Install 2nd copy of XP on same computer?

[Jeff Reid]

from the UK

No I'm from the USA. I only mentioned the UK because that was
the first lawsuit to complete against posted store policies.

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.

I agree, but when's the last time you read every bit of text that came
with a piece of software? Also there's the catch 22 lawsuit about not
being able to return software after reading a EULA, because stores
won't accept returns of opened software.

Getting back on topic. If there are multiple XP's on a single system,
but there can only be one instance of any of them running at any time,
does this really violate the EULA? What if a utility to disable the
non-running XP's were used?

Microsoft's knowledge base includes articles on slipstreaming service
packs and XP, and burn them onto a cd-rom. Is this violating their
own EULA?

I purchased Visual Studio .Net, and had to install some utilities
onto a 2nd computer in order to be able to do remote debugging.
TCP-IP worked, but not DCOM. A Microsoft support technician stated
I could install the entier .Net onto the 2nd computer without
violating the EULA in order to get the DCOM to work. I didn't bother
as the TCP-IP was working after a downloaded patch and some registry
fixes and the DCOM thing was more of an issue to the support person
than myself.

and in case you're wondering each system has its own legal copy of
XP or 2000 on it (all of them full verions, not upgrades).

 

[Bruce Chambers]

No I'm from the USA. I only mentioned the UK because that was
the first lawsuit to complete against posted store policies.

Ah. My misunderstanding, then. Thanks for setting me straight.

I agree, but when's the last time you read every bit of text that came
with a piece of software?

The last time I purchased a software license, of course. But I'll
concede that most people are too lazy to do so. I've no sympathy for
them, though. "Caveat emptor" isn't a new concept.

Also there's the catch 22 lawsuit about not
being able to return software after reading a EULA, because stores
won't accept returns of opened software.

Many stores won't, but usually the software manufacturer has some sort
of refund mechanism in place. Frankly, I don't think they need take
this step. It's not as if the EULAs were some big conspiracy; the
information is usually freely available to anyone who takes the time to
do a little product research. Again, I've no sympathy for people who
mindlessly rush out and buy the "newest and shiniest" without making any
effort to determine if the product and its condition for use meets their
needs and desires _before_ making the purchase.

Getting back on topic. If there are multiple XP's on a single system,
but there can only be one instance of any of them running at any time,
does this really violate the EULA?

Yes, it does really violates the EULA because the EULA explicitly
states 'You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the
Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
device("Workstation Computer").' It also says this on the outside of
every retail package I've ever seen. As I've said, I don't necessarily
agree with or like this limitation, but that is what is says. The WinXP
EULA, until a court of law specifically finds otherwise, is a binding
contract under the law in the United States, where I live. (Not the I
need the "force of law" to adhere to an agreement into which I've freely
entered. To do otherwise would be reprehensible.)

Microsoft's knowledge base includes articles on slipstreaming service
packs and XP, and burn them onto a cd-rom. Is this violating their
own EULA?

How could creating a slip-streamed installation CD be possibly
construed as a violation of the EULA? No second installation occurs.

I purchased Visual Studio .Net, and had to install some utilities
onto a 2nd computer in order to be able to do remote debugging.
TCP-IP worked, but not DCOM. A Microsoft support technician stated
I could install the entier .Net onto the 2nd computer without
violating the EULA in order to get the DCOM to work.

I don't see how this applies. What am I missing? Different products
can easily have different EULAs; it's not a one size fits all situation.
Even retail licenses of Office (and many other Microsoft products)
permit the installation onto one desktop computer and one portable
computer, provided that the license owner is the primary user of both
machines.


--

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]

Getting back on topic. If there are multiple XP's on a single system,

Yes, it does really violates the EULA because the EULA explicitly states 'You may install, use, access, display and run one copy
of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device("Workstation Computer").'

If this is the actual wording, it's poorly written, as it's not
"exclusionary" explaining what you can't do. Should have included
words like "only ... you may only install one...".

How do you "display" an abstact entity like software? How do
you "access" the software without running it? How can you run
software on a "terminal"? Is backing up the software a violaition,
as this could be considered "accessing" it?

I had replaced my main computer with a new one and reformatted
the old one uninstall XP from the old system. Then I installed
XP this new computer (a second computer) When I did this
I've called up the activation phone number and they indicated
this was OK (as long as I had removed XP from the old one).
But is this really ok with the EULA?

 

[Jeff Reid]

Also there's the catch 22 lawsuit about not

Many stores won't, but usually the software manufacturer has some sort of refund mechanism in place. Frankly, I don't think they
need take this step. It's not as if the EULAs were some big conspiracy; the information is usually freely available to anyone who
takes the time to do a little product research. Again, I've no sympathy for people who mindlessly rush out and buy the "newest
and shiniest" without making any effort to determine if the product and its condition for use meets their needs and desires
_before_ making the purchase.

As mentioned, Electron Arts will not refund money. Technically they are
correct. The contract was consumated at the place of purchase. The
store is legally required by the UCC to do the refund in the case of
defective software. I don't if this applies to EULAs that the user doesn't
agree with, but generally, if the terms are unacceptable, the consumer
should be "restored to the state he/she was in before the purchase",
according to UCC, which means refunded his/her money and any incedental
costs (like shipping costs if a product was purchased online).

I bought Microsoft Plus! for XP which turned out to be borderline
fraud. I paid $30 for a cd-rom that only had demo versions of software
on it. You were prompted to go to various sites and pay more money
to get the full versions of the software that was on the Plus!
cd-rom. The packaging never indicated that only demos were included
on the cd-rom.

(Not the I need the "force of law" to adhere to an agreement into
which I've freely entered. To do otherwise would be reprehensible.

So in your opinion, everone who has installed a 2nd copy of XP onto
a system solely for the purpose of backing up the primary copy of the
XP partition is reprehensible? This seems like a reasonable usage
of the product.

How could creating a slip-streamed installation CD be possibly construed as a violation of the EULA? No second installation
occurs.

Because a second "access" is occuring, and techinally you're installing
XP and the service packs into a folder, and ultimately onto a cd-rom,
all of which could be considered "devices". During the process,
the folder window is "displaying" the product.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

If this is the actual wording, it's poorly written, as it's not
"exclusionary" explaining what you can't do. Should have included
words like "only ... you may only install one...".

It's pretty clear to anyone with a better than 8th-grade reading
comprehension.

How do you "display" an abstact entity like software? How do
you "access" the software without running it? How can you run
software on a "terminal"? Is backing up the software a violaition,
as this could be considered "accessing" it?

By installing it, obviously.

I had replaced my main computer with a new one and reformatted
the old one uninstall XP from the old system. Then I installed
XP this new computer (a second computer) When I did this
I've called up the activation phone number and they indicated
this was OK (as long as I had removed XP from the old one).
But is this really ok with the EULA?

Assuming a retail license, certainly it's OK. Only an OEM license is
non-transferable to a new computer. The two EULAs are different.


--

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]

So in your opinion, everone who has installed a 2nd copy of XP onto
a system solely for the purpose of backing up the primary copy of the
XP partition is reprehensible?

There's absolutely no need to perform a second installation to back-up
an OS. Only data need be backed up. And I consider anyone who reneges
on a contract or lies for personal gain as reprehensible.

This seems like a reasonable usage
of the product.

How so? Name one technical reason that a complete second installation
would be a legitimate back-up strategy.

Because a second "access" is occuring, and techinally you're installing
XP and the service packs into a folder,

No, you're not performing an installation, merely copying the files.




--

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

 

[Tom]

There's absolutely no need to perform a second installation to back-up
an OS. Only data need be backed up. And I consider anyone who reneges
on a contract or lies for personal gain as reprehensible.


How so? Name one technical reason that a complete second installation
would be a legitimate back-up strategy.

Like Beta testing for the benefit of the software creators. Do you have to separately purchased versions of XP to do beta testing?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Like Beta testing for the benefit of the software creators. Do you have to separately purchased versions of XP to do beta testing?

A second installation isn't necessary for that; all that's needed is
drive imaging software to restore the system to its pre-test state.
Additionally, professional software developers normally have a
subscription to MSDN, whose licensing allows up to 10 simultaneous
installations.

--

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]

How so? Name one technical reason that a complete second installation would be a legitimate back-up strategy.

The OS partition can't be backed up because some of it's files are active
and locked. One of the reasons for backups is a quick restore that doesn't
require the need to re-install an OS, re-download and install drivers,
service packs, updates, etc.

If a second copy of XP is installed, then it can be used to back up the
entire main XP partition. In addition to the backup functionality,
this allows the main partition to be copied, compared, formatted,
and copied back to for a extremely clean defragmentation of the system.

If you suspect a virus or corruption has occured, the OS partition
can be compared with it's backup partition (using a utility like
windiff) to see if files have changed that shouldn't have.

