XP license to 2nd computer legal?

Although you may not have the installation CD there may 'by chance' be
a copy of it on the hard drive which one could copy to CD...!

http://ask-leo.com/i_dont_have_an_in..._need_one.html

Here's a snippet
To find out if the CD-ROM image is on your machine, search for a
folder named I386. There may be several, but the one we care about
will contain close to 7,000 files, two of which will be winnt.exe and
winnt32.exe. The I386 directory is typically one of the top-level
directories on the distribution CD-ROM, but most importantly, it is
the directory that contains the distributed copy of Windows XP.
Winnt.exe and winnt32.exe are the DOS and protected mode setup
programs, respectively. (You'd only need those if you were planning
to re-install Windows XP from scratch - I use them here as an easy
way to indentify that we have the right directory.)

Davy

mayayana wrote:

What I'm wondering is when Vista gets settled in as the
mainstream MS OS, and XP is not supported anymore, will MS still give
activation help for XP users? There still are people who use Win98 on
their old systems that can't run WinXP reliably. I have an old AMD
K6-2 that can't run WinXP, and works fine with Win98SE.
I can't help but see the activation thing as a way for MS to
force OS upgrades, and by doing so, forcing hardware upgrades as well.


Exactly. The activation was presented as a reasonable
protection of copyright, but it was actually a transition
from selling OS licenses to selling embedded Windows.
(Which is a step in the transition to renting software.)

MS gets paid a fee on every PC and they're making
a great deal of extra money from people who threw
away one computer, or lost their CD, and end up buying
another license for copyrighted material they they should,
lehgally, already have a right to use.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to use" theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine it's sold
with and Retail is transportable.

The real costs of product
activation were not evident to most people when the
program started.

XP home was due to lose all support at the end of this year.
Support has been extended until "2 years after the release
of the next OS" since MS had put themselves in the awkward
position of potentially supporting *none* of their own products
as of 1/1/07.
Already, support for Win2000 and even XP SP1 is
being phased out. An increasing number of things are only
being released for WinXP SP2. And the new versions of
Media Player and IE won't run on 2000, even though it's
theoretically supported until 2009 or 2010. I think there's
no question that MS will stop issuing XP activation codes
at the earliest possible date that they can get away with it.

What I'm wondering is when Vista gets settled in as the
mainstream MS OS, and XP is not supported anymore, will MS still give
activation help for XP users? There still are people who use Win98 on
their old systems that can't run WinXP reliably. I have an old AMD
K6-2 that can't run WinXP, and works fine with Win98SE.
I can't help but see the activation thing as a way for MS to
force OS upgrades, and by doing so, forcing hardware upgrades as well.


Exactly. The activation was presented as a reasonable
protection of copyright, but it was actually a transition
from selling OS licenses to selling embedded Windows.
(Which is a step in the transition to renting software.)

MS gets paid a fee on every PC and they're making
a great deal of extra money from people who threw
away one computer, or lost their CD, and end up buying
another license for copyrighted material they they should,
lehgally, already have a right to use.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to use"
theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine it's
sold
with and Retail is transportable.


Yes, but there are 2 points worth noting:

1) Microsoft defines their product as copyrighted
intellectual property, like a book. Who gave them
authority to say that their intellectual property is
licensed to a motherboard? One can buy legal OEM
Windows CDs online that come with a piece of
hardware. Can that version be installed anywhere
as long as it's accompanied by that piece of hardware?
I don't know the answer to that, but as absurd as it
sounds, that would seem to be within the definition
of Microsoft's license. They say it's licensed to a
piece of hardware. I can understand the awkward
position that MS is in, with software that's easily copied,
but I'm not sure that gives them the right to define
a license to a motherboard.

2) The other point, which is more what I had in mind,
is that people buy redundant licenses because of
practical reasons or because they don't know any
better. My own father, for example, had a full version
of WinME. When he got a virus he called some dim
bulb tech. support company. They thought he should
"upgrade" to XP and sold him a full licensed version
of that. But they neglected to note that he only had
64 MB of RAM. So under the bloat of XP his PC couldn't
think and display at the same time. He finally gave up
on it, buying a new Compaq with pre-installed XP.
So my father has bought an OEM version of XP that
he didn't legally need, and he bought a full version when
he could have used an upgrade version. For now my
father is all set, but what if his PC gets hit by a surge
that blows the motherboard? Then he'll have an XP
PC that needs a new motherboard, but he won't be
able to get it activated. So his new version of XP
is only good for as long as nothing breaks.

In my experience those kinds of issues are very
common. And even if you take the position that
OEM licenses are not a Mickey Mouse scam, all
of those other cases, like I described above, are still
extra, unjustified license fees that MS is getting
through the logistics of their licensing scheme.

