License violation

[xfile]

Hi,

I read that before and after you pointed out, I read it again and the
following two paragraphs may explain for why same make's components are
required and it is because "required support for OEM OS".

**** [...]as defined by that manufacturer's "warranty".

****The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the end-user
license agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by that
EULA. The EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the
computer manufacturer. The EULA relates only to rights for that software as
installed on that particular computer. The System Builder is required to
support the software on that individual computer.

****Microsoft views the CPU as the one remaining base component that still
defines that original computer. Because the motherboard contains the CPU,
when the motherboard is replaced for reasons other than defect, a new
computer is essentially created. Therefore, the original OEM cannot be
expected to support this new computer that they did not manufacture.

Again, it says to me - if you replace components from different makers - you
are on your own.

--------- Original More Information ----------------


Users who run a Microsoft Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) operating
system may upgrade or replace most of the hardware components on the
computer and still maintain the license for the original Microsoft OEM
operating system software provided by the OEM, with the exception of an
upgrade or a replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade or a replacement of
the motherboard is considered to create a new personal computer. Therefore,
Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another
computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than
a defect then a new computer is created, and a new operating system license
is required. If the motherboard is replaced because of a defect, the user
does not need to acquire a new operating system license for the computer.
The motherboard replacement must be the same make and model, or the same
manufacturer's replacement or equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer's
warranty. The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the
end-user license agreement (EULA) and the support of the software covered by
that EULA. The EULA is a set of usage rights granted to the end-user by the
computer manufacturer. The EULA relates only to rights for that software as
installed on that particular computer. The System Builder is required to
support the software on that individual computer.

Understanding that end-users, over time, upgrade their computers with
different components, Microsoft views the CPU as the one remaining base
component that still defines that original computer. Because the motherboard
contains the CPU, when the motherboard is replaced for reasons other than
defect, a new computer is essentially created. Therefore, the original OEM
cannot be expected to support this new computer that they did not
manufacture.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"ALL everyone else's fault"
Again you obviously did not read my post if that is what you think I
said.
Read it again, this time read all of it instead of skipping what does
not suit your agenda
There is blame for at least 3 sides and if you had read my post, you
would have seen that.
There is no "shifting blames and responsibilities" however with
selective reading on your part, I can understand how you com to that
incorrect conclusion.

"What other options can you..."
there are numerous options and you already know that.
But again your bias seems to want to ignore that fact.
"from a finished product provider such as eMachines"
The obvious fallacy here is you restrict a buyer to this single
option.
Since there are many other options, your ASSUMPTION is FALSE.
If a buyer CHOOSES to buy from Emachines, that buyer also CHOOSES
whatever they have selected on behalf of their customers.
For many that is good enough.
For others that want more they need to look elsewhere such as another
major OEM, local shops or building their own.
The options desired will help determine the source.
There are plenty of options and plenty of choices.

"says who that license is tied to a motherboard?"
The install media for an OEM computer may be tied to a specific brand
of motherboard.
That is not the same as the license, however if the media will not
install on a different motherboard, then effectively the OEM has tied
their license to the motherboard.
It does not matter "who" says since it may be a technical restriction.

"not by how much they can insult/blame users/customers"
I didn't and you also know that, but FUD more suits your biased
agenda.
However condescending posts seems to point hypocrisy in your
direction.

Perhaps you should read my post and yours, possibly for the first
time.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

 

[John H Meyers]

****Microsoft views the CPU as the one remaining base component that still
defines that original computer. Because the motherboard contains the CPU,
when the motherboard is replaced for reasons other than defect, a new
computer is essentially created. Therefore, the original OEM cannot be
expected to support this new computer that they did not manufacture.

I would not expect my _original_ OEM to support my computer with a new MB
which I replaced myself; however, I would expect *Microsoft* to support
the *OS* which was already *paid* for on my original computer,
even if I were to burn that computer and buy a completely new one.

What computer manufacturer discloses before purchase (on the box, say)
or what retailer discloses before purchase that one would be buying
a Windows OS which could not be transferred to any other computer,
replacing the original computer, or even to a replacement motherboard,
purchased as an upgrade of _hardware_ alone?

I would think this sort of chicanery worthy of inquiry
to the Federal Trade Commission, or to your own legislators,
in support of legislation to end it, making either Microsoft
or the OEM responsible.

Does the idea that Windows is tied to a motherbosard
mean that you should never buy a new motherboard
unless it comes with a new version of Windows
from its manufacturer? (which would no doubt
be cheaper than an individual buying directly from Microsoft)?

This "guilty [of stealing the OS] until proven innocent"
attitude of Microsoft is as good as unconstitutional in the USA,
and ought to be so declared.

--