To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It was probably never going to be there but this was an easy way to make people feel like they have a victory and hence be more inclined to get into Vista.
I just think most people don't care/know about EULA... for them it makes no difference at all that this limitation was in and then removed (they won't even know). But some (many?) among those who care/know will just think "they tried but they failed". If MS did it to get more people inclined to get Vista, I think it was a poor move...
Anyway, that's a good news
Edited 2006-11-03 00:43
"Remember as well the no-VM in Home is still there."
I think this is no problem because users of the "Home" edition won't want to install it in a VM - most of them won't even know what a VM is. :-) As far as I know, the "Home" edition will be pre-installed on machines for the home user (as the name "Home" says). And the home users just won't care. Will they read the EULA or just go there and clickityclick? :-)






Member since:
2005-07-06
Thats my feeling about this. It was probably never going to be there but this was an easy way to make people feel like they have a victory and hence be more inclined to get into Vista.
Remember as well the no-VM in Home is still there.