Why Only On One PC?

[Guest]

Hi. Just wondering why doesn't Microsoft let you install
Windows XP and Office 2003 on two PC's? I think they
should at least let you install them on two PC's. They
let you do it for one desktop on one laptop right?
Thanks, Craig.

 

[Mark]

To deter computer Windows users purchasing more than one Windows
computer; or use Linux and OpenOffice on their second and subsequent
computers.

 

[Miss Perspicacia Tick]

WRONG! Windows has been one licence *PER SYSTEM* since Windows 3.1. Office
is one desktop/laptop, unless it's OEM or STE XP.

 

[Ken Blake]

In (e-mail address removed)

Hi. Just wondering why doesn't Microsoft let you install
Windows XP and Office 2003 on two PC's? I think they
should at least let you install them on two PC's.

Although it would be nice if they would do that, it's their
choice, not ours. Like anyone else selling a product, they get to
set the rules for its use. Our choice is whether to buy it and
accept the rules, or decide we don't like the rules and not buy
it.

They
let you do it for one desktop on one laptop right?

Wrong. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license)
for each computer, and it doesn't matter whether they are
desktops or laptops.

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.

 

[Alias]

Like anyone else selling a product, they get to

set the rules for its use. Our choice is whether to buy it and
accept the rules, or decide we don't like the rules and not buy
it.>

Somehow, I don't think that every product carries rules of usage with them.
For example, a banana. Chiquita Banana could care less if two people eat it,
no one eats it or you use it as a dildo and then smoke the peels. After all
you *did* pay for the product and it is therefore *yours*. Unfortunately,
the rules of usage for an MS OS doesn't stop piracy and only gets bonafide
customers upset with Microsoft for the inconvenience and probably don't have
much sympathy with MS' excuse that they're "losing money to piracy" when
their CEO is the richest man in the world.

Alias

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Why?
Because Microsoft made it and that is what they want it.
It is that simple.

However most retail Office can be installed on two computers.
Office 2003 Student & Teachers is usually good for 3.
Read the specific EULA for details.

 

[Crusty \Old B@stard\]

Microsoft has the right to allow what it wants. They own the programs. You
are licensed to use them, or not, under their terms.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Crusty \Old B@stard\]

I am a bonafide user. I'm not upset!

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

The manufacturer of a product has a right to control the usage of
their product.
If you do not like the terms, buy from someone else.
Your comparison with bananas is ludicrous.

 

[Woody]

NO more than you're telling us "The manufacturer of a product has a right to
control the usage of
their product."

since when has the manufacturer of any product been able to tell us what we
do with any product after we purchase it ?

or was that you peeking into my bedroom window last nite ?

 

[Alias]

Microsoft has the right to allow what it wants. They own the programs. You
are licensed to use them, or not, under their terms.

Yeah, kinda like a streetwalker.

Alias

 

[hermes]

The manufacturer of a product has a right to control the usage of
their product.
If you do not like the terms, buy from someone else.
Your comparison with bananas is ludicrous.

Jupiter is leaving out the fact that M$ practically forces the OEMs to
enforce these terms of the EULA through monopolistic sales practices.

--

hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

 

[Rustler_Gates]

A 75 billion dollar giveaway to reduce Microsoft's huge cash reserves
is also kind of ridiculous. Did we get ripped off or what!

 

[Alias]

The manufacturer of a product has a right to control the usage of
their product.

Are you sure it's a product we're buying?

Seems like we are buying the right to use something, not ownership of the
product. Gosh, that's almost as sneaky as stealing windows from Apple.

If you do not like the terms, buy from someone else.

Unfortunately for MS, there are other choices, be they using a pirated
version if you can't afford the priveledge of using the "product" or go with
an open source OS. One can only hope that the alternative OSs can not only
force MS to lower their prices and loosen their restrictions but motivate
them to put out a better product.

Your comparison with bananas is ludicrous.

Bananas are "products", are they not? Can you imagine Chiquita Banana suing
someone for not using their bananas correctly?

Alias

 

[PCyr]

You are not buying the product, you are buying the licenced to use the
product.

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others...
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/
-----

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

This bonafide user isn't the least bit upset that Microsoft has
finally started to take steps (baby steps, with WPA, granted) to put a
stop to software piracy. I also know better than trying to compare
the license usage of copyrighted intellectual property with a banana.

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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Never read any warranties for anything you've ever purchased?

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

 

[JerryMouse]

Like anyone else selling a product, they get to

Somehow, I don't think that every product carries rules of usage with
them. For example, a banana. Chiquita Banana could care less if two
people eat it, no one eats it or you use it as a dildo and then smoke
the peels.

After all you *did* pay for the product and it is
therefore *yours*.

In spite of the similarity to buying a banana, you did not buy Windows XP.
You bought a license to use the software, sort of a perpetual rental. You do
not own the software.

The actual owner of the software, Micros~1, retains certain rights over how
you use it, much like a hotel retains rights over the things you can do
within your hotel room.

 

[hermes]

Alias wrote:



In spite of the similarity to buying a banana, you did not buy Windows XP.
You bought a license to use the software, sort of a perpetual rental. You do
not own the software.

The actual owner of the software, Micros~1, retains certain rights over how
you use it, much like a hotel retains rights over the things you can do
within your hotel room.

I find this unconscionable. I contest this based on the fact that I
purchased a copy of the software which is mine. M$ owns the code, and I
may not reverse engineer it, but I should dang well be able to use my
copy of the software as I please in the privacy of my own home for
non-commercial purposes. It's called fair use rights.

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

 

[Plato]

Hi. Just wondering why doesn't Microsoft let you install
Windows XP and Office 2003 on two PC's? I think they
should at least let you install them on two PC's. They
let you do it for one desktop on one laptop right?

Capitalism?