Activation problems

[]
| License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per computer
| basis. A computer is a physical hardware system with an internal storage
| device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or blade is
| considered to be a separate computer.
| /qp
|
| Doesn't appear that a mobo, processor, ram, case or screw meet the above.
|

That's an interesting clarification. As I recall, when
Product Activation was originally instituted, MS said
the motherboard was the official licensee. The WinME
packaging said the software was licensed both to the
person and the hardware. Which raises interesting questions:
[]
ISTR - I think well before 7 - there being some sort of weighting: hard
disc was so many points, changing the amount of RAM so many, and so on,
and there being some sort of decaying threshold: if you changed enough
to go above a certain number of points within a certain time, it
required (re-)activation. A motherboard didn't _automatically_ cause
re-activation to be required, but since it contains so many
points-scoring items - ethernet port, sound, and so on - it usually did.

I think _that_'s probably where the 120 days comes from: the idea was to
let you upgrade (or replace broken bits of) your computer, but if you
appeared to have replaced too much of it within a certain time, it
triggered a re-ac. Presumably you could replace a third of it in 40 days
or something like that, and allowing the whole computer in a third of
the year was a good compromise between allowing upgrades and stopping
piracy: the pirates were only going to be able to do at most 3 computers
a year.

But what do I know.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All humanity is divided into three classes: those who are immovable, those who
are movable, and those who move! - Benjamin Franklin

In message , Alias
writes:
Andy Burns wrote:
Alias wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

If that's really true, it would fall foul of the UK's "Unfair contract
terms" legislation.

If you open the package, you cannot get a refund. And to see the EULA,
you need to open the package unless in the UK, the EULA is on the
outside of the package.

The outside of my Win7 Ultimate box (Retail not OEM) says

"You must accept the enclosed license terms before you can use this
software. To read the license terms go to www.microsoft.com/useterms"



I guess they are finally waking up to the problem but what if you don't
have Internet access? Or you won't have it until Windows is installed?

Hmm. The essence of the unfair contract terms legislation is that any
term which you cannot be aware of before the contract is in place is
deemed invalid. (IANAL by the way!) But they could probably claim that
you were aware of the requirement to check the net, and going ahead
anyway without doing so (by using someone else's access) was a breach.
It probably needs a test case to try it out; AFAI am aware, there hasn't
been one, but I don't follow such things closely.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"images you may find disturbing". What? Like a mirror or an empty fridge?
- Sarah Millican, RT 2014:5/31-6/6

On 7/2/2014 5:28 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
| License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per computer
| basis. A computer is a physical hardware system with an internal
storage
| device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or
blade is
| considered to be a separate computer.
| /qp
|
| Doesn't appear that a mobo, processor, ram, case or screw meet the
above.
|

That's an interesting clarification. As I recall, when
Product Activation was originally instituted, MS said
the motherboard was the official licensee. The WinME
packaging said the software was licensed both to the
person and the hardware. Which raises interesting questions:
[]
ISTR - I think well before 7 - there being some sort of weighting: hard
disc was so many points, changing the amount of RAM so many, and so on,
and there being some sort of decaying threshold: if you changed enough
to go above a certain number of points within a certain time, it
required (re-)activation. A motherboard didn't _automatically_ cause
re-activation to be required, but since it contains so many
points-scoring items - ethernet port, sound, and so on - it usually did.

I think _that_'s probably where the 120 days comes from: the idea was to
let you upgrade (or replace broken bits of) your computer, but if you
appeared to have replaced too much of it within a certain time, it
triggered a re-ac. Presumably you could replace a third of it in 40 days
or something like that, and allowing the whole computer in a third of
the year was a good compromise between allowing upgrades and stopping
piracy: the pirates were only going to be able to do at most 3 computers
a year.

But what do I know.

Over the years I've read about so many ideas of what is really going
on and I don't doubt what your saying is true but where do these
conclusion come from. Yeas ago I read a heated debate involving an MSMVP
stating that replacing the mobo was all it took to make that system
ineligible for activation. I've never seen anyone cite their claims with
a link.

Alias wrote, On 7/2/2014 8:51 AM:
. . .winston wrote:
Alias wrote, On 7/2/2014 6:51 AM:


MS says you may not. Experience says you can if you wait 120 days.
Besides, what's a "new computer"? MS has never stated what part of a
computer is "the" computer. Is it the processor, mother board, RAM,
case, a screw that got updated? I have even called to activate
successfully by stating I upgraded everything in the computer except the
case.


Apparently stated more clearly than understood

cf. Win7 EULA
qp
License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per computer
basis. A computer is a physical hardware system with an internal storage
device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or blade is
considered to be a separate computer.
/qp

Doesn't appear that a mobo, processor, ram, case or screw meet the above.



And so if your hard drive dies, they expect you to buy another license?

That wasn't the purpose of my response
i.e. only to clarify that MSFT does state what a computer is and that
a mobo, processor, ram and case or screw don't appear to meet the criteria.

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Mayayana wrote, On 7/2/2014 9:35 AM:


The defining of a "hard disk or partition" seems to be new
to Win7. With Vista it says the license must be assigned to
a single "hardware system".

Base on how its written it would seem the correct interpretation of the
'hardware partition or blade' as a separate computer to indicate that if
the license is installed on the physical hardware then the same license
is not valid to be installed on another partition or blade.

Also important to note that legal constraints don't always mean
technological constraints (i.e. could be legally restricted though
technologically feasible)

--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:28:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

I think _that_'s probably where the 120 days comes from: the idea was to
let you upgrade (or replace broken bits of) your computer, but if you
appeared to have replaced too much of it within a certain time, it
triggered a re-ac. Presumably you could replace a third of it in 40 days
or something like that, and allowing the whole computer in a third of
the year was a good compromise between allowing upgrades and stopping
piracy: the pirates were only going to be able to do at most 3 computers
a year.

But what do I know.

Piracy has always been MUCH easier than not.

--

Char Jackson

Al Drake wrote, On 7/2/2014 5:51 PM:

Over the years I've read about so many ideas of what is really going
on and I don't doubt what your saying is true but where do these
conclusion come from. Yeas ago I read a heated debate involving an MSMVP
stating that replacing the mobo was all it took to make that system
ineligible for activation. I've never seen anyone cite their claims with
a link.



Well MSFT isn't going to make their algorithm public for obvious reasons.

But...the book 'Windows 7 In Depth' written by well known Windows
authors, Robert Cowart and Brian Knittel, has a section that covered
some of the details.

qp
The actual algorithm that Microsoft uses is not disclosed, but we do
know the weighting of components is as follows, from highest to lowest:

1. Motherboard (and CPU)
2. Hard drive
3. Network interface card (NIC)
4. Graphics card
5. RAM

If you just add a new hard disk or add new RAM, there is no issue. If
you create an image of your Windows 7 installation on another hard disk
and swap that hard disk into the system and boot from it, or if you
replace all your RAM and reboot, WAT[1] gets triggered and checks to see
whether you must reactivate Windows 7.

In theory, chances that you'll get stung by any of this are not great.
It was widely expected that the only users who'd need to worry about
reactivation would be users who'd buy a preinstalled system, image the
hard disk or try to move the hard disk to a newer, faster computer, or
perform a motherboard upgrade using a preinstalled copy of Windows 7.

Unfortunately, in practice users have been forced to reactivate after
relatively modest hardware changes.
/qp
[1] Windows Activation Technology

Iirc, mobo changes on OEM hardware (when Win7 is OEM pre-installed or
System Builder version) can create both online and phone activation
issues unlike use of retail Win7 media which may fail online activation
post a mobo change but can confidently be phone activated.


--
...winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 1:14 PM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 6:49 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:46 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:50 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 6/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| After 120 days, MS wipes the slate clean and if you were to
try an
| activate another computer with the same license, it will
activate
online.
|

I've never heard of that. It may work. I've
never tried it. But I do know that OEM is not
licensed for that.


That's fine with me. I have never purchased OEM.

I've never purchased retail.

Have you ever purchased OEM?

Many times, both branded and generic. The only time I've bought
branded
is with laptops. Why pay more for the same thing?

I agree that paying more for something that is the same is a bad idea
but my understanding was that the retail version was different. I
thought that the OEM version can not be moved to a new computer when
you
retire the original.

"May" not. It obviously can be moved. All you gotta do is wait 120
days.

Sometimes I refer to upgrade a system or give one
away but keep the OS for future use. If I'm wrong then I've been
spending needlessly, I agree.




Ok, Now I'm begging to get it. Sorry if I'm a slow learner. Now answer
me this. Is this 120 day wait in conflict with the terms set by
Microsoft? Maybe I have been misunderstanding more than I thought.



If you do it, MS does not approve. They want you to buy another license
rather than move a generic OEM to another computer or (horrors!) install
the same license on two or more computers.

Then regardless of what anyone thinks when someone install Windows OS
they agree with the terms that means however it is worded their
interpretation is the only one that counts. Yes? No?



To them, yes. You can't install Windows without agreeing to the terms
and conditions of the EULA. MS has yet to bring anyone to court because
they don't want their EULA subjected to court scrutiny.

--
Alias

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Alias
writes:
Andy Burns wrote:
Alias wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

If that's really true, it would fall foul of the UK's "Unfair contract
terms" legislation.

If you open the package, you cannot get a refund. And to see the EULA,
you need to open the package unless in the UK, the EULA is on the
outside of the package.

The outside of my Win7 Ultimate box (Retail not OEM) says

"You must accept the enclosed license terms before you can use this
software. To read the license terms go to www.microsoft.com/useterms"



I guess they are finally waking up to the problem but what if you
don't have Internet access? Or you won't have it until Windows is
installed?

Hmm. The essence of the unfair contract terms legislation is that any
term which you cannot be aware of before the contract is in place is
deemed invalid. (IANAL by the way!) But they could probably claim that
you were aware of the requirement to check the net, and going ahead
anyway without doing so (by using someone else's access) was a breach.
It probably needs a test case to try it out; AFAI am aware, there hasn't
been one, but I don't follow such things closely.

MS will never take anyone to court because they don't really want their
EULA under court scrutiny.

--
Alias

Alias wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The essence of the unfair contract terms legislation is that any
term which you cannot be aware of before the contract is in place is
deemed invalid. (IANAL by the way!) But they could probably claim that
you were aware of the requirement to check the net, and going ahead
anyway without doing so (by using someone else's access) was a breach.
It probably needs a test case to try it out; AFAI am aware, there hasn't
been one, but I don't follow such things closely.

MS will never take anyone to court because they don't really want their
EULA under court scrutiny.

I believe John was suggesting someone should take MS to court, not the
other way round.

On 7/3/2014 6:13 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 1:14 PM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 6:49 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:46 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:50 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 6/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| After 120 days, MS wipes the slate clean and if you were to
try an
| activate another computer with the same license, it will
activate
online.
|

I've never heard of that. It may work. I've
never tried it. But I do know that OEM is not
licensed for that.


That's fine with me. I have never purchased OEM.

I've never purchased retail.

Have you ever purchased OEM?

Many times, both branded and generic. The only time I've bought
branded
is with laptops. Why pay more for the same thing?

I agree that paying more for something that is the same is a bad idea
but my understanding was that the retail version was different. I
thought that the OEM version can not be moved to a new computer when
you
retire the original.

"May" not. It obviously can be moved. All you gotta do is wait 120
days.

Sometimes I refer to upgrade a system or give one
away but keep the OS for future use. If I'm wrong then I've been
spending needlessly, I agree.




Ok, Now I'm begging to get it. Sorry if I'm a slow learner. Now answer
me this. Is this 120 day wait in conflict with the terms set by
Microsoft? Maybe I have been misunderstanding more than I thought.



If you do it, MS does not approve. They want you to buy another license
rather than move a generic OEM to another computer or (horrors!) install
the same license on two or more computers.

Then regardless of what anyone thinks when someone install Windows OS
they agree with the terms that means however it is worded their
interpretation is the only one that counts. Yes? No?



To them, yes. You can't install Windows without agreeing to the terms
and conditions of the EULA. MS has yet to bring anyone to court because
they don't want their EULA subjected to court scrutiny.

So then I shouldn't feel bad about violating them as they have violated
me first. I get it.

On 7/3/2014 6:21 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Alias wrote:

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

The essence of the unfair contract terms legislation is that any
term which you cannot be aware of before the contract is in place is
deemed invalid. (IANAL by the way!) But they could probably claim that
you were aware of the requirement to check the net, and going ahead
anyway without doing so (by using someone else's access) was a breach.
It probably needs a test case to try it out; AFAI am aware, there hasn't
been one, but I don't follow such things closely.

MS will never take anyone to court because they don't really want their
EULA under court scrutiny.

I believe John was suggesting someone should take MS to court, not the
other way round.

That would be if one could find a lawyer that will be willing to take
them on.

OT:

I'd like to take on several greedy giants like Comcast for operating a
monoply in my area. Or Verizon for not providing FIOS allowing Comcast
to do what they do. Is that fish I smell on that hand shake or what?

Al Drake wrote:
On 7/3/2014 6:13 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 1:14 PM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/2/2014 6:49 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 9:46 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 7/1/2014 6:50 AM, Alias wrote:
Al Drake wrote:
On 6/30/2014 6:31 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| After 120 days, MS wipes the slate clean and if you were to
try an
| activate another computer with the same license, it will
activate
online.
|

I've never heard of that. It may work. I've
never tried it. But I do know that OEM is not
licensed for that.


That's fine with me. I have never purchased OEM.

I've never purchased retail.

Have you ever purchased OEM?

Many times, both branded and generic. The only time I've bought
branded
is with laptops. Why pay more for the same thing?

I agree that paying more for something that is the same is a bad
idea
but my understanding was that the retail version was different. I
thought that the OEM version can not be moved to a new computer when
you
retire the original.

"May" not. It obviously can be moved. All you gotta do is wait 120
days.

Sometimes I refer to upgrade a system or give one
away but keep the OS for future use. If I'm wrong then I've been
spending needlessly, I agree.




Ok, Now I'm begging to get it. Sorry if I'm a slow learner. Now answer
me this. Is this 120 day wait in conflict with the terms set by
Microsoft? Maybe I have been misunderstanding more than I thought.



If you do it, MS does not approve. They want you to buy another license
rather than move a generic OEM to another computer or (horrors!)
install
the same license on two or more computers.

Then regardless of what anyone thinks when someone install Windows OS
they agree with the terms that means however it is worded their
interpretation is the only one that counts. Yes? No?



To them, yes. You can't install Windows without agreeing to the terms
and conditions of the EULA. MS has yet to bring anyone to court because
they don't want their EULA subjected to court scrutiny.

So then I shouldn't feel bad about violating them as they have violated
me first. I get it.



Yep.

"If they are going to steal software, I want them steal mine".

- Bill Gates, who stole Windows from Xerox.

--
Alias

On 2014-07-03, Char Jackson wrote:
Piracy has always been MUCH easier than not.

In some cases (such as Windows "downgrade rights"), Microsoft has made it
easier to use pirated software than to follow their procedures.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Evans wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:47:40 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:28:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

I think _that_'s probably where the 120 days comes from: the idea was to
let you upgrade (or replace broken bits of) your computer, but if you
appeared to have replaced too much of it within a certain time, it
triggered a re-ac. Presumably you could replace a third of it in 40 days
or something like that, and allowing the whole computer in a third of
the year was a good compromise between allowing upgrades and stopping
piracy: the pirates were only going to be able to do at most 3 computers
a year.

But what do I know.

Piracy has always been MUCH easier than not.

My main computer has legit windows but for all my virtual machines I
use an activation 'tool'. So much easier, just a couple of mouse
clicks and Windows is activated.


How does that work? Will it work on the trial Enterprise version of Win 7?

--
Alias