Win XP transfer to upgrade

[Guest]

I'm buying a new tower pc to network to my current system. I have XP Home OEM
on the old system. Can I install it on the new tower, or do I have to buy
another copy with new tower, or pay extended license fee or what?

Phil

 

[Bob I]

You have OEM installed on the old one, it stays on the old one. The new
PC will need it's own licensed copy. Buy it with the tower.

 

[Rock]

I'm buying a new tower pc to network to my current system. I have XP Home OEM
on the old system. Can I install it on the new tower, or do I have to buy
another copy with new tower, or pay extended license fee or what?

Phil

An OEM version is tied to the first computer on which it's installed.
It can't, per the EULA, be moved to a different system.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I'm buying a new tower pc to network to my current system. I have XP Home OEM
on the old system. Can I install it on the new tower, or do I have to buy
another copy with new tower, or pay extended license fee or what?

Phil

You need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer on
which you install it.

First of all, your old computer has an OEM license for WinXP.
An OEM version must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a
motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC) and is _permanently_
bound to the first PC on which it's installed. An OEM license, once
installed, is not legally transferable to another computer under _any_
circumstances.

Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your locale.) 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)
multiple installations using a single license.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[cuba]

...
Secondly, as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed.

Always makes me wonder why people are so quick to defend Microsoft's
terrible OEM non-transferable license which goes against normal shrink
wrap software licenses and copyright laws...

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Always makes me wonder why people are so quick to defend Microsoft's
terrible OEM non-transferable license which goes against normal shrink
wrap software licenses and copyright laws...

First, the EULA doesn't go against any normal licensing procedures or
copyright laws. Quite the contrary. Microsoft's aren't the only
"non-transferable" OEM licenses; they just a few amongst the many.

Second, if you don't like the terms of the license, use something else;
there are quite a few operating systems to choose from, many of them free.

Third, I'm not actually "defending" anything; I'm merely poointing out
the facts that any semi-adult, responsible consumer would have
discovered for himself, had he bothered to do a bit of product research
*before* making the purchase. I've no sympathy for intellectually lazy
twits who don't bother to investigate the product they're buying, and
then whine about it after the fact.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Guest]

Thanks for clearing that up. Looks like a new XP, then. But Bruce, you
mention other OS's, 'many of them free'. Do you have experience of any? Are
they fully compatible, like Windows, with 'all' currently available software?
Which, if any, would you - or anybody else - recommend?

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Thanks for clearing that up. Looks like a new XP, then. But Bruce, you
mention other OS's, 'many of them free'. Do you have experience of any?

I've tried a few different distros of Linux. Didn't much care for
them, but quite a few people seem to like them.

Are
they fully compatible, like Windows, with 'all' currently available software?

No. Like any other operating system, they're compatible only with
software written specifically for them.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[cuba]

First, the EULA doesn't go against any normal licensing procedures or
copyright laws. Quite the contrary. Microsoft's aren't the only
"non-transferable" OEM licenses; they just a few amongst the many.

IANAL, but Copyright Law allows for license transfers, backup copies,
and liberal personal use allowances, something that people who defend
Microsoft so fanactically seem to forget.

Just what are "normal licensing procedures" anyway? Sure, Microsoft has
million dollar lawyers drafting licenses. Contract Law is huge. But
there are basic principles and premises -- like limitations -- that
give normal people some rights which cannot be taken away simply by
dis-allowing them in a shrink-wrap license.

Second, if you don't like the terms of the license, use something else;
there are quite a few operating systems to choose from, many of them free.

Third, I'm not actually "defending" anything; I'm merely poointing out
the facts that any semi-adult, responsible consumer would have
discovered for himself, had he bothered to do a bit of product research
*before* making the purchase. I've no sympathy for intellectually lazy
twits who don't bother to investigate the product they're buying, and
then whine about it after the fact.

So, all the people posting here asking questions about why Microsoft
Software stops working when the upgrade their motherboard -- and
thousands of similar questions -- are immature, lazy twits whining?
(You ought to have an MVP sig.)

I've been to Staples, Best Buy, Radio Shack and Wal-Mart, et al, and I
cannot find "something" else. All of my clients don't have "something
else". Microsoft is a.... what is that word.. begins with "M".... Oh
yeah, that's right. MONOPOLY.

(Yeah, yeah, I can download Linux, or buy Dell's N-series, or buy
Apple. But I'm immature and lazy, remember.)

So, anyone looking for a computer must "research" before buying, huh?

User: "Excuse me, Mr. Best Buy salesman. Can I get a copy of the
Microsoft XP EULA so I can read it before buying?"

Salesman: "Eh? What's a yula?"

User: "E-U-L-A It's the end user license aggreement that is part of
normal licensing procededures that all computer operating systems have,
silly. Don't you know that? I'd like a copy so that I can make and
informed decision."

Salesman: "Um. I don't know if we have one. Where would I find it? I'll
have to call the manager.... We, um, don't have, ah, a 'yula' that you
can read. Did you try calling Microsoft? No? Have you tried the
Internet? Don't have a computer. Have you tried the library? No, I gues
it wouldn't. Sorry, we just sell the computers."


You may be an expert, but people should not have to be. There have
always been certain rights that consumers had with regard to
copyrightable intellectual property, such as the first sale doctrine.
Microsoft's actions in this regard are to simply ignore years of
copyright precedence and bully people into compliance with what it
wants the law to be. (Microsoft Corp v. Zamos)

Since there is basically no difference between Retail XP and OEM XP
except for the license. Why then, should one allow the transfer of the
software to another PC in the former case but not the latter?

I am sure that you will provide expert reasons why, such as costs or
OEM relationships, etc. But there will always remain the basic fact
that the software is the same and only the licenses differ.

You see that as okay. I see that as Microsoft and the OEMs as working
together to deprive users of basic rights, hoping that the users will
just be, as you say, intellecually lazy.

Does Microsoft say to the OEM, "Look, I know you complain about our
price, but how about we change the EULA for you so that your user must
buy all hardware and software upgrades from you so you can make up
costs there."

Or does the OEM say, "Look, if you agree to bring the price down, we'll
accept a EULA that prevents the user from transfering your OS to new
hardware, so that the user has to buy another copy when they want to
upgrade."

Either way, it is wrong that software cannot be transferable. You were
the one that said that Microsoft needs to be in compliance with
Copyright Law. One cannot be in complance and prevent transfer at the
same time.

There is, of course, much more to both sides. As software becomes more
hardware specific -- like when running out of ROM -- then software
transfer becomes a dead issue, as it can't really be transered in the
say way as software on a CD.

But once people let corporations make the rules, and we blindly accept
them, we lose. You will never see that.

 

[Frank]

IANAL, but Copyright Law allows for license transfers, backup copies,
and liberal personal use allowances, something that people who defend
Microsoft so fanactically seem to forget.

Just what are "normal licensing procedures" anyway? Sure, Microsoft has
million dollar lawyers drafting licenses. Contract Law is huge. But
there are basic principles and premises -- like limitations -- that
give normal people some rights which cannot be taken away simply by
dis-allowing them in a shrink-wrap license.


So, all the people posting here asking questions about why Microsoft
Software stops working when the upgrade their motherboard -- and
thousands of similar questions -- are immature, lazy twits whining?
(You ought to have an MVP sig.)

I've been to Staples, Best Buy, Radio Shack and Wal-Mart, et al, and I
cannot find "something" else. All of my clients don't have "something
else". Microsoft is a.... what is that word.. begins with "M".... Oh
yeah, that's right. MONOPOLY.

(Yeah, yeah, I can download Linux, or buy Dell's N-series, or buy
Apple. But I'm immature and lazy, remember.)

So, anyone looking for a computer must "research" before buying, huh?

User: "Excuse me, Mr. Best Buy salesman. Can I get a copy of the
Microsoft XP EULA so I can read it before buying?"

Salesman: "Eh? What's a yula?"

User: "E-U-L-A It's the end user license aggreement that is part of
normal licensing procededures that all computer operating systems have,
silly. Don't you know that? I'd like a copy so that I can make and
informed decision."

Salesman: "Um. I don't know if we have one. Where would I find it? I'll
have to call the manager.... We, um, don't have, ah, a 'yula' that you
can read. Did you try calling Microsoft? No? Have you tried the
Internet? Don't have a computer. Have you tried the library? No, I gues
it wouldn't. Sorry, we just sell the computers."


You may be an expert, but people should not have to be. There have
always been certain rights that consumers had with regard to
copyrightable intellectual property, such as the first sale doctrine.
Microsoft's actions in this regard are to simply ignore years of
copyright precedence and bully people into compliance with what it
wants the law to be. (Microsoft Corp v. Zamos)

Since there is basically no difference between Retail XP and OEM XP
except for the license. Why then, should one allow the transfer of the
software to another PC in the former case but not the latter?

I am sure that you will provide expert reasons why, such as costs or
OEM relationships, etc. But there will always remain the basic fact
that the software is the same and only the licenses differ.

You see that as okay. I see that as Microsoft and the OEMs as working
together to deprive users of basic rights, hoping that the users will
just be, as you say, intellecually lazy.

Does Microsoft say to the OEM, "Look, I know you complain about our
price, but how about we change the EULA for you so that your user must
buy all hardware and software upgrades from you so you can make up
costs there."

Or does the OEM say, "Look, if you agree to bring the price down, we'll
accept a EULA that prevents the user from transfering your OS to new
hardware, so that the user has to buy another copy when they want to
upgrade."

Either way, it is wrong that software cannot be transferable. You were
the one that said that Microsoft needs to be in compliance with
Copyright Law. One cannot be in complance and prevent transfer at the
same time.

There is, of course, much more to both sides. As software becomes more
hardware specific -- like when running out of ROM -- then software
transfer becomes a dead issue, as it can't really be transered in the
say way as software on a CD.

But once people let corporations make the rules, and we blindly accept
them, we lose. You will never see that.

The biggest _SCAM_ is the label that has a restore disk sealed closed.
It states that if you break the seal that you are bound by a bunch of
_WHAT_.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

IANAL, but Copyright Law allows for license transfers, backup copies,
and liberal personal use allowances, something that people who defend
Microsoft so fanactically seem to forget.

Not so, I've read the applicable laws repeatedly, as well as the court
decision that determine that a EULA is a legally enforceable contract.

Just what are "normal licensing procedures" anyway?

Each vendor determines the licensing terms for it's own products,
ovbiously.

So, all the people posting here asking questions about why Microsoft
Software stops working when the upgrade their motherboard -- and
thousands of similar questions -- are immature, lazy twits whining?

An awfully large number of them are, yes. If they lazily clicked
"Agree" without bothering to read the EULA, they've absolutely no one to
blame but themselves. If they purchased any kind of software without
first determining if the licensing terms were to their liking, I've no
sympathy. Adults should be held accountable for the consequences of
their owwn actions and decisions.

(You ought to have an MVP sig.)

Thanks for the kind words.

I've been to Staples, Best Buy, Radio Shack and Wal-Mart, et al, and I
cannot find "something" else.

If all you do is deliberately and repeatedly look in the wrong places,
naturally you'll not find anything else.

All of my clients don't have "something
else".

And that's their choice.

Microsoft is a.... what is that word.. begins with "M".... Oh
yeah, that's right. MONOPOLY.

No. it's not. There are dozens of other operating systems and software
manufacturers out there.

(Yeah, yeah, I can download Linux, or buy Dell's N-series, or buy
Apple. But I'm immature and lazy, remember.)

So, anyone looking for a computer must "research" before buying, huh?

Anyone buying *anything* should do the research before making a
purchase. That's part of being a responsible consumer.

User: "Excuse me, Mr. Best Buy salesman. Can I get a copy of the
Microsoft XP EULA so I can read it before buying?"

Salesman: "Eh? What's a yula?"

User: "E-U-L-A It's the end user license aggreement that is part of
normal licensing procededures that all computer operating systems have,
silly. Don't you know that? I'd like a copy so that I can make and
informed decision."

