Have licences, where can I get XP media/files

[Julian]

Hi,

I've got two dead laptops - one XP Home one XP Pro. I want to use the
licenses to install on other machines (one under VirtualPC).

The problem is I only have OEM reinstallation disks; is there anywhere one
can obtain - for free, I have already paid for my licenses! - XP so that I
can install it and enter my valid validation codes?

Thanks

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I've got two dead laptops - one XP Home one XP Pro. I want to use
the licenses to install on other machines (one under VirtualPC).

The problem is I only have OEM reinstallation disks; is there
anywhere one can obtain - for free, I have already paid for my
licenses! - XP so that I can install it and enter my valid
validation codes?

First off - if the laptops came with Windows XP pre-installed - that's an
OEM licensed copy (most of the time.) The license died with the laptop(s)
and cannot be transferred per the strict End-User Licensing Agreement for
OEMs. It's a limitation well published on the Internet and well disliked by
everyone - particularly those who find out later they lost their license
when the machine they first installed it upon and activated it upon died.

Secondly - what do you mean by "reinstallation disks"? True installation
media? If so - you have the files. If not - you can get generic OEM media
from friends/family/etc... Most likely - for installaiton on the laptops
when you get them repaired.

 

[Daave]

Hi,

I've got two dead laptops - one XP Home one XP Pro. I want to use the
licenses to install on other machines (one under VirtualPC).

The problem is I only have OEM reinstallation disks; is there anywhere
one can obtain - for free, I have already paid for my licenses! - XP
so that I can install it and enter my valid validation codes?

I assume these laptops came with non-transferrable OEM licenses. That
means the licenses are to run XP on only on *those* machines.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi,

I've got two dead laptops - one XP Home one XP Pro. I want to use the
licenses to install on other machines (one under VirtualPC).

The problem is I only have OEM reinstallation disks; is there anywhere one
can obtain - for free, I have already paid for my licenses! - XP so that I
can install it and enter my valid validation codes?

No. You may not use your licenses to install these on other machines.
You clearly have OEM licenses, and the biggest disadvantage of an OEM
license is that it is good only on the first computer it's installed
on. It may never be moved to another computer, not even if the first
one dies.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Hi,

I've got two dead laptops - one XP Home one XP Pro. I want to use the
licenses to install on other machines (one under VirtualPC).

The problem is I only have OEM reinstallation disks; is there anywhere
one can obtain - for free, I have already paid for my licenses! - XP so
that I can install it and enter my valid validation codes?

Thanks

By your own admission, you have an OEM licenses for WinXP. An OEM
version must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a motherboard or
hard rive, if not an entire PC) and is _permanently_ bound to the first
PC on which it's installed. An OEM license, once installed, is not
legally transferable to another computer under _any_ circumstances.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

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

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Julian]

I didn't know the licenses died with the machines.

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[M.I.5¾]

Tell that to a bazillion retailers both on and offline. It would
appear that the requirement is urban legend.

That is not necessarily true. There is a body of opinion that in certain
jurisdictions that some of the conditions in Microsoft's EULA (and in
particular the bit about non transferability of the operating system) are
not actually enforceable. Microsoft disagrees with this opinion (not
unsurprisingly) however, this would need to be properly tested in a court of
law before it can formally be declared an urban legend.

 

[Alias]

That is not necessarily true. There is a body of opinion that in certain
jurisdictions that some of the conditions in Microsoft's EULA (and in
particular the bit about non transferability of the operating system) are
not actually enforceable. Microsoft disagrees with this opinion (not
unsurprisingly) however, this would need to be properly tested in a court of
law before it can formally be declared an urban legend.

And it will be snowing in Caracas before MS grows the balls to take
anyone to court for EULA violation. They know it's unconscionable but
they also know hardly anyone reads them and relies on FUD to keep their
paying customers confused.

Alias

 

[M.I.5¾]

And it will be snowing in Caracas before MS grows the balls to take anyone
to court for EULA violation. They know it's unconscionable but they also
know hardly anyone reads them and relies on FUD to keep their paying
customers confused.

Absolutely, and indeed on those occasions when they have actually issued
proceedings, they have settled out of court at the 11th hour rather than let
the case come to court, usually with a non disclosure agreement wrapping the
settlement.

One of the more recent cases involved a student who bought the student
edition of Microsoft office before buying a laptop with the product already
installed. He sold the student Office on e-bay for a profit, but Microsoft
weren't impressed and issued proceedings. Part of said student's defence
was that the Office he bought stated that if he didn't agree with the
licence terms, then the product should be returned for a full refund. He
had in fact attempted to do so but the return was allegedly refused.

 

[Alias]

Absolutely, and indeed on those occasions when they have actually issued
proceedings, they have settled out of court at the 11th hour rather than let
the case come to court, usually with a non disclosure agreement wrapping the
settlement.

One of the more recent cases involved a student who bought the student
edition of Microsoft office before buying a laptop with the product already
installed. He sold the student Office on e-bay for a profit, but Microsoft
weren't impressed and issued proceedings. Part of said student's defence
was that the Office he bought stated that if he didn't agree with the
licence terms, then the product should be returned for a full refund. He
had in fact attempted to do so but the return was allegedly refused.

Yeah, the Catch 22 of shrink wrapped software where you don't get to see
the EULA until after you've opened the package and an opened package --
per the vendor -- gets no refund.

