Microsoft Activation Stupidity

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr. Frazzlebottom
  • Start date Start date
Mr. Frazzlebottom said:
No. Windows simply stated that it was aware of the significant changes
that that I had to re-activate. The "special, unmovable data" gets
reset and I have to re-activate. Fine. No problem. Windows told me that
I had three days to re-activate. Then Windows broke.

You see it otherwise. Fine. It's still broken.
Click to expand...

Mr. Frazzlebottom, you are joining a growing number of people tired of
the technology of DRM (in this case, product activation).

PA treats paying customers like criminals. As far as how you using YOUR
COPY of Windows XP in the privacy of your own home, there is nothing
wrong with it, you are choosing to exercise fair use. Repair install is
the way to fix it. Good luck!
 
R. McCarty said:
No it's not broken. Windows Product Activation works off a hardware
hash. Made of up of seven unique identifiers, such as NIC MAC address,
Memory count...When XP boots, it compares the hash code with that
of the current platform. If the number of changes (Votes) exceeds the limit
then it triggers a re-activation. I can't remember in all this floundering
around if you took a working XP instance drive and put it in a new(er) PC.
If that's the case then it would immediately detect a new Hash value and
request activation. Then if you let the timer expire XP enters a lock down
mode, where you cannot use the PC until it's activated. Essentially if you
let the "Grace Period" expire then the heading of your posting is placing
blame incorrectly.
Click to expand...

Yes it is broken. Moving to a new PC simply causes the "re-hash" as you
say and triggers the re-activation flag. I had three days "grace period"
then it broke before those three days were up. (One other thing about
Windows' activation process: You get three activations, then it prevents
further activations and one must call.)

I did not violate the EULA. I did not let anything expire. I only did
something that XP could not handle correctly.

It _should have worked_ and would have if XP's re-activation code was
not broken (and I would not be here stirring up trouble).

Windows, as I said, detected the change, the informed me of the
re-activation is neccessary bit. Normal, expected behaviour, is it not?
Yes. Until it then breaks before the three days I had to re-activate.

(And just think, all this because I moaned about not wanting an MS MVP
to moan that "You did something wrong." <GRIN>)
 
Good Luck with it.

Mr. Frazzlebottom said:
Yes it is broken. Moving to a new PC simply causes the "re-hash" as you
say and triggers the re-activation flag. I had three days "grace period"
then it broke before those three days were up. (One other thing about
Windows' activation process: You get three activations, then it prevents
further activations and one must call.)

I did not violate the EULA. I did not let anything expire. I only did
something that XP could not handle correctly.

It _should have worked_ and would have if XP's re-activation code was not
broken (and I would not be here stirring up trouble).

Windows, as I said, detected the change, the informed me of the
re-activation is neccessary bit. Normal, expected behaviour, is it not?
Yes. Until it then breaks before the three days I had to re-activate.

(And just think, all this because I moaned about not wanting an MS MVP to
moan that "You did something wrong." <GRIN>)
Click to expand...
 
chrispsg said:
This is from a previous post....
Click to expand...

This is not proof. In your quote It's touted as being a "direct quote
from Microsoft" by the most inept MVP I have ever had the displeasure
of meeting. From where does Microsoft have this printed that it can be
quoted from?
 
Number 11

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/e/3/4e3eace0-4c6d-4123-9d0c-c80436181742/OSLicQA.doc

11. Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs
in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often
times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the
COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard
drive, this computer is still licensed, right?
ANSWER. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on your computer and maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the
motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer."
Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one
computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been
created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs.
 
chrispsg said:
Number 11

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/e/3/4e3eace0-4c6d-4123-9d0c-c80436181742/OSLicQA.doc

11. Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs
in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often
times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the
COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard
drive, this computer is still licensed, right?
ANSWER. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on your computer and maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the
motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer."
Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one
computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been
created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, so now we only have proof that it applies to the Educational
licensing for Microsoft products. The OP at no time ever stated he was
using an educational license. Why are you stating this "license tied to
the motherboard" thing as though it applies to any license of Windows XP
as opposed to only the educational license? You are perpetuating a
falacy by ommision of information.
 
This document from Microsoft states that an upgraded motherboard is in
fact a new personal computer:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/e/3/4e3eace0-4c6d-4123-9d0c-c80436181742/OSLicQA.doc

"11. Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs
in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often
times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the
COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard
drive, this computer is still licensed, right?
ANSWER. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on your computer and maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the
motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer."
Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one
computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been
created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
 
Falacy? That paragraph clearly states Microsoft OEM Operating System
software not an Academic License. The only "educational" license
available for XP is the upgrade. I am not tying any license to the
motherboard. You simply asked for proof that MS said a motherboard
constitutes a new pc.. I gave you the proof.
 
One thing to remember crispy, that is for OEMs. OEMs are re-sellers,
like Dell. Re-sellers simply, um, re-sell their computers. OEMs build
computers and sell them.

Drones at home or in the office like me, buy commercial versions of
software. And we Drones have more rights, because we have no real
contractural relationship with Microsoft as OEMs do (beyond the
shrinkwrap license and whatever rights our government acknowledges that
we have).

All EULAs have statements like "you may have other rights according to
local and state laws", because we do.

Nobody should be defending Microsoft's Windows activation process.
Nobody, except, to use that terrible anti-humanity conceptual
phraseology, Microsoft-apologists.

