups, license transfers and license reassignments," the spokesperson said. Translation: Windows is licensed by device, not by owner. Retail customers get one transfer, OEM customers get none.
...

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061017-8008.html

(There´s also a longer article available here but it is in german)

[snoopy369]

I was about to paste that same article in.

Particularly the LATER part in the article:

How is it going to play out?

All of this talk about what is and what is not allowed ignores one critical thing: it's really the activation component of Windows that first enforces the license. Above I mentioned the fact that OEM licenses forbid the transfer of the OS. The fact remains that despite this, users do it every day and Windows Product Activation (WPA) doesn't stop them.

Indeed, on the eve of Windows XP's release, there was much ado about Windows Product Activation and how it would "force you to buy a new copy of Windows" if you changed your motherboard or added a new hard drive. Reality proved to be far less eventful; in the event of a problem, one might be inconvenienced with a phone call to an automated license activation system, but that was about it. The apocalypse never came.

To put all of this in perspective, let's review the changes as they affect two mythical users. First, there's Joe O'Hehem, who always buys his boxes from Dell. For Mr. O'Hehem, nothing has changed. His computers come with a new OS when he buys them and the licenses say "no" to transfers. Next door lives Brock N. Mortar, who likes to buy his components and software at a local store and build his own machines. His retail version of Windows now explicitly allows only one device transfer.

For both of these users, attempts to move the OS to a new device will eventually meet Microsoft's new Software Protection Platform, which both authenticates new installations and also monitors them for evidence of tampering. The question is, will the situation be like Windows XP and WPA, or not? Right now no one outside of Microsoft knows, but there's good reason to expect that the status quo will be maintained. First, Microsoft was cut deeply and embarrassed by the Windows Genuine Advantage tool and the scandal related to constant monitoring. I know for a fact that Microsoft has worked to make sure that modest hardware changes on a box do not trigger a transfer because the results would be equally embarrassing, especially for an OS that is expected to spur users into upgrade mode.

Second, Microsoft never really added any teeth to WPA, even though they could have. By this point everyone knows that a WPA problem is nothing but a formality, unless you're truly pirating software. It's irritating, frustrating, and an inconvenience to have to pick up the phone in the event of a problem, but Microsoft seems to pass the wand of clearance over just about everyone who calls. The company apparently thought that a cross-breed of nagware and oversight would be enough to discourage abuse among casual pirates.

Transfers, to a new machine, have ALWAYS been forbidden for OEM users (read your next-to-last paragraph)... but there's never been any real teeth in that provision, and Vista may well not have any teeth either. Upgrades *certainly* will not be forbidden.

[snoopy369]

I also note http://download.microsoft.com/docume...a3d405c074.pdf paragraph 15. This is the retail (not OEM) license, so not entirely relevant, but it notes that the Ars Technica writer is slightly misunderstanding the retail license - as he says at the start that the retail license allows only one transfer.

He is wrong - it allows only one transfer to a third party. That's paragraph 16. 15 notes that you may reassign the retail version of Vista unlimitedly, unless you are using Windows Anytime Upgrade, in which case it's limited due to the limitations of that media. I'd love to see a copy of the OEM license to see if that's true there as well...

[snoopy369]

Hmm, actually this was a change since that article was written:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061102-8140.html

[snoopy369]

In any event Vista is no different from XP in this regard (on the OEM version being nontransferable officially), and will allow hardware changes at least to a point (my guess would be the CPU, they seem to focus on the CPU being the computer).

[Proteus_MST]

Yes, I know of the removal of the transfer limitation from the reatil versions (which was the "clarifications" I meant).
IMHO the single interesting thing will be how it will be with the OEM versions (i.e. will they enforce the "only on one machine" policy via WPA (which is the thing the german article definitely says)) or will it be just a paragraph within their EULA which doesn´t keep users of the OEM version from reactivating their system as often as I want regardless of the numbers of upgrades they make to their hardware. (which is the thing that the article from ars technica suggests).

Good reason to be careful and wait for the first reports of OEM users after extensively upgrading their system