Windows XP Home

[Guest]

Can I use windows xp home on two computer with the same copy?

 

[Rock]

Can I use windows xp home on two computer with the same copy?

No. XP is licensed to only one system at a time. If it's a retail copy
it can be moved to another system if it's taken off the first one. OEM
copies are tied to the first system to which it's installed.

 

[Uncle Joe]

No. Illegal. Sorry. Even if you tried this, the
second installation would quickly stop working.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Can I use windows xp home on two computer with the same copy?

If you've a retail license, you could use the same CD, but you'd still
need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer on which you
install it.

Just 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.

One can buy additional licenses, assuming one already has a retail
license. Naturally, Microsoft cannot sell additional OEM licenses. Be
aware, however, that you'll probably pay more this way than you would if
you were to buy a second copy of WinXP from a discount retailer;
Microsoft will only offer you a 15% discount off their MSRP.

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Home Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp

Additional Licenses for Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp


--

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

 

[Alias]

Can I use windows xp home on two computer with the same copy?

According to the EULA, no. Technically, of course. All you have to do is
wait 120 days from when you installed it on one computer and then
install it on another and MS will not be the wiser. From a moral point
of view, when one considers that MS stole Windows from Apple, MS really
doesn't have a hanky to cry into if you do it. In addition, MS has never
taken a private individual to court for breaching the EULA so until they
do, it is NOT illegal to install XP on two or more computers.

Alias

 

[Alias]

No. XP is licensed to only one system at a time.

So far, I agree.

If it's a retail copy
it can be moved to another system if it's taken off the first one.

Ibid, although if 120 days had passed since the last hardware update,
one could technically and legally install it on two computers. I say
legally because MS hasn't had the cojones to take a private individual
to court for violation of an EULA so it isn't "legal" yet.

OEM
copies are tied to the first system to which it's installed.

Erm, here we disagree because MS never defines what a "first system" is.
One could upgrade everything but one screw and it would be considered
the "first system", only upgraded which WPA and WGA allow.

Alias

 

[Bruce Chambers]

According to the EULA, no. Technically, of course.

Actually, that should be "Technically, maybe." It depends entirely
upon the specific type of installation CD the OP has.

All you have to do is
wait 120 days from when you installed it on one computer and then
install it on another and MS will not be the wiser.

Again, maybe. It still depends entirely upon the specific type of
installation CD the OP has.

From a moral point
of view, ....

With which you've always demonstrated a complete unfamiliarity.

when one considers that MS stole Windows from Apple,

An out-right lie. And you forgot to mention that the original idea for
a GUI was developed by Xerox, from whom Apple "borrowed" it first.

MS really
doesn't have a hanky to cry into if you do it.

Ah, yes... The old "two wrongs must make a right" rationale thieves
always fall back on.

In addition, MS has never
taken a private individual to court for breaching the EULA so until they
do,

True, but irrelevant.

it is NOT illegal to install XP on two or more computers.

That depends entirely upon the intellectual property and copyright laws
of the jurisdiction in which one resides. For instance, in the United
States, such an action not only violates a legally enforceable contract,
but it also clearly violates federal copyright law.



--

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

 

[Alias]

Actually, that should be "Technically, maybe." It depends entirely
upon the specific type of installation CD the OP has.

True, but I wasn't talking about restore disks but XP.

Again, maybe. It still depends entirely upon the specific type of
installation CD the OP has.

True, but I wasn't talking about restore disks but XP.

With which you've always demonstrated a complete unfamiliarity.

Morality is a subjective thing. For example, there are Muslims that
think it morally correct to blow themselves up in a metro station,
whilst Bush thinks it morally correct to bomb the shit out of countries
and kill over 100,000 innocent civilians in the process. Others think
that forcing people to buy a licence instead of the software is inmoral,
sneaky and a scam.

An out-right lie. And you forgot to mention that the original idea
for a GUI was developed by Xerox, from whom Apple "borrowed" it first.

OK, MS stole it from Apple who stole it from Xerox. Better? That said,
when the Mac came out back in 84, I was in Venezuela and the company was
called Apple-Xerox so go figure ...

Ah, yes... The old "two wrongs must make a right" rationale thieves
always fall back on.

I don't consider installing XP on two computers to be stealing. You do.
It has nothing to do with two wrongs making a right.

True, but irrelevant.




That depends entirely upon the intellectual property and copyright
laws of the jurisdiction in which one resides. For instance, in the
United States, such an action not only violates a legally enforceable
contract, but it also clearly violates federal copyright law.

Yet, MS has yet to call anyone on it. I wonder why?

alias

 

[Steve N.]

Actually, that should be "Technically, maybe." It depends entirely
upon the specific type of installation CD the OP has.
True.




Again, maybe. It still depends entirely upon the specific type of
installation CD the OP has.

