Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,713
- Location
- LU7
new vista oem licence required after motherboard swap
- Thread starter adriancal
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Which is entirely irrelevant.
Also, the restrictions are completely reasonable, seeing as OEM-built systems are very rarely upgraded so significantly, so there's no need for transferability to a new system.
I just fail to see what is unreasonable about this. The licence is designed for a specific purpose, and achieves it admirably.
Which, again, is irrelevant, as there is nothing in the licence that obliges Microsoft to enforce it.
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.
Protip: it's called the Retail licence, and it's specifically for consumers.
lol...You do now!
/condescending mode
How does it have a huge bearing on the legalities?
Show us a case of where these legalities have had a huge bearing on a consumer. Remember Windows XP has been around for nearly 7 years so surely there must be at least one case?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
How does it have a huge bearing on the legalities?
Show us a case of where these legalities have had a huge bearing on a consumer. Remember Windows XP has been around for nearly 7 years so surely there must be at least one case?
It's stating the bloody terms of use on a contract, why would I need to quote anything else?!
Burnsy
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Wow, you miss a little you miss a lot. 
Hello str, if you bought an OEM license and have changed your motherboard for upgrade purposes and used your previous license and then rang up to get your copy of Windows activated (Which doesn't necessary mean you are licensed anyway), regardless if you went through the automated service or spoke with a Microsoft agent, you have effectively lied to them since you shouldn't of tried it in the first place weather their is a chance of success or not.
Regardless on weather you agree with Microsoft licensing terms or not, you bought the product in the first place so surely you must have some sort of respect for the licensing terms otherwise you would have just downloaded a copy of Windows from the internet. Why buy a License if you're not going to obey by the terms of it?
Microsoft have also informed you that you cannot transfer an OEM license legally from one system to another in the End User License Agreement.
Hello str, if you bought an OEM license and have changed your motherboard for upgrade purposes and used your previous license and then rang up to get your copy of Windows activated (Which doesn't necessary mean you are licensed anyway), regardless if you went through the automated service or spoke with a Microsoft agent, you have effectively lied to them since you shouldn't of tried it in the first place weather their is a chance of success or not.
Regardless on weather you agree with Microsoft licensing terms or not, you bought the product in the first place so surely you must have some sort of respect for the licensing terms otherwise you would have just downloaded a copy of Windows from the internet. Why buy a License if you're not going to obey by the terms of it?
Microsoft have also informed you that you cannot transfer an OEM license legally from one system to another in the End User License Agreement.
Last edited:
It happened already when Microsoft amended the Retail Windows Vista license agreement. Microsoft wanted to restrict the number of times it could be reactivated and there was a media frenzy about it so of course Microsoft was forced to relent.
That same relenting should apply (in my opinion) to the OEM version of Windows primarily because these days the price of the OEM version of Windows is what the majority of consumers are willing to pay to use Windows on their PC and it's unreasonable for Microsoft to restrict the number of reactivations of any version of Windows purchased by a consumer.
We as consumers must have the right to use our purchased copy of Windows simply because that is why we purchase so of course when required Microsoft must allow us to reactivate our purchased copies as many times as we deem necessary and shockingly enough for some on here they actually do allow us to reactivate our purchased copies as many times as we deem necessary.
Wait a minute that's not what I am asking about. I'll rephrase it because maybe I wasn't clear enough on what I was hoping you could provide us with.
Show us evidence (for example a web page detailing the prosecution) of a consumer who has had to deal with the legalities of the license agreement bearing in mind that Windows XP has been around for nearly 7 years which surely is enough time for evidence to exist and in producing that evidence you will have backed up your case about the license agreement.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Then what you're saying is that the retail version of Windows should be cheaper, not that the OEM licence should be less restrictive. Clearly, Microsoft sees no need to make the retail licence cheaper because there isn't enough opposition to the status quo. Whether this is because the majority of people are happy with the price or because they just download it illegally is a moot point.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
So pretty much your whole arguement has nothing to do with the licensing terms of OEM, you just want a cheaper retail version.
