Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What do you think of people who download OSX for Hackintoshing? It's roughly the same thing.

Though I wouldn't call it theft, because you're right about one thing: you're not physically taking anything. It's more like breach of contract. MS expects you to pay for one license per computer using their software, which isn't an unfair thing to ask.
Hackintoshing is different because Apple is missing out on a payment. You can still be stealing even if it's not physical, same if you download a game.

I'm not advocating that people do anything illegal, I just don't believe using the same OS on different computers is different to using the same game on different computers.
 
I'm not advocating that people do anything illegal, I just don't believe using the same OS on different computers is different to using the same game on different computers.

It all depends. If you build 5 computers with 5 blank harddrives, and buy one copy of Windows to use on all those machines simultaneously, it's...well, I won't say you're a hardened criminal, and look down my nose at you, but it's not kosher. You're robbing MS of income in the much the same way stealing a copy of OSX robs Apple.

While I do think MS could do with a little more flexibility when it comes to their licenses, one OS per computer isn't that bad of a thing to ask. It's the software that makes your computer more than an assemblage of random parts. It's as much a part of an individual computer as the CPU or hard drive.
 
It all depends. If you build 5 computers with 5 blank harddrives, and buy one copy of Windows to use on all those machines simultaneously, it's...well, I won't say you're a hardened criminal, and look down my nose at you, but it's not kosher. You're robbing MS of income in the much the same way stealing a copy of OSX robs Apple.

While I do think MS could do with a little more flexibility when it comes to their licenses, one OS per computer isn't that bad of a thing to ask. It's the software that makes your computer more than an assemblage of random parts. It's as much a part of an individual computer as the CPU or hard drive.

No it's not robbing anyone, Its like taking a photocopy of a book and taking one out on a trip and leaving the original at home. If I were to sell the copy, that would be theft.
Maybe you think I should buy two copies, one to read on the trip and the other to read at home.
 
No it's not robbing anyone, Its like taking a photocopy of a book and taking one out on a trip and leaving the original at home. If I were to sell the copy, that would be theft.
Maybe you think I should buy two copies, one to read on the trip and the other to read at home.

It's robbing someone of income via breach of contract. When you buy a copy of Windows, you're buying a license that allows you to install it on one machine if you get an OEM copy, or one desktop, and one laptop if you're working off an upgrade of a full copy. When you install the software, you're agreeing to the terms and conditions surrounding it.

Now I'm not a big fan of some of the more ridiculous conditions stuffed into EULAs, and if I wanna be honest for a second, I admit I can be pretty fast and loose when it comes to adhering to the strictest terms of copyright laws. But an OS is a world apart from a book or a movie. Me watching a personal copy of a DVD I own in isn't quite the same as me networking five computers together, and working with them to do various things from one copy of an OS I bought. You can't make the backup argument when you're actively benefiting from the copying you've done.
 
Last edited:
It's robbing someone of income via breach of contract. When you buy a copy of Windows, you're buying a license that allows you to install it on one machine if you get an OEM copy, or one desktop, and one laptop if you're working off an upgrade of a full copy. When you install the software, you're agreeing to the terms and conditions surrounding it.

Now I'm not a big fan of some of the more ridiculous conditions stuffed into EULAs, and if I wanna be honest for a second, I admit I can be pretty fast and loose when it comes to adhering to the strictest terms of copyright laws. But an OS is a world apart from a book or a movie. Me watching a personal copy of a DVD I own in isn't quite the same as me networking five computers together, and working with them to do various things from one copy of an OS I bought. You can't make the backup argument when you're actively benefiting from the copying you've done.
Let's say I buy water from a company at the rate of $100 per 1000 litres per month and I have one tap. To get the water around I have to use a bucket which is a pain in the butt, so I install 5 taps. At the end of the month I have used 1000 litres or $100 worth of water, are you saying I should be paying $500 because I have networked 5 taps and I am benefiting from the work that I have done.
If I was making money from the computers then I can understand the need for more Licenses, but a computer enthusiast shouldn't be punished for his poor choice of hobbies.
 
Last edited:
You can make all the convoluted analogies you want. According to the text of the EULA that you've agreed to when installing Windows, it's unauthorised use. End of.
 
You can make all the convoluted analogies you want. According to the text of the EULA that you've agreed to when installing Windows, it's unauthorised use. End of.
It might be unauthorised use but no one is missing out on any money.
 
