ME to XP on 3 pc's

[breaks]

i'm going to upgrade to XP Home from ME but i have 3 pc's
built up over the last few years and i have ME on all of
them, but everyone i know who i've asked seems to say that
I'll only be able to activate it once on one machine.

does anyone know if this is true.

 

[Lorne Smith]

i'm going to upgrade to XP Home from ME but i have 3 pc's
built up over the last few years and i have ME on all of
them, but everyone i know who i've asked seems to say that
I'll only be able to activate it once on one machine.

does anyone know if this is true.

Yes, that's quite true.... The licensing terms for Windows have always
(since 3.1) stated that it may be installed on only ONE computer at a time.
XP now has a means to enforce this so you will have to buy a copy for each
machine you want to install it on. If you only had one copy of ME installed
on 3 computers, then you were actually breaking the terms of the EULA and
committing piracy, albeit possibly unwittingly.

Lorne

 

[Ray at]

You can activate it the same number of times as licenses you have.

Ray at work

 

[Mike Hall]

You can only activate one pc, but you can also purchase licenses for the
other two.. contact Microsoft..

 

[David]

Yes, to my knowledge.

Windows XP is only allowed to be activated on one PC. So if you are
upgrading 3. You will need to have bought 3 upgrades.

It's one of those things that's very fustrating.

 

[Lorne Smith]

It's no more annoying than it's been on all other versions of Windows since
3.1... The sames terms have been in the EULA since then and it's only now in
XP that there's an enforcement mechanism stopping people from pirating the
product. You may not like it, but them's the breaks....

Lorne

 

[purplehaz]

Yes this is true. To comply with the ms eula and activation in xp it is one
license/xp per computer. You will need additional licenses for the other
computers.
In fact, ME is the same way, it just doesn't have activation to stop you. Do
you have 3 copies/licenses for your three me installs? If not you are in
violation of the ms eula(for whatever its worth).
Windows has always been, one copy/license per computer.

 

[purplehaz]

Windows has always been that way, xp just stops you from doing it. You'd
think after 20 years of windows people would be used to this by now. I don't
see how it frustrating as thats the way it has been for 20 years.

 

[purplehaz]

Not exactly. You can activate xp an unlimited amount of times on the same
computer. You cannot install and activate it on more than one computer at a
time.

 

[Ray at]

If this has been the case since Windows 3.1, then it's only been since
4/6/92. ;]

Ray at work

 

[purplehaz]

Microsoft Windows 1.0 in November 1983.

If this has been the case since Windows 3.1, then it's only been since
4/6/92. ;]

Ray at work

Windows has always been that way, xp just stops you from doing it. You'd
think after 20 years of windows people would be used to this by now. I don't
see how it frustrating as thats the way it has been for 20 years.

 

[purplehaz]

Sorry typo --- it was 1985 for windows 1.0

If this has been the case since Windows 3.1, then it's only been since
4/6/92. ;]

Ray at work

Windows has always been that way, xp just stops you from doing it. You'd
think after 20 years of windows people would be used to this by now. I don't
see how it frustrating as thats the way it has been for 20 years.

 

[Ray at]

But according to some previous posts, the single installation rule in the
EULA started in 3.1.

Ray at work

Sorry typo --- it was 1985 for windows 1.0

If this has been the case since Windows 3.1, then it's only been since
4/6/92. ;]

Ray at work

Windows has always been that way, xp just stops you from doing it. You'd
think after 20 years of windows people would be used to this by now. I don't
see how it frustrating as thats the way it has been for 20 years.

 

[The Unknown P]

Quite frankly I would like to challenge the EULA in XP
that stops me from installing a "Purchased" and "Legal"
copy of an OS on more than one machine when used
for "Personal" use and not for profit. Of course there are
ways around this and I don't believe Microsoft has made
any attempt to prosecute the people who know how to hack
the registry to make the OS think it is only one day old
for instance. I don't advocate doing so. I am however very
poor and not able to purchase multiple licenses and abhour
the Profiteering on the backs of the lone home user. But
then this debate should be left to those with the money to
challenge such draconian rules. Keep smiling.

 

[Ray at]

But you can afford multiple computers? If you think of the cost of the OS
as part of the cost of the computer, just like a video card or something,
you could rebudget accordingly.

Ray at work


I am however very

 

[purplehaz]

Ya but they don't really know either. Does anyone have a copy of the 3.1
eula? Or the 1.0 eula if there was one? Probably not. I'm just trying to
make the point that people need to stop complaining about why they can't
install xp on multiple computers. Windows licensing has always been that
way, since the dawn of time. ) Whether it's 10 years or 20 years, doesn't
really matter. Complaining about does no good. Either live with it or get a
pirate copy, but please stop complaining about this supposable "new" feature
in xp. There's absolutly no reason for anyone to get frustrated at this. I
hate red lights, they slow me down, but I since learned complaining about
themand getting frustrated does nothing. I now deal with them or go thru
them. ) That's the point I was trying to make.

But according to some previous posts, the single installation rule in the
EULA started in 3.1.

Ray at work

Sorry typo --- it was 1985 for windows 1.0

If this has been the case since Windows 3.1, then it's only been since
4/6/92. ;]

Ray at work

Windows has always been that way, xp just stops you from doing it. You'd
think after 20 years of windows people would be used to this by now. I
don't
see how it frustrating as thats the way it has been for 20 years.

 

[purplehaz]

If you can afford multiple computers in your home, you can afford the extra
license. I make good money and don't have multiple computers.
But, I do agree. I did alot of research on the subject of copyright and
eula's and from what I gather the ms eula amounts to a hard to read piece of
paper. Its not a binding contract or has yet to be proven that it is. The
eula tries to get around copyright laws, which makes it an invalid contract.
You can't write a contract to try to circumvent laws and then force people
to agree to it.

 

[Ray at]

Ya but they don't really know either. Does anyone have a copy of the 3.1
eula?

Damn. I don't see a eula file in any of the 3.1 disks. And there is no
mention of the word "license" in setup.txt on disk 1.

Or the 1.0 eula if there was one? Probably not. I'm just trying to
make the point that people need to stop complaining about why they can't
install xp on multiple computers.

100% agree.

Windows licensing has always been that
way, since the dawn of time. ) Whether it's 10 years or 20 years, doesn't
really matter. Complaining about does no good. Either live with it or get a
pirate copy, but please stop complaining about this supposable "new" feature
in xp. There's absolutly no reason for anyone to get frustrated at this. I
hate red lights, they slow me down, but I since learned complaining about
themand getting frustrated does nothing. I now deal with them or go thru
them. ) That's the point I was trying to make.

I don't dispute any of this. I completely agree. I wish that people hadn't
been stealing all along, because I will admit that I've grumbled at the
activation process before, moreso for Office when my damn coworkers lost the
multi-license key. But that's their fault, not MS's.

Most people have one computer with XP preinstalled. If you're into things
and you have multiple computers, then the OS is just another cost that you
have to endure.

Ray at work

 

[purplehaz]

Wow, you still have win3.1 disks. Keep them, maybe some day they'll be worth
some real money. And no eula? Now I'm really curious as to when the eula
actually did get invented. Hmmmm........

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Of course, it's true.

Let's apply a little common sense to the question, shall we? Does
your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three loaves of
bread when you've paid for only one? Can you drive two cars home if
you've paid for only one? Does your local clothier allow you to leave
the shop with two shirts if you've purchased only one? Have you
noticed a trend, yet? So where in the world did you ever 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, that's all you get.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright
laws, 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) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about.


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