Has Microsoft actually refused to activate anyone's WinXP on multiple home systems?

[Chipster]

<< It appears Microsoft has many of you right where it wants you. Scared, inconvieneced, living in fear and you putting up with them spying on your computer. >>



Not me Mac. I'll tell you what,if I had a second computer that needed an OS ,I would never think about buying another XP pro OS for "MY" other computer. I would just do what some have suggested here and find a way to get it to work. I would however not give it out to anyone else. It's my "legit" copy and it would go only on "my" machines. That isn't stealing in my eyes.

Alot of these so called Do Gooders around here rip people about this topic yet they have hundreds of illegal Mp3s/movies on there putes. At least I bought my copy of XP and I'll use it on anything that I own.

By the way,I have nothing against file sharing copyrighted mp3's or movies but if one is frowned on(reguarding software)and the other isn't...That just doesn't make sense.

 

[tg518]

While what Chipster said is technically not kosher, i feel the same way. For instance, I installed XP Pro on one machine and activated it via the web. The next day i installed it on a different machine and tried to activate it via the web. It gave me an error saying that it had already been activated so I called MS and activated it over the phone. No questions asked.

 

[Derango]

<< While what Chipster said is technically not kosher, i feel the same way. For instance, I installed XP Pro on one machine and activated it via the web. The next day i installed it on a different machine and tried to activate it via the web. It gave me an error saying that it had already been activated so I called MS and activated it over the phone. No questions asked. >>



Yea, all you have to do is say "I upgraded my computer". Instant activation.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass?

 

[aka1nas]

Also, they only keep your hardware key for 90 days after you activate, or so they say at least. After that, you could install it on another computer and reactivate it without incident.

 

[Dre]

<< Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass? >>



I can't giveup WinXP after installing it seeing it detect all my hardware. No drivers to install!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass? >>



I can't giveup WinXP after installing it seeing it detect all my hardware. No drivers to install! >>



If you purchased it, good. If not, well, thank you for supporting Microsoft. They definitely need the help

EDIT: Oh yeah, OpenBSD almost always recognizes my hardware... Scratch that, it has recognized my hardware 100% of the time.

 

[ChrisADuffy]

bump

 

[Dre]

Is OpenBSD 100% compatible with all software?

 

[Derango]

<< Is OpenBSD 100% compatible with all software? >>



Nope....out of every piece of software ever created in the world, some won't work on it

 

[Chipster]

<< Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass? >>



Wow...your cool.

 

[spyordie007]

<< Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass?
Wow...your cool.

>>


yeah, no offence nomonkey, but chill out.
Your right, ith various unix/linux distro's you dont have to worry about the registration and therefore are exempt from dealing with M$. I run both linux and windows, however I'm looking in this "WinXP thread" because I'm interested in the Windows problems. If I was looking to talk about linux problems/questions it would be in a seperate thread.

 

[rjcoolpix880]

Heres someting to consider:

heres my logic...

It is legal to copy music CD's, right. - you can have one CD for you home stereo, one for you office computer, and one for your car. The reason is because the industry assumes you cant be any two places at once.(at least i think thats the reason)

Therefore why cant you install XP on your laptop and on your desktop. I have both, and i rarely find myself using both at once. The laptop i dont use in the room, i use the desktop, i use the laptop in the library, on trips, etc...So why not put XP on both?

It makes since to me, but is that valid logic?

 

[spyordie007]

<< you cant be any two places at once >>


I would have to agree, which is why a number of software companies allow for both. Adobe allows for 2 installs (one on a desktop and another on a laptop, or one at work and one at home, etc...) I believe that M$ Office is also this way.

On the other hand I could see though how this would be less applicable to an OS though, and here's why:
*I leave my desktop running almost all the time
*I use my laptop while the desktop is running, and often access files off the desktop, therefore using resources from both machines (both OS's) at the same time.
I could see how this could be considered bending the "you cant be any two places at once" rule because I often use both machines at the same time, even though I can be physically behind both of thelm at the same time...
You could than take that further and say I had a room with 100 machines, installed win XP on all of them and used them in conjunction. I could do network rendering of my After Effects projects much quicker this way than on one machine. However I would than be technically using all 100 machines at the same time (even though I would only have my hands on one at a time).

