Does a new motherboard mean a new Vista license?

FrankJH · 4 Sep 2008 at 19:05

Lagmeister said:
Isnt exactly the same as being license legal for OEM copies though and having an activated copy != legal, they are unlikely to chase you up for it though.

To the OP the OEM license has always been the same way, you should buy a new copy of windows for every motherboard if you have an OEM license, but this restriction does not apply for retail copies. The only way around this is if your motherboard fails and you have bought from a licensed system builder i.e. Any big PC manufacturer, then you can send it to replaced under warranty and its perfectly legit. But if you built it youself your up a creek without a paddle legally, probably can still reactivate though.

If MS activate it - then it becomes legal

Burnsy2023 said:
Or have a moral conscience

Like MS themselves you mean?

Macro · 4 Sep 2008 at 19:40

FrankJH said:
If MS activate it - then it becomes legal

Not necessarily true

mrk · 4 Sep 2008 at 21:09

But who cares?

Burnsy2023 · 4 Sep 2008 at 21:24

FrankJH said:
If MS activate it - then it becomes legal

No. Activation is a means to prevent unauthorised copies of Wundows to be used, not to validate copies to be legal.

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 4 Sep 2008 at 21:39

Jimbo Mahoney said:
Thanks Burnsy, but I'd like to see it in EULA format.

Unless MS explicitly state in the EULA that a 'new motherboard consitutes a new machine' and that the 'software cannot be transferred to a new machine' then I don't see how it can be reasonably expected for the end user to accept it.

I don't wish to appear as one of those whiney piracy-advocates, but my understanding of the price difference for the OEM licence is the lack of user manual and lack of support from MS - i.e. it's the OEM's responsibility.

The EULA states this about the machine which the licence applies:

[FONT=&quot]Licensed Device.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. You may not use the software on any other device[/FONT]

A licenced device is defined here:

[FONT=&quot]The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. That device is the “licensed device.” [/FONT]

Now, if you read that word for word, one could interpret the licenced device to only be valid assuming it's hardware configuration doesn't change. If it does then when is it the same device? The EULA doesn't state when a new device is made in the EULA, but MS made this decision, because any major upgrade of this sort would probably not be done by the End User, but instead it would be done by the OEM that built the system. That's why MS provides this clarfication to System Builders and not end users because it'll only add to confusion.

Th reduced cost of the OEM licence is affected by the lack of direct MS support and manuals, but the restrictive licence is the main reason that MS sell it cheaper.

Is this legally binding? Many would argue not, but it's a bit of a moot point as MS will not activate you according to their policy dispite how much you argue with them.

Burnsy

C64 · 4 Sep 2008 at 23:22

Anyone with OEM ever upgraded and been refused activaton ? if not then what is the purpose of retail vista ?

username · 4 Sep 2008 at 23:36

C64 said:
Anyone with OEM ever upgraded and been refused activaton ? if not then what is the purpose of retail vista ?

did it at work monday. OEM vista business. Power supply fried then blew a load of capacitors on the motherboard fried the cpu and the memory and seemed to shag up the vista install too (very messy). Did a reinstall and used same oem code but had to ring for activation. went through automated process typing in huge number etc and answered the questions honestly. It has never been installed in another machine ever. entered activation code given and all is fine.

In my opinion if microsoft fail to give a full definition of what a new machine is in their eula by specifically stating what defines a new machine it is fine. I am not using two copies of vista to work at the same time I am only using one copy. why should I pay for another copy because some parts failed.

Also another lesson learned is that Emachines PC's that my predecessor bought have crappy PSU's

Fire Wizard · 5 Sep 2008 at 00:17

C64 said:
Anyone with OEM ever upgraded and been refused activaton ? if not then what is the purpose of retail vista ?

Hello C64, the questions you have just asked doesn’t really finish the story. I'm sure there will be quite a few people that will answer "No, I have never been able to activate my copy of Windows". That may be the case. However, of those people that have never had problems, how many of you actually said specifically that "I have changed my motherboard for upgrade purposes?"

Question 1:

Has anyone whom has an Windows OEM licence which has already been installed on a system, have upgraded the motherboard in that particular system and have then further gone onto ringing Microsoft up, have you ever been refused activation?

Question 2:

What did you specifically say to the agent when he/she answered you, did you say something along the lines or "I have just formatted my system due to a virus and I now need my copy of Windows to be reactivated please" (Lying) or did you honestly say that "I have changed my motherboard for upgrade purposes" (Truthful)?

Thanks everyone.

FrankJH · 5 Sep 2008 at 08:24

Burnsy2023 said:
No. Activation is a means to prevent unauthorised copies of Wundows to be used, not to validate copies to be legal.

Burnsy

If MS themselves are the ones who actually activate it - then they are also checking the legal use at the same time.

If they aprove the use of it - then the software is in legal use

At best you are trying to split hairs

Question 2 - My motherboard was incompatable with some software I was trying to run - all be it that was software drivers for a new crossfire setup. I didnt lie and MS activated without issue

Why should a motherboard change be any different to a CPU or graphics card change or RAM, they are all as essential as each other.

Im all for people using the same license on different machines to be penalised, that is plainly wrong. I will never see the harm however in a single licence being used over a period of time on different hardware - the money you spent to buy it originally hasnt become worthless, you arent using the licence twice, its not liek you are using extra resources you havent paid for every time you use that equipment

Lagmeister · 5 Sep 2008 at 09:25

What you are basically saying is that its fine for you to pay less than other people and get the same service as the people who paid more then you for a better license agreement.

You get what you pay for, the fact that you are probably going to get reactivated anyway renders the point mute for individuals, but for companies being license legal holds a lot of value.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Sep 2008 at 09:53

FrankJH said:
If MS themselves are the ones who actually activate it - then they are also checking the legal use at the same time.

No they're not. They checking you meet a few critera, not that you are legal

FrankJH said:
If they aprove the use of it - then the software is in legal use

Again, this simply is not the case.

FrankJH said:
At best you are trying to split hairs

No, this is a very important concept to understand, especially within a business. Just because you are activated does not mean you are not mislicensed/unlicensed. For example: A machine could be activated, yet not legal as you bought Vista under a VLA without having a previous version of Windows licenced to that machine. As VLA licences are upgrade only, you wouldn't be legal yet you would be activated. The same is true for home users.

FrankJH said:
Why should a motherboard change be any different to a CPU or graphics card change or RAM, they are all as essential as each other.

Because MS needed to decide when a machine has been changed into what is essentially a new machine. If you upgrade a motherboard, you will usually upgrade both the RAM and processor. It doesn't fit all cases, but it makes sense.

FrankJH said:
Im all for people using the same license on different machines to be penalised, that is plainly wrong. I will never see the harm however in a single licence being used over a period of time on different hardware - the money you spent to buy it originally hasnt become worthless, you arent using the licence twice, its not liek you are using extra resources you havent paid for every time you use that equipment

And this isn't a problem if you choose the correct licence for you: the FPP Retail Licence.

Burnsy

Jimbo Mahoney · 5 Sep 2008 at 10:55

Burnsy2023 said:
A licenced device is defined here:

"The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. That device is the “licensed device.” "

Now, if you read that word for word, one could interpret the licenced device to only be valid assuming it's hardware configuration doesn't change.

I think that would be a very large assumption, and more to the point, is not explicitly defined. I would say that every computer user's experience of the "device" would be the same if the internal hardware changed. Only if a second device was created could I see there being a problem.

Anyway, I don't think we are going to settle this, since it comes down to a difference of opinion / splitting hairs / moral standpoint.

Thanks for your input Burnsy.

bledd · 5 Sep 2008 at 11:04

i'm sure ms see it like this..

pirated vista fully functional, cost £0
oem vista fully functional (might have been used on more than one pc) £0> !

yak.h'cir · 5 Sep 2008 at 11:15

I'm so glad HP provided me with a preactivated copy, I've upgraded the motherboard in my computer + I like a fresh reinstall every 6 months or so and I've never needed to enter a key let alone phone microsoft!

stoofa · 5 Sep 2008 at 11:43

Yes - that is fine.
However you are no more legal than somebody who downloaded their copy of Vista from a torrent site.
What you can legaly do and what you can physically do are two entirely different things.
I must have a driving license to take a car out on the road. If I didn't actually own a driving license would I still be able to start that car up and drive it?
If I go to buy a car and don't have a driving license, is it the sellers responsibility to make sure I have a license to drive the car I'm about to buy?

This isn't about different opinions / moral stand-points at all.
Only Microsoft can dictate how their license works - it is their license and as long as everything in the license is legal then only their opinion counts.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't suddenly mean your opinion on the license is anything other than that - your opinion.

As an IT Manager it is essential that I know licensing rules inside out.
Because of this I deal closely with Microsoft resellers.

If you want to save money and buy OEM then do so, however you then need to stick to the license or else there is no point.
The second you move an OEM OS from one machine to another you are breaking the license.
You are no more legally licensed than somebody else who stole their OS - so why even bother buying an OEM copy?
Either youj want to be legal, in which case you buy the license you require or you don't care, in which case just steal it.
Buying an OEM copy to move around from machine breaks the license agreement so attempting to "morally" defend your purchase is still wrong - buying the wrong license is no different to buying no license.

FrankJH · 5 Sep 2008 at 14:07

No it isnt the same - a torrent d/l you havent paid for yourself!!!

Im talking personal use not about a company

I have bought a single licence and there fore should be able to use it on any single machine at one time

MS are agreeing to this when they activate it, fine if they dont chose to then fair enough - but they wont come back and say its going to be de-activated either

Burnsy2023 · 5 Sep 2008 at 17:26

FrankJH said:
Im talking personal use not about a company

Makes no difference, the rules are the same.

FrankJH said:
I have bought a single licence and there fore should be able to use it on any single machine at one time

And you can with a retail licence. Don't whine if you skimp off on the licence and wonder why you can't do everything you want.

FrankJH said:
MS are agreeing to this when they activate it, fine if they dont chose to then fair enough - but they wont come back and say its going to be de-activated either

MS are agreeing to no such thing. It's up to YOU to make sure you have a valid licence, not MS.

Burnsy

FrankJH · 5 Sep 2008 at 18:06

As I said earlier - pedantic

They have agreed to the software being used!!!

Cobertizo · 5 Sep 2008 at 18:38

FrankJH said:
As I said earlier - pedantic

They have agreed to the software being used!!!

It's not an issue of pedantry. It's just the situation. It's a bit like a country border patrol, I guess. You show your fake passport to the guy, and he decides whether or not to let you in. He may or may not notice that it's a fake passport, but if he lets you in, it doesn't mean that you've entered legally. It's just a simple control in place to try to weed out as many illegal entrants as possible.

Similarly, Windows activation is a relatively low-cost anti-piracy control that Microsoft use. A failure in the control doesn't mean that you therefore are suddenly granted a free license.

Also, I do love the "I paid something therefore I deserve everything" attitude which has turned up in some areas of this thread. There are many areas in life where if you don't pay full price for something, you get a more restricted offering. But strangely it seems hard for people to accept that this might apply to Windows too...

stoofa · 5 Sep 2008 at 19:45

FrankJH said:
As I said earlier - pedantic

They have agreed to the software being used!!!

It is obvious you're not going to be swayed on this argument.
However the point still stands - this isn't about being pedantic, awkward or anything like that.
The point is what a few of us are trying to get over to people is that there is a license agreement with Windows - not reading it is not a defence.
The OEM, Retail, Educational, VL licenses are all different and it usually works on the more you spend on the license the more open it is.
OEM is the cheapest and is good for one machine.
Retail is upto double the cost, however is good for the life of the OS as you can transfer it from machine to machine - so well worth the extra spend.

You also need to realise the difference between physically and legally possible.
As I said in my example before.
Legally I need a driving license to drive a car.
Physically I can drive one without ever having a lesson or owning a license.
One is legal, one isn't.

If you were to phone up Microsoft for activation and tell them all of the information then you would not get a second activation.
You call and say your OEM license was on a machine, you bought a new motherboard and now want to reinstall your OS they would not give you an activation code.
If however you call up and don't give them all of the information, or tell them it is a warranty upgrade or tell them it was due to a HD failure then yes - they will activate it.
However it still isn't a leagal activation, just because MS have activated only means they are agreeing to allow you to use their software under the license agreement that came with it.

Microsoft were going to totally stop OEM sales into the retail market with Vista to basically stop all this.
Everyone would have to buy retail and by default everyone could then move their copy around as much as they like and enjoy the added benefits of Retail licensing over OEM.
Maybe with Windows 7 we will see OEM products out of the retail channels.