How is this accomplished - Activation procedure when moving XP pro to another computer

[Ian Merrithew]

And historically, when the lower price of the OEM product was
due to the lack of packaging, manuals, promotional offers and,
sometimes, the floppies or cdroms...just the license on a slip
of paper.

Let's see.. packaging: my retail Windows CD didn't even come in a jewel
case. It's some cardboard fold-around thing. Manuals? HAH! Some little
30-page introductory thing barely any better than a bulk-mailed flyer.
Anybody else remember the old MS-DOS manuals? Now THOSE were manuals!
Promotional offers? From Microsoft? HAH again!

Is anyone going to seriously argue that flimsy bunch of stuff justifies
the significant price difference between OEM and retail? Basically comes
down to Microsoft's made-up restriction on not moving the license from one
PC to another, which they really have no technological means to enforce
(yet - seem to be trying pretty hard these days with this WGA crap), and
wouldn't dare use the courts to enforce.

 

[mgm]

OEM software is a problem for may PC purchasers. Most consumers are
completely in the dark about the unholy, legal "union" between the PC
manufacturers and Microsoft. The PC manufacturers receive discounted
license pricing from Microsoft; most people believe it is because of the
OEM's volume licensing power, lack of individual packaging, manuals and the
like. Little do most consumers know that an OEM OS is also a cut down,
watered down operating systems that does not include many routine drivers,
has limited functionality and will have the most ridiculous restrictions
placed upon the software. These restrictions and software manipulations
have led to many court battles and anti-trust hard-feelings all around. I
really can't see how on earth I am abusing an OS license when I use the OS
on only ONE computer at a time. I definitely smell "fair-use" abuse here.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Little do most consumers know that an OEM OS
is also a cut down, watered down operating systems that does not
include many routine drivers, has limited functionality

No, this is not true. A generic OEM copy of Windows contains exactly the
same software as a Full retail version. The only differences are in support
(from the OEM, not Microsoft), retsrictions on moving to another computer,
and the inability to do an upgrade.

OEM versions that come preinstalled on computers sold by major manufactuers
can vary somewhat from the generic OEM or Retail versions, but they are not
cut-down or watered-down, and in fact are more likely to have *additional*
drivers (for the OEM's hardware) than to be missing them.

and will have
the most ridiculous restrictions placed upon the software.

There's only one restriction placed on the software, and that's that, once
installed, it it may not be moved to another computer. I don't like that
restriction and wish that it weren't the case, but I don't see anything
ridiculous about it. Unfortunately neither the OEMs nor Microsoft make that
restriction clear, and people are often surprised to find about only after
the fact. And bear in mind that an OEM version is sold at a significantly
lower price than the Full Retail version; it's therefore not surprising that
it comes with a restriction.

 

[mgm]

Yes.. it definitely IS surprising and I have found that major manufacture
"versions of" do NOT have all capabilities... would you like to see the
transcript from an HP technical chat advising to go out a buy a retail XP
Home in order to have a recovery console???. OR, having to have the exact
Dell same system mouse and keyboard in order to use the Dell "version" of an
OS disk. I will reiterate that the subtle "got-chas" of OEM OS's and other
software come long after the purchase of a PC and a full OS reinstall is
needed, or the issue of FAIR-USE is encountered.

 

[mgm]

Restricting software to only the original machine is like being told you can
only read that new paperback you just bought in you bedroom; if you want
read it in the living room, you have to buy another copy. This is not only
ridiculous, it is the best example of abuse of FAIR-USE legal tenets
imaginable. But don't worry, MS OS's have just become door stops in my home.

 

[Ghostrider]

Yes.. it definitely IS surprising and I have found that major manufacture
"versions of" do NOT have all capabilities... would you like to see the
transcript from an HP technical chat advising to go out a buy a retail XP
Home in order to have a recovery console???. OR, having to have the exact
Dell same system mouse and keyboard in order to use the Dell "version" of an
OS disk. I will reiterate that the subtle "got-chas" of OEM OS's and other
software come long after the purchase of a PC and a full OS reinstall is
needed, or the issue of FAIR-USE is encountered.

No, Ken is correct. The "generic" full OEM version of Windows XP,
as released by Microsoft is not much different from the full retail
version. The few file changes involved merely identifies the one
version from the other (and any fun and games that follows.) But,
OEM's can release their own "branded" version that is tailored to
to their needs by either substituting or adding proprietary files
and even removing unnecessary ones. One needs to be very careful
today about what particular version of Windows XP has been bought
and eliminating all sub-versions except for the single one would
IMO go far at simplifying matters including pricing, installation,
licensing, etc., and any other future consequences If any OEM wants
to promote their own add-ons, then it should include its own utility
cdroms or disks for this purpose. In retrospect, life in the computing
world seemed far simpler 10 to 20 years ago and more rewarding.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But not always.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Restricting software to only the original machine is like being told you can
only read that new paperback you just bought in you bedroom; if you want
read it in the living room, you have to buy another copy.

Where'd you ever get the silly idea that copyright laws concerning, and
the permitted uses of, very different types of intellectual property --
such as books vs. software, or music vs. books or music vs. movies, etc.
-- would be even remotely similar, much less the same?

This is not only
ridiculous, it is the best example of abuse of FAIR-USE legal tenets
imaginable.

Actually, that's utter nonsense as well. The legal concept of "Fair
Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't even apply in this situation.

Stanford Copyright & Fair Use Center
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/


--

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