EULA and Dual Boot

[Herb Fritatta]

A hypothetical: I have a retail copy of Win 98 installed.
I buy an upgrade copy of XP. I decide I want to dual boot,
keeping 98 intact, but still using it as support for the
XP upgrade. Because the upgrade EULA says that the license
for the prior version becomes inextricably bound to the
new installation, dual booting becomes a violation of the
EULA--I have a purchased copy of 98, but can't use it on
the same machine. Is this correct?

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Correct, but many folks tend to ignore this
fact and use a dual-boot.

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

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

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


|A hypothetical: I have a retail copy of Win 98 installed.
| I buy an upgrade copy of XP. I decide I want to dual boot,
| keeping 98 intact, but still using it as support for the
| XP upgrade. Because the upgrade EULA says that the license
| for the prior version becomes inextricably bound to the
| new installation, dual booting becomes a violation of the
| EULA--I have a purchased copy of 98, but can't use it on
| the same machine. Is this correct?

 

[midnight]

Just shows how rediculas EULAs are. Software companies accept no
responsibility for the products they produce. You have to accept the EULA to
install the software but if you read any EULA it exempts the company from
any damager the software might cause to your compuyter even if it is down to
poor programming. Basically the software company can write a piece of
sofware which breaks your computer and they accept no liability. It would be
like buying a car and the brakes failing and the company saying tough. It's
no wonder so many people break EULAs and download software.

Midnight

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Your example is highly flawed.
If an automobile had such a flaw it would be recalled and repaired
immediately.
However any incidental loss is still your loss and not recoverable.

That reference in the EULA is reasonable since with the large number
of computers and no two exactly alike, there are bound to be problems
with some of them somewhere.

However if you can create a software application and guarantee that it
will work under all conditions all the time, you will likely get rich
before you sell a single copy/

 

[Plato]

poor programming. Basically the software company can write a piece of
sofware which breaks your computer and they accept no liability. It would be

That was the case long before EULA's became popular.

 

[midnight]

Jupitor you miss my point completly. I was trying to say that a car with a
problem would be fixed but software EULAs make you give away such rights.

Midnight

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I did not miss your point.
Your problem does get fixed...You can get the necessary patches
directly from Microsoft, Windows Update delivers patches to fix
issues.
As I stated, no two computers are alike.
How many of a specific make and model automobile are made?
What changes can you make and still be in warranty?

What exactly would you like that fits with the comparison you made
with automobiles.
Have you read an automobile warranty recently?
Apparently not.
How about another warranty?
Apparently not.
Warranties of all kinds have language that releases the manufacturer
from liability.
This is not limited to Microsoft EULAs or even the computer industry.

 

[Alex Nichol]

A hypothetical: I have a retail copy of Win 98 installed.
I buy an upgrade copy of XP. I decide I want to dual boot,
keeping 98 intact, but still using it as support for the
XP upgrade. Because the upgrade EULA says that the license
for the prior version becomes inextricably bound to the
new installation, dual booting becomes a violation of the
EULA--I have a purchased copy of 98, but can't use it on
the same machine. Is this correct?

The EULA is in some places (too many) very sloppily worded. But the
upgrade XP CD provides for setting up a dual boot in just that way, and
I would go ahead and do it. What *is* clearly against the license is
using that Win98 on any *other* machine, or to support the license of
any *other* XP upgrade