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


MS gets paid a fee on every PC and they're making
a great deal of extra money from people who threw
away one computer, or lost their CD, and end up buying
another license for copyrighted material they they should,
lehgally, already have a right to use.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to
use" theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine
it's sold with

What if you believe in reincarnation?




I knew this troll would be in this thread, it's his pet subject.

Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsco n06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net !news*.tds.net.MISMATCH!newspeer.tds.net!216.168.1 .163.MISMATCH!sn-xt-sjc-03!sn-xt-sjc-06!sn-post-sjc-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: David Maynard nospam private.net
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: XP license to 2nd computer legal?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 19:00:44 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 127ch3mmr1f3v19 corp.supernews.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: e52118$t08$1 az33news01.freescale.net 1148492064.111859.37810 i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com prh972177kb0fbp43g72peduvtuqe4ac8t 4ax.com DEhdg.28$cA2.10 newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
In-Reply-To: DEhdg.28$cA2.10 newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 46
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:466413

"mayayana" wrote:


Yes, but there are 2 points worth noting:

1) Microsoft defines their product as copyrighted intellectual
property, like a book. Who gave them authority to say that their
intellectual property is licensed to a motherboard? One can buy
legal OEM Windows CDs online that come with a piece of hardware.
Can that version be installed anywhere as long as it's accompanied
by that piece of hardware? I don't know the answer to that, but as
absurd as it sounds, that would seem to be within the definition
of Microsoft's license. They say it's licensed to a piece of
hardware. I can understand the awkward position that MS is in,
with software that's easily copied, but I'm not sure that gives
them the right to define a license to a motherboard.

2) The other point, which is more what I had in mind,
is that people buy redundant licenses because of practical reasons
or because they don't know any better. My own father, for example,
had a full version of WinME. When he got a virus he called some
dim bulb tech. support company. They thought he should "upgrade"
to XP and sold him a full licensed version of that.

Ouch.


But they neglected to note that he only had 64 MB of RAM.

Of course they should determine that before selling someone Windows
XP.


So under the bloat of XP his PC couldn't think and display at the
same time. He finally gave up on it, buying a new Compaq with
pre-installed XP. So my father has bought an OEM version of XP
that he didn't legally need, and he bought a full version when he
could have used an upgrade version. For now my father is all set,
but what if his PC gets hit by a surge that blows the motherboard?
Then he'll have an XP PC that needs a new motherboard, but he
won't be able to get it activated. So his new version of XP is
only good for as long as nothing breaks.

In my experience those kinds of issues are very
common.

I'm sure every regular here, except David Maynard, knows how common
those issues are. My neighbors need to upgrade to Windows XP, but
they see the price of $100 and know they can get a whole new
computer for about five times that.


And even if you take the position that OEM licenses are not a
Mickey Mouse scam,

You can expect that from someone who says Microsoft doesn't hold
monopoly power.


all of those other cases, like I described above, are still extra,
unjustified license fees that MS is getting through the logistics
of their licensing scheme.

And in related nonsense. Microsoft can't compete against India
unless it can hire more Indians. Go figure.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to
use" theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine
it's sold with

What if you believe in reincarnation?

That's an interesting angle: religious dscrimination
in licensing.

mayayana wrote:

What I'm wondering is when Vista gets settled in as the
mainstream MS OS, and XP is not supported anymore, will MS still give
activation help for XP users? There still are people who use Win98 on
their old systems that can't run WinXP reliably. I have an old AMD
K6-2 that can't run WinXP, and works fine with Win98SE.
I can't help but see the activation thing as a way for MS to
force OS upgrades, and by doing so, forcing hardware upgrades as well.


Exactly. The activation was presented as a reasonable
protection of copyright, but it was actually a transition
from selling OS licenses to selling embedded Windows.
(Which is a step in the transition to renting software.)

MS gets paid a fee on every PC and they're making
a great deal of extra money from people who threw
away one computer, or lost their CD, and end up buying
another license for copyrighted material they they should,
lehgally, already have a right to use.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to use"

theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine it's

sold

with and Retail is transportable.



Yes, but there are 2 points worth noting:

1) Microsoft defines their product as copyrighted
intellectual property,

The code is copyrighted, as is their logo and other materials. The
"product" being sold is a use license.

like a book. Who gave them
authority to say that their intellectual property is
licensed to a motherboard?

The 'authority' that comes from two parties agreeing to the terms of a
contract.

One can buy legal OEM
Windows CDs online that come with a piece of
hardware. Can that version be installed anywhere
as long as it's accompanied by that piece of hardware?
I don't know the answer to that, but as absurd as it
sounds, that would seem to be within the definition
of Microsoft's license. They say it's licensed to a
piece of hardware. I can understand the awkward
position that MS is in, with software that's easily copied,
but I'm not sure that gives them the right to define
a license to a motherboard.

