Windows XP Pro: Retail version versus OEM version?

[Mark Conrad]

Would it be advisable to buy a full retail version of XP Pro?

I have heard that there are some things that can't be done with the
version usually supplied with new computers.

What are the pros and cons?

Thanks,

Mark-

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Would it be advisable to buy a full retail version of XP Pro?

I have heard that there are some things that can't be done with the
version usually supplied with new computers.

What are the pros and cons?

Thanks,

Mark-

There are some very important reasons that an OEM license costs so
much less than a retail license. OEM licenses are very limited:

1) OEM versions must be sold with a piece of non-peripheral
hardware (normally a motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC,
although Microsoft has greatly relaxed the hardware criteria for WinXP)
and are _permanently_ bound to the first PC on which they are installed.
An OEM license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another
computer under any circumstances. This is the main reason some people
avoid OEM versions; if the PC dies or is otherwise disposed of (even
stolen), you cannot re-use your OEM license on a new PC. The only
legitimate way to transfer the ownership of an OEM license is to
transfer ownership of the entire PC.

2) Microsoft provides no free support for OEM versions. If you
have any problems that require outside assistance, your only recourse is
to contact the manufacturer/builder of the PC or the vendor of the OEM
license. This would include such issues as lost a Product Key or
replacing damaged installation media. (Microsoft does make allowances
for those instances when you can prove that the OEM has gone out of
business.) This doesn't mean that you can't download patches and
service packs from Microsoft -- just no free telephone or email support
for problems with the OS.

3) An OEM CD cannot be used to perform an upgrade of an earlier
OS, as it was designed to be installed _only_ upon an empty hard drive.
It can still be used to perform a repair installation (a.k.a. an
in-place upgrade) of an existing WinXP installation.

4) If the OEM CD was designed by a specific manufacturer, such as
eMachines, Sony, Dell, Gateway, etc., it will most likely only install
on the same brand of PC, as an additional anti-piracy feature. Further,
such CDs are severely customized to contain only the minimum of device
drivers, and a lot of extra nonsense, that the manufacturer feels
necessary for the specific model of PC for which the CD was designed. To
be honest, such CDs should _not_ be available on the open market; but,
if you're shopping someplace on-line like eBay, swap meets, or computer
fairs, there's often no telling what you're buying until it's too late.
The "generic" OEM CDs, such as are manufactured by Microsoft and sold
to small systems builders, don't have this particular problem, though,
and are pretty much the same as their retail counterparts, apart from
the licensing, support, and upgrading restrictions.



--

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

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Would it be advisable to buy a full retail version of XP Pro?

I have heard that there are some things that can't be done with the
version usually supplied with new computers.

What are the pros and cons?

Although if you get a complete generic OEM version, it contains the same
software, it has the following disadvantages as compared with the retail
version:

1. Its license ties it permanently to the first computer it's installed on.
It can never legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away.

2. It can only do a clean installation, not an upgrade.

3. Microsoft provides no support for OEM versions. You can't call them with
a problem, but instead have to get any needed support from your OEM; that
support may range anywhere between good and non-existent. Or you can get
support elsewhere, such as in these newsgroups.

My personal recommendation is not to get a Full retail version, but a Retail
*Upgrade* version. It usually costs only a little more than the OEM version,
but comes without the disadvantages of the OEM version. And, like the Full
version version, it can do either a clean installation or an upgrade. To do
a clean installation with the Upgrade version requires that you insert the
CD of a previous qualifying version as proof of ownership when prompted to
do so. Even if you don't own one, you can buy a used copy of Windows 98 very
inexpensively at places like eBay.

 

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:13:39 -0700 from Ken Blake, MVP

Although if you get a complete generic OEM version, it contains the same
software, it has the following disadvantages as compared with the retail
version: [snip]

3. Microsoft provides no support for OEM versions. You can't call them with
a problem, but instead have to get any needed support from your OEM; that
support may range anywhere between good and non-existent. Or you can get
support elsewhere, such as in these newsgroups.

While the other reasons make sense, I have to laugh every time
someone cites this one.

Unless you're a big corporate customer, with thousands of non-OEM
copies, is Microsoft support a realistic possibility? Can an ordinary
person actually call Microsoft and get help with a Windows problem?
Color me skeptical.

 

[Mark Conrad]

Although if you get a complete generic OEM version, it contains the same
software, it has the following disadvantages as compared with the retail
version: ...<clipped all good info>...

Wow, thanks everyone, lots for me to save and digest.

This NG is great for people like me who have zero experience with
Windows - - - just bought my first basic books for learning XP Pro and
Vista.

I am a Mac refugee who wants to learn more about Windows.

My only experience so far is running Dragon NaturallySpeaking on an ASUS
laptop that I had a shop here build up for me.

Nothing in voice recognition on the Mac even comes close to the accuracy
of Dragon, which only runs on Windows, not on Macs.

Eventually, I hope to learn enough practical knowledge about PCs to be
able to make some sort of intelligent decision about buying a Windows
desktop model that has most of the modern bells and whistles that an
experienced Windows user expects on a desktop in the $2,000 range.

I don't want to try to get one built up myself, because of ignorance
about features that should be expected at such a price.

Just a good solid off-the-shelf box from a reputable manufacturer.


Thanks again for the advice about the OEM version versus the full retail
version of Windows XP Pro, guess I will go with the full retail version.

Mark-

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Sat, 10 Mar 2007 18:13:39 -0700 from Ken Blake, MVP
<[email protected]>:

Although if you get a complete generic OEM version, it contains the
same software, it has the following disadvantages as compared with
the retail version: [snip]

3. Microsoft provides no support for OEM versions. You can't call
them with a problem, but instead have to get any needed support from
your OEM; that support may range anywhere between good and
non-existent. Or you can get support elsewhere, such as in these
newsgroups.

While the other reasons make sense, I have to laugh every time
someone cites this one.

Unless you're a big corporate customer, with thousands of non-OEM
copies, is Microsoft support a realistic possibility? Can an ordinary
person actually call Microsoft and get help with a Windows problem?
Color me skeptical.

Yes, people do call and get support.

Personally, I think this is the least significant of the OEM version
disadvantages. But regardless of how important it is, it does exist and
omitting it from the list would be inaccurate.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Wow, thanks everyone, lots for me to save and digest.

You're welcome. Glad to help.

Thanks again for the advice about the OEM version versus the full
retail version of Windows XP Pro, guess I will go with the full
retail version.

I think that would be a costly mistake. Did you read my last paragraph in
the quoted message. Here it is again:

My personal recommendation is not to get a Full retail version, but a Retail
*Upgrade* version. It usually costs only a little more than the OEM version,
but comes without the disadvantages of the OEM version. And, like the Full
version version, it can do either a clean installation or an upgrade. To do
a clean installation with the Upgrade version requires that you insert the
CD of a previous qualifying version as proof of ownership when prompted to
do so. Even if you don't own one, you can buy a used copy of Windows 98 very
inexpensively at places like eBay.

 

[Mark Conrad]

Thanks again for the advice about the OEM version versus the full
retail version of Windows XP Pro, guess I will go with the full
retail version.

I think that would be a costly mistake. Did you read my last paragraph in
the quoted message.[/QUOTE]

Whoops, thanks.

Somehow I thought the full retail version would have advantages over the
upgrade version.

I will follow your advice, thanks.


Just another quick question, can Windows XP Pro also be installed on an
external drive?

I assume external USB drives are bootable on Windows?

BTW, Mac external USB drives are _not_ bootable.

Mark-

 

[Ron Martell]

Just another quick question, can Windows XP Pro also be installed on an
external drive?

I assume external USB drives are bootable on Windows?

BTW, Mac external USB drives are _not_ bootable.

No. Windows XP will not install onto a removable drive.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
Syberfix Remote Computer Repair

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."

 

[Ken Blake]

I think that would be a costly mistake. Did you read my last paragraph in
the quoted message.

Whoops, thanks.[/QUOTE]


You're welcome.

Somehow I thought the full retail version would have advantages over the
upgrade version.

I will follow your advice, thanks.


Just another quick question, can Windows XP Pro also be installed on an
external drive?

The *only* advantage is that you can do a clean installation without having
a previous version's CD.

I assume external USB drives are bootable on Windows?

No.

 

[Mark Conrad]

There are some very important reasons that an OEM
license costs so much less than a retail license.
OEM licenses are very limited:

....<details clipped>...



Thanks very much for the comprehensive rundown, I really appreciate the
effort you put into such a detailed reply.

As a longtime Mac user (since 1984) and a new Windows user, it was
somewhat of a shock to me that Windows OSs are so restrictive.

I guess Microsoft has valid reasons, severe pirating, etc.

Probably Mac OS licenses will also become more restrictive in the
future, but at the present time they are not very restrictive.


For example, I can do any number of hardware repairs and replacements on
my Macs, and the OS still works, because is not tied to hardware
components.

One OS can be bought and I think legally installed into many different
Macs owned by the same Mac user. I think the license states that only
one Mac can be used at a time in that situation, but that restriction is
not strictly enforced, unless rampant abuse is evident.

....as in buying one OS to be installed in a hundred Macs owned by a
hundred different users.

Apple's legal dept is known to be very fierce in prosecuting such abuse.

I am really looking forward to learning much more about the Windows
platform. Having a tough time though getting hold of any decent book
that has extensive partitioning information in it. For some reason the
usual off-the-shelf books about XP and Vista seem short on that info'.

I am not a programmer, so a really technical book would not do me too
much good, but neither do the general books on XP and Vista.

I am caught in that awkward semi-geek land, enjoying a bit of Unix,
which is very easy to access via the Mac.

Don't ask me why, but I really hate those "Wizards" that are everywhere
in the Windows OS, and are even showing up occasionally in the Mac OS
nowadays.

They tell a user what to do, but not how and why things really work.

Not learning some basics is really bad in my view, because that tends to
make a user dependent on a million different Wizards, which learning a
few basics could have avoided.

Enough ranting.<g>

Mark-



Mark-

 

[You Know Who]

it is simply not true that one MAC operating system can be (legally)
installed by hundreds of users. And you should be able to install hardware,
software on windows without an issue if you are using one computer. But for
either sytem, you must purchase one license for one computer.

You could have bought a system with a complete windows disc and you can
still ask your vendor for such a disc (they will charge you for it).


--

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Thanks very much for the comprehensive rundown, I really appreciate the
effort you put into such a detailed reply.

You're welcome.

As a longtime Mac user (since 1984) and a new Windows user, it was
somewhat of a shock to me that Windows OSs are so restrictive.

It's a matter of perspective. How many different manufacturers'
hardware platforms can a MacOS be installed on? Let's see...., there's
Apple, of course, and then there's ..... Well, just Apple. To a PC
user, it's the Apple/MacOS realm that seems truly and unreasonably
restrictive. Not only does one have to accept Apple's hardware
configurations (and nauseatingly cutesy cases) without hope of true
customizations, but the Apple operating system simply won't work on
anything else. Also, there are no competitors to spur lower prices.

I guess Microsoft has valid reasons, severe pirating, etc.

Probably Mac OS licenses will also become more restrictive in the
future, but at the present time they are not very restrictive.

How can MacOS licenses possibly become any more restrictive? Aren't
they all strictly the equivalent of "OEM?" Will they even work on a
competitor's PC? Or have I been misinformed? And don't you actually
have to pay to obtain the MacOS equivalent of a Service PAck?

For example, I can do any number of hardware repairs and replacements on
my Macs, and the OS still works, because is not tied to hardware
components.

That's no different than a Microsoft license. Re-activation is
sometimes required, but there's no limit to the number of times the same
OS can be reinstalled on the same PC. (Manufacturers who provide only
BIOS-locked "Recovery" CDs do create an unnecessary limitation to
hardware changes, but this isn't a limit of the Microsoft license. It's
purely a technical issue caused by the OEM's business decisions.)

One OS can be bought and I think legally installed into many different
Macs owned by the same Mac user.

But why? Doesn't each Mac already come with the OS pre-installed?
Have the capability of doing something which you'll never need to do
doesn't seem like that great a perk, to me.

Snipped....

Don't ask me why, but I really hate those "Wizards" that are everywhere
in the Windows OS, and are even showing up occasionally in the Mac OS
nowadays.

They tell a user what to do, but not how and why things really work.

Not learning some basics is really bad in my view, because that tends to
make a user dependent on a million different Wizards, which learning a
few basics could have avoided.

I'll definitely agree with you there; the Microsoft OS's wizards dumb
the system down so much as to be almost insulting. Not to mention the
fact that is often requires a great many mouse clicks to accomplish what
a knowledgeable user can do in seconds with a few simple key-strokes,
absent the wizards.


--

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

 

[Mark Conrad]

Thanks very much for the comprehensive rundown, I really appreciate the
effort you put into such a detailed reply.

You're welcome.[/QUOTE]


Let me preface this post with the comment that I use both PCs and Macs,
however I am essentially ignorant when it comes to PCs.

So far, I have used my PC strictly to run one application, a $900 voice
recognition app' that is superior to any similar app' for a Mac.

That restricted use is a waste, which is why I am eager to learn more
about the PC platform.

Bottom line, keep in mind that I know next to nothing about PCs.

Not only does one have to accept Apple's hardware
configurations (and nauseatingly cutesy cases)
without hope of true customizations, ...<clip>...

You are absolutely correct there, that is the drawback of standardizing
a computer, or standardizing anything else, for that matter. It means
that I have to be very careful to pre-select such things as the "right"
graphics card in a laptop model, because it is next to impossible to
change to a "better" graphics card after my purchase.

At the time of purchase, Apple offers a choice of graphics cards on
their higher priced laptops, but _only_ at purchase time.

Minor things like adding more RAM and installing a larger capacity hard
drive can be done by the user.

For someone who likes to build up their own computers from scratch,
mixing and matching all component parts, a Mac is not the way to go.

...but the Apple operating system simply won't work
on anything else.

Correct, will only work on similar Mac hardware. For example, when the
new Mac OS 10.5 code-named "Leopard" comes out in a few months from now,
I will buy one copy of it.

That one copy I will install on my 3 Intel-based computers, which are:

1) Mac Mini Duo
2) 15" MacBook Pro
3) Desktop Mac Pro

It will _not_ work on my older Macs, which vary in age from 3 years to
7 years old.

Also, there are no competitors to spur lower prices.

Sure there are, all the PC manufacturers.<g>

How can MacOS licenses possibly become any more restrictive?

They could tie their OS to one particular Mac, which is effectively not
done at the present time.


About the Mac OS license:

Aren't they all strictly the equivalent of "OEM?"

Yes, but OEM is a nasty word to PC users, because in that case the
license has more restrictions than the more liberal OEM license from
Apple.


About Mac OS X:

Will they even work on a competitor's PC?

No it will not, but then neither will Windows XP work directly on a Mac.

And don't you actually have to pay to obtain
the MacOS equivalent of a Service PAck?

Not really, Apple calls them updates, which are free.

Major upgrades are sold at reduced rates to present users. For example,
the old OS 10.2, code named "Jaguar", (I think around year 2000) was
charged for, as was a slightly the slightly newer OS 10.3 "Panther", as
was the even newer OS 10.4 "Tiger".

The 8 updates to Tiger, namely OS 10.4.1 up through the present 10.4.8
were all free.

In all likelihood, there _might_ be one last free update which would
be called 10.4.9, before the next major for-pay upgrade OS 10.5, the new
"leopard" OS which will probably be out in late summer this year.

But why? Doesn't each Mac already come with the OS pre-installed?

Yes they do come pre-installed.

The difference is that when I buy a major upgrade for my 3 different
modern Mac models, I only buy one license. That one OS gets installed
on all 3 of my Macs.

That will not work with one Windows license on 3 different PCs.

Now whether the Mac case is strictly legal I can not say, because I
never read the license details, I just click "I accept" on all the
screens.

The present de-facto situation is that it _does_ work that way with
Macs, is commonly done by most all Mac users, and I have never heard of
Apple prosecuting anyone for doing so.

The present de-facto reasoning is one license for _all_ of that user's
Macs, provided the Macs are recent models that the OS will actually work
on.

How the Mac license is actually written, I do not know.

To me, the present de-facto situation seems fair. Apple makes a good
profit by selling OS licenses to individual users, and those users get
the freedom of using that one license on all of their recent Mac models.


I detest pirating of software, if for no other reason than it hurts us
all in the long run.

I also detest unreasonable restrictions placed on what I can do with my
OS license once I purchase it.

Of course what is unreasonable in one mans view is entirely reasonable
in another mans view, which is the basic reason why we can't keep
everyone happy.

Both Apple and Microsoft TRY to keep their customers happy, one just
tries harder than the other. ;-)

<users plug in their own idea of who tries harder> ;-)

FWIW, I could not get by with just Macs or just PCs, in my case I need
them both.

Presently, I have six Macs and one PC, I would like to remedy that
imbalance.

I plan to do a lot of high end video work in the future. Towards that
end I would like to get hold of a modern desktop high-end PC.

Any recommendations?

Should I hold off for awhile on a 64 bit PC, or do enough 64 bit
applications for such a powerful PC exist at the present time?

Just curious.

My 64 bit Mac does not yet have too many 64 bit app's available for it,
so I assume that the 64 bit PCs are also lacking many kinds of software.

Mark-

 

[Mark Conrad]

But for
either sytem, you must purchase one license for one computer.

The difference is that with the Apple license the OS _can_ be
installed on another computer, owned by the same user.

In other words, the "one computer" concept is not prevented by Apple, in
the privacy of the users own house.

Therefore, in effect, tacit approval is implied.


By contrast, with Microsoft, an active policy is in place to prevent all
that from happening in the users home, therefore the license is more
restrictive on their own users, compared to the liberal policy of Apple.

Apple could easily hamstring their own users if they wanted to, the same
way that Microsoft does.

Mark-

 

[Bruce Chambers]

You are absolutely correct there, that is the drawback of standardizing
a computer, or standardizing anything else, for that matter. It means
that I have to be very careful to pre-select such things as the "right"
graphics card in a laptop model, because it is next to impossible to
change to a "better" graphics card after my purchase.

At the time of purchase, Apple offers a choice of graphics cards on
their higher priced laptops, but _only_ at purchase time.

Minor things like adding more RAM and installing a larger capacity hard
drive can be done by the user.

In this respect, Wintel laptop's are the same. Once purchased, the
only "user-upgradeable" components are the RAM and hard drive.
Desktops, on the other hand, can be easily upgraded with new video
adapters, audio and network controllers as the technology advances. I
had thought that such was not the case with Mac Desktops. Am I in error
on this point?

For someone who likes to build up their own computers from scratch,
mixing and matching all component parts, a Mac is not the way to go.

I do prefer to build my own systems....

Sure there are, all the PC manufacturers.<g>



<Chuckle/>



Snipped....



The difference is that when I buy a major upgrade for my 3 different
modern Mac models, I only buy one license. That one OS gets installed
on all 3 of my Macs.

I see. But from what you say further on, you're not sure whether or
not this is in compliance with the license.

That will not work with one Windows license on 3 different PCs.

It used to, though. Until Microsoft introduced Product Activation,
they relied entirely upon the integrity of their customers to abide by
the terms of the license. Trust, it turns out, didn't work.

Now whether the Mac case is strictly legal I can not say, because I
never read the license details, I just click "I accept" on all the
screens.

I see Mac users also suffer from that all-too-common affliction. ;-}
Most PC users ignore the EULA, as well, only to later express shock and
indignation.

The present de-facto situation is that it _does_ work that way with
Macs, is commonly done by most all Mac users, and I have never heard of
Apple prosecuting anyone for doing so.

That used to be de-facto for Microsoft licenses, as well, but no more.
Although, to the best of my knowledge, Microsoft has yet to prosecute
or sue any individual home user for copyright infringement.

The present de-facto reasoning is one license for _all_ of that user's
Macs, provided the Macs are recent models that the OS will actually work
on.

How the Mac license is actually written, I do not know.

You might want to look into it, on the chance that you might someday
get an unpleasant surprise.

To me, the present de-facto situation seems fair. Apple makes a good
profit by selling OS licenses to individual users, and those users get
the freedom of using that one license on all of their recent Mac models.


I detest pirating of software, if for no other reason than it hurts us
all in the long run.

Agreed.

Snipped....


Both Apple and Microsoft TRY to keep their customers happy, one just
tries harder than the other. ;-)

<users plug in their own idea of who tries harder> ;-)

No comment....

FWIW, I could not get by with just Macs or just PCs, in my case I need
them both.

Presently, I have six Macs and one PC, I would like to remedy that
imbalance.

I plan to do a lot of high end video work in the future. Towards that
end I would like to get hold of a modern desktop high-end PC.

Any recommendations?

I'm afraid that's not my area of knowledge. My uses for computers are
almost entirely prosaic.

Should I hold off for awhile on a 64 bit PC, or do enough 64 bit
applications for such a powerful PC exist at the present time?

Just curious.

My 64 bit Mac does not yet have too many 64 bit app's available for it,
so I assume that the 64 bit PCs are also lacking many kinds of software.

Mark-

There are still very few 64-bit applications available for the PC, as
well. Sadly.


--

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

 

[Stan Brown]

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:36:28 -0600 from Bruce Chambers

In this respect, Wintel laptop's are the same. Once purchased, the
only "user-upgradeable" components are the RAM and hard drive.

I'm not sure what the Wintel laptop is the owner of, in your
sentence.

But AFAIK most laptops allow swapping out the CD/DVD drive and the
battery, just like the RAM and hard drive.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:36:28 -0600 from Bruce Chambers


I'm not sure what the Wintel laptop is the owner of, in your
sentence.

Sorry. "Wintel" is jargon for generic WINdows/InTEL-based platforms;
it isn't a specific make/model. (Nor is it a particularly accurate
term, anymore, as it is often used to include AMD-powered machines.)

But AFAIK most laptops allow swapping out the CD/DVD drive and the
battery, just like the RAM and hard drive.

Many do have multi-bays so you can swap out between a CD/DVD drive or a
floppy, true; but they don't truly allow you to upgrade to a newer
make/model drive, as they have to be customised to the laptop's
form-factor. Same for the battery.


--

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