We as consumers must have the right to use our purchased copy of Windows simply because that is why we purchase so of course when required Microsoft must allow us to reactivate our purchased copies as many times as we deem necessary and shockingly enough for some on here they actually do allow us to reactivate our purchased copies as many times as we deem necessary.
You're missing a important point, MS will let you reactivate as much as you want AS LONG AS YOU ABIDE TO THE TERMS OF THE EULA.
Is it really that difficult for you?
Burnsy
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
MS wouldn't sue a single consumer for one breach of the EULA becuase of the negative PR but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to do exactly that. And businesses have been threatened with court action for not being correctly licenced under the same licensing agreement.
MS don't have to activate a consumer who isn't correctly licensed and there is nothing you could do about that. And you haven't addresses the point of why you buy a licence when you are not willing to even read the EULA let alone stick to it's constraints. Why do you not pirate? Too lazy to bother with workarounds? Because it's certainly not for moral or legal reasons.
Burnsy
Last edited:
But Microsoft's motherboard upgrade restriction in the license agreement is unreasonable.Wow, you miss a little you miss a lot.
Hello str, if you bought an OEM license and have changed your motherboard for upgrade purposes and used your previous license and then rang up to get your copy of Windows activated (Which doesn't necessary mean you are licensed anyway), regardless if you went through the automated service or spoke with a Microsoft agent, you have effectively lied to them since you shouldn't of tried it in the first place weather their is a chance of success or not.
Regardless on weather you agree with Microsoft licensing terms or not, you bought the product in the first place so surely you must have some sort of respect for the licensing terms otherwise you would have just downloaded a copy of Windows from the internet. Why buy a License if you're not going to obey by the terms of it?
Microsoft have also informed you that you cannot transfer an OEM license legally from one system to another in the End User License Agreement.
Think about it for a second, not as an adversary of mine or a friend of others on here who adhere to the license agreement. Think about it from my point of view.
I am saying that my rights take priority over the upgrade motherboard restriction in Microsoft's license agreement. I am not looking to be unlawful or looking to stick it to Microsoft.
Now if I had the means I could take it further meaning I could challenge Microsoft's license agreement so that clarfication would occur and of course I would adhere to whatever the clarification would be.
I don't have the means to challenge Microsoft and I refuse to agree to Microsoft's license agreement regardless of the supposed legal implications. If Microsoft were to provide me with the opportunity to challenge their license agreement I would jump at it of course I would because I need clarification and until such clarification exists I will continue to not agree with the license agreement and I will continue to use my purchased copies of Windows.
Seriously, look above and you'll see a post about all the copies of Windows I have purchased and it's the same with games and everything else I use on my computer. I respect the right for companies to generate revenue from their products regardless that they attempt to place unreasonable restrictions on my rights to use their products.
You are entitled to tech support from Microsoft when you purchase a Retail version of Windows whereas there is no such entitlement with the OEM version of Windows.
Oh Gareth, come on!
I find it very hard to take that you 100% believe that consumers buy a Windows license.
Isn't there a little doubt in your mind and that little doubt might suggest along the lines of consumers purchase a copy of Windows to use it and the license or the license agreement means very little if anything at all?
I know there are alternatives like Linux or a Mac or whatever but come on it's Windows!
Microsoft Windows is the defacto standard so of course I want to buy it and use it and run my Windows games and software on it and I do so in my mind without agreeing to the license agreement regardless that Microsoft are forcing me to click I agree to the license agreement before I can use their operating system.
your paying for the LICENSE. e.g windows oem and retail software cd/dvd are both the same BUT the LICENSE'S are different. that why u choose which LICENSE u want to buy..Oh Gareth, come on!
I find it very hard to take that you 100% believe that consumers buy a Windows license.
Isn't there a little doubt in your mind and that little doubt might suggest along the lines of consumers purchase a copy of Windows to use it and the license or the license agreement means very little if anything at all?
Last edited:
- Status