M
Mark
May I load a legally purchased Windows XP OS onto another
computer owned by my family?
computer owned by my family?
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A
anyone
No.
G
Guest
legally.......lol Just do it.
K
Ken Blake
In
No. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for
each computer.
There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
enforcement mechanism.
Mark said:May I load a legally purchased Windows XP OS onto another
computer owned by my family?
No. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for
each computer.
There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
enforcement mechanism.
G
Guest
-----Original Message-----
May I load a legally purchased Windows XP OS onto another
computer owned by my family?
.
yes and if you try to activate you will not be allowed.
G
Guest
That is easily bypassed. Seriously Micro$oft, why should
people be forced to buy separate operating systems at
$200+ a pop for computers that are in the same house,
owned by the same person/family, and 99% of the time are
not used simultaneously???
The answer: money, and lots of it. Let's see, Micro$oft
write an operating system (which includes thousands of
bugs, whether missed or ignored). They then sell it for
$200. Maybe 100,000 suckers buy this overpriced twaddle in
the first couple of years (conservative estimate) - that's
an easy $20,000,000 for M$. Sooo... show us the figures
that state ANY version of Windows cost that much to
develop and write in the first place, and I'll show you
creative accounting.
Get real and stop scamming legitimate users - you're the
ones actually ENCOURAGING piracy.
people be forced to buy separate operating systems at
$200+ a pop for computers that are in the same house,
owned by the same person/family, and 99% of the time are
not used simultaneously???
The answer: money, and lots of it. Let's see, Micro$oft
write an operating system (which includes thousands of
bugs, whether missed or ignored). They then sell it for
$200. Maybe 100,000 suckers buy this overpriced twaddle in
the first couple of years (conservative estimate) - that's
an easy $20,000,000 for M$. Sooo... show us the figures
that state ANY version of Windows cost that much to
develop and write in the first place, and I'll show you
creative accounting.
Get real and stop scamming legitimate users - you're the
ones actually ENCOURAGING piracy.
C
Cari MS-MVP
MOST PCs come with an operating system already included... and an upgrade
version of XP Home is only $99.... not $200 as you infer.
And most multiple PC households DO use their PCs simultaneously. My husband
surfs on his while I work on either my notebook or desktop..... and my
Server sits in the corner being used as a webserver so although neither he
nor I are using it, plenty of anonymous access users are browsing its pages
on its IIS.
If you are not going to use PCs simultaneously, why have multiple ones
anyway! Surely in that case one would suffice quite adequately.
If you're that upset with XP, why not switch... I've heard plenty of people
run Linux.... No one is forcing you to keep upgrading to the newest version
of Windows... you CHOSE to use it. If you don't like it, move on. Use
something else!
Cari
www.coribright.com
version of XP Home is only $99.... not $200 as you infer.
And most multiple PC households DO use their PCs simultaneously. My husband
surfs on his while I work on either my notebook or desktop..... and my
Server sits in the corner being used as a webserver so although neither he
nor I are using it, plenty of anonymous access users are browsing its pages
on its IIS.
If you are not going to use PCs simultaneously, why have multiple ones
anyway! Surely in that case one would suffice quite adequately.
If you're that upset with XP, why not switch... I've heard plenty of people
run Linux.... No one is forcing you to keep upgrading to the newest version
of Windows... you CHOSE to use it. If you don't like it, move on. Use
something else!
Cari
www.coribright.com
G
Guest
MOST PCs come with an operating system already
included... and an upgrade
I've had enough bad experiences with 'upgrade' versions to
know to steer well clear of them. And an increasing number
of people are building their own systems nowadays rather
than buying restrictive pre-built PCs that invariably
contain vendor-specific components that cannot be
upgraded. The only choice then is to buy full retail or
OEM.
Nope, since I have two systems that I rarely, if ever,
have operational at the same time. One system is connected
to the internet, while the other is a standalone
workstation used for critical work and personal projects
(purposefully) isolated from any external network
interferance. Both systems have been assembled by me, and
both have separately-purchased operating systems (one NT4
and one XP).
Since all the essential apps I use for work are Windows-
based, I have little choice in the OS I use at home. While
I could create a dual-OS setup, it's not really practical.
And besides, Linux sucks.
Like what? Linux? Unix? OS/2? BeOS? Okay, if any of them
had any real support or functionality then I might well do
so, but MS has had its monopoly for so long that I doubt
any of those will really take off with regard to
application support until MS is boycotted. As has been
mentioned by a number of people both on the forums here
and numerous places elsewhere, Microsoft is actually
putting measures in place that WILL force its law-abiding
users to upgrade its software after a MS-determined
lifespan.
The point stands that Microsoft continues to punish
honest, law-abiding PC users and will do so until idiots
like most of the people here (including me) stop following
the rules and force them to respect us or face an
uncertain future.
included... and an upgrade
version of XP Home is only $99.... not $200 as you infer.
