Windows xp on more then one computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter mike
  • Start date Start date
M

mike

I just purchased windows xp home edition. Not the upgrade
but the full package $194.00 Can I put it on my wifes
computer also. Seems only fair since we are married.
I know after you install windows you have 30 days I think
to check in with them and some information is exchanged,
and I think its at that point that a problem might occur.
(can a person put it on more then one of his computers,
or does a person have to purchase it for each of the
computers he owns.... thanks for any help on this
 
No, 1 computer = 1 OS. 2 computers = 2 OS's, etc, etc. Nothing new here,
it's always been that way.
 
I just purchased windows xp home edition. Not the upgrade
but the full package $194.00 Can I put it on my wifes
computer also. Seems only fair since we are married.
Click to expand...


No. It has nothing to do whether you are married. The rule is
quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for each computer.
There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on *every* version of Windows. The only thing new
with XP is that there's now an enforcement mechanism.
 
Norm said:
No, 1 computer = 1 OS. 2 computers = 2 OS's, etc, etc. Nothing new
here, it's always been that way.
Click to expand...

So you have read every single EULA since the original Windows came out
in 1985, or are you ust repeating something you've heard?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
mike said:
I just purchased windows xp home edition. Not the upgrade
but the full package $194.00 Can I put it on my wifes
computer also. Seems only fair since we are married.
I know after you install windows you have 30 days I think
to check in with them and some information is exchanged,
and I think its at that point that a problem might occur.
(can a person put it on more then one of his computers,
or does a person have to purchase it for each of the
computers he owns.... thanks for any help on this
Click to expand...

MS doesn't allow it, but there are ways to protect your rights to your
copy of software in your home.

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/mmpafaq/mmpafaq.htm

And if someone tries to tell you it's illegal tell the to show you the
law that makes it illegal. MS's shrinkwrap license isn't the law, only
MS's wishful thinking!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Dianne said:
You can purchase a second license for a little less than the original
program. I think it's $184.00 more for the full version additional
license and $84.00 for the upgrade version on the Microsoft site.
Not much of a savings, really. It could be cheaper from some
sellers. Go here to read about it:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp
Click to expand...

And this is what Product Activation is about, getting more money out of
your pocket!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Greetings --

What planet are you from? Does your local grocer let you walk out
of the market with two loaves of bread when you've paid for only one?
Can you drive two cars home if you've paid for only one? Does your
local clothier allow you to leave the shop with two shirts if you've
purchased only one? Have you noticed a trend, yet? Where in the
world did you ever get the absurd idea that software manufacturers
would sell their products any differently?

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright
laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each
computer on which it is installed. 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) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about.


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
 
As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright
laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each
computer on which it is installed. 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) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about.
Click to expand...

What an original ****ing **** you are! You make up this imaginary copyright thing, then pass it off as fact in copy-n-paste ad nauseam, while you ignore multiple requests that you provide valid proof that it is, truly a copyright violation. Don't post back with what the "EULA" states; show a criminal code, written in this exact regard, where it is a copyright violation, where it would then be cause for a criminal prosecution.

You offer the least help here of any MVP (but that isn't new for an MVP), while any other posts you make, are nothing more than copy-n-paste technocrap, and imaginary copyright violations, in your own words! Anyone doing a search of your posts here in the MS NGs, just in the past 3 months, will find that over 50% of your post are copy-n-paste crap regarding your post above, and telling others, in copy-n-paste ad nauseam (of course), how MS Office products are not included as part of the Windows operating systems. Other than that, you offer little else, but when youdo, it is condescending shit, like in the first paragraph I snipped above.

FOAD, or back up your your bullshit paste jobs!!!
 
What planet are you from? Does your local grocer let you walk out
of the market with two loaves of bread when you've paid for only one?
Can you drive two cars home if you've paid for only one? Does your
local clothier allow you to leave the shop with two shirts if you've
purchased only one?
Click to expand...

This is a fatally flawed analogy. You cannot compare property and
copyrighted works, because the rights associated with one have absolutely
nothing to do with the rights of the other. Go read US Copyright Law,
specifically Section 202, and educate yourself. Here, I'll even provide
the link:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202

Hell, it's a short section, I'll just put it all here:

Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including
the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of
itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object;
nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a
copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property
rights in any material object.

(This principle isn't expressly codified in Canadian law, but the word
"property" only appears when describing the passing of copyright in the
event of the holder's death, and remedies that can be proscribed in event
of copyright infringement, such as seizure of infringing works. I
believe the overall intent is the same; property rights and copyrights
are separate concepts under the law and the two should not be confused
with one another.)
 
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202
Click to expand...

§ 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including
the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of
itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object;
nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a
copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property
rights in any material object.

Oops. Kurt. There goes your theory that You paid money and got a receipt
for Windows. You only own the CD. Not the software. Gee, Where have I heard
that before???

David
 
Greetings --

No, there's no flaw; you're misinterpreting the analogy. All it
simply means is that one cannot reasonably expect to pay for a
*single* item - be it a software license, a loaf of bread, a car, or a
meal - and expect to receive or use any more than the *single* item
that was "purchased."

I'm well aware of the differences between physical and
intellectual properties, and was not making that sort of comparison.

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


Ian Merrithew said:
This is a fatally flawed analogy. You cannot compare property and
copyrighted works, because the rights associated with one have absolutely
nothing to do with the rights of the other.
Click to expand...

Snipped....
 
Bruce said:
Greetings --

No, there's no flaw; you're misinterpreting the analogy.
Click to expand...

Not at all, it is you that don't understand you are comparing a physical
goods with retail copies of software. Your analogy is flawed.
All it
simply means is that one cannot reasonably expect to pay for a
*single* item - be it a software license, a loaf of bread, a car, or a
meal - and expect to receive or use any more than the *single* item
that was "purchased."
Click to expand...

Why not compare it to other the sale of other copies of retail
copyrighted material, like Music CD's, or DVD's? One does not need to
buy a copy for each device those copies of retail copyrighted material
can be played on. At least compare like things!
I'm well aware of the differences between physical and
intellectual properties, and was not making that sort of comparison.
Click to expand...

Obviously your not aware of US Copyright law, because if you did, you
wouldn't continue to perpetrate your myth that an individual installing
retail software on more than one computer isn't in compliance with
Copyright laws.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Your reading comprehension skills suck!
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me how just how I mis-comprehended Sex
202?

It appears very clear to that transfer of the media that copyrighted
material is written on does not transfer rights to the material itself.

David
 
David said:
Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me how just how I mis-comprehended
Sex 202?
Click to expand...

The head of your penis is for pleasure, not to think with!
It appears very clear to that transfer of the media that copyrighted
material is written on does not transfer rights to the material
itself.
Click to expand...

Does not transfer copyright ownership rights! That doesn't mean that
any of the limitations put on the copyright owner aren't applicable!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Back
Top