On the other-other hand I could setup just one machine as a server and use it's resources from hundreds of machines running differant (or free) OS's. And use the one machine from all the others.
I guess this is why on XP/2K Pro they apply a 10 connection limitation and on their server software they do not.
Even so, it would still be limited by the one machine, and there's no way I could do as much with one machine as I could with a whole room of them...

-Spy

 

[Derango]

You can't put it on two machines since MS is as money hungry as the RIAA is (Hey, I don't want this to be turned into a RIAA bashing thread...but he made the CD comparison)

the RIAA wants to stop you from doing what you just described above. Microsoft just beat them to it

 

[Insidious]

to all the holier_than_thou, anal, self-consumed, self-preserving, hipocritical............ JERKS!

get your leagal facts right, or stick to your chosen professions and leave the law to the informed.

You have NOT violated Copyright laws by making copies for personal or educational use. (As has
been supported over and over again in our courts. Despite the endless efforts of a greedy few)

HOWEVER, when you installed your OS, you clicked a box that said you agreed to abide by the M$ rules!

now if, you have violated those same rules, you have cheated. (breech of contract, I believe)

Hence, you have given M$ the right to revoke their product, but you have not committed a crime.

(Decades of whining by the software industry has not been able to change this FACT)

Further, it is not your legal responsibility (ie: you cannot be criminally prosecuted if you do not)

to verify you are following the M$ agreement. It is THEIR responsibility!

So, while they may have right to the recourse of disallowing you to use thier product if you don't abide by

their rules, you are not legally obligated to tell them you are cheating. and if they do not demand of YOU, PERSONALLY

to exercise their right to revoke your use of it, you are not obligated to do it for them.



MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[mee987]

can anyone back up the post before this one? its interesting, but id like to know just how accurate his info is.

 

[Insidious]

it's a really long law

OMG!

of course it was bogus...... it was supposed to be a satirical look at the rationalizations I see in here.

The following cut is pretty explicit......

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs53
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

(b) Lease, Sale, or Other Transfer of Additional Copy or Adaptation.-Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner.

(c) Machine Maintenance or Repair.-Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner or lessee of a machine to make or authorize the making of a copy of a computer program if such copy is made solely by virtue of the activation of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program, for purposes only of maintenance or repair of that machine, if-

(1) such new copy is used in no other manner and is destroyed immediately after the maintenance or repair is completed; and

(2) with respect to any computer program or part thereof that is not necessary for that machine to be activated, such program or part thereof is not accessed or used other than to make such new copy by virtue of the activation of the machine.

(d) Definitions.-For purposes of this section-

(1) the "maintenance" of a machine is the servicing of the machine in order to make it work in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine; and

(2) the "repair" of a machine is the restoring of the machine to the state of working in accordance with its original specifications and any changes to those specifications authorized for that machine.


_________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, so the first post didn't get anyone motivated... that's a shame..................

we can learn IF we explore!

Love,

-Sid

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Is OpenBSD 100% compatible with all software? >>



Is Windows? No.



<<

<< Again gentlemen, why not use consumer friendly software instead of being an ass?
Wow...your cool.

>>


yeah, no offence nomonkey, but chill out.
Your right, ith various unix/linux distro's you dont have to worry about the registration and therefore are exempt from dealing with M$. I run both linux and windows, however I'm looking in this "WinXP thread" because I'm interested in the Windows problems. If I was looking to talk about linux problems/questions it would be in a seperate thread. >>



I did not promote linux in that post. Mac OS X is much more consumer friendly than Windows.

 

[slackware1995]

I know that this is even more OT, but this question just popped into my head....

What if you want to install XP on a computer that, not only, is not, but can not connect to the internet (maybe security reasons). How do you activate XP?

 

[Colt45]

<< I know that this is even more OT, but this question just popped into my head....

What if you want to install XP on a computer that, not only, is not, but can not connect to the internet (maybe security reasons). How do you activate XP? >>



you have to phone microsoft.

 

[slackware1995]

<<

<< I know that this is even more OT, but this question just popped into my head....

What if you want to install XP on a computer that, not only, is not, but can not connect to the internet (maybe security reasons). How do you activate XP? >>



you have to phone microsoft. >>



Now ain't that convenient? And how long do I sit on hold? But I guess this would be one way to install XP on multiple machines, just call them and say that you don't have an internet connection.. hehe

 

[Dre]

<<

<<

<< I know that this is even more OT, but this question just popped into my head....

