Login:
Password:

Microsoft Restricts Vista Transfers

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

October 17, 2006, 11:00 AM

Microsoft has changed its licensing terms, limiting the number of times that Windows Vista can be transferred to a new computer to just once. Despite Redmond's claims that the move is aimed at combating piracy, it has been questioned by some of the company's biggest supporters.

Previously, Microsoft had allowed its operating systems to be installed as many times as the customer liked, as long as it was uninstalled on the previous computer. However, with the arrival of Windows Vista, that will no longer be possible.

Microsoft claims the ability to transfer copies of Windows was abused, leading to wide-scale piracy. The rule changes also affect those copies of Vista installed with new computers. In all but a few circumstances, the copy would not be transferrable to a new machine.

Additionally, changes have been made with regards to virtual machines as well. Windows Vista Home Basic and Premium cannot be used as a "guest" operating system in VMware or Virtual PC. Users will need to purchase Vista Business or Ultimate Edition to gain this ability.

Two prominent Windows bloggers, Robert McLaws and Ed Bott first reported on the news last week. "Think you can transfer that retail license to any machine you want? Think again," Bott wrote. "[The] limitation on retail licenses is a remarkable change."

McLaws added: "I'm thinking maybe they should put this stuff at the top of the EULA, instead of burying it at the bottom. These are important things that people in a purchasing position need to know about."

Windows pundit Paul Thurrott claimed both Bott and McLaws were wrong and nothing had changed from a licensing perspective, but documentation for Windows XP specifies no such transfer restriction. Public comments from Microsoft now contradict Thurrott's assertions, but the company feels the changes should not affect sales of the new operating system.

Noted Microsoft pundit and JupiterResearch senior analyst Joe Wilcox says Vista's new restrictions are a mistake. "Services like Gmail, Flickr, MySpace and YouTube can be used on any computer. Consumers don't necessarily think in terms of operating systems or applications, but what they can do with a PC," he said.

"Microsoft restricts Windows usage at a time when consumers experience more openness elsewhere."

Add a Comment (68 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By 3dmonkey3000

edited Feb 10, 2007 - 11:07 PM

Wow, Microsoft really are screwed in the head. Seriously, that will accomplish nothing but more complaints from customers, and more people moving to Mac or Linux etc.

Microsoft youve really stuffed up this time. :)

Score: 0

By tbird635

edited Nov 3, 2006 - 11:46 AM

Looks like Microsoft is listening.....

Seems the EULA for Vista has changed to allow the removal from 0ne pc and installation on another per the MS Vista Blog at http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/

"I’m very pleased to let you know you this morning (or afternoon, or evening, depending on where you are when you read this) that the Windows division has revised the retail license terms for Windows Vista in a significant way. Namely, the terms regarding license-to-device assignment of the retail product (including Home Basic, Home Premium, Business and Ultimate) now read as follows:

You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices.

You can find the newly-revised retail license terms here, as I’m sure you’ll want to read them for yourself.

Our intention behind the original terms was genuinely geared toward combating piracy; however, it’s become clear to us that those original terms were perceived as adversely affecting an important group of customers: PC and hardware enthusiasts. You who comprise the enthusiast market are vital to us for several reasons, not least of all because of the support you’ve provided us throughout the development of Windows Vista. We respect the time and expense you go to in customizing, building and rebuilding your hardware and we heard you that the previous terms were seen as an impediment to that -- it’s for that reason we’ve made this change. I hope that this change provides the flexibility you need, and gives you more reason to be excited about the upcoming retail release of our new operating system"

Score: 0

By aztraveler

edited Oct 28, 2006 - 11:53 AM

Guess I won't upgrade to Vista -- will stay w/ XP Pro. I have several computers -- and if one dies (as they have in the past) I won't buy another copy of the OS in order to bring it (or my back-up) back to life.

Score: 0

By dougau

edited Oct 18, 2006 - 4:25 PM

Wow $400.00 for software you can't even install on a new computer, what will Microsoft do for its customers next?
I guess I'm suppose to buy a new copy of every game and other program I own to.

I understand not being able to transfer a OEM version, but by doing this with the retail version Microsoft has made me cancel plans to buy Vista when it comes out and just wait till i get a new computer in a few years. Was going to buy the Vista Ultimate Edition and MS Office package Amazon was offering but won't get ether one now.

Its times like these that makes me glad I didn't install the beta of Vista either.

Score: 0

By uberfly

edited Oct 18, 2006 - 4:26 PM

Friggin MS... Well, thanks at least for making up my mind. A pirated version or nothing. The headaches of using a pirated version don't seem any bigger than using a legit one now.

I mean, where do they get off? I feel guilty if using shady software for the most part, but this would make me feel great. The effort to break their protection schemes are gonna be HUGE.

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 9:24 AM

If this is true, then it is indeed a big mistake and will give me pause on buying Vista when it is released. First of all, how is 'new machine' defined? I don't buy dells or gateways, I build my own systems; I'm now worried that I'll slap in a few new components, or maybe switch my board and cpu at some point and render Vista....what? Unusable? Locked?
If they're going to do this then I recommend they make it WAY cheaper for 1, or subscription based like an antivirus/firewall. I don't know what path they could possibly take, but I will not be buying an OS that will not work on a machine after I change hardware or that I can't put on a new machine that *I* own. For that I rather buy an Intelmac and struggle with obscure software on OSX.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 11:26 AM

I'd rather get a cracked version of OS X to install on the computer that I invested a lot of money into already.

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 8:50 AM

i smell class action.

This is just going to make me pirate the os cuz there is no way in hell im buying another copy the next time i change the mobo.

can anyone verify that they actually mean that you wont be allowed to use it or that it will force you to call them and have the activation revalidated. There's a big difference there.

Score: 0

By donahu1

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 6:03 AM

This is nothing more than greed on the part of MS. It is enough of a hassle everytime you change something in your computer and need to call India for permission to activate. Now they want you to go out and buy another license. If that is NOT greed, then please explain to me further.....

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 7:07 AM

If you have internet connection, activation is as easy as clicking a button.

I doubt many of us would feel the impact of the newly imposed limitation on Vista. But yeah, it is lame, nevertheless.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:23 PM

It's not always easy and two things will make it more difficult: more limitations and extremely bad tech support.

Score: 0

By CyberDoc999

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 5:27 AM

I almost fell out of my chair...
I was laughing so hard………
Who needs Vista?
I would not use it if they gave it away for free!
I will stay with my retail XP thank you…
Someone needs to tell me why I need Vista!
I played with Vista RC2 and it is a bad joke!

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 7:18 AM

RC2 is a big blunder indeed. They admitted that RC2's got issues. Was taken offline few days ago.

I will need Vista for DirectX 10 games.
I will need Vista for much better security.
I will need Vista for the tons of other little enhancements. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/...Vista#Core_technologies

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:21 PM

You know, DirectX 10 is the stinkbait they're holding out for gamers. Watch out for that hook. I'd rather have a stable system and forgo just a little eye-candy.

Score: 0

By photonboy

edited Oct 18, 2006 - 4:58 AM

This is NOT the solution to piracy, and may even be a deal-breaker for me. There are other, better solutions. What happens when I decide to upgrade my computer? Am I expected to shell out another $400 if I spend $200-$400 to upgrade my system?
If they go this route I may just stick with XP, wait until I need new hardware then switch to a Mac.

About piracy. This decision will actually ENCOURAGE piracy. Frustrated consumers might decide to crack a version of Vista rather than purchasing the product like they would have.

No, it may not affect sales in the short term but it's a powerful incentive to finally blow of Microsoft forever.

This is just WRONG!!

*If Microsoft got its act together they could modify Vista to use CRC (Cyclic Redundancy Check's) like they use for e-mail. The computer could scan the hard drive for deviations down to a single bit change. This eliminates piracy, viruses and provide the ability to rebuild the entire operating system from just a few lines of code.
Novel ideas like this are what Microsoft should be striving for.

Score: 0

By DudeBoyz

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 4:03 AM

As lame as this move is by Microsoft, I have a feeling that no matter what people say, they are going to cave and probably not do a darn thing to combat this.

It's the nature of people. They whine and complain, but when it comes to actually getting off their tails and taking a stand, few actually follow through.

Linux has been the toast of the town before, yet the number of people actually moving to it is minor. Why? "It's too inconvenient to change". Sure. Why be bothered to invest a little time and energy to teach Microsoft a lesson? It's just too much of a hassle, they will say.

I sure would like to see Steve Jobs free up OS X so it can be installed on ANY standard PC hardware. I think that may be one of the few chances anyone has of actually sending a message that Microsoft may listen to.

My personal opinion for the Operating System should be that as long as I remove it from one machine, I'm free to move it to whichever machine I choose to. After all, I did pay for the thing, and it should be my right to have that ONE SINGLE COPY installed wherever I need it to be installed. A single user license should not be allowed to be installed on more than one machine at a time. I totally agree. But to tell me I can't move it to another machine? That's just flat out silly.

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 3:21 AM

This is great - I can just see someone re-installing on the same machine and needing to buy a new copy of Vista. Brilliant!

