Can Windows XP be installed and run indefinitely without "registering" it?

[Ken90630]

Hey, All,

I'm thinking about installing Windows XP on a second computer soon. I own the original retail CD-ROM and paid Mr. Gates the price he asked for it. It's all legit.

My question is this: Since it's already installed on one computer, can I install it on another computer without going online and doing "product activation" or registration or whatever? I don't plan to have this second computer connected to the Web -- EVER -- it's just gonna be a stand-alone workstation. I was planning on ordering a CD-ROM Service Pack from Microsoft just to have it (even though I won't need the Web security patches).

Can I do this, or will XP shut itself down after 30 days or something if I haven't gone online and "activated" or registered it? I'm well aware of what the licensing agreement says and the ethical considerations involved here, so I'd prefer to not be lectured about that. I'd just like to know if it can be done without "deactivating" the XP installation on my first computer first. Thanks.

 

[mikecel79]

The first time you boot it up it will ask you to activate it. You then have 30 days to activate it before you can no longer use it. It doesn't need to connect to the internet for this either. There is a phone number it tells you to call if you have no internet access.

 

[Ken90630]

Perfect. That's exactly what I needed to know. Thanks, Mike.

 

[Nothinman]

Registeration is not required, Activation is.

 

[Ken90630]

Assuming I activate it by calling Microsoft, what do they ask for? Just that long Product Key that's printed on that sticker on the CD sleeve? That's obviously no problem, unless they punch that # in their Big Brother computer and say, "Hey, this software is already activated. What're you trying to pull here?" Then what am I gonna do? I could think up a story, I suppose, but I'd rather not.

 

[Nothinman]

If you have an ethical problem lying to MS then maybe you should rethink your decision to illegally install their software on the second machine.

 

[Ken90630]

Okay, I knew that reply was coming. I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining my rationale here, but I do have a very good reason for doing what I'm doing. It's not as nefarious as it might appear, but I'm not going to go into the long story.

Thanks for the info, guys. Let's let this thread die out before a full-scale flame war about the ethics of software implementation breaks out.

 

[Nothinman]

Nefarious or not, it's still illegal.

 

[Ken90630]

Okay, I agree. But so is driving one mile an hour over the speed limit. So what? When you do that (and don't say you don't), do you call up the police department and offer to send them a check for the speeding ticket you'd have gotten if a cop would have cited you for committing that illegal act? If you don't, aren't you being unethical? You knowingly and intentionally did something "illegal," and failing to give the city the money from the speeding ticket is, in fact, depriving them of the money they legally deserve, so why don't you pay the city every time you exceed the speed limit by even one mile an hour?

Yes, technically you're right. But I have my reasons for considering the second installation. If you really wanna know more than I intended to get into, it has to do with downgrade rights -- I paid for my Windows 2000 Pro CD a few years ago, and I was thinking of using two installations of Win XP Pro instead of one with Win 2K Pro and one with Win XP Pro. I paid for two and I wanna use two, so where's the harm as long as I'm not using the Win 2K Pro anymore? I just didn't wanna hassle with calling Microsoft (or spending an hour searching their Web site) and dealing with the red tape of "downgrade rights" from XP Pro to 2K Pro. There's actually a bit more to this, but I've already typed more than I feel I should have to. As I said, it's not as nefarious as it might have appeared.

You can disagree with my rationale if you want. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. Actually, if Microsoft had half the ethics I do, they'd be a truly incredible company.

 

[mikecel79]

I paid for my Windows 2000 Pro CD a few years ago, and I was thinking of using two installations of Win XP Pro instead of one with Win 2K Pro and one with Win XP Pro. I paid for two and I wanna use two, so where's the harm as long as I'm not using the Win 2K Pro anymore?

Win2k Pro to WinXP pro would not be "downgrade" rights. That would be "upgrade" rights. Now Win XP Pro to Win2k Pro would be downgrade rights but I don't know if that applies to retail licenses or OEM licenses. It may only apply to volume license agreements.

Owning a license to Win2k Pro does not entitle you to using Win XP Pro on a machine.

 

[Ken90630]

Win2k Pro to WinXP pro would not be "downgrade" rights. That would be "upgrade" rights. Now Win XP Pro to Win2k Pro would be downgrade rights but I don't know if that applies to retail licenses or OEM licenses. It may only apply to volume license agreements.

Owning a license to Win2k Pro does not entitle you to using Win XP Pro on a machine.

You're right. I got confused because at one time I was considering actually using two Win 2K Pro installations as opposed to one installation of Win 2K Pro and Win XP. I even started what ended up being quite a long thread recently about the pros & cons of Win 2K vs. XP so I could decide which way to go. When I started thinking about doing two installs of XP Pro tonite, I guess I was still locked into my original thinking about the dual 2K Pro setup and not wanting to hassle with downgrading one license from XP Pro. Funny how the brain gets into that "tunnel vision" thing sometimes. My bad.

And you're right again re my Win 2K Pro license not entitling me to use XP Pro. What can I say? I will re-think all of this. (Although since XP Pro is about 99% the same as 2K Pro, I think I could make a convincing case for a dual XP installation hardly being an egregious ethical violation. Illegal, technically yes. Unethical? Actually no, I don't believe it would be at all. And you know, I'll tell 'ya, when Microsoft offers to refund a significant portion of the money I've paid them for software that has victimized me in the form of gaping security holes, system freeze-ups ["just re-boot your computer"], horrible software [Windows ME], endless "illegal operation" messages back in the day that their tech support staff either couldn't or wouldn't help me with [remember Windows 95 and 98?!], and numerous other maladies resulting from their putting out software that should have been tested more before being put on the market, maybe they'll have the moral authority to tell me about ethics. Until then, I could make a case that if anything, they owe me. Time = money, and the literally hundreds of hours [not to mention the stress] I've had to spend over the years dealing with the above-mentioned problems has cost me far more than the retail price I paid for that software, so in actual fact I paid many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for my Microsoft software. That being the case, I think if I wanna run a measly two computers from one software CD, they could cut me some slack. They should cut us all some slack for that matter and even go so far as to say, "Go ahead. It's the least we can do.")

Howz that for rationale? And here I said I didn't want to get into a war about software implementation ethics ....

I've had my say. Oh, and I don't wanna hear from anyone else unless they have an iron-clad, perfect answer to my challenge about the speeding ticket ethical question. Heh heh.

 

[HermDogg]

Edited to avoid bannination. Read: Saving my rear.

 

[Dennis Travis]

Since you own 2k Pro you can buy either the Home or Pro UPGRADE of XP and legally upgrade your 2k to XP. The upgrade Home is $99 and the Pro upgrade is $199 and sometimes you can get them a lot cheaper. That is what I would do. It's legal and a lot less $$$.

If you do what you are planning on doing, in 30 days it will stop working, true you can call them but when you read back the number they will see in their database that your copy of XP is already activated with a different system, they will ask you why the system is different, in my case I told them the truth that I upgraded say the motherboard or Video card and Ram, but in your case you will have to lie and tell them you upgraded, then they will ask you if you are running THAT COPY of XP on more than one system, Again you would have to lie and say no. From my understanding and what I have both seen and my close friend who works for Microsoft has told me, if you put both systems on the net it will catch you and deactivate the old system then you will have to call in and tell another lie and keep doing it over and over going from computer to computer. Not worth the problems, you own 2k. Get the upgrade for $99 for home and save yourself the trouble! Home is ok for most uses in the home. Just networking and no default administrator account.

Not coming down on you in the least but telling you exactly what will happen.

 

[Canterwood]

Just stick with 2000 Pro on the second PC. Like you said its 99% the same as XP anyway.
Going from 2000 Pro to XP Home would be a complete waste of money IMO, and unless there is some compelling feature in XP Pro you just gotta have, I think you'd be wasting your money on that too.

 

[Ryoga]

*cough*Linux*cough*

 

[Sianath]

To answer the previous question, downgrade rights are provided for all volume license agreement types (open, select, EA).

 

[Ken90630]

Thanks, all. I really appreciate the input.

I think I'm just gonna stick with one installation of XP Pro and one of W2K Pro. Like Canterwood says, they're virtually the same anyway and no, there isn't any compelling feature on XP Pro that I have to have on both computers. One will suffice.

 

[Mermaidman]

Interesting--Product activation stopped you from installing WinXP on two machines. Does that mean product activation is good or evil?

 

[Ken90630]

Depends on one's perspective (and motives), I suppose, doesn't it?

 

[dc5]

xp supports HT, 2k pro doesn't

 

[Nothinman]

Interesting--Product activation stopped you from installing WinXP on two machines. Does that mean product activation is good or evil?

It's a licensing enforcement method, if you bought 1 copy of XP you can only legally install it on one machine. Whether or not you find it evil probably depends on whether you plan on honoring that licensing agreement or not.

xp supports HT, 2k pro doesn't

If you install Win2K with HT enabled it uses a SMP kernel so the CPU and it's sibling both get used, the main difference is that Win2K doesn't know that there isn't really 2 CPUs available and schedules things as if there were. Any speed difference depends on the workload and type of apps being run.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ken90630

Win2k Pro to WinXP pro would not be "downgrade" rights. That would be "upgrade" rights. Now Win XP Pro to Win2k Pro would be downgrade rights but I don't know if that applies to retail licenses or OEM licenses. It may only apply to volume license agreements.

Owning a license to Win2k Pro does not entitle you to using Win XP Pro on a machine.

You're right. I got confused because at one time I was considering actually using two Win 2K Pro installations as opposed to one installation of Win 2K Pro and Win XP. I even started what ended up being quite a long thread recently about the pros & cons of Win 2K vs. XP so I could decide which way to go. When I started thinking about doing two installs of XP Pro tonite, I guess I was still locked into my original thinking about the dual 2K Pro setup and not wanting to hassle with downgrading one license from XP Pro. Funny how the brain gets into that "tunnel vision" thing sometimes. My bad.

And you're right again re my Win 2K Pro license not entitling me to use XP Pro. What can I say? I will re-think all of this. (Although since XP Pro is about 99% the same as 2K Pro, I think I could make a convincing case for a dual XP installation hardly being an egregious ethical violation. Illegal, technically yes. Unethical? Actually no, I don't believe it would be at all. And you know, I'll tell 'ya, when Microsoft offers to refund a significant portion of the money I've paid them for software that has victimized me in the form of gaping security holes, system freeze-ups ["just re-boot your computer"], horrible software [Windows ME], endless "illegal operation" messages back in the day that their tech support staff either couldn't or wouldn't help me with [remember Windows 95 and 98?!], and numerous other maladies resulting from their putting out software that should have been tested more before being put on the market, maybe they'll have the moral authority to tell me about ethics. Until then, I could make a case that if anything, they owe me. Time = money, and the literally hundreds of hours [not to mention the stress] I've had to spend over the years dealing with the above-mentioned problems has cost me far more than the retail price I paid for that software, so in actual fact I paid many hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars for my Microsoft software. That being the case, I think if I wanna run a measly two computers from one software CD, they could cut me some slack. They should cut us all some slack for that matter and even go so far as to say, "Go ahead. It's the least we can do.")

Howz that for rationale? And here I said I didn't want to get into a war about software implementation ethics ....

I've had my say. Oh, and I don't wanna hear from anyone else unless they have an iron-clad, perfect answer to my challenge about the speeding ticket ethical question. Heh heh.

If Microsoft/Microsoft's products are so bad, why do you continue to support them?

 

[Ken90630]

I don't know if I'd call using them and "supporting them" the same thing. I don't support some of the things that OPEC does either, but I still have to buy gas for my car because I HAVE to have it. If there were a viable, competitive product that wouldn't require a large amount of re-training and reinvestment on my part, I would consider it. It would also have to be an operating system for which the software I need (and have already paid a pretty penny for) would be compatible with, so Linux is out of the question there. And doing a complete switch to Apple equipment and software would be prohibitively expensive. So what choice do I (and millions of other people) have right now other than to use Microsoft products?

Incidentally, despite the impression some readers might be getting from my comments, I do not hate Microsoft at all. On balance, and taking everything into account (all the good things I am able to do with their software), I often marvel at how powerful the software is. But I do think that allowing users to install a version of their OS on two of their own computers would be a nice gesture on their part. They obviously feel differently, and that is their right. It's also my right to disagree with the motive for that decision (greed, pure and simple). Two installations would not consitute the egregious piracy that the activation procedure was designed to prevent (and for which I wholeheartedly support Microsoft for).

Now that I've answered your question, I have a few for you:

1) I challenge you to justify the things I mentioned in my earlier post ("gaping security holes, system freeze-ups ["just re-boot your computer"], horrible software [Windows ME], endless "illegal operation" messages back in the day that their tech support staff either couldn't or wouldn't help me with [remember Windows 95 and 98?!], and numerous other maladies ...."). What has Microsoft done to compensate me or any other of the millions of people who've had to deal with these things? And on the product box, where it lists all the great things about the product, where does it mention any of these things as being part of what we're buying? Since they fixed many of the problems after the fact, obviously the problems can be fixed. So why weren't they fixed before being put on the market? Don't evade my questions -- answer them.

2) I notice you conveniently ignored my challenge to offer an iron-clad, perfect answer to my challenge about the speeding ticket ethical question in my earlier post. Why? Can't you defeat my argument?

No hostility intended here. Just a good natured discussion/debate.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Ken90630
I don't know if I'd call using them and "supporting them" the same thing. I don't support some of the things that OPEC does either, but I still have to buy gas for my car because I HAVE to have it. If there were a viable, competitive product that wouldn't require a large amount of re-training and reinvestment on my part, I would consider it. It would also have to be an operating system for which the software I need (and have already paid a pretty penny for) would be compatible with, so Linux is out of the question there. And doing a complete switch to Apple equipment and software would be prohibitively expensive. So what choice do I (and millions of other people) have right now other than to use Microsoft products?

Using Microsoft products is supporting Microsoft.

1) I challenge you to justify the things I mentioned in my earlier post ("gaping security holes,

What reasonably advanced program has no security holes?

system freeze-ups ["just re-boot your computer"],

Bad drivers/cheap hardware?

horrible software [Windows ME],

Win2k was also available.

endless "illegal operation" messages back in the day that their tech support staff either couldn't or wouldn't help me with [remember Windows 95 and 98?!],

Nope, don't remember much of those.

and numerous other maladies ...."). What has Microsoft done to compensate me or any other of the millions of people who've had to deal with these things?

Exactly what you have demanded. They have released more software.

And on the product box, where it lists all the great things about the product, where does it mention any of these things as being part of what we're buying?

Common sense tells you software has flaws. Research into the issues (what every consumer should do) also tells you that cheap hardware, bad drivers, and lack of basic knowledge (taking care of a computer isn't hard) can cause issues.

Since they fixed many of the problems after the fact, obviously the problems can be fixed. So why weren't they fixed before being put on the market? Don't evade my questions -- answer them.

Microsoft cannot test and try every combinations of hardware and software out there. No matter how smart their engineers are, there are people out there that will try something different. Show me a car manufacturer that has never issued a recall. Hell, there have been 3+ recalls on the car I have.

2) I notice you conveniently ignored my challenge to offer an iron-clad, perfect answer to my challenge about the speeding ticket ethical question in my earlier post. Why? Can't you defeat my argument?

I didn't want to get involved in the ethical side of this. But, justifying one potentially unethical action by demonstrating that we get away with other potentially unethical actions is just stupid.

 

[Twista]

I wish i worked in a "CORPORATION". I dont have a job.. o well maybe later one i work in a "corp"