new vista oem licence required after motherboard swap

Status
Not open for further replies.
yes u are right. if u change ure mobo then u will need a new copy of windows. Unless u bought a retail version in which u can change ure hardware as many times as u like and still use the same copy.
 
Fire Wizard said:
Hello Rich43, may I ask why? This doesn't apply to Ubuntu obviously but it does to Windows XP - The licensing terms are exactly the same for both Windows XP and Windows Vista. :)
Click to expand...

Oh I thought they made Vista licensing more restrictive.. well thats what I read when it came out.
 
What about motherboard with lifetime warranty? these will get upgraded sometime no doubt when they fail?
 
I had a motherboard fail, I changed it for a different model due to there being no ETA for that current board to be back in stock.

It's back in stock at said retailer now, but it took a couple of months. With university work to do, I wasn't going to wait. I just asked for another model.

One call to Microsoft, I explained the situation, and I was reactivated.
 
thecremeegg said:
If its anything like XP activation, just phone up and they pretty much thrust a new key at you :p
Click to expand...
but it'll still be breaking his license. because it sounds like he just wanna change his broken motherboard to upgrade it... also if his motherboard isn't under warranty and he replaces with something similar he still can't use his license/key.. yes he could be activated by microsoft but he'll be unlicensed.
 
Last edited:
thecremeegg said:
If its anything like XP activation, just phone up and they pretty much thrust a new key at you :p
Click to expand...

I know this might be difficult for you to believe - but there are people out there who do care that they use correctly licensed products.

If someone is going to replace their MB and not bother buying a new OEM Vista license they might just as well download an illegal copy - both would be equally licensed, ie not at all.
 
It's strange how many people on here are giving their opinion on the XP/Vista licence agreement regarding upgrades like it's a black and white situation.

My opinion is that it is a moral decision based on what you consider your rights to be with regards to the OEM XP/Vista you purchased whereas for Microsoft it's a business decision based on what they consider their rights to be.

I adhere to the idea that sometimes our own rights take priority over what is considered the law and for me the XP/Vista motherboard upgrade subject definately falls into that category.

If you want to read more on such thinking have a look at the Kohlberg's stages of moral development wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
 
str said:
I adhere to the idea that sometimes our own rights take priority over what is considered the law and for me the XP/Vista motherboard upgrade subject definately falls into that category.
Click to expand...

No, you're right, it isn't blank and white, but Ms are very reasonable about their motherboard terms, why is it so difficult for people to accept? You buy an OEM licence and are aware that it is non-transferable otherwise get a retail licence and don't worry about all of this.

Burnsy
 
Is it acceptable for Microsoft to restrict those that cannot justify paying the retail price for the right to upgrade their motherboard?

For example many consumers who build computers for themselves might not be able to justify paying what for many would be considered a substantial extra for the retail copy of XP/Vista or that it would take an unreasonable amount of time before many could justify paying the extra for the retail version.

It's reasonable to accept that such consumers need a copy of Windows to use their new computer and the cheaper option could be the only reasonable choice.

Is it not right that they should have the same rights as those who can afford the more expensive option?
 
str said:
Is it acceptable for Microsoft to restrict those that cannot justify paying the retail price for the right to upgrade their motherboard?

For example many consumers who build computers for themselves might not be able to justify paying what for many would be considered a substantial extra for the retail copy of XP/Vista or that it would take an unreasonable amount of time before many could justify paying the extra for the retail version.

It's reasonable to accept that such consumers need a copy of Windows to use their new computer and the cheaper option could be the only reasonable choice.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that's a stupid argument.

You're basically saying that someone doesn't think they should have to pay the cost of a retail version but still wants all the licencing freedom?

You get what you pay for.

str said:
Is it not right that they should have the same rights as those who can afford the more expensive option?
Click to expand...

No it's not right, that's why you pay extra.

I'm sat here confused to how you think that's a reasonable arguement :confused:

Burnsy
 
str said:
Is it acceptable for Microsoft to restrict those that cannot justify paying the retail price for the right to upgrade their motherboard?

For example many consumers who build computers for themselves might not be able to justify paying what for many would be considered a substantial extra for the retail copy of XP/Vista or that it would take an unreasonable amount of time before many could justify paying the extra for the retail version.

It's reasonable to accept that such consumers need a copy of Windows to use their new computer and the cheaper option could be the only reasonable choice.

Is it not right that they should have the same rights as those who can afford the more expensive option?
Click to expand...
if it was that way then whats the point having retail??? :confused:

cheaper licenses must have more restricts than the full license
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
No it's not right, that's why you pay extra.

I'm sat here confused to how you think that's a reasonable arguement :confused:

Burnsy
Click to expand...
Why do you believe Microsoft has the right to restrict motherboard upgrades for those who cannot justify paying the extra for the retail version of Windows?

Let us look at it another way:

Is it reasonable to accept that the cost to Microsoft for allowing a consumer to upgrade their motherboard is the same regardless of it being an OEM version of Windows or a retail version of Windows?

My opinion is that Microsoft should not be allowed to restrict the consumer when the only discernable difference to the consumer is the right to upgrade their motherboard especially as it's reasonable to accept that consumers who upgrade their motherboards do not require help from Microsoft to do so.
 
str said:
Why do you believe Microsoft has the right to restrict motherboard upgrades for those who cannot justify paying the extra for the retail version of Windows?

Let us look at it another way:

Is it reasonable to accept that the cost to Microsoft for allowing a consumer to upgrade their motherboard is the same regardless of it being an OEM version of Windows or a retail version of Windows?

My opinion is that Microsoft should not be allowed to restrict the consumer when the only discernable difference to the consumer is the right to upgrade their motherboard especially as it's reasonable to accept that consumers who upgrade their motherboards do not require help from Microsoft to do so.
Click to expand...
but upgrading the motherboard basicly means a new system and oen license is only for one system... retail can be reactivated on new systems.
 
str said:
Why do you believe Microsoft has the right to restrict motherboard upgrades for those who cannot justify paying the extra for the retail version of Windows?
Click to expand...

I change 'cannot justify' to 'doesn't want to'. It's essentially the same thing.

str said:
Is it reasonable to accept that the cost to Microsoft for allowing a consumer to upgrade their motherboard is the same regardless of it being an OEM version of Windows or a retail version of Windows?
Click to expand...

Nope its not reasonable. They sell the OEM licence under the understanding that you'll buy another copy when you upgrade. The retail licence reflects the amount of times a computer is going to be upgraded during the life of the OS.

My opinion is wrong
Click to expand...

Sorry, had to :p:D I'll be honest, I'm trying really hard to understand your opinion, but tbh I just can't see why you have the right to pay less and still want the same rights.

Maybe an analogy should be used. You buy a ticket for a concert. You get the cheap seats. You then decide that it doesn't cost the organisers any more to seat a person in the luxury section with the best views and therefore want the right to sit in the luxury section for no extra cost.]

Life just doesn't work that way.

Burnsy
 
gareth170 said:
if it was that way then whats the point having retail??? :confused:

cheaper licenses must have more restricts than the full license
Click to expand...
Isn't it likely that most consumers see no discernable difference between the OEM and retail version of Windows besides the motherboard upgrade restriction placed on the OEM version?

Based on price alone is it morally unreasonable to restrict a consumers right to upgrade his motherboard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom