i have to say anyone who has rushed to upgrade to vista deserves all the teething problems you get.

so what does this mean for people who want 4x4 systems or the quad core intels lol

jocksteeluki have to say anyone who has rushed to upgrade to vista deserves all the teething problems you get.

Agreed. :roll:

xylomnso what does this mean for people who want 4x4 systems or the quad core intels lol

I hope they already made a healthy donation to some people who might be dying before they spoil themselfs buying 4 cores for games that won't use them anyways. Might as well just throw your money away. :shadedshu

Bottom line is simple, anyone who use dual core, dual CPU setups may have to pony up for 2 copies of Vista. LOL

This isn't new to Vista in any way.

If you look at the Windows XP Home EULA:

The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time...

and the Windows XP Pro EULA:

The Software may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time...

So once again, this is just someone freaking out about something they think the big bad Microsoft added to restrict users of Vista, that has actually been in affect all along. Am I the only one that actually reads the EULA of software before I install it? Because is sure does seem that way.

This is the whole thing behind Dual Core processors, it was pretty much all invented to get around Microsoft and other software companies processor licensing restrictions. A Single Dual Core processor is still a single processor. Which is why they work with Windows XP Home despite the EULA stating you can only have one processor.

Lazzer408I hope they already made a healthy donation to some people who might be dying before they spoil themselfs buying 4 cores for games that won't use them anyways. Might as well just throw your money away. :shadedshu

LOL some of you are soo short sighted its unbelievable... :wtf: there are other applications that are not games you know! Such as video editing, professional photoshoppers, etc...
These require a lot of processing power in the form of multithreaded(ness). And besides doesn't your e-penis like triple if you have 4 cores?

newtekie1This isn't new to Vista in any way.

If you look at the Windows XP Home EULA:

and the Windows XP Pro EULA:

Because you found similarities from XP makes that your defense? Wait, you expect consumers to spend 100s of dollars on a new OS with the same restrictions of the previous OS? An OS they already paid for and have no problems with? You gotta be joking right?
I would take that more seriously if they were throwing free copies of Vista. However, that will not be the case and if they want to attract a larger consumer base they must show that they improved on the current OS. The EULA is not exempt of this. Therefore, this defense is mute.

EastCoasthandleBecause you found similarities from XP makes that your defense? :roll:
I would take that more seriously if they were throwing free copies of Vista. However, that will not be the case and if they want to attract a larger consumer base they must show that they improved on the current OS. The EULA is not exempt of this. Therefore, this defense is mute.

I see no need to improve the EULA. It clearly states what Microsoft intends. You can't use Vista on more than two processors. What do you expect them to improve exactly? If you want to use Vista on machines with more than 2 processors, then chances are you can afford the extra licenses to do it. I had to buy extra licenses for my institution's Quad-Xeon video editing machines, it really isn't a big deal when you are putting out $10,000 a machine, another $100 isn't going to kill you.

What, are you just mad that I rained on your "lets bash Microsoft Vista" parade? So you decide that if you just say that the argument that the same restrictions applied to earlier versions of Windows and no one gave a rats ass is mute, then it really is?

The same restrictions applied in Windows XP and no one cared, but suddenly they are included in Vista and it is a big deal? Give it a rest.

newtekie1I see no need to improve the EULA...

The truth of the matter is simple, something you have ignore since posting in this thread.
You also attempted to ignore the fact that when a lot of enthusiasts got upset regarding the original Eula regarding number of Vista uses what happened? They changed it did they not? Therefore, your post is inaccurate on the merit that the Eula can be change at any time. :rockout:

EastCoasthandleThe truth of the matter is simple, something you have ignore since posting in this thread.
You also attempted to ignore the fact that when a lot of enthusiasts got upset regarding the original Eula regarding number of Vista uses what happened? They changed it did they not? Therefore, your post is inaccurate on the merit that the Eula can be change at any time. :rockout:

Yes, and in that instance they had actually added something to the EULA that was more restrictive than previous EULAs. I didn't need to ignore it because it has nothing to do with this issue.

The case is not the same with this, something you seem to fail to realize.

My issue isn't with the fact that the EULA can be changed, it is that it doesn't need to be changed. You all are making a mountain out of nothing, this isn't even a molehill. They are reporting it like it is a major deal that will affect everyone that is going to use Vista, it isn't. It won't even affect most enthusiasts. The fact that they upped the restriction for Home to allow for 2 processors is actually a vast improvement IMO.

This wasn't news when it was in the Windows XP EULA, and it isn't news now. And something tells me that if Jimmy had known that the same restrictions(actually they are more strict) were in the Windows XP EULA he wouldn't have reported this as news.

newtekie1Yes, and in that instance they had actually added something to the EULA that was more restrictive than previous EULAs...

