MS Product Activation - will my upgrade fall foul?

Hi

I'm considering an upgrade for my main PC. Trouble is, what I have in mind is so extensive that it amounts to replacing my machine. The only "hardware characteristics" carried-over will be 1 of the 2 hard disks and the multi-drive. And it's possible (can't remember for sure) that neither of the hard drives I now have installed were there the last time I had to activate MPA.

So, obviously, MPA is going to be triggered again if I go ahead. Will I then be disallowed by MS from using either of my existing (upgrade) copies of XP Home on this computer, and therefore forced to buy another copy? This would radically alter my hardware upgrade budget - and might well deter me from upgrading at all.

If this is MS's policy then I must say that I'd regard it as unethical business practice (and that's being polite, so this posting won't get censored - what I'd actually think would be unprintable!).

 

I think you are making much ado about nothing - keep your shirt on. Technically speaking, perhaps you should be required to buy a new OS (depending on your version of XP), however, I've been through this many times with OEM versions of XP and Microsoft has always been most accomodating. You will need to call them and go through a little routine with numbers but if you are cordial and honest, they will treat you with the same respect and you will be back in business without having to dig into your pocketbook.

There may be reasons to cuss about MS, but I think you will find this isn't one of them.

 

Rockster2u

I will concede that whenever in the past I've had to 'phone MS in order to get my copies of XP activated their Product Activation people have invariably been helpful. However, the changes to my hardware have never before been as extensive (or expensive!) as those I'm now contemplating, and that's why I'm more anxious about MPA on this occasion.

I'm sure you can understand. If I'm going to find after having shelled-out over 660 euros that MS isn't going to allow me to install one of the two copies of XP Home that I own on that PC, then it's too late to change my mind and get my money back. The retailer isn't going to accept that as sufficient grounds for a return/refund - and I don't blame him. So I'd then be forced to pay whatever it costs to buy a new o/s - either XP Pro x64 or some flavour of Vista, I guess, and that would constitute a sizable further outlay. I might at some stage consider that a worthwhile investment on its merits but that's a separate issue and I want to be allowed to decide it myself not when and if MS's MPA forces me to.

Steve

No, I'm afraid I can't understand. MS claims that the MPA system is aimed at combating software piracy. How in God's name does that justify MS dictating to me on what hardware I choose to run a copy of XP of which I am the legitimate owner having paid good money for it (including MS's profit-margin)? I can already guess what your answer will be and I'm sure we could argue over this till hell freezes over. Meanwhile, though, I'm in a genuine dilemma and your comment doesn't help me solve it. In case it escaped your notice, I do own two copies of Windows XP, and I currently run one copy on each of two PC's - one of which I now want to upgrade. Yes, the parts I replace wiould then become surplus to my requirements - so what? It happens all the time, and what's it got to do with software piracy anyway?

 

kosketus:

In light of the problem you have accepting Microsoft's official policy, I would certainly hope that if you feel you have a legitimate gripe, you would air that discussion with the appropriate individuals responsible for licensing and protecting Microsoft's intellectual property rights. They will be glad to engage you. This subject has been kicked around enough different times that its grown old and tired. You are entitled to hold your own opinion but I doubt that all the BBS posting in the world is going to convince MS of its validity.

Some things we can change and some things we can't - I prefer to spend my time working on or discussing those that we can.



Pete: Keep those changes bottled up on that side of the pond - still pretty much the same as it has been over here - Guess thats to be expected though - wasn't Blackbeard an Englishman?

 

I might have some information (I know, we all seem to be being treated as pirates )

It seems you have two upgrade versions of XP. The upgrade versions allow you a saving against buying the full version. If you had of purchased the full version, from my understanding, you would be able to use the installation (activation) through four upgades of computer. Edit: I think you would have been able to use it on both of your current computers, and still have two computer upgrades.

Rockster's suggestion that they may be understanding of the situation may work, but they will know about your previous hardware upgrades. My experience of dealing with them here, when I had problems with a new installation disk, was that the person read from his script and would not deviate from it. I would have had to pay an extra $40 for a new disk (it apparently got scratched in the drive, not that I inspected the data side).

You have had a reasonable deal compared to buying a full version, but I think the way you are upgrading your hardware means that you should be using a full version (not my rules...microsoft's ).

Matt

 

Ouch - second time tonight I've caught myself reading too fast. Good catch on the "Upgrade" version Matt and yet kosketus made that plain as day in his original post - I glossed over that and might have done a disservice to kosketus because of it.

I have no idea how MS will handle the "upgrade" version being used a second time around. If its any consolation, I picked up 5 copies of the Upgrade version of XP Home @ $60 each at Best Buy last October or November. I should have bought several more but it was the first time I used Home on any machines. Haven't seen similar pricing since.

kosketus : that "Upgrade" catch just made me very uncertain of what you can expect. Sorry for misleading you, but I'd now call it a cr@p shoot - maybe someone else can answer the question.

 

Hi all

This has been most enlightening, and I'm grateful for all the help offered.

I wish I'd understood the "catch" about the upgrade version at the time when I was making the original purchase because then I'd have bought one full version (at a premium) instead of two upgrade versions (although these were bought at different times and in different countries). I just wasn't farsighted/knowledgeable enough - didn't even anticipate needing more than one copy! I suppose I just have to write that off to experience.

It's now clear to me that if I want to go ahead with this hardware purchase I'm going to have to factor-in the cost of yet another copy of Windows of some flavour (or migrate totally to Linux ).

I think that means I'll have to shelve it.

Before leaving this subject, might I ask for some further advice from you guys? A retailer here has XP Pro x64 OEM version at what seems a good price (138 euro). But what disadvantages would an OEM version have (once bitten twice shy, as they say)?

 

I tried this, years ago when I first became aware of MS's policy which I then regarded - and still do - as unconscionable. I got a long letter back full of corporate-speak which attempted to justify their policy as being for my protection. At that point, I'm afraid, I washed my hands of MS.

 

PeteC is quite right. I recently converted my Linux test machine to XP in order to give the machine to young grandchildren, and it went through with no problem, although I had expected some.
I borrowed an update copy of XP Home, which had incidentally been used on another machine, installed a CD for Windows ME when requested by the install process, and the XP install completed OK. What did surprise me was that the the XP install validated on line, no phone call necessary, even though it had been installed on another machine as well.
A very pleasant surprise because I had thought that maybe I would have to buy another licence for the second install.

Roger

 

Aside from compatibility issues - which, now that Vista is getting into its stride, will presumably become progressively fewer (or is that naive?) - any other reasons?

Sorry, Arie, but you've lost me here!

The seller of the OEM version I referred to (who's a reputable retailer) is selling it independently of any hardware. So it can't be tied to any specific hardware, can it? The only disadvantage I can see would be that (unlike a retail version) I would not be entitled to any product support from MS. Or am I missing something important?

Another edit:-

Is it this that would be the problem (the quote is from your article)? Would I be likely to find when I tried to activate an OEM version that MS would refuse to activate it?

 

Yes, this has been my own previous experience too.

But (aiming for maximum clarity here) it's not quite that straightforward! The first copy of any version of Windows I owned was an OEM version of Win98, which came with the computer on which it had been preinstalled by the manufacturer. Subsequently I bought (over the internet, from the MS website) a Win98 SE upgrade CDROM, which is labelled on the cover "not for retail or OEM distribution ", and is described (oddly) as being "for users of Windows 3.1x and Windows 95 "(!). It's this CDROM which I've since used when installing XP from my XP upgrade CDROM, and it's always been accepted.

So it seems that an Upgrade (from 98 to 98SE) CDROM can be regarded by MS as a "Full Copy ", unlike an "upgrade version" of a MS product. Confused? I sure as hell am!

 

I've had no problems re-activating OEM versions of XP Pro after MAJOR rebuilds. Our friends in India have always been accommodating.

I've been told by people more knowledgeable than myself that you should tell MS that you are replacing a defective component(s)...not that you are doing an upgrade and replacing many components. Technically, your license isn't supposed to cover a major upgrade.

IMHO, if the OS you bought is still only being used on one single machine regardless of its components, I don't think you should have to buy another copy. To me, that's ridiculous.

I have no experience with OS upgrades in this matter.