Explain to me how not purchasing a license in violation of the EULA is Microsoft not "missing out on any money"?
Because most people would not build another computer if they had to buy another License.
This is not about me by the way, I have enough licenses to sink a battleship, but I do really struggle to believe that it's fair to be charged twice for doing the same thing, when no one has done any work to make my second machine work.
 
It's been a bit since I've installed Windows from scratch, but from what I remember, installing Windows on a formatted drive always prompts for a key during the install process. For upgrading from within the OS, which is something I've only done for moving from 7 to 8, it'll prompt you for it before it begins the whole process.

An upgrade key works just the same as a full install key when you're doing a from scratch install. As long as its valid, it'll move on from that point to install the OS. You activate and verify once you're on the desktop. It's here where the big difference comes into play, because an upgrade key doesn't always take, and you'll either have to call MS, or do that registry hack to get it to verify.

It ticks me off because the ONLY reason it doesn't always verify is simply because you used an upgrade key on a blank drive while installing Windows. That's literally all there is to it. That registry hack everyone talks about is basically just "was current install upgraded from previous OS yes/no". Once it's done, it'll call home to MS and take your key no problem. They're making you jump through hoops for the sake of jumping through hoops, and it makes me wanna smack someone.

I didn't know about the registry hack. When I first installed Vista on a clean disk using my upgrade and found that I couldn't use the key, I called MS and they told me to just run the installer again, upgrading Vista to Vista. I have just used that method ever since. Would you happen to know what the registry key is so I can do that from now on?
 
Because most people would not build another computer if they had to buy another License.
This is not about me by the way, I have enough licenses to sink a battleship, but I do really struggle to believe that it's fair to be charged twice for doing the same thing, when no one has done any work to make my second machine work.
based the entire logic you've stated in this thread (which is faulty beyond reason)

if you bought 10 mac's, Apple should only be charging you for 1 copy of the OS.

so go request a discount on each.


Thats not how it works. LIcensing is a per device license. you agree to that when you purchased the device or license. Matter of fact, contract law. no excuses.

for each additional computer you are installing that OS on, you are depriving the company of further sales of that product.

These pieces of software aren't cheap to make. Windows has taken decades of continual development and advancement. Millions of Man Hours and I couldn't even imagine the sheer cost that has been spent on such.

in order for that to be doable by any company, they have an expectation that they can charge and set their terms on how you use their software. in Microsoft's case, that is a per device license (it's actually Apple's too). If Microsoft calculates that to even break even on development of the software they must sell X copies.

now what you're doing is trying to justify two things, violating the Terms and services (a contract) that is set between you, and Microsoft at time of purchase and two, Theft of digital property. You do not, under any moral, ethical or legal right own the physical code that exists within Windows. You are paying a license for the right to use that code. That is is.

So, if you install your Windows on 5 machines, but only paid for one, that is 4 additional licenses Microsoft is now not selling. That is 4 less sales. 4 less revenue sources. you might not think it a lot. it's only you after all, what's 4 additional licenses to Microsoft's big bank? well, what if millions of people did it? what if suddenly now Microsoft loses money on Windows? What happens to the thousands of employees of Microsoft whose livelihood depends on their work being sold?

The simple truth is, you are being cheap and are trying to justify to yourself why that acceptable to you, when simple fact of the matter is you are breaking contract law and in many places criminal law.
 
I didn't know about the registry hack. When I first installed Vista on a clean disk using my upgrade and found that I couldn't use the key, I called MS and they told me to just run the installer again, upgrading Vista to Vista. I have just used that method ever since. Would you happen to know what the registry key is so I can do that from now on?

Sure do. You can find it right here.
 
----------

[/COLOR]
I admit it was a bad analogy but using an operating system on different computers for your own use, is definitely not theft. No one is missing out at all as long as you bought that one license.
If that's theft so is watching a hired movie on two different televisions in different rooms.


I think it was a great analogy. The word "license" means "permission" and a driving license gives blanket permission to operate multiple vehicles. People think when they buy software, it gives them license to use it on their home machine as well as their laptop or other device. Just because an EULA states you can't doesn't change human behavior. When I buy an app on my ipod, it automatically appears on my ipad. I don't have to pay for it twice.
 
I think it was a great analogy. The word "license" means "permission" and a driving license gives blanket permission to operate multiple vehicles. People think when they buy software, it gives them license to use it on their home machine as well as their laptop or other device. Just because an EULA states you can't doesn't change human behavior. When I buy an app on my ipod, it automatically appears on my ipad. I don't have to pay for it twice.

false equivelancy

when you buy an App, it is exclusively stated in the EULA that it is permissable to use on multiple devices.

it is still contractually agreed upon. They COULD limit you to one device, but from an App standpoint with historical app sharing, it would be suicidal.

