Multiboot licences

[Steve]

I'm about to install two seperate HD's and intend to have two seperate
copies of XP - one for work + one for gaming, mixing business (schoolwork
actually) with pleasure is a bit of an issue just now. Does the multiboot
arrangement need two XP licences (using XP Home)?

I have two, but don't want to commit both to one machine if it's not
necessary.

TIA

Steve

 

[HotRod]

interesting since it's the identical harware for the machine my guess might
be NO, please let us know what you find out

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Yes, each individual installation of Windows XP
requires it own unique license.

From the Windows XP EULA:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not
be used by more than two (2) processors at any one
time on any single Workstation Computer.

Please read your End-User License Agreement by going
to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter. Then
click on "End-User License Agreement".

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

:

| I'm about to install two seperate HD's and intend to have two seperate
| copies of XP - one for work + one for gaming, mixing business (schoolwork
| actually) with pleasure is a bit of an issue just now. Does the multiboot
| arrangement need two XP licences (using XP Home)?
|
| I have two, but don't want to commit both to one machine if it's not
| necessary.
|
| TIA
|
| Steve

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <[email protected]>

| Yes, each individual installation of Windows XP
| requires it own unique license.
|
| From the Windows XP EULA:
|
| 1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
| display and run one copy of the Software on a single
| computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
| device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not
| be used by more than two (2) processors at any one
| time on any single Workstation Computer.
|
| Please read your End-User License Agreement by going
| to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter. Then
| click on "End-User License Agreement".
|

I don't see it needing two licenses. It is installed on ONE computer and either copy will
be executed at any given moment, not two thus only ONE license is required.

 

[Ghostrider]

I'm about to install two seperate HD's and intend to have two seperate
copies of XP - one for work + one for gaming, mixing business (schoolwork
actually) with pleasure is a bit of an issue just now. Does the multiboot
arrangement need two XP licences (using XP Home)?

I have two, but don't want to commit both to one machine if it's not
necessary.

TIA

Steve

Why multiboot? Thought of setting up two different users
and configuring XP to the separate needs of either user?

 

[phoenix]

Yes, each individual installation of Windows XP
requires it own unique license.

I wouldn't have thought so.

If he's installing XP on a multiboot system then he can only run one copy
at a time, he can therefore use one licensed version on as many partitions
as he likes on the same machine.

From the Windows XP EULA:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not
be used by more than two (2) processors at any one
time on any single Workstation Computer.

That's exactly what he would be doing with one licenced version for the
reason given above.

Regards

Bill

 

[Steve]

Why multiboot? Thought of setting up two different users
and configuring XP to the separate needs of either user?

Because a teenage gamer plays havoc with the housekeeping on the drive and I
want to segregate work from play.

It's the "install" word in the EULA that causes the issue I think.
Multiboot meets all the other requirements in the licence.

Best Regards

Steve

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I'm about to install two seperate HD's and intend to
have two seperate copies of XP - one for work + one
for gaming, mixing business (schoolwork actually)
with pleasure is a bit of an issue just now. Does the
multiboot arrangement need two XP licences
(using XP Home)?

I have two, but don't want to commit both to one
machine if it's not necessary.

Yes, you can do it. And you can do it easily.
Carly Fisch will say that the EULA forbids it,
but so what, that's just Carly Fisch - not the courts
nor people in their right minds.

As for the procedure, just go ahead and install the
2nd OS where you want it. Since the 2nd installation
will be able to "see" the 1st during the install, the
2nd OS will call its partition "D:", but the multi-boot
menu will be set up automatically. If it has been less
than 120 days (4 months) since your last installation
using that CD, authorization will proceed automatically.
on-line. If it has been less than 120 days, you may have
to call Microsoft and tell that you're re-installing due to
a registry corruption.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

If you want confirmation on this matter, contact your local Microsoft
subsidiary office and speak to someone in licensing - they will confirm the
statement I made as being correct.

