XP Pro OEM license

  • Thread starter Thread starter WWII
  • Start date Start date
Windom said:
Please elaborate.
Click to expand...

That is you!! You must have missed the following:

" Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to define
when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to
this definition (in a public forum) is to tell the person making the
inquiry to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's
support is solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should
determine what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty
and support agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally
upgraded computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to
the OEM EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If
you've built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD, then
_you_ are the "OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer
support your product."

Tom J
 
David said:
Large companies want lower prices. MS trades features for price.
Click to expand...

How is not being able to uninstall an OEM version from one machine that
you own, and installing it on another machine that you own a *feature*?
 
What's to elaborate. Microsoft owns the licensing rights to the
operating system, if they want to sell "OEM"( licensed to a machine) and
"Retail"(licensed to a user) versions, it's their call. No different
than say the record company requiring "per play" royalties vs, per "CD"
royalties. The license owner makes the call.
 
Bob said:
What's to elaborate. Microsoft owns the licensing rights to the
operating system, if they want to sell "OEM"( licensed to a machine) and
"Retail"(licensed to a user) versions, it's their call. No different
than say the record company requiring "per play" royalties vs, per "CD"
royalties. The license owner makes the call.
Click to expand...

But the whole point is, with OEM versions, it's the /OEM/ that makes the
call, so why should an OEM version be tied to ONE machine? It's just making
a nonsense of the whole thing, and cluttering up usenet with HUNDREDS of
THOUSANDS of un-necessary posts. If the OEM supplies support for nthe OEM
versions, why on EARTH should it matter whether the licensee changes a
motherboard or not?
 
Short and sweet, the OEM doesn't "make the call", if they want to bundle
"cheap Windows licenses", they play by the rules that the license owner
sets forth. The fact that allowance is made for the repair of the PC is
something covered in the agreement. If Microsoft wanted, they could
flatout say one motherboard/one OEM license. Or burn a PROM with the
licence code on "Windows compliant" motherboards. No different than the
thing Apple does. The thousands of "unnessary posts" are coming from
those who want Retail features for OEM price.
 
Although there is lot of discussion here about the license issue on Upgrade
requirements and think that is was covered one way or the other - But -

The first thing that needs to be considered is the hardware requirements for
XP to run.
If you are planning on putting XP on this 97 Dell - Windows 95 machine, I
believe that no matter how you obtain an XP license, it will not pass the
hardware requirements and it will not work. It might load, but it will not
function. Even if you purchased a New Full XP Retail Version.

If it is not on this 97 Dell - Windows 95 machine that you are installing
this on, and you are installing it on a newer machine, then technically by
Microsoft EULA agreement, you cannot use that version of Windows 95 to
legally install XP on a new machine. Therefore you will have to purchase a
New Retail version for this machine.

Hope this helps
 
The thousands of "unnessary posts" are coming from
those who want Retail features for OEM price.
Click to expand...

Even shorter. the difference in price is due to the fact that MS supports
retail copies, OEMs support OEM copies. THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. So
why should an OEM copy be restricted?
 
Thank you kindly.

But I have never considered installing XP, in any of its versions, on a 1997
Dell Windows 95 machine.

Cheers,

DSH
 
Ken,
Dell, prior to the recovery partition/disk stuff which most [not absolutely
certain about Dell] computer manufacturers now give you; used to give you a
CD which functioned almost the same as a disk obtained from Microsoft.
There, of course, were some modifications such as Dell branding. When Mr.
Hines mentions a DVD obtained from Dell in 1997 with Windows 95 contained
thereon, I expect that it really is a CD.
Insofar as ambiguity in Microsoft EULAs, I don't think that it matters
whether it exists or not or which side it favors if it does exist. The
point: an individual civil suit against them could go on for many years
(them never ending appeals by both sides) with the only real money winners,
no matter which way the final decision goes, being your lawyers. You have to
have a big loss to recover and huge assets to even consider such a suit.
Whether Microsoft made a mistake or not when they allow upgrades from
Windows 95 to XP, they certainly should know that such is happening by now
and apparently have chosen not to block it. When that 95 disc is accepted
and you are accepted as having a valid operating system when you
activate/register XP with Microsoft and they then allow updating on a
regular basis, the legal system begins to tilt heavily towards the user.
That is only my opinion since I am not a lawyer.
 
Nope...

I never said it was a DVD -- I said it was a DISC in one post and a CD in
another.

Of COURSE it was a CD.

How many Dell Computers do you know that played DVD's in 1997?

Here's my post from 8 February 2006:
-----------------------------------------------------

From: D. Spencer Hines
Date: Wed, Feb 8 2006 12:22 am
Email: "D. Spencer Hines" <[email protected]>
Groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

How does one use the Windows 95 CD to do that?

I have one in hand.
 
Back
Top