Activating windows
Per-Arne Gundersen
computer? Tried to install on a new computer that I recently bought.
Everything went OK, but now it wants to activate and register. I Can't do
that because I haven't yet made any connections to the internett, and I
can't use wni XP until I register.
Hopeless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyone????????
--
Per-Arne Gundersen
Norway
Ken Blake, MVP
Per-Arne Gundersen <per...@frisurf.no> typed:
> I am the owner of Win XP home. Can I install my license on more
than
> one computer?
No. The rule is quite clear. It's one copy (or one license) for
each computer.
There's nothing new here. This is exactly the same rule that's
been in effect on every version of Windows starting with Windows
3.1. The only thing new with XP is that there's now an
enforcement mechanism.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
zag
can't use it?
>.
>
GwD
"Per-Arne Gundersen" <per...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:eJDAluGY...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
Plato
>
> I am the owner of Win XP home. Can I install my license on more than one
> computer? Tried to install on a new computer that I recently bought.
> Everything went OK, but now it wants to activate and register. I Can't do
> that because I haven't yet made any connections to the internett, and I
> can't use wni XP until I register.
You're going to have to buy a new key for the 2nd PC.
kurttrail
You don't have to stand for people telling you what you HAVE to do in YOUR
HOME!
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
anon...@discussions.microsoft.com
There are tools out there to stop the OS from asking
this...
>
Bruce Chambers
You'll need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer
on
which you install it.
As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to
determine final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which
WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is
that Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft
mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more
difficult) multiple installations using a single license.
You can buy additional licenses, assuming you have a retail
license. Naturally, Microsoft cannot sell additional OEM licenses.
Be aware, however, that you'll probably pay more this way than you
would if you were to buy a second copy of WinXP from a discount
retailer; Microsoft will only offer you a 15% discount off their MSRP.
Additional Licenses for Windows XP Home Edition
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/howtobuy/addlic.asp
Additional Licenses for Windows XP Professional
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/addlic.asp
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH
"Per-Arne Gundersen" <per...@frisurf.no> wrote in message
news:eJDAluGY...@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
kurttrail
> Greetings --
>
> You'll need to purchase a separate WinXP license for each computer
> on
> which you install it.
>
> As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
> it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
> copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
> technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
> it is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to
> determine final applicability in your locale.) <snip>
Of course Bruce cannot actually quote Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117,
because if he did, it would show him to be a liar, because no where in
Section 117 does it say that it is a violation of the LAW to install
software on more than one computer.
That's how liars & hypocrites work.
Title 17 Chapter 1 Sec. 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer
programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese
using MS's own definitions:
Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of aCopy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided:
(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that
it is used in no
other manner, or
"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"
Installation -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=adaptation
made -http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResult
s.aspx?search=created
necessary -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=essential
making use -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=utilize
together with -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=conjunction
a previously unknown -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861582871
or -
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=or
For more information about Section 117 see:
http://microscum.com/mmpafaq/
Alex Nichol
>I am the owner of Win XP home. Can I install my license on more than one
>computer? Tried to install on a new computer that I recently bought.
>Everything went OK, but now it wants to activate and register.
No. No version of Windows has ever allowed that (the concession to a
desktop plus a laptop is purely for Office). Each machine needs its own
copy. Hence the activation system to discourage you from trying
--
Alex Nichol MS MVP (Windows Technologies)
Bournemouth, U.K. Al...@mvps.D8E8L.org (remove the D8 bit)
Tom
"Alex Nichol" <alexn....@ntlworld.delete.com> wrote in message
news:mpjde0968svcc48jb...@4ax.com...
>
> No. No version of Windows has ever allowed that (the concession to a
> desktop plus a laptop is purely for Office). Each machine needs its own
> copy. Hence the activation system to discourage you from trying
>
I have been told by Mike Brannigan (at one time) that installing two
instances the *same* copy of Windows on the *same* PC is a violation of the
EULA. I once had a the SAME OS installed (I have 320gigs of HDD total on two
drives) two times on the primary drive so my mate could do her adminstrative
uses on her install. He stated that I need to purchase another license or
full version to use on the same PC, that two instances are not allowed.
Personally, this is where I draw the line. The EULA states one PC, so
technically, it is on one PC. I'll be damned if I would do otherwise.
Alex Nichol
>
>I have been told by Mike Brannigan (at one time) that installing two
>instances the *same* copy of Windows on the *same* PC is a violation of the
>EULA. I once had a the SAME OS installed (I have 320gigs of HDD total on two
>drives) two times on the primary drive so my mate could do her adminstrative
>uses on her install. He stated that I need to purchase another license or
>full version to use on the same PC, that two instances are not allowed.
I don't entirely trust his posts as being the final position. There is
a clear distinction between installation on two machines which could be
in simultaneous use and two installations on the same one where that is
physically impossible. The wording of the EULA is capable of more than
one interpretation, and, as I have said to MS at a very high level,
that particular one seems perverse. In particular it would mean that it
became impossible to do Beta testing for them
Tom
> Tom wrote:
>
>>
>>I have been told by Mike Brannigan (at one time) that installing two
>>instances the *same* copy of Windows on the *same* PC is a violation of
>>the
>>EULA. I once had a the SAME OS installed (I have 320gigs of HDD total on
>>two
>>drives) two times on the primary drive so my mate could do her
>>adminstrative
>>uses on her install. He stated that I need to purchase another license or
>>full version to use on the same PC, that two instances are not allowed.
>
> I don't entirely trust his posts as being the final position. There is
> a clear distinction between installation on two machines which could be
> in simultaneous use and two installations on the same one where that is
> physically impossible.
I don't either, my first thought was he wants his 401k to do better!
The EULA clearly states, one license, one PC (with all the hardware jargon
included in that *one* PC). Having the same disk installed on the same PC
twice, as I stated for two different users for their respective reasons is
not against the EULA, as it is written. Seems funny, if this were a
violation, why would PA recognize this?? I would like Mike to challenge this
with great reason!
> The wording of the EULA is capable of more than
> one interpretation, and, as I have said to MS at a very high level,
> that particular one seems perverse. In particular it would mean that it
> became impossible to do Beta testing for them
LOL!, you have a way with logic, as well as make a good point!
kurttrail
<snip>
> The wording of the EULA is
> capable of more than one interpretation, and, as I have said to MS
> at a very high level, that particular one seems perverse. In
> particular it would mean that it became impossible to do Beta testing
> for them
:) "Perverse." LOL!