you're not really wrong, its just something MS doesn't want you to do since they would rather charge you 200 dollars for every new computer you make or buy. It's like how people who sell CDs would rather not have you rip MP3s off them even if you aren't pirating. Some will even take steps to make that impossible (by adding DRM to CDs, which some makers have done in the past such as with the fast and the furious soundtrack). Such changes were found to infringe on fair use rights.

Fair use rights are hard to get around, and just because Microsoft seeks to prevent you from doing something and puts it in the EULA does not mean they have the right to stop you from reusing a legally purchased OEM license. There is a reason they don't go after system builders or whoever else when they reuse OEM licenses, they know it would never hold up in court with any kind of consistency.

Frankly they're lucky when people buy even one OEM or retail copy of Vista/XP given how easy both OSes are to pirate, so suing people who use OEM copies more then once is shooting themselves in the foot and then some.

Also MS can't prove what system it was "made for" originally. They also make changing systems rather arbitrary (IE you can change the graphics card and its not a new system, but if you change the motherboard or processor then its magically a new system even though the upgrade costs were more or less identical). How are they going to prove that buying a new MB is different then buying a new graphics card? What line are they going to draw that is enforceable? That is where they are stepping on your fair use toes, they can SAY they have the right to decide how you can and cannot upgrade your own hardware, but they do not actually have any enforceable right there.

By saying "you can't install OEM software on a new machine" and "any change in component X even if component Y and Z stay the same constitutes a new machine" they are saying "if you upgrade your computer you must pay us a 200 dollar fee to do so" which doesn't just SEEM wrong, it IS wrong.

See, the thing about Opensolaris, BSD, Linux, etc. is they're not trying to screw you. MS, on the other hand...

   I do enjoy Linux and try to use it when I can (OSX as well, yes they DO charge, but for 99 bucks you can install the OS on 5 computers with no restrictions, no activation, none of that).  I would be more then happy to make Linux my primary OS if only wine would improve a little faster.

   For those of you who never use open source or OSX OSes wine emulates direct X (among other things) to make Windows games installable and playable on non windows OSes (particularly UNIX based OSes like OSX and all Linux builds).  It currently works with some games like Guild Wars, Lord of the Rings Online, Half life 2, World of Warcraft and others; ideally in the future it will work quickly with current games.  On that day I will no longer install Vista/XP on my mac laptops or built computers and will be the better for it.

   That artificial roadblock to non MS software use, incidentally, is why I made the point about not faulting anyone who pirates a MS OS.  Most people don't really choose Vista in a lot of cases, they are forced into it since MS puts in needless road blocks (like direct X) to using non MS software easily on other Operating systems.  If someone tries to extort money out of you for using things that they did not make are you really wrong for avoiding that extortion?

   If all software worked on all platforms how many people would really choose Vista over cheaper and better OS options like Ubuntu and OSX?  I certainly don't think anywhere near the majority.

Hackintosh lol.

Agree with everything you said. I may be a Linux advocate, but I am forced by the situation (mainly school) to use Vista most of the time.

I'd just like it if a few more companies adopted the philosophy that the customer is not their enemy. On my list of companies I don't hate for that reason, the only ones left are probably Valve, Nintendo and Red Hat.

I'd add Apple but they're schizophrenic on the subject.
The iphone is closed, no wait now its kinda open and theres an easy to develop for app store.

OSX is kind of open source and uses a lot of opensourece conventions and you can get access to the kernel and all that easily...but you can't install it without a lot of hastle on non Apple hardware (which wouldn't be so bad if the only really good non laptop mac wasn't the 2300 dollar mac pro).

They are 100% open source and good on webkit though. Its publicly available, anyone can use it (they even let google make the competing chrome browser with it, no problem)

They also fund a decent amount of the open source community as well in exchange for integrating some of the best ideas from that community into OSX (Which acts a lot like a higher functioning linux build in a lot of ways, I can even run almost all Linux programs on it with a little work in Terminal).

They also fought (successfully) to have DRM stripped from all the itunes music, which was a good move, though after that they want to charge 30 cents to strip it off the songs I already own (which isn't so great).

I give apple a B or B+ for their openness and customer support. If you've ever taken a busted laptop into an apple store and instead of getting the runaround (MS customer service) you get free help and even a fresh laptop if the problem is really bad and its in warrenty, you know why I go that high. For laptops Apple just can't be beat.

I would subtract Valve from that list personally (I HATE being forced to use Steam, I tried using Dawn of War 2 a few days ago and for 2 days it was "not available at this time". Why the hell can't I just have it install to my hard drive and run like a normal friggin program, now its the same damn thing with to retail box of Total War!) they have forced a windows like framework for games and take a cut for the use of it from everyone.

I would much prefer the direct2drive model where I just download purchased games whenever I want and use them when I register them with my direct2drive code, no hastles.

I would instead add ID to that list, they support Linux and OSX directly (one of the few that make Linux games natively), they support Open GL and they make consistently good games to boot.

I would also, usually, add Google who does far more good then bad when it comes to being open and decent.

Sometimes I like Sony (they're open source about letting you install whatever linux build you want on the PS3, they let you swap parts of the PS3 with third party hardware, the PS3 will play just about any video codec no problem and work with any UPNP device) and sometimes not so much (memory stick instead of normal SD cards, proprietary formats, fighting for DRM with their media); they're kinda doomed by having their hand in too many industries to even be as upfront as apple much less google.

Almost any company is more open and better then MS though, they're the open source killers whenever possible.  Every time I give them money or boot up vista I die a little bit inside.