XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
when the
original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
that computer
determines the rules as far as i read it .

Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".

When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
Kerry

You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.

As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer
becomes a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If
MS defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for
a class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself
any liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.

Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record
it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"beamish" wrote:


Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
replaced items.
Interesting conversation.
Take Care.
beamish.

The critical element here is the "5 months later...." bit. Microsoft
purges the activation data base after 120 days so the records of the
first activation would have been removed by the time the major
hardware replacement happened.


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

NoStop wrote:
kurttrail wrote:


Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go
wherever Microsoft tells you to go, period."

LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for
the tyranny of the corporate elites.

I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against
getting the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to
place on your 'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to
go. When MS decided to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and
eventually XP, to continue to have a secure system you're either
going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR you're going to look for an
alternative. It's as simple as that. And as long as you continue on
the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum beat because if
you're going to use their software, you have no other option. So cut
the crap about what an independent individual you are. You have no
independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take the
updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.
Haven't you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with
Windoze is exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing
their next version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you
should read that article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll
see that the leopard hasn't changed its spots.

I advise people to make up their own minds whether MS has the right to
tell them what the can and can't do in their homes with their copies of
software, and if they want to know how to protect themselves from MS's
unsubstantiated claims, I will help them out with that.

When I feel Linux is ready for the average user my tune will change, but
right now, Linux is a server OS and a OS for the hobbyist. Linux is a
not yet ready for prime time player.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

"Alias" wrote:



You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence and
that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.

Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first OEM
was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the
number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but
as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced to
buy something I already have again!

Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
"casual". I am all ears.


Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
this discussion:

1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.


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

"Michael C" wrote in message
...
[snip]
I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
and will activate ok. Is that true?
Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this, although
it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the installation method
for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been doctored -- keyed to the
BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be installed on a different machine at
all. I certainly wouldn't count on transferring Windows from your Compaq to
a whole new system. As a user, I wouldn't expect this to be acceptable,
either.

Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time over
a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes, it's
still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same body
cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business knows
that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and memory
as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will draw a
complaint.

Microsoft is very clear about retail boxed versions: you can install it on
another computer as long as you remove it from the first. It's much less
clear about OEM, and the clearest part is that Dell isn't in the business of
supporting software on a computer with no Dell parts left in it, while
Microsoft isn't interested in solving problems on a copy of Windows Dell
sold. You can probably activate it, but it will be an orphan.

And Windows Update will still run, no questions asked. Why? Because of the
recent assault of malware. A system not updated because the user was afraid
to call Microsoft is a festering place for bad things. Also, a customer
badgered or threatened is a former customer.

Remember the question from Jurassic Park? People spent all this time
finding out if they COULD, but never put a moment's thought into whether
they SHOULD. Well, you probably could install an OEM copy of Windows on
practically anything. Should you? I'm not too clear on that. Suppose you
bought a machine with OEM Windows XP Home on it, and bought a retail upgrade
to XP Pro. Is it now an OEM or a retail installation? Maybe you can then
use that upgrade to upgrade another machine from Home to Pro as long as you
revert the first one.

Common sense goes a long way, even with Microsoft.

--
P.

"Ron Martell" wrote in message
...
2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.

No, OEM you pay a fair price, retail you getting ripped.

Michael

"Pelysma" wrote in message
news:bLgge.12238$U01.7624@trnddc07...
Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this,
although it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the
installation method for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been
doctored -- keyed to the BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be
installed on a different machine at all. I certainly wouldn't count on
transferring Windows from your Compaq to a whole new system. As a user, I
wouldn't expect this to be acceptable, either.

Just another good reason to avoid name brands. Why anyone would buy from a
company that intentionally made things difficult for their customers is
beyong me, but that's another story.

Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time
over a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes,
it's still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same
body cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business
knows that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and
memory as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will
draw a complaint.

That's about how I work also. In this case the customer purchased XP and is
only using 1 copy so is doing the right thing, imo.

Michael

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
when the
original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
that computer
determines the rules as far as i read it .

Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".

When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
Kerry

You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows tranfers
with the computer it is licensed with.


That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot ofpeople
seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS installed but keep
the COA and use it with the new computer.

As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer becomes
a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If MS
defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for a
class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself any
liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.

Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop
wrote:


I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that.

There is no reason a win98 system can't be secure today.
One is not required nor dependant on MS, and better off not
waiting on them to fix things. Security is about holes and
eliminating them does not require non-MS OS, though
admittedly it may be easier that way. The problem is the
defaults MS set up on their OS, but given the concern about
security one CAN still make changes. When the day comes
that this is no longer possible I too will avoid windows
like the plague.


And as
long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.

Independence is choosing one way or the other. There are
good arguments TO use MS OS, for example the huge software
base and hardware support. That's not an argument FOR MS,
per se, as it's a bit disgusting that they only have this
advantage due to their desktop monopoly, but rather it's a
recognition of reality, that the way things stand for many
uses a system would be crippled without a MS OS... not all
uses require it but the intelligent user will decide what
compromise to make if they only have one system.



Haven't
you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
hasn't changed its spots.

I agree that MS seems not-so-eager to fix obvious flaws in
their OS, especially considering the resources they have
available to them. On the other hand their philosophy seems
to be to enable the most features possible (which is good)
but without fully securing those features yet (the bad).
One thing to remember is that although WIndows includes
browser and email client, you're not forced to use them.

Anyone who considers an alternative OS can also consider
similar if not same alternative browser and email client,
and suddenly "Windows" insecurity has dropped by an order of
magnitude. While it would still be the most popular target
for exploits among OS, the most popular apps are no longer
in use.

NoStop wrote:
VWWall wrote:

T. Waters wrote:
VWWall wrote:

Bruce Chambers wrote:

Woody wrote:


from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster ,
has been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine
when the original machine is no longer the original machine .
definately a major retreat from
earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .


No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.



If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.

Am I missing something here?


Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)


I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord.
I have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?

It's the power code that has a phone connection on the end of it, so
that it can phone home whenever it's replugged in and get activated
again.

LOL!
I like that!

Bruce Chambers wrote:
T. Waters wrote:
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting.


Accepted.


In my mind, you sounded like some
orthodox practioners of religion I know.


For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding
in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical?
Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other -
even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition.


I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is
infinitely more important that people wash their hands after using
the restroom than that they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA.,
and I mean this seriously.





Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and
personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie
to you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a
Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract
is made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract
concerns. A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a
person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an
"anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;
the reneger (is that a word?) has clearly and irrefutably
demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

Actually, the orthodox practitioners of religion I know are not hypocrites,
but they spend what amounts to excessive time (IMO) "making God happy" when
it seems to me he might not really care if, say, they turned on a light at
the wrong time.

As to the EULA, if I lend my car to a friend, and tell them not to park it
in the bad part of town because of the risk of breakins, and they do park my
car there while a gas attendant (Oregon) is filling the gas tank, I do not
feel that my trust has been violated. They respected the spirit of my
request, and that is what is important. On the other hand, if they parked my
car and left it in the safe part of town, but on a street with, say, junkies
hanging out on it, they would be abusing my generosity. Intent is
everything.

"I don't see how a person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even
an "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;"

I can see how Waters interpreted Chambers as "religious". Chambers writes
radical views.

Trust involves information. Anonymity involves misinformation. The word
"renege" is medieval latin. It is a poor choice of words. Bounce a check,
void the OS?!? Microsoft is obviously a monopolizing conglomerate above
regulation. Its asexual. To compare it with a human action is wrong.
Especially when it refers to humans as end users... End of what?
Humanitiy I say.

NoStop wrote:
kurttrail wrote:

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
computer.

Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
enforceable.

What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.

I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
thread.

You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
EULA.

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
delusions!

NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!

MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
AGREEMENT!


You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
the bucks make the rules. You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
Good luck! Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.

The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license. So EULA at
the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules. That's
always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.

Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
Microsoft tells you to go, period."

NoStop, thanks for the link to Frank's article. He has amassed so much
information on the workings of MS, and presented it in a well-written and
organized fashion. I learned more than I wanted to, that's for sure.

In article ,
says...
You cannot
have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
terms after that contract is made.

Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.

What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.

So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
software.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

In article , kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?

The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me