Install 2nd copy of XP on same computer?

[Mike Lease]

I have a Windows XP Home system with an extra disk drive, and I'm
contemplating installing another copy of XP on it. The reason for this
is that HP is implementing more stringent security requirements
(including a USB key) for connecting home PCs to the corporate network,
and I'd rather keep my personal setup separate from the corporate one.
That way, I can use the corporate licenses for Office, etc., and install
all of the required security software to keep the IT folks happy, while
not disrupting my own security software (which I believe are equal to or
better than the IT supported ones, but they're not approved for
corporate use) or giving anyone on the company network access to
anything on my personal drive. I only need occasional access from home,
so I can't justify getting a company-issued system for that purpose.

Questions:

1. Can I legitimately install a fresh copy of XP on the other drive,
without having to buy an additional license or some such?

2. What impact will this have on product activation?

3. Can I keep the two installations of XP completely ignorant of each
other? I.e., when I boot the drive intended to access the corporate
network, I don't want it to even recognize the drive devoted to the
personal side of my system, and vice-versa.

Thanks for any suggestions/input,
Mike Lease

 

[Bruce Chambers]

1. Can I legitimately install a fresh copy of XP on the other drive,
without having to buy an additional license or some such?

Not without violating the EULA. It specifies the installation of a
single copy on a single computer. (I don't agree with this limitation,
personally, but that is what the EULA clearly says.)

2. What impact will this have on product activation?

If it's been less than 120 days since you last activated that specific
license, you'll have to activate via telephone, and possibly lie to the
call center representative. It depends on what questions get asked.

3. Can I keep the two installations of XP completely ignorant of each
other? I.e., when I boot the drive intended to access the corporate
network, I don't want it to even recognize the drive devoted to the
personal side of my system, and vice-versa.

Not without the use of a 3rd-party boot manager, such as System
Commander. Dual-booting a Microsoft WinNT-based operating system is
very simple, but preventing each installation from seeing the partition
of the other installation is not normally necessary, and so the
capability hasn't been built into WinXP's native dual-boot capability.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I have a Windows XP Home system with an extra disk drive,
and I'm contemplating installing another copy of XP on it.
The reason for this is that HP is implementing more stringent
security requirements (including a USB key) for connecting
home PCs to the corporate network, and I'd rather keep my
personal setup separate from the corporate one. That way,
I can use the corporate licenses for Office, etc., and install
all of the required security software to keep the IT folks happy,
while not disrupting my own security software (which I believe
are equal to or better than the IT supported ones, but they're
not approved for corporate use) or giving anyone on the
company network access to anything on my personal drive.
I only need occasional access from home, so I can't justify
getting a company-issued system for that purpose.

Questions:

1. Can I legitimately install a fresh copy of XP on the other drive,
without having to buy an additional license or some such?

It depends on what you mean by "legitimately". Microsoft
feels that it is a violation of its End User Licensing Agreement
(EULA), although it has not ever tried to prosecute anyone
for having more than one installation of the same OS in one
computer. Whether it would be successrul in such a hypothetical
prosecution is a matter for debate.

2. What impact will this have on product activation?

If you're willing to lie, none.

3. Can I keep the two installations of XP completely ignorant
of each other? I.e., when I boot the drive intended to access
the corporate network, I don't want it to even recognize the
drive devoted to the personal side of my system, and vice-versa.

Yes. The objective is to selectively make one of the OSes
invisible by making its partition invisible. If you have the 2
OSes on different hard drives, put a toggle switch on the power
cable of each hard drive, and with the PC's power OFF, you
can toggle the switches so that only one or the other hard drive
gets power when the PC starts. This will require that each OS's
partition has its own boot.ini, ntldr, and ntdetect.com files and
that the partition on which they each reside is marked "active".
These conditions are satisfied by default if the OSs' partitions
are the only partitions on their respective hard drives, and if
they were installed without the other being visible during the
installation process.

