getting legitimate windows xp pro oem. can install on mutliple comps?

[Nothinman]

OK, sarcasm. However, Microsoft is hugely rich. They are the 2000 # gorilla of the computer world. If they got every dollar that their EULA entiled them to, they'd probably own the planet. They are indeed getting cheated out of billions of dollars. Poor, poor Microsoft.

So because they're rich that means people should automatically get to use their stuff for free?

The licensing scheme with XP is the reason I haven't bought it. It scares me. I'm using Windows 2000 on this machine.

I haven't done a thorough comparison of the two EULAs but the licensing between Win2K and XP is about the same, the only difference is that XP employs some technical aspects to enforce some of it.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

OK, sarcasm. However, Microsoft is hugely rich. They are the 2000 # gorilla of the computer world. If they got every dollar that their EULA entiled them to, they'd probably own the planet. They are indeed getting cheated out of billions of dollars. Poor, poor Microsoft.

So because they're rich that means people should automatically get to use their stuff for free?

The licensing scheme with XP is the reason I haven't bought it. It scares me. I'm using Windows 2000 on this machine.

I haven't done a thorough comparison of the two EULAs but the licensing between Win2K and XP is about the same, the only difference is that XP employs some technical aspects to enforce some of it.

I didn't say people should get their stuff for free. However, I think they could loosen up some of their restrictions. I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally. In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise. But the letter of the law, which their lawyers determine (I agree or I do not agree) says I have to pay just as much to have it in partition 2 of my 2nd and almost never used desktop as in the daily-used partition of my number one system. I don't think that is fair, but they have me over a barrel if I want to use their operating systems. A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

 

[Robor]

Wow, there's some serious stupidity in this thread. As nweaver said, if you don't want to pay for Windows there are free alternatives. I'm posting from one right now.

If you want to run Windows I don't think spending a few hundred dollars for the operating system is that bad. I'll bet I spent that much on dust gathering games with a fraction of the development time & money invested in them. If you want to bitch about expensive software look at Adobe or the MS Office suite.

 

[Nothinman]

In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise.

That's what BartPE discs are for, although I don't really know how the WinPE licensing works. Also depending on the problem at hand a Knoppix or Ubuntu LiveCD would be just as useful and totally free.

A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

I wouldn't go so far as to say they're evil, but they are a for profit corporation and their primary loyalty is to their shareholders and their incoming, not their users.

 

[bsobel]

I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally[/]q

Math please, you would need two copies of XP to do this (one copy per machine). How do you come up with your > $1000 comment?

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Muse
I didn't say people should get their stuff for free. However, I think they could loosen up some of their restrictions. I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally. In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise. But the letter of the law, which their lawyers determine (I agree or I do not agree) says I have to pay just as much to have it in partition 2 of my 2nd and almost never used desktop as in the daily-used partition of my number one system. I don't think that is fair, but they have me over a barrel if I want to use their operating systems. A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

You're kidding right? You want to use a single copy of Windows on multiple machines.

Microsoft is the devil. They make me pay for every copy of their software I want to install. Oh wait, 99% of the commercial software industry does the same thing.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Muse
I didn't say people should get their stuff for free. However, I think they could loosen up some of their restrictions. I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally. In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise. But the letter of the law, which their lawyers determine (I agree or I do not agree) says I have to pay just as much to have it in partition 2 of my 2nd and almost never used desktop as in the daily-used partition of my number one system. I don't think that is fair, but they have me over a barrel if I want to use their operating systems. A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

Saying such ridiculous things like "evil" badly undermines any point you might be trying to make. Keep it cool headed and rational and people won't blow you off.

So...where did you read it will take $1000 to install on two computers? Even using full retail, non-upgrade, non-oem copies that makes no sense at all. If you partition and install on each partition you can only run one copy at once. The hardware will be the same so you shouldn't have any activation issues at all.

Advice:
If you are doing lots of testing and troubleshooting have you looked at all into other licensing options like the ActionPack or MSDN? ActionPack for instance lets a **single person** run pretty much every major MS product with lots of 10pack cals for each for like $700.

 

[fyleow]

..

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: fyleow
I thought installing XP on two different partitions on the same computer is ok because technically it's only one device (the same computer) and you're never running both Windows copies at the same time.

...it's a grey area. To me, this doesn't seem much different than making backup images of your system, which is definitely allowed.

In general -- as long as you have a valid license key for each system you are running Windows on, it's probably OK.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: craniumdesigns
******! thats lame.

No it's not, how else would you expect the licensing to work... Sheesh.

Well, per person would be a pretty valid method, although also not the only one Per hour of operation would be one. Per mhz of processor. Etc. All at least conceivably useful licensing schemes.

You're right in as much as MS licensing works the way it does. Don't pretend that this is the only reasonable option.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: fyleow
I thought installing XP on two different partitions on the same computer is ok because technically it's only one device (the same computer) and you're never running both Windows copies at the same time.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't know for certain either. I believe this is fine. Where you start needing multiple copies I believe is if you are running VMs.

I think they key thing is you can't run both at once. No OEM issues either because both are the same mobo.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Muse
I didn't say people should get their stuff for free. However, I think they could loosen up some of their restrictions. I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally. In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise. But the letter of the law, which their lawyers determine (I agree or I do not agree) says I have to pay just as much to have it in partition 2 of my 2nd and almost never used desktop as in the daily-used partition of my number one system. I don't think that is fair, but they have me over a barrel if I want to use their operating systems. A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

Saying such ridiculous things like "evil" badly undermines any point you might be trying to make. Keep it cool headed and rational and people won't blow you off.

Do take the trouble to read a post before flaming the poster. I said this was something a friend of mine said. It is not my personal opinion, therefore. Do I give my friend credence for his opinion? Why not? He has a PHD in mathematics and I respect the man very considerably. You, I don't know about...

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: bsobel

I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally[/]q

Math please, you would need two copies of XP to do this (one copy per machine). How do you come up with your > $1000 comment?

Well, I didn't know you could install legally on more than one partition of the same machine having just a single license. I asked that question in this thread, if you read my posts carefully. OK, now I know I can... assuming you're correct.

 

[oldman420]

Originally posted by: craniumdesigns
hey guys,

so with all the new windows activation restrictions, having an illegitimate copy of windows xp pro is getting harder to deal with. i'm just gonna buy an oem version. question!

can i install it on 2 computers? i want one install on my desktop and one on my laptop. thanks!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4837609090332617729

you need to watch this
must we get elementary with you?

 

[stash]

Do I give my friend credence for his opinion? Why not? He has a PHD in mathematics and I respect the man very considerably. You, I don't know about...

WTF does your friend's education have to do with the validity of his "evil" statement?

 

[John]

Originally posted by: oldman420
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4837609090332617729

you need to watch this
must we get elementary with you?

LMAO, I can't believe that I haven't seen this until now.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Muse
I didn't say people should get their stuff for free. However, I think they could loosen up some of their restrictions. I'd like to have XP installed on my two desktops, in multiple partitions and not have to fork over the better part of $1000 to Bill Gates and company do so legally. In the average 3 month period I'd only boot to one of those partitions, period. The others would have it installed for troubleshooting purposes should problems arise. But the letter of the law, which their lawyers determine (I agree or I do not agree) says I have to pay just as much to have it in partition 2 of my 2nd and almost never used desktop as in the daily-used partition of my number one system. I don't think that is fair, but they have me over a barrel if I want to use their operating systems. A friend of mine doesn't use Microsoft software because he regards them as "evil." I think there's validity in his viewpoint.

Saying such ridiculous things like "evil" badly undermines any point you might be trying to make. Keep it cool headed and rational and people won't blow you off.

Do take the trouble to read a post before flaming the poster. I said this was something a friend of mine said. It is not my personal opinion, therefore. Do I give my friend credence for his opinion? Why not? He has a PHD in mathematics and I respect the man very considerably. You, I don't know about...

I'm sorry, but did your friend logon to Anandtech and type it here? No. If it was something intelligent he said in the first place you wouldn't have to prop him up by telling us about his PHD.

Like it or not the fact you repeated it makes your post look like a rant instead of some rational complaint which you've already admitted it is. /shrug

I didn't flame you either but then again the day ain't over.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: stash

Do I give my friend credence for his opinion? Why not? He has a PHD in mathematics and I respect the man very considerably. You, I don't know about...

WTF does your friend's education have to do with the validity of his "evil" statement?

Nothing in particular. I just wanted to give a bit of support for my sense of reverence for this man. He's a Harvard grad, plus a PHD in one of the toughest disciplines on earth, plus he's awesome in infinite other ways. OK? I have a lot of respect for his opinion, OK? Are you cool with that? I didn't have a discussion with him concerning his statement "I think Microsoft is evil!" Is there something wrong with mentioning that he has a PHd in mathematics? Is it completely irrelevant concerning the credibility of the man? I think it would be on his resume. Or don't you give a hoot for resumes?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Smilin


I'm sorry, but did your friend logon to Anandtech and type it here? No. If it was something intelligent he said in the first place you wouldn't have to prop him up by telling us about his PHD.

Like it or not the fact you repeated it makes your post look like a rant instead of some rational complaint which you've already admitted it is. /shrug
I didn't flame you either but then again the day ain't over.

Was it something intelligent? That's absolutely open to interpretation. There are people whose utterances I give special consideration. They include this PHd'd friend of mine. No, I didn't discuss it with him. We are both busy people. We don't sit around discussing things. Actually, I have to hope he's wrong because MS OS's are the only ones I know. Also, the application I program in is owned by Microsoft.

I do not understand the highlighted sentence. Admitted what?

Originally posted by: Smilin

I didn't flame you either but then again the day ain't over.

It seemed rather a flame to me, but if that's not your idea of a flame, please spare me your worst.

 

[Smilin]

My bad. You didn't admit squat so that made no sense at all. Got confused with a different thread.

It is of course subjective but I don't really consider "Microsoft is Evil" to be an intelligent thing to say. If there is some gripe about business practice, software design or who knows what else it could certainly be an intelligent statement whether I agree or not.

As for your friend. I'm not knocking him at all; please don't assume that. It's just I think that was a dumb statement and the fact he has a PHD or other evidence of high intelligence doesn't change it. Smart people can say dumb things. I think I just demonstrated that