XP OEM Help

richardbirks · 29 Apr 2007 at 18:07

burnsy2023 said:
I wouldn't say that it was 'a constantly moving goal post' more a one time clarification. However, it does reinforce that OEM licensing isn't as easy as you might think.Burnsy

In the EULA it says "COMPUTER" - Microsoft then go on, using their finest legalise that COMPUTER herein, therefore and hencewith (joking) that COMPUTER means HARDWARE. They refer to their operating system as SOFTWARE and state that the HARDWARE and SOFTWARE are inseparable.

They're now saying what they actually meant was HARDWARE is MOTHERBOARD and it and XP are inexplicably joined and shall never be parted.

I didn't sign up to that... what when next week they say the CPU and Motherboard are the very essence of your computer; can they retroactively apply that definition to an existing EULA.

I understand fully what everyone's saying; but I think Microsoft would find changing the defintions - or, clarifying - the terms of a pre-existing EULA post-agreement, would be a very tenuous position in law indeed.

All that said, we should probably put this to bed and go and have a pint and talk football and wimmen!

--
Richard

Burnsy2023 · 29 Apr 2007 at 18:12

I do see your point, but maybe it's not a change of definition, just prevention of a misinterpritation?

Either way, I agree that the info should be more readily avaliable to the public.

Burnsy

Macro · 29 Apr 2007 at 20:34

Slam62 said:
Just to reiterate for balance, the eula is not a definitely a legal agreement unless a precedent has been set through a court case. (that doesnt mean it isnt though)

Whatever the case, if MS give you the key and you have told them the truth, you are legal. i.e. if they took you to court they would lose.

That's not true. You agree to a license so you are bound by it unless you can prove in a court successfully that it was something like an unfair contract. Given the amount of internet lawyers like your good self, and the propensity for people (including the EEC) to take MS to court at the drop of a hat i'd suggest that as no one has successfully proved the MS (and countless other companies licenses) license to be illegal that you're working on wishful thinking and the same old drivel you trot out on ever Vista/MS/OEM thread.

No matter what the circumstances of being given an activation code you are still bound by the license (that you agreed to). Activation and licensing are two different things. We've been through this time and time again.

People ask for advice and are told the facts about licensing. If they then decide they are happy to act dishonestly that's a choice for them. Rants about costs, MS being the evil empire and all the other old tosh doesn't change facts.

The cost of the OS on a system, given the functionality it adds for 5 years or more is reasonably priced compared to pretty much every other componant. You can choose OEM with substantial discounts and a set of restrictions (including limitations on hardware upgrade & transfer) if it suits. Go for an upgrade version of Retail which is more expensive but still around a 50% discount that allows you to upgrade everything and transfer to other PCs if you had a qualifying previous OS. Finally you can buy full retail which is somewhat more expensive (although still around the same price as the average graphics card which tend to last a lot shorter in a machine).

This keeps getting rehashed but the bottom line is Burnsey and a couple of others are helpful enough explain the actual facts and people make their own choices from there.

I'd suggest getting over it and moving on...

Macro · 29 Apr 2007 at 20:46

richardbirks said:
In the EULA it says "COMPUTER" - Microsoft then go on, using their finest legalise that COMPUTER herein, therefore and hencewith (joking) that COMPUTER means HARDWARE. They refer to their operating system as SOFTWARE and state that the HARDWARE and SOFTWARE are inseparable.

They're now saying what they actually meant was HARDWARE is MOTHERBOARD and it and XP are inexplicably joined and shall never be parted.

I didn't sign up to that... what when next week they say the CPU and Motherboard are the very essence of your computer; can they retroactively apply that definition to an existing EULA.

I understand fully what everyone's saying; but I think Microsoft would find changing the defintions - or, clarifying - the terms of a pre-existing EULA post-agreement, would be a very tenuous position in law indeed.

All that said, we should probably put this to bed and go and have a pint and talk football and wimmen!

--
Richard

The trouble with this is if you took that at it's face value the Computer would be defined as the hardware in the state (combination of componants) it was in when the license was entered into. If you change a componant the argument would be that the computer was no longer the same and was therefore not the same computer that the license applied to (because you had in effect changed some of the conditions or variable that made up the definition of a key part of the contract).

This would be much the same as buying a car form a dealer, signing the contract and turning up only to find the 2.0l turbo engine had been changed for a 1.4l with the dealer claiming you agreed to buy a car and it was still the same car (ok, it's not a car but you get my drift

).

Generaly speaking that would be a "bad thing" so to be honest I tend to think the MS took a sensible step by clarifying that you can pretty much upgrade anything you like in the PC to try and accomodate the enthusiast community. The exception is the motherboard. I think most sensible people would agree that generaly speaking if you go from a AMDXP 3000 to a 680 based motherboard with a 6600 it really isn't the same PC any more (for example).

I really do think the license passes the "real world being sensible test" and isn't designed to be evil. If people what to get round the upgrade transfer limitation a XP Pro upgade will do that for ~£120 which isn't expensive if you consider the functionality it adds to a PC over 5 years+ compared to other componants.

/shrug

Slam62 · 29 Apr 2007 at 20:49

Slam62 said:
Just to reiterate for balance, the eula is not a definitely a legal agreement unless a precedent has been set through a court case. (that doesnt mean it isnt though)

Whatever the case, if MS give you the key and you have told them the truth, you are legal. i.e. if they took you to court they would lose.

Just to reiterate, what I am saying is correct

cheers

Macro · 29 Apr 2007 at 21:20

Slam62 said:
Just to reiterate, what I am saying is correct

cheers

You're wrong.

If two parties agree to a contract they are bound by that contract. If the contract is broken one side has the option to try and enforce that contract or receive compensation. The other party could try to prove the contract was unfair or contrary to a law in an attempt to declare the contract (license) void and therefore not suffer any penalty although it's likely they would then give up the right to any benefits (i.e. use) of the license.

Activation of a product is in essence a mechinism to reduce Piracy in the same way as an alarm is a mechanism to prevent theft.

A license is a seperate entitlement. Just because you give me the code to your alarm dosn't give me the right to move me, my mates and my family into your house.

Cheers

Slam62 · 29 Apr 2007 at 21:44

Athanor said:
You're wrong. etc

If two parties agree to a contract they are bound by that contract. If the contract is b

A license is a seperate entitlement. Just because you give me the code to your alarm dosn't give me the right to move me, my mates and my family into your house.

Cheers

Well you didnt read what I said properly or you didnt understand it because I am definitely correct.

night night

4ndy89 · 29 Apr 2007 at 22:15

Hi again, have decided i will have enough money in two weeks time and was wondering whether it best to go for the Vista Ultimate or Home Premium, also with me getting an E6420 is it worth me getting the x64 version?

Burnsy2023 · 29 Apr 2007 at 22:27

Slam62 said:
Well you didnt read what I said properly or you didnt understand it because I am definitely correct.

night night

Burnsy

gareth170 · 29 Apr 2007 at 23:24

to be honest i think all this talk about the license should stop, because its just going round and round.. it's getting us no where...

Macro · 30 Apr 2007 at 09:26

4ndy89 said:
Hi again, have decided i will have enough money in two weeks time and was wondering whether it best to go for the Vista Ultimate or Home Premium, also with me getting an E6420 is it worth me getting the x64 version?

I'd go for Home Premium unless you particularly need one of the features Ultimate has (which to be honest in a home environment is pretty much just remote desktop and maybe the Ultimate extras although so far they're not particularly inspiring).

At the moment I think x32 is the way to go if you're a gamer. It offers better compatability so far and generaly the x32 version of the drivers seem a little better.

Having said that x64 is the future (Vista and Longhorn Server later in the year are the last 32bit OS from MS) and isn't much of a problem if you don't want to play a lot of older games / use lots of older software.

It's a toughy to be honest... short term compatability against longer term stability and investment.

Ultimately if you want to go for Vista and can live with some of the teething problems and odd games not working properly then I'd go for x64. Sooner or later it'll catch up and pretty much everything will be designed with the x64 platform in mind going forward.