Vista Retail or OEM

[306maxi]

But let's suppose that in 2 months time Microsoft send out a general edict to all staff working on the activation line advising them NOT to allow reactivation in circumstances where they suspect that the OEM license has been breached. How are you going to force Microsoft to reactivate your installation? As they're only enforcing their license agreement then your only recourse is to take them to court and prove that their license is in fact illegal in the EU (or buy another license).

Just because you can get away with transferring an install contrary to what the license states and you've read on a website (just a hint - El Reg is generally regarded as The Sun of the IT news websites.) doesn't mean that what you've done is right (morally or legally).

Seriously - the way things are I really wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft were to decide to hold back on releasing OEM copies of Windows 7 in the retail channel, forcing everyone to pay full retail cost. At least then people wouldn't in this position, and all copies would be legally transferrable (which seems to be what most people who are complaining about the rights contained within the OEM license want)

If that happens in 2 months then oh well that's that and I'll have to deal with it.

Microsoft won't hold back on releasing OEM copies of Windows 7 because then we'll all have retail and that will then mean that people do have a reason to complain about the cost of windows (currently Vista costs are comparable to XP)

I really don't think this is a huge problem for Microsoft. I mean what percentage of PC's are built by enthusiasts? How many of those people will build another PC before Windows 7 is released. I personally think that rather than get the bad press Microsoft seems to have needlessly got with regards to Vista they are allowing people to transfer their licences.

At the end of the day we have 2 PC's at home and 2 licences for Vista. When I get a new PC I will buy a WHS licence and there will be three PC's and three licences for the OS's installed on those PC's.

[Salazaar]

Does it need to? Microsoft are at least in the UK doing business within that interpretation of the EU directive. There's no need to take Microsoft to court if they're complying with the law.....

The contract may or may not be legal under whatever regulations. If no one ever argues it in court it will never be an issue but if a user took exception the clauses as written and took MS to court, or if MS were to attempt to prosecute a user for breach of contract the licence would have to be examined by a judge and only then would a ruling be given as to whether it breaches regulations or not. Anything else is just supposition.

[306maxi]

The contract may or may not be legal under whatever regulations. If no one ever argues it in court it will never be an issue but if a user took exception the clauses as written and took MS to court, or if MS were to attempt to prosecute a user for breach of contract the licence would have to be examined by a judge and only then would a ruling be given as to whether it breaches regulations or not. Anything else is just supposition.

Option C: Microsoft realises that it's licence violates the EU directive and does the right thing.

End result no one takes any action in court.

[Saracen]

I understand hexus is a business and has a reputation to keep up. Of course I would expect them not to endorse anything that involves lying or deception. But the fact of the matter is you can call Microsoft up at least from the UK and do this and they will be fine with it.

That they permit it doesn't mean you have a legal right to do it.

I understand that if Microsoft refuse to activate then that's that. But if Microsoft are going to allow me to activate then people here should accept that that might just mean that this is the way that Microsoft are conducting business.

Who has disputed what Microsoft actually do? All anyone has is their personal experience and anecdotal stories from others. If they choose not to enforce a licence, even if they could, then that's their right.

I'm not complaining that the terms of the OEM licence are restrictive. I'm merely saying that this is the way that Microsoft is doing things at this point in time. I also never said that you accused me of being a pirate Others have done this and directhex said I was a liar and a cheater.

After you told him he didn't know "anything" and slung a roll-eyes at him.

He said "oem can legally only ever be installed on one motherboard ", and you quoted him and said

Anyone who says this doesn't know anything.....

As shaithis says just call up and give them some sorry story and you'll be fine. .......

Directhex didn't call you a cheater and a liar. He quoted THAT remark and said

you'd be lying, and cheating microsoft out of the license terms and the money. you may as well just steal a warez copy - it's just a different license term you break by pirating it compared to re-using the oem license

So you called him a fool.

WTFsticles?

In practice this works fine.

What you're talking about is more like buying Vista Basic and then complaining because you don't get Vista Ultimate.

If you buy an copy of Ultimate and only install it on one PC then you're not cheating anyone out of anything.

I don't do pirate OS's. Don't insinuate that I'm a software pirate you fool.

Look at that again. He said what you could legally do, and you called him a fool, and were going on about what happens in "practice", because you can get away with telling MS some "sorry story".

I've already explained what some of the problems with that web article about distribution rights are, not least of which are that the EU directive quoted is NOT law that binds UK customers or companies - it's a directive that binds governments to implement laws by treaty requirements. And according to case law, it also doesn't cover end-user situations because that isn't what distribution rights are all about. And further case law, somewhat to my surprise, has certainly confirmed the enforceability of licence conditions, though the circumstances of those cases may be legally differentiable from the MS situation (or may not) which would limit the applicability of those cases as precedent. In any event, directhex told you what certainly seems, until such time as a court slings it out, to be the legal situation, and you told him he knew nothing, with a rolleyes.

If he is right (and only a court can say with certainty) then he's also right that telling "some sorry story" to get MS to reactivate would be both lying and cheating, and the fact that MS choose not to tackle this head-on doesn't change that - it may merely indicate that they regard the bad publicity would would probably result from taking a hard line as not worth it. That doesn't mean that they couldn't enforce it, or that the licence wouldn't hold up.

I own the copyright to several thousand published articles, and have licenced certain rights to others. Have those rights been infringed? On occasion, yes. Have I used legal measures to enforce those rights? Most of the time, no - because it's not been practical or cost-effective to do so. But it doesn't mean I can't do so, or won't in future, OR that I approve of my rights being infringed. It's just usually not worth either the cost or the damage it would cause to customer relations to use lawyers to sort it out. But once, I did have to resort to the legal route.

[Blitzen]

Perhaps it should have been left at the first post. But of course thief, liar, cheat and pirate were bandied about and I took offence and quite rightly so.

No-one has actually called you those things.
Was it a nerve that was touched that set off your reaction????

Blitzen. Stop towing the party line. I don't wish to spend anymore time on these forums because of the fact that I was told I was a liar, cheater, pirate and so on for merely saying that Microsoft are allowing people to transfer an OEM licence from one PC to another. Hardly the sort of thing that makes someone fairly new to the forum should have to deal with. If I had said that you should lie to Microsoft and say that you'd never installed it on another PC at all and that someone else must be using your OS then yeah go out and say those things. But I didn't so.........

Thats not 'all you have said'!
You have flamed almost everyone that doesnt agree with your 'grey area' views.

Jeeezzz...what party line might that be then?
The one where i dont like paying massive prices for an OS where as other people just abuse the OEM system?
I'm paying for people like you that 'parasite' off people that use products properly. If that is offensive then too bad!
You are now tied up in knots and have no argument.

Carry on telling Microsoft your sob stories because im bored of hearing them now.
Enjoy THW

[dangel]

Saying MS can't reduce prices because of OEM abuse (or piracy) is a little hard to swallow. MS (like any company) charge what they can get away with, and given the stranglehold they have on the market they've no need to reduce their prices. Just a thought (and no side taken).

[Salazaar]

Option C: Microsoft realises that it's licence violates the EU directive and does the right thing.

End result no one takes any action in court.

My point is that MS can write a contract and they may deem it to be within whatever guidelines are set down but until a judge rules on it, it cannot truely be said to be or not. Since it's a civil contract a judge will not rule on it unless there is a specific reason to do so.

[directhex]

Saying MS can't reduce prices because of OEM abuse (or piracy) is a little hard to swallow. MS (like any company) charge what they can get away with, and given the stranglehold they have on the market they've no need to reduce their prices. Just a thought (and no side taken).

they charge what the market will bear, and will maximise the sales-versus-unit-price curve. as does any company

and with the vast majority of purchases which are legal and compliant, the market DOES bear the prices charged

[this_is_gav]

A quick skim and I don't see anyone who has said they've had issues activating.

I mentioned it on page 4. If you do a search you'll probably find millions of cases of this, and certainly on another forum I frequent it's quite a recurring post (alongside the playing dumb suggestion you gave of course).

You're making your own mind up about why the staff are saying this. It's nothing more than your opinion.

I did briefly consider asking for an official Microsoft response on this, but thought a reply would be unlikely. Of course it's my opinion.

P.S Has anyone else actually called up Microsoft and asked?

No, it would just be an Indian call centre. They're just going to laugh/hang-up/resign if I ask to be put through to the man/woman who writes the EULA....

Microsoft won't hold back on releasing OEM copies of Windows 7 because then we'll all have retail and that will then mean that people do have a reason to complain about the cost of windows (currently Vista costs are comparable to XP)

I really don't think this is a huge problem for Microsoft. I mean what percentage of PC's are built by enthusiasts? How many of those people will build another PC before Windows 7 is released. I personally think that rather than get the bad press Microsoft seems to have needlessly got with regards to Vista they are allowing people to transfer their licences.

It's not a problem for Microsoft and almost for the reason you've given yourself. Microsoft must generate 95% of their income from the OEM and business market, not through selling to us through shops. They know that 90% of those who were brought up using Windows will likely need to stick to Windows while they have a PC.

Also, don't forget that while you pay for Retail once, that can then be transferred over and over until you need/want a new operating system. This is where Upgrade comes in. Yes it costs more than a single OEM license comes in, but it costs less than Retail. If MS were to scrap OEM sales to individuals through etailers it would barely make any difference to the number of users using Windows. It's still a fraction of the cost of their PC through the lifetime of that OS. And if you're not an enthusiast it doesn't really affect you.

No-one has actually called you those things.

Nah, I called him a pirate as in my eyes, that's what he is. He's using a product without a valid license, which to me makes him a pirate.

[Blitzen]

Nah, I called him a pirate as in my eyes, that's what he is. He's using a product without a valid license, which to me makes him a pirate.

You are right

[OldRoy]

Hi folks
I haven't read the entire thread, but I just bought an OEM version of XP Pro.
I read in PCPro magazine that someone changed graphics cards and then needed to get MS to re-authorise his oem copy of XP. I have a possibly dodgy graphics card that I was about to install in a new build (first ever) so I'm wondering whether to risk it or else buy a new card - which I didn't budget for. I'd lways assumed that only the mb was locked to the oem license.
Anyone got the DEFINITIVE last word on this?
And can I upgrade oem XP to full retail license later if I need to?

[Koolpc]

If you change the mobo this is classed as a 'Hardware' change which warrents a new copy of Vista. I must admit that i just re-activate with no problems. Even after having changed a mobo! The way i look at it is that we paid our money for a product and if Microsoft re-activate it for me then that is ok. All this EULA rubbish gets on my nerves.

I don't say we should not 'buy' an OS, far from it, just that once we have bought it we should be able to re-install it 1 million times + if need be!

Why don't MS make one Vista, for £50 that serves all purposes and can be re-installed as many times as possible? Reason = they are greedy gits!!

[pauldarkside]

Hi folks
I haven't read the entire thread, but I just bought an OEM version of XP Pro.
I read in PCPro magazine that someone changed graphics cards and then needed to get MS to re-authorise his oem copy of XP.

The OS shouldn't need reauthorising unless there have been a significant number of hardware changes. Providing the OS and license is legitimate, a simple phone call confirming that the OS is being used on a single machine and an upgrade has been performed, they'd issue a new activation code.

I have a possibly dodgy graphics card that I was about to install in a new build (first ever) so I'm wondering whether to risk it or else buy a new card - which I didn't budget for. I'd lways assumed that only the mb was locked to the oem license.
Anyone got the DEFINITIVE last word on this?

It's the other way around - the OS is tied to the hardware (specifically, the non-peripheral devices).

And can I upgrade oem XP to full retail license later if I need to?

Yep. Microsoft don't prevent you from upgrading/changing the OS or the license type. I see little point in going from OEM to retail unless your intention is to transfer that OS to future builds. It would probably require a clean installation but you'd not be prevented from doing so unless the hardware was unsuitable.

[Splash]

Why don't MS make one Vista, for £50 that serves all purposes and can be re-installed as many times as possible? Reason = they are greedy gits!!

Because the market wants choice, but we've been through this a million times now - if you want the ability to transferyour license to new hardware then buy retail. OEM is tied to the hardware it's installed on, and this has always been the case.

Why don't nVidia just release one 8800GT for £50? Because they're greedy gits? No - because that's what the market deems it to be worth.

[Koolpc]

Because the market wants choice, but we've been through this a million times now - if you want the ability to transferyour license to new hardware then buy retail. OEM is tied to the hardware it's installed on, and this has always been the case.

Why don't nVidia just release one 8800GT for £50? Because they're greedy gits? No - because that's what the market deems it to be worth.

Why dont Nero and umpteen other software developers produce 8 different versions of their software? No need as one does it all. And they aren't greedy gits!!

[Phillikon]

I build systems and Microsoft’s licensing has changed quite a lot on the introduction of Vista.
Firstly the "just buy any internal pc part to use an OEM" has gone.
Microsoft now requires an OEM to require a whole machine.
your not even really suposed to be able to buy it without being a licenced reseller.
OEM licences can only be activated on one motherboard; it doesn’t come with any MS support and only comes in one form I.E 32 or 64Bit not both.
The software on the OEM disc is exactly the same as the retail; it is only the CD key algorithm that alters how the software is licensed.
I have been reading the ongoing arguments here, and to be honest there seems to be the letter of the licence and the spirit of the licence.
Just because some helpdesk agent at MS allows you to reactivate your software it isn’t a reflection of the actual licence.
The idea is to stop mass piracy, try phoning up Microsoft 10 times a day with your OEM licence and see how helpful they’ll be then.
That long number that you read off over the phone is in actual fact a representation of all the hardware in your PC, so if you have several parts that are the same you will be granted activation anyway.
Hope this helps to make things clearer.
By the way Microsoft are about to reduce the OS pricing if you can wait.