What if you want to install XP on a computer that, not only, is not, but can not connect to the internet (maybe security reasons). How do you activate XP? >>



you have to phone microsoft. >>



Now ain't that convenient? And how long do I sit on hold? But I guess this would be one way to install XP on multiple machines, just call them and say that you don't have an internet connection.. hehe >>




the few times I've called, I've never been put on hold. Someone always answers immediately.

 

[NOX]

This is one of the reasons why I will never upgrade to XP!!! It is utterly ridiculous for me to buy 2 copies of XP for 2 of my computers at home! To purchase an additional license will run you anywhere from $225, $269 and up! I personally don?t have that kind of money for all my computers at home (2 = $550 for additional license). Not to mention the fact many AT users have 3+ computers in their home. And what about when you upgrade your comp and need to reformat?

WPA has done nothing but increase pirating; it?s forced a lot of college kids (who don?t have the money) and home users to obtain copies illegally, and forced the creation of WPA cracks! This is just another way for Microsoft to get home users to pay more for something, which should already be allowed to use as they please in their own home, on multiple computers. This is another price-gouging tactic from Microsoft, and the product of dishonest people, which a large majority of them don?t even live in the USA!!!

Now if MS used another method, one, which required you to show some kind of proof that you are installing your copy of XP on multiple computers in your own home, then I?m sure the WPA outrage would be non existent! Sierra used a method that would track you when you connect to there server, matching the your IP and copy of HL, if someone else had the same copy and was connected simultaneously with an IP not matching, then both copies would be shut down, and you would not be able to connect to any servers. Something even similar to that would be better then the current WPA.

What I would like to know is how many of you in this thread actually bought your copy of XP (if any, I see a lot of you are using free OS for good reasons), and have it installed on only one comp? Now if you only have one comp, you need not answer? But for an example, dnetmhz, not singling you out or anything just trying to bring an example to the table, because you are honest and you are just a small hand full of people who are allowing us AT members to look at all your system rigs.

I noticed that dnetmhz has about 5 comps, he also have 3 of them running Win2k. Did you pay for all 3 copies, or did you install one copy on all 3 comps? If you feel I have put you on the spot then let me know, and I will remove this. But I?ll admit right now, I have two comps at home and both are running the same copy of Win2k which I bought with my hard earned cash, and if I had another comp I would use that same copy! But I would never burn a copy and give it to someone else, this is my copy which I bought and I feel strongly about that, so strong that I made my brother go buy his own, and gave him a small lecture in the process.

Anyone who suggests this is stealing needs to get examined! There are many examples where WPA could play a role in your everyday life. For example, you paint your house, and after you paint your house you have extra paint. You have another house and want to paint that one too. But you can?t, it?s required by some EULA that you can only paint one house, and need to buy another 5 gallons of paint if you want to paint your other house. The upside to this is that it don?t cost $200 + dollars for an extra five gallons of paint. Now if that paint cost you $200+, then there would be hesitation to buy the paint, thus using the extra on your second house and risking prosecution! A lot of poor people are willing to take this risk, thus pirating!

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< Anyone who suggests this is stealing needs to get examined! There are many examples where WPA could play a role in your everyday life. For example, you paint your house, and after you paint your house you have extra paint. You have another house and want to paint that one too. But you can?t, it?s required by some EULA that you can only paint one house, and need to buy another 5 gallons of paint if you want to paint your other house. The upside to this is that it don?t cost $200 + dollars for an extra five gallons of paint. Now if that paint cost you $200+, then there would be hesitation to buy the paint, thus using the extra on your second house and risking prosecution! A lot of poor people are willing to take this risk, thus pirating! >>



It is stealing. I dont agree with what Microsoft is doing, but it is still stealing. Paint has no EULA and there would be no way to enforce it if there was! Plus, paint is a disposable resource and you get the right to use all of it you have. If you stole more paint to finish the second house it would be more similar to using XP on 2 machines while only paying for 1 license.

Please dont think I agree with Microsoft's license. I think home use should get some slack, atleast a good discount (10% is BS). I dont agree with it, but I wont try to rationalize this theft.