What right does a Drone have to their copy of XP when they buy a Dell
computer? None, apparently. So to is that an absurdity, but one that,
with the capitalistic nature of Corporate America, us Drones have to
live and fight with every day.
 
chrispsg said:
This document from Microsoft states that an upgraded motherboard is in
fact a new personal computer:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/e/3/4e3eace0-4c6d-4123-9d0c-c80436181742/OSLicQA.doc

"11. Rather than purchase completely new PCs, my organization performs
in-place upgrades to the hardware on many of our computers. We often
times only replace the motherboard, processor, and memory. Since the
COA is still on the case and the OS is still installed on the hard
drive, this computer is still licensed, right?
ANSWER. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on your computer and maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. An upgrade of the
motherboard is considered to result in a "new personal computer."
Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from one
computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is upgraded or
replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has been
created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
Click to expand...

And is this the license that is sent out with the copies of XP that
people buy? Do OEMs specify this in their licenses? Is this stated in
the retail or Volume licensing licenses? Where is this available to
Microsoft's customers? From the link you provided, it appears you
accessed this document via the Microsoft download center. Why is it
that nothing comes up when I search for it there?

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/results.aspx?pocId=&freetext=OSLicQA&DisplayLang=en
 
go to microsoft.com do a search for

motherboard new personal computer

it is the sixth result.

I am not saying that I agree with this I am just stating that this is
what MS believes.
 
chrispsg said:
go to microsoft.com do a search for

motherboard new personal computer

it is the sixth result.

I am not saying that I agree with this I am just stating that this is
what MS believes.
Click to expand...

Are you sure chris? It's not working for me. Here is what I came up with:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...herboard new personal computer&DisplayLang=en

I understand that it has been your intention to be stating that this is
what Microsoft believes, but you have not stated that until now which
makes it seem that you are not making yourself clear. Also, do you see
my point that if this information is not explicitly stated in the
license that you purchase your copy of Windows with, how reasonable is
it for Microsoft to expect it of people? IMO, the only reason they are
not stating it explicitly in the licenses that come with copies of XP
that people buy is because they know it would never hold water in a
court of law.
 
I spoke with someone that I had discussed this issue with before here
is her post:

Quoted from Microsoft's System Builder FAQ:


Q. Can a PC with OEM Windows XP have its motherboard upgraded and keep
the same license? What if it was replaced because it was
defective?


A. Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components
on your customer's computer and the end user may maintain
the license for the original Microsoft® OEM operating system software,
with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the
motherboard. An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a
"new personal computer" to which 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 has been created and the license of new
operating system software is required. If the motherboard is
replaced because it is defective, you do NOT need to acquire a new
operating system license for the PC.


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 PC manufacturer and relates only to rights
for that software as installed on for that particular PC. The System
Builder is required to support that license the software on
that individual PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade
their PC with different components, Microsoft needed to have
one base component "left standing" that would still define that
original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the
"heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for
reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created. The
original System Builder, therefore, can not be expected to support this
new PC that they in effect, did not manufacture."


Ref: https://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?PageID=553075


--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/
 
chrispsg said:
Here is the link to the search results... sixth result...
http://search.microsoft.com/results.aspx?mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&q=motherboard+new+personal+computer

I understand completely that it is not stated clearly in the EULA. I am
not a lawyer so I cant put a merit on it in a court of law. You are
correct these are not my views or opinions but that of Microsoft.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link. It's just my opinion (albeit a strong one) that it
would never stand up in the courts. I also think MS is being
hypocritical to not make this clear if it is actually part of the
license agreement.
 
chrispsg said:
This document from Microsoft states that an upgraded motherboard is in
fact a new personal computer:

http://download.microsoft.com/download/4/e/3/4e3eace0-4c6d-4123-9d0c-c80436181742/OSLicQA.doc
Click to expand...


Note that right up front in that document it states "Please Note: This Q&A
is provided solely for informational purposes. Your use of Microsoft
Software Products is governed by the terms and conditions of your licensing
agreement."

That statement is correct. We are bound by that licensing agreement, and not
by any other documentation, such as this later-published document.

Logical as considering a new mothervboard to be a new computer may be, the
EULA does *not* state that.
 
Ken

I never said that the statement was in the EULA. I was trying to
explain that Microsoft says that an upgraded motherboard constitutes a
new pc. The discussion was based soley on the fact that MS has
published documents that stated this.
 
chrispsg said:
I never said that the statement was in the EULA.
Click to expand...


I know you didn't. I didn't say otherwise.

I was trying to
explain that Microsoft says that an upgraded motherboard constitutes a
new pc.
Click to expand...


My point is that it doesn't matter what they say after the fact. We are
bound by the terms of the EULA, and no other document matters.

If this ever came to court (and my guess is that it never will), the court
would ignore any such document. The *only* relevant document is the EULA,
and the EULA does not say this.

Exactly how a court would interpret the EULA I don't know. It *is* possible
that a court would decide that the a new motherboard constitutes a new
computer. But it's up to a court to decide that, not Microsoft, and until
such a court decision is made, the EULA remains ambiguous.

The discussion was based soley on the fact that MS has
published documents that stated this.
Click to expand...



Suppose tomorrow Microsoft published a document that said if you replaced
the mouse on your computer it constituted a new computer and you could no
longer use the same OEM copy of Windows. Would you believe and accept that
statement too?

If a customer would publish a document that stated exactly the opposite, it
would carry as much weight in court as the Microsoft document--zero.

This is like you and I signing a contract that says you wiil buy my house
for $250,000.Then subsequent to our signing that document, I publish some
document stating that you also had to give me your car. If I then tried to
sue you to get the car you "owe" me, I'd be laughed out of court. The
original contract, like the EULA, is all the customer agreed to.
 
Back
Top