how lenient is microsoft, reactivating windows 7

[kingkung]

If you buy a retail copy, you can re-use it as often as you want as long as it is uninstalled from your previous PC. If you buy an OEM copy, then the license is tied to the motherboard.

so since it is tied to the mobo, if you upgrade components in the computer while using the same mobo, will you beable to re-install win7 oem version?

 

[lowrider69]

What if I stick my fist through my current motherboard and want to replace it?

 

[rgallant]

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Wind...xp_grid_pt_0_2
-no one has mentioned the cheap upgrade version ,
-same money , but home and as long as you have your own old xp\vista disk + key [just in case the double load does not work] your good to go on any 1 system that you own.

 

[Nothinman]

so since it is tied to the mobo, if you upgrade components in the computer while using the same mobo, will you beable to re-install win7 oem version?

That's the idea.

What if I stick my fist through my current motherboard and want to replace it?

Replacing with the same or a similar model motherboard is covered.

 

[philipma1957]

yea the retail is 100 more.. i heard you can sweet talk microsoft rep w/oem if you change out motherboard. like its locked to your current mobo and 3 years from now you get a brand new pc

Most of the time you wont have a problem. Worst case is you have to dial up and activate it manually.

If you "sweet talk" a Microsoft rep to allow a second OEM activation on a new machine at a later date, then you are pirating the software. It is against the licensing agreement. This is a legal and ethical issue that you need to decide your stance on...it is not a question of whether or not it can technically be done.

you can replace parts that break and get your windows reactivated.

so all of the above is wrong and right or very gray. If you build a lot of machines broken gear is part of the game. I have built 11 machines since feb and needed 1 reactivation I did it via dial up.

As for soft ware pirating one piece of software running 1 machine is what you get to have.

retails big feature is not switching from machine a to b to c it is the support offered.

support is expensive very costly for microsoft. that is the big reason for high price of a retail copy. rememeber this site is biased to diy builders that revamp their machine a lot. So we think that changing out parts is the norm. thus we think the biggest benefit of a retail copy is you can swap it around.

 

[dagamer34]

Honestly, I think Microsoft is glad you actually paid for a license. Just don't go around installing the same key on 10 computers and complain when 9 of those computers eventually fails activation.

 

[wirednuts]

i love these threads. i am amazed how defensive people get about oem licenses. in the real world, microsoft really only cares about multiple machines using the same key. thats really what they dont want. as far as re-using an oem key? meh. they really dont care. as long as every computer has a unique key- thats what they are hell bent on.

and people break eula's ALL the time, for tons of products. most of the time they dont even know it. but according to some forum posters, breaking an eula should be punishable by a thousand hours of water boarding then subsequent death, and it really just makes me laugh.

 

[Nothinman]

i love these threads. i am amazed how defensive people get about oem licenses. in the real world, microsoft really only cares about multiple machines using the same key. thats really what they dont want. as far as re-using an oem key? meh. they really dont care. as long as every computer has a unique key- thats what they are hell bent on.

and people break eula's ALL the time, for tons of products. most of the time they dont even know it. but according to some forum posters, breaking an eula should be punishable by a thousand hours of water boarding then subsequent death, and it really just makes me laugh.

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to justify themselves breaking a license, be it an EULA or any other kind of license. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't use the software. It's really that simple.

 

[Chiropteran]

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to justify themselves breaking a license, be it an EULA or any other kind of license. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't use the software. It's really that simple.

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to defend a corporation which is only interested in making money and has no ethical or moral obligations whatsoever.

OEM license has never been tested in court AFAIK (please correct me if not), so don't act like your opinion is the true fact and only correct opinion. Until proven valid in court, OEM license is just a piece of paper. Also, breaking a license agreement isn't the same as breaking a law, so don't ever call it "illegal".

While I try to be fair to Microsoft and other software makers, some of the restrictions and rules are simply contradictory and/or nonsensical.

OEM license is tied to a pice of hardware, sure I can buy that. But I can't see how they can prevent you from changing your motherboard. As you and others have pointed out, it *IS* acceptable to change motherboards in a "warranty" repair. Who provides the warranty of a computer? The manufacturer. If you are building your own PC, YOU are the manufacturer. Any change you want to make to that PC can be qualified as "warranty" repair, if you want, so you can basically change the motherboard at will, IMO, if you built the computer yourself and used an OEM license.

That said, any other part of the computer can be replaced as well. You can justify it all the same way, so ultimately my opinion is that as long as you aren't using an OEM copy on two different computers at the same time, it's fine, regardless of any scary lawyer language in the license agreement. If Microsoft asks about my motherboard change, it was done UNDER WARRANTY, as it was, and as such is within the restrictions of the license.

 

[philipma1957]

i love these threads. i am amazed how defensive people get about oem licenses. in the real world, microsoft really only cares about multiple machines using the same key. thats really what they dont want. as far as re-using an oem key? meh. they really dont care. as long as every computer has a unique key- thats what they are hell bent on.

and people break eula's ALL the time, for tons of products. most of the time they dont even know it. but according to some forum posters, breaking an eula should be punishable by a thousand hours of water boarding then subsequent death, and it really just makes me laugh.

this is what they are concerned about. 1 machine to 1 software license.

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to defend a corporation which is only interested in making money and has no ethical or moral obligations whatsoever.

OEM license has never been tested in court AFAIK (please correct me if not), so don't act like your opinion is the true fact and only correct opinion. Until proven valid in court, OEM license is just a piece of paper. Also, breaking a license agreement isn't the same as breaking a law, so don't ever call it "illegal".

While I try to be fair to Microsoft and other software makers, some of the restrictions and rules are simply contradictory and/or nonsensical.

OEM license is tied to a pice of hardware, sure I can buy that. But I can't see how they can prevent you from changing your motherboard. As you and others have pointed out, it *IS* acceptable to change motherboards in a "warranty" repair. Who provides the warranty of a computer? The manufacturer. If you are building your own PC, YOU are the manufacturer. Any change you want to make to that PC can be qualified as "warranty" repair, if you want, so you can basically change the motherboard at will, IMO, if you built the computer yourself and used an OEM license.

That said, any other part of the computer can be replaced as well. You can justify it all the same way, so ultimately my opinion is that as long as you aren't using an OEM copy on two different computers at the same time, it's fine, regardless of any scary lawyer language in the license agreement. If Microsoft asks about my motherboard change, it was done UNDER WARRANTY, as it was, and as such is within the restrictions of the license.

I have to go with this.

 

[wirednuts]

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to justify themselves breaking a license, be it an EULA or any other kind of license. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, don't use the software. It's really that simple.

lengths people go to? like when microsoft asks "did you buy this copy of windows in a store?" and you say "yes" because it was newegg, and you have to be in their virtual store to buy it so you ARE telling the truth.

have you ever been to a restaurant where the pop machine is self serve, and its not a posted sign but store policy that you must pay for refills? sure, it says so on the menu in 9pt font sized lettering, but you didnt read that so you just filled up anyway. OH SHIT NOW YOU ARE THE SUPER DEVIL. YOU BELONG IN HELL. THE RESTAURANT WOULD RATHER YOU NEVER COME BACK YOU FREAKIN THIEF.

ohhhh its just comical to me....

 

[Nothinman]

I'm amazed at the lengths people will go in order to defend a corporation which is only interested in making money and has no ethical or moral obligations whatsoever.

OEM license has never been tested in court AFAIK (please correct me if not), so don't act like your opinion is the true fact and only correct opinion. Until proven valid in court, OEM license is just a piece of paper. Also, breaking a license agreement isn't the same as breaking a law, so don't ever call it "illegal".

While I try to be fair to Microsoft and other software makers, some of the restrictions and rules are simply contradictory and/or nonsensical.

OEM license is tied to a pice of hardware, sure I can buy that. But I can't see how they can prevent you from changing your motherboard. As you and others have pointed out, it *IS* acceptable to change motherboards in a "warranty" repair. Who provides the warranty of a computer? The manufacturer. If you are building your own PC, YOU are the manufacturer. Any change you want to make to that PC can be qualified as "warranty" repair, if you want, so you can basically change the motherboard at will, IMO, if you built the computer yourself and used an OEM license.

That said, any other part of the computer can be replaced as well. You can justify it all the same way, so ultimately my opinion is that as long as you aren't using an OEM copy on two different computers at the same time, it's fine, regardless of any scary lawyer language in the license agreement. If Microsoft asks about my motherboard change, it was done UNDER WARRANTY, as it was, and as such is within the restrictions of the license.

I'm not defending any corporation, I hate MS almost as much as Apple. But if you want to use their software you should do so by their rules. The fact that they're a for-profit organization doesn't even enter into it. If a store has a "Please no smoking" sign up would you smoke anyway because it's phrased as a request? Of course not, it's just easier to demonize MS because they're a faceless organization with which almost no one has a direct relationship. A license agreement is still a contract between you and the manufacturer which shouldn't be ignored. Yes, some EULAs have been ruled unenforceable but some have been upheld in court to so it's not black and white.

If you're so cheap that you want to nit-pick over a piece of software that only costs a small percentage of the total cost of the machine you're using and is required for the functionality that you want, that's on you I suppose.

Frankly, I think MS should stop letting places like NewEgg sell OEM licenses the way they do in order to clear up the confusion that it generates. But I guess they would rather have the cheaper sale than none at all since so many people think Windows is priced outrageously even though they'll spend $60 on a game that they will only play for like 1/50th of the time they'll use that copy of Windows.

lengths people go to? like when microsoft asks "did you buy this copy of windows in a store?" and you say "yes" because it was newegg, and you have to be in their virtual store to buy it so you ARE telling the truth.

Using semantics to defeat the point of the license is still morally wrong, but whether that bothers you is on your conscious, not mine.

have you ever been to a restaurant where the pop machine is self serve, and its not a posted sign but store policy that you must pay for refills? sure, it says so on the menu in 9pt font sized lettering, but you didnt read that so you just filled up anyway. OH SHIT NOW YOU ARE THE SUPER DEVIL. YOU BELONG IN HELL. THE RESTAURANT WOULD RATHER YOU NEVER COME BACK YOU FREAKIN THIEF.

ohhhh its just comical to me....

I can't say that I've seen a restaurant with the fountains accessible that didn't offer free refills, but if I didn't see a "free refills" sign I would ask before assuming either way. Ignorance isn't an excuse in either scenario.

 

[Gunbuster]

I think the main confusion is between the OEM OS you buy from newegg or wherever and the "OEM" version that comes on something like a Dell.

The "OEM" Dell windows OS is setup to recognize a key flashed to their BIOS. You cant use the key on their sticker with a fresh install on some other machine. They sticker is really just there to make you feel official.

 

[mv2devnull]

The main confusion is from the unclear and ambiguous licenses and policies used by M$. That is not a recent issue, but has continued for several years.

Formally, it is not the motherboard that triggers the reactivation, but a sum of several components. However, the most important player is the NIC, which these days is on the motherboard. This gets back to the license text, which refers to a "Computer". What is a Computer? When is a Computer no longer the same Computer? Had M$ made that crystal clear in the first place, there had been less confusion. Were they greedy or were they trying to be nice?

M$ EULA is no different from GPL. Both define terms of use (more or less successfully). Violating each and every license is equally wrong.


@Chiropteran: What is a "Contract Law" and what does it say about breaching a contract? What is "Intellectual Property" and why there are laws about it?

 

[Chiropteran]

I'm not defending any corporation, I hate MS almost as much as Apple. But if you want to use their software you should do so by their rules. The fact that they're a for-profit organization doesn't even enter into it.

...

Using semantics to defeat the point of the license is still morally wrong, but whether that bothers you is on your conscious, not mine.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Microsoft is not a moral company. They are a for-profit corporation, and as such they will do whatever they can within the law to make that profit, and some things that go beyond the law (see various legal decisions against Microsoft).

I have no moral obligation to help out such an evil company, so I will justify my actions any way I can. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I am not doing anything clearly illegal I'm fine with my actions, and it doesn't bother my conscious at all

@Chiropteran: What is a "Contract Law" and what does it say about breaching a contract? What is "Intellectual Property" and why there are laws about it?

I'm no lawyer, but I trust my instincts and common sense enough in this case. I do know that for a real contract there is a signature, witness, both parties (or at least representatives of both parties) present, retroactive changes are not allowed, parties must be of legal age, of sound mind, aware of their actions, etc. For a Windows OEM license, none of those hold true. I may or may not have breached the license agreement, but can Microsoft prove that in court? I feel the answer is no, not a chance. And why would they bother? I own legal copies for all my computers, I am not the enemy here, I just don't agree to put up with all their BS and I am not going to give them an extra $150 just because I needed to change a motherboard.

 

[Merad]

I'm not defending any corporation, I hate MS almost as much as Apple. But if you want to use their software you should do so by their rules.

Unless MS has changed the rules (again) in the last year or two then a hobbyist using a system builder license on their own machine is already breaking MS' rules. According to MS a system builder copy MUST be set up using the OEM Preinstall Kit and then sold to a third party.

Considering that, the morality debate is rather moot, IMO.

 

[Nothinman]

I think the main confusion is between the OEM OS you buy from newegg or wherever and the "OEM" version that comes on something like a Dell.

The "OEM" Dell windows OS is setup to recognize a key flashed to their BIOS. You cant use the key on their sticker with a fresh install on some other machine. They sticker is really just there to make you feel official.

Only because Dell, as a real OEM, took extra steps to restrict their installers that way. Any "system builder" could do the same thing.

Well, you can't have it both ways. Microsoft is not a moral company. They are a for-profit corporation, and as such they will do whatever they can within the law to make that profit, and some things that go beyond the law (see various legal decisions against Microsoft).

I have no moral obligation to help out such an evil company, so I will justify my actions any way I can. As far as I'm concerned, as long as I am not doing anything clearly illegal I'm fine with my actions, and it doesn't bother my conscious at all

I'm not trying to have it both ways, you are. As you say, MS isn't a moral company so without morals they can't be evil. So in that cause things like good and evil, right and wrong, etc can't apply to them. And the fact that you have to justify your actions to anyone is a sign that they're morally wrong, otherwise they wouldn't need any justification or explanation.

I'm simply advocating the following of all licenses regardless of how you feel about the owner's actions. Several EULAs have been held up in court, you saying they're all invalid and haven't been tested doesn't make it so.

I'm no lawyer, but I trust my instincts and common sense enough in this case. I do know that for a real contract there is a signature, witness, both parties (or at least representatives of both parties) present, retroactive changes are not allowed, parties must be of legal age, of sound mind, aware of their actions, etc. For a Windows OEM license, none of those hold true. I may or may not have breached the license agreement, but can Microsoft prove that in court? I feel the answer is no, not a chance. And why would they bother? I own legal copies for all my computers, I am not the enemy here, I just don't agree to put up with all their BS and I am not going to give them an extra $150 just because I needed to change a motherboard.

It's obvious that you're not a lawyer. There are multiple kinds of contracts and not all of them require physical contracts with signatures and witnesses.

Unless MS has changed the rules (again) in the last year or two then a hobbyist using a system builder license on their own machine is already breaking MS' rules. According to MS a system builder copy MUST be set up using the OEM Preinstall Kit and then sold to a third party.

Considering that, the morality debate is rather moot, IMO.

I would agree, but because if the license is invalidated as you say then you can't use the software under any circumstances because you have no license to do so.

 

[Chiropteran]

I'm not trying to have it both ways, you are. As you say, MS isn't a moral company so without morals they can't be evil. So in that cause things like good and evil, right and wrong, etc can't apply to them. And the fact that you have to justify your actions to anyone is a sign that they're morally wrong, otherwise they wouldn't need any justification or explanation.

I disagree. Something which lacks morals is evil. That is what evil means. Immoral is a synonym for evil, and what does it mean? It means being without morals.

Being without morals doesn't mean you can't be evil, it means you ARE evil.

And my justification is for the legal aspect, I thought I made that clear but since you bring it up I guess I need to spell it out. I wasn't posting to justify my own actions, I was posting to explain the logical train of thought I used to decide those actions.

A bit of a stretch into off-topic territory, but I would never even agree that copyright or contract law is a moral right anyway. I'll follow them as I deem necessary for legal reasons, but I don't consider them moral so I don't consider ignoring them to be immoral.

It's obvious that you're not a lawyer. There are multiple kinds of contracts and not all of them require physical contracts with signatures and witnesses.

I'm aware. Even a verbal agreement is binding. However, good luck proving a verbal agreement in court. I suspect that proving someone agreed to a click through license in court would be similarly difficult.

Even if I am technically breaking the license agreement in some way, Microsoft would have to prove that in court. The costs would be great and success is not guaranteed. I am willing to bet on Microsoft not bothering, especially considering that I am a paying customer.

 

[sm625]

It seems like the family pack is a good compromise. You get 3 non-retail licenses for about the price of one retail license. So your motherboard can blow up once and you still make out! Of course, I always try to buy a motherboard that is popular enough that I can replace it with the same exact model off ebay.

 

[piasabird]

I build my own computers and I usually buy OEM versions. In the past with such a version you could use the phone option to redo your license. Sometimes people need to reload a license. With bad harddrives and whatnot there are plenty of reasons to reload an OS and update a license.

I do kind of wonder when Win8 is going to be released, and if it is going to be an improvement or a giant fiasco like Win Vista was. I tend to be a late implementer. No reason to buy the latest and greatest for me. Let someone else test it for Microsoft or whoever. I have a wait and see approach.

License agreements to me are not as valid because you have no option but to accept it if you want to use the computer. Microsoft forces people into the agreement. Therefore the agreement is not a valid contract. I try to maintain a legal working environment as much as that is possible. I still think in the USA we need to force all these operating systems to be transferrable to a new computer. I believe you either own something or not.

 

[Nothinman]

I disagree. Something which lacks morals is evil. That is what evil means. Immoral is a synonym for evil, and what does it mean? It means being without morals.

Being without morals doesn't mean you can't be evil, it means you ARE evil.

I suppose that's true, but morals and the definition of right and wrong vary so what you consider immoral or wrong isn't necessarily the same as other people's opinion. And there's a difference between being immoral and amoral, I tend to think corporations are the latter and not the former which makes them not evil in my opinion.

And all of that is beside the point. Just because you feel someone is evil, wrong, etc doesn't give you the right to violate their rights, contracts, etc. In fact I would say that makes you immoral since you're selectively respecting the rights of others.

I'm aware. Even a verbal agreement is binding. However, good luck proving a verbal agreement in court. I suspect that proving someone agreed to a click through license in court would be similarly difficult.

Even if I am technically breaking the license agreement in some way, Microsoft would have to prove that in court. The costs would be great and success is not guaranteed. I am willing to bet on Microsoft not bothering, especially considering that I am a paying customer.

The proof is in the fact that you're using the software, you can't get it installed without accepting the agreement. It's that simple. Whether the agreement is legally binding and enforceable would depend on the judge. All of that predisposes that MS comes after you singly, which is highly unlikely anyway.

But the fact remains that you're buying software that's licensed for use under terms set by the owner and creator of the software and are then deciding that you don't have to follow those terms. To me, and I would guess most truly honest people, is wrong.

 

[Nothinman]

I build my own computers and I usually buy OEM versions. In the past with such a version you could use the phone option to redo your license. Sometimes people need to reload a license. With bad harddrives and whatnot there are plenty of reasons to reload an OS and update a license.

Reactivating on the same hardware isn't an issue for any type of license.

License agreements to me are not as valid because you have no option but to accept it if you want to use the computer. Microsoft forces people into the agreement. Therefore the agreement is not a valid contract. I try to maintain a legal working environment as much as that is possible. I still think in the USA we need to force all these operating systems to be transferrable to a new computer. I believe you either own something or not.

No, MS doesn't force you to do anything. You're more than welcome to use any other OS out there. You only have to agree to their license terms if you want to use their software.

You don't own Windows, you never did. You own a license to use the software under the terms of the licensing agreement. If you want the license to be transferable then you need to buy a license that allows that, it's that simple. Regulating that via law isn't necessary and would be plain stupid.

 

[kurt454]

It seems like the family pack is a good compromise. You get 3 non-retail licenses for about the price of one retail license. So your motherboard can blow up once and you still make out! Of course, I always try to buy a motherboard that is popular enough that I can replace it with the same exact model off ebay.

It's my understanding that the Family Pack provides three *upgrade* licenses, and upgrade licenses are always considered retail ... If I am not mistaken.

 

[mv2devnull]

The (sold out) Family Pack was a retail upgrade for existing valid retail licenses.

 

[kurt454]

The (sold out) Family Pack was a retail upgrade for existing valid retail licenses.

It is available at Amazon for $140.