Diff between OEM, Full Version, Upgrade

[demetrics]

I am building my PC for the first time and I need to know what are the Pros and Cons of the Full version, Upgrade, and OEM. I have heard that the Upgrade is the same as the full version but u need to have a version of a older OS. Can u use the system restore desk for this? I have hard that the OEM version is the only bootable Version, I am confused about this. I have heard that the full version u need to boot from the floppy first. Like I said I am confused. Also if some one feels up to it could u take me throught the steps of what happens when u first install your OS? Any tips on anything? Thanks.

 

[MrChad]

This has been discussed before

There's no need to boot from a floppy when installing XP. The basic setup procedure is as follows.

1. Set the boot order in your BIOS to boot from your CD-ROM first.
2. With your XP disc in the drive, reboot and boot from the CD.
3. Setup your NTFS partition and format from within XP setup.
4. After the first setup reboot, set your boot order so that it boots from your hard drive first.
5. Your hard drive should be bootable now, and you can continue with XP's setup from there.

If you have specific problems, feel free to ask us.

 

[MetalMusicMan]

I replied to this, in your post of it in the General Hardware forum. Read there.

 

[Smilin]

If you buy your OEM with a single piece of hardware (ala newegg.com) rather than with a new system (ala dell) then OEM, Upgrade and Full will be functionally identical including bootable.

With upgrade, yes you are required to have a qualifying product already installed or provide the qualifying product media during setup.

With OEM the vendor is soley responsible for your tech support. With Dell, Compaq etc this is obviously not a problem. With in independent vendor, say newegg again, you're going to be on your own. OEM copies are not guaranteed to be identical to Full version. OEMs are allowed to modify them and add/remove drivers as needed. With copies purchased with just a piece of hardware they are likely the same. Copies purchased with a system are likely not.

Full will be supported by Microsoft.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: Smilin
If you buy your OEM with a single piece of hardware (ala newegg.com) rather than with a new system (ala dell) then OEM, Upgrade and Full will be functionally identical including bootable.

With upgrade, yes you are required to have a qualifying product already installed or provide the qualifying product media during setup.

With OEM the vendor is soley responsible for your tech support. With Dell, Compaq etc this is obviously not a problem. With in independent vendor, say newegg again, you're going to be on your own. OEM copies are not guaranteed to be identical to Full version. OEMs are allowed to modify them and add/remove drivers as needed. With copies purchased with just a piece of hardware they are likely the same. Copies purchased with a system are likely not.

Full will be supported by Microsoft.

In addition to all these, you are not supposed to install OEM on any machine other than the one you install it on first. Even if you uninstall it from the first machine.
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/yourpc_do.mspx


From the link:
Another common misconception is that you can transfer a preinstalled or OEM copy of Windows from an "old" machine to a new machine. An OEM software license may not be transferred from and old machine to a new machine?even if that machine is no longer in use. The OEM license is tied to the machine on which it was originally installed and can't be transferred to other machines.

 

[13black]

Difference Between XP Upgrade And Full Version

Both versions are identical except for the fact the upgrade version requires a Windows 98/ME/2000 installation CD if you desire to perform a "clean install. A "full version" does not have this requirement. However, the cheaper "OEM full version" cannot upgrade over an existing Windows installation....only "retail full versions" can.

The software itself is identical. Only the rules for how it can be used are different.

The full version can be used for either an upgrade or clean installation. The upgrade can too, but for a clean installation it requires that you have a previous qualifying version's CD to insert as proof of of ownership when prompted to do so.

Also note that there is a third type--an OEM version. Many people confuse this with the full version. However an OEM version can not do an upgrade at all.


