Note about "Upgrading" to Win XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter RWhite
  • Start date Start date
So installing the software in a computer that's 2 feet away from the first computer is "another place"? Like I said, if it's for personal use, and the person happens to have more than one computer (I personally have 3 towers and 3 laptops in my home for personal use.. I like a change of scenery), you should be able to instal it in all of them... ...not be forced to buy 6 software packages (especially if you're only using one computer at a time, thus only using the program on one computer at a time). Hell, I'm running ME right now... ...Mr. Gates should pay me for the aggrevation this albatros of a program has caused me. 95, 98, 2000 and XP seem to be fairly stable, but ME... ...Nothing works with this program without a lot of aggrevation in trying to find drivers for it, etc... If he made money on Windows ME, then who stole from who??? As far as the backup disk goes, my brother-in-law tried to do it, and only got error messages because it wasn't able to copy certain files....
 
So installing the software in a computer that's 2 feet away from the first computer is "another place"? Like I said, if it's for personal use, and the person happens to have more than one computer (I personally have 3 towers and 3 laptops in my home for personal use.. I like a change of scenery), you should be able to instal it in all of them... ...not be forced to buy 6 software packages
Click to expand...

So maybe you should also only have to pay for one of your PCs, the other 5 should just come free. And large corporations could just have to buy one copy of windows, instead of thousands. Sometimes people forget that software companies - even MS - also have to make money.

In any case, there are copies of XP floating around that do not have have to be registered on unlocked. These can be installed into however many PCs you want. Look for XP Professional on Kazaa.
 
You can install a copy of XP onto ANY NUMBER of machines without violating the license agreement, as long as you do not use any of the machines at the same time. Activation makes this a difficult process. I can imagine the guys with hardware reviewing websites on the net are going to be pissed.

The new activation scheme is a big fat pain in the ass no matter how you look at it, and I hope that it hurts Microsoft. They will not make any more money, and being the largest software corporation on the planet, it just makes them look bad, even if pirates are really worse.

The activation does not apply to corporations, which will use the open licensing model. Under open licensing, it is basically the buddy system in which the corporation purchases X licenses and a few media packs, and is supposed to keep track of installations themselves. No activation is required.

The main reason that activation is a bad thing, is that it targets the home user. The home user is not the source of revenue-impacting software piracy. The corporation uses software tools to perform business functions that will (hopefully) turn a profit. The home user uses software tools to write letters to grandma. The kid who has an illegal copy of MS Office is not going to fork over $479 for it; it's just not going to happen. That doesn't make it right for him to use MS Office, but now we all have to deal with the inconvenience of activation.

Then considering that it didn't take very long for open license media to hit the warez market...the activation is completely silly. Right now you can download a full copy of MS Office that does not require activation and did not require any cracking. Therefore the activation only impacts people who have PURCHASED software.

Not to mention that activation seriously feels like an invasion of privacy. We get all upset because Media Player caches CD information, but then "try to be understanding" when microsoft starts collecting data about every installation of its products.

And of course the saying goes, if you don't like it, don't use it. In terms of MS Office, I agree, and have moved to OpenOffice which I prefer anyhow. But with Windows, that doesn't quite apply. If I "just don't use it", then I "just don't use" any of the other software that I've purchased.

Slackmaster 2000
 
So maybe you should also only have to pay for one of your PCs, the other 5 should just come free. ..... Sometimes people forget that software companies - even MS - also have to make money.
Click to expand...


............So in the same token of redundencey, I suppose that I should buy one music CD per each CD player that I own as well................ Or is that next???
 
Fmmahoganyrush said:



............So in the same token of redundencey, I suppose that I should buy one music CD per each CD player that I own as well................ Or is that next???
Click to expand...

Bad and flawed analogy. In the case of the audio CD. The contents and the media itself are dependant upon each other. You can't download the contents of the CD into the CD player in your living room and take it to your car CD player and play it there. Media and content are the same thing in this case.

In the case of software that is not true. The media is a means of distribution of the copywrited/licenced material which will eventually be installed on a users HD.

Sure, you can copy CD's to listen in your car, but technically that is illegal as well and with never CD's sometimes impossible because of copy protection.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, simply stating the facts and showing how your train of thought/justifications would not keep you out of jail...
 
You can't download the contents of the CD into the CD player in your living room and take it to your car CD player and play it there. Media and content are the same thing in this case.[

Ah, yes indeed I can.

In the case of software that is not true. The media is a means of distribution of the copywrited/licenced material which will eventually be installed on a users HD.

That is only different because the license itself makes it different. The two concepts are identical.

Sure, you can copy CD's to listen in your car, but technically that is illegal as well and with never CD's sometimes impossible because of copy protection.

It has never been illegal to make copies of music or video for your personal use. It is only illegal to distribute or publicly display. If there were license agreements as there are with software, as you seem to think, then this analogy would fit perfectly. Kinda funny really.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, simply stating the facts and showing how your train of thought/justifications would not keep you out of jail...

You're still unclear on the facts. It is not illegal to duplicate audio. I have not seen one microsoft license agreement that did not specifically allow the user to make at least one copy of the source media, and to install the media on AS MANY machines as the user sees fit, as long as those machines, or the software in question, will not be used concurrently.

In fact, Microsoft typically has two models, "per seat" and "per license". Under "per seat", the software can be installed on a single machine and any number of users can access the software, one at a time. Under "per license", you can install the software to any number of machines as long as only one copy of the software is being used at any given time.

This doesn't change the nature of the original argument, but the analogy used in a previous post is proper and many of your premises are incorrect.

The reason that the above analogy is so good is that if you make a copy of an audio CD and then give it to somebody else to listen to, even in your own family, then you are technically breaking the law. Just like software really.

Personally I think that it would be extremely beneficial for many software companies to allow multiple personal use licenses per purchase, because now-a-days many families have multiple machines. Several games, like Total Anihilation for instance, follow this model. Very cool. Either that or bring prices down to a reasonable level.

I don't worry about CD protection. I've been copying safedisc and other protected discs for a long time. It stops the average person who is too lazy to get a copy of clone CD though I suppose.

Slackmaster 2000
 
...'Nuff said. I just think the whole thing is silly. I mean, really, if I buy something, I like to think I own it. I don't applaud piracy in the context of selling (or even giving away) multiple copies of software to other individules, but for personal use...


I'm not saying its right or wrong, simply stating the facts and showing how your train of thought/justifications would not keep you out of jail...
Click to expand...

Trains of thought and justifications don't keep people out of jail... ...Bail Bondsmen do. If you ever get in a pinch in CT, give me a call ( and have a copy of XP handy:D )

Peace (Really!) Tom.
 
Just to answer part of my last post - I checked with a guy I know who works for CDW, a large technology vendor, about what the "official" position is regarding buying OEM copies of Windows XP seperate from a new PC. His answer -

"CDW does not sell OEM licensing for much the same reason...
OEM software is only legal if it is preloaded at the computer manufacturer PRIOR TO SHIPPING when the computer is sold as NEW. Under any other circumstances OEM licensing is not legal and will not be accepted by MS if audited"

So there you go, you can probably do it but it's at your own risk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top