XP Pro License

[Larry Samuels]

It would be kind of hard for the man to get certified in XP while using
Linux for study!! <VBEG>

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm

 

[Julie Hallett]

Despite what as been said by old farts, you are entitled to intsall it on
another machine provided you tell Microsoft that you have either written off
your previous PC or that you have uninstalled it from it.

Also, you can re-activate your retail copy every 120 days if you upgrade your
machine regularly. Microsoft is aware that they can't deny you to continue
using the OS for which you have lifetime user rights. therefore, if you change
your hardware, you are entitled to reinstall your retail cop of OS.

Now you know the trick and so go ahead and install it and pick up a phone and
explain to MS what you have done.

You can't succeed in life if you don't use your grey matter.

 

[Larry Samuels]

Are you this honest in all your business dealings?
If so, heaven help anyone doing business with you.

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In

Despite what as been said by old farts, you are entitled to intsall
it on another machine provided you tell Microsoft that you have
either written off your previous PC or that you have uninstalled it
from it.

If it's a retail copy, yes. If it's an OEM copy, no.

Also, you can re-activate your retail copy every 120 days if you
upgrade your machine regularly.

Retail or OEM, you don't have to wait 120 days. You can do it as
often as you need or want to.

Microsoft is aware that they can't
deny you to continue using the OS for which you have lifetime user
rights. therefore, if you change your hardware, you are entitled to
reinstall your retail cop of OS.

Now you know the trick and so go ahead and install it and pick up a
phone and explain to MS what you have done.

There is no "trick" involved. Reactivation is always allowed on
the same machine, and, for a retail copy, even on a new one, if
it's taken off the old machine.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Yes, I've heard of, and even used, a temporary parallel
installation, for repair purposes, on a machine to which the license
is already assigned. But I've never seen the technique applied to two
separate machines, nor can I imagine how it would apply.


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

 

[Larry Samuels]

Hi Bruce,

I used the SxS install as an example of the fallacy of trying to use a hard
and fast interpretation of the EULA as gospel without consulting a lawyer
<G>

By your own interpretation a SxS install is illegal--even for recovery
purposes.

Before you argue that the install is a temporary one--there is nothing in
the Eula that specifically gives you the right to temporarily install 2
copies on one machine. It specifically states *1* copy on 1 machine.
The user is also making a temporary install for study purposes which he does
not plan on keeping. Please explain the difference (other than the fact it
is 2 pcs) since both scenarios are a violation under your interpretation.

You just admitted in this public forum that *you* break the Eula when you
need to. Beginning to catch my drift about the fallacy of interpretations
yet? <VBEG>

--
Larry Samuels MS-MVP (Windows-Shell/User)
Associate Expert
Expert Zone -
Unofficial FAQ for Windows Server 2003 at
http://pelos.us/SERVER.htm

 

[Tom]

Hi Bruce,

I used the SxS install as an example of the fallacy of trying to use a
hard and fast interpretation of the EULA as gospel without consulting a
lawyer <G>

By your own interpretation a SxS install is illegal--even for recovery
purposes.

Before you argue that the install is a temporary one--there is nothing in
the Eula that specifically gives you the right to temporarily install 2
copies on one machine. It specifically states *1* copy on 1 machine.
The user is also making a temporary install for study purposes which he
does not plan on keeping. Please explain the difference (other than the
fact it is 2 pcs) since both scenarios are a violation under your
interpretation.

You just admitted in this public forum that *you* break the Eula when you
need to. Beginning to catch my drift about the fallacy of interpretations
yet? <VBEG>

Well, copy certainly doesn't mean instance. "Copy" refers to the one disk
(which technically is an officially licensed *copy* of MS software written
to a disk for sale a use by the consumer). It states,

"Microsoft grants to you a limited, non-exclusive,
nontransferable, royalty-free license to install and use
one (1) copy of the executable code of the Software on a
single computer residing on your premises ("Workstation
Computer"), solely in connection with a licensed copy of
Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Windows XP
Home Edition, Windows XP Media Center Edition, Windows XP
Tablet PC Edition operating systems for which the Software
is designed, and solely to test the Software internally,
test the compatibility of your application or other
product(s) that operate in conjunction with the Software,
and to evaluate the Software for the purpose of providing
feedback thereon to Microsoft."


Clearly it say being used on one machine. No one in their right minds nor
(sans the profiteer extremist at MS) does MS imply that one needs to
purchase more than one *copy* of XP (or Windows period) to install those
instances multiple times on the same unit of hardware. The meaning of "copy"
is the disk, and it to be used on one machine. Technically, that one disk is
being used one "one' Machine no matter how many instances of that same
installation disk is one it. Think about it, even if one has multiple
installs of the same disk on the same PC, they can only use one of those
Windows installs at the desktop level, at only one at a time on that one PC.
I have seen Bruce use the restaurant food purchase scenario, and car
purchase scenario also, this case easily follows that logic.

But even Alex Nichol claims this loose translation to seem perverted by
saying, "The wording of the EULA is capable of more than one interpretation,
and, as I have said to MS at a very high level, that particular one seems
perverse. In particular it would mean that it became impossible to do Beta
testing for them"