Eeh, you are funny with your leaping through hoops justification about piracy. You were doing this about audio CDs before too, I remember. Just deal with it!

I don't like to. I take a simple approach in that if I've paid for software then it should be legal for me to do pretty much what I want with it short of obviously making loads of copies or installing it everywhere etc.

Yes but then you go on about how it's not piracy, it's morally justifiable blah blah blah. There's no need! Strictly speaking, it's illegal! Getoverit! No one will arrest you.

Technically it is piracy, but I do think it's morally justified. And I'm glad nobody will arrest me. Because that would suck :(

I would like Microsoft to link my software licenses to my .NET Live account, or whatever Passport's called now. Then I could use my software on any machine I logged into.

The justifiable reason is that it's not part of the license agreement.

 

I don;t agree with it but am explaining that this is the case.

 

OEM licenses are cheap for a reason. If you want to be transferring, you need a 'Fully Packaged Product' as the boys at MS say.

That's coming soon, according to my mate (well, the bloke I deal with) at MS.

The idea technically is that the system manufacturer is supposed to support the OS mainly, hence less support for Microsoft to dish out and hence a cheaper cost. Once I buy an OEM copy of Windows myself, that immediately rules that bit out as I'm the system builder. Therefore the innability to move the OS becomes silly as it's not as if I'm moving away from a supported system. If they said that OEM versions do not have access to direct MS tech support, then that'd be far better than trying to tie it permenantly to a particular system IMO.

I wasn't discussing your philosophy.

 

I'm dealing in facts. An OEM edition, installed on anything other than a new PC, does not necessarily give the end result of a legal OS.

 

They do need to clarify what new hardware would allow it to become legit but they don;t know themselves and that comes pretty much from the top of the UK MS tree.

Where does the OEM license leave someone who builds PCs for other people like I have? Do I have to be registered as an OEM system builder or VAT registered company to be able to also purchase an OEM copy of XP to give them or ... something else?

The PCs I've built have generally been complete builds with the exception of the keyboard, mouse and monitor but otherwise everything else that makes up a PC including a case is new. Where do I stand continuing to do this? I know you can't really answer this but it'd be nice if you could get an answer out of your contact at Microsoft.

Also as an extension of the above can I also not simply be my own vendor and supply and install a OEM copy of Windows installed on the new PC I built for myself with the same lack of new monitor, keyboard and mouse?

All rather confusing this is.

You don;t need to be registered.

 

If you're building complete systems from scratch and providing the customer with an OEM licensed edition of the OS, that's fine and perfectly legal.

I know what you mean. I recently built a complete system up for someone at work. Complete with screen, keyboard, mouse, printer etc. I bought an OEM copy of XP Home and installed that on it. It still needed activating and everything else. Now that's a new PC so is it legal to put OEM Windows on it?

It was legal to do so, yes.

And yet if I'd installed say, Linux on there, given him the PC then a week later he'd wiped Linux, bought OEM XP and installed it then, it would have violated the license agreement. :|

I do agree that it's silly.

 

I really think that OEM licenses should only be available to OEM certified organisations. To be fair, it's even a minefield for me and I'm supposed to have expertise in this field and as I said earlier, it's a minefield for MS as even their top guys don't know which hardware can constitute a 'new PC'.

I like work where we're a University and have a simple campus agreement whereby XP Pro can be installed on all PCs. Also, we're allowed Office Pro on staff home machines legally. First legal copy of Office I've had since Office 95 incidentally :)

alot of MS licensing schemes are allowing home use now, about bloody time I say.

I think we should resurrect this thread in some way... either strip irrelevant posts out of this one, or un-stickify it and create a new one?

 

I was going to recommend the E5200 as a kick-ass value CPU. That's all.

Personally, I object to Serg's suggestion, as this is POST 100, and if we strip out the unnecessary posts it will no longer be able to make that auspicious claim