Again, you missed the point inthe Analogy where A drivers license isn't the same thing as a EULA.

you STILL require a seperate License for each car you own. This comes in the form of a license plate. That license plate is registered to the vehicle itself and you cannot legally drive that car without a license plate attached to it. License plates are even more restrictive as you can't even legally transfer them between vehicles without first registering that change with the DMV.

Because of this, the entire analogy you are trying to use about cars is false.

a Driver's license is just the legal privilege to drive. it does NOT license your cars for the road. those are entirely two different principles.
 
Thats not how it works. LIcensing is a per device license. you agree to that when you purchased the device or license. Matter of fact, contract law. no excuses.

So, if you install your Windows on 5 machines, but only paid for one, that is 4 additional licenses Microsoft is now not selling. That is 4 less sales. 4 less revenue sources. you might not think it a lot. it's only you after all, what's 4 additional licenses to Microsoft's big bank? well, what if millions of people did it? what if suddenly now Microsoft loses money on Windows? What happens to the thousands of employees of Microsoft whose livelihood depends on their work being sold?

The simple truth is, you are being cheap and are trying to justify to yourself why that acceptable to you, when simple fact of the matter is you are breaking contract law and in many places criminal law.

Just because a company decides to insert some language into a 59 page EULA, does not mean that if I violate part of it, I have become a thief. An EULA is not a negotiation, it's not even anything anyone reads. What's more, the expectation of people is that when they pay for software, they are paying for the use of that software (even Microsoft agrees with this in theory, which is the premise behind rented software, which they are going to now). Some examples: IOS apps, bought once, delivered to all your devices for free. Steam games, can be downloaded to any machine using your login credentials. And Microsoft itself.

I used to work in IT, and Microsoft gave 3 installs per software purchase. From what I'm reading here, that has changed and now you are only allowed 1 install? Well, just because some fine print changed, doesn't turn millions of users who continue to go off the old system into thieves. A theoretical question: What if Microsoft altered the EULA to state that your license key would only be valid for either working hours (9-5) or after hours, and if you wanted to use the machine for both, one would need to purchase 2 licenses. That sounds silly, but it is a way to charge for different types of uses (home versus business) and if this text was added to a "contract" it would be quite silly to state that anyone that violates it was now a thief.

It seems that the people here defending Apple's decision to remove Win7 compatibility in BootCamp are the same ones lauding Win10 as the version of Windows we all "should" be using. Well guess what? Win10 completely bypasses the arguments of licensing, because it will be released freely (multiple copies I'm assuming) to Win7/8 users. Even pirated versions. So there goes the whole "lost sales" argument. MS is agreeing to let its current users upgrade all their devices to Win10, provided they have at least Win7 already. I still have my original Win7 disk, and can upgrade both home PC and laptop to Win10 at no cost. This is legal and kosher according to Microsoft. It would be hypocritical to accuse others who are doing the same thing today with other Windows versions of being thieves.

----------

false equivelancy

when you buy an App, it is exclusively stated in the EULA that it is permissable to use on multiple devices.

it is still contractually agreed upon. They COULD limit you to one device, but from an App standpoint with historical app sharing, it would be suicidal.

The line of thinking that anything a company puts into an EULA makes it a completely reasonable request that its users all agree and are going to abide by is simply not reflective of reality.

So app sharing is ok because a contract says so, while OS sharing is not because a contract says so?

Human Centipad takes that argument to the extreme. But hey, I guess a contract is a contract, right?
http://southpark.cc.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad
 
Just because a company decides to insert some language into a 59 page EULA, does not mean that if I violate part of it, I have become a thief. An EULA is not a negotiation, it's not even anything anyone reads. What's more, the expectation of people is that when they pay for software, they are paying for the use of that software (even Microsoft agrees with this in theory, which is the premise behind rented software, which they ar

you're making excuses.

it is very much a contract. If you do not wish to abide by the contract, do not purchase the software.

it IS that simple. that is what Contract Law is all about, which is backed up by not only writ law, but centuries of precedence.

in a free economy where there is no monopoly, you are free to enter, or not enter into a contract. If you don't agree to the terms of that contract, you do not get the right to ignore it and proceed anyways. if you don't like the law, go to your lawmakers and demand change.
 
