Replaced 939 mobo with AM2 mobo (and CPU + RAM), Windows XP needs reactivation, help

[neothe0ne]

So I replaced my 939 mobo, CPU, and RAM with an AM2 mobo, CPU, and DDR2 RAM. I use my old hard drive. I boot to Windows, log in, and am required to activate or else it kicks me off.

I called Microsoft to activate, gave them my installation ID, told them it was a hard drive change, and they told me to contact my vendor.

So I called HP. A guy with a Mexican accent answered, and hung up on me when I was providing my email address.

I go to HP's online chat.

me: When I log into Windows XP, it tells me I need to activate before I can continue. I called Microsoft and told them my installation ID, but they told me I needed to call HP to get a new serial key.
online tech: Thank you for information.
online tech: "me", let me know from where you have changed motherboard and installed Windows XP?
me: The motherboard was brand new, a switch from AMD socket 939 to AM2, so I also replaced the CPU and RAM. The hard drive is from the HP Pavillion with Windows XP Media Center Edition already installed on it.
online tech: Alright.
online tech: "me", there is a tattoo information on motherboard, and once motherboard is replaced the old hard drive will not recognize the new motherboard, so you need to install operating system from a retail version CD.
me: How can I obtain a retail CD without purchasing a new version of Windows XP?
online tech: I will tell you.
[10 minutes pass]
online tech: I would suggest you to contact local store to get it.
online tech: Is there any other technical support issue that I may assist you with today ?
me: So HP does not ship CD's of Windows with its computers?
online tech: "me", as you have replaced motherboard so warranty is void, hence we wont be able to provide you operating system CD.



So HP doesn't ship Windows CD's with its computers, and moving the hard drive to a new mobo = no Windows. What is one supposed to do after that to run Windows XP?

 

[nerp]

Just do a manual activation and keep calling and tell them that you had a hardware failure and you're reinstalling. If the rep doesn't let you activate, try again. I've never had a problem getting Windows reactivated if I've had to do so manually. I've simply told them that I've had a major crash and I'm fixing it.

HP isn't going to be able to do anything for you, really.

 

[Markbnj]

Yeah, if you have XP up and running, and its just an activation problem, don't waste time calling HP. Just do the "Activate by Phone" option when the dialog pops up, call the supplied number, and tell them you swapped out some hardware. I've never had them refuse an activation key.

 

[Nothinman]

So HP doesn't ship Windows CD's with its computers, and moving the hard drive to a new mobo = no Windows. What is one supposed to do after that to run Windows XP?

Since you swapped out the motherboard the OEM license no longer applies to that machine so to be legal again you'll have to buy another copy of XP.

 

[RebateMonger]

When you bought the HP computer, they gave you a dscounted XP license that is only good with the original motherboard. Nothing wrong with that. It's a great deal for most folks. You likely paid VERY little for XP.

The bad news is, if you change motherboards to a non-HP board, you need to provide your own copy of XP. HP can't be expected to support a computer that you built yourself.

Also, don't bother trying to borrow a Retail XP install disk. It won't work with your OEM HP Key.

 

[bsobel]

You should buy another OEM copy of XP to go with your new MB.

 

[VirtualLarry]

See, this is exactly why OEM OS software is NOT such a great deal.
It's effectively a tax that MS places on all PC mfgs, due to their lock-in contracts. It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.
You can thank MS's draconian monopoly for this situation.

Edit: This is one more reason why I build my own boxes.

 

[Nothinman]

It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.

It would be more beneficial for the OEM and MS sure, but not for the user who now has to pay more for a retail license and likely a second fee from the OEM to install the retail copy for them. Since most users don't replace their motherboards, except for warranty replacements which don't void the OEM license, it's a hugely bad deal for them.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
See, this is exactly why OEM OS software is NOT such a great deal.
It's effectively a tax that MS places on all PC mfgs, due to their lock-in contracts. It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.
You can thank MS's draconian monopoly for this situation.

Edit: This is one more reason why I build my own boxes.

Larry it's a way for someone to get a OS cheap as hell. That's all. MS's "draconian monopoly" has done nothing to cause prices to go up or consumers to pay more. They haven't raised the price of OSs in ages. Go compare retail Vista enterprise, XP pro, 2000 pro and NT 4.0 workstation to see evidence.

For OEMs it's a way to sell a box that will play CDs, surf the web, run programs all that stuff the moment you take it out of the box. The OS is so cheap that you can't even tell you bought one!

Want proof? Go to Dell and compare the cost of a system with Windows and a system with a free copy of Linux.

Why do you constantly come here and spout opinions as truth? It becomes tiresome proving you wrong. Spare us your rants and unfounded accusations and stick to meaningful, intelligent and *factual* discussion.

 

[Smilin]

For the OP:
Get a new OEM copy and you'll be good. I wouldn't suggest buying retail XP at this time. If you choose Vista (which has years in front of it) then retail would be the better buy.

 

[robmurphy]

I use a few HP machines and when I flashed the BIOS on one of the machines that was out of waranty the XP home on it complained it needed reactivating. The automated telephone line was no good it complained that the OS was installed on more than one machine. I picked a different option and finaly go to speak to someone on the activation line. I told them about the problem and expalined that I had flashed the BIOS from HP to MSI, but it was still the same PC. They gave the the activation code without any problems.

The HP XP pro installation on the same machine did not complain about being reactivated though. The reason both versions of XP are on the machine is that I'm moving all the machines I have over to XP Pro. The HP XP pro disks I have come without any of the usual OEM bloatware.

One other problem you may have is that some/all of the software installed on the recovery partition will not install as the PC is not "HP Qualified".

Rob Murphy

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
See, this is exactly why OEM OS software is NOT such a great deal.
It's effectively a tax that MS places on all PC mfgs, due to their lock-in contracts. It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.
You can thank MS's draconian monopoly for this situation.

Edit: This is one more reason why I build my own boxes.

Your logic (as always) is incorrect. Since the OEM versions are on average more than 50% off the retail versons, even the OP comes out ahead buying a second OEM license in this situation. Only if he later buys a third motherboard would buying retail turned out to be cheaper. Very few 'systems' go thru 2 let alone 3 motherboards, the numbers just don't match your theory.

 

[bsobel]

Why do you constantly come here and spout opinions as truth? It becomes tiresome proving you wrong. Spare us your rants and unfounded accusations and stick to meaningful, intelligent and *factual* discussion.

P&N gets Dave, OS gets Larry.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
See, this is exactly why OEM OS software is NOT such a great deal.
It's effectively a tax that MS places on all PC mfgs, due to their lock-in contracts. It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.
You can thank MS's draconian monopoly for this situation.

Edit: This is one more reason why I build my own boxes.

How many end users upgrade their OEM machines?

I'll bet you are talking about less then 1%. So they should it more expensive/difficult for that 1% or their customers? Does that REALLY make sense?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
See, this is exactly why OEM OS software is NOT such a great deal.
It's effectively a tax that MS places on all PC mfgs, due to their lock-in contracts. It would be much more beneficial for OEMs to sell computers without operating systems pre-installed, and then have the end-user purchase a retail-copy OS. It would save having to re-purchase their OS twice.
You can thank MS's draconian monopoly for this situation.

Edit: This is one more reason why I build my own boxes.

Your logic (as always) is incorrect. Since the OEM versions are on average more than 50% off the retail versons, even the OP comes out ahead buying a second OEM license in this situation. Only if he later buys a third motherboard would buying retail turned out to be cheaper. Very few 'systems' go thru 2 let alone 3 motherboards, the numbers just don't match your theory.

Since XP is getting up there, I can see a retail license seeing upwards of 7+ boxes....for the enthusiast crowd, who wouldn't buy an HP in the first place. Of course, whenever we see a "which version" topic come up, we see several people mention the difference, and talk about long term versus short term savings. I love the "I shouldn't have to pay full price, M$ is scr3wing me" attitude about the obvious restrictions and benefits on OEM licensing.

 

[Matt1970]

I have had to re-activate HP machines before. All you need to do is tell them you re-installed XP from the HP disk you got and that re-activation screen came up.

HP has a restore feature. When it is first booting up, start hitting F10. I am not sure exactly when to hit it, so just start hitting it once you power it on. All the XP files are sored on a seperate partition and the HP System Restore should take over. The first option will basicly re-write all the Windows files and leave all your data intact. The advanced option will erase the drive first, basicly returning it to factury installed conditions.

Matt

 

[robmurphy]

The restore feature is in the BIOS on my HP machines, yes it starts the machine from the recovery partition, but the start up for that partiton may well expect a HP BIOS.

Some of the programs that install from the recover partition will not install if the BIOS is not HP, even if its the same motherboard.

NeotheOne has installed another motherboard, so I would be very suprised if it was an HP OEM motherboard with a HP BIOS. The OS used is an HP OEM one so that is why there are problems getting it activated. Strictly MS and HP are acting correctly as the machine is no longer a HP one so the HP OEM OS is no longer valid.

There are various approaches to this problem, but they would amount to pirating the OS and so are not discussed on this board.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Why do you constantly come here and spout opinions as truth? It becomes tiresome proving you wrong. Spare us your rants and unfounded accusations and stick to meaningful, intelligent and *factual* discussion.

I'm glad that the AT Fascist Police are here to accuse me of - GASP - expressing my opinion. I mean, what would this world come to if that were actually allowed here.
Clearly, your MS mind-control training has shown you that I am a red flag, and must be controlled.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Your logic (as always) is incorrect. Since the OEM versions are on average more than 50% off the retail versons, even the OP comes out ahead buying a second OEM license in this situation. Only if he later buys a third motherboard would buying retail turned out to be cheaper. Very few 'systems' go thru 2 let alone 3 motherboards, the numbers just don't match your theory.

Let's see, my XP OS install has gone through... yep, three motherboards so far, and counting. For anyone that upgrades, an OEM license doesn't make any sense to me.

Edit: Let's expound on that a little bit. Let's look at the cost of OS. Use NewEgg.com for examples.
XP Home OEM 89.99
XP Home Retail (Upgrade) 99.99

OEM is a "disposable" license, whereas Retail Upgrade allows re-use on new hardware. For the price difference, it seems like a no-brainer to me.
Assuming that someone paid full price once for Win3.0, and going with the upgrade prices for OSes since then, then to have to re-buy the OS when changing hardware, that is cost-prohibitive. Better just to buy retail.

Let's look at another take on this, this time using "Full" versions.
XP Home OEM 89.99
XP Home Retail (Full) 194.99
The OEM version is approximately 50% of the cost of the full retail version.
So if you plan on upgrading your mobo once, you would have to pay the OEM cost twice, which works out to around the same cost as just buying the retail full version in the first place. It doesn't take three mobos, the person would break even after just two. Not to mention the extra perks such as free phone support from MS that comes with the retail version.

So if you upgrade at all, it makes more sense to just buy the retail version.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Larry it's a way for someone to get a OS cheap as hell. That's all. MS's "draconian monopoly" has done nothing to cause prices to go up or consumers to pay more. They haven't raised the price of OSs in ages. Go compare retail Vista enterprise, XP pro, 2000 pro and NT 4.0 workstation to see evidence.

More MS mind-warping. Look at XP Pro, versus the new equivalent, Vista Business. XP Pro is $200, Vista Business is $250. Looks like OS prices have been increasing to me.
Look at XP Home, versus Vista Home Premium. (And before you argue, Home Premium is the "true" home version of Vista. Home Basic is a "stripped" SKU, that didn't exist in the XP era, unless you want to compare it to the price of XP Starter Edition.)

Originally posted by: Smilin
For OEMs it's a way to sell a box that will play CDs, surf the web, run programs all that stuff the moment you take it out of the box. The OS is so cheap that you can't even tell you bought one!

Want proof? Go to Dell and compare the cost of a system with Windows and a system with a free copy of Linux.

All that proves is that Dell is likely paying the Windows tax on every PC box it sells, regardless if an MS OS is installed or not, in order to continue to receive the pricing it does on OEM Windows.

If you've looked at the buzz in reseller channels over the last few years, you would find that one of the larger complaints is the high cost of OEM windows, in relative comparison to the price of the computer components themselves. OEM Windows is far from "nearly free" in cost.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Why do you constantly come here and spout opinions as truth? It becomes tiresome proving you wrong. Spare us your rants and unfounded accusations and stick to meaningful, intelligent and *factual* discussion.

Only when and if you promise to forever spare us from the MS mind-control viewpoint. You may not realize it, but you are quite biased as well.

(With such shining examples as the comment you made about the Vista UI - "It's not Vista that's broken, it's the user." As if everything from MS is pure and perfect, and any that dare criticize it are summarily demonized.)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Smilin
Larry it's a way for someone to get a OS cheap as hell. That's all. MS's "draconian monopoly" has done nothing to cause prices to go up or consumers to pay more. They haven't raised the price of OSs in ages. Go compare retail Vista enterprise, XP pro, 2000 pro and NT 4.0 workstation to see evidence.

More MS mind-warping. Look at XP Pro, versus the new equivalent, Vista Business. XP Pro is $200, Vista Business is $250. Looks like OS prices have been increasing to me.

So now you're going to just blatantly lie to support your argument? Look, here are the FACTS:
XP pro upgrade $199.
XP pro full $299
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...buy/pricingretail.mspx

Vista Business upgrade $199
Vista Business Full $299
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...a_editions_and_pricing

Microsofts "draconian monopoly" hasn't increased the cost of an OS in ages despite new features. If you account for inflation it basically means the price has dropped over the years. The facts are right there above this paragraph. Suck it.

Look at XP Home, versus Vista Home Premium. (And before you argue, Home Premium is the "true" home version of Vista. Home Basic is a "stripped" SKU, that didn't exist in the XP era, unless you want to compare it to the price of XP Starter Edition.)

No Larry, Home Premium is not the "true" version of home. Home Basic is the version that most closely corresponds to XP Home, not Home Premium. Home Premium most closely corresponds to Windows XP media center edition because one of the largest features of it is..wait for it...waaaiiit....media center!

By "and before you argue" I assume you already knew you were lying when you wrote that but then did it anyway with full knowledge. (you are *tiresome* to argue with)

Originally posted by: Smilin
For OEMs it's a way to sell a box that will play CDs, surf the web, run programs all that stuff the moment you take it out of the box. The OS is so cheap that you can't even tell you bought one!

Want proof? Go to Dell and compare the cost of a system with Windows and a system with a free copy of Linux.

All that proves is that Dell is likely paying the Windows tax on every PC box it sells, regardless if an MS OS is installed or not, in order to continue to receive the pricing it does on OEM Windows.

Got proof of that or are you yet again trying to pass off your opinion as truth? Basically what you are accusing Microsoft of doing is something illegal. If you have proof of this take it to your attorney general. Otherwise STFU and spare us yet another one of your wild assed anti-MS tinfoil hat theories.

If you've looked at the buzz in reseller channels over the last few years, you would find that one of the larger complaints is the high cost of OEM windows, in relative comparison to the price of the computer components themselves. OEM Windows is far from "nearly free" in cost.

Again, proof? If the cost was so high why is it the OEMs can offer a Windows box at the same price as a Linux box? They would go out of business. "the buzz in the retail channel"...cute.

Originally posted by: Smilin
Why do you constantly come here and spout opinions as truth? It becomes tiresome proving you wrong. Spare us your rants and unfounded accusations and stick to meaningful, intelligent and *factual* discussion.

Only when and if you promise to forever spare us from the MS mind-control viewpoint. You may not realize it, but you are quite biased as well.

(With such shining examples as the comment you made about the Vista UI - "It's not Vista that's broken, it's the user." As if everything from MS is pure and perfect, and any that dare criticize it are summarily demonized.)

[/quote]
That's a nice out of context quote there which you have then implied something further that was never said (MS is pure and perfect??). Why don't you provide a link to the whole six page discussion? That's right the discussion involved you not knowing how to use your OS right and then blaming MS. There were even **GASP** facts to back this up. As seems to be the case when facts are involved you lost that argument too.

This is *exactly* what I'm talking about. You are tiresome Larry. Understand that all opinions have bias but facts don't. Stick to the facts and you won't have to worry about bias.

 

[owensdj]

Has anyone ever challenged Microsoft's motherboard change policy in court? I think it's appalling someone should have to buy another copy of Windows just because their motherboard broke. Some might say just buy the retail version, but I think it's ridiculously overpriced. I smell an expensive class action lawsuit over this in Microsoft's future.

You paid for one OS software license. You should be able to use it on one computer regardless of what hardware you change.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: owensdj
Has anyone ever challenged Microsoft's motherboard change policy in court? I think it's appalling someone should have to buy another copy of Windows just because their motherboard broke. Some might say just buy the retail version, but I think it's ridiculously overpriced. I smell an expensive class action lawsuit over this in Microsoft's future.

:roll: First off, get your facts right. If your motherboard 'broke' your allowed to replace it and reinstall. If you 'upgrade' to a better motherboard you are not. Second, the concept of receiving a discount on something in return for limitations is well known and respected in the law. Bear in mind, every OEM version is sold at a discount. If you don't like the rules you can by retail, it's that simple.

 

[owensdj]

bsobel, I was referring to the situation in which someone can't find an exact replacement for the failed motherboard. Even if the replacement board isn't an upgrade, you still have to buy another copy.

The limitations on the OEM license are that it's only for the original computer and that you don't receive technical support from Microsoft as you do with the Retail license. The motherboard change policy was something that I believe Microsoft added recently and used the activation process to enforce. It's like buying a new car at a "discount" that you find out later can only be driven in your home state. Pay more if you want the Retail version you can drive anywhere. Consumers would be outraged over this, but what Microsoft is doing is OK?

The problem is that so many consumers buy computers from OEMs that don't give them the choice to not pay for the OEM version of Windows. They were never told about this hidden restriction when they got the computer.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: owensdj
bsobel, I was referring to the situation in which someone can't find an exact replacement for the failed motherboard. Even if the replacement board isn't an upgrade, you still have to buy another copy.

Not true, MS provides some leeway here if the exact MB can't be repurchased.

The limitations on the OEM license are that it's only for the original computer and that you don't receive technical support from Microsoft as you do with the Retail license. The motherboard change policy was something that I believe Microsoft added recently and used the activation process to enforce. It's like buying a new car at a "discount" that you find out later can only be driven in your home state. Pay more if you want the Retail version you can drive anywhere. Consumers would be outraged over this, but what Microsoft is doing is OK?

That is a horrible analogy. It's closer to buying a day pass at Disneyland or an annual pass and then being upset when you can't use the day pass on a second time while annual passholders can.

The problem is that so many consumers buy computers from OEMs that don't give them the choice to not pay for the OEM version of Windows. They were never told about this hidden restriction when they got the computer.

99% of consumers get their OS with their box and don't upgrade their MB. The 1% that does build their own system are well aware of these restrictions. In a nutshell: basically your complaint is that the retail version is too expensive so you want no restrictions but to pay OEM pricing. Since MS sets the pricing and I don't, if you don't like you should seriously consider one of the open source OSs.