Does anyone know how to extract an OS (W98SE) from a recovery CD? I have a copy on a Compaq recovery CD, and it is unusable unless I can get it off this CD.
TIA
TIA
Extracting OS from a Recovery CD
- Thread starter kvizbar
- Start date
It is supposed to be usable as-is. If you can't use it as-is, call Compaq and shout at them. Tell them you paid for a full Windows license and you want a full Windows CD, dammit. Otherwise ask for a refund.
<< Tell them you paid for a full Windows license and you want a full Windows CD, dammit. >>
No, he didn't pay for a full Windows license. He paid for an OEM license, which means they can do whatever the hell they want. If he wants a real, non Compaqized version of 98, he has to pay for it.
<< No, he didn't pay for a full Windows license. He paid for an OEM license, which means they can do whatever the hell they want. >>
It is thanks to ignorant people like you that Microsoft can get away with borderline illegal practices like these.
This guy paid for a product called "Windows". Compaq gave him a CD which does not perform like "Windows". This CD performs with a subset of the functionality of "Windows". I am not claiming that this guy is entitled to a boxed retail copy of Windows with manual, fancy packaging, etc, etc. However, if he paid for an OEM copy of Windows, he should expect to get in return a full, installable copy of Windows (an OEM copy, as these have a different serial numbering scheme than retail copies) in a jewel case or in a CD sleeve. What he got instead is an HD image of a Windows installation for a particular hardware setup. He did not receive "Windows", he received something less. This can be construed as false advertising.
It is up to Compaq to satisfy you as a customer. If the product you received is not performing as advertised, call them, give them a chance to resolve the problem (by shipping you a full Windows CD) and if they fail to do so, ask to return your Windows license for a full refund. Hassle them, threaten to report them to the BBB, the FTC, the FBI.
You have nothing to lose, and Compaq has everything to lose. You should make it clear to them that one does not run a business by screwing over the customer.
<< It is thanks to ignorant people like you that Microsoft can get away with borderline illegal practices like these. >>
If you think these are illegal practices, you need to go read the laws...
<< This guy paid for a product called "Windows". Compaq gave him a CD which does not perform like "Windows". This CD performs with a subset of the functionality of "Windows". >>
Huh? Looks like Windows. Runs like Windows. Crashes like Windows. hey, I think it's performing like Windows!
<< I am not claiming that this guy is entitled to a boxed retail copy of Windows with manual, fancy packaging, etc, etc. However, if he paid for an OEM copy of Windows, he should expect to get in return a full, installable copy of Windows (an OEM copy, as these have a different serial numbering scheme than retail copies) in a jewel case or in a CD sleeve. What he got instead is an HD image of a Windows installation for a particular hardware setup. He did not receive "Windows", he received something less. This can be construed as false advertising. >>
You seem to have missed what OEM means. It means it can be a modified version that isn't an exact copy of the retail version.
<< It is up to Compaq to satisfy you as a customer. If the product you received is not performing as advertised, call them, give them a chance to resolve the problem (by shipping you a full Windows CD) and if they fail to do so, ask to return your Windows license for a full refund. Hassle them, threaten to report them to the BBB, the FTC, the FBI.
You have nothing to lose, and Compaq has everything to lose. You should make it clear to them that one does not run a business by screwing over the customer. >>
It is the consumer's responsibility to know what they are buying. Compaq never said it would give him a full copy of Windows, it simply said that Windows would be installed on his laptop. Hell, they probably aren't even required to provide a recovery CD by their advertising.
What exactly did Microsoft do to you to make you hate them and all of their partners so much?
If your recovery CD has the Win98 Cab files on it (do a search...), then normally all that is missing is the setup.exe file. If you have a CD burner, copy the cab files to a folder, add the setup.exe from someone else's Win98 SE, and you're ready to burn.
This is bad advice. A recovery CD is meant to install only on a specific machine with a specific hardware configuration. It likely omits all other hardware drivers, except those needed for the components of the specific machine.
I still suggest that you call Compaq up and explain your problem to them. Tell them that the product they sold you is not performing as advertised (it crashed, it wiped out your hard drive, needs reinstallation, and you cannot use the recovery CD for reinstall because you changed your hardware configuration, or whatever else). Tell them that they are guilty of false advertising and fraud if Windows does not perform as expected. Compaq may try to weasel their way out of this by quoting Microsoft's EULA. "We are taking your money, but we are not responsible for anything, etc, etc." Unless your state has passed its own version of UCITA, Microsoft's EULA is not legally binding on you. Tell them as much. This is the truth. Microsoft knows this, Compaq knows this, and now they know that you too know this. Tell them that you intend to report them to the FTC for false advertising and to report them to the police for fraud. It will cost you nothing to do this, and it will cost Compaq thousands of dollars to clean up this mess. It would be cheaper for them to give you what you purchased in the first place.
The only way to express your dissatisfaction with Microsoft products and business practices is to hit them where it hurts: Financially. Either don't give them any of your money, or if you already have given them your money, make sure that you get your money's worth.
I still suggest that you call Compaq up and explain your problem to them. Tell them that the product they sold you is not performing as advertised (it crashed, it wiped out your hard drive, needs reinstallation, and you cannot use the recovery CD for reinstall because you changed your hardware configuration, or whatever else). Tell them that they are guilty of false advertising and fraud if Windows does not perform as expected. Compaq may try to weasel their way out of this by quoting Microsoft's EULA. "We are taking your money, but we are not responsible for anything, etc, etc." Unless your state has passed its own version of UCITA, Microsoft's EULA is not legally binding on you. Tell them as much. This is the truth. Microsoft knows this, Compaq knows this, and now they know that you too know this. Tell them that you intend to report them to the FTC for false advertising and to report them to the police for fraud. It will cost you nothing to do this, and it will cost Compaq thousands of dollars to clean up this mess. It would be cheaper for them to give you what you purchased in the first place.
The only way to express your dissatisfaction with Microsoft products and business practices is to hit them where it hurts: Financially. Either don't give them any of your money, or if you already have given them your money, make sure that you get your money's worth.
LucidGuy, what the hell is your problem? I mean, do you not understand what an EULA is all about? No where does it state that Compaq or Microsoft has to provide you with a full retail version of Windows 9x. That is what the recovery CD is for. It is MACHINE specific, just like you stated. You cannot go and install it on another machine. You call it "boarder-line law breaking." Microsoft calls it "Protecting against piracy." What is the most commonly pirated software manufacturer? Microsoft is. Yes, you can attribute that to high prices, but never the less, it is still piracy. No one is FORCED into using Microsoft products, like you claim in your other posts. People have just become used to the products. Some people even happen to like the product(s), even though you have more than clearly pointed out that you don't.
I am in no way saying that I am a Microsfot zelot, but come on. Stop spewing out all those false remarks about how Microsoft is abusing you with the EULA and such.
I am in no way saying that I am a Microsfot zelot, but come on. Stop spewing out all those false remarks about how Microsoft is abusing you with the EULA and such.
<< LucidGuy, what the hell is your problem? I mean, do you not understand what an EULA is all about? >>
I understand very well what a EULA is about. A EULA is a little box with little words on it that carries NO LEGAL WEIGHT WHATSOEVER unless your state has passed UCITA. (So far, this is only Maryland.)
Microsoft counts on ignorant people like you to automatically assume that EULAs carry legal weight. They do not. The ONLY laws governing a sale of intellectual works in states without UCITA is
1) Copyright law
2) First sale doctrine
Nothing else applies.
Ah, so now I'm ignorant? Funny how you jump over some one for calling you out, then say "Well, at least I didn't start by calling you names."
And to say that a EULA is only protected by UCITA, is just plain ignorance in your part. EULA are protected by US Import/Export and Software Piracy laws that are US GOVERNMENT level, not by the individual state.
The EULA states that you can only install this application on one machine or on however many machines you have licenses for.
And to say that a EULA is only protected by UCITA, is just plain ignorance in your part. EULA are protected by US Import/Export and Software Piracy laws that are US GOVERNMENT level, not by the individual state.
The EULA states that you can only install this application on one machine or on however many machines you have licenses for.
Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with LucidGuy is labeled "ignorant" It's quite insulting, especially when you have facts to back your point up, and he doesn't. The EULA is a perfectly legal document here in the United States. But if you want to check, just call up MS and tell them you're using one licensed copy of Windows on 500 number of machines. I'm sure they'd be willing to sue your ass off - and I'm sure they'd win.
<< Basically, anyone who doesn't agree with LucidGuy is labeled "ignorant" It's quite insulting, especially when you have facts to back your point up, and he doesn't. >>
Please let me know what these facts are. EULAs have never been challenged in court, and Microsoft is deathly afraid of EULAs every being challenged. Their entire tower of playing cards would collapse.
I would have no trouble telling Microsoft to take their EULA and shove it. I do not live in a state with UCITA. No EULA is binding on me. The only legally recognized contracts in my state (and in all states excepting Maryland) are good old paper contracts with the John Hancocks of both parties on it. You just can't have a contract without signatures. Just ask any simple contract attorney if any other kind of contract has legal weight. He will tell you exactly what I told you, namely he will say no.
<< But if you want to check, just call up MS and tell them you're using one licensed copy of Windows on 500 number of machines. >>
This would likely be illegal under copyright law, because Microsoft could make the case that you were engaging in unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work, especially on a large scale of 500 seats. In the case of a few seats, you would likely prevail by citing fair use. But whatever case Microsoft makes, they would have to make it entirely under plain copyright law. No EULA would help them in non-UCITA states.
EDIT: Corrected typo.
[qThe only legally recognized contracts in my state (and in all states excepting Maryland) are good old paper contracts with the John Hancocks of both parties on it. You just can't have a contract without signatures. Just ask any simple contract attorney if any other kind of contract has legal weight. He will tell you exactly what I told you, namely he will say no.[/i] >>
Most states will enforce verbal contracts. So the part of no sig no contract is not true... but that is pointless with eula.
A quote from the MS OEM site FAQ
"Can I create my own recovery disk and sell these with the PCs that I build?
ANSWER: No, System Builders cannot produce recovery CDs with Microsoft
Intellectual property (Software) on the CDs. This infringes Microsoft's
Copyright and is illegal. OEM distribution packs purchased through the
Microsoft OEM authorized distributors include media for recovery purposes."
So if you have a recovery CD you obviosly do not even have a "normal" OEM license. It all goes back to MS trying to stick it to the small business and keeping them from offering the same services that the big guys do. Some customers prefer the recovery CD system (don't ask me why)
S.
Most states will enforce verbal contracts. So the part of no sig no contract is not true... but that is pointless with eula.
A quote from the MS OEM site FAQ
"Can I create my own recovery disk and sell these with the PCs that I build?
ANSWER: No, System Builders cannot produce recovery CDs with Microsoft
Intellectual property (Software) on the CDs. This infringes Microsoft's
Copyright and is illegal. OEM distribution packs purchased through the
Microsoft OEM authorized distributors include media for recovery purposes."
So if you have a recovery CD you obviosly do not even have a "normal" OEM license. It all goes back to MS trying to stick it to the small business and keeping them from offering the same services that the big guys do. Some customers prefer the recovery CD system (don't ask me why)
S.
<< Please let me know what these facts are. EULAs have never been challenged in court, and Microsoft is deathly afraid of EULAs every being challenged. Their entire tower of playing cards would collapse. >>
ROFL! Yep, I bet Microsoft is shaaaaaaaaaking in the boots over that!
<< Some customers prefer the recovery CD system (don't ask me why) >>
Probably because they are easy to use - slip it in and let it go. Very easy for newbies.
LucidGuy, are you just blind or stupid?
I quote:
"This would likely be illegal under copyright law, because Microsoft could make the case that you were engaging in unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work, especially on a large scale of 500 seats. In the case of a few seats, you would likely prevail by citing fair use. But whatever case Microsoft makes, they would have to make it entirely under plain copyright law. No EULA would help them in non-UCITA states."
You just made the frickin point on what an EULA is! It protects Microsoft from "unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work". You said it yourself. Are you going to say that you did not? Boy are you hypocritical. You contradict yourself so many fricking times i can't help but laugh at you.
Really, what happened to you in your childhood? You may say that it's none of my business, and you don't ahve to tell me. But I would go seek professional help.
Also, do you really even know what UCITA is? No. That's what I thought.
Damn, just go away already.
I quote:
"This would likely be illegal under copyright law, because Microsoft could make the case that you were engaging in unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work, especially on a large scale of 500 seats. In the case of a few seats, you would likely prevail by citing fair use. But whatever case Microsoft makes, they would have to make it entirely under plain copyright law. No EULA would help them in non-UCITA states."
You just made the frickin point on what an EULA is! It protects Microsoft from "unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work". You said it yourself. Are you going to say that you did not? Boy are you hypocritical. You contradict yourself so many fricking times i can't help but laugh at you.
Really, what happened to you in your childhood? You may say that it's none of my business, and you don't ahve to tell me. But I would go seek professional help.
Also, do you really even know what UCITA is? No. That's what I thought.
Damn, just go away already.
<< You just made the frickin point on what an EULA is! It protects Microsoft from "unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work". You said it yourself. Are you going to say that you did not? >>
No, I said that plain old copyright law protects Microsoft from unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted intellectual work. This is the same law that also protects Bridget Jones' Diary, Britney Spears' latest album, Introduction to Chemistry 11th edition, and other intellectual works, from being copied and distributed on a large scale for commercial purposes in an unauthorized manner. None of these works have nor need EULA's. Microsoft programs has EULA's but they are legally nonbinding. All they have to fall back on is plain old copyright law.
Please take a moment to pull your head out of your ass.
Thanks.
LOL! So you again admit that Microsoft DOES have legal backing for what it's doing, but yet you still think Chris needs to pull HIS head out of his ass?!
Looks like a troll...acts like a troll...smells like a troll. Yep, LucidGuy is a TROLL.
Looks like a troll...acts like a troll...smells like a troll. Yep, LucidGuy is a TROLL.
God damn you piss me off. Real quick, as I know this would probably not get through to you, but why do other software vendors have EULA, huh? Can you answer that one you freaking troll?!? Nope, didn't think so. Go troll somewhere else.
"Looks like a troll...acts like a troll...smells like a troll. Yep, LucidGuy is a TROLL." To quote great Hans!
"Looks like a troll...acts like a troll...smells like a troll. Yep, LucidGuy is a TROLL." To quote great Hans!
Also "This guy paid for a product called "Windows". Compaq gave him a CD which does not perform like "Windows". This CD performs with a subset of the functionality of "Windows". I am not claiming that this guy is entitled to a boxed retail copy of Windows with manual, fancy packaging, etc, etc." is completely false. On the recovery disk, there is a copy of Windows 98SE, but it is copmresses and has a password on the archive. If you can crack it, you can get the files. I have the same thing on my Toshiba Recovery CD.
<< why do other software vendors have EULA, huh? Can you answer that one you freaking troll?!? >>
I answered this multiple times in multiple posts. But I will answer once again in the hopes that you will finally get it.
Companies use EULAs because ignorant people like you automatically assume that anything that claims to be legally binding on you is automatically legally binding.
This is not the case. Not everything that claims to be legally binding is legally binding. I may claim to be richer than Bill Gates, but I obviously am not. This is the same situation with EULAs.
EULAs (End User License Agreements) are not legally binding unless your state has passed a version of the UCITA (The Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act).
I never said that Microsoft is not entitled to protection against having their works distributed without authorization. They have had this protection starting the day Microsoft was incorporated, long before anyone had thought of slapping a EULA on a program. Copyright law protects people and companies from unauthorized distribution of intellectual works. This is nothing new.
What I am contesting is cases where the EULA claims to give Microsoft certain rights, or claims to take away from you certain rights, that are in no way implied or protected or backed by copyright law. For example, making an archical copy of your software for backup purposes. Or reverse engineering the software for interoperability purposes. Or installing it on more than one computer, on a limited and noncommercial basis, for fair use purposes, in a family household for example. And so on and so forth. A Microsoft EULA may say that these things cannot be done, but since the EULA is not legally binding, you look to copyright law. And copyright law allows these things. So you can do them.
So what you are saying is (and I'm taking your road) that if I take one of Brittny Spears songs and redo it myself with different lyrics, but the same tune, she cannot sue me? You have messed up logic.
You know, I'm so done with you.
You know, I'm so done with you.
<< So what you are saying is (and I'm taking your road) that if I take one of Brittny Spears songs and redo it myself with different lyrics, but the same tune, she cannot sue me? >>
I don't know how you managed to take what I said and come up with what you said above.
But you're right, if you did it for purposes of parody, she cannot sue you.
In fact, Mad TV did a Britney Spears video called "Lick My Baby Back Behind". They took the music to "Hit Me Baby One More Time", hired a Britney lookalike and some dancers, wrote new lyrics, and did a parody video parodying the sexual undertones of Britney's image. It was 100% legal, because copyright law has a number of provisions for what's called fair use.
This is the same fair use that allows you to make an archival copy of Windows. Or the same fair use to reverse engineer it for interoperability purposes. Or the same fair use that allows you to install Windows on a limited number of seats in a family household for noncommercial purposes.
Wrong my idiotic troll. If you take a song or any other type of published COPYWRITED material and them claim it to not only be yours but also sell it for profit, you can and will be sued by the author. You NEED to get permission from the author to do this, even to give it away for free. This is what the EULA is all about. It tells you that YOU CAN ONLY INSTALL IT ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPUTERS YOU HAVE LICENSES FOR.
But you also seemed to ignore my other point/question. What about other manufacturers? Then why do they have an EULA? So then based on your f***ed up logic, we can all go out a "steal" software, install it on all of our machines, copy it, then re-distribute it, and not get sued or have any legal repercussions?
BTW, do you have a PhD in Copyright laws? Are you a lawyer? Nope, then go away Troll.
But you also seemed to ignore my other point/question. What about other manufacturers? Then why do they have an EULA? So then based on your f***ed up logic, we can all go out a "steal" software, install it on all of our machines, copy it, then re-distribute it, and not get sued or have any legal repercussions?
BTW, do you have a PhD in Copyright laws? Are you a lawyer? Nope, then go away Troll.
I give up. I have answered every single question that you have posed multiple times. But you still continue not reading or not understanding my explanations. You continue to conflate copyright law with EULAs. You continue to have deep reverence for a EULA that has no legal weight.
I cannot get through to you. I wonder how you ever managed to learn how to use computers, because I seriously believe that you have a learning disability.
I cannot get through to you. I wonder how you ever managed to learn how to use computers, because I seriously believe that you have a learning disability.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter