 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Forum / Windows XP / General Topics 1 / May 2008OEM version of XP
I have question about the OEM version of XP. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that everyone has a different opinion on the legality of certain techniques used to move the OEM version of XP to a new machine or an updated version of the same machine. Whether or not it truly breaks the EULA agreement is always up in the air for me. My dilemma is this: I know the EULA says the OS must stay with the original machine, but at what point does the original machine become a new machine? Lets say I was to upgrade one component at a time once a week. I would be forced to reactivate after 3 or 4 of course, which you can do by phone. (Is this considered a new machine at this point?) I continue to upgrade components once a week and then have to reactivate again. (Is this considered a new machine?) Eventually everything is upgraded (Is this considered a new machine?) Or.I upgrade all components at the same time requiring reactivation. (Is this considered a new machine?) Or.I have a computer that has XP Home with much better specs. I want to move the XP Pro OEM version to this machine. (Is this considered a new machine?) You could argue either way since you could mix and match the parts from both machines to get the best possible computer for the OEM XP Pro copy. I hope you can see my frustration with the legality of moving XP Pro OEM. By the way this is the FULL OEM version not the Bios-Locked OEM Version. I am not sure I have a direct question, other than maybe wanting some comments. Thank you for your comments, Wade OEM versions of Windows XP: -- cannot upgrade over an existing Windows installation -- cannot be transferred to a different computer in the future -- the license cannot be sold or transferred to another user -- are not eligible for free Microsoft technical support -- must be purchased with some type of computer hardware -- any problems whatsoever with the installation CD or Product Key is not eligible for Microsoft support....you have to deal with the "seller". -- cost less than "retail versions" due to the above limitations/risks Should you purchase an OEM license version of XP? http://www.tek-tips.com/gfaqs.cfm/pid/779/fid/4004 Windows Product Activation (WPA) on Windows XP http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm [Courtesy of MS-MVP Alex Nichol]  SignatureCarey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Be Smart! Protect your PC! http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |I have question about the OEM version of XP. First of | all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that everyone [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] | | Wade "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote > OEM versions of Windows XP: > -- must be purchased with some type of computer hardware-- > Carey Frisch Not any more, according to Microsoft. Alias I have heard that also but have not seen a Microsoft source. Please post the source. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > Not any more, according to Microsoft. > > Alias You guys are getting off topic. In the end I think Microsoft has the ability to determine whether bending or breaking the EULA is appropriate under certain circumstances for OEM versions. When multiple levels of upgrades on the original machine are done the status of the machine is in question (ORIGINAL vs. NEW vs. UPGRADED) Since Microsoft never clearly defines this anomaly they should be very liberal with activation codes under these conditions. With no definition of original machine given in the EULA we should let GOD decide whether people are in violation of it. Wade >-----Original Message----- >I have heard that also but have not seen a Microsoft source. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >. Wade; I do not know why you say "off topic" when this is what we are talking about. I simply asked for a reference. If there is a reference, post it there may be other relevant points. Such a reference could possibly answer exactly what the OP asked. If no reference and Microsoft chose to bend the EULA in a specific instance, that has no bearing on other cases. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > You guys are getting off topic. In the end I think > Microsoft has the ability to determine whether bending or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Wade Sorry, I should have responded above. I am talking about being off topic from my original post. Wade >-----Original Message----- >Wade; [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >. > I have heard that also but have not seen a Microsoft source. > Please post the source. I called Microsoft. They told me that. Call them if you want to verify it. Alias > > Not any more, according to Microsoft. > > > > Alias Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere. Otherwise it is nonbinding. If you and the Microsoft rep miscommunicated...the information is void. If you and the rep fuller understood each other the information may or may not be void but since it is verbal, it is invalid to anyone but the person Microsoft gave the information, you in this case. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > I called Microsoft. They told me that. Call them if you want to verify it. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > > > > Alias > Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere. > Otherwise it is nonbinding. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may not be void but since it is verbal, it is invalid to anyone but > the person Microsoft gave the information, you in this case. I agree with all of the above, but wanted to add an additional point. Alias didn't speak with Microsoft, he spoke with a single individual at Microsoft. Depending on who that individual is, he may or may not have authority to speak for the entire company. He may also think he's right, but isn't. SignatureKen Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup >> I called Microsoft. They told me that. Call them if you want to >> verify it. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> > > >> > > Alias > > Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere. > > Otherwise it is nonbinding. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > may or may not have authority to speak for the entire company. He > may also think he's right, but isn't. Then why don't you call them yourselves? I posted the numbers and they are the numbers of the activation department, not the janitorial supply dept. If the activation dept. doesn't know -- and they should because they decide if you are to be activated or not -- who does? Alias > >> I called Microsoft. They told me that. Call them if you want > to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> > > > >> > > Alias Greetings -- The "Activation Department" has nothing to do with it. Let us know when you've consulted Microsoft's Corporate Legal department. Until then, we have only hearsay from an irrelevant source. Bruce Chambers SignatureHelp us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - RAH > Then why don't you call them yourselves? I posted the numbers and they are > the numbers of the activation department, not the janitorial supply dept. If > the activation dept. doesn't know -- and they should because they decide if > you are to be activated or not -- who does? > > Alias > Greetings -- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Bruce Chambers The Activation Department does what? Does it activate for OEM and Retail versions? Think, Bruce, instead of posting your knee jerk reaction. Alias > > Then why don't you call them yourselves? I posted the numbers and > they are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Alias Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: >Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere. >Otherwise it is nonbinding. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where did you hear it, Jupiter? -- hermes DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties! http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html http://anti-dmca.org/ http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Windows XP crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams I never said I heard anything. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > Where did you hear it, Jupiter? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am the Blue Screen of Death. > No one hears your screams Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: >I never said I heard anything. > > My mistake then. Sorry. Signature-- hermes DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties! http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html http://anti-dmca.org/ http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Windows XP crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams >-----Original Message----- >I never said I heard anything. "I have heard that also but have not seen a Microsoft source. Please post the source." SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ ..You're such an idiot... I forgot that one. However it was referring to a similar comment someone made on a newsgroup. Totally unreliable in the context stated by the OP. Without a source it is just a rumor and worth as much. For me, rumors are worthless. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > >-----Original Message----- > >I never said I heard anything. > > "I have heard that also but have not seen a Microsoft > source. > Please post the source." Greetings -- Please provide a link to support this assertion. Bruce Chambers SignatureHelp us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - RAH > "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alias > Greetings -- > > Please provide a link to support this assertion. > > Bruce Chambers No link. I was told this on the phone when I called the Activation Center. I have posted the phone numbers. If you want to verify it, sorry, but Windows won't help you, nor will the Internet. You will have to use that product that *does* belong to you: your phone. Alias > > "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > > > Alias > OEM versions of Windows XP: > -- the license cannot be sold or transferred to another user Not true! You can sell the OEM version of XP but only if the original computer is sold with the XP media and license. > I know the EULA says the OS must stay with the original > machine, but at what point does the original machine > become a new machine? Microsoft's position seems to be that the machine ceases to be "original" when the OEM (the original equipment manufacturer) says it's no longer original. As someone who has built his own machine, I am the OEM. My machine's mobo, hard drive, DVD roms, and case have all been replaced/renewed since WinXP was first installed and a USB ASDL modem has been added along with a USB Pockey drive. As the OEM, my opinion is that this is still the original machine, thank you. > Eventually everything is upgraded (Is this considered a > new machine?) Remember the Tin Woodsman from "Wizard of Oz"? When did he cease to be a man? SignatureBob Kanyak's Doghouse http://www.kanyak.com Actually as far as Microsoft is concerned you are not the OEM. The seller was the OEM. That is unless you are part of the System Builder program and have signed the appropriate agreements. or something similar: http://www.microsoft.com/oem/english/default.mspx SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > Microsoft's position seems to be that the machine ceases to > be "original" when the OEM (the original equipment [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Remember the Tin Woodsman from "Wizard of Oz"? When did he > cease to be a man? "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote > Actually as far as Microsoft is concerned you are not the OEM. > The seller was the OEM. Huh... OK here's the scenario. I bought a bunch of computer parts. I put these parts together. Does that make me the original equipment manufacturer? Or is the company (a major retailer) who sold me the parts the OEM? From the same retailer I also bought a generic OEM edition of WinXP. (Hey, they have to sell it WITH hardware, right? I bought a shitload of hardware.) I installed that WinXP on the computer that I assembled from the parts that I bought. In what way is this seller the OEM? (This seller also sells cameras, does that make them a photographer?) SignatureBob Kanyak's Doghouse http://www.kanyak.com > "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > In what way is this seller the OEM? (This seller also sells > cameras, does that make them a photographer?) Unless you have an OEM license to package and distribute WIndows XP, you are not an OEM, regardless of whether you assembled your computer, yourself or someone else assembled your computer. > Unless you have an OEM license to package and > distribute WIndows XP, you are not an OEM, regardless > of whether you assembled your computer, yourself or > someone else assembled your computer. In the strictest construction, you're right. But I'm not "packaging or distributing" WinXP. I bought it legally from a legal seller along with hardware. I installed it on a machine that I built. If I'm not the original maker of this machine, who is? SignatureBob Kanyak's Doghouse http://www.kanyak.com Bob; The scenario does not really matter. Have you signed the necessary documents to become a Microsoft System Builder? System Builders have their own agreements with Microsoft which defines the EULAs for them. If not, you are not an OEM as relating to Microsoft software. The seller of the Microsoft components is the OEM. Situations such as you describe are in the gray area in licensing. Often people that buy such computers have absolutely no support or recourse since your supplier the OEM has no contract with your buyer. Also your customers have no support from Microsoft since they have no agreement with Microsoft. That is why you see cases similar to this regularly in the newsgroups of people cursing Microsoft because they get no support when in fact the blame should go to the builder...often no where to be found. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ > Huh... OK here's the scenario. I bought a bunch of computer > parts. I put these parts together. Does that make me the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In what way is this seller the OEM? (This seller also sells > cameras, does that make them a photographer?) > I know the EULA says the OS must stay with the original > machine, but at what point does the original machine > become a new machine? Microsoft has never officially clarified this, and my guess is that it's on purpose. By leaving it ambiguous, many people will probably interpret it in the way most favorable to Microsoft. You could ask the same question about a car. You've paid to register your car and gotten a license plate for it. How many and which components do you have to replace before one could say it's no longer the same car and should be registered from scratch? The answer, in practice, is probably the same in both cases. You can replace whatever you want, and, if you consider it the same entity, it is. By the way, absurd though it sounds, since Microsoft's requirement is for the OEM to affix the OEM product code sticker to the case, I think one might successfully argue in court (if it ever came to that, which is highly unlikely) that it's the *case* that's the computer, and as long as you don't replace the case, you could replace anything else and it would still be the same computer. SignatureKen Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup Thank you Ken. So far that is the best answer I have ever received. I continue to despise some folks that say someone is in clear violation of the EULA for OEM versions without looking at other factors. Until Microsoft clearly defines the original machine it will be up to the comfort level of each individual. Thanks, Wade >-----Original Message----- > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >you could replace anything else and it would still be the same >computer. > Thank you Ken. So far that is the best answer I have ever > received. I continue to despise some folks that say > someone is in clear violation of the EULA for OEM versions > without looking at other factors. Until Microsoft clearly > defines the original machine it will be up to the comfort > level of each individual. You're welcome, but bear in mind that it's just *my* opinion. I have no special information here that others don't have. Also bear in mind that, despite my opinion below, there are situations where there *are* clear violations of the OEM EULA. For example, if you take an OEM copy off your computer and give the CD to a friend, who then installs it on his computer, that's a clear violation. There's no question there of whether it's a different computer or just an upgrade to the original one. SignatureKen Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User Please reply to the newsgroup >>-----Original Message----- >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>You could ask the same question about a car. You've paid to >>register your car and gotten a license plate for it. How many and >>which components do you have to replace before one could say it's >>no longer the same car and should be registered from scratch? >> >>The answer, in practice, is probably the same in both cases. You >>can replace whatever you want, and, if you consider it the same >>entity, it is. >> >>By the way, absurd though it sounds, since Microsoft's >>requirement is for the OEM to affix the OEM product code sticker >>to the case, I think one might successfully argue in court (if it >>ever came to that, which is highly unlikely) that it's the *case* >>that's the computer, and as long as you don't replace the case, >>you could replace anything else and it would still be the same [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User >>Please reply to the newsgroup It appears "Wade" wishes to have the flexibility of a retail version of Windows XP, but only pay the OEM price. The OEM license is mainly tied to the first motherboard and CPU installed. If those are upgraded in the future, an OEM version will not be eligible for Microsoft support regarding Product Activation. At that point, he'll end up purchasing a new license. So in the long run, a "Retail License" is the best purchase choice if major hardware upgrading in the future is a concern. SignatureCarey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Be Smart! Protect your PC! http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | > Thank you Ken. So far that is the best answer I have ever | > received. I continue to despise some folks that say [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] | >>Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User | >>Please reply to the newsgroup > The OEM license is mainly tied to the first motherboard and CPU > installed. I've not been able to find where in the EULA it says that, can you point it out please? As a matter of fact, I can't even find the EULA for my copy of XP, everything that pops up is a 180 day EULA for SP2. Did it replace the XP EULA? Yes to a point. If you do not remove the prerelease SP 2, you need to stop using Windows at the earlier of the two: 1. 180 days after installation of the prerelease. 2. Upon the public release of the final version of SP 2. Which means you have about a month to use your copy of windows unless you make some changes. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message > I've not been able to find where in the EULA it says that, can you > point it out please? > > As a matter of fact, I can't even find the EULA for my copy of XP, > everything that pops up is a 180 day EULA for SP2. Did it replace > the XP EULA? > Yes to a point. > If you do not remove the prerelease SP 2, you need to stop using [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Which means you have about a month to use your copy of windows unless > you make some changes. Actually I have as long as MSFT extends the release date of SP2, based on past experience they'll extend the 180 day thingy or issue RC3 or something if they have to slide the release more than they already have. And, on my machine at least, SP2 RC1 *will* uninstall if I need to, SP2 RC1 required a format and install XP from scratch to get rid of all the problems as there was some kind of a bug in the uninstaller in addition to the bugs in the release! I should not run BETA software but it's so much fun.... <insane giggle> Greetings -- Carey, where in the OEM EULA, specifically, does it state that the license is bound to the motherboard, CPU, or any other specific component? My EULAs say no such thing. Bruce Chambers SignatureHelp us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - RAH > The OEM license > is mainly tied to the first motherboard and CPU installed. There are many ambiguous scenarios--say you bought enough parts for two machines, which does the OEM go with? In principle, this should be determined by the dealer from whom you bought the parts, but they do nothing of the sort, certainly no affixing of the 'sticker' to the machine. De facto, this is merely a strategem for a two-price system of sales, one which MS wishes to sell at lower value by restricting its portability, support, and ease of installation, which grew out of an earlier strategem for leveraging (pardon the metaphoric extension) greater sales of products such as Word by underwriting a cheap OS availability to the OEMs--and in those days, the only way you'd get an OS (DOS 4 and earlier) was to buy a machine, or to copy the disk--something done by virtually every home assembler at that time. Having squeezed the toothpaste out of the tube, MS sensibly has tried, not to return it, but to apply restrictions to further sqeezing, if you'll pardon that expression. Probably none of us likes the price, but what else is new? Joe > Thank you Ken. So far that is the best answer I have ever > received. I continue to despise some folks that say [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > same > >computer. > By the way, absurd though it sounds, since Microsoft's > requirement is for the OEM to affix the OEM product code sticker [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you could replace anything else and it would still be the same > computer. Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not what Microsoft says. Until a court has rendered a decision regarding the meaning of the EULA it means very little. BTW, another interesting question for the court, since this newsgroup (along with others) is evidence that NOBODY really knows what the EULA says, I wonder if a court would consider your agreement to a meaningless EULA to be other than meaningless? Sooner or later, EULAs (not just MSFT, every software company has one, it seems!) are bound to be thrashed out in court, until then.... ??? >Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it >means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Sooner or later, EULAs (not just MSFT, every software company has one, >it seems!) are bound to be thrashed out in court, until then.... ??? Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means, unless and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software, and they have every right to set whatever terms and conditions they want with regard to the licensing and usage of their software; subject only to the possibility that a court may subsequently determine certain provisions to be invalid or to make specific determinations as the meaning and application of of certain provisions. But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands as written. Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada SignatureMicrosoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." >>Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, >>it means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands > as written. No, not at all. The EULA stands as written and hundreds or thousands just ignore it. They have every right to set terms and conditions but they have no means of legal enforcement w/o going to court. Just like any other rule, law, etc. it's meaningless w/o enforcement. You speed, you get a ticket and pay a fine, you violate the EULA and Microsoft does..... nothing. Personally, I think there's much of the EULA that wouldn't stand up in court and I suspect that's why there have been few enforcement attempts. >few enforcement attempts ? NONE that i know of , maybe the self appointed MS cops will enlighten us ;-) I found this thread very interesting as I only buy the OEM version of MS OS. I never read the EULA. I just checked the agree box with yea-yea-yea attitude and did as I pleased. Now I think I'll read it. <chuckle at myself> >>>Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, >>>it means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > EULA that wouldn't stand up in court and I suspect that's why there > have been few enforcement attempts. > I found this thread very interesting as I only buy the OEM > version of MS OS. I never read the EULA. I just checked the agree box > with yea-yea-yea attitude and did as I pleased. Now I think I'll read > it. <chuckle at myself> You may not have it, I downloaded SP2 RC2 from the MSFT website and it seems to have replaced my XP EULA with the 180 day EULA. I guess if I removed SP2 I'd have the orgininal one back? surely it's on the cd!! MS would never leave us poor ignorant customers without the rule book. SignatureTIA Rich richdmj@netscape..net remove one dot to use > You may not have it, I downloaded SP2 RC2 from the MSFT website and it > seems to have replaced my XP EULA with the 180 day EULA. I guess if I > removed SP2 I'd have the orgininal one back? > surely it's on the cd!! MS would never leave us poor ignorant > customers without the rule book. Wanna know the biggest problem with the EULA? It IS on the CD (look in the i386 folder) as it is on most software. Right at the beginning the EULA reads: "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND." When you begin to install software this comes up early in the install and it's typical of all the software I have installed. See the problem? You have to begin the install to read the EULA. If you don't agree you just cancel the install BUT...... No place I know of will allow the return of opened software. So what do you do? If you disagree with the EULA, you shouldn't install the software but you can't return it to your place of purchase because they have big signs saying they won't allow the return of open software. Can you afford to eat the cost of Windows XP? Office Professional? Adobe Photo Shop CS? I can't. Maybe they should print the EULA on the box? If the seller will not take it back, Microsoft will within 30 days (North America) Details are on the box. If it is OEM, it is up to the OEM to determine return policy. SignatureJupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "XS11E" <xs11eNO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message > Wanna know the biggest problem with the EULA? It IS on the CD (look in > the i386 folder) as it is on most software. Right at the beginning the > EULA reads: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Maybe they should print the EULA on the box? > If the seller will not take it back, Microsoft will within 30 days > (North America) > Details are on the box. > > If it is OEM, it is up to the OEM to determine return policy. Thanks, I suspected that was the case. Of course, then there's shipping, etc. so you're still out a buck or so... Again, wouldn't it be easier to put the EULA on the outside of the box? People still wouldn't read it but at least they'd be able to before purchase. Just a thought. I read the eula. It is as ambiguous as a legal document can possibly get heres a quote: "The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE is a computer system component." So, imho, MS is saying that the software is connected to either the whole system like you would get if you bought say an HP computer, OR it is connected to a certain component that you purchased it with like a harddrive /winxp combo purchase from tigerdirect. SignatureTIA Rich richdmj@netscape..net remove one dot to use > > > surely it's on the cd!! MS would never leave