Installing new motherboard

[Tom]

To disagree is one thing, to actively tell people to subvert or to
actively go against the agreement is another thing entirely.

Where did I tell others to do that? This is just hyperbole on your part, to
mask what you won't provide or prove, other than you unreal interpreations
that are not mentioned in the ACTUAL EULA during the install.

This quote from the site (listed above) clearly states that changing the
motherboard invalidates the license (except for a repair):

Where does this say that in the EULA, you miss the effin' point that I
agreed to the EULA, not something that is far and away. If this was really
the point, then why not just state that in the EULA. This is one of ways MS
gets people suckered into buying, changing things into their (monetary)
favor, by doing the things you say are binding, when that isn't the
agreement that was clicked on during the install.

You can't disagree with what they say or how it applies to the OEM
products, you can disagree with following it, but the simple fact is that
it's quite clear - this is the only position I have on this subject. I've
not said I approve or disapprove with their rule/license, only that it's
quite clear on the licensing part for OEM installations.

You said specifically from the get-go, that the MOBO dies, the OEM license
dies with it, and that is what the EULA means according to another source
not directly listed in the EULA, or referenced as fact on the EULA itself.
this means that the contract I agreed to is the one enforce, not a web site,
where it could state anything it wants, as to make them more money, or
whatever. The EULA needs to state what you say the website states. One
cannot install an OEM license, then to click the "I agree to blah blah blah
terms" radio button as an agreement, only to say that a website one visits
using the browser from the agreed to, installed OS is the real deal. Those
are your words, not those listed in the EULA, and you have yet to show where
it says that in the EULA.

 

[Tom]

No, you agreed to the EULA and any changes they may make - see the site
for the changes. As for OEM, if your VAR didn't tell you that's not an
excuse. It's clearly on the MS site concerning OEM installs - Heck, you
can't even claim ignorance since you've already been told about it, you
can only claim stupidity or greed.

It has nothing to do with greed or me having stupidity, i am making very god
sense, and you avoid answering the question of where it states blah blah
regarding MOBO in the EULA, you avoided it so far by foisting terms to mean
what a website states. To me, that is greed on MS, and stupidity on your
part.

Again, show me in the EULA, where it states that these changes (MOBO) are
enforce as stated through the OEM websites, after agreeing to the terms. It
is no where in the EULA, it states nothing about the MOBO in any way shape
or form. You have already had a few MVPs here tell you that you are wrong,
and that it doesn't read that way. Mike is not the end all interpreter of
the agreement, as many will disagree with him. I agree to the terms granted
in the EULA (whether I feel aspects of those terms are fair is totally
another topic). But as discussed, there is no mention of the definite piece
of hardware called the "Motherboard", that says when it is no longer useful,
that the license also is no longer valid with it.

 

[Leythos]

You said specifically from the get-go, that the MOBO dies, the OEM license
dies with it, and that is what the EULA means according to another source
not directly listed in the EULA, or referenced as fact on the EULA itself.
this means that the contract I agreed to is the one enforce, not a web site,
where it could state anything it wants, as to make them more money, or
whatever. The EULA needs to state what you say the website states. One
cannot install an OEM license, then to click the "I agree to blah blah blah
terms" radio button as an agreement, only to say that a website one visits
using the browser from the agreed to, installed OS is the real deal. Those
are your words, not those listed in the EULA, and you have yet to show where
it says that in the EULA.

MS clearly states that it may only be installed on ONE COMPUTER. To
determine what MS defines as "Computer" you need to read their site.
Unless you read their site you do not understand what they define as
COMPUTER. You should try a little harder to follow the path to learn
something, you can't claim ignorance if you've really read it. Your only
point is in disagreeing with MS's definition of Computer - which they say
is defined as the motherboard - except to repair a faulty motherboard, the
OEM license dies with the original motherboard.

Maybe you can understand it now - but I doubt it.

 

[Leythos]

Again, show me in the EULA, where it states that these changes (MOBO) are
enforce as stated through the OEM websites, after agreeing to the terms. It
is no where in the EULA, it states nothing about the MOBO in any way shape
or form. You have already had a few MVPs here tell you that you are wrong,
and that it doesn't read that way. Mike is not the end all interpreter of
the agreement, as many will disagree with him. I agree to the terms granted
in the EULA (whether I feel aspects of those terms are fair is totally
another topic). But as discussed, there is no mention of the definite piece
of hardware called the "Motherboard", that says when it is no longer useful,
that the license also is no longer valid with it.

Take a look at the EULA, does it state that you may install on one
computer? Now, take a look at the MS website where it tells you how MS
defines "computer" - really simple.

As for MVP, as I recall, only one has said they disagree with MS not
stating it in the EULA, none have said I'm wrong - the EULA says it's tied
to one computer, a computer is defined as a motherboard, and unless you
are replacing the motherboard as part of a repair action on the
motherboard, any changing of it violates the OEM licensing agreement.

 

[Tom]

MS clearly states that it may only be installed on ONE COMPUTER. To
determine what MS defines as "Computer" you need to read their site.
Unless you read their site you do not understand what they define as
COMPUTER. You should try a little harder to follow the path to learn
something, you can't claim ignorance if you've really read it. Your only
point is in disagreeing with MS's definition of Computer - which they say
is defined as the motherboard - except to repair a faulty motherboard, the
OEM license dies with the original motherboard.

Maybe you can understand it now - but I doubt it.

There is no understanding on your part, as you are seeing words that are not
there, and most here have already pointed this out to you, yet you ignore
them. What a "computer" constitutes is up to the OEM. They can say that the
MOBO is dead, we don't support, it, but it says no where that you cannot
install another MOBO, even if it works, into that PC with the same OEM. This
is where you makes rules that are not there in the EULA. The sites simply
says that what OEMs are responsible for. But interestingly, if MS foist that
responsibility onto the OEM, and then the OEM says we wash our hands of it,
then MS can say not a effin' thing about where and how I use my OEM, it
would up to the reseller (OEM) to make due with my changes..

I have a Dell, if Dell says (if my warranty were up) that the MOBO is tied
to the disk, and they no longer have responsibility for it, and I get a new
MOBO that works, then I get to continue to use it. In my EULA, it states no
where that I cannot replace the MOBO with this OEM I have, nor does Dell say
so, other than no warranty. My EULA stills states,

"1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Manufacturer grants you the following
rights, provided you comply with all of the terms and
conditions of this EULA:
* Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly
provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access, display
and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER.
The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2) processors
at any one time on the COMPUTER"

How you get Computer to mean MOBO, is just another por MS spin on your part!

Case closed, until MS determines and writes a EULA that specifies with their
OEM resellers what hardware means what/when the OS dies with it. As stated,
it can be anything, or mean anything.

Did you ever take my advice about "looking out the window"?

 

[Tom]

Take a look at the EULA, does it state that you may install on one
computer? Now, take a look at the MS website where it tells you how MS
defines "computer" - really simple.

I am not disputing here about installing ONE PC !! Stay on topic, and stop
changing it up. We are talking about your MOBO and the EULA claim!

As for MVP, as I recall, only one has said they disagree with MS not
stating it in the EULA, none have said I'm wrong - the EULA says it's tied
to one computer, a computer is defined as a motherboard, and unless you
are replacing the motherboard as part of a repair action on the
motherboard, any changing of it violates the OEM licensing agreement.

So far, Bruce Chambers, and Ken Blake have made their stance to you in this
thread, and you need to read again what they said, they disagree with you,
especially Ken, since he states what I am stating regarding what the EULA
says. Alex Nichol (many times)during his tenure here, and not necessarily in
this thread.

You do not make an agreement, after installing the software, then abide by
terms on an MS website. Again, this is where your dense skull doesn't absorb
words. I agreed to the EULA, and is MS wants the COMPUTER to mean MOBO, or
WTF ever, then the EULA should state that. it would be terribly unfair to
the consumer that they agreed to the terms after the install, only to say
that isn't what it really entails. You also need to show IN THE EULA where
it says to visit said website for additional rules, where you may return the
product is you disagree with it.

 

[Tom]

In

LOL, I never replied to Leythos, and you are not wearing blinders, you are
just blind. LOL.

Well, then you must be an utter idiot for not following the thread, and
especially since I never asked if you replied to Lamethos. You jumped in
with Opinicus, I replied to your website claim to what OEM builders consider
to be the tie that binds the OEM OS, that being the motherboard. I contended
that my EULA makes no statement, and that it isn't tied to that, since the
agreement I clicked on doesn't say directly that the MOBO is that tie.

