Timothy Daniels said:
Here is my summary from a similarly named thread in this
NG, presented here as answers to the following questions:
1) How many times (or how frequently) does MS
let a user re-install WinXP IN THE SAME MACHINE?
As many times and as frequently
as the User wants.
2) If one wanted to set up and then mulit-boot several
versions of WinXP, each with a different set of
features installed, on several partitions of one or two
hard drives IN THE SAME MACHINE, would Microsoft
object:
a) to the multiple installs?
Without knowing your motive, No.
See the answer to 1) above.
b) to the frequent "re-installs"?
Without knowing your motive, No.
See the answer to 1) above.
c) would it even recognize that multiple installs
were going on in the same hardware?
Yes, if done more frequently than once
every 120 days.
d) would Microsoft care?
Microsoft has no way of knowing that previous
installations haven't been erased unless you
tell it.
Addendum: Microsoft wishes that you not keep multiple
installations of its OSes, even in the same machine, if
you have only one license for the OS. If you respect
Microsoft's wishes, you'd buy more licenses.
*TimDaniels*
I don't think you "motive" plays any part in what MS does as far activation.
There are black-and-white rules as far as what they will allow if you have
to call for activation. If you say "Oh, yes, I've installed it multiple
times and they're all still there" they probably aren't going to activate
you if you call. If you say, "Oh, no, it's a reinstall and this is the only
place it's running" they will activate you. There's no lie detector running
on the phone line. If you feel comfortable lying to them, you could
conceivably activate a whole lot of times before the flags went up. Most
people don't like to lie, cheat or steal, and MS is relying on people being
somewhat honest; they aren't going to come to your home and look under your
bed to see if you have any extra computers running copies of XP. They have
bigger fish to fry before they come after home users.
Microsoft, like any company, knows that there is always going to be some
shrinkage -- stuff that gets used but doesn't get paid for. It's built in to
the formula. Just like stores know there will be some shoplifting. They have
to decide how much security they "good" customers will tolerate and weigh
that against the losses. In this case, MS is using activation, which is
alerting a whole lot of people to the fact that multiple installs are not
supposed to be allowed and who are following the rules for the first time.
At the same time, MS isn't being too nasty on the activation lines, and they
aren't sneaking into your home network to see what's running.
They know it isn't going to stop everyone, and they know there are people
who have multiple installs, but the public view is that they don't *allow*
it, even though they know it's entirely possible. You're NOT going to get MS
to say -- on the record -- that they know it's possible to do *whatever* and
that they aren't going to do anything about it. Privately, they might have
another answer, but they have to give the legally correct version in public
or risk whatever legal protection they have.
Do they care? Well, if a corporation could have feelings, I think they'd
care a lot less about people buying one legal version and using it twice
than about stores that buy one copy and install it a hundred times or about
warehouses full of illegal product. It's certainly a bigger issue now when
people are likely to have multiple computers at home than it was in the old
days when one home computer was a big deal, so that's why there's
activation. They'd *like* to get paid for every copy of the software that's
in use, of course, and maybe they will some day. If activation doesn't
capture enough of the multiple installs, the next version might be more
annoying or more restrictive.
As far as whether the EULA is legal as far as courts are concerned, people
can debate that until they're blue in the face, but until it ends up in
court and there's a decision, and an appeal, etc. it's all just discussion.
Not my cup of tea. I tend to deal with the practical and I'm not under the
delusion that anyone on a newsgroup is going to follow my moral advice with
regard to MS software. It's just not a worthwhile debate for me; there are
others who will happily jump on that bandwagon, from both sides.
As far as practical terms, if you multiboot your computer with the same copy
of XP, it is very likely that it will activate over the internet with no
problem at all, because it is the same computer with the same hardware hash.
Technically, it's hard to capture that sort of multiple use with the
hardware hash as it exists. If you know that you're not supposed to do that
because of the EULA and you choose to ignore that, that's up to you.
If you really care what the official word at MS is, you could contact their
legal department and describe your entire scenario.
