Vista On More Then One Computer

[Nina DiBoy]

What if we don't want any support for the software? What if we don't want any
upgrade of the software? In that case we can use one purchased OS for
multiple systems. Right?

You can do it, that is to say it is physically possible. You should
also be aware it is in violation of the license agreement with Microsoft
which is *NOT AGAINST THE LAW* but only for personal, non-commercial use.


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[Cal Bear '66]

It will shut down (limited functionality -- practically useless) if not properly
activated.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Bruce, I am not trying to get in the middle of your disagreement with
nina, but the kb cited (83926) states: "Under the licensing agreements
for Microsoft applications software and Windows 3.0,............".

Correct. That very same article states quite clearly that, unlike
Windows 3.0, Microsoft considered Windows 3.1 as "system software."
However, to anyione more than casually acquainted with computers, even
that is quite a stretch. In reality, Windows 3.1 (and 95 and 98, to a
certain extent, as well) was nothing more than a GUI shell that would
not work unless the real OS (MS-DOS) was loaded first. To the technical
world, the first version of Windows that could truly be considred an
operating system was WinNT3.x.

If I
read correctly from wikipedia, windows 3.0 is designated an operating
system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.x
Windows 3.x can refer to the following versions of the Microsoft Windows
operating system:
* Windows 3.0
* Windows 3.1x

Wikipedia has never struck me as a horribly reliable source, and it's
just plain wrong on this point.

Also from this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating system to
the 1990 release of Windows 3.0, the first widely popular version of
Windows and the first version of Windows many PC users ever tried.

But that article doesn't actually state that Windows 3.0 was an
operating system, does it?

So whether or not there is a direct reference as to 3.0 being an os, why
would you argue otherwise?

For the simple reason Win3.0, by Microsoft's own words, was not an OS.

Possibly, you should consider changing the
following part of your statement about licensing terms: "Just as it has
*always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems......".

Why change a simple statement of fact, one actually documented by a
troll ineptly trying to refute the statement.

Maybe that
is just not the case.

It is the case, though, unless one goes back to pre-MSDOS days.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Why would MS compare the license agreements for 3.0 and 3.1 if they
weren't comparable software?

Because the names were similar but that scope and licensing of the two
products were different. Is that so hard to grasp? Did you even read
the article? By the way, I really should have thanked you for pointing
it out and proving my point for me. I apologize for that lapse in manners.

Why would both versions be named "Windows"?

Why does Microsoft have Windows *Explorer* and Internet *Explorer*,
*Outlook* and *Outlook* Express, Windows *XP* and Office *XP*? No one
ever accused Microsoft of using original, clear and/or distinctive names
for different products.

Noted that you snipped the rest without responding.

Didn't think it was particularly relevant. Is that the same reason you
neglected to quote the portion of the KB Article that clearly stated that:

"However, Windows 3.1 is considered systems software and therefore
follows the same licensing agreement as MS-DOS (that is, you must
purchase one copy of the software for each machine)."

(Mind you, I don't actually consider even Windows 3.1 to be a true
operating system, despite Microsoft's statement/definition, as one first
had to boot into MS-DOS and then execute Windows. It was just a GUI
shell riding on top of the true OS, MS-DOS. I've much the same opinion
of Win9x, although they made the transition a bit more "seamless.")


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Back to the original question - my scenario is slightly different. I bought
Windows Vista, and then due to it being an incredible power hog of my
mediocre system (that still passed the system tests that I ran in advance), I
moved it to my more powerful system and put a Linux back on that weaker one.
Now I'm getting the same message that Windows can't be activated. I
understand its a breach of contract to run it on two computers - that's why I
wasn't in the first place. Operating System reinstalls are needed all the
time (especially with Windows in my personal experience), so is there
something I can do to actually activate it again or is my Vista a complete
waste? Thanks in advance.

If you can't activate via the Internet because it's been less than 120
days since you first activated Vista, simply follow the on-screen
instructions to activate via telephone. As long as you have a retail
license, there's nothing to stop you from transfering it as many times
as you like, just so long as it's only installed on one computer at a time.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[norm]

Correct. That very same article states quite clearly that, unlike
Windows 3.0, Microsoft considered Windows 3.1 as "system software."
However, to anyione more than casually acquainted with computers, even
that is quite a stretch. In reality, Windows 3.1 (and 95 and 98, to a
certain extent, as well) was nothing more than a GUI shell that would
not work unless the real OS (MS-DOS) was loaded first. To the technical
world, the first version of Windows that could truly be considred an
operating system was WinNT3.x.



Wikipedia has never struck me as a horribly reliable source, and
it's just plain wrong on this point.




But that article doesn't actually state that Windows 3.0 was an
operating system, does it?

Again, you disagree that this first line doesn't state that 3.0 was an
os? "Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating
system to the 1990 release of Windows 3.0".
It is on an ms site and the statement isn't qualified or refuted. I
guess you read differently than I do. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Guest]

Well shiver me timbers!!



I've not seen such a well discused validation for piracy in my life!!

Net profit on a DVD movie: 700%

Net profit on a Music CD: 1000%

Net profit on Vista Ultimate: 2000%

As someone who *IS* a graphic artist, let me assure you that it ain't coming
our way.......LOL!

Piracy exists because of the huge profit margins above. Instead of lowering
the prices, new govt agencies like the MPAA & RIAA were formed to "combat"
the "pirates".

.......There's a term for this: "Bassakwards".

LOL!

In the consumer market, the more you make a thing, the price is supposed to
get LOWER, not higher.......

If you really want to combat piracy & win, lower the price to a reasonable
amount, disband the RIAA & MPAA attack dogs, and piracy will slowly fade away.

.......And as Def Leppard said: "It's better to burn out, than fade away!"

 

[Nina DiBoy]

Because the names were similar but that scope and licensing of the
two products were different. Is that so hard to grasp? Did you even
read the article? By the way, I really should have thanked you for
pointing it out and proving my point for me. I apologize for that lapse
in manners.




Why does Microsoft have Windows *Explorer* and Internet *Explorer*,
*Outlook* and *Outlook* Express, Windows *XP* and Office *XP*? No one
ever accused Microsoft of using original, clear and/or distinctive names
for different products.



Didn't think it was particularly relevant. Is that the same reason
you neglected to quote the portion of the KB Article that clearly stated
that:

"However, Windows 3.1 is considered systems software and therefore
follows the same licensing agreement as MS-DOS (that is, you must
purchase one copy of the software for each machine)."

(Mind you, I don't actually consider even Windows 3.1 to be a true
operating system, despite Microsoft's statement/definition, as one first
had to boot into MS-DOS and then execute Windows. It was just a GUI
shell riding on top of the true OS, MS-DOS. I've much the same opinion
of Win9x, although they made the transition a bit more "seamless.")

I agree with your last paragraph Bruce, which again begs the question
since Windows 3.0 worked that way also, why is it not an OS?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[Nina DiBoy]

If you can't activate via the Internet because it's been less than
120 days since you first activated Vista, simply follow the on-screen
instructions to activate via telephone. As long as you have a retail
license, there's nothing to stop you from transfering it as many times
as you like, just so long as it's only installed on one computer at a time.

So the 120 day activation retention is still in effect then for the PA
databases?

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I agree with your last paragraph Bruce, which again begs the question
since Windows 3.0 worked that way also, why is it not an OS?

That, you'd have to ask Microsoft, as, in this case, it's *their*
definition we're discussing, not my technical opinion.

For some obscure reason, Microsoft draw a line between the two Windows
versions. If I had to guess, I'd tend to speculate that Microsoft had
considered Windows to be something of an experiment up till then, and
only decided to tighten the licensing after they saw that they had a
potential big seller on their hands. They are a business, after all, so
profits will always be a prime consideration and motivation.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Bruce Chambers]

So the 120 day activation retention is still in effect then for the PA
databases?

To the best of my knowledge; I haven't seen anything different, yet.
But I am basing my answer on past experience, rather than any new (or
refreshed/updated) information. The Microsoft web site describing WPA
doesn't seem to have been updated since the release of WinXP SP1 and/or
Office 2003.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Nina DiBoy]

To the best of my knowledge; I haven't seen anything different, yet.
But I am basing my answer on past experience, rather than any new (or
refreshed/updated) information. The Microsoft web site describing WPA
doesn't seem to have been updated since the release of WinXP SP1 and/or
Office 2003.

True. Thanks.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

 

[mghinlove]

Is there any way to deactive it ?

What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

No, there is no method to deactivate an installation.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

 

[Robert Martin]

Buy a OEM version.
Ultimate is around $199.

or

Call customer support,
Tell them you had to reload and need to reactivate.

I have reloaded my PC 3 or 4 times and I had to call on each reload.
I did a lot of experimenting with old apps at 1st to figure
out how to get them to function properly.