To have a person then have to abide by a site regardless og the actual
agreement that most would know nothing about would lose utterly in a court
of law. Now again Mike, you jumped in the fray making your MOBO claim with
the OEM builders site contention, I replied that the EULA makes no such
claim, now who is blind? I you want to resort to ad hominems, i'll abide,
but you don't do anything to prove that the EULA means MOBO in the actual
agreement. Tell me where in the EULA it says MOBO, and that is the tie, and
then 9if you can) trell me how it can really be enforced as the MOBO, since
the agreement I signed onto, doesn't have that wording.

 

[Leythos]

I agreed to the EULA, and is MS wants the COMPUTER to mean MOBO, or
WTF ever, then the EULA should state that.

Here is our problem - you don't understand or care what MS is calling the
COMPUTER - since any designer/developer knows that a computer is based on
the motherboard and not the case, drives, memory, video card, PSU,
keyboard or mouse, I can't believe that your ignorant enough to think it's
anything except the motherboard. Since the EULA states one computer how
can it mean anything else?

 

[Leythos]

Actually there's nothing new in this OEM announcement (not
EULA). MS's position on OEM installations is and has always
been that the OEM is the one who decides when the equipment
is no longer original. With this announcement, what MS has
done is give OEMs a justification for saying "I'm not going
to support this computer any more." That justification is a
motherboard that is not the same as the original one.

And I believe the clarification was to help OEM's with problem customers
that seem to think the mouse makes their computer a computer. As any
system builder know, the motherboard is the largest deciding factor in
what makes any system a computer. I would hate to build a system for a
customer based on a Single CPU P4/HT and have them change it to a AMD
based Dual CPU board and expect me to continue supporting them for free.

If an OEM doesn't want to support a computer that he's built
after the motherboard has been upgraded, he doesn't have to.

But that doesn't mean that he can't.

No one suggested that the OEM has to stop supporting the customer, but
it's clear that the OEM license becomes invalid at MS's discretion not the
OEM's.

 

[Leythos]

How you get Computer to mean MOBO, is just another por MS spin on your part!

Out of all you said this is the only important part - I got the definition
directly from the MS site where licensing information is provided - you
can to, unless you don't want to see how wrong you are.

 

[Leythos]

you don't do anything to prove that the EULA means MOBO in the actual
agreement.

Unless you can show me something from MS that indicates the Motherboard is
not considered the computer you are just flapping your lips for the fun of
it. All information I can find on the MS site clearly identifies their
definition of "Computer" as motherboard in licensing discussions.

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

Well, then you must be an utter idiot for not following the thread,
and especially since I never asked if you replied to Lamethos. You
jumped in with Opinicus, I replied to your website claim to what OEM
builders consider to be the tie that binds the OEM OS, that being the
motherboard. I contended that my EULA makes no statement, and that it
isn't tied to that, since the agreement I clicked on doesn't say
directly that the MOBO is that tie.
To have a person then have to abide by a site regardless og the actual
agreement that most would know nothing about would lose utterly in a
court of law. Now again Mike, you jumped in the fray making your MOBO
claim with the OEM builders site contention, I replied that the EULA
makes no such claim, now who is blind? I you want to resort to ad
hominems, i'll abide, but you don't do anything to prove that the
EULA means MOBO in the actual agreement. Tell me where in the EULA it
says MOBO, and that is the tie, and then 9if you can) trell me how it
can really be enforced as the MOBO, since the agreement I signed
onto, doesn't have that wording.

Tom,
Show me where I have claimed anything about the EULA, in fact with my first
post I say that a MB swap is routinely given a new activation. If you check
my web page, I make no assumption the information is the defining word on
the legalities of the EULA. It is information from the MS OEM system
builders and nothing else. You are completely misreading my posts. I am not
interested in the enforceability of the EULA, I am only concerned in helping
a user who feels they are in compliance get activated.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[Tom]

In

Tom,
Show me where I have claimed anything about the EULA, in fact with my
first post I say that a MB swap is routinely given a new activation. If
you check my web page, I make no assumption the information is the
defining word on the legalities of the EULA. It is information from the MS
OEM system builders and nothing else. You are completely misreading my
posts. I am not interested in the enforceability of the EULA, I am only
concerned in helping a user who feels they are in compliance get
activated.

And that's the point I tried to get you to accept that I was stating. I
wasn't disputing your reference to a site or yours reference period, rather
that the site says something the EULA doesn't state in certain words, and my
contention in this thread has been about EULA and website, this is where I
was trying to get through. I added that I agreed to the EULA, not the site
with Leythos, you then went on with the airport analogy, and me being blind
after I contended your post as placed meaning that I am wrong (if you read
it as your first response to me, that's what it seems like). As I stated
before, the EULA does not state anything specific, like the MOBO, where as
the OEM builders site does.

I only challenged that to what I agreed too, not to what you posted as to
add on to what those definitions mean after the fact of accepting the
agreement. The OEMs, and MS should make the EULA have more definition,
because as it stands now, MOBO means nothing, as that is not what I agreed
to.

I also noted this as you said below, this could have interesting
implications:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...sxp.general/msg/5933562470957c28?dmode=source

You sure about that? YOU are the one responsible for your support. Pretty
vague and gray area as far as I see it.

Again, I am not contending what you say, or what the site says, just what I
say what I agreed to, and what the site says. Other than that, I respect
your views here a great deal, as well as link your website to others seeking
help (not that I am looking for a one up with you, as much as just showing
respect).

 

[Tom]

Unless you can show me something from MS that indicates the Motherboard is
not considered the computer you are just flapping your lips for the fun of
it. All information I can find on the MS site clearly identifies their
definition of "Computer" as motherboard in licensing discussions.

Unless you show me that the EULA I agreed to as read, has the term
"motherboard' in it, then you are just simply flapping your ass cheeks,
fluttering wind that makes words mean other terms, but what else is new!

Tell me this, when I agree to the EULA, am I also sending info to the MS
website that I acknowledge their OEM system builders site also determines
the motherboard to be the Computer and HArdware, as part of that EULA?

I certainly don't see it listed in the EULA as part of that agreement.

 

[Tom]

Here is our problem - you don't understand or care what MS is calling the
COMPUTER - since any designer/developer knows that a computer is based on
the motherboard and not the case, drives, memory, video card, PSU,
keyboard or mouse, I can't believe that your ignorant enough to think it's
anything except the motherboard. Since the EULA states one computer how
can it mean anything else?

It can mean one Computer, that's fine, but not the just the MOBO. Suppose I
buy a PC tower, that has all the components for it except the MOBO, and
theOEM XP disk came with it. Now, I buy the MOBO, but it dies. Does that
disk die with it? hardly!!!

But here is your effin problem, it isn't a matter if it is MS or not, I
would say the same thing if it were regarding the contorted rules of any
software maker that implied such term usage. Your ethics are only based on
that anyone against MS is simply wrong, not that actually demanding that
terms have real definitions (without ambiguity) for the end user to abide
by.

 

[Leythos]

Unless you show me that the EULA I agreed to as read, has the term
"motherboard' in it, then you are just simply flapping your ass cheeks,
fluttering wind that makes words mean other terms, but what else is new!

Tell me this, when I agree to the EULA, am I also sending info to the MS
website that I acknowledge their OEM system builders site also determines
the motherboard to be the Computer and HArdware, as part of that EULA?

I certainly don't see it listed in the EULA as part of that agreement.

Now you're just playing word games - you agree that the EULA states
"Computer" but you don't agree that MS can define what it means by
"Computer"?

It would seem clear to me, a old time board designer, that the "Computer"
is the only part in the systems that is significant - the Motherboard.

How about this - please define what you consider "Computer" in your terms.

Since it's a word game with you I'll leave it as the EULA clearly states
Computer and that MS clearly defines Computer as being the Motherboard. If
you see how clear this is then I can't do anything else to help you
understand.

 

[Leythos]

It can mean one Computer, that's fine, but not the just the MOBO. Suppose I
buy a PC tower, that has all the components for it except the MOBO, and
theOEM XP disk came with it. Now, I buy the MOBO, but it dies. Does that
disk die with it? hardly!!!

If you buy a batch of "Parts" without a motherboard, it's not a computer.
If you then add a motherboard to the system, you've created a "Computer"
that after you agree, the license is attached too.

But here is your effin problem, it isn't a matter if it is MS or not, I
would say the same thing if it were regarding the contorted rules of any
software maker that implied such term usage. Your ethics are only based on
that anyone against MS is simply wrong, not that actually demanding that
terms have real definitions (without ambiguity) for the end user to abide
by.