Salesman: "Um. I don't know if we have one. Where would I find it? I'll
have to call the manager.... We, um, don't have, ah, a 'yula' that you
can read. Did you try calling Microsoft? No? Have you tried the
Internet? Don't have a computer. Have you tried the library? No, I gues
it wouldn't. Sorry, we just sell the computers."

Which would be the time to walk out of that store and find one with a
sales staff that's at least somewhat familiar with the products they sell.

You may be an expert, but people should not have to be.

Why not? Do they have nannies to protect them?

There have
always been certain rights that consumers had with regard to
copyrightable intellectual property, such as the first sale doctrine.
Microsoft's actions in this regard are to simply ignore years of
copyright precedence and bully people into compliance with what it
wants the law to be. (Microsoft Corp v. Zamos)

The jury's still out on the applicability of first sale doctrine, or
Microsoft and the OEM's would have been prohibited from selling licenses
the way they do. Remember when the Dept of Justice and several states'
Attorneys General tried to sue Microsoft? How come no a single one of
them objected to the OEM license terms?

Since there is basically no difference between Retail XP and OEM XP
except for the license. Why then, should one allow the transfer of the
software to another PC in the former case but not the latter?

Because that's how they chose to sell their product. It's call free
enterprise. Don't like it? Move to Cuba.

I am sure that you will provide expert reasons why, such as costs or
OEM relationships, etc. But there will always remain the basic fact
that the software is the same and only the licenses differ.

Correct. The licenses differ. You can write the words, but you can't
seem to grasp the concept. Which part of it is troubling you.

You see that as okay. I see that as Microsoft and the OEMs as working
together to deprive users of basic rights, hoping that the users will
just be, as you say, intellecually lazy.

How are users being "deprived of basic rights" when those users are
freely and voluntarily agreeing to the licensing terms?

Does Microsoft say to the OEM, "Look, I know you complain about our
price, but how about we change the EULA for you so that your user must
buy all hardware and software upgrades from you so you can make up
costs there."

What would be the point? Why would the OEM what to facilitate more
business for its competitors?

Or does the OEM say, "Look, if you agree to bring the price down, we'll
accept a EULA that prevents the user from transfering your OS to new
hardware, so that the user has to buy another copy when they want to
upgrade."

Either way, it is wrong that software cannot be transferable. You were
the one that said that Microsoft needs to be in compliance with
Copyright Law. One cannot be in complance and prevent transfer at the
same time.

Read the copyright law. You're clearly unfamiliar with it.

There is, of course, much more to both sides. As software becomes more
hardware specific -- like when running out of ROM -- then software
transfer becomes a dead issue, as it can't really be transered in the
say way as software on a CD.

But once people let corporations make the rules, and we blindly accept
them, we lose.

Then contact your legislature. Change the laws. Corporations are,
after all, amoral legal entities, not real beings. They will push the
letter of the law as far as they can to make a profit, which is their
sole purpose for existing.

You will never see that.

I saw that years ago, and vote accordingly. However, my like or
dislike of the situation doesn't change the reality. Nor does it change
the fact that people need to learn to be responsible for themselves, and
stop expecting some sort of nanny society to always protect them from
themselves, and the natural consequences of their own choices.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[cuba]

There are contradictions, sometimes, between copyright and licenses,
and not all aspects have been made into court cases, but some have --
as you of course know. Some issues have yet to be resolved at all
levels. And some court cases seem to be contradictory.

Depending upon one's basic principles, one can side more for, in this
case, the Microsoft non-transfer License clause or for the long
established copyright provisions allowing for backups, transfer and
re-sale. The courts have not been as clear as you in your supprt --
defense -- of Microsoft.

I can not dispute that a license can be considered a valid contract.
But again, the courts can muddle the equivalency of a license and a
contract. (See www.badsoftware.com for more perspective on this.)

I do dispute the validity of XP's OEM non-transfer clause. That one
software license was enforcable does not mean that all are. Nor does it
mean that, again, in this case, Microsoft can put any restrictions that
it damn well pleases in a license.

I will now entertain a few specific items in your post.

Each vendor determines the licensing terms for it's own products,
ovbiously.

If each vendor has it's own terms then there are no "normal"
procedures, obviously, as there would then be "different licensing
procedures" per vendor, by your definition.

A license cannot have restrictions that violate other laws. If they do
and are still around then they have not been challanged in court. Or
people simply obey them blindly. If a license is invalid it is not
enforcable and need not be followed -- in whole or in part? It's
confusing. Businesses need to worry. The person at home for his/her own
personal use need not.

An awfully large number of them are, yes. If they lazily clicked
"Agree" without bothering to read the EULA, they've absolutely no one to
blame but themselves.

Yes and no. People should be able to assume that they have certain
rights as consumers, as they need to know that they have certain
responsabilities. Not even I am going to defend someone selling copies
of his XP CD. But there are certain rights they are supposed to have.
And it is totally disingenuous when one considers that corporations go
too far in trying to restrict those rights.

If they purchased any kind of software without
first determining if the licensing terms were to their liking, I've no
sympathy. Adults should be held accountable for the consequences of
their owwn actions and decisions.

Again you are being disingenuous and wholly impractical. Corporations
need to be held accountable. Consumers cannot be expected to have the
same level of accountability as a corporation.

Thanks for the kind words.

You take insults nicely.

If all you do is deliberately and repeatedly look in the wrong places,
naturally you'll not find anything else.

Bullshit. You already know where to look. The think is is that you have
not tried to un-know what you know. If someone who knows nothing about
computers his/her options are the stores in his/her local area,
possibly influenced by adverts and family and friends.

One cannot deliberately or repeatedly look in the wrong places if one
does not know where to look. So, where do people look knowing very
littel about computers? Staples, Best Buy, Radio Shack and Wal-Mart, et
al. Or perhaps the lone Apple store in their area.

And that's their choice.


No. it's not. There are dozens of other operating systems and software
manufacturers out there.

It's not an absolute monopoly, duh. You are being to statistical and
looking at the wrong numbers. It is not about total number of type of
operating systems avaialable. It is about market share. It is about
data exchange and file formats and hardware availiblity.

[snip]

Which would be the time to walk out of that store and find one with a
sales staff that's at least somewhat familiar with the products they sell.

You took that hypothetical discussion seriously? Dude, you are insane
to think that typical consumers even know what they are to ask about
when they know nothing about computers.

I was indicating that it is totally insane to think that someone who
knows nothing about computers is expected to somehow know that they
need to "research" the fine print and legalise of a "EULA" -- something
they should have no expectation of.

Again, you are projecting your own "expertise" upon the un-knowledgable
consumer. One cannot possibly know that a salesman is familiar with
something if they are not familiar with it themselves.

Why not? Do they have nannies to protect them?

Again, you are being insane. People don't know what they don't know.

[snip]

The jury's still out on the applicability of first sale doctrine, or
Microsoft and the OEM's would have been prohibited from selling licenses
the way they do.

The one does not follow from the other.

Remember when the Dept of Justice and several states'
Attorneys General tried to sue Microsoft? How come no a single one of
them objected to the OEM license terms?

Um, because they were not challanging Microsoft's XP OEM license but
something else?

Because that's how they chose to sell their product. It's call free
enterprise. Don't like it? Move to Cuba.

It's called using using an overly restrictive clause in violation of
established copyright rights in the OEM case. Welcome to America.

Correct. The licenses differ. You can write the words, but you can't
seem to grasp the concept. Which part of it is troubling you.

A company cannot put any text that they want in a license. They cannot
put words in that takes away people's rights as defined as defined
elsewhere. You do not want address that.

How are users being "deprived of basic rights" when those users are
freely and voluntarily agreeing to the licensing terms?

Can I do this:

***

This POST has a LICENSE AGREEMENT. By reading this POST you agreeing to
abide by this LICENSE AGREEMENT. You cannot print, copy, refer to or
otherwise use this POST in violation of this LICENSE AGREEMENT.

***

I cannot take away some basic rights you have over my copyrighted
works. Get it?

[snip]

*sigh*

This is getting tired. Let post your rebuttal for you:

cuba wrote

[yada, yada]

I am an expert who knows everything and am never even remotely wrong.
You are wrong. Microsoft is perfect.