Again true, and is some cases waiting 120 days is not even necessary.

With which you've always demonstrated a complete unfamiliarity.

Oh, quit preaching Bruce. Morality is a subjective matter for the
individual to determine for themself. You have no right to judge someone
else's sense of morality.

An out-right lie. And you forgot to mention that the original idea
for a GUI was developed by Xerox, from whom Apple "borrowed" it first.

No it's not a lie. "Borrowed"! LOL! Apple stole the idea from Xerox and
M$ stole it from Apple. And M$ stole DOS from Digital Research. For that
matter we _all_ stole ethernet from Xerox! What does that make us?

Ah, yes... The old "two wrongs must make a right" rationale thieves
always fall back on.

But three or more wrongs do, eh?

True, but irrelevant.

No it's not irrelvant. Until a court of law rules on a contract dispute
it is not "law". It is only legally binding when _both_ parties agree to
it, and _continue_ to do so.

That depends entirely upon the intellectual property and copyright
laws of the jurisdiction in which one resides. For instance, in the
United States, such an action not only violates a legally enforceable
contract, but it also clearly violates federal copyright law.

That is still up for debate and EULAs _are_ being challenged:

http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

I strongly suggest you read it.

Where's your law degree Bruce? You're no more an authority on this than
anyone else is.

This is not to say I advocate piracy, casual or otherwise, nor do I
slight M$ for making money they deserve, but I can and do speak up for
the truth and do not abide with half-truths and mis-information and just
because you and M$ say it's so does not make it the truth.

Steve N.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Oh, quit preaching Bruce. Morality is a subjective matter for the
individual to determine for themself.

Not in any known human society. Look around you. The "group"
determines what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not
acceptable. Violators are ostracized, punished, or exiled. Further, in
a civilized society, behavior that harms others, to include stealing
their property, is one of the behaviors deemed unacceptable. Granted,
different societies develop different mores, which often seem silly to
outsiders. After all, "One man's theology is another man's
belly-laugh." What is up to each individual is the decision of whether
to abide by his groups' rules, or to be prepared to suffer any
consequences for failing to do so.

You have no right to judge someone
else's sense of morality.

Oh, don't I have the same "rights" as everyone else? Of course, I have
the right to decide whether or not I consider someone else's behavior
acceptable. I also have the right to say so.

No it's not a lie. "Borrowed"! LOL! Apple stole the idea from Xerox and
M$ stole it from Apple. And M$ stole DOS from Digital Research. For that
matter we _all_ stole ethernet from Xerox! What does that make us?

Hyperbole aside, where are the court decisions from the
patent-infringement cases? No one actually, literally "stole" the GUI
from anyone else; no more than Benz stole the idea for an automobile
from Ford, or vice versa. Technology most often advances by someone's
improving upon, or being inspired by, someone else's work. That's even
how we got from caves to houses. It was time for a GUI, and several
competing entities produced versions of same; only two (Apple and
Microsoft) had any measurable success with their differing
implementations of the idea.

But three or more wrongs do, eh?

No, but how does this apply? Where's the alleged third "wrong?"

No it's not irrelvant. Until a court of law rules on a contract dispute
it is not "law".

EULAs have already been upheld in court as legally binding contracts,
in principle. Only those specific EULAs found to be invalid by a court,
by reason of being in violation of law or by being unconscionable, are
*not* binding contracts.

It is only legally binding when _both_ parties agree to
it, and _continue_ to do so.

But the purchaser/user of the OS *has* agreed to the terms of the
contract. And you're saying it's OK to renege on a contract any time
thereafter, whenever that it's terms become "inconvenient?" So, after
you've signed a contract to purchase and pay for a car, mortgage a home,
use a credit card, etc., you're entitled to change your mind, stop
making payments, and still keep the car, the house, the items purchased
with the credit card? What planet do you live on?

That is still up for debate and EULAs _are_ being challenged:

http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

I strongly suggest you read it.

I have looked at it. There are many valid points there. So what? It
seems to be mostly aimed at purveyors of ad-ware and spy-ware. Even so,
a license's being challenged is no indication of its validity or lack
thereof, nor is it the same as the license's having being over-turned.
There are idiots out there who challenge the fact that the world is
round; that's no going to flatten the planet. Where is the court case
that specifically finds Microsoft's EULA invalid? Until that happens,
it stands.

Where's your law degree Bruce?

Don't have one, never claimed to do so, nor is one necessary.

You're no more an authority on this than
anyone else is.

Officially, no. But I dare say I'm more of an authority than those who
spout nothing more than their own wishful thinking.

This is not to say I advocate piracy, casual or otherwise, nor do I
slight M$ for making money they deserve,

Good for you.

but I can and do speak up for
the truth and do not abide with half-truths and mis-information
and just because you and M$ say it's so does not make it the truth.

True, but that doesn't logically follow the first part of the sentence.
Are you accusing me of lying? If so, please substantiate the
accusation. I am capable of making a mistake and mis-speaking, but I do
not knowingly lie. Period.

Nor do I necessarily agree with or like the terms of Microsoft's EULAs.
You'll never find a single instance where I've said that I do. What
I'd like to see is an end of the "OEM" EULA, but that will well raise
the costs - and therefore the prices - of PCs. In particular, I'd like
to see the end of non-transferable licenses. I'd like to see Microsoft
offer a "Household" license that allows installations on up to, say, PCs
within a single home. However, those are business decisions for
Microsoft (and every other software manufacturer - why do the same
licensing terms become objectionable only when found in a Microsoft
EULA, but Adobe's or Corel's EULAs are fine? Do I detect a hint of
hypocrisy?) to make; it's not the world we live in.

What I point out is simple fact that the EULA is an agreement into
which the computer user has freely entered, and that violating said
contract would be a lapse in integrity (and a violation of the law, in
some locations) and prove said individual to be completely
untrustworthy. The fact the a EULA is involved is ultimately
irrelevant; a broken promise remains a broken promise, regardless of the
subject.


--

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]

Not in any known human society. Look around you. The "group"
determines what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not
acceptable. Violators are ostracized, punished, or exiled. Further, in
a civilized society, behavior that harms others, to include stealing
their property, is one of the behaviors deemed unacceptable. Granted,
different societies develop different mores, which often seem silly to
outsiders. After all, "One man's theology is another man's
belly-laugh." What is up to each individual is the decision of whether
to abide by his groups' rules, or to be prepared to suffer any
consequences for failing to do so.





Oh, don't I have the same "rights" as everyone else? Of course, I
have the right to decide whether or not I consider someone else's
behavior acceptable. I also have the right to say so.





Hyperbole aside, where are the court decisions from the
patent-infringement cases? No one actually, literally "stole" the GUI
from anyone else; no more than Benz stole the idea for an automobile
from Ford, or vice versa. Technology most often advances by someone's
improving upon, or being inspired by, someone else's work. That's even
how we got from caves to houses. It was time for a GUI, and several
competing entities produced versions of same; only two (Apple and
Microsoft) had any measurable success with their differing
implementations of the idea.




No, but how does this apply? Where's the alleged third "wrong?"





EULAs have already been upheld in court as legally binding
contracts, in principle. Only those specific EULAs found to be invalid
by a court, by reason of being in violation of law or by being
unconscionable, are *not* binding contracts.




But the purchaser/user of the OS *has* agreed to the terms of the
contract. And you're saying it's OK to renege on a contract any time
thereafter, whenever that it's terms become "inconvenient?" So, after
you've signed a contract to purchase and pay for a car, mortgage a home,
use a credit card, etc., you're entitled to change your mind, stop
making payments, and still keep the car, the house, the items purchased
with the credit card? What planet do you live on?





I have looked at it. There are many valid points there. So what?
It seems to be mostly aimed at purveyors of ad-ware and spy-ware. Even
so, a license's being challenged is no indication of its validity or
lack thereof, nor is it the same as the license's having being
over-turned. There are idiots out there who challenge the fact that the
world is round; that's no going to flatten the planet. Where is the
court case that specifically finds Microsoft's EULA invalid? Until that
happens, it stands.




Don't have one, never claimed to do so, nor is one necessary.




Officially, no. But I dare say I'm more of an authority than those
who spout nothing more than their own wishful thinking.






Good for you.





True, but that doesn't logically follow the first part of the
sentence. Are you accusing me of lying? If so, please substantiate the
accusation. I am capable of making a mistake and mis-speaking, but I do
not knowingly lie. Period.

Nor do I necessarily agree with or like the terms of Microsoft's
EULAs. You'll never find a single instance where I've said that I do.
What I'd like to see is an end of the "OEM" EULA, but that will well
raise the costs - and therefore the prices - of PCs. In particular, I'd
like to see the end of non-transferable licenses. I'd like to see
Microsoft offer a "Household" license that allows installations on up
to, say, PCs within a single home. However, those are business ^
^
5


decisions for Microsoft (and every other software manufacturer - why do
the same licensing terms become objectionable only when found in a
Microsoft EULA, but Adobe's or Corel's EULAs are fine? Do I detect a
hint of hypocrisy?) to make; it's not the world we live in.

What I point out is simple fact that the EULA is an agreement into
which the computer user has freely entered, and that violating said
contract would be a lapse in integrity (and a violation of the law, in
some locations) and prove said individual to be completely
untrustworthy. The fact the a EULA is involved is ultimately
irrelevant; a broken promise remains a broken promise, regardless of the
subject.

--

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

 

[Plato]

Can I use windows xp home on two computer with the same copy?

Yes, but on the second pc it will only work for 30 days or so.