Installing new motherboard

[Alias]

If you want the technical perspective, and according to your
websters definition, the Motherboard is a computer - the BIOS is stored in
Firmware in rewritable memory chip, it processes data on power applied to
the board, and it retrieves that firmware from flashable ROM in order to
provide the basics for booting the OS. Care to reconsider now?


And you defined COMPUTER as ALL the parts - by your own definition if you
change the parts you change the COMPUTER, so you need to reconsider.

Update the computer ... update the computer ... fix a defective part of the
computer ... not change the OEM to a different computer ... earth to Leythos
.... earth to Leythos.

Alias

 

[Leythos]

Update the computer ... update the computer ... fix a defective part of the
computer ... not change the OEM to a different computer ... earth to Leythos
... earth to Leythos.

How many ways do you want it Alias - first you agree that you can't move
an OEM to another computer, but then when you disagree that the computer
is the Motherboard and say it's the SUM of the parts, then you say that
you can change any part and it's the same computer, bah! You've just
defeated your own argument.

 

[Leythos]

You can change everything, including the motherboard. I never meant anything
else and I have the EULA and actual proof on my side. You have a web site
that one has to register at to view and is not intended for end users.
Nowhere in the EULA does it say, see the web site Leythos posted on UseNet
for the defintion of a computer. Nowhere.

Now you're really reaching - I showed you the flaw in your "Websters"
definition of Computer, even that MS is more lenient with their definition
than you are, and you still claim that the computer is the sum of all it's
parts but that you can change any/all parts and it's still the SAME
computer?

Come on now, please tell us what you have to change to make it a
"Different" computer - simple fact is that as soon as you tell us what
part/parts make it a different computer you shoot your argument in the
foot and make MS's definition look very good.

I go by Merriam Webster's definition and, so far, I have been right and
you have been wrong, your patronizing attitude and back pedaling
notwithstanding.

Wrong, I showed you, since you're not technical, where a motherboard
alone, without CPU, RAM, Video, does everything that was in Websters
definition - and you are ignoring the definition YOU posted from them.
Kind of funny that you miss the point.

Live with it.

Admit it like a man if you can (as if).

Well, the real and complete problem with this thread is that some of you
didn't understand the terms used in the EULA, and rather than admit your
ignorance you choose to rant on about MS not making it clear. Well, the
simple fact is that you could have, a number of ways, learned what MS
considered to be the Computer. As none of you can come to a complementary
definition of what IS a computer, it seems obvious that you could not have
assumed correctly, since you admit you didn't know what they mean when you
agreed to it.

So, if you're going to stand on your being ignorant as your only defense
you don't really have a defense - the information on OEM licensing IS and
HAS been available, even if you choose to remain ignorant. Your acceptance
of the EULA signified that you agreed with MS terms and conditions in the
EULA - care to back peddle or ignore it now?

 

[Leythos]

This raises an interesting question: Are these OEM versions
of WinXP etc that are floating around part of MS's efforts
stave off piracy? It would make sense.

OEM software is purchased through an OEM, where it makes it way after that
is up to the purchaser. As an example, I'm not an OEM either, but I
purchase directly from a OEM. I also build my own machines (workstations
and servers) and install OEM software on them, but that does not make me
an OEM. Also, if I were to purchase X copies of OEM CD's and then resell
them without abiding by the licensing agreement myself, that does not
remove the responsibility of the end user to abide by the agreement -
ethics have little to do with the agreement.

In some countries MS can't do everything it can do in the US, so the rules
are a little different.

If you want to buy OEM XP in the USA you can purchase it with a MS Mouse
directly from the WalMart website - and they are an OEM by definition, not
by practice.

Since OEM software has been around for a LONG time, I don't think it's a
way for them to fight piracy, it's just allowing them to participate in
the same program we do, even if the OEM doesn't follow the rules that may
apply to them.

 

[Opinicus]

is up to the purchaser. As an example, I'm not an OEM
either, but I
purchase directly from a OEM. I also build my own machines
(workstations
and servers) and install OEM software on them, but that
does not make me
an OEM.

As I also said elsewhere.

Now if we decide to upgrade the mobo in one of these
machines...

 

[Alias]

Now you're really reaching - I showed you the flaw in your "Websters"
definition of Computer, even that MS is more lenient with their definition
than you are, and you still claim that the computer is the sum of all it's
parts but that you can change any/all parts and it's still the SAME
computer?

Um, upgrade ... upgrade ...

Come on now, please tell us what you have to change to make it a
"Different" computer - simple fact is that as soon as you tell us what
part/parts make it a different computer you shoot your argument in the
foot and make MS's definition look very good.


Wrong, I showed you, since you're not technical, where a motherboard
alone, without CPU, RAM, Video, does everything that was in Websters
definition - and you are ignoring the definition YOU posted from them.
Kind of funny that you miss the point.

