I dont know how other brands work but on a Dell You can install Windows XP
without providing a Product ID Code. That is the part regarding the mother
board. My guess would be somewhere in the bios that you cant see but im not
sire on that.
Now if you take the same WinXP Install CD and go to a non Dell machine it
will ask for the Product ID Code for Activation. With that said you can take
the Product ID from the Dell and the WinXP CD from the Dell and install WIN
XP on a non Dell Machine Using the Dell Product ID Code. If you run The Same
Product ID code on Two Machines Microsoft catches the Illegal machine when
it downloads and runs it's Malicious Software Removal Tool. On Win 7 Windows
outright tells you it is checking for a legal version of Windows. Dont know
about Vista as I never have messed with it.
I offered Bruce a legal Win XP Product ID code that is not running on any
machine anymore. The machine it was on is dead and he has not responded.
Dave
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:02 AM, Bruce Lund <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well, that's bull****! Not that you wrote it. But that those greedy folks
> at Microsoft make this so difficult (and expensive.) But there is some very
> good news which I share below and I actually have you to thank for it.
>
> >>>Microsoft licensing is very technical and has even changed throughout
> the life of Windows XP. . . OEM software is tied to the original computer,
> and specifically the motherboard. I'm guessing since you have an
> eMachines,it came with that machine and is an OEM version.
>
> Your guess is correct. Although after digging to find the EULA on the
> installation disk, it says nothing about a mother board. It does say "You
> may install, use, access, display and run one
> copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER."
>
> Earlier it said "The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the
> HARDWARE,
> if the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the computer
> system with which
> the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE is a computer system component."
> Again, no mention of mother board.
>
> It does mention processor, but only to say "The SOFTWARE may not be used by
> more than two
> (2) processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is
> indicated on the COA." So, not only does it not limit the license to the
> original processor, it even allows use on 2 processors.
>
> >>>The "outfit" that changed your motherboard, did activate the license or
> else you wouldn't have been able to run a year. When you did the system
> restore, it was to a time before the activation. So, activation is up to
> you. The company that did the work tried to do you a favor by loading a
> bulk license and not requiring you buy a new copy of Windows. While less
> than legal in Microsoft's licensing, it works until an owner tries to
> reactivate the newer copy.
>
> You got that one right.
>
> >>>eMachines sold you a computer 5 years ago and a license that "clearly"
> states you don't own your copy of Windows, Microsoft does. If there are
> significant changes to the computer (like changing the motherboard) then you
> may have to obtain a new copy of Windows.
>
> Well, not so clear. Although even if it clearly states that, that does not
> speak well for Microsoft. Not that they care. Such is the power of monopoly.
>
> >>>Who's at fault? Microsoft for having such a convulted licensing scheme?
> eMachines for not standing behind their warranty 3 years after it expired
> and another company making significant changes to your computer? The other
> company for not notifying you what could happen to your license? You, as
> the owner, for not reading and understanding all the licensing materials
> that came with your computer? Of course, the agreement is generally
> included on a CD, inside a sleeve with the warning that if you open the
> sleeve you agree to the contract which is inside the sleeve (see Microsoft
> again).
>
> Or, inside the box, as the case may be. Yeah, as just a regular layman,
> Microsoft is not only being greedy, but intentionally opaque, both in their
> EULA and the inability to actually speak to somebody who might be empowered
> to do anything. As for eMachines, I would hope they would have provided me a
> decent contact at Microsoft. Or perhaps, they and other manufacturers could
> push back on the licensing to prevent these kinds of issues since the
> individual user is totally powerless on this.
>
> >>>Had the company that changed your motherboard complied strictly by laws
> and
> licensing, the cost to you would have been . . . at $370 with an
> undetermined labor charge, probably $50. (for loading XP.)
>
> Actually, even taking out the cost of the new license, they charged me a
> lot less than that, which makes me feel a little better about them, even if
> the system continued to have (new) problems after they did the work.
>
> >>>I'm just expressing my opinion. In a case like this it is very
> difficult to assign blame for a problem. Sorry for the length of this post,
> but the whole topic is not easily understood with less information.
> Ron Jobe
>
> Believe it or not, you actually solved the problem for me. You had
> mentioned that the folks who replaced my motherboard had likely used a bulk
> license different than the original, a number that I had also been using
> because it was the one listed on my pre-crash Belarc Adviser report.. And
> reading the license, it said there should be a license number on the
> computer itself. Well, just for the heck of it, I entered that number into
> the activation screen. It did not work there. But when I tried a phone
> activation, it worked. So, apparently I am now official, at least until the
> next system crash.
>
> So, not only did your post provide enlightenment as to the shady ways of
> Microsoft, it also inadvertently provided the key to solving my issue,
> forgive the pun.
>
> Now the interesting part of this is how I managed to get "authenticated"
> even with the new motherboard. (And why the outfit that replaced the
> motherboard did not attempt the same.)
>
> Thanks to all who have assisted me on this restore issue. I still have a
> few bugs to work out, but the biggest ones have been resolved thanks to this
> list and PCSoft.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/23/11, Ron Jobe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Ron Jobe <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: [PCBUILD] Who should reactivate my Windows license?
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 8:01 AM
>
> You've just opened a great big can of worms. Everyone points fingers to
> everyone else. Microsoft licensing is very technical and has even changed
> throughout the life of Windows XP. Licensing depends on how you obtained
> your copy of Windows. Full retail copies can be moved from machine to
> machine, with some limits. OEM software is tied to the original computer,
> and specifically the motherboard. I'm guessing since you have an
> eMachines,
> it came with that machine and is an OEM version.
>
> The "outfit" that changed your motherboard, did activate the license or
> else
> you wouldn't have been able to run a year. When you did the system
> restore,
> it was to a time before the activation. So, activation is up to you. The
> company that did the work tried to do you a favor by loading a bulk license
> and not requiring you buy a new copy of Windows. While less than legal in
> Microsoft's licensing, it works until an owner tries to reactivate the
> newer
> copy.
>
> eMachines sold you a computer 5 years ago and a license that "clearly"
> states you don't own your copy of Windows, Microsoft does. If there are
> significant changes to the computer (like changing the motherboard) then
> you
> may have to obtain a new copy of Windows.
>
> Who's at fault? Microsoft for having such a convulted licensing scheme?
> eMachines for not standing behind their warranty 3 years after it expired
> and another company making significant changes to your computer? The other
> company for not notifying you what could happen to your license? You, as
> the owner, for not reading and understanding all the licensing materials
> that came with your computer? Of course, the agreement is generally
> included on a CD, inside a sleeve with the warning that if you open the
> sleeve you agree to the contract which is inside the sleeve (see Microsoft
> again). These are the reasons I won't change a motherboard in an older, XP
> based computer.
>
> Had the company that changed your motherboard complied strictly by laws and
> licensing, the cost to you would have been about the same as replacing your
> computer completely. I've not looked up your model, but here's an
> approximate charge to you for a full, legal replacement:
> $120 motherboard
> $100 labor to install the motherboard
> $150 Windows 7 Pro with downgrade rights
> $ ?? labor to load Windows XP pro from a disk I had to pay for and keep
> sitting around.
> We're at $370 with an undetermined labor charge, probably $50. The cost
> has
> now exceeded the value of your computer. The value of the information on
> your computer (documents, pictures, email, contacts, etc) is worth more
> than
> the hardware and software.
>
> I'm just expressing my opinion. In a case like this it is very difficult
> to
> assign blame for a problem. Sorry for the length of this post, but the
> whole topic is not easily understood with less information.
> Ron Jobe
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 5:55 AM, Bruce Lund <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, for those that have been watching, I just did an XP Home restore on
> my
> > eMachines D2880.
> > Computer was purchased new over 5 years ago.I paid to have a new mother
> > board installed about a year ago.I did a system restore last week
>
> The NOSPIN Group has added a new feature on our website,
> web based bulletinboard for questions and answers:
> Visit our sister website at http://nospin.com
>
--
*
________________________________________________
Forgive Everyone Everything.
Life isn't fair but it is still good.
*
The NOSPIN Group has added a new feature on our website,
web based bulletinboard for questions and answers:
Visit our sister website at http://nospin.com
|