Alias

 

[Daave]

An OEM version must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally
a motherboard or hard rive, if not an entire PC)

Up until 2005, this was the rule. And to stay within the letter of the
law, one could purchase an OEM version of XP from a retailer as long as
the retailer also included "non-peripheral" hardware. So, as silly as it
was, a lot of times retailers included power cords!

This loophole (of including hardware with the purchase) was supposedly
resolved in 2005 with a newer EULA, but once again, there appeared
another loophole: "when the end-user is actually assembling their own
PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well,
under the definition in the OEM system builder license agreement."

Many retailers apparently are still going by the old rules. Earlier this
year, I purchased a single-pack System Builder OEM XP CD from a retailer
(unopened, of course) and they insisted on selling it with a mouse (even
though this is nol longer necessary). I purchased it for my
sister-in-law, who decided she hated the Vista OS that came with her
Acer laptop. Now, this XP license will only ever be used in conjunction
with this particular laptop and since I am operating as the System
Builder, I and not Microsoft will be providing support, so I see no
ethical problems. I can see someone arguing that I can't be a System
Builder since I didn't build the laptop, but I'm not sure that this term
has ever been scrupulously defined. As far as I'm concerned, the system
is the whole entity. This entity (laptop plus XP) had never existed
before; I was the one who created it.

If a person is building his own system, you would normally expect that
person to be purchasing hardware! But all this means is that a retailer
is able to sell an OEM XP CD to a person who *is* a system builder. It's
possible that the hardware has already been purchased. And a system
builder can be a single person.

So, long story short, depending on how one interprets this
open-to-interpretation EULA, these CDs need *not* be sold with
hardware -- as long as they are being sold to a System Builder.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Tell that to a bazillion retailers both on and offline. It would
appear that the requirement is urban legend.

Just because someone sells OEM CDs & licenses doesn't mean they'll work.

 

[M.I.5¾]

Yeah, the Catch 22 of shrink wrapped software where you don't get to see
the EULA until after you've opened the package and an opened package --
per the vendor -- gets no refund.

There is no catch 22 at all. The European courts have actually ruled on
that point (and only reinforced what UK contract law already said). The
ruling was that any licence terms and conditions (EULA) that are not visible
to the purchaser, or drawn to his attention, before the contract of sale is
struck are not enforceable as they constitute an unlawful unilateral
variation to the established contract. In spite of this Microsoft (and
indeed other software vendors) continue to insist that installing the
software and checking the box that agrees to the EULA as part of that
process makes the EULA enforceable. This usually forms the main plank of
their litigation that never makes it to court.

 

[Alias]

There is no catch 22 at all. The European courts have actually ruled on
that point (and only reinforced what UK contract law already said). The
ruling was that any licence terms and conditions (EULA) that are not visible
to the purchaser, or drawn to his attention, before the contract of sale is
struck are not enforceable as they constitute an unlawful unilateral
variation to the established contract. In spite of this Microsoft (and
indeed other software vendors) continue to insist that installing the
software and checking the box that agrees to the EULA as part of that
process makes the EULA enforceable. This usually forms the main plank of
their litigation that never makes it to court.

In Spain, if you open it, it's yours.

Alias

 

[Daave]

There is no catch 22 at all. The European courts have actually ruled
on that point (and only reinforced what UK contract law already said).
The ruling was that any licence terms and conditions (EULA) that are
not visible to the purchaser, or drawn to his attention, before the
contract of sale is struck are not enforceable as they constitute an
unlawful unilateral variation to the established contract. In spite
of this Microsoft (and indeed other software vendors) continue to
insist that installing the software and checking the box that agrees
to the EULA as part of that process makes the EULA enforceable. This
usually forms the main plank of their litigation that never makes it
to court.

These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once
the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The
purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long
as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key).
Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where
the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that
would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me
to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if
the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the
return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the
latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted.

 

[Alias]

These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once
the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The
purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long
as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key).
Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where
the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that
would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me
to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if
the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the
return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the
latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted.

The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours.
This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying
it, and then going in for a refund.

Alias

 

[Daave]

The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours.
This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying
it, and then going in for a refund.

Do the vendors have this right? If they do (but I'm not sure they do),
then I can definitely see the Catch-22!

 

[Alias]

Do the vendors have this right? If they do (but I'm not sure they do),
then I can definitely see the Catch-22!

They put up little signs saying no software can be returned once opened
in their brick and mortar as well as their on line stores.

Alias

 

[M.I.5¾]

In Spain, if you open it, it's yours.

Last time I checked, Spain was in the European Union and therefore should be
subject to the same ruling.

 

[M.I.5¾]

These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once
the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The
purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long
as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now
if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the
consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be
a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any
documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the
individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the
return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter
is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted.

This is one of the main issues. Although there are rulings and
declarations, no software vendor has dared to allow an actual case to get
anywhere near a court. I can't speak for other countries in Europe but here
in the UK, there is no such thing as a class action suit. All cases have to
be considered on their individual merits (assuming they get that far).

As for being unable to obtain a refund once the EULA has been rejected,
there are a number of instances where this has happened (and I posted one
such case). It is not clear whether this is solely the vendor or if
Microsoft have a hand. My money is on the former.