Give Microsoft Licensing department a call for a
definitive answer.
1-800-426-9400

Outside the US, the following page has links to local licensing sites
which include local customer service phone number
(http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx)

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

:

| I don't see it needing two licenses. It is installed on ONE computer and either copy will
| be executed at any given moment, not two thus only ONE license is required.
|
| --
| Dave

 

[kurttrail]

I don't see it needing two licenses. It is installed on ONE computer
and either copy will be executed at any given moment, not two thus
only ONE license is required.

Most people don't see the way Carey sees it.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Carey Frisch [MVP]" <[email protected]>

| If you want confirmation on this matter, contact your local Microsoft
| subsidiary office and speak to someone in licensing - they will confirm the
| statement I made as being correct.
|
| Give Microsoft Licensing department a call for a
| definitive answer.
| 1-800-426-9400
|
| Outside the US, the following page has links to local licensing sites
| which include local customer service phone number
| (http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/index/worldwide.mspx)
|

If I would check this out, I would contact a lawyer. I wouldn't contact the company who
undoubtedly who provide a minimum wage earner who will just cite what they are told to cite.
That would be whatever it is to max. the company profits.

As I read the EULA only one license is needed.

 

[Anna]

Because a teenage gamer plays havoc with the housekeeping on the drive and
I want to segregate work from play.

It's the "install" word in the EULA that causes the issue I think.
Multiboot meets all the other requirements in the licence.

Best Regards

Steve

Steve:
Let me offer another option for your consideration...

Assuming we're dealing with a desktop PC, why not install your two proposed
HDs each in a "mobile" HD rack so that the computer will be equipped with
two removable HDs. One HD will *belong* to you, the other to your teenage
son.

The beauty of this arrangement is that each self-contained HD is
physically/electrically isolated from each other since obviously only one OS
will be in play at any given time. Thus *all* the data on *your* HD is safe
from the "havoc" your son may potentially create, and he can use *his* HD to
his heart's content without fearing he will create any mischief on his dad's
system.

Now to implement this type of system your computer case will need (ideally)
two 5 1/4" bays to house the mobile racks. (Although there is a way you
could employ this general type of configuration with only one available 5
1/4" bay). Installing the mobile rack(s) is no more difficult than
installing an optical drive.

There are also other significant advantages to this type of hardware
arrangement which I won't go into here, but I will if you're interested in
this possible configuration.

The expense of these mobile racks is not terribly costly. From about $25 ea.
(all-plastic) to about $50 (all-aluminum).
Anna

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Anna" <[email protected]>


|
| Steve:
| Let me offer another option for your consideration...
|
| Assuming we're dealing with a desktop PC, why not install your two proposed
| HDs each in a "mobile" HD rack so that the computer will be equipped with
| two removable HDs. One HD will *belong* to you, the other to your teenage
| son.
|
| The beauty of this arrangement is that each self-contained HD is
| physically/electrically isolated from each other since obviously only one OS
| will be in play at any given time. Thus *all* the data on *your* HD is safe
| from the "havoc" your son may potentially create, and he can use *his* HD to
| his heart's content without fearing he will create any mischief on his dad's
| system.
|
| Now to implement this type of system your computer case will need (ideally)
| two 5 1/4" bays to house the mobile racks. (Although there is a way you
| could employ this general type of configuration with only one available 5
| 1/4" bay). Installing the mobile rack(s) is no more difficult than
| installing an optical drive.
|
| There are also other significant advantages to this type of hardware
| arrangement which I won't go into here, but I will if you're interested in
| this possible configuration.
|
| The expense of these mobile racks is not terribly costly. From about $25 ea.
| (all-plastic) to about $50 (all-aluminum).
| Anna
|

An *excellent* idea !!!

 

[David Candy]

MS disagrees with you. They will let you install a second install to repair a first install only.

 

[kurttrail]

Yes, you can do it. And you can do it easily.
Carly Fisch will say that the EULA forbids it,
but so what, that's just Carly Fisch - not the courts
nor people in their right minds.

As for the procedure, just go ahead and install the
2nd OS where you want it. Since the 2nd installation
will be able to "see" the 1st during the install, the
2nd OS will call its partition "D:", but the multi-boot
menu will be set up automatically. If it has been less
than 120 days (4 months) since your last installation
using that CD, authorization will proceed automatically.
on-line. If it has been less than 120 days, you may have
to call Microsoft and tell that you're re-installing due to
a registry corruption.

*TimDaniels*

It's the same hardware and the second install should activate over the
internet with no problem.

--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

The OP would still need a new Windows XP license for
installation on a second hard drive. Windows XP is licensed
on a per computer basis. Using the same license to install
Windows XP twice, on the same computer, is a flagrant
breach of the End User License Agreement.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­----------------

:

| Steve:
| Let me offer another option for your consideration...
|
| Assuming we're dealing with a desktop PC, why not install your two proposed
| HDs each in a "mobile" HD rack so that the computer will be equipped with
| two removable HDs. One HD will *belong* to you, the other to your teenage
| son.
|
| The beauty of this arrangement is that each self-contained HD is
| physically/electrically isolated from each other since obviously only one OS
| will be in play at any given time. Thus *all* the data on *your* HD is safe
| from the "havoc" your son may potentially create, and he can use *his* HD to
| his heart's content without fearing he will create any mischief on his dad's
| system.
|
| Now to implement this type of system your computer case will need (ideally)
| two 5 1/4" bays to house the mobile racks. (Although there is a way you
| could employ this general type of configuration with only one available 5
| 1/4" bay). Installing the mobile rack(s) is no more difficult than
| installing an optical drive.
|
| There are also other significant advantages to this type of hardware
| arrangement which I won't go into here, but I will if you're interested in
| this possible configuration.
|
| The expense of these mobile racks is not terribly costly. From about $25 ea.
| (all-plastic) to about $50 (all-aluminum).
| Anna

 

[DanS]

The OP would still need a new Windows XP license for
installation on a second hard drive. Windows XP is licensed
on a per computer basis. Using the same license to install
Windows XP twice, on the same computer, is a flagrant
breach of the End User License Agreement.

In the above statement you made, it says, 'Windows XP is licensed
on a per computer basis.'.

Am I, or am I not correct in saying that the OP's situation is indeed one
computer.

So in the past you have indicated that a motherboard change means it's a
new computer. Now you are saying that using a removable HD to swap
between 2 different configurations of the same OS on 2 separate HD's is 2
different computers.

At this rate, it won't be too long before you tell everyone that another
license in required when they replace their generic keyboard with a
multi-function keyboard.

It is not the end-user's fault that Windows can't be configured for 2
radically different purposes easily.

 

[kurttrail]

The OP would still need a new Windows XP license for
installation on a second hard drive. Windows XP is licensed
on a per computer basis. Using the same license to install
Windows XP twice, on the same computer, is a flagrant
breach of the End User License Agreement.

Says you! And even ASSuming you are correct, that doesn't mean that the
OP doesn't have the right to breach the EULA. Under contract law, MS
would have to sue, and not only prove a breach of contract, but that it
suffered a material loss due to it.

MS would, in effect, have to prove that software that was installed
twice on the SAME machine, but could only one copy could be used at any
given time made them suffer a material loss. Ain't gonna happen!
--
Peace!
Kurt Kirsch
Self-anointed Moderator
http://microscum.com
"It'll soon shake your Windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

 

[Ghostrider]

Because a teenage gamer plays havoc with the housekeeping on the drive and I
want to segregate work from play.

It's the "install" word in the EULA that causes the issue I think.
Multiboot meets all the other requirements in the licence.

My condolences. That is why I have 2 computers --- one
for work with a second for play and family. Other than
2 computer systems, Anna's option is excellent and yes,
I disagree with Carey because an XP system must use a HD
and there is only one functional HD in the system, making
"...one copy on a single computer...", when the other HD
is **not** used in any other system.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

MS disagrees with you. They will let you install
a second install to repair a first install only.

So?

*TimDaniels*