You are obviously full of yourself and have ignore the premise of the posts in this thread with your own propaganda. :shadedshu

EastCoasthandleYou are obviously full of yourself and have ignore the premise of the posts in this thread with your own propaganda. :shadedshu

Have you read the posts in this thread? All of them except mine are bitching about people with multi-core processors being screwed when this has nothing to do with how many cores a processor has, as I have pointed out.

You have yet to manage a single good point in your argument. You can't even answer my question about how the EULA should be improved.

Every on of your posts, including your original post, has been dead wrong.

OH NOES!!!1! He ISN'T bashing Micro$oft! PROPAGANDA!!!

y do they have to be soo gay

newtekie1The same restrictions applied in Windows XP and no one cared, but suddenly they are included in Vista and it is a big deal? Give it a rest.

1) Yes, but now multi-core is becoming more common and by the time the next Windows OS is out I expect most people will have at least two cores, so this may need revising.

2) Stop the arguing or I'll get a mod to close this thread (not directed at any one person, a general message)

Jimmy I understand where you are coming from, but this has nothing to do with how many cores a person has in their computer(and I think that is where the confusion comes in). It is how many PROCESSORS they have. A Core =/= A Processor. This has already been decided in an actual legal court. It applies to all software manufactures. As long as it all fits in a single socket, it is a single processor, regardless of how many cores it has.

People with QX6700s aren't forced to buy extra copies of XP because they have more than 2 cores, I don't see why people expect anything different from Vista when it says the same thing in the EULA. There is no reason to revise this.

That is what I am trying to say. THIS IS NOT NEWS.

ExceededgokuLOL some of you are soo short sighted its unbelievable... :wtf: there are other applications that are not games you know! Such as video editing, professional photoshoppers, etc...
These require a lot of processing power in the form of multithreaded(ness). And besides doesn't your e-penis like triple if you have 4 cores?

How many of those users read this forum compaired to gamers? (singing) "yeh my dick is bigger then yours" :nutkick: I'm not going to apologize for using a forum for what it's intended. :toast: live in peace.

newtekie1Jimmy I understand where you are coming from, but this has nothing to do with how many cores a person has in their computer(and I think that is where the confusion comes in). It is how many PROCESSORS they have. A Core =/= A Processor. This has already been decided in an actual legal court. It applies to all software manufactures. As long as it all fits in a single socket, it is a single processor, regardless of how many cores it has.

People with QX6700s aren't forced to buy extra copies of XP because they have more than 2 cores, I don't see why people expect anything different from Vista when it says the same thing in the EULA. There is no reason to revise this.

That is what I am trying to say. THIS IS NOT NEWS.

so u really mean intels quad and normal dual cores would work fine but processors like the amd quad 2 seperate cpus on one motherboard woul not

lol bring it on m$ cuase for every improvement that they made to restrict their licenses xp ,win 2000 , NT well um within the period of two weeks there protection has been hacked ,....the harder M$ tries to protect their licensees the harder people will try to turn that work to null....:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: BRING IT ON !! longest time period to brake licenses that belonged to M$ to date is 2 WEEKS:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

EviLZeDso u really mean intels quad and normal dual cores would work fine but processors like the amd quad 2 seperate cpus on one motherboard woul not

Actually AMDs Quadfather/4x4(and Intel's V8) would work fine with Vista since Vista is limitted to two processors and 4x4(V8) uses two processors. However, if you tried to install XP Home on it you might have a problem since XP Home is limitted to just one processor.

yeye i understand i just used the quadfather because i dno many other processors more than 2 :P all i know servers use many

I work at a fairly large Microsoft reseller and I can concur with previous thoughts -- this isn't news. Microsoft software which has processor number restrictions counts the number of physical socketted processors, not the number of cores -- so if a particular iteration of Vista allows you to run two processors, you could have, for example, a dual-Quad Core Xeon (8 cores!) and still be compliant with your license.

Honestly, this is just microsoft trying to protect its money earnings. I mean, this is the stupidest thing. I cant even write about it because it will cause me to be banned for all the explicatives I plan to use!!!!!:banghead: :shadedshu :mad:

didnt xp home only support 2 cores after sp2? (due to it becoming more common) i imagine if more than it accepts now becomes more commonplace they will change it to accomodate

Gringsdidnt xp home only support 2 cores after sp2? (due to it becoming more common) i imagine if more than it accepts now becomes more commonplace they will change it to accomodate

It supports 1 Processor, with as many cores as you want. So it would support Intel's Quad Core's but not AMD's 4x4 or Intel's V8.