You're close, and it varies a bit depending on the particular product (and
even 'when' it was sold) but typically the OEM license in that case,
purchased with a 'piece of hardware', is tied to both that 'piece' of
hardware and the system it was installed in.


2) The other point, which is more what I had in mind,
is that people buy redundant licenses because of
practical reasons or because they don't know any
better. My own father, for example, had a full version
of WinME. When he got a virus he called some dim
bulb tech. support company. They thought he should
"upgrade" to XP and sold him a full licensed version
of that. But they neglected to note that he only had
64 MB of RAM. So under the bloat of XP his PC couldn't
think and display at the same time. He finally gave up
on it, buying a new Compaq with pre-installed XP.
So my father has bought an OEM version of XP that
he didn't legally need, and he bought a full version when
he could have used an upgrade version. For now my
father is all set, but what if his PC gets hit by a surge
that blows the motherboard? Then he'll have an XP
PC that needs a new motherboard, but he won't be
able to get it activated. So his new version of XP
is only good for as long as nothing breaks.

No offense intended but Microsoft is hardly responsible for folks buying
things they don't need.

To your proposed 'future problem', if the motherboard is replaced with an
equivalent there's no question as that is a 'repair' and is still the same
'system'. It gets a bit touchy if the motherboard is a different type but,
from what I hear, Microsoft is authorizing those anyway. And then, lastly,
he apparently has a full retail license he could use on anything.

In my experience those kinds of issues are very
common. And even if you take the position that
OEM licenses are not a Mickey Mouse scam,

It's very simple. OEM costs less because you get less. I mean, seriously,
why do you think there's a price difference? And why would you expect the
'cheap' one to be 'the same thing' as the other?

all
of those other cases, like I described above, are still
extra, unjustified license fees that MS is getting
through the logistics of their licensing scheme.

They may be 'unjustified' but it isn't from anything Microsoft is doing.

Conor wrote:

In article , David Maynard says...


And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to use" theory?


Because Microsoft T&C are not the law.



No one said they were but that doesn't answer the question of where the
claimed 'legality' comes from.

John Doe wrote:

David Maynard nospam private.net wrote:


MS gets paid a fee on every PC and they're making
a great deal of extra money from people who threw
away one computer, or lost their CD, and end up buying
another license for copyrighted material they they should,
lehgally, already have a right to use.

And how do you arrive at this "legally, already have a right to
use" theory?

What you purchase is a use license. OEM is for use on the machine
it's sold with


What if you believe in reincarnation?

I knew this troll would be in this thread, it's his pet subject.


That's a hilarious claim coming from someone posting nonsense.

John Doe wrote:

"mayayana" wrote:


Yes, but there are 2 points worth noting:

1) Microsoft defines their product as copyrighted intellectual
property, like a book. Who gave them authority to say that their
intellectual property is licensed to a motherboard? One can buy
legal OEM Windows CDs online that come with a piece of hardware.
Can that version be installed anywhere as long as it's accompanied
by that piece of hardware? I don't know the answer to that, but as
absurd as it sounds, that would seem to be within the definition
of Microsoft's license. They say it's licensed to a piece of
hardware. I can understand the awkward position that MS is in,
with software that's easily copied, but I'm not sure that gives
them the right to define a license to a motherboard.

2) The other point, which is more what I had in mind,
is that people buy redundant licenses because of practical reasons
or because they don't know any better. My own father, for example,
had a full version of WinME. When he got a virus he called some
dim bulb tech. support company. They thought he should "upgrade"
to XP and sold him a full licensed version of that.


Ouch.


But they neglected to note that he only had 64 MB of RAM.


Of course they should determine that before selling someone Windows
XP.


So under the bloat of XP his PC couldn't think and display at the
same time. He finally gave up on it, buying a new Compaq with
pre-installed XP. So my father has bought an OEM version of XP
that he didn't legally need, and he bought a full version when he
could have used an upgrade version. For now my father is all set,
but what if his PC gets hit by a surge that blows the motherboard?
Then he'll have an XP PC that needs a new motherboard, but he
won't be able to get it activated. So his new version of XP is
only good for as long as nothing breaks.

In my experience those kinds of issues are very
common.


I'm sure every regular here, except David Maynard, knows how common
those issues are. My neighbors need to upgrade to Windows XP, but
they see the price of $100 and know they can get a whole new
computer for about five times that.


And even if you take the position that OEM licenses are not a
Mickey Mouse scam,


You can expect that from someone who says Microsoft doesn't hold
monopoly power.

I see you're still as big a liar as ever.


all of those other cases, like I described above, are still extra,
unjustified license fees that MS is getting through the logistics
of their licensing scheme.


And in related nonsense. Microsoft can't compete against India
unless it can hire more Indians. Go figure.