us poor ignorant [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Maybe they should print the EULA on the box? > I read the eula. It is as ambiguous as a legal document can possibly get I believe that's the point. Perhaps that's why there are so many lawyer jokes. >> I read the eula. It is as ambiguous as a legal document can >> possibly get > > I believe that's the point. > > Perhaps that's why there are so many lawyer jokes. So many? There's only one lawyer joke, the rest are true stories! >I read the eula. It is as ambiguous as a legal document can possibly get >heres a quote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >connected to a certain component that you purchased it with like a harddrive >/winxp combo purchase from tigerdirect. No. What is says that if you purchase the OEM license with a component and that component is used with or installed into a computer then the license is locked to that computer - "the computer system with which the HARDWARE operates,..." Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada SignatureMicrosoft MVP On-Line Help Computer Service http://onlinehelp.bc.ca "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much." >>Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it >>means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands as >written. Also unenforceable until that same court makes its ruling! Apparently, you have a reading and comprehension problem. May I suggest taking every single legal agreement or contract you are about to agree to to a competent attorney so it can be explained to you in simple terms. SignatureCarey Frisch Microsoft MVP Windows XP - Shell/User Be Smart! Protect your PC! http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | >>Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it | >>means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] | | Also unenforceable until that same court makes its ruling! >Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means, unless >and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software, and they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >provisions to be invalid or to make specific determinations as the >meaning and application of of certain provisions. It is though unfortunate to say the least that it is written in a way that a logical reading cannot make consistent with the interpretation put on it by Microsoft representatives here. Though the logic would probably be less in the users interest. It needs a thorough review so as to say what is meant. And I have put that to Microsoft at top level - but am not holding my breath SignatureAlex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit) "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> asked "what's the sound of one hand clapping?", and I said it's a bit like this: > You could ask the same question about a car. You've paid to > register your car and gotten a license plate for it. How many and > which components do you have to replace before one could say it's > no longer the same car and should be registered from scratch? Or we can take this a step deeper. Take an apple. Now take a bite out of it... <crunch> ...is it still an apple? - Dave - thinks it *used* to be an apple.. - Remove 123456 to email - - Ich Bin Ein Irelander - Greetings -- There are some very important reasons that an OEM license costs so much less than a retail license. OEM licenses are very limited: 1) OEM versions must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC, although Microsoft has greatly relaxed the hardware criteria for WinXP) and are _permanently_ bound to the first PC on which they are installed. An OEM license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another computer under any circumstances. This is the main reason some people avoid OEM versions; if the PC dies or is otherwise disposed of (even stolen), you cannot re-use your OEM license on a new PC. The only legitimate way to transfer the ownership of an OEM license is to transfer ownership of the entire PC. 2) Microsoft provides no free support for OEM versions. If you have any problems that require outside assistance, your only recourse is to contact the manufacturer/builder of the PC or the vendor of the OEM license. This would include such issues as lost a Product Key or replacing damaged installation media. (Microsoft does make allowances for those instances when you can prove that the OEM has gone out of business.) This doesn't mean that you can't download patches and service packs from Microsoft -- just no free telephone or email support for problems with the OS. 3) An OEM CD cannot be used to perform an upgrade of an earlier OS, as it was designed to be installed _only_ upon an empty hard drive. It can still be used to perform a repair installation (a.k.a. an in-place upgrade) of an existing WinXP installation. 4) If the OEM CD was designed by a specific manufacturer, such as eMachines, Sony, Dell, Gateway, etc., it will most likely only install on the same brand of PC, as an additional anti-piracy feature. Further, such CDs are severely customized to contain only the minimum of device drivers, and a lot of extra nonsense, that the manufacturer feels necessary for the specific model of PC for which the CD was designed. (To be honest, such CDs should _not_ be available on the open market; but, if you're shopping someplace like eBay, swap meets, or computer fairs, there's often no telling what you're buying until it's too late.) The "generic" OEM CDs, such as are manufactured by Microsoft and sold to small systems builders, don't have this particular problem, though, and are pretty much the same as their retail counterparts, apart from the licensing, support, and upgrading restrictions. According to the EULA, an OEM license may not be transferred from one distinct PC to another PC. However, this most emphatically does not prohibit one from repairing or upgrading the PC on which an OEM license is installed. Now, some people believe that the motherboard is the key component that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA does not make any such distinction. Others have said that one could successfully argue that it's the PC's case that is the deciding component, as that is where one is instructed to affix the OEM CoA label w/Product Key. Again, the EULA does not specifically define any single component as the computer. Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to define when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to this definition is to tell the person making the inquiry to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's support is solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If you've built the PC yourself, and used a generic OEM WinXP CD, I'd have to conclude that *you* are the OEM, and *you* get to decide when you're going to stop supporting the system and its OS. Bruce Chambers SignatureHelp us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once. - RAH > I have question about the OEM version of XP. First of > all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that everyone [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Wade I am so glad I started this post. At least we are getting people talking about it. I just wanted to say thank you for all the post. Most of you kept the conversations civil. In the end the situation is simple. You can save money on the OEM version, but you may or may not have problems upgrading later, regardless of what is written in the EULA. If you want the entire process to be hassle free then spend the extra money and buy the Retail Version. I feel perfectly comfortable with my interpretation of the EULA and if at anytime Microsoft wants to bring that fight to my doorstep, I am willing and ready. To paraphrase one of the earlier replies, that fight will never come because Microsoft realizes how ambiguous some of the EULA is. (Before anyone jumps out me, I am only talking about the original machine aspect) Microsoft will continue to be 100% flexible with the retail version and fairly flexible with the full OEM version. I will leave it up to you which way you go. Thanks again, Wade >I know the EULA says the OS must stay with the original >machine, but at what point does the original machine [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >course, which you can do by phone. (Is this considered a >new machine at this point?) That is a point that has been left a grey area. I think it would be reasonable to take the point at which the system, on boot, starts to think 'this isn't Kansas any more'. (see my page www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm). Or possibly a case could be made if it could be shown to be the same motherboard (as applies to systems bought with Windows installed and 'BIOS locked' rather than using the Activation system). If you are buying windows separately, and expect to make changes over time in a lot of categories, I would spend the extra and get a retail version that does not have this restriction SignatureAlex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies) Bournemouth, U.K. Alexn@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit) Ask yourself what happens when you buy a new car and later on replace the tires or spray it a different colour. Let's say you also add a sun roof and then decided to sell the car. Do you think potential buyers would say you're selling a new car? Or if you went to a dealer and wanted to trade the car in for another would the dealer say your car is new? The principle is the same with anything that you upgrade - an upgraded version of something bought previously cannot be considered new. John SignatureThanks and have a great day! > I have question about the OEM version of XP. First of > all, I would like to acknowledge the fact that everyone [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > Wade >Ask yourself what happens when you buy a new car and later on replace the >tires or spray it a different colour. Let's say you also add a sun roof and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with anything that you upgrade - an upgraded version of something bought >previously cannot be considered new. You replied to a FOUR YEAR OLD POST you moron! It was still an interesting (and somewhat educational) read, however. (the post by ju.c) >> Ask yourself what happens when you buy a new car and later on replace the >> tires or spray it a different colour. Let's say you also add a sun roof [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You replied to a FOUR YEAR OLD POST you moron! Unfortunately it was plagiarized (copy/paste) from Alex Nichols (bless his soul) article. Here is the link to the article. http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php > It was still an interesting (and somewhat educational) read, however. (the > post by ju.c) [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >>You replied to a FOUR YEAR OLD POST you moron! >> Ask yourself what happens when you buy a new car and later on replace the >> tires or spray it a different colour. Let's say you also add a sun roof and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You replied to a FOUR YEAR OLD POST you moron! Which proves that WPA was a hassle four years ago just like it is now. Your comment proves that you've got some problems you need to sort out. Alias |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.