Loading Windows XP on second computer

[tschrock]

I loaded XP on a second computer before becoming aware
that XP can only be loaded on a single computer. XP
doesn't work properly on the second computer. Is ther a
way to restore the original operating system? Or, can an
additional license be purchased for use on the second
computer? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[Will Denny]

Hi

Depending on which country you are in - try here:

"Additional Licenses for Windows XP Professional"
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp

Will

 

[kurttrail]

I loaded XP on a second computer before becoming aware
that XP can only be loaded on a single computer. XP
doesn't work properly on the second computer. Is ther a
way to restore the original operating system? Or, can an
additional license be purchased for use on the second
computer? Any advice would be appreciated.

http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Alex Nichol]

I wouldn't call it an enforcement mechanism. I would instead call it a
frequent annoyance. The hacks and pirates will never have to "activate"
their copy of XP, and will install it on any number of computers freely.

The purpose is to force the point on the attention of those who would
otherwise go and buy one copy and install it on every machine in the
street. And starts oddly from the surmise that these people are
actually honest, just thoughtless.

I heard of the case of a *law* firm with some fifteen machines and only
one purchased copy of software between them.

 

[Gray@FA]

The purpose is to force the point on the attention of those who would
otherwise go and buy one copy and install it on every machine in the
street. And starts oddly from the surmise that these people are
actually honest, just thoughtless.

I heard of the case of a *law* firm with some fifteen machines and only
one purchased copy of software between them.

While I see your point, I have always felt that if I purchased a copy of an
operating system for my personal use that I should be free to install it on
any computer I own and use in the same house. The wife has her own, the kids
their own etc....

I own and still have in my possession DOS 5, DOS 6, Windows 3.1, 95, 98,
98SE, 2000, and XP.

I have XP installed on one machine. 98 on the other's. I can assure you I
wouldn't drop another $1000 for 3 more copies of XP. So in effect if there
is ever a conflict with any of the copies of 98 and / or 98 becomes
completely unsupported by the new software, I plan on installing Linux. Not
only is it compatible and much more stable than the Linux of the past, its
free.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

While I see your point, I have always felt that if I purchased a copy
of an operating system for my personal use that I should be free to
install it on any computer I own and use in the same house. The wife
has her own, the kids their own etc....

There are no *shoulds* here. A company (Microsoft in this case)
offers you a product for sale under its terms. If you like the
product, and the terms are acceptable to you, then buy it. If
not, then don't. It's really no different with operating systems
than with any other product.

 

[Gray@FA]

There are no *shoulds* here. A company (Microsoft in this case)
offers you a product for sale under its terms. If you like the
product, and the terms are acceptable to you, then buy it. If
not, then don't. It's really no different with operating systems
than with any other product.

This is not entirely true. Most manufacturers do not dictate what you can do
with their product once you purchase it. State and federal law at times
dictates what you can do with a product, but not the manufacturer.

 

[Steve C. Ray]

You are not purchasing the software. You are purchasing a license to use it
on one computer.

 

[kurttrail]

You are not purchasing the software. You are purchasing a license to
use it on one computer.

Copyrighted Material, like software, is not property to be bought and
sold. A copyright owner may sell copies of the copyrighted material,
sell the copyright to the copyrighted material, or "license" the
copyrighted material.

Retail copies of software, with a "shrinkwrap license," are sold to
individuals. Your television came with a "shrinkwrap license" too, to
delineate warrantee terms.

"Licensed" software is like MS's VL Software Assurance Plan, where one
gets to see the terms before purchase.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

The point here though is that you do not 'purchase the product'. You
purchase a 'license to use it'. And this is generally true of
software. Under such terms as the maker chooses to set out. Look at
terms for
other products - Partition Magic for example is licensed for use with
a single machine, and though you could use it to work on others
Powerquest would claim you had to buy a multi system license. Others
may license
you to use something provided it is only in use on a single machine at
any time..

I'm not saying that the terms that Microsoft adopt are necessarily
good ones - even for Microsoft -, but they have chosen them, and are
entitled
to take steps to make sure people are aware of what those are

PowerQuest is now using Product Activation, and their EULA doesn't allow
any to transfer it without their permission. Symantec now uses another
form Product Activation, and they only allow five installs of their
product.

Soon all the members of the BSA trust will be implementing various forms
of PA, and to reinstall all of your software after a computer meltdown
will be a nightmare of hassles, figuring out what you can and cannot do,
and having to explain to various software manufactures that you not a
thief, just someone that has some computer problems.

Consumers are gonna wind up eventually hating the software companies
that create unneccessay hurdles just to use the expensive copies of
software that they spent their hard-earned money on.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Gray@FA]

The point here though is that you do not 'purchase the product'. You
purchase a 'license to use it'. And this is generally true of software.
Under such terms as the maker chooses to set out. Look at terms for
other products - Partition Magic for example is licensed for use with a
single machine, and though you could use it to work on others Powerquest
would claim you had to buy a multi system license. Others may license
you to use something provided it is only in use on a single machine at
any time..

I'm not saying that the terms that Microsoft adopt are necessarily good
ones - even for Microsoft -, but they have chosen them, and are entitled
to take steps to make sure people are aware of what those are

I'm my opinion the software companies that are selling a license for a
single machine are forcing people like myself to look elsewhere for their
software needs. Linux for example. The number of households with small
networks is growing by the day. MS cant possibly expect the average American
to purchase 3 or 4 copies of XP. Most don't have that kind of liquid cash.

Before the age of CDRW's in every computer, it made no sense to use someone
else's copy of Windows on your computer as the CD wouldn't be handy when
needed. And that has always been regular for myself anyway.

I understand the need to somehow prevent people from having a single
community copy of software. I just don't think this is the answer, and
limiting its use to a single machine when most households today have two,
three, and even four computers is upsetting.

Like I said in the first reply, it only effects those of us who spend the
cash. The hacks and pirates continue with business as usual.

 

[kurttrail]

Greetings --

If someone can afford three or four computers for their home, they
can certainly afford the software licenses for those computers.

Hogwash! Hell, there are computers you can buy that are cheaper than a
full retail copy of XP Pro. And a lot of people I know with more than
one computer, most are very old PCs. And what does being able to afford
to buy something have anything to do with having to buy multiple
"licenses," or a copyright owner having any right to know how the copies
of retail copyghted material is used in the privacy of any individual's
home?

If
one cannot afford the software licenses, then one cannot afford the
computers. Plain and simple.

For a callous MicroScrooge like you it's plain & simple, but in real
people's homes that just ain't the case. Nothing is simple in a
modern-day home. What planet do you live on?

After all, a PC in the home, as much as we tend to take them for
granted, is a luxury item, as is a television or a stereo.

And MS's retail software is "shrinkwrap licensed" just like a TV or
stereo, but gives those manufactures no right to know what the hell we
do with TV's & stereos once we have legally purchased it.

No one
_needs_ multiple PCs in a home, just as no one _needs_ to have those
multiple PCs running the same OS.

No copyright owner *needs* to know what any individual does their
legally purchased copy of Copyrighted Material, in the privacy of their
own home!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"