Activating Windows

[Jerry]

I bought a windows XP Home Edition CD a few months ago
and put in on my laptop and activated it and everything
was fine. then i wanted to reinstall windows on my
desktop computer, which already had XP home edition on it
because it came from best buy, and i went to enter the
product key on the cd and it said it was already used, so
i tried to put the other product key which was on the
side of the desktop, and it didn't work either. is there
anything i can do to activate my desktop with the old
product key?

 

[Prodigal]

Just install the copy of XP that came with your desktop. No dealer can sell
a desktop machine with an operating system on it without supplying you with
the OEM CD of the OS.
Reinstalling that original version onto the desktop will then not require
activation as it is on the original machine it was installed on.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

It sounds, from your description of events, like you've tried to
use a retail installation CD with an OEM Product Key, and on two
computers simultaneously. This cannot be done.

Product Keys are bound to the specific type and language of
CD/license (OEM, Volume, retail, full, or Upgrade) with which they are
purchased. For example, a WinXP Home OEM Product Key won't work for
any retail version of WinXP Home, or for any version of WinXP Pro, and
vice versa. An upgrade's Product Key cannot be used with a full
version CD, and vice versa. An OEM Product Key will not work to
install a retail product. An Italian Product Key will not work with
an English CD. Product Keys and CDs cannot be mixed & matched.

You'll have to use the OEM CD that originally came with the
desktop computer, and that matches the Product Key on the side of the
computer, to repair that specific installation.


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[Guest]

Call This Number to Activate: Explain your problem,
Be nice ,but forceful. Don't take any crap. Ask for a
supervisor if you have a problem. Ask for their name.
Remember it's their Activation scheme, not your's, you
paid now it's up too them.

Call (800) 426-9400, and explain the situation.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

No dealer can sell
a desktop machine with an operating system on it without supplying you with
the OEM CD of the OS.

That is *not* true. The requirement is not to supply an "OEM CD
of the OS," but to supply a means of restoring the operating
system. Besides supplying CDs, the most common ways of doing this
are a restore CD and a hidden partition on the hard drive with
restore information.

 

[Prodigal]

Just install the copy of XP that came with your desktop. No dealer can sell
a desktop machine with an operating system on it without supplying you with
the OEM CD of the OS.
Reinstalling that original version onto the desktop will then not require
activation as it is on the original machine it was installed on.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Just install the copy of XP that came with your desktop. No dealer can sell
a desktop machine with an operating system on it without supplying you with
the OEM CD of the OS.

This is *not* correct, as has been pointed out to you before. The
requirement is not to supply an "OEM CD of the OS," but to supply
a means of restoring the operating system. Besides supplying
installation CDs, the most common ways of doing this are a
restore CD and a hidden partition on the hard drive with restore
information.

 

[TheCrewser]

Not true. Many OEM's only supply the OS install files as a hidden
partition on the hard drive. SOME manufacturers will supply an OS
reload CD, but it isn't a requirement.

GLCrews,MCP

 

[Prodigal]

that's ridiculous......I have never heard of such corrupt things.....then
they must simply provide you with the OS again if the hdd was formatted.
Geez....M$ truly is a rip off.

 

[Prodigal]

that's ridiculous......I have never heard of such corrupt things.....then
they must simply provide you with the OS again if the hdd was formatted.
Geez....M$ truly is a rip off.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

How are you managing to translate some uncaring OEMs' business
practices into Microsoft's fault? By what bizarre leap of logic do
you reach such a conclusion?

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

"Prodigal" <[email protected]> wrote in message

This is *not* correct, as has been pointed out to you before. The
requirement is not to supply an "OEM CD of the OS," but to supply
a means of restoring the operating system. Besides supplying
installation CDs, the most common ways of doing this are a
restore CD and a hidden partition on the hard drive with restore
information.

I think it's time we (as consumers) kicked butt to end this practice,
which so obviously serves MS's purposes while shafting the user.

It's hard to defend the value of legitimate software when there's such
glaring value defecit between something that is legal but sucks, and
something that's illegal but works.

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

Dreams are stack dumps of the soul

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 13:39:02 -0700, "Bruce Chambers"

How are you managing to translate some uncaring OEMs' business
practices into Microsoft's fault? By what bizarre leap of logic do
you reach such a conclusion?

Because MS not only condones this practice (they do, after all, set
what licensing terms are acceptable), but likely discounts it to the
OEMs to encourage them to adopt it.

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

Dreams are stack dumps of the soul

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

While I'll agree that the practice of providing no installation
media is deplorable and should be actively discouraged (by consumers
taking their money elsewhere), I don't see how you reached this
conclusion. Could you elucidate, please?

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Condones? Perhaps so. Or perhaps Microsoft feels the need to
make its OEM licensing contracts as liberal as they have so as to
avoid being labeled as a monopolist dictating how other companies
should do business? I, for one, would like to hear Microsoft's
official explanation and reasoning before deciding one way or another.

