Restoring an image backup to a brand new HD?

Bill in Co wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:
I'm a little confused about this seemingly basic issue, in this case
involving the use of Acronis True Image and its backup images, but
it could be more general, too.

Is it possible to restore an image backup of your system to a
*completely brand new hard drive* that has never been used or
initialized? Let me explain further:

Suppose your main hard drive dies, and that you also have another HD
that only contains some Acronis True Image backups of your system
stored on it, AND that you also have an Acronis True Image Boot CD
handy.
So you replace the bad drive with a brand new drive (which naturally
is unbootable if you just tried to boot up on it).

However, using your Acronis boot CD, you can use that to boot up
into the boot CD, and then presumably select a backup image you'd
like to restore from the other HD.

BUT will the restore operation work for a brand new virgin hard
drive that has never been used before (i.e. make the brand new hard
drive bootable into windows, etc)? I'm guessing it will, but
that's only an assumption on my part. I know the operation works
well on a normal HD, but have never tried it out on a brand new
hard drive, and am wondering if there is some limitation there I'm
not aware of (like you can't restore an image to a virgin hard
drive that has never been initialized or whatever).

Suppose you didn't have an image, what would you do? You'd use the
new drive manufacturer's program to clone the existing drive. So
yes, you can restore an image you have to the new drive.

?? Not sure what you meant here. If your original main HD failed,
you can't clone or access it under any situation, as its completely
borked. By borked I mean it's toast.

I meant if you bought a new drive which you wanted to use as your system
drive. The new drive program is cloning the info from the old disc. That
works. Same is true if you restore an image of a failed drive to a new HD.
That works too (assuming no mobo change or a program capable of rectifying
changes). Both situations are doing the same thing...writing an image to a
new HD; in the first case, the image is coming from an existing HD; in the
second, the image was already made.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:51:30 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

On 3/21/2012 11:46 AM, Jo-Anne wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 3/21/2012 11:16 AM, Jo-Anne wrote:
wrote in message
...
| I'm a little confused about this seemingly basic issue, in this case
| involving the use of Acronis True Image and its backup images, but it
could
| be more general, too.
|
| Is it possible to restore an image backup of your system to a
*completely
| brand new hard drive* that has never been used or initialized?

There's really no such thing as "initialized". A new
disk doesn't get broken in. The only difference is that
it doesn't yet have partitions.

I use BootIt. I can copy an image from CD or disk
to any empty space that will fit it, on any disk. The
only difference is that I always partition the new drive
before installing OSs. (I leave room for 3 primaries in
front and then apportion the rest for logical data
partitions in an extended partition.)

This isn't an Acronis issue. It's about how disks work.
But the software you use could have limitations in what
it can do. Also, there seem to be different definitions used,
which can make things confusing. (In this thread, one
person defines an image as a partition backup while
another defines it as a section-of-disk backup.)

The discussion til now has been about restoring to a brand new hard
drive.
No mention has been made of the possibility that the new drive is in a
new
computer. What if you want to restore the image to a new computer that
has
come with, say, Windows 7? Would you be able to do a full restore,
including
your old Windows XP operating system, on the new drive in the new
computer?
And if you could, would Microsoft consider it valid and allow it to be
used?

Jo-Anne

Yes it is possible to transfer your old Windows, installed applications,
data, etc. over to a new computer. Two of which a

- Paragon "Adaptive Restore" (free with some of their products)

- Acronis "Restore to dissimilar hardware" (available on the Plus pack
only)

Thank you, Bill! A few more questions:

(1) Does "dissimilar hardware" mean a different motherboard? If so, does
that mean that even if you buy a new computer that has the Windows XP
operating system, you would still need to use the Acronis "Restore to
dissimilar hardware"? Same thing if your motherboard on your old computer
fails and you replace it?

(2) Does Microsoft have an issue with putting Windows XP on a new computer
that came with a different OS? What if you were still running the original
drive with WinXP on an old computer?

Jo-Anne

Both Acronis Plus (cost about 70 bucks extra) and Paragon doesn't care
even if it is a totally different computer with nothing in common with
the old one. How they work is when you install Windows for the first
time, the Windows install uses generic drivers that work with anything.
Once Windows gets fully installed, it tosses those generic drivers away
and replaces them with better drivers.

And what Paragon and Acronis does is to replace those drivers with the
generic drivers once again. So it will run on virtually anything. And
once restored, Windows will be replacing those generic drivers once
again just like a fresh install. The difference though is that you don't
have to reinstall all of your apps and all. Nor do you have to
reconfigure Windows back to the way you like it either, since it will be
already be that way anyway.

Does Microsoft have a problem with it if you have an OEM license?
Microsoft never makes this clear. All that is clear is at least one
piece of the hardware is still being used, then it is legal.

Since around XP SP2 or SP3 or so, OEM licensing became more
restrictive. The software is tied to the computer system, and MS
essentially defines this as the motherboard. See

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...es/licensing_f
aq.aspx

--
Zaphod

Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, ya know? - Gag Halfrunt

On 3/22/2012 12:35 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:51:30 -0500, wrote
in ...
Does Microsoft have a problem with it if you have an OEM license?
Microsoft never makes this clear. All that is clear is at least one
piece of the hardware is still being used, then it is legal.

Since around XP SP2 or SP3 or so, OEM licensing became more
restrictive. The software is tied to the computer system, and MS
essentially defines this as the motherboard. See

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...nsing_faq.aspx

"Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on a computer—except the motherboard—and still retain the
license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software. If the
motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect,
then a new computer has been created. Microsoft OEM operating system
software cannot be transferred to the new computer, and the license of
new operating system software is required."

Oops! The 5v line doesn't take 120vac too well. Time for a new
motherboard. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP

On 3/22/2012 10:00 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| It's not "legal" for an OEM version. With a full
| version it's legal to move to as many PCs as desired,
| as long as it's one at a time. With an OEM version
| Microsoft claims it's licensed to the motherboard.
| I've never tried moving a pre-installed OEM version
| via disk image. I don't know if that will work. If it
| wants to re-activate then the new activation will
| not work with a new motherboard.
|
| How do you explain that service centers replace motherboards all of the
| time and the machine keeps the same OEM license?

I don't know. Microsoft may provide them a means
to do that. I don't have much experience with PC
service shops, but from what I've seen it seems
they usually try to push an upgrade and then charge
for a copy installed from their own corporate CD.

Actually replacing defective motherboards under the OEM license is legal.

| And did you know that Woody Leonhard stated:
|
| "After an exhaustive search of case law, I could find no example of a
| Microsoft EULA prevailing in a dispute with a regular, everyday PC user."

So what? Microsoft has a lot more money, lobbyists
and lawyers than you do. Who is going to fight them
in court over $100-$300? Are you going to take them
to small claims court next time a product activation
fails? Microsoft makes all sorts of
claims that are at best unethical, and possibly illegal.
But no one stops them. Did you know that it's "illegal"
for two people to use a PC at the same time, according
to their EULA? You're breaking Microsoft's version of the
law every time you sit down to help a friend or teach a
child. If MS could find a way to charge for that then I'm
sure they would. You also agree to allow Media Player
to be spyware if you use it... but you can't remove it,
either. Microsoft doesn't need to enforce that. Most people
use Media Player because they don't know any better.
Most people don't know it's spyware. MS only puts that
in the license so that tech gossip can't accuse them of
hiding something.

No you got it backwards. Microsoft has never gone after any consumer for
breaking the EULA. And yes, defective motherboards can be replaced under
OEM licenses.

The genius of their Windows licensing scheme is that
it's passive. They don't have to be an ogre because
product activation does the job for them.

For most people a name-brand
OEM machine is Windows. That's licensed to the motherboard
*and* to you, according to MS. The activation method
checks various hardware in order to guess whether
you're installing to a new PC.

Some checks and some doesn't. A lot of branded OEM versions are
pre-activated. Although most of them checks the BIOS to see if it is
qualifies.

An issue I've never actually tested is the enforcement.
If you buy an OEM copy of Windows and install it to two
PCs, the second activation "should" fail. If you image
your Dell or HP PC and copy it to a PC you build, that
should also fail, but I don't know whether Microsoft has
planned for that. (And given that XP is an extremely
brittle system, it's not so easy to move between PCs.
I have no doubt that's deliberate.)

I have lots of experience with branded OEM Windows. First there is no
activation if it qualifies for the computer it is meant for (loosely
this could mean a Dell, Gateway, etc). Trying on a computer that doesn't
qualify two things usually happens.

1) It will flatly fail and do not pass go.

2) It will ask for a key. And if it isn't from a qualifying computer for
the branded version, it will fail (doesn't matter if the key is valid or
not).

So Microsoft is exploitive. Their licensing is absurd and
probably illegal. They should have been broken up over
monopoly abuse a long time ago. (And they probably
would have been if George Bush Jr. hadn't come into the
White House before the case was over.) .... But none of
that matters if you buy a OEM XP CD and try to install it
to 2 machines. That's the genius of it all: MS doesn't have
to look bad with nasty enforcement. They just give you
a broken product and you have to contact them to ask
them to fix it. By making product activation effortless for
most people, Microsoft was able to make it standard. As
a result, MS is actually stealing from most of their customers
by forcing them to buy a new Windows license with every
PC, even if they've already bought one. ...And most people
don't even realize it.

Too much to reply to for this thread. But basically Microsoft wasn't in
any trouble of being broken up, unless if they had a conscious.

You may be right that the license won't stand up in court,
but that won't help Jo-Anne. All we can do is be grateful
that we haven't succumbed to the Invasion of The Wallet
Snatchers and turned into AppleSeeds. Then we'd be
getting exploited *and* we'd be thanking Lord Jobs for
doing it.

Thanking Lord Steve for what? Lord Steve admits (and isn't a secret
anyway) that he stolen everything that he had got.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP

BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 7:18 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:06 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 4:31 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
I have read this, however: IF you go the CLONE route, I believe
you're
supposed to initially boot up on the clone drive once to properly
initialize
it as the boot drive. Meaning, if you don't do this, and by mistake
leave
the clone plugged in at first bootup (and are still using your
*original*
boot drive), it might make the clone drive unbootable (without some
patching). I'm not sure why though. I assume this is related to the
MBR and Track0 stuff. ??

The only thing I can think of that sounds similar is this. If you
clone
under Windows (or Windows has ever seen this drive before) and not a
boot disc, Windows will see the new drive and give it a drive letter.
Now you clone and all is well so far.

Now you dump or save the original drive and boot up the clone. And
let's
say the original drive running Windows saw this new drive as drive F
or
something. And say the original drive Windows was on drive C. Now
Windows remembers this new drive is drive F, but the OS expects to
be drive C. Now lots of problems.

This was an old problem. And the old fix was to use a Windows 98
Startup
Disc and to create a new MBR. Which has a bug or a feature that
corrupts
part of the drive's serial number that Windows uses to track. Thus
when
you boot the clone for the first time, Windows will claim it has never
seen this drive before and will assign it as the C drive. Now all is
well.

Nowadays I don't know any modern day cloning software that doesn't
know
how to get around this problem. So the user should never see this. And
that is the only thing that I can think of.

Thanks. Yes, this sounds like what I was thinking of. I wonder
when,
and basically how, this issue was ever resolved, with the newer
programs?

For example, if you simply create the clone and leave it plugged in but
along with the original source drive, and reboot, won't it still be
assigned
a letter like F:? Your original source hard drive is still there and
is
still C:, naturally.

So that next time, IF you detach the clone and replace the original
drive
with the clone, it's still F? How could the cloning software take
care of
that, unless it creates some new MBR on the clone drive, forcing it to
be
seen as C:? But that won't work right if you leave both the original
drive and the clone drive plugged in simultaneously. There would be a
conflict.

Windows keeps a list of drive serial numbers and what drive letter it
was assigned before. So changing the serial number of the clone to
something that Windows doesn't have in its list works. Also removing the
clone drive from the list works too on the cloned drive. Also
unassigning the drive letter on the clone when cloning. There might be
other tricks too.

When this was a common problem, it was very interesting. As if you
booted from the cloned drive with this problem, parts of Windows boot
would see it as drive C and other parts would be looking for some boot
files on drive F in this example. So you would get the continue, ignore,
and retry for many files while booting. I don't recall if you could make
it to the desktop or not, but if it did, parts of Windows was missing.

Well, it's still a bit confusing to me, unless windows could always be
forced to recognize the drive it's booting up on to to be C: and keep it
that way, no matter what. Here's an example: suppose you later boot up
with both the original drive and the clone attached. Hopefully that
doesn't
screw up the clone drive in case next time you pull out the original
drive,
and stick in the clone as the boot drive. Or vice versa.

What we really need is for the windows to ALWAYS let the booting up drive
(either the original or the clone) be C:, no matter which drives are
connected. That way there would never be a problem, and one could
physically interchange the original drive and the clone at will, or have
them both connected simulaneously, without any issues. But is that the
case?

Well legacy Windows of the past didn't have such a list. And any new
drive got the next available drive letter during booting. And the
optical drive(s) drive letter got moved around. And your external backup
drives drive letters also got moved around too. The way Windows works
today is far better IMHO. As now drive letters are far more fixed.

Another thing, Windows shouldn't treat every boot drive as drive C like
you want. Windows used to work that way. As it causes problems
especially under dualboot configurations.

Ok. But then what would actually happen in the cases I mentioned above?
To be specific (let's assume we're using C: as the boot, and that that drive
also has partitions D:, E; and F: on it too (with C being the windows/system
one)

You create a clone of your main drive, but happen to leave it connected at
bootup. I'm guessing it will be seen as something like say G: (and
following):, and your original drive is still C: But I'm not sure about
this.

Now say you disconnect the clone, and put it back in place of your original
boot drive, which is left disconnected. Will it work?

OR as another case:
Suppose you swap them - put the clone in as the main drive, and attach the
original drive to another SATA port (not the one normally used for the boot
drive). What happens?

Clearly I'm still not understanding it. :-)

On 3/22/2012 4:11 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 7:18 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 5:06 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
BillW50 wrote:
On 3/21/2012 4:31 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
I have read this, however: IF you go the CLONE route, I believe
you're
supposed to initially boot up on the clone drive once to properly
initialize
it as the boot drive. Meaning, if you don't do this, and by mistake
leave
the clone plugged in at first bootup (and are still using your
*original*
boot drive), it might make the clone drive unbootable (without some
patching). I'm not sure why though. I assume this is related to the
MBR and Track0 stuff. ??

The only thing I can think of that sounds similar is this. If you
clone
under Windows (or Windows has ever seen this drive before) and not a
boot disc, Windows will see the new drive and give it a drive letter.
Now you clone and all is well so far.

Now you dump or save the original drive and boot up the clone. And
let's
say the original drive running Windows saw this new drive as drive F
or
something. And say the original drive Windows was on drive C. Now
Windows remembers this new drive is drive F, but the OS expects to
be drive C. Now lots of problems.

This was an old problem. And the old fix was to use a Windows 98
Startup
Disc and to create a new MBR. Which has a bug or a feature that
corrupts
part of the drive's serial number that Windows uses to track. Thus
when
you boot the clone for the first time, Windows will claim it has never
seen this drive before and will assign it as the C drive. Now all is
well.

Nowadays I don't know any modern day cloning software that doesn't
know
how to get around this problem. So the user should never see this. And
that is the only thing that I can think of.

Thanks. Yes, this sounds like what I was thinking of. I wonder
when,
and basically how, this issue was ever resolved, with the newer
programs?

For example, if you simply create the clone and leave it plugged in but
along with the original source drive, and reboot, won't it still be
assigned
a letter like F:? Your original source hard drive is still there and
is
still C:, naturally.

So that next time, IF you detach the clone and replace the original
drive
with the clone, it's still F? How could the cloning software take
care of
that, unless it creates some new MBR on the clone drive, forcing it to
be
seen as C:? But that won't work right if you leave both the original
drive and the clone drive plugged in simultaneously. There would be a
conflict.

Windows keeps a list of drive serial numbers and what drive letter it
was assigned before. So changing the serial number of the clone to
something that Windows doesn't have in its list works. Also removing the
clone drive from the list works too on the cloned drive. Also
unassigning the drive letter on the clone when cloning. There might be
other tricks too.

When this was a common problem, it was very interesting. As if you
booted from the cloned drive with this problem, parts of Windows boot
would see it as drive C and other parts would be looking for some boot
files on drive F in this example. So you would get the continue, ignore,
and retry for many files while booting. I don't recall if you could make
it to the desktop or not, but if it did, parts of Windows was missing.

Well, it's still a bit confusing to me, unless windows could always be
forced to recognize the drive it's booting up on to to be C: and keep it
that way, no matter what. Here's an example: suppose you later boot up
with both the original drive and the clone attached. Hopefully that
doesn't
screw up the clone drive in case next time you pull out the original
drive,
and stick in the clone as the boot drive. Or vice versa.

What we really need is for the windows to ALWAYS let the booting up drive
(either the original or the clone) be C:, no matter which drives are
connected. That way there would never be a problem, and one could
physically interchange the original drive and the clone at will, or have
them both connected simulaneously, without any issues. But is that the
case?

Well legacy Windows of the past didn't have such a list. And any new
drive got the next available drive letter during booting. And the
optical drive(s) drive letter got moved around. And your external backup
drives drive letters also got moved around too. The way Windows works
today is far better IMHO. As now drive letters are far more fixed.

Another thing, Windows shouldn't treat every boot drive as drive C like
you want. Windows used to work that way. As it causes problems
especially under dualboot configurations.

Ok. But then what would actually happen in the cases I mentioned above?
To be specific (let's assume we're using C: as the boot, and that that drive
also has partitions D:, E; and F: on it too (with C being the windows/system
one)

Bill... you ask a lot of questions and I am not sure if now is the right
time to ask them. But I *love* your questions. And frankly I don't know
what happens with with other partitions on the same drive. As I never
tested that option.

You create a clone of your main drive, but happen to leave it connected at
bootup. I'm guessing it will be seen as something like say G: (and
following):, and your original drive is still C: But I'm not sure about
this.

I am confused. The original drive stays as the boot? Well nothing
happens. It only changes if you remove it or swap it.

Now say you disconnect the clone, and put it back in place of your original
boot drive, which is left disconnected. Will it work?

Yes if the fixes are in place.

OR as another case:
Suppose you swap them - put the clone in as the main drive, and attach the
original drive to another SATA port (not the one normally used for the boot
drive). What happens?

Ah... swapping is the most interesting one. If it sees the original as
the clone, nothing happens as far as boot is concern. As it will use
both to boot with.

Clearly I'm still not understanding it. :-)

It is ok Bill. Less than five or less percent of the computer user
population actually understands this stuff. So you are trying to
understand some really hard stuff. If you are getting part of it, you
are still doing good and to go for it. ;-)

Even trying to understand all of this... if the cloned drive has no
memory of the the cloned serial number... then thinks it has never seen
it before gets set as drive C at boot and all is well (assuming drive C
is what the original was installed on). Modern cloning software
understands all of this. Thus the user normally doesn't even run into
any of this.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T7400 2.16 GHz - 1.5GB - Windows 8 CP

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:00:08 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

On 3/22/2012 12:35 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:51:30 -0500, wrote
in ...
Does Microsoft have a problem with it if you have an OEM license?
Microsoft never makes this clear. All that is clear is at least one
piece of the hardware is still being used, then it is legal.

Since around XP SP2 or SP3 or so, OEM licensing became more
restrictive. The software is tied to the computer system, and MS
essentially defines this as the motherboard. See

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...nsing_faq.aspx

"Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on a computer?except the motherboard?and still retain the
license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software. If the
motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect,
then a new computer has been created. Microsoft OEM operating system
software cannot be transferred to the new computer, and the license of
new operating system software is required."

Oops! The 5v line doesn't take 120vac too well. Time for a new
motherboard. ;-)

Never said there weren't ways around it, just that the licensing is
pretty clear on the restrictions.

--
Zaphod

Vell, Zaphod's just zis guy, ya know? - Gag Halfrunt

Mayayana wrote:

An issue I've never actually tested is the enforcement.
If you buy an OEM copy of Windows and install it to two
PCs, the second activation "should" fail.

It depends upon how long ago the #1 install was activated. If a month or
two, NP with #2.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

| An issue I've never actually tested is the enforcement.
| If you buy an OEM copy of Windows and install it to two
| PCs, the second activation "should" fail.
|
| It depends upon how long ago the #1 install was activated. If a month or
| two, NP with #2.
|

This topic is getting very confused, with an awfully
lot of posts that mostly say the same thing.

* Full version Windows allows moving the installation to
any number of computers in a serial manner.

* OEM Windows is "licensed to the motherboard". Product
activation is used to block installing it to two separate PCs.
(You may get away with installing to two identical PCs,
but that's not the licensing, and it's not the issue under
discussion.)

I'm guessing that "NP" means "no problem"? So
you're saying that the same OEM copy of Windows,
with the same product key, can be installed to two
different PCs, with different motherboards, as long as
one waits two months? What would be the point of
activation, and of checking the motherboard, if it
worked that way?

Mayayana wrote:
An issue I've never actually tested is the enforcement.
If you buy an OEM copy of Windows and install it to two
PCs, the second activation "should" fail.

It depends upon how long ago the #1 install was activated. If a
month or two, NP with #2.


This topic is getting very confused, with an awfully
lot of posts that mostly say the same thing.

* Full version Windows allows moving the installation to
any number of computers in a serial manner.

* OEM Windows is "licensed to the motherboard". Product
activation is used to block installing it to two separate PCs.
(You may get away with installing to two identical PCs,
but that's not the licensing, and it's not the issue under
discussion.)

I'm guessing that "NP" means "no problem"?

Right.

So you're saying that the same OEM copy of Windows,
with the same product key, can be installed to two
different PCs, with different motherboards, as long as
one waits two months?

Right. I can't say for sure how long but no more than that. Probably less.
That assumes it is a non-branded OEM.

What would be the point of
activation, and of checking the motherboard, if it
worked that way?

Dunno, you'd have to ask MS. Maybe to scare the bejezzus out of people so
they'll toe the line?

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

In message ,
Zaphod Beeblebrox writes:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:00:08 -0500, "BillW50" wrote
in article ...

On 3/22/2012 12:35 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:51:30 -0500, wrote
in ...
Does Microsoft have a problem with it if you have an OEM license?
Microsoft never makes this clear. All that is clear is at least one
piece of the hardware is still being used, then it is legal.

Since around XP SP2 or SP3 or so, OEM licensing became more
restrictive. The software is tied to the computer system, and MS
essentially defines this as the motherboard. See




http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...nsing_faq.aspx

Thanks for that link; an interesting document. (One thing - that someone
else in this thread has mentioned - is the restriction on two users:
this _doesn't_ prevent you helping your granny/grandson, it only
prevents two _simultaneous_ users [which IMO would require more effort
than is worth it anyway] of the computer; and it _does_ allow
printer/file/internet-connection sharing, just not two people running
what would be considered normal programs at once.)

"Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on a computer?except the motherboard?and still retain the
license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software. If the
motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect,
then a new computer has been created. Microsoft OEM operating system
software cannot be transferred to the new computer, and the license of
new operating system software is required."

Oops! The 5v line doesn't take 120vac too well. Time for a new
motherboard. ;-)

Never said there weren't ways around it, just that the licensing is
pretty clear on the restrictions.

It says the new one must be the same manufacturer and model, though -
though there is something about "or the manufacturer's replacement as
defined under the manufacturer's warranty", or something like that. I'm
not aware of any motherboard manufacturer whose warranty specifies a
different model, though I guess there might be such!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He hasn't one redeeming vice." - Oscar Wilde

In ,
Mayayana typed:

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...ages/licensing
_faq.aspx

Thanks for that link; an interesting document.

There are also EULA.txt files, which are the actual licenses
for a given version of Windows. Though that link is very
informative. I've never seen such detailed explanations
before.

The EULA you click may not be the one in effect
http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/...-not-be-the-on
e-in-effect/

"Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware
components on a computer?except the motherboard?

It says the new one must be the same manufacturer and model, though -
though there is something about "or the manufacturer's replacement as
defined under the manufacturer's warranty", or something like that.
I'm not aware of any motherboard manufacturer whose warranty
specifies a different model, though I guess there might be such!

Just a technicality. For instance, a few years back Dell
had a problem with a faulty board model. I don't remember
the details, but they could conceivably replace boards like
that with a new model and just put the same activation
data in the BIOS, so that PCs with a new board would work
without new activation.

The rule is pretty clear: Microsoft is going to do whatever
they can to prevent anyone who buys OEM from using the
software in any way on a second PC. In fact, even selling an
OEM CD has been controversial. Sellers have had to send a
piece of metal with the CD to fulfill the requirement that it be
supplied only with hardware! But given the absurd price that
Microsoft gets for OEM (about $120 US is typical for a retail
CD) I'm guessing that they're not too upset. They get only
about $60 less than a full version, with the advantage that
the licensing states the OEM builder is responsible for support.
So they've made probably $80-100 for about $1 worth of cost,
with no vendor responsibilities.

It's a tricky decision for anyone buying a Windows disk. Buying
the full version is much more expensive and may never be needed.
On the other hand, if you buy OEM and your motherboard shorts
out next year... and it's no longer on the market... you've lost
$120. Further complicating matters is that online retailers do
everything they can to obscure the products, advertising things
like "Full Version Windows 7" in big print, with "Full OEM version"
in small print. Yet there's no such thing as a "full OEM" version.
It's very easy to think one is buying the full version when one
is not.

I believe in not only having software backups, but also hardware
backups. Thus I end up with such things as three EeePCs, nine Gateway
MX6124 and M465, five Alienware M97xx, etc. And this solves many of the
problems above.

--
Bill
Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

|
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/lice...nsing_faq.aspx
|
| Thanks for that link; an interesting document.

There are also EULA.txt files, which are the actual licenses
for a given version of Windows. Though that link is very
informative. I've never seen such detailed explanations
before.

|
| "Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware
| components on a computer?except the motherboard?

| It says the new one must be the same manufacturer and model, though -
| though there is something about "or the manufacturer's replacement as
| defined under the manufacturer's warranty", or something like that. I'm
| not aware of any motherboard manufacturer whose warranty specifies a
| different model, though I guess there might be such!

Just a technicality. For instance, a few years back Dell
had a problem with a faulty board model. I don't remember
the details, but they could conceivably replace boards like
that with a new model and just put the same activation
data in the BIOS, so that PCs with a new board would work
without new activation.

The rule is pretty clear: Microsoft is going to do whatever
they can to prevent anyone who buys OEM from using the
software in any way on a second PC. In fact, even selling an
OEM CD has been controversial. Sellers have had to send a
piece of metal with the CD to fulfill the requirement that it be
supplied only with hardware! But given the absurd price that
Microsoft gets for OEM (about $120 US is typical for a retail
CD) I'm guessing that they're not too upset. They get only
about $60 less than a full version, with the advantage that
the licensing states the OEM builder is responsible for support.
So they've made probably $80-100 for about $1 worth of cost,
with no vendor responsibilities.

It's a tricky decision for anyone buying a Windows disk. Buying
the full version is much more expensive and may never be needed.
On the other hand, if you buy OEM and your motherboard shorts
out next year... and it's no longer on the market... you've lost
$120. Further complicating matters is that online retailers do
everything they can to obscure the products, advertising things
like "Full Version Windows 7" in big print, with "Full OEM version"
in small print. Yet there's no such thing as a "full OEM" version.
It's very easy to think one is buying the full version when one
is not.