In my PC, I use DPDT toggle switches wired as DPST (double
pole, single throw). The 12v and 5v (red and yellow) wires run
from a female molex connector to/from the switch and then on
to the hard drive's power connector. The two "drain" wires (black)
run straight to the power connector. To keep things neat, I used
4-conductor cable for the two runs. The switches byGC Electronics,
part no. 35-010, rated at 5A @ 28VDC. The dimensions are
1/2" x 1/2" body, 5/8" depth, needing a 1/4" diam. hole panel hole
and 1/2" clearance above the panel for the actuating arm. I found
a convenient series of 1/4" square holes in the front of my PC's
metal chassis under the plastic bezel to mount the switches, and
I actuate them with a bent paperclip stuck in through a vent hole
in the bezel.

Another way you might try (which I haven't tried), is to use Parition
Magic to "hide" the other partition. Tell me if this works.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Mike Lease]

Not without violating the EULA. It specifies the installation of a
single copy on a single computer. (I don't agree with this limitation,
personally, but that is what the EULA clearly says.)

Yeah, that's why I specified "legitimately"; I wasn't sure whether it
would be kosher (been a while since I looked at the EULA). Since it's
not, it appears I need to find another solution.

Thanks!

-Mike

 

[Jeff Reid]

1. Can I legitimately install a fresh copy of XP on the other drive, without having to buy an additional license or some such?

This is done all the time, for example, one common usage of this is
to be able to backup the XP partition itself, which otherwise couldn't
be done. Borland was one of the few companies to state their license
agreements correctly (from a legal standpoint), comparing the purchase
of software to the purchase of a book. As long as you're not
running two or more copies of a software package at the same time,
you're not violating any copywright laws.

EULA's are usually worthless anyway, as they can't be considered legally
binding unless they are clearly referenced or written on the external
packaging. The key here is that any aggreements have to be clearly
known at the time of purchase, since the purchase is consider the
consumation of a contract. Anything contained within the packaging
of a product doesn't count, unless it's made clear that you need
to open the package and inspect it at the time of purchase.

EULA's can't supercede consumer / copywright laws either.

Some links:

http://www.badsoftware.com/

http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/faq/a/eula.htm

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/news/5151944.htm

2. What impact will this have on product activation?

None. In the old days, product activation used the serial number of
the C:\ partition to determine if software was installed on a
different system. Pentium serial numbers could also be used.
In the case of XP pro, it appears that it's just a counter. I've
upgraded or replaced my computer several times and have had
to call in to activate my product only a couple of times. I didn't get
any flack from the person doing the activation once I explained
I was just upgrading or replacing an existing system.

3. Can I keep the two installations of XP completely ignorant of each other? I.e., when I boot the drive intended to access the
corporate network, I don't want it to even recognize the drive devoted to the personal side of my system, and vice-versa.

Unless you're using external drives, a power switch, or similar solution,
the systmes will be able to access the other partitions. I personally
would want it this way so I could easily back up the XP partition itself.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

[.......] I'd rather keep my personal setup separate from the
corporate one....
...Can I keep the two installations of XP completely ignorant
of each other?

Another method that I use is called a "caddy" or removable
"tray" or "drawer" for one of the hard drives. You can have
as many "trays" as you want, each with a hard drive and
anything on the hard drive that you want - data partitions
and/or OS partitions. I use the Kingwin product which they
call an IDE Mobile Rack:
http://kingwin.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=&CateID=25&ID=136

It has a fan built into the base of the tray which keeps my
Maxtor 7200rpm DiamondMax Plus 9 hard drive cooler
than body temperature - pretty darn cool. You can buy the
tray/rack pair for $20 to $24 on the web, and extra trays for
$10 to $12.

You can remove the tray and substitute another one to
change the system's hard drive. The only downside is
that you need a spare 5 1/2 inch drive bay to install it.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Jeff Reid]

1. Can I legitimately install a fresh copy of XP on the other drive,

without having to buy an additional license or some such?

BTW, I haver a friend with XP installed twice on the same system.
He's called tech support at Microsoft and they said this was OK
as long as it was the same system.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

BTW, I haver a friend with XP installed twice on the same system.
He's called tech support at Microsoft and they said this was OK
as long as it was the same system.

<LOL!> The tech support rep would probably lose his job
if this were reported to Microsoft. Microsoft takes its EULA
very seriously, and rightly or wrongly, it maintains that only one
installation can exist *anywhere* for a single license. Just
ask the MVPs, one of whom called me a "scumbag" for
expressing an opinion that mutliple copies in the SAME
MACHINE were OK legally despite Microsoft's position
that it violated copyright law. Now whether the MVPs
*really* believe that is another matter...

*TimDaniels*

 

[Jeff Reid]

Microsoft takes its EULA

very seriously, and rightly or wrongly, it maintains that only one
installation can exist *anywhere* for a single license. Just
ask the MVPs, one of whom called me a "scumbag" for
expressing an opinion that mutliple copies in the SAME
MACHINE were OK legally despite Microsoft's position
that it violated copyright law. Now whether the MVPs
*really* believe that is another matter...

It doesn't violate copywright law, and I'm not aware of
any EULA buried inside a software package that stood up in any
court. We'll see how that lady does with her lawsuit against
Microsoft, other software companies, Best Buy and other stores
(this over the conflicting policy that if a purchaser doesn't
agree with the buried EULA inside a software package, they're
supposed to return it, but Best Buy won't do returns on opened
software). I've had some run-ins with Best Buy myself with
defective software (not bad media, but bad software that
did not peform as described by it's packaging), fortunately
I eventually would encounter a sane customer service manager
who gave me a refund.

Borland seems to have the only reasonable EULA, which they
call their "no-nonsense" agreement, which they compared to a book.

A musical cd-rom is a better example. You're not allowed to give
copies of the music to friends, but you can take your cd-rom
anywhere you want and play it. The key point being that you
are not playing more than one instance of the music on the
cd-rom at the same time.

As long as your PC system doesn't enable you to run multiple
copies of XP at the same time, then there shouldn't be a
problem with having XP installed on multiple partitions
on a single system.

Regarding the legal aspect, how could a software company prove
that a specific software package even had a EULA pamphlet
or sticker inside of it?

My understanding is that all binding agreements in these situations
have to be made before or at the time of purchase, not afterwards
when the user opens up a package. It's reasonable to expect some
users to not read anything inside a software package.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Borland seems to have the only reasonable EULA,
which they call their "no-nonsense" agreement, which
they compared to a book.

A musical cd-rom is a better example. You're not
allowed to give copies of the music to friends, but
you can take your cd-rom anywhere you want and
play it. The key point being that you are not playing
more than one instance of the music on the cd-rom
at the same time.

As long as your PC system doesn't enable you to run
multiple copies of XP at the same time, then there
shouldn't be a problem with having XP installed on
multiple partitions on a single system.

That is my view entirely, and I practice it. OTOH, I
also believe in the protection of intellectual property
rights, so I am against making copies to give to
friends or to sell to the public, and you probably agree
with that, too. What I think Microsoft is worried about
is the possibility of a sever loading a single OS to each
PC in a LAN without a multiple license, and it refuses to
budge on its stance that multiple copies are a violation
of Natural Law! <thunder, rumble>, <rattle, rattle>.


*TimDaniels*

 

[Bruce Chambers]

EULA's are usually worthless anyway, as they can't be considered legally
binding unless they are clearly referenced or written on the external
packaging. The key here is that any aggreements have to be clearly
known at the time of purchase, since the purchase is consider the
consumation of a contract. Anything contained within the packaging
of a product doesn't count, unless it's made clear that you need
to open the package and inspect it at the time of purchase.

That's completely wrong, at least in the United States. A federal
appeals court ruled long ago that software EULAs in general are binding
contracts under the Uniform Commercial Code. And the general terms of
WinXP's EULA are displayed on the box, anyway, not that the law requires
this.


Procd, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

It doesn't violate copywright law, and I'm not aware of
any EULA buried inside a software package that stood up in any
court.

Actually, I've only ever heard of one EULA ever having been found in
violation of the law. The rest remain binding contracts until
specifically and separately found to be invalid.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Jeff Reid]

As long as your PC system doesn't enable you to run

That is my view entirely, and I practice it. OTOH, I
also believe in the protection of intellectual property
rights, so I am against making copies to give to
friends or to sell to the public, and you probably agree
with that, too.
What I think Microsoft is worried about
is the possibility of a sever loading a single OS to each
PC in a LAN without a multiple license, and it refuses to
budge on its stance that multiple copies are a violation
of Natural Law!

Yes I agree with this, this would be the case of being able
to run multiple copies of XP, even if on a single box.

 

[Jeff Reid]

EULA's are usually worthless anyway, as they can't be considered legally

That's completely wrong, at least in the United States. A federal appeals court ruled long ago that software EULAs in general are
binding contracts under the Uniform Commercial Code. And the general terms of WinXP's EULA are displayed on the box, anyway, not
that the law requires this.

It depends on how the EULA is presented to the consumer. If it's buried
on the back page of some pamphlet, and no mention of it is made anywhere
else, it won't stand up. The stickers attached to bags or cd-roms aren't
a good idea because you can't prove there every package shipped had
one of these sticker attached, especially if some store (like Fry's)
accepts returns of opened software and then just reseals them and puts
them back on the shelf for sale, possibly missing any EULA agreement
within the package (it's definately gone if it was a sticker, as
Fry's reseals the stuff).

EULA's can't supercede existing copywright or consumer laws. They
can't take away the right to get a refund if the product is defective
(doensn't perform as stated on the package). Many states also allow
you to get a refund for incidental damages, like the cost of shipping
when returning a product. Consequential damages (damage caused by
trying to use the product) are the toughest to get money back for.

My personal experience was with a version of Turbo Tax that didn't
run on Windows NT (previous and follow year versions worked just fine).
Intuit refunded my money for both the purchase and the cost of shipping
(although I had to send requests to two different addresses).

One of the issues being brought up in that lawsuit I mentioned is the
hidden clause and catch 22 aspect of many EULA's. You don't find out
about these until after the purchase. In addition, many stores won't
refund your money after you find out because it's "opened software".

 

[Jeff Reid]

It doesn't violate copywright law, and I'm not aware of

Actually, I've only ever heard of one EULA ever having been found in violation of the law. The rest remain binding contracts
until specifically and separately found to be invalid.

EULA's that go beyond copywright laws, like stating you can't sell
the software to any person (assuming you've deleted any copy of
the software you had before the time of sale), will be troublesome
to enforce. In most of the cases I'm aware of where severe restrctions
are imposed with the purchase of a software product (like a floating
license), a signed contract is involved. Ovbiously the software
makers in these cases feel that passive EULAs are inadequate.

EULA's can't violate consumer laws.

EULA's that claim the software doesn't have to work (not fit for
purpose), violate fraud laws. The software has to work as described
by the packaging on the box, and without causing damage. The example
here is that you buy a toaster, but after you open it up, there's a
disclaimer that the toaster is for decorative purposes only, and not
guaranteed to operate at all or not cause damage, and it turns out
that the toaster isn't going to work, would cause a fire, or
electricute the user. In this case the consumer would be entitled
to a refund, even if the package was opened. If it turns out that
the design of the product was likely to cause damage, and did
cause damage, there would be grounds for a lawsuit.

Although technically not a EULA, store policies that violate
consumer laws (like no refund policies) are a similar example.
Toys R Us (in England I think) just lost a lawsuit over this.
There are pendig lawsuits over these store policies world wide.

And there's that pending catch-22 lawsuit over the conflict between
EULA's contained in software packages and stores that won't refund
money on opened software.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

It depends on how the EULA is presented to the consumer.If it's buried
on the back page of some pamphlet, and no mention of it is made anywhere
else, it won't stand up.

Not really. Read the court decision I cited.

EULA's can't supercede existing copywright or consumer laws.

Granted. Name a single EULA that has been found in violation of
copyright law. Even better, cite a single court case that's found the
Microsoft OS EULA to be invalid.

You didn't even bother to read the U.S. Appeals court decision, did you?

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

EULA's that go beyond copywright laws,

EULA's can't violate consumer laws.

Obviously and granted. Please name a EULA that does so. (Not that it
matters, if it's not WinXP's EULA, as that's the only one that matters
in this discussion.)

EULA's that claim the software doesn't have to work (not fit for
purpose), violate fraud laws. The software has to work as described
by the packaging on the box, and without causing damage.

Again, granted. Was there a point to repeating the obvious?

Although technically not a EULA, store policies that violate
consumer laws (like no refund policies) are a similar example.
Toys R Us (in England I think) just lost a lawsuit over this.
There are pendig lawsuits over these store policies world wide.

So why raise the issue? Store policies aren't even under discussion.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Jeff Reid]

EULA's can't violate consumer laws.

Obviously and granted. Please name a EULA that does so.

It was a game, Electronic Art's initial batch of
Need for Speed Underground. It included the clause that
the media was warranted, but not the software, and that
the software was being sold "as is", not guaranteed to
be "fit for purpose".

Someone in the legal department must have caught this,
as is no longer included in the current release.

To include a statement that the software won't peform the
function that the packaging indicates what the software
will do is borderline fraud.

"As is" clauses need to be clearly stated at the time
of purchase, not inside the packaging. With a clause like
this, a software company could just ship empty boxes.

 

[Jeff Reid]

It depends on how the EULA is presented to the consumer.If it's buried

Not really. Read the court decision I cited.

I did. The argument made in that case was based on the fact that the
consumer was aware of the EULA and chose to ignore it. Also, the
EULA was displayed on the screen during installation.

The point I'm making about EULA's is that if it's buried in the middle
of some text on some page on one of many pamphlets, say the trouble
shooting pamphlet, maybe in the middle of a foreign language section,
that a typical consumer would not be aware of the existance of the EULA.

Unless the EULA is conspicuous enough that a typical consumer would
be aware of it's existance, then it's worthless. If it's too difficult
to read for the average consumer, it's also worthless.

A related issue being brought up in the court case I mentioned, is if
the consumer doesn't agree with a EULA, he/she can't return it and get
a refund, because the software companies have asked the stores not
to accept returns of opened software. Assuming that the software
vendor will handle the refund, the consumer is out the cost of
shipping, so harm has been done, as most companies avoid paying
for incidental damages (Intuit being one of the good exceptions
here), in spite of the fact that the UCC states they have to.

In other cases the software vendor won't do a refund, but
will exchange a sealed box for an open box. With Best Buy
this doesn't do you any good, because they only will do the refund
if the box has their serial number on it.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I did. The argument made in that case was based on the fact that the
consumer was aware of the EULA and chose to ignore it. Also, the
EULA was displayed on the screen during installation.

As is WinXP's EULA. So why carry on about other EULAs that may or may
not be relevant to this discussion.

The point I'm making about EULA's is that if it's buried in the middle
of some text on some page on one of many pamphlets, say the trouble
shooting pamphlet, maybe in the middle of a foreign language section,
that a typical consumer would not be aware of the existance of the EULA.

Unless the EULA is conspicuous enough that a typical consumer would
be aware of it's existance, then it's worthless.

"Worthless" in your opinion, but not in the eyes of the law, as plainly
stated in the court's decision. To whit:

"Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication
of detailed terms are common. Consider the purchase of insurance. The
buyer goes to an agent, who explains the essentials (amount of coverage,
number of years) and remits the premium to the home office, which sends
back a policy. On the district judge's understanding, the terms of the
policy are irrelevant because the insured paid before receiving them.
Yet the device of payment, often with a "binder" (so that the insurance
takes effect immediately even though the home office reserves the right
to withdraw coverage later), in advance of the policy, serves buyers'
interests by accelerating effectiveness and reducing transactions costs.
Or consider the purchase of an airline ticket. The traveler calls the
carrier or an agent, is quoted a price, reserves a seat, pays, and gets
a ticket, in that order. The ticket contains elaborate terms, which the
traveler can reject by canceling the reservation. To use the ticket is
to accept the terms, even terms that in retrospect are disadvantageous.
..... Just so with a ticket to a concert. The back of the ticket states
that the patron promises not to record the concert; to attend is to
agree. A theater that detects a violation will confiscate the tape and
escort the violator to the exit.
"Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set
visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a
leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is
the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By
Zeidenberg's lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every
consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the
contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards
warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of
ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the
inside. The package insert describes drug interactions,
contraindications, and other vital information--but, if Zeidenberg is
right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not
part of the contract."

What it boils down to, in essence, is that consumers are expected to be
mature and sensible enough to do a little thing called "product
research" _before_ making a purchase, and should be held responsible for
the consequences of their own conscious decisions.

Of course, as you seem to be writing from the U.K., some of the laws
are going to be different. Consult a local barrister well-versed in
copyright and contract law for a reading more applicable to your locale.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH