component change in Win 7

[Digerati]

No, I understand that. I just don't care; I've paid for it once, that's enough.

But no you didn't. I guess it might be like buying a ticket to a football game. You bought a ticket to see one game. If you wanted to use the ticket over and over again, you should have bought season tickets.

There are lots of things I don't want to spend money on, but that does not mean I am going to steal it. My $133/month cable bill is a perfect example. Half of that is for TV and I don't see why I have to pay for TV when it is full of commercials! But I'm still not going to steal it. I guess I appreciate your candor but I guess it also disturbs me a little you see no problem knowingly ripping someone off. Granted, I think Microsoft charges way too much for the retail versions of most of their products, but at the same time, there are perfectly capable free alternatives.

At any rate, as TorrentG said, we have a responsibility here to offer safe, secure and legal advise. I can only hope you do the same when advising folks in your personal life.

Have a good day.

 

[clifford_cooley]

The only thing I can say is, a officer mat not agree with the law but as an officer they have to stand behind the law.

I may not agree with all Microsoft's Regulations either but as a Forum Moderator, I have to stand behind Forum Policy.

Website Guidelines:

We aim to make Windows 7 Forums one of the most helpful resources for Windows 7 support and discussion on the Internet. However, there are some guidelines and forum rules that we have to ensure this is a fair and friendly place to join:

• There is a zero tolerance policy towards illegal material, pornography and spam. So any posts containing such material will be immediately removed. A warning message will be sent to the poster to inform them of the rules and repeated attempts to post such material will result in a ban.
• Insulting other members or "flaming", will not be tolerated on this forum.
• Please keep your language clean and respect the integrity of the site.

If you have any further questions, please contact the site administrator for clarification.

 

[Digerati]

Well, I don't mean to be "flaming" anyone, so I hope that is not directed at me and I apologize if anyone for any misunderstanding, other than what has already been admitted to. But as I noted earlier, the Rules also say that when we signed on this site, we agreed to the rules which say (my bold underline added)

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

 

[clifford_cooley]

Well, I don't mean to be "flaming" anyone, so I hope that is not directed at me

I was adding to the conversation not pointing a finger.

 

[Core]

I'll only add to this to clarify a few things.

I don't consider it ripping off. I didn't buy a subscription, nor a ticket to a one-night show. Microsoft got paid for their product, and I am using it. If I want to use Windows on more than one machine, I buy a new license for each additional computer; that I have no problem with. But I'm not buying Windows the second time for the same computer just because Dell decided to go with an el cheapo motherboard or a PSU that's lower than low-end.

I have no problem with requiring individual licenses for each machine in a multi-unit household. That's fair. What is not a reasonable practice is this arbitrary component rule. If I bought a ticket to a baseball game, should I leave in the middle of it if my seat breaks down?

Twice in the last 2 or 3 years I've sent legit copies of software to people I've met through forums much like this one. One of those was an unopened retail copy of Windows; I sent it because the guy was a student, he was skint, and he had gotten ripped off without knowing it. He bought what he thought was a legit copy of Windows and later it got blacklisted because the retailer hadn't acquired it legitimately. A tough lesson to learn, but I could tell he was going to acquire one through P2P or whatever.

A lot of people do ask me for advice on software solutions, and I do not advocate to them the acquisition or use of illegally obtained software. My brother was using torrented Windows, and I got him to get legit on that.

I'm saying this because when I said what I said earlier, I was being candid with you; I didn't see the point of blowing smoke up your arse as many undoubtedly would have done. I don't advocate using illegal software when I advise people, be it here or offline.

But while the EULA may be printed in black on white, things hardly really are that way. If someone asks for advice because they torrented their OS and it's riddled with problems, I am not interested in wasting my time beyond recommending they get legit, because they're inviting problems for themselves.

Pirates are a huge problem for the industry. Having replaced a motherboard is hardly in the same category. There are fights worth fighting, and then there's the guy reciting the EULA like he's reading from the Bible. I believe I can get through to people better by accepting certain realities and injecting some common sense into what otherwise far too easily becomes a convoluted, theoretical crusade.

 

[Digerati]

I don't consider it ripping off.

But that's because you are ignoring the facts. The license is clear. And so is the law. That's like saying it is okay to run a stop sign because everyone does it, or because you think you are a better driver, or just because you don't like the law. All irrelevant!

But I'm not buying Windows the second time for the same computer just because Dell decided to go with an el cheapo motherboard or a PSU that's lower than low-end.

Wow! Now that makes no sense all! You cannot justify ripping off one company because another company sold you cheap components! That's just wrong, and certainly twisted logic.

What is not a reasonable practice is this arbitrary component rule.

Again, you ignore the facts or are twisting them about to rationalize stealing. It is not arbitrary at all. It is specifically the motherboard. Not the PSU. And not any other component.

I can get through to people better by accepting certain realities

Then seriousely, Core, accept reality! The reality is that it is NOT okay to reuse OEM licenses for "upgrades" and the reality is that is IS ripping off when you do.

 

[Mychael]

As an aside, I cant recall specifics back that far now. How did it go with Win95 and Win98? They were not registerable were they? Once purchased it could be used again and again?
If that was the case back then it meant what you bought was your property to use as you wanted for your personal use.
I can understand why M/S has this policy now with the O/S but when did it change so it was not really "your property' anymore and your really only renting it so to speak.

My own wishfull thinking now but I really believe that something as expensive as the MS O/S should be "licensed to original purchaser" for the legitimate use on "one" computer and so long as that O/S remains in the ownership of the original purchaser then he should be able be able to use it indefinately on "one" computer and if he upgrades/repairs or whatever he contacts M/S with his purchasers unique id (as opposed to the software key), thereby proving himself as the original purchaser as is given a new unlock key to re-install the software on his "one" new/repaired computer.

Lets face it there are so many new users coming along every day that M/S would hardly go broke by being a bit less heavy handed with loyal customers. Eventually we all go and buy their latest offering anyway so what would be wrong with them giving us support for what we own already and engender more goodwill towards M/S.

 

[Mychael]

Again, you ignore the facts or are twisting them about to rationalize stealing. It is not arbitrary at all. It is specifically the motherboard. Not the PSU. And not any other component.
.

It is arbitarary in the sense that "they" whosoever "they" are made the decision that the MoBo constitutes as being a new computer. Yes, it is many components on the board but a MoBo on it's own does not a computer make.
It's not the largest part, that would be the screen or case, it might not even be the most expensive part as sometimes it could be the CPU which is more expensive.
Often you could re-use your existing CPU and memory (not to mention all the other hardware) on a new MoBo so I really think a fairer way to determine when a computer is "new" as opposed to anything else is when more then 50% of it's components are replaced at the same time.

 

[clifford_cooley]

It is arbitarary in the sense that "they" whosoever "they" are made the decision that the MoBo constitutes as being a new computer.

It's simple everything in the computer is based on what the motherboard chipset will support. This makes the motherboard the backbone to every PC. Changing motherboards will change what your PC will support and create a whole different PC.

If you don't want to loose your OEM license then purchase the very same motherboard that you are replacing.

 

[Mychael]

It's simple everything in the computer is based on what the motherboard chipset will support. This makes the motherboard the backbone to every PC. Changing motherboards will change what your PC will support and create a whole different PC.
If you don't want to loose your OEM license then purchase the very same motherboard that you are replacing.

Changeing a MoBo does not necessarily create a whole different PC. They all use PCI slots so your boards would swap over. HDD work in any modern MoBo and if you stay with the same CPU socket then you could just transfer your CPU over into the new board and quite possibly the memory. I still think a fairer approach would be the % of hardware exchanged.
The other thing of course is that often you cannot get the same board even when you want to, same brand sure but maybe not same model.

 

[clifford_cooley]

What would be the point in changing motherboards if you wasn't creating a different PC? The whole point to selecting a different motherboard would be to change something within the PC. If you are not changing any supporting values why select a different motherboard and invalidate your OEM license in the process?

 

[Mychael]

I agree you wouldn't change for changes sake if all was running well but more in the vein of my general arguement that to say a MoBo means a new PC is I believe incorrect. You'd certainly re-use a lot of hardware from cases to psu's to screens to Hdd's etc.. If getting a new MoBo were to constiute the greater portion of your outlay then one might argue it was the "bit" that makes a PC. However that's not the case for as we all know buying a MoBo is only say 10% of the cost of everything that makes a "new" pc.
That's why I think the ruling of saying it's a new PC just by virtue of replacing the MoBo is unfair.