Have you any factual evidence or documentation to support your
contention that Microsoft offers additional discounts to OEM who
provide no installation media? Can you even offer a rational
explanation as to why Microsoft would encourage this practice? How
could Microsoft possibly benefit, business-wise, from this practice
and the resulting blame and negative publicity?


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 09:05:24 -0700, "Bruce Chambers"

While I'll agree that the practice of providing no installation
media is deplorable and should be actively discouraged (by consumers
taking their money elsewhere), I don't see how you reached this
conclusion. Could you elucidate, please?

Referring to somewhat oversnipped "which so obviously serves MS's
purposes ....."; sure, I can flesh that out.

A broken OS that is legally OK but prevents the user from using the
product effectively can give MS not only the standard sale of one
license per PC, but a good crack at a second license for the same PC.

For example, let's say I buy a PC that has no installation CD at all -
just an image on the HD. All very well while the PC is healthy;
whenever PnP detects new hardware or whatever, it saves me the hassle
of looking for the CD by pulling content off the image. Then my HD
fails, or the whole HD gets wiped by Magistr, CIH, Thus, OpaServ.K...

At this point, I have to buy another CD, or beg the OEM "oh please
kind sir may i have some more?"

Mileage isn't much better with a "companion" CD. This is an
otherwise-normal OS installation CD that simply has the Setup.exe
ripped out, so that it can't be used to actually install it. This is
purely malicious; it's not done to free space for the vendor's drivers
or other <cough> "value add"; it's done *purely* to make it impossible
for the average end user to install the OS.

Then there are the instant recovery CDs that give you no control over
your partitrioning, choice of file system, or installation path. If
you want to fix that, you'd need a different OS installation CD, and
guess what? You legal product key won't work with it. Ching-ching.

Or maybe what you have isn't as crippled; it's just an OEM-ised CD
that has lost some MS content (backup, recovery console etc.) to make
space for the OEM's drivers, or silly Packedup-Hell Bob-style
navigator front end, or whatever. Now this is interesting, because MS
was on record on saying that to pull IE out of Windows would unfairly
rob users of value (even if the functionality was replaced with, say,
Netscape). Yet here we have MS rubber-stamping the most disgusting
theft of user's rights possible - the right to repair their own
systems, with no alternate 3rd-party alternative in sight.

Yes, this is in MS's interests. It helps when there's FUD around OEM
CDs in general, reducing the resale value of these, and creating the
impression that when the original system's core parts fail, the OEM
license that came with the PC goes down with the ship.

Before WPA, it could be argued that there was legitimate value in
preventing one OEM copy being used on various other PCs. Now that we
have WPA to take care of that, could we have our value back please?

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

The rights you save may be your own

 

[Richard Urban]

People want their $399 computers but they complain when they get no Windows
XP CD (which by itself cost $199 for the Home version and $299 for the Pro
version). The MANUFACTURERS do this to save money because the consumer
"wants" low prices!

Don't think for a moment that Microsoft doesn't want a computer to be
shipped with a full retail version of Windows XP, as they would get much
more, per copy, from the O.E.M.
--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I'm not at all sure that I
agree with all of it, but it does provide something to think about. I
guess my biggest objection is that Microsoft has always displayed a
remarkable lack of foresight, and I really can't see them suddenly
(relatively speaking) coming up with such a devious scheme on their
own.

Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

 

[Shane]

People want their $399 computers but they complain when they get no Windows
XP CD (which by itself cost $199 for the Home version and $299 for the Pro
version). The MANUFACTURERS do this to save money because the consumer
"wants" low prices!

Don't think for a moment that Microsoft doesn't want a computer to be
shipped with a full retail version of Windows XP, as they would get much
more, per copy, from the O.E.M.

Which is meaningless, as they'd sell fewer copies. They go the route that
sells the most copies, being the shrewd business-persons that they are. It
doesn't cost even one dollar to make a cd. The price is set to cover
overheads and make a minimum acceptable-to-major-shareholders profit.

Like free pizza delivery isn't free, it's raising overheads in order to
increase market share and thus increase profit by virtue of more units
shifted with the 'added value' of more-near-ubiquity and that sad but
inescapable phenomenon of brand loyalty which, once achieved can be
significantly maintained virtually regardless of quality (because at which
point people believe: that the product most people buy must be the best,
and, that you get what you pay for, therefore the most expensive product
must
be the best).


Shane

 

[Shane]

Like free pizza delivery isn't free, it's raising overheads in order to

increase market share and thus increase profit by virtue of more units
shifted with the 'added value' of more-near-ubiquity and that sad but
inescapable phenomenon of brand loyalty which, once achieved can be
significantly maintained virtually regardless of quality (because at which
point people believe: that the product most people buy must be the best,
and, that you get what you pay for, therefore the most expensive product
must
be the best).

Apologies for the length of that sentence!


Shane