No, not true at all. My problem is that you don't seem to want to believe
that a "Computer" is the motherboard in MS's definition and that you have
decided that even though you agreed to the "Computer" in the EULA, that
because you didn't get a CLEAR picture at the time, that you're not bound
to the EULA. Well, anyone that's built computers for any reasonable amount
of time knows that the motherboard is the deciding factor in what is a
particular computer system.

You can be against MS, I don't care about that, as long as your facts are
correct - hell, I use RedHat and browse with FireFox and use Evolution to
access my Exchange server. I have no love or hate of anything, I only care
about the factual part of the agreement in order to keep my clients legit
and licensed properly.

 

[Michael Stevens]

In

And that's the point I tried to get you to accept that I was stating.
I wasn't disputing your reference to a site or yours reference
period, rather that the site says something the EULA doesn't state in
certain words, and my contention in this thread has been about EULA
and website, this is where I was trying to get through. I added that
I agreed to the EULA, not the site with Leythos, you then went on
with the airport analogy, and me being blind after I contended your
post as placed meaning that I am wrong (if you read it as your first
response to me, that's what it seems like). As I stated before, the
EULA does not state anything specific, like the MOBO, where as the
OEM builders site does.
I only challenged that to what I agreed too, not to what you posted
as to add on to what those definitions mean after the fact of
accepting the agreement. The OEMs, and MS should make the EULA have
more definition, because as it stands now, MOBO means nothing, as
that is not what I agreed to.

I also noted this as you said below, this could have interesting
implications:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...sxp.general/msg/5933562470957c28?dmode=source



Again, I am not contending what you say, or what the site says, just
what I say what I agreed to, and what the site says. Other than that,
I respect your views here a great deal, as well as link your website
to others seeking help (not that I am looking for a one up with you,
as much as just showing respect).

I think you might be interested in the information in the link below. I
believe this will affect the OP and answer his question.
http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050223_082546.html
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

 

[Alias]

Unless you can show me something from MS that indicates the Motherboard is
not considered the computer you are just flapping your lips for the fun of
it. All information I can find on the MS site clearly identifies their
definition of "Computer" as motherboard in licensing discussions.

Um, isn't XP installed on the *hard drive*, usually on "C"? No hard drive,
no XP. No motherboard, no XP. No processor, no XP. No Keyboard, can't
install XP. No case to hold everything from shaking, NO XP. No little fans
twirling around, CPU burns up and NO XP. No monitor, HTF would you install
XP, etc., etc., etc.

It's ALL one computer and ALL of it is hardware which, sooner or later,
needs to be upgraded or replaced due to being defective or wear and tear. A
motherboard by itself does not a computer make. Period.

Alias

 

[Tom]

Now you're just playing word games - you agree that the EULA states
"Computer" but you don't agree that MS can define what it means by
"Computer"?

You don't understand, it isn't a matter that MS (can) define(s) what a
Computer means to them, that is perfectly fine. But it's not fine that it
can mean motherboard, though it doesn't say that in the agreement. Of
course, being the MS butt mudd eater that you are, you can accept anything
MS throws at you for their benefit.

Again, when I click on the agreement, does it say motherboards, or to go to
the MS OEM SBS to view an amended agreement, or that I have to also accept
what that site states, it doesn't. Now show me where this means this in the
EULA, and that it mentions that site for reference. You know, since I could
make myself the system builder, then I can determine what is transferable or
not.

It would seem clear to me, a old time board designer, that the "Computer"
is the only part in the systems that is significant - the Motherboard.

How about this - please define what you consider "Computer" in your terms.

Computer is the system in my eyes, but even then, that is ambiguous, as much
as the EULA is.

Since it's a word game with you I'll leave it as the EULA clearly states
Computer and that MS clearly defines Computer as being the Motherboard. If
you see how clear this is then I can't do anything else to help you
understand.

No, and as three MVPs have now pointed out to you, it is not in any certain
terms this meaning, only to you. I have pointed out to you your penchant for
making words mean things that only you know what they mean, though in the
mainstream, they don't mean crap as you define them! The EULA says Computer,
a MS site says MOBO, but what you do not effin see, is what I agreed to!
Again, did I agree to the EULA as worded, or to the words of what an MS site
says those words mean. Should not the EULA state with real definition what
the COMPUTER is for that agreement. This is the whole point you miss, or
ignore to keep your MS butt kissing alive.