Would you sell your car as a "new" model if you just put in a new engine? Of course not and that's the same reasoning I use in my arguement about a how a new MoBo alone should not constitute it being a "new" computer but that is what the EULA is ruling we do.

 

[Digerati]

It's simple everything in the computer is based on what the motherboard chipset will support. This makes the motherboard the backbone to every PC. Changing motherboards will change what your PC will support and create a whole different PC.

Exactly. That is why it is not, by any means, arbitrary - which by definition means by chance or on a whim and without reason.

As for Win95 and 98 - as noted, it has always been that way - just not enforced. They did not have the "Genuine Windows Advantage" or authentication like they do now but OEM licenses were still tied to the "original" equipment. And then, like now, the disks will allow you to install Windows on many machines.

I really think a fairer way to determine when a computer is "new" as opposed to anything else is when more then 50% of it's components are replaced at the same time.

Again, your opinion is irrelevant, but to your point, who decides what is 50%? Each user? That would not be fair. Note a motherboard is not one component - there are many devices integrated into a motherboard, AND everything else plugs into it. There is nothing else inside a computer that defines the computer more than the motherboard. You can replace the RAM, drives, graphics card, PSU, case, CPU and use the same license. Yet that could easily be consider more than 50% and under your terms require a new license.

So no! It has to be the motherboard - that is more than fair. And ONCE AGAIN, if you want a transferable license, buy the transferable license.

Would you sell your car as a "new" model if you just put in a new engine?

Now that was arbitrary, and not a valid analogy. You can compare the engine with the CPU, not the motherboard.

 

[Mychael]

Again, your opinion is irrelevant,

And that's just rude. I'm over this. Bye.

 

[Digerati]

And that's just rude. I'm over this. Bye

I was not being rude - I was making a point - if talking proper forum etiquette, I would ask that you please read and follow the topic conversation. If you had followed this conversation you would have seen where I said way back on page two, "our opinions have nothing to do with this."

The other thing of course is that often you cannot get the same board even when you want to, same brand sure but maybe not same model.

Again, if you had been following, in my first post in this thread on page 1, I said, "(or a suitable substitute as recommended by the original motherboard maker if original board is out of production)." Then again, I quoted the MSKB article where it says, "The motherboard replacement must be the same make and model, or the same manufacturer’s replacement or equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer’s warranty."

Now I apologize if you took offense but the fact of the matter is, all of our opinions are irrelevant. The motherboard is the "mother" board. Does it make sense to have to buy a new license if you upgrade your CPU, graphics card and RAM, then discover you need a bigger PSU too? Surely that's more than 50% - especially in costs. But again, they all plug into the motherboard. To many, they see the case and think, that's my computer. So does replacing the case mean a new license?

The motherboard is the only logical component. If we want a transferable license, we need to buy a transferable license.

For more information about the differences between OEM and full retail, see this FAQ and note question 11.

Microsoft OEM Licensing FAQ, note under System Builder Licensing, the 8th Q&A it says,

Q. Can a PC with an OEM Windows operating system have its motherboard upgraded and keep the same license? What if it was replaced because it was defective?

A. Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on a computer—except the motherboard—and still retain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created. Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred to the new computer, and the license of new operating system software is required. If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do not need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC as long as the replacement motherboard is the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by the manufacturer's warranty.

The reason for this licensing rule primarily relates to the End User Software License Terms and the support of the software covered by that End User Software License Terms. The End User Software License Terms is a set of usage rights granted to the end user by the PC manufacturer and relates only to rights for that software as installed on that particular PC. The system builder is required to support the software on the original PC. Understanding that end users, over time, upgrade their PCs with different components, Microsoft needed to have one base component "left standing" that would still define the original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the "heart and soul" of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created. The original system builder did not manufacture this new PC, and therefore cannot be expected to support it.

So again, if we need a transferable license, we need to buy a transferable license.

 

[Kalario]

I think this thread should be locked. Just saying

 

[Digerati]

I think you are right. I hate being the messenger on this but it is something that needs to be done. Folks need to know the facts in order to make an informed decision. I presented the facts, I've tried to explain them and substantiate them with links to sources. If folks choose to ignore the facts, the law, and the agreements they make, that's between them, their conscience, the other party in the agreement, and the authorities should they be caught.

As I said on page one, I am only the messenger. My opinion is irrelevant.