*** Of course there are exceptions where an OEM version can do an upgrade. Reason being, there are a few flavors of OEM versions around eg large PC makers sometimes sell/provide these type of "special OEM" disks with their PCs.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Navid
In addition to all these, you are not supposed to install OEM on any machine other than the one you install it on first. Even if you uninstall it from the first machine.
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/yourpc_do.mspx

From the link:
Another common misconception is that you can transfer a preinstalled or OEM copy of Windows from an "old" machine to a new machine. An OEM software license may not be transferred from and old machine to a new machine?even if that machine is no longer in use. The OEM license is tied to the machine on which it was originally installed and can't be transferred to other machines.

I find it interesting that you are informing Smilin on the legalities of OEM Windows, considering who he works for. Note the key word in your second paragraph, "preinstalled". If you purchase your own, seperate, OEM copy of Windows (with hardware, so as to not cause the seller to violate their distribution agreement with MS, not because it's actually illegal to do otherwise on your part), then you should be free to fully-remove it from one system, and install on another, if you upgrade. The license was sold to you. You own it. Not the machine.

My personal non-lawyerly opinion is that it should be legal and allowed, even for pre-installed OEM OSes regardless, because the computed and the OEM-installed OS was sold to you, and after that MS has no futher ability to directly restrict your lawful sale of goods that you purchased legally on the open market. It's called the "right of first sale doctrine", and many countries (even, theoretially our own, before MS bought a majority share of our gov't), such as Germany, have legally upheld that. Unlawful "Bundling" is one way that MS has propped up their software monopoly (and pricing) for so long, and with the legal decision in Germany, re-affirming their citizen's rights with regard to the goods that they purchase, the end result was a lower overall average price for Windows. Surprise, surprise, when you break down one of the planks propping up a monopoly, prices go down. I only wish that the US courts would do the same, but seeing as how MS is a convicted monopolist, and they got off almost entirely scot-free, well, the chances are better that Arnie will be elected president in four more years than of the US gov't enforcing a citizen's rights agains a corporate giant like MS.

 

[Navid]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

I find it interesting that you are informing Smilin on the legalities of OEM Windows, considering who he works for. Note the key word in your second paragraph, "preinstalled". If you purchase your own, seperate, OEM copy of Windows (with hardware, so as to not cause the seller to violate their distribution agreement with MS, not because it's actually illegal to do otherwise on your part), then you should be free to fully-remove it from one system, and install on another, if you upgrade. The license was sold to you. You own it. Not the machine.

My personal non-lawyerly opinion is that it should be legal and allowed, even for pre-installed OEM OSes regardless, because the computed and the OEM-installed OS was sold to you, and after that MS has no futher ability to directly restrict your lawful sale of goods that you purchased legally on the open market. It's called the "right of first sale doctrine", and many countries (even, theoretially our own, before MS bought a majority share of our gov't), such as Germany, have legally upheld that. Unlawful "Bundling" is one way that MS has propped up their software monopoly (and pricing) for so long, and with the legal decision in Germany, re-affirming their citizen's rights with regard to the goods that they purchase, the end result was a lower overall average price for Windows. Surprise, surprise, when you break down one of the planks propping up a monopoly, prices go down. I only wish that the US courts would do the same, but seeing as how MS is a convicted monopolist, and they got off almost entirely scot-free, well, the chances are better that Arnie will be elected president in four more years than of the US gov't enforcing a citizen's rights agains a corporate giant like MS.

I don't know who Smilin works for and I don't think that matters.
I just wanted to add some information to his post, no offense to him intended.
I am not a lawyer. I don't pretend to know the legal issues around this.
All I know is that if you buy an OEM XP CD (not preinstalled), Microsoft asks you to place the sticker with the product ID on it on the case of the PC you have purchased it for.
I have no idea if Microsoft is doing something fair or not or even right or wrong. I am not a supporter of Microsoft. I just wanted to add some information that I had. Use it, ignore it, or correct me. That is all good.

 

[Smilin]

Couple of things, this first one is very important: Any post I make here is never ever representative of anyone's views except my own. I also do not claim that anything I ever post on the 'net is completely factual. If it suits me I just might make some crap up to keep everyone on their toes! Also I work for my current employer on a contract only basis which is soon to expire.


Now that you all have a grain of salt...

When you buy a computer with a preinstalled OS part of the cost of that computer is going towards the OS that the manufacturer bought from Microsoft and then sold you. Since it helps MS sell OSs in volume and it helps OEMs sell computers in volume both entities are able to pass on the OS to you at a great discount. Part of that deal is that it won't hurt future sales of OSs or OEM computers. To ensure this they spell it outright in the EULA. You agree to it as part of the license to use it.

That's the other kicker. You do not OWN the OS just as you don't own the music on a CD you buy. In both cases the owner is granting you a license to use it. Don't follow the license then you're not allowed to use it and you'll have to go invest BILLIONS to write your own OS

You might not like this law, but a law is a law. I bet you like the law that stops artists from coming and breaking your thumbs if you steal a copy of their cd though eh? If it weren't for laws there really wouldn't be Windows or even Linux. Yeah that's right Linux. Without the law supporting the GPL no one is going to write something usefull just to have some jack@ss on his moral high horse come along and say, "Well I OWN this ISO now and I'm going to mod it and make a buttload of money and give you none.".

Now if you want to go take some "right of first sale doctrine" to court by all means do so. You'll get smacked.



Larry, not sure if you read my post on the other thread or not but your quote:
"even, theoretially our own, before MS bought a majority share of our gov't" is exactly what I'm talking about.



Edit: One last thing... Man, I don't even begin to claim I read and understand every ounce of a EULA. That crap does not lie in the technical domain it lies in the domain of lawyers where it has to be by neccessity. Go blame lawyers for this crap. I think the Constitution should state that all laws must be understandable by everyone they apply to. Unless our govornment provides more than a free highschool education to everyone, I believe laws should be at a 12th grade reading level.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Couple of things, this first one is very important: Any post I make here is never ever representative of anyone's views except my own.

I fully realize that, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I hope no-one mistakenly got that idea due to my comment, sorry.

Originally posted by: Smilin
When you buy a computer with a preinstalled OS part of the cost of that computer is going towards the OS that the manufacturer bought from Microsoft and then sold you. Since it helps MS sell OSs in volume and it helps OEMs sell computers in volume both entities are able to pass on the OS to you at a great discount.

Yes, clearly. However, whatever MS's policies are in the EULA, they don't affect the customers rights under the law. Most people don't fully recognize or understand that. MS has an actual, legal, contract with their OEMs. If some grey-market copies of OEM Windows appear in the channel, it's their OEMs that are to blame for violating their contract with MS, not the end customers.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Part of that deal is that it won't hurt future sales of OSs or OEM computers. To ensure this they spell it outright in the EULA. You agree to it as part of the license to use it.

I don't agree to anything. I bought a computer. I didn't have to sign a contract.

Originally posted by: Smilin
That's the other kicker. You do not OWN the OS just as you don't own the music on a CD you buy.

Both are considered copyrighted content. Copyright applies to tangible, fixed expressions. It regulates duplication, public exhibition, and derivative works. It does not regulate use. Many people forget this.

If I have paid for a license, for copyrighted content, then I may use it however I please. I can use the product manual for toilet paper, and the CD as a coaster, if I want to. MS can write whatever they like in the EULA, but unless they require me to legally sign it before purchase, as an actual contract ("compensation" factors in here too, legally-speaking), then whatever they say, doesn't apply to me. I obey the law, not Microsoft's whims. (There's a reason that various vendors wanted to push for UCTIA to get passed into law, because it would have, IMHO, wrongly, made the content of EULA's legally enforcable under the law. The absence of which, implies that they currently have largely zero force of law. I say "largely" only as a disclaimer, because there was one court case involving EULAs, but not shink-wrapped ones, IIRC.)

Originally posted by: Smilin
In both cases the owner is granting you a license to use it. Don't follow the license then you're not allowed to use it and you'll have to go invest BILLIONS to write your own OS.

Not true.