Think it won't happen? I've activated XP Home 4 times on the same machine in one day due to installing new drivers (no, not changing hardware) and having problems with various software programs. I highly doubt my clients would stand for paying for an extra couple of copies of Vista because re-installation was necessary.

Got lawsuit?

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 3:57 AM

I believe you got it wrong.

Reinstalling on same hardware is allowed. The restriction applies to reinstalling on NEW machine (eg. when you change to a new PC).

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 9:30 AM

Reinstalling on the 'same hardware' has many shades of grey. We have no idea how many pieces of hardware it takes to have Vista 'think' that it's on a new machine. For instance, I own XP Pro (legally), and I had to change the board and cpu of my machine and afterwards XP had to be activated again. That was as easy as a phonecall. But if MS doesn't allow this for Vista, then we don't know what will happen in this same case. I've also known situations where mucked up installations could easily cause multiple phonecalls to MS for activation.

Therein lies the problem.

Score: 0

By straylight

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 8:21 AM

Templar you dont understand. He is saying his XP install believed he had enough new hardware to warrant an activation. If this were a VISTA installastion, according to the new EULA, He would have been only able to reactivate 1 of 4 times he reactivated.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:25 PM

Exactly. THAT's the problem, plus the fact that if you have to get support, you are in deep stuff. Microsoft's tech support has gone way down just like the rest of the industry. Vista is going to be a lot more fun to watch from the valley below.

Score: 0

By cranbers

edited Oct 18, 2006 - 1:42 AM

I love computers and build a brand new computer every year. The fact the os has to be an added cost for each and every time says I need to just buy oem I guess. The only benefit to buying retail boxed was for that ability to transfer. Retail software with xp provides their phone support and the ability to transfer to a new computer with a phone call. Now there is no reason.

The idea of activation was leading up to this we all had to realize that. Microsoft is a greedy hungry beast. They want money and are becoming more and more unethical about getting it. What is the reason for this other then to screw us, the consumer who legitimately paid for a license. Simple, they want you to pay for a new license each and every time you upgrade your computer enough that it could be considered a new one.

Ok imagine this, you went out and bought yourself that new video card, but then your power supply friend your motherboard. While you were at it you bought a new hard drive. Already your talking lets say 400 dollars for basic medicore computer components. You get them all installed and power on your system. You pop in the vista disc all excited. Install completes, you try to activate. Nope won't take it. You call microsoft, and some lady in an indian accent answers, sorry sir you already activated this copy of windows and it can't be transferred, would you like to buy a new key for 200 dollars?

What a slap in the face.

So this is a perfect opportunity for people to search out alternatives. The big selling point will be no activation. As well as it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars, with more if you upgrade your computer.

So while microsoft is using piracy as an excuse to do this, they are also creating new reason for people to pirate. Who wants to buy a new copy of vista each time they upgrade their computer, I mean one freebee?

There will be corporate versions of vista out there that doesn't require activation. So I have no doubt there will be some version of vista that is piratable.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 9:43 AM

The only benefit to buying retail boxed was for that ability to transfer. Retail software with xp provides their phone support and the ability to transfer to a new computer with a phone call. Now there is no reason.

Exactly. I agree 100%. This is ludicrous.

There will be corporate versions of vista out there that doesn't require activation. So I have no doubt there will be some version of vista that is piratable.

Built in WGA will kill that. Vista will be incredibly hard to pirate and will be pretty useless when it is pirated (No updates). Best to stick with XP.

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 9:07 PM

Idiotic.

Score: 0

By saint.alpha

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 7:09 PM

Give it about a week with the phone people being swamped by people upgrading hardware or switching stuff around between towers (something I do frequently) and they will see that their license is a miserable failure.

I do like the USB stick idea mentioned below, and it has to be doable, USB drives are dirt cheap now, and they'd only need an extremely small capacity to do that, and every PC that can run Vista has a USB drive..

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 1:49 AM

Keep in mind the usb stick dongle like an encryption key would suck. What do you do if it goes out on you like usb drives do all the time? Imagine having a very expensive money making machine with all your business critical data on it. Now imagine it being acessable only through a microsoft dongle key. Now imagine that key going out, and is inoperative. You just lost access to your computer and no doubt your drive would be encrypted. So, your screwed, start from scratch unless of course you have a mirrored drive that copies everything to a non microsoft encrypted hard drive.

So yeah not a good idea. Microsoft makes billions of dollars a year and they spend it to make it difficult for piracy so they can attempt to make more. it's like they are milking the cow and now giving it steroids. The problem is the steroids are bad and will start making the customers sick. So they will start leaving. Good job.

Score: 0

By Galway

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 6:27 PM

They can alter the licience as much as they want, enforcing it is another matter. I upgrade my PC all the time, and cant see this really going ahead without a massive backlash. MS will backdown, they will have to LOL

Score: 0

By The Man

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 5:38 PM

so...
what are the benefits of downgrading to Vista?

Score: 0

By bsf

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:24 AM

so you have to buy newer hardware with more expensive components, and well, in this case, with another Vista pre-installed, I guess.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:26 PM

Or you can buy that new hardware and enjoy the tremendous speed of XP!

Score: 0

By RejZoR

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 3:59 PM

How should i spell LAME!!!!1111ONEONEONE

If i buy their OS i expect i'll be able to install it as often as want to, even if that's every day.

Score: 0

By BIL

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 3:51 PM

It's Microsoft's way of forcing people to buy software. Every time you want to upgrade hardware you will have to buy a new license. Most of us have no real need to upgrade beyond XP. For years they have been dropping support to previous editions to garner sales of the "new" OS. They have made up my mind. I'll stick to XP as long as it meets my needs and then I'll switch to something else. Can anyone say GREEDY?

Score: 0

By GCoder

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 3:40 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Windows Vista sucks more than XP HAHAHA

Score: 0

By templar™

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 3:58 AM

Could the admin please delete the above post by GCoder?

It spoils the page layout.

Score: 0

By crashoverride

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 3:00 PM

Ya know...I was really looking forward to Vista. I even built a new dual core computer. Alas this is the proverbial straw. Since I put this money into this new system I don't believe I'll be getting a Mac for some time now so it looks like Linux for me.

Score: 0

By elftyrrell

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 3:39 PM

I agree, this is a kind of last straw. I may not switch to Linux but I will definitely not upgrade any time soon now. I can't wait to see how this all falls out. Something has to give. This is draconian.

XP works for me. I can't see any need for a new OS in the next six to twelve months, possibly longer.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 2:07 PM

Now that's just dumb.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 3:24 PM

I've known about this for weeks, maybe even months :p...as I'm sure some others. It's just the closer and closer we get to store shelves the more anxious I am over this fact.

Man I hope they change it somehow...either by what I suggested way down there or like what iceykoyla said.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 9:39 AM

Funny thing is, this simple little change just lost them an enormous amount of users/supporters.

I can't defend them anymore. This is too just about the stupidest thing I've ever seen. If you buy the Full Retail version, you should be able to install it on any number of computers (as long as it's only installed on one at a time). That was the main benefit of the Full Retail version.

...now it's just a more expensive OEM version.

Stupid.

I'll keep my action-pack, but I'll not be recommending Vista to anyone any longer.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

edited Oct 18, 2006 - 12:33 PM

You bring an interesting point to mind. Does Microsoft have any idea how many people look to pc enthusiasts, gamers, admins, and IT workers for advice on things like upgrading an OS. I'm sure you can influence the buying choices of friends and acquaintances, as can many readers here. I have several friends who won't even look at a new OS unless I recommend it (and install it) and I can't tell any of them that they should buy Vista. Do they really think a slick ad campaign is going to overcome word-of-mouth.

Score: 0

By BR548

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 1:40 PM

Just like everything else people are stealing, give it a reasonable price and more people will buy it instead of steal it. I don't plan on moving to vista, when it comes time for me to upgrade os'es I'm switching to linux.

Score: 0

By Metshrine

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 7:54 PM

I'm sure you will. And when you come back to Windows because you A. cant figure it out, B. Cant get the software or games you use to work with linux and C. find yourself patching it daily with 40+ updates per day, I will be the one here saying "I told you so"

Score: 0

By andrewdownloader

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:32 PM

Microsoft Guys are some crazy...I think I'll switch to a Mac

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:42 PM

I already did - you won't go back....it's great!

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:36 PM

I have both and I use the Mac more and more all the time. Heck, I'm thinkin' a nice quad G5 with Mac OSX and XP for gaming might be nice.

Score: 0

By jbaltz69

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:29 PM

So if I change out my video card and format my machine, Vista won't work? Microsoft needs to explain this further or if anyone has a link to a more in depth article, please post.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:15 PM

What's next? Windows Vista Dongle?

Score: 0

By Heero

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:39 PM

I'm just waiting for the day man.

Score: 0

By IceyKola

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:03 PM

I'm guessing this means I can't install both 32-bit and 64-bit version on the same computer on different partitions? Or can I? Maybe they should give out USB keys with a chip that unlocks the OS or something. It could be built into laptops and desktops from computer builders so that they can't transfer to another computer. They can tie the key to the product ID. That way it can't be used on more than 1 computer at any time. If they want they can buy additional USB keys.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 1:21 AM

Don't give them any more ideas. Now imagine if the chip fails or goes out. yeah that would be the ultimate anti pirate method but talk about pain in the ass.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:58 PM

I almost feel sorry for you guys that try to stay legit.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:36 PM

Limit it to 25. That is when piracy is addressed. A limit of one targets a consumer.

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:47 PM

I agree. Although, I wouldn't say 25. I'd put it more at 5. How many users are going to have more than 5 computers within the OS's lifetime that don't already come with the OS pre-installed? Extremely few I would imagine. I could be wrong, though. It wouldn't be the first time.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:14 PM

Sure - 5, 8, 12, 4, whatever. The point is that a normal consumer will own multiple machines with one OS. I know I've owned 3 boxes with the same XP. That's not a bad thing. XP has been my OS of choice while manufacturing has gotten a lot better.

I think hardware manufacturers REALLY need to see this as a potential problem, and a reason why consumers might not buy their hardware. It would deter me.

Score: 0

By JKimbley

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:31 PM

If they believe this is going to reduce piracy, they are sadly mistaken.

Score: 0

By freegoo

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:28 PM

Pretty stupid on Microsofts part. As it was, Vista was a bit of a hard sell for an upgrade. XP just works for the majority of users out there, and many of Vista's changes are under the hood. The people that would be most inclined to upgrade (the enthusiasts) are getting screwed by this new policy.

And it's ironic if this is put in there to STOP piracy, as additionaly limits are only going to encourage it. The MPAA is even starting to see that.

Myself, I won't buy any license that restricts me from moving my license along with my computer upgrades. When my computer gets its own job and pays for its own license, then it can own my license. Till then, I won't be buying a new one every motherboard upgrade. I'll just stick with XP till it dies and/or move to Linux.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:24 PM

Their mistake is failing to consider that the licensing for the pirated versions are much more relaxed. You can install them as many times and on as many machines as you want. So they are just hurting the honest consumers here, and probably driving even more of them to run pirated copies.

Score: 0

By plague201

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:59 PM

Yeah pirated copies completely strip the need for licensing. Hell, they take off the need to enter a key.

Score: 0

By tankist

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 1:39 PM

here you go. i own a XP licence but i still prefer to install twicked pirated versions on my machine just for not entering any numbers. pisses the hell out of me. i'm sure it is still not perfectly legal from MS stand point, but in my opinion i'm good - i OWN a licence...

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 12:37 PM

I got mine from my school with no activation. Unfortunately, Microsoft ended that program.

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:22 PM

I had a feeling sense they started this with windows XP they be doing somthing like this someday. makes me wonder i wonder how strict the hardware changes are with Vista now?

Score: 0

By Jonus

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 12:36 PM

My question is, "what is a new computer"? If i replace the motherboard? If i replace the hard disk vista is on? What is it.

I would have like to have a completely different License then what MS offers. I want a personal License that allows me to run Vista on what ever system i like. The limitation of such a license would be that my windows vista can only run on one system at a time never on two.

Score: 0

By THZGryphon

edited Oct 17, 2006 - 12:30 PM

Probably the same changes that cause you to re-activate Windows XP today. I changed a sound card once and it caused me to re-activate.

Score: 0

By Jonus

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 12:40 PM

Thats crazy. I do things like that every second day.

Score: 0

By Heero

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 1:41 PM

Once I put in a new video card, and a new harddrive, and it asked me to re-activate.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 2:35 PM

If I format my hard drive and reinstall Windows XP Professional SP 2 on the exact same hardware it gives me a message stating I have to contact Microsoft by phone to reactivate Windows every single time. Since I am constantly testing different Linux distributions and different Unix versions I reinstall Windows XP quite frequently on my computer.

Score: 0

By 4wd

posted Oct 18, 2006 - 3:47 AM

Obvious I know, but why not use one of those internal removable drive carriers?

Unplug XP, plug in a blank drive to test Linux.

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Oct 17, 2006 - 11:57 AM

"it has been questioned by some of the company's biggest supporters."

yup...being one of them this is something on my mind all the time. The scary thing is if you install on a "default" set up, and start testing your system for overclocking...you can alter it enough that windows thinks it's on another computer.

They need to rework this somehow, not sure how. Maybe just go ahead and provide us with NAND drives with the OS embedded. At $400 with an OS on a 16BG NAND drive, I'd buy without blinking. Of course, then, I'd hope to be able to move my drive around when I need to upgrade.

Very touchy this thing.

Score: 0