Re: new motherboard--must buy new copy of XP?!!

The preinstalled OEM Windows XP license that comes with a
manufacturer's computer is uniquely tied to the specific hardware
configuration of the computer. If you change the motherboard,
and it is a different model, the license is no longer valid.

If you wish to make significant hardware changes, then you'll
have to purchase a conventional "retail version" of Windows XP.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Jim" <jamest571@yahoo.com> wrote in message:
news:63EF6E75-0A55-4944-B6A3-33971FF1B17B@microsoft.com...

| Hi!
|
| My name is Jim and I live in Colorado Springs, CO. Recently I bought a new motherboard to upgrade my,
long-in-the-tooth, e-machine computer. I did consider resealing Windows XP before changing the board but I
decided not to since my copy of XP is the upgrade version (at least I assume it is, it was loaded on to the
system by the oem, of course) and I thought this could lead to trouble. Besides, I felt I could always
explore that option latter if needed.
|
| I did expect the system to protest and perhaps make me call Microsoft for a code but what happened instead
came as a complete surprise. After changing the motherboard I first just tried to reboot the computer into
the safe mode however Windows XP refused to do this. So I inserted the e-machine recovery disk into the
CD-ROM player. I was surprised to see the exact same message; something to the affect that Windows could not
boot into the safe mode and this problem could be the result of hardware issues caused by hardware issues.
|
| Well, I first called e-machine support and was told that since I did not send the computer to them to put in
a new e-machine motherboard (I doubt if this is even an option on my system) that they could not offer me any
support. I explained that all I wanted was a way to get to the Windows XP files [I tried to boot directly
from the recovery disk, this works but you really have no where to go from this point. I first booted from
the recovery disk and then tried to install Win 98 from a CD-ROM but received the dreaded "incorrect
COMMAND.COM" message.]
|
| I then called Microsoft and talked to a pleasant support specialist who gave me the number to get media
copies. I have not called them yet (I work nights and they are closed by time I get home) but I will very
soon of course. However I am very concerned that they will say that they cannot send me a copy of Windows XP
since I DO have my copy from e-machine.
|
| You know I am a big fan of Microsoft. The people who argue that Microsoft has monopoly power in some of the
market segments that they are in never bring up one very salient point. Microsoft makes GREAT products! This
being said I have never cared for some of their policies concerning how many copies of the operating system an
individual user (not a company or organized group of some kind but just an ordinary individual) has to buy.
If I own five computers I still believe I should only have to buy one copy of the operating system, after all
I cannot use all five computers at once. This goes hand in glove with my belief that Microsoft should go a
little easier on the hobbyist user (who some might call a "power" user) since from the ranks of these
hobbyists often emerge the new ideas that drive the industry. Also the hobbyist user will spend much more
money on both hardware and software than just an ordinary user---why not give them a break?
|
| Another aspect of this policy that disturbs me (especially with the strong enforcement mechanism built-in to
Windows XP) is that it is a policy that basically represents a death sentence for the white-box computing
business (what I mean by "white box industry" is all of the small computer stores that you see in strip-malls
etc.). After all the logic of using components is declining in the face of ever falling PC prices and if you
are going to be forced to buy a new operating system just because you changed the mother board in your
computer obviously this is going to be an unworkable situation very rapidly. With a low end computer the
price of the operating system alone can represent 20-25% of the cost.
|
| But getting back to the issue at hand, I just want to know if other people have had the same issue to
contend with and what kind of outcome did they experience. Also do you agree with my premise that since I did
buy Windows XP when I purchased my e-machine computer that I am entitled to have new copies of the disks
(separate from what is locked up in my e-machine recovery disks) just as if I had bought a copy in the store
and for some reason I needed some new media? I would also like to hear from anyone who disagrees with this
premise.
|
| Thanks,
| Jim
|
| Please CC to jamest571@yahoo.com
|

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote

> If you change the motherboard,
> and it is a different model, the license is no longer valid.

Where is that spelled out, exactly?

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://kanyak.com

Windows XP OEM Clarification
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm

[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]

In September 2001 there were several changes to the OEM EULA with the release
of Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. There are a
number of revisions and updates to the Windows XP EULA terms from previous
operating system versions. Many of these changes were made to reduce the length
of the Windows XP Product EULA as well as to reorder the terms for improved
readability.

What remains unchanged is that the Windows XP OEM license is
between the OEM and the end user and that the product is typically licensed for
use with the hardware or PC on which it was first installed.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

------------------------------------------------------------------

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message:
news:1041f6to2q42888@news.supernews.com...

| "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote
|
| > If you change the motherboard,
| > and it is a different model, the license is no longer valid.
|
| Where is that spelled out, exactly?
|
| --
| Bob
| Kanyak's Doghouse
| http://kanyak.com
|

In article <OUPlRph$DHA.2292@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl>,
Carey Frisch [MVP] <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>Windows XP OEM Clarification
>http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/oemeula.htm
>
>[Courtesy of MS-MVP Michael Stevens]
>
>In September 2001 there were several changes to the OEM EULA with the release
>of Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. There are a
>number of revisions and updates to the Windows XP EULA terms from previous
>operating system versions. Many of these changes were made to reduce the
>length
>of the Windows XP Product EULA as well as to reorder the terms for improved
>readability.
>
>What remains unchanged is that the Windows XP OEM license is
>between the OEM and the end user and that the product is typically
>licensed for
>use with the hardware or PC on which it was first installed.


>
>--
>Carey Frisch
>Microsoft MVP
>Windows XP - Shell/User
>
>Be Smart! Protect your PC!
>http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message:
> news:1041f6to2q42888@news.supernews.com...
>
>| "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote
>|
>| > If you change the motherboard,
>| > and it is a different model, the license is no longer valid.
>|
>| Where is that spelled out, exactly?
>|
>| --
>| Bob
>| Kanyak's Doghouse
>| http://kanyak.com
>|


You've gotta be able to replace a dead mobo without buying a new copy
of XP....

A same-brand mobo will have a different MAC address if it has an
on-board NIC. I assume it you have diffficulties and have to call MS
licenseing you'll be able to get an OK.


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes@panix.com

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message

> In September 2001 there were several changes to the OEM EULA with the
release
> of Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. There are a
> number of revisions and updates to the Windows XP EULA terms from previous
> operating system versions. Many of these changes were made to reduce the
length
> of the Windows XP Product EULA as well as to reorder the terms for
improved
> readability.
> What remains unchanged is that the Windows XP OEM license is
> between the OEM and the end user and that the product is typically
licensed for
> use with the hardware or PC on which it was first installed.

Please define "hardware or PC on which it was first installed".

Believe me, I'm not trying to be argumentative here but this is a seriously
grey area and it seems to me that it affects the validity of the whole
activation process.

In the strictest construction, "hardware or PC on which it was first
installed" means that if I replace a power cord and then have to reinstall
WinXP, I'm supposed to acquire a new copy if it was an OEM version.

In the absolutely loosest construction, I could replace all the components
of a PC *except* (say) the power cord and still not have to acquire a new
copy of WinXP if it was an OEM version.

This is really a variation of the "When did the Tin Woodsman stop being a
man?" question.

So...

Please, somebody, define "hardware or PC on which it was first installed".

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://kanyak.com

Greetings --

The OEM EULA itself contains that definition: '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.'

But you're correct about there being a "grey area" here.

As I've said, 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/upgrading the
original PC. To my mind, replacing a defective motherboard certainly
falls under the category of "repair."

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. Of course,
taken to extremes, this position also implies that, once the OEM
warranty expires, so does the OEM license. As this is so patently
absurd, that it doesn't really bare consideration.

In this specific case, however, the OP made the unfortunate
decision to purchase a PC with a branded and BIOS-locked OEM license.
The installation media that he has a license to use simply will not
work on the non-OEM motherboard. Because the OP consciously elected
to save money by buying this sort of product, he greatly reduced his
options. eMachines is certainly under no obligation to support
someone else's motherboard, nor are they obligated to provide the OP
with any installation media other than what they already have done as
part of the original purchase. Nor is Microsoft obliged to provide
any support for an OEM license, and is, in fact, contractually
prohibited from doing so.


Bruce Chambers
--
Help 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

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1041p8hbbn36hed@news.supernews.com...
>
> Please define "hardware or PC on which it was first installed".
>
> Believe me, I'm not trying to be argumentative here but this is a
> seriously
> grey area and it seems to me that it affects the validity of the
> whole
> activation process.
>
> In the strictest construction, "hardware or PC on which it was first
> installed" means that if I replace a power cord and then have to
> reinstall
> WinXP, I'm supposed to acquire a new copy if it was an OEM version.
>
> In the absolutely loosest construction, I could replace all the
> components
> of a PC *except* (say) the power cord and still not have to acquire
> a new
> copy of WinXP if it was an OEM version.
>
> This is really a variation of the "When did the Tin Woodsman stop
> being a
> man?" question.
>
> So...
>
> Please, somebody, define "hardware or PC on which it was first
> installed".
>
> --
> Bob
> Kanyak's Doghouse
> http://kanyak.com
>

"Opinicus" <gezgin@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1041p8hbbn36hed@news.supernews.com...
> "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > In September 2001 there were several changes to the OEM EULA with the
> release
> > of Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Home Edition. There are a
> > number of revisions and updates to the Windows XP EULA terms from
previous
> > operating system versions. Many of these changes were made to reduce
the
> length
> > of the Windows XP Product EULA as well as to reorder the terms for
> improved
> > readability.
> > What remains unchanged is that the Windows XP OEM license is
> > between the OEM and the end user and that the product is typically
> licensed for
> > use with the hardware or PC on which it was first installed.
>
> Please define "hardware or PC on which it was first installed".
>
> Believe me, I'm not trying to be argumentative here but this is a
seriously
> grey area and it seems to me that it affects the validity of the whole
> activation process.
>
> In the strictest construction, "hardware or PC on which it was first
> installed" means that if I replace a power cord and then have to reinstall
> WinXP, I'm supposed to acquire a new copy if it was an OEM version.
>
> In the absolutely loosest construction, I could replace all the components
> of a PC *except* (say) the power cord and still not have to acquire a new
> copy of WinXP if it was an OEM version.
>
> This is really a variation of the "When did the Tin Woodsman stop being a
> man?" question.
>
> So...
>
> Please, somebody, define "hardware or PC on which it was first installed".
>
> --
> Bob
> Kanyak's Doghouse
> http://kanyak.com
>

In this case, it doesn't really matter what Microsoft says, it's what the
OEM says. The recovery software won't run after a significant piece of
hardware has changed . And what is considered significant depends on how the
OEM has customized the software to recognize its original PC. A motherboard
is a given, but I've seen some choke after replacement of a CD drive. Since
the recovery software won't automatically run anymore, it's up to the OEM to
determine whether they're going to support the end user after this hardware
change. I can pretty much guarantee that e-machines isn't going to do
anything at all.

One common error I see people make is when they assume they've paid $200 (or
whatever going retail is) for their copy of Windows, and that they should
have use of that $200 copy or a replacement for it. But in reality, they've
paid a LOT less for that copy of Windows as it was a customized OEM version
and not retail. And not even generic OEM, which would work on a replacement
motherboard.