Horsepucky, without a power supply, a motherboard won't do anything but sit
there.

Well, the real and complete problem with this thread is that some of you
didn't understand the terms used in the EULA, and rather than admit your
ignorance you choose to rant on about MS not making it clear. Well, the
simple fact is that you could have, a number of ways, learned what MS
considered to be the Computer. As none of you can come to a complementary
definition of what IS a computer, it seems obvious that you could not have
assumed correctly, since you admit you didn't know what they mean when you
agreed to it.

And the EULA says one cannot move and OEM to a different computer. It does
NOT say one cannot upgrade a computer. In fact, that's what the 120 days is
all about.

So, if you're going to stand on your being ignorant as your only defense
you don't really have a defense - the information on OEM licensing IS and
HAS been available, even if you choose to remain ignorant. Your acceptance
of the EULA signified that you agreed with MS terms and conditions in the
EULA - care to back peddle or ignore it now?

Oy vey. Did you graduate from High School?

Alias

 

[Alias]

How many ways do you want it Alias - first you agree that you can't move
an OEM to another computer, but then when you disagree that the computer
is the Motherboard and say it's the SUM of the parts, then you say that
you can change any part and it's the same computer, bah! You've just
defeated your own argument.

No, I haven't. I have merely clarified that one can update and/or replace
any and all the parts of one computer and continue to use the same OEM XP
OS. I know this because

1. It says so in the EULA.

2. I have replaced a motherboard with no problems.

Your argument stems from a web site that isn't for end users and you need to
register to even view the web site. It is unreasonable to assume that end
users would

1. Know about the web site.

2. Bother to register to view it.

Further, the EULA doesn't refer you to the web site at all or say that the
web site is an integral part of the EULA which means that 99.99999% of the
end users will never see the web site, nor have a need to see it.

Admit it, you're wrong. It takes a big man to admit his mistakes. How little
are you?

Alias

 

[Leythos]

Oy vey. Did you graduate from High School?

So, when you can't prove your point you resort to insults? It's very
telling about your maturity and you intent in posting to this group.

 

[Leythos]

Further, the EULA doesn't refer you to the web site at all or say that the
web site is an integral part of the EULA which means that 99.99999% of the
end users will never see the web site, nor have a need to see it.

Admit it, you're wrong. It takes a big man to admit his mistakes. How little
are you?

Until you can show me that your changes, as you describe, don't make the
first computer you install on a "different" computer, then you are the one
that's wrong - and you've even furnished the proof that you're wrong.

 

[Alias]

So, when you can't prove your point you resort to insults?

Um, my point has been proven to anyone that can think logically.

It's very
telling about your maturity and you intent in posting to this > group.

*You* are lecturing me on ad hominem attacks!?

Oy vey!

Alias

 

[Alias]

Until you can show me that your changes, as you describe, don't make the
first computer you install on a "different" computer, then you are the one
that's wrong - and you've even furnished the proof that you're wrong.

Upgraded computer ... upgraded computer ... OR defective part replaced ...
defective part replaced ...

I wonder why you snipped the following:

No, I haven't. I have merely clarified that one can update and/or replace
any and all the parts of one computer and continue to use the same OEM XP
OS. I know this because

1. It says so in the EULA.

2. I have replaced a motherboard with no problems.

Your argument stems from a web site that isn't for end users and you need to
register to even view the web site. It is unreasonable to assume that end
users would

1. Know about the web site.

2. Bother to register to view it.

Alias

 

[Tom]

But the EULA does not specifically state that the Computer is the MOBO, only
what the OEM System Builders site states. Since the EULA does not reference
that one *has to* refer to that site in the EULA for further agreement
consideration, they can say what they want, until they place it in the EULA.

 

[Leythos]

But the EULA does not specifically state that the Computer is the MOBO, only
what the OEM System Builders site states. Since the EULA does not reference
that one *has to* refer to that site in the EULA for further agreement
consideration, they can say what they want, until they place it in the EULA.

And again, and again, and again, you've failed to address/understand that
you didn't know what was meant by "Computer" when you clicked on the
agreement. Since you blindly accepted it you have to live with your choice
to not be an informed user.

It's funny watching all of you complain about MS defining the Motherboard
as the computer and then all of you stating that the computer is the sum
of all the parts, and then seeing that MS is actually less restrictive
than you guys.

 

[Opinicus]

But the EULA does not specifically state that the Computer
is the MOBO, only what the OEM System Builders site
states. Since the EULA does not reference that one *has
to* refer to that site in the EULA for further agreement
consideration, they can say what they want, until they
place it in the EULA.

I agree with you entirely insofar as end users are
concerned. In the case of end users, the EULA prevails. The
OEM agreement is not binding on end users. It's binding on
original equipment manufacturers. MS has said (to OEMs) that
the mobo is the defining criterion of what is a "new
computer". OEMs are responsible for enforcing their
agreement with MS at the user level and clearly some are not
doing so. (To wit, my own case.) This is not an end user's
problem.