I've had enough bad experiences with 'upgrade' versions to
know to steer well clear of them. And an increasing number
of people are building their own systems nowadays rather
than buying restrictive pre-built PCs that invariably
contain vendor-specific components that cannot be
upgraded. The only choice then is to buy full retail or
OEM.
adequately.If you are not going to use PCs simultaneously, why have multiple ones
anyway! Surely in that case one would suffice quite
Nope, since I have two systems that I rarely, if ever,
have operational at the same time. One system is connected
to the internet, while the other is a standalone
workstation used for critical work and personal projects
(purposefully) isolated from any external network
interferance. Both systems have been assembled by me, and
both have separately-purchased operating systems (one NT4
and one XP).
If you're that upset with XP, why not switch... I've heard plenty of people
run Linux....
Since all the essential apps I use for work are Windows-
based, I have little choice in the OS I use at home. While
I could create a dual-OS setup, it's not really practical.
And besides, Linux sucks.
No one is forcing you to keep upgrading to the newest version
of Windows... you CHOSE to use it. If you don't like it, move on. Use
something else!
Like what? Linux? Unix? OS/2? BeOS? Okay, if any of them
had any real support or functionality then I might well do
so, but MS has had its monopoly for so long that I doubt
any of those will really take off with regard to
application support until MS is boycotted. As has been
mentioned by a number of people both on the forums here
and numerous places elsewhere, Microsoft is actually
putting measures in place that WILL force its law-abiding
users to upgrade its software after a MS-determined
lifespan.
The point stands that Microsoft continues to punish
honest, law-abiding PC users and will do so until idiots
like most of the people here (including me) stop following
the rules and force them to respect us or face an
uncertain future.
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
Multiple computers require multiple OS licenses, one per machine.
Unless, of course, you can qualify for one of Microsoft's Volume
Licensing plans. This is nothing new.
As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary to be in compliance with both the EULA, if not
technically, to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
it is installed. The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from
that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally
added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation,
to prevent (or at least make more difficult) multiple installations
using a single license.
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
Multiple computers require multiple OS licenses, one per machine.
Unless, of course, you can qualify for one of Microsoft's Volume
Licensing plans. This is nothing new.
As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary to be in compliance with both the EULA, if not
technically, to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
it is installed. The only way in which WinXP licensing differs from
that of earlier versions of Windows is that Microsoft has finally
added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation,
to prevent (or at least make more difficult) multiple installations
using a single license.
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
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
No one is "forced" to buy separate operating systems for each
computer. No one is forced to have multiple computers (or even a
single computer, for that matter) in each house. Owning a home PC is
entirely voluntary. It's a luxury item. Owning multiple PCs is even
more of a luxury, and even more voluntary. If one chooses to own
multiple PCs, then it's incumbent upon that individual to accept the
inevitable consequences of that entirely voluntary decision, one of
which is the additional expense of additional software licenses. Even
then, no one is "forced" to buy Microsoft products; there are several
free operating systems and many free applications readily available.
Buying Microsoft is a choice, plain and simple.
Does your local department of motor vehicles allow you to drive
three cars on a single registration and one set of license plates?
They're all parked in the same driveway and aren't always all in use
at the same time. If you go to the store and pay for a single gallon
of milk, can you take two gallons out of the store? They're going to
be stored in the same refrigerator and probably consumed one at a
time. If you take your family to a restaurant and only order and pay
for only a single entree, does the waiter deliver a separate meal for
each person at the table?
So why would you get the idea that software manufacturers would
sell their product licenses any differently? In real life, it doesn't
matter whether the product being purchased is a physical item, a
service, or a software license - if all you buy is one, one is all you
get. In the simplest of terms, you get what you pay for. If you want
to install the same OS on multiple computers, either purchase multiple
licenses, a volume license, or an OS whose license permits multiple
installations, such as Linux.
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
No one is "forced" to buy separate operating systems for each
computer. No one is forced to have multiple computers (or even a
single computer, for that matter) in each house. Owning a home PC is
entirely voluntary. It's a luxury item. Owning multiple PCs is even
more of a luxury, and even more voluntary. If one chooses to own
multiple PCs, then it's incumbent upon that individual to accept the
inevitable consequences of that entirely voluntary decision, one of
which is the additional expense of additional software licenses. Even
then, no one is "forced" to buy Microsoft products; there are several
free operating systems and many free applications readily available.
Buying Microsoft is a choice, plain and simple.
Does your local department of motor vehicles allow you to drive
three cars on a single registration and one set of license plates?
They're all parked in the same driveway and aren't always all in use
at the same time. If you go to the store and pay for a single gallon
of milk, can you take two gallons out of the store? They're going to
be stored in the same refrigerator and probably consumed one at a
time. If you take your family to a restaurant and only order and pay
for only a single entree, does the waiter deliver a separate meal for
each person at the table?
So why would you get the idea that software manufacturers would
sell their product licenses any differently? In real life, it doesn't
matter whether the product being purchased is a physical item, a
service, or a software license - if all you buy is one, one is all you
get. In the simplest of terms, you get what you pay for. If you want
to install the same OS on multiple computers, either purchase multiple
licenses, a volume license, or an OS whose license permits multiple
installations, such as Linux.
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
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.