Installing xp on 2nd computer

ron wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a way to install xp home
edition on a second computer? microsoft says to buy
another copy.

That's because MS main motivation is greed! There are many ways, and
the following link describes one of them.

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/mmpafaq/mmpafaq.htm

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

No, but I've read and accepted them all since DOS 3.2 and Windows 3.0.

Cari
www.coribright.com

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...


Really? And you have read all of Windows EULA's since 1.0? Or is this
something you just heard and are now regurgitating?

"ron" wrote in message
...

Does anyone know if there is a way to install xp home
edition on a second computer? microsoft says to buy
another copy.


The rule is one copy (or one license) per computer, just as it
has been with *every* previous version of Windows.

The only thing new with XP is that there's now an enforcement
mechanism.

You can buy a second license, but it's not a great deal.
Microsoft sells second licenses at 15% off the list price. You
can almost certainly do better buying a whole second copy from a
discount source.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup

purplehaz03 wrote:
Uhhh.......... ya that's it..... I read evey one of them. )

What did you do with 1.0, prop open a door? ;^)

If you only really knew me you'd know I'm on your side, I just like
to stay under the radar. What I do in my home is my business and I
would never tell others to do something that could have some
potential to get them in trouble(even if it's something I might do).
So I post the accepted answers.

Cool! Still most people haven't even read XP's EULA, so the likelihood
of finding anyone who has read every EULA for all versions of Windows
still seems very remote. I've heard many different things, and haven't
yet found a way to find out for myself.

**this message will self-destruct in
10 seconds**


Ouch! Here come the looters!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

kurttrail wrote:
Don Burnette wrote:
kurttrail wrote:
ron wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a way to install xp home
edition on a second computer? microsoft says to buy
another copy.

That's because MS main motivation is greed! There are many ways,
and the following link describes one of them.

http://microscum.kurttrail.com/mmpafaq/mmpafaq.htm

Ron, I would pay no attention to what this troll continues to post in
regards to XP activation on more than 1 computer.
The other responders were correct. You need to purchase another copy
of XP to install on a second computer if you intend to keep XP on the
first computer.

Just my humble opinion,

Don Burnette

I thought you put me on your block senders list? LOL! Your opinion
is as good as your word!

I never gave you my word on anything LOL, had to reformat and haven't added
you back on yet.
Been getting too much of a laugh out of some of your dribble.

Don Burnette

you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
purplehaz03 wrote:
Every version of windows has ALWAYS been like that. One copy for one
computer.

Really? And you have read all of Windows EULA's since 1.0? Or is
this something you just heard and are now regurgitating?

XP just has a device to stop or slow down this kind of
casual theft.


Show one law that makes installing and using the same copy of
software on more than one computer is theft, or one court case where
one person was convicted of theft, software piracy, or copyright
infringement for doing this! PA stops nothing but you MicroMorons
that like being suckered by MS's unproven BS! I just hope you
MicroSuckers aren't as prolific at reproduction as P. T. Barnum's
sucker's!


http://www.fast.org.uk/



LOL! Should have said US. But I'm against software piracy too. It's
just that installing the same copy of retail software on more than one
computer by an anonymous individual is NOT software piracy in the US.
There is not one US law or court decision to prove that it is.

Now, go away you thieving Troll.

I have stolen nothing. Please prove otherwise, and I live under the
laws of the US, so Limey Law doesn't apply to me. And I would expect to
be called a troll by those who are so willing to accept the words of a
convicted monopolist, without any proof to back them up!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Michael Stevens wrote:
you wrote:
-----Original Message-----
purplehaz03 wrote:
Every version of windows has ALWAYS been like that. One copy for
one computer.

Really? And you have read all of Windows EULA's since 1.0? Or is
this something you just heard and are now regurgitating?

XP just has a device to stop or slow down this kind of
casual theft.


Show one law that makes installing and using the same copy of
software on more than one computer is theft, or one court case where
one person was convicted of theft, software piracy, or copyright
infringement for doing this! PA stops nothing but you MicroMorons
that like being suckered by MS's unproven BS! I just hope you
MicroSuckers aren't as prolific at reproduction as P. T. Barnum's
sucker's!


http://www.fast.org.uk/


Now, go away you thieving Troll.

You are going to have to find something more convincing than that lame
orgizanation. 8-)
All the documentation is in place, and I can't for the life of me see
where Kurt sees the EULA unconscionable, and it is a mystery how he
gets the idea that making of a copy of the media also changes the
license agreement . It still states it is for use on one computer.
You purchase the CD media that contains software licensed for one use
and a single CD key to activate that license is included in the
purchase. You have not purchased the software, only the CD media
containing the software and the single license to use the software
defined in the EULA for one computer. You can make a copy of the
software that will faciltate the installation on a machine, but it
does not alter the right to continue to use the software on an
additional machine without obtaining another license [CD Key]. You
have not purchased the software, but only the media containing the
software and the single usage license. The CD media can be copied,
but it still states it is for installation on one computer. The copy
is still linked to the original agreement and whether you use the
copy or the original, you only purchased the right to one use of the
license. It is stated plainly in both the original and the copy. You
did not receive an additional license when you copied the CD, and if
you state during the activation this is an activation for the same
license without complying with the EULA requirements, you will be
denied the priviledge of activating an additional copy of XP with the
same license. The information pertaining to the licensing of Windows
is also easily obtained and in many vendors description of the retail
product states it is for use on one computer. If I purchase a Sony TV
that has a shrinkwrap license as kurt presented as another view[which
is a pretty extream anology], I own the TV. But I would find it
nearly impossible to make a copy of the TV without infringing on the
licenses of the suppliers that facilitate the copying of the Sony TV.
If kurt needs an example to change the law, he does not need to
challenge Microsoft, there are litterally hundreds of software
developers that use essentially the same license agreement. Do a
google search for "The SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold". Go after one
of the more vunerable software developers and set a precedence. Bring
down the Goliath if you are so sure they are the enemy. Kurt's quote
below is totally without merit and only his own opinion.

"Shrinkwrap vs. Software License. They ain't one in the same. I
invalidate MS's post-sale software license contention with Part A
[Sales Receipt from previous owner of the copy of software.] With
Part B [Section 117 (a)], I invalidate the shrinkwrap license term of
one computer only. Just because I invalidate MS post-sale software
license claim in it's shrinkwrap license, doesn't invalidate the
entire shrinkwrap license, just that I have proven ownership of the
copy of software. And yes I'd have to argue interpretation with MS's
liar's, . . . . er, I mean lawyers over Section 117 (a), but then it
finally be before a real judge to decide. I think a judge will see
at least two installs allowed under this law."

I would find a judge hard pressed to see a difference between
Shrinkwrap and Software license in kurt's examples.

Find just one legal precedent [Court Case or Law] that says anything
different. What you don't understand is that the assumption that a
retail shrinkwrap license *IS* the same as software license has as
little legal merit as my opinion does? Just add that to this list of
things you don't understand.

For a very interesting read, check out the exchange between Robert T
and Kurt in the thread titled "XP License sharing"


Yes, it is. But as for the rest of your nonsense above, I'm not beating
a dead horse anymore. You showed how contemptible you really are, and
how will stoop to nothing to try to tarnish my ideas, and you're not
even man enough to admit your sh*t, when you're called on it. From now
on you can read my words as someone on the outside looking in. I'm done
with you. Have a "Ignorance is Bliss" life!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator &
Microsoft-conscripted Censor
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.kurttrail.com
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"