 

[Tom]

I agree with you entirely insofar as end users are concerned. In the case
of end users, the EULA prevails. The OEM agreement is not binding on end
users. It's binding on original equipment manufacturers. MS has said (to
OEMs) that the mobo is the defining criterion of what is a "new computer".
OEMs are responsible for enforcing their agreement with MS at the user
level and clearly some are not doing so. (To wit, my own case.) This is
not an end user's problem.

But this is the problem, MS states to the OEMs that this terminology is
bindong on the OEM when they resell the OS. But the EULA does not refelct
anything that they lay on the OEM. To me, this isn't the OEMs
responsibility, it is MS's, since they wrote the EULA I agreed to, not the
OEM. If in fact the OEMs are liable, and are responsible, then MS should
allow the OEM to write the EULA as they see fit.

It is hard in my mind to have MS lay this rule on an OEM, to not allow
revision to the EULA, which doesn't change.

In the EULA, right above section 1 of "Grant of License", it says this:

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component."

Pretty vague, don't you think?

 

[Leythos]

In the EULA, right above section 1 of "Grant of License", it says this:

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component."

Pretty vague, don't you think?

And that's why, if you agree/think it "Vague" you learn what they mean
before you agree to it. You have every opportunity to learn what they mean
before you agree to it.

 

[Tom]

And again, and again, and again, you've failed to address/understand that
you didn't know what was meant by "Computer" when you clicked on the
agreement. Since you blindly accepted it you have to live with your choice
to not be an informed user.

LOL! I didn't fail anything, regardless of what MS says on another written
statement that doesn't reside in the agreement I clicked on to use my copy
of Windows! This is where you are told again, again, and again this. READ
WHAT I SAY LAMETHOS. The EULA does not say MOBO=COMPUTER, it only states
that on the OEM site. What part of this do you not understand?

It's funny watching all of you complain about MS defining the Motherboard
as the computer and then all of you stating that the computer is the sum
of all the parts, and then seeing that MS is actually less restrictive
than you guys.

It's actually NOT funny seeing how thick and stupid you can really be! We
are not arguing over making, or debating restrictions, rather discussing
what the EULA states, and what you claim the EULA *really* means from a
website that isn't mentioned in the EULA. Of course you'll come back, change
channels, back pedal, because you're wrong.

Read this part I posted before to Opinicus, that resides right above
section1 "Grant Of Licesne:

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component."

Why doesn't MS just say it is the MOBO?

 

[Opinicus]

Pretty vague, don't you think?

Wonderfully vague. It's a marketing technique. Called "sales
promotion", I believe.

Clue: It does not suit MS's purposes to curtail sales of OEM
licenses.

 

[Leythos]

It's actually NOT funny seeing how thick and stupid you can really be! We
are not arguing over making, or debating restrictions, rather discussing
what the EULA states, and what you claim the EULA *really* means from a
website that isn't mentioned in the EULA. Of course you'll come back, change
channels, back pedal, because you're wrong.

Read this part I posted before to Opinicus, that resides right above
section1 "Grant Of Licesne:

"SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE
The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the
HARDWARE is a computer system component."

Why doesn't MS just say it is the MOBO?

You know, in another post you declared that the above was "Vague", which
means you don't clearly understand what they mean in the terms/context
they used, so why are you claiming that it's not what they clarify some
place else? You had an opportunity to learn what you described as "Vague"
before you accepted the agreement, but YOU made a decision to accept what
ever term they wanted it to be, YOU ACCEPTED IT without understanding it.

That's my only beef with your argument - you didn't understand the terms
and didn't care to understand them, and you want to complain about it.

So, are you going to tell me that you fully understood that MS meant
Motherboard or that you fully understood that you didn't understand what
MS meant in that Vague section of the agreement? Either way, you don't
have a leg to stand on. This is you not understanding an agreement text,
complaining about the wording that you didn't understand, but still
accepting the agreement without understanding it.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

And that's why, if you agree/think it "Vague" you learn what
they mean
before you agree to it. You have every opportunity to learn
what they
mean before you agree to it.

What *they* mean by it is irrelevant. What's relevant is what it
actually means, and since it's a legal document it's only a court
which can decide that.

I can't imagine that a court would take into consideration
anything but the text of the EULA itself. Anything that Microsoft
said in a separate web site would be disregarded, especially
since it was written almost certainly *after* the EULA.

This is analogous to my selling you a house and my drafting a
contract of sale, which you agree to and sign. Then after the
fact, I put up a web site explaining that by "the house," I
really meant everything except the roof, and I would remove the
roof before the sale was completed. If I removed the roof, and
you sued me to get your roof, I'd be laughed out of court if I
tried to use that web site as a defense.