you're making excuses.

it is very much a contract. If you do not wish to abide by the contract, do not purchase the software.

it IS that simple. that is what Contract Law is all about, which is backed up by not only writ law, but centuries of precedence.

in a free economy where there is no monopoly, you are free to enter, or not enter into a contract. If you don't agree to the terms of that contract, you do not get the right to ignore it and proceed anyways. if you don't like the law, go to your lawmakers and demand change.
Regardless what you and your self righteous friends think, I will never believe that building two machines and using one copy of an OS is theft and I'm pretty sure even Microsoft doesn't believe that either. I can understand their EULA and why they need it, it's to stop theft, and if I was somehow making a profit from the one License it would be theft. Just enjoying building computers and getting a kick out of watching the machine you built boot into life, and then using it to do the same things as your first computers doesn't affect anyone.

I admit that when I was young I did this and never thought anything of it, but guess what, Microsoft has made more money out of me than probably 90% of people on the planet because I became a huge computer enthusiast with an insatiable appetite for computers. I now have 6 computers and a Surface tablet and an 8 inch HP Stream. I also have a few Apple devices and a couple of Android devices.

All these devices are fully and legally licensed, I even have one spare license, so it looks to me that no one has missed out on anything, in fact my little indiscretions earlier have made heaps of money for all the companies concerned especially Microsoft.
I not only think I haven't done anything wrong I think I and people like me helped start the computer revolution, it was our desire to learn and explore in the very early days that helped retailers sell computers and software because of our need for ever faster computers.
So by all means tell me again how someone has missed out because of what I did early on. Most computer shops and retailers know me on sight and rush to serve me because they know of my insatiable appetite.
 
Better how? Native always performs better than virtualized.

Agree. I'm moving into a project where there are only Windows tools for development. Five years ago, if I was told I'd scoff at a no Mac option, I'd have laughed. Now seeing the repeat of the Vista screw up with Windows 8, I'm not looking forward to this environment. Looking at all options getting Windows 7 on my late 2013 MBPr to run this behemoth of code written in C#.

I was one of many who lambasted their developer team for working in a Microsoft centric environment as their market share is falling. I thing one project developer on the supply line lost a few inches in height the last two years for that decision.
 
People can complain all they want, but it's not Apple's job to coddle people who use a legacy (and face it, it IS legacy) piece of software from a direct competitor. Why should they?

I dunno, because their users WANT it???? Oh yeah, I keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care what its users want. Silly me.... ;)
 
Agreed. More than 50% of Windows users are on Win 7. They are losing a lot of money for little work. I bought Win 7 3 months ago for my Mac Mini, there is no way I am buying also Win 8 now when there is Win 10 out in a few months and i can have it for free with my Win 7 copy. I will skip MBP Early 2015 and will get Late 2015 (?) Skylake together with my free copy of Win 10.
 
you're making excuses.

it is very much a contract. If you do not wish to abide by the contract, do not purchase the software.

in a free economy where there is no monopoly, you are free to enter, or not enter into a contract. If you don't agree to the terms of that contract, you do not get the right to ignore it and proceed anyways. if you don't like the law, go to your lawmakers and demand change.

It is said today that the average American breaks 3 laws a day without ever knowing it. Heck, chances are there is some fine print in said "EULA" that you are violating yourself! Have you read it all?

I have not and will not. What I will do is purchase the software, use it on all my personal machines (one desktop and one laptop) and when I am physically unable to do so, I will switch to a company that will let me. Right now I do this with Windows 7 and there are no problems. Apparently I will be able to do so freely with Windows 10 without even paying for anything. I have no intention of changing my behavior because some lawyer tells me I am violating contract law or because of some arbitrary good nature towards corporations I am supposed to have or other such silliness.
 
Come on Mac Rumors, you should know that's not how Bootcamp works. You don't need Bootcamp to install Windows on a Mac, Bootcamp is just a partitioning utility and driver set. Unless Apple is blocking Windows 7 on a firmware level it should install just fine, however you won't be getting official driver support, which could be a huge issue with the new trackpad.
it is blocked. but I'm sure it won't be long before there is a "work around"
 
it is blocked. but I'm sure it won't be long before there is a "work around"

I'm just wondering how likely it is they will drop windows 7 support from bootcamp assistant in el capitan as just booting windows 7 from usb does not work without bootcamp in my 2014 macbook pro
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.