XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
>>>> point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>>>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
>>>> And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>>>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>>>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>>>> enforceable.
>>>
>>> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
>>> and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>>>
>>> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
>> EULA.
>>
>> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
>> delusions!
>>
>> NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!
>>
>> MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
>> AGREEMENT!
>>
>
> You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
> the bucks make the rules.

LOL! The Republicans control two out of the 3 branches of gov't, and
the third is centrist.

> You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
> Good luck!

I don't have to. It is up to them under both copyright law and contract
law to sue me. They don't sue me, my interpretation of the law is valid
for me.

> Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
> MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
> arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
> sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.

That's because the RIAA have been very smart to only go after those that
distribute music over the web. They haven't gone after one person that
has only downloaded.

Distributing copyrighted material to others is a violation of copyright
law.

>
> The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
> significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
> OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license.

They can't yet. All PA tells them that enough hardware has changed to
required activation, not what exact hardware has changed. MS can not
figure out if XP is on a totally different PC unless the person tells
the PA phone rep that it is a totally different computer.

> So EULA at
> the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
> MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules.

LOL! You are totally fooling yourself if you think I'm playing by MS's
rules.

> That's
> always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
> When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.

Yeah, disable some of my hardware, and neuter some others, and run
linux! Please! If I want to run a server I'll build a computer to run
linux, but right now I want my multimedia computer, run my games and not
castrate my system, so linux is not a realistic solution.

>
> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_7.html
>
> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
> Microsoft tells you to go, period."

LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
tyranny of the corporate elites.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail wrote:

>>
>> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>>
>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_7.html
>>
>> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
>> Microsoft tells you to go, period."
>
> LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
> tyranny of the corporate elites.
>
I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer. Haven't
you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
hasn't changed its spots.


--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_A.html

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
>> says...
>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
>>> when the
>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
>>> the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
>>> that computer
>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>
>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>
>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>> license to the motherboard.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>
> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
> that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
> a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
> with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
> essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
> anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
> mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
> the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
> mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
> interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
> If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
> the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
> one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
> Kerry

You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.

As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer
becomes a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If
MS defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for
a class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself
any liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.

Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record
it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:


>Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
>that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
>unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
>related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
>unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
>card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
>on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
>modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
>new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
>modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
>was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
>changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
>replaced items.
>Interesting conversation.
>Take Care.
>beamish.

The critical element here is the "5 months later...." bit. Microsoft
purges the activation data base after 120 days so the records of the
first activation would have been removed by the time the major
hardware replacement happened.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>>>
>>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_7.html
>>>
>>> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go
>>> wherever Microsoft tells you to go, period."
>>
>> LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for
>> the tyranny of the corporate elites.
>>
> I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against
> getting the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to
> place on your 'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to
> go. When MS decided to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and
> eventually XP, to continue to have a secure system you're either
> going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR you're going to look for an
> alternative. It's as simple as that. And as long as you continue on
> the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum beat because if
> you're going to use their software, you have no other option. So cut
> the crap about what an independent individual you are. You have no
> independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take the
> updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.
> Haven't you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with
> Windoze is exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing
> their next version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you
> should read that article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll
> see that the leopard hasn't changed its spots.

I advise people to make up their own minds whether MS has the right to
tell them what the can and can't do in their homes with their copies of
software, and if they want to know how to protect themselves from MS's
unsubstantiated claims, I will help them out with that.

When I feel Linux is ready for the average user my tune will change, but
right now, Linux is a server OS and a OS for the hobbyist. Linux is a
not yet ready for prime time player.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:


>
>You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence and
>that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
>for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.
>
>Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
>266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
>faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
>another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first OEM
>was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
>people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
>motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the
>number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but
>as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced to
>buy something I already have again!
>
>Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>"casual". I am all ears.
>

Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
this discussion:

1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> [snip]
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this, although
it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the installation method
for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been doctored -- keyed to the
BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be installed on a different machine at
all. I certainly wouldn't count on transferring Windows from your Compaq to
a whole new system. As a user, I wouldn't expect this to be acceptable,
either.

Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time over
a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes, it's
still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same body
cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business knows
that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and memory
as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will draw a
complaint.

Microsoft is very clear about retail boxed versions: you can install it on
another computer as long as you remove it from the first. It's much less
clear about OEM, and the clearest part is that Dell isn't in the business of
supporting software on a computer with no Dell parts left in it, while
Microsoft isn't interested in solving problems on a copy of Windows Dell
sold. You can probably activate it, but it will be an orphan.

And Windows Update will still run, no questions asked. Why? Because of the
recent assault of malware. A system not updated because the user was afraid
to call Microsoft is a festering place for bad things. Also, a customer
badgered or threatened is a former customer.

Remember the question from Jurassic Park? People spent all this time
finding out if they COULD, but never put a moment's thought into whether
they SHOULD. Well, you probably could install an OEM copy of Windows on
practically anything. Should you? I'm not too clear on that. Suppose you
bought a machine with OEM Windows XP Home on it, and bought a retail upgrade
to XP Pro. Is it now an OEM or a retail installation? Maybe you can then
use that upgrade to upgrade another machine from Home to Pro as long as you
revert the first one.

Common sense goes a long way, even with Microsoft.

--
P.

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bp53811tk2sbc0h4cuhksi7cm7ab90550l@4ax.com...
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

No, OEM you pay a fair price, retail you getting ripped.

Michael

"Pelysma" <pelysma@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bLgge.12238$U01.7624@trnddc07...
> Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this,
> although it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the
> installation method for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been
> doctored -- keyed to the BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be
> installed on a different machine at all. I certainly wouldn't count on
> transferring Windows from your Compaq to a whole new system. As a user, I
> wouldn't expect this to be acceptable, either.

Just another good reason to avoid name brands. Why anyone would buy from a
company that intentionally made things difficult for their customers is
beyong me, but that's another story.

> Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
> it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
> rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time
> over a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes,
> it's still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same
> body cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business
> knows that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and
> memory as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will
> draw a complaint.

That's about how I work also. In this case the customer purchased XP and is
only using 1 copy so is doing the right thing, imo.

Michael

"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:esGB1HeVFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
>>> says...
>>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
>>>> when the
>>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
>>>> the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
>>>> that computer
>>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>>
>>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>>
>>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>>> license to the motherboard.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
>> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
>> that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
>> a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
>> with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
>> essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
>> anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
>> mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
>> the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
>> mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
>> interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
>> If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
>> the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
>> one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
>> Kerry
>
> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows tranfers
> with the computer it is licensed with.
>

That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot ofpeople
seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS installed but keep
the COA and use it with the new computer.

> As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer becomes
> a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If MS
> defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for a
> class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
> where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
> use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself any
> liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.
>
> Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
> preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
> what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
> licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record it.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>