In addition to the backup strategy, if the main system gets
corrupted, the back up OS can be used to access and save any data.

Sometimes XP creates performance files in the temp directory that
can't be removed unless you use another system to accomplish this.

Personally I own both Windows 2000 and XP (full versions not upgrades),
so I use 2000 to back up the OS partition. I use XP to back up
all the other partitions on my hard drives. So this doesn't really
affect me, but I'm aware that it's common practice for computer
savy consumers to install a backup copy of XP (or any OS) to
be able to back up the OS partition. I've seen it recommended
on several web sites.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Like Beta testing for the benefit of the software creators.

A second installation isn't necessary for that; all that's needed is drive imaging software to restore the system to its pre-test
state.

Wouldn't that image be considered as a second installation of XP?

 

[Jeff Reid]

If this is the actual wording, it's poorly written, as it's not

It's pretty clear to anyone with a better than 8th-grade reading comprehension.

So if a consumer with less than an 8th grade reading comprehesion
purchases XP, they're not liable for violating the EULA?

Also legal documents normally require precise inclusions and
exclusions.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Consult a lawyer specializing in software licensing and contact Microsoft
legal for the legal interpretations you seem to want.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Unless the EULA is conspicuous enough that a typical consumer would

"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..."

That was one particular descision by one court. The previous court had
decided the other way, and a future court could also interpret this
differently.

Yes but there are examples where there are law requiring conspicuous
warnings of restrictions on purchases.

Stores have to make their return policies clear. Car dealers are required to
place very conspicuous "as-is" warnings on cars that do not have warrantys.
They are also required to post obvious signs that state that there is no
cooling off period. Security funds have to include disclaimers about the
risks involved.

Has Microsoft ever filed a claim against a consumer for installing a second
backup copy for any of it's retail software packages?

Despite the courts decision, what actual law (from the legistlative branch)
actually validates EULA's in all their forms (stickers, pamphlets)?
I'm aware that there attempts to pass such laws through congress, but
last I read, this hasn't happened.

 

[Jeff Reid]

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

Not just my opinion, here's a link to a conflicting court decision:

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/hague-jur-commercial-law/2001-November/000364.html

 

[Jeff Reid]

Consult a lawyer specializing in software licensing and contact Microsoft legal for the legal interpretations you seem to want.

I have a co-worker who knows such a lawyer, and in that lawyers opinion,
the EULA situation will need to be fixed. As it stands, a few lawsuits
are invalidating EULA, here's a link to an example, involving unbundling
and resell of commercial software package, which is a lot more of an issue
than an end user installing a backup copy of XP:

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/hague-jur-commercial-law/2001-November/000364.html

There's also that pending lawsuit concerning that womand regarding the
catch-22 situation that you can't return "opened" software, which you have
to do in order to read the EULA.

 

[Jeff Reid]

I did. The argument made in that case was based on the fact that the

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

The case regarding Microsoft's EULA's (and two other companies) and
Best Buy's, Comp-Usa, and Staples no return on opened software policies
was settled. The link is below. The defendants paid $465,000
in legal fees, the stores agreed to accept returns if consumers don't
agree with the EULA's, the software companies agreed to post their
EULA's on web sites, the EULA's are also to be made available at the
stores (either a computer at the store or hard copy), and the stores
are required to provide the consumer the EULA information if
the customer asks.

http://www.techfirm.com/bakeragreement.pdf

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But you can return Microsoft software within 30 days opened or not. (North
America)
So the catch 22 you mentioned does not apply to Microsoft software in North
America.
Perhaps your friend needs to be re-educated to become current.
What else did your friend miss?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

But you can return Microsoft software...see my other post.

 

[Jeff Reid]

But you can return Microsoft software...see my other post.

Now yes, but before that lawsuit was settled, Best Buy was
refusing to refund money on any opened software, even if
it was defective software.

Plus there continues to be conflicting court decisions
regarding EULA's. Only a few states have actually passed
laws regarding EULA's. The federal viewpoint is that it's
a state issue (probably just ducking on this one).

 

[Jeff Reid]

But you can return Microsoft software within 30 days opened or not. (North America)

So the catch 22 you mentioned does not apply to Microsoft software in North America.

Who pays the shipping in this case? According to UCC, the consumer is supposed
to be re-imbursed for incidental damages as well (cost of shipping). The only
software company that I'm aware of that will pay for the shipping is Intuit.
They're also one of the few software vendors that offers a satisfaction
guarantee on their products.