Again, a license allows me to own a tangible copy of a copyrighted work. Copyright law does not regulate use of that copyrighted work.

Originally posted by: Smilin
You might not like this law, but a law is a law.

Completely correct. But a EULA is not a law!

(At least not until MS annexes the entire US gov't as a sub-division, which I could actually see happening if things continue the way that they have been going the last few years.)

Originally posted by: Smilin
I bet you like the law that stops artists from coming and breaking your thumbs if you steal a copy of their cd though eh?

That would be copyright infringement, which is illegal. I do not have the right to own a tangible copy of their copyrighted work, without a license to do so.

However, if I do own a license, then I am allowed to listen to it in any manner, in any place, that I please. The artist/publisher/copyright holder, does not have the legal right, with a disclaimer ("EULA") printed on a card inside the packaging, to inform me that I have to buy two seperate copies/licenses of their work, in order to listen both in my home, and in my car. The entire concept is ludicrous. Why people seem to think that MS has that right, I have no idea.

Originally posted by: Smilin
If it weren't for laws there really wouldn't be Windows or even Linux. Yeah that's right Linux. Without the law supporting the GPL no one is going to write something usefull just to have some jack@ss on his moral high horse come along and say, "Well I OWN this ISO now and I'm going to mod it and make a buttload of money and give you none.".

Please read the GPL carefully. It specifically claims that it does not regulate use of the GPL'ed software in question. Why? Because the force of law behind the GPL, is copyright law. And copyright law, does not regulate use. Therefore, it would be laughable for the GPL to attempt to regulate use - in fact, just as laughable as MS's EULAs trying to regulate use. Most people don't see this very clearly though, sadly.

(Incidentally, the scenario that you describe, is nearly exactly what MS has done with certain pieces of BSD-licensed code.)

Personally, I think that creativity rings eternal in the human soul, and that "great works" would be created, regardless of IP laws. But perhaps that's just my philisophical side peeking out.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Now if you want to go take some "right of first sale doctrine" to court by all means do so. You'll get smacked.

The Germans did, and guess what? MS got the big smackdown from the courts.

Of course, you and I can see how the US courts and DOJ treat MS, so I don't necessarily personally recommend litigating this aspect of the law right now vis-a-via MS.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Larry, not sure if you read my post on the other thread or not but your quote:
"even, theoretially our own, before MS bought a majority share of our gov't" is exactly what I'm talking about.

Ahh.. but the problem is, our gov't purchased a large share of MS. Think pension funds.. if the gov't gave MS a major smackdown, it's stock would likely take a hit, they wouldn't be able to continue their stock-market game (MS makes more on their stock than they do selling their software, believe it or not!), and the gov't would be left losing out on millions of dollars for retirement funds.

That's my opinion on why MS got the kid-glove treatment it did, along with the various "polical winds" blowing these days.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Edit: One last thing... Man, I don't even begin to claim I read and understand every ounce of a EULA. That crap does not lie in the technical domain it lies in the domain of lawyers where it has to be by neccessity. Go blame lawyers for this crap.

Actually, in this case, I do blame MS. They're the ones that started playing the "EULA game", and then everyone else followed. I pretty clearly remember reading in an issue of InfoWorld, about MS's licensing changes about something back in the day, and there was a pretty-large uproar from their customers. It was pointed out that Borland's license terms were a bit more sane and reasonable, "like a book" I believe, is how they generally licensed their software. That's really when all of the "EULA madness" started.

Originally posted by: Smilin
I think the Constitution should state that all laws must be understandable by everyone they apply to.

Yes, they should be.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Unless our govornment provides more than a free highschool education to everyone, I believe laws should be at a 12th grade reading level.

I think that is giving the majority of the current population far too much credit. Sadly.

(Which is tangentally why I tend to stick around places like AT.)

 

[Smilin]

It's unbelievable the amount of nonsense bullsh1t you will spew out rather than admit you are wrong or have no idea what you are talking about.

Unbelievable.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
It's unbelievable the amount of nonsense bullsh1t you will spew out rather than admit you are wrong or have no idea what you are talking about.

Unbelievable.

Would you like me to cite a reference for every one of my factual points? I'd be more than happy to track them all down for you. Please don't insult my intellegence, nor my credibility.

You yourself said that you don't understand the legal language present in most EULAs. Is it any wonder that you don't appear to understand the lack of legal basis behind them, or the motivation and backing behind the introduction of the UTCIA (I think I mis-spelled that)?

I'm sorry that the effects of Microsoft mind-control seems to have the curious effect of dissolving critical thinking skills or common (legal) sense.

It's kind of like "store policies" in retail stores. If they don't agree with the law, you don't have to follow them. You only need to follow the law. That's the whole point of.. well, "the law". You are free to ignore "store policies" at will.

 

[Sideswipe001]

I don't pretend to know all the legal in and outs about this, but I do remember reading that the courts found that EULAs were not enforceable as law. You don't sign anything - and clicking a box certainly isn't the same as signing a contract.

I don't remember any music store telling me that in buying this CD, I was merely buying the rights to listen to it. I bought a CD. It's mine. I didn't buy the rights to re-sell it, nor did I buy the rights to redistribute the music; but I do whatever with that CD.

But then again, look at any sporting event on TV too. "This program may not be redistributed without the consent of MLB" etc. It's the same thing. I don't have to ask permission to record it and watch it over and over again if I wanted to, yet it's just as protected by copyright law.

MS is selling software. You don't see any hardware manufacturers saying "You are buying the right to use this video card in the first computer you install it in. If you put it into a 2nd computer later you need to purchase a 2nd video card." And that right there is what Microsoft is trying to do with their OS. It's bull. Installing it on a machine doesn't make it magically connected with that hardware.

 

[Smilin]

It's not really worth the time or effort to even begin arguing on this.

Go pirate some software and land yourself in court. Reality will not be kind to you. You obviously think otherwise which makes you a fool. Never argue with a fool..

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
It's not really worth the time or effort to even begin arguing on this.

Go pirate some software and land yourself in court. Reality will not be kind to you. You obviously think otherwise which makes you a fool. Never argue with a fool..

The very fact that you seem to equate lack of legal force behind a EULA, as some sort of permission for piracy (copyright violation), proves your ignorance in this area.

It's not the EULA that prohibits me from making an unlawful duplicate copy of a copyrighted work - it's copyright law itself. Once you can wrap your head around that fact, then perhaps you can see more clearly the extra-legal and unreasonable demands that MS attempts to make of users via their "EULA".

If I bought a Ford at a dealership in this state, when I got the car delivered to my home, and there was a slip of paper inside, informing me that, in order to travel outside of my native state, that I would have to leave my car at the border, and purchase *yet another* vehicle once reaching that state.. would that be legal? Why or why not?

Would it make it more legal, if it included the phrase "if you turn the key in the ignition, you are agreeing to these enclosed terms"? Even if those terms were not disclosed, nor legally agreed to by the purchaser, at the point of sale?

Furthermore, would you be entirely surprised to find out, that I am fully in support of MS's rights, under copyright law? I have never once here supported "piracy", or illegal violations of copyright law.

But the issue here is, I'm in support of my rights too, under the law, and will resist any and all extra-legal efforts to have them taken away from me, by application of corporate force, by way of being coercievely controlled and forced into an unlawful "contract", after-the-fact.

So if you blindly think that I'm somehow arguing for piracy, you're dead wrong on that.

 

[Smilin]

Ok Larry, whatever. You can be as bitter and angry and stomp around as much as you want.

Go take an OEM copy of your OS that came with your Dell computer and install it on an altogether different machine. Now land yourself in court and see what happens.

I'm sure you'll be hollering about YOUR rights all the way to your bank withdrawl/jailcell but I'm going to be doing the same thing I'm doing to you now: putting my fingers in my ears and saying "blah blah blah"

:roll: