XP License on removable drive?

[John Schmidt]

I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.

Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
going to be used on the single computer at any given time.

Thanks for any info.

John

 

[Guest]

Hi it should be fine you can install it and do what you want but it will be
ok if you accessing only one copy at a time meaning if your only runnign
windows at one time then it's fine ok.

Reply back and let me know how it goes. Don't forget to select yes if this
was helpful on my post. I always like helping out people with there problems.
Thanks

 

[Asher_N]

Would it not make more sense to have a fixed HDD with the OS and backup
utilities, and a removable one that will contain the backup of the data?

 

[Bob I]

Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.

 

[John Schmidt]

I've already tried this and ran into problems with the removable drive
always causing problems when hot-swapped - they worked fine, but kept
reconfiguring things in Disk Manager so the backup software never knew which
was which. I guess I should see how it works if I power-down between swaps.
I'll try it when I get the chance.

John

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.

That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
number of computers it will be run on.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
number of computers it will be run on.

Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive trays,
not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
"image" files because the restoration process made to the original
HD would wipe out any installation there.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Bob I]

My view in that matter, is that the "Microsoft" that makes the PC's work
and the "Microsoft" that pages thru the law books need to "agree" then.
I'm with the KB writers, not the "suits". ;-)

 

[Anna]

I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable
hard
drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case,
I
will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.

Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one
is
going to be used on the single computer at any given time.

Thanks for any info.

John

Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive trays,
not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
"image" files because the restoration process made to the original
HD would wipe out any installation there.

*TimDaniels*

Tim:
The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives. And there is *no*
problem with the user violating the EULA in this situation when the user
simply clones his or her OS to one of the removable drives for obvious
backup purposes. As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for
restoration purposes in the same machine that generated the clone, there's
no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made this clear a number of
times in meetings held with end users.

Note to John Schmidt:
Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your query, your use
of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion, a most desirable hardware
configuration, and yields enormous advantages in terms of the flexibility
you gain and the peace of mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system.
Don't even think of changing that arrangement.
Anna

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Tim:
The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.

See your quote of the original poster above. There
is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
USB or FireWire external hard drive).

And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.

I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
*legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
machine where the original installation was made. I likened
it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
personal use and backup.

If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
those discussions.

Note to John Schmidt:
Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your
query, your use of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion,
a most desirable hardware configuration, and yields enormous
advantages in terms of the flexibility you gain and the peace of
mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system.
Don't even think of changing that arrangement.
Anna

I agree. Nobody's gonna come 'n getcha, and the convenience
and security are tremendous.

*TimDaniels*

 

[D.Currie]

I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable
hard
drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case,
I
will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.

Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one
is
going to be used on the single computer at any given time.

Thanks for any info.

John

From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period of time, or
remaining in the computer and not being turned on.

 

[Ron Martell]

I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.

Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
going to be used on the single computer at any given time.

Thanks for any info.

John

My suggestion would be to create a backup image of the entire
partition using a program such as Image for Windows from
www.bootitng.com

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

 

[Ghostrider]

See your quote of the original poster above. There
is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
USB or FireWire external hard drive).





I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
*legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
machine where the original installation was made. I likened
it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
personal use and backup.

If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
those discussions.

This happens to be an example of one of those dicey calls in
which little or no thought was given to such an actual scenario.
My resident legal guru opines this way: There is no reason why
the OS needed to be installed on each one of the removable drives
since their purpose was for weekly backups instead of being a
operating component with a functioning OS. Because of this fact,
and each OS can be fully functional when plugged into the rest
of any similarly configured computer, then [her opinion] each
OS in each removable HD should be separately licensed.

But if the OP were to have provided information that each OS
in the removable hard drives were also backups of the original
OS in the first computer, then it is a different scenario.

Her summary: Become a lawyer and learn how to write.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

This happens to be an example of one of those dicey calls in
which little or no thought was given to such an actual scenario.
My resident legal guru opines this way: There is no reason why
the OS needed to be installed on each one of the removable drives
since their purpose was for weekly backups instead of being a
operating component with a functioning OS.

Part of being a "backup" is speed of substitution, and
bootable clones are the fastest to substitute for an original
OS that has gone belly up. What the purpose is for a backup
is immaterial. What is substantive is that the clone will be
run in the same PC as the original and that only one installed
OS can run at a time.

Because of this fact, and each OS can be fully functional when
plugged into the rest of any similarly configured computer,

"Similarly-configured" is vague. Even Microsoft remains
vague on what changes in the hardware will trigger a
requirement for activation of WinXP. And whether the clone
*can* be run in another computer is immaterial. What is
pertinent is whether it *will* be used in the same or different
computer. In this case, it will only be used in the same
computer.

then [her opinion] each
OS in each removable HD should be separately licensed.

Well, what she means is that each *installation* should
be separately licensed, since one HD can contain
many installations. But what she means and what is
grounded in copyright precedent are 2 different things.

But if the OP were to have provided information that each OS
in the removable hard drives were also backups of the original
OS in the first computer, then it is a different scenario.

Her summary: Become a lawyer and learn how to write.

My summary: Become a copyright lawyer and learn
about computers. Too bad if you have to pay the tab,
though.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period
of time, or remaining in the computer and not being turned on.

In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
still hasn't clarified that point.

*TimDaniels*

 

[D.Currie]

In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
still hasn't clarified that point.

*TimDaniels*

I was only responding to the technicality of it. Since I'm not Microsoft,
nor do I work for them or represent them, I can't speak for what their point
of view would be on something like this since it's a little out of the
mainstream. My personal experience with MSs legal reps is that in private,
they're a lot more reasonable than they have to be in public or in print,
and if I had to bet, I'd bet that in private they'd think something like
this is no big deal. And since activation isn't going to be an issue, it's
pretty much unenforceable.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

My personal experience with MSs legal reps is that in private,
they're a lot more reasonable than they have to be in public or
in print, and if I had to bet, I'd bet that in private they'd think
something like this is no big deal. And since activation isn't
going to be an issue, it's pretty much unenforceable.

I totally agree, and that was my opinion a year ago. And at
that time, the MVPs in these microsoft.public.windowsxp.*
NGs were on me like a pack of junkyard dogs, using some
pretty nasty epithets. In contrast, they today completely
ignore this thread. How time - and perhaps a little seminar
with Microsoft's legal staff - have changed them!

*TimDaniels*

 

[Lil' Dave]

If there is a problem, too bad.

Am using a same size HD for a weekly clone, removable. Purpose: emergency
backup in event of physical hard drive failure.
Image restoration, I use for hard drive non-physical problem fixing.
Nothing faster and easier.
2 or more forms of backup can save your goose when in a bind. Which to use
for restore depends on the problem at hand.

 

[Asher_N]

In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
still hasn't clarified that point.

*TimDaniels*

My reading of the OP's thoughts was not that the computer was backing
/itself/ up, but rather it was used to backup the data from somewhere
else, hence my suggestion of a fixed OS drive and a removable data drive.
In that case, i believe that each drive would be considered a separate
install.

 

[Bob I]

But you should know that Windows XP won't run from a USB or Firewire
drive. So that leaves IDE caddies. There is the EULA and the intent is
that one copy is INSTALLED AND RUNNING on one PC. Many people misread
the AND as OR, and that is a BIG difference.