Welcome to Vista Banter. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to ask questions and reply to others posts, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact support. |
|
Hardware and Windows Vista Hardware issues in relation to Windows Vista. (microsoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices) |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
Where "computer" is defined is in the OEM (System Builder) License. That
license is not an end user license at all but licenses the installation of the software on a computer for sale to a customer. That's the license the buyer of OEM software (for example on NewEgg) is bound by. The purchaser of the OEM sb license only has the right to install the software on a customer system. He does not have the right to use the software himself. In any case, "computer" is a: "1. Definitions. a. “Customer System” means a fully assembled computer system that includes a CPU, a motherboard, a power supply, an internally mounted NAND or revolving magnetic-based hard drive, and a case." The end user is bound by the EULA which the system builder puts on the machine automatically when he installs Windows (required). The OEM license expires when the Customer System passes into the control of the customer and the EULA takes effect at that point. The customer is bound by that EULA once he accepts it during the first run routine. All this is why NewEgg prints the disclaimer on the Product Specifications Tab on the order page for each System Builder package it sells. "Disclaimer Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows software and cannot be transferred to another computer once it is installed. To acquire Windows software with support provided by Microsoft please see our full package "Retail" product offerings." I hope all this helps us all at least get our terminology straight. "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well it mentions device, but a device that "you may install the software to" and the same device that "you may use a software on". If we look that strict that means if you acquired OEM Vista with a piece of hardware (like a cable ) there is no way installing/using it without violating EULA. (Well unless your acquired with a harddrive and it's internal DSP can run it. (most likely not )) Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: The Consumer_OEM EULA does not mention "computer." It uses the term "device." "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. That device is the “licensed device.” A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device. a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. You may not use the software on any other device." In any event, the EULA does not address the issue of whether a component or particular set of components constitute a new computer if changed because it is an activation issue and not a licensing issue. "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ... No, you're not screwed. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070130-8730.html It's not an official Microsoft article, but I believe that it is correct. The short version: you can upgrade anything except the motherboard. Not true. The EULA that the user agrees to makes NO mention of the motherboard. All it says is "New Computer" and then singularly fails to define what a "new computer" is.... Apparently you can even do upgrades to the extent that would require Vista to be activated again.You may be able to replace the motherboard (with a different model) if it dies, but that would be at the discretion of Microsoft. No, at the discretion of the System Builder. |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
MS marketing is behind this, of course. By placing limitations to the
product in the license Marketing is seeking to "add value" to the higher priced versions of the product in which no restriction is placed. In this case they are differentiating in favor of Server. It is all over the place across the Vista editions and why I am advocating that users push for a single edition of Windows 7. It is technically artificial as heck and I find "crippling" editions just for price differentiation obnoxious. "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well EULA written by and for lawyers after all. Here is a nice example: 1. Device Connections. You may allow up to 5 other devices to connect to the software installed on the licensed device to use File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection Sharing and Telephony Services. However, you may not exceed a total of 5 connections at one time. A question: It is really users task to count incomming connections (via portscanner) and limit at 5 established connection (for the following services up) (in common sense this would be the task of OS (in this case Windows should not lock the services in 5 connection?)). P.S.: I know the question is looks stupid but you will see where would i love to point to. Csaba Steve Thackery wrote: No of course it's not..... Don't dismiss it so glibly. In fact there is some truth in the issue: a change big enough to constitute a 'new device' (computer) would exceed the bounds of the EULA. The complicated bit is what is meant by a "big enough change". I don't think this has been tested in court, but I would imagine Microsoft would balk at an upgraded motherboard. SteveT |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
Well that is all nice, but it is still user fault if a product not
technically not block at the limit (a 6th connection made) if we look at the EULA. Example: Take an XP Home (think Vista too but never tried) system, add Windows Component LPD Unix Print Services (it is a Printing Service EULA tells YOU can only allow 5 connection to it (less if you using IIS/IFS concurrently)). Well that LPD Print Server (in my experience) will not really care about open IIS/IFS connections, more of that not really cares how many client using it. (think it would broke it would broke RFC if do so). So if there is 5 IFS share connection to that machine, and another machine on network just start scanning for LPD print servers (connection required). EULA violated there is a nice chance user not even knew he was violated it but still he is as he let 6th connection made. Question: Is it users fault? Ok i know Windows users 0.1% use Unix Printing Services. But still if there is a limit in EULA, there should be a coresponding technical limit in software too. Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: MS marketing is behind this, of course. By placing limitations to the product in the license Marketing is seeking to "add value" to the higher priced versions of the product in which no restriction is placed. In this case they are differentiating in favor of Server. It is all over the place across the Vista editions and why I am advocating that users push for a single edition of Windows 7. It is technically artificial as heck and I find "crippling" editions just for price differentiation obnoxious. "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well EULA written by and for lawyers after all. Here is a nice example: 1. Device Connections. You may allow up to 5 other devices to connect to the software installed on the licensed device to use File Services, Print Services, Internet Information Services and Internet Connection Sharing and Telephony Services. However, you may not exceed a total of 5 connections at one time. A question: It is really users task to count incomming connections (via portscanner) and limit at 5 established connection (for the following services up) (in common sense this would be the task of OS (in this case Windows should not lock the services in 5 connection?)). P.S.: I know the question is looks stupid but you will see where would i love to point to. Csaba Steve Thackery wrote: No of course it's not..... Don't dismiss it so glibly. In fact there is some truth in the issue: a change big enough to constitute a 'new device' (computer) would exceed the bounds of the EULA. The complicated bit is what is meant by a "big enough change". I don't think this has been tested in court, but I would imagine Microsoft would balk at an upgraded motherboard. SteveT |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
The EULA also prohibts workarounds that circumvent any term of the EULA.
"8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not · work around any technical limitations in the software; · reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;...." "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well that is all nice, but it is still user fault if a product not technically not block at the limit (a 6th connection made) if we look at the EULA. Example: Take an XP Home (think Vista too but never tried) system, add Windows Component LPD Unix Print Services (it is a Printing Service EULA tells YOU can only allow 5 connection to it (less if you using IIS/IFS concurrently)). Well that LPD Print Server (in my experience) will not really care about open IIS/IFS connections, more of that not really cares how many client using it. (think it would broke it would broke RFC if do so). So if there is 5 IFS share connection to that machine, and another machine on network just start scanning for LPD print servers (connection required). EULA violated there is a nice chance user not even knew he was violated it but still he is as he let 6th connection made. Question: Is it users fault? Ok i know Windows users 0.1% use Unix Printing Services. But still if there is a limit in EULA, there should be a coresponding technical limit in software too. Csaba |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
Well still to remain with the same example, LPD is windows component
(you can add/remove it via add/remove windows components), if you want to print from Unix/Linux workstation to a Windows Workstation you need it. (So i think we can agree until this point no EULA violation happens, as it would be funny to violate EULA just by installing a Windows Component) As component not have "technical limitation" as defined in EULA (well it works as defined in RFC1179) so it is hard to circumvent it. (how to circumvent something not exists??) And that is the very same reason it can cause EULA violation. So there should be a technical limitation in it (just like in IIS/IFS if i remember good) for the 0.1% of windows users want to use it (iam not in the group ). Or EULA should be more precise (like.: Windows File Services, Windows Print Services, Internet Information Services) especially if the product contains Unix Print Services which not contains the technical limitation defined by EULA. Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: The EULA also prohibts workarounds that circumvent any term of the EULA. "8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not · work around any technical limitations in the software; · reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;...." "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well that is all nice, but it is still user fault if a product not technically not block at the limit (a 6th connection made) if we look at the EULA. Example: Take an XP Home (think Vista too but never tried) system, add Windows Component LPD Unix Print Services (it is a Printing Service EULA tells YOU can only allow 5 connection to it (less if you using IIS/IFS concurrently)). Well that LPD Print Server (in my experience) will not really care about open IIS/IFS connections, more of that not really cares how many client using it. (think it would broke it would broke RFC if do so). So if there is 5 IFS share connection to that machine, and another machine on network just start scanning for LPD print servers (connection required). EULA violated there is a nice chance user not even knew he was violated it but still he is as he let 6th connection made. Question: Is it users fault? Ok i know Windows users 0.1% use Unix Printing Services. But still if there is a limit in EULA, there should be a coresponding technical limit in software too. Csaba |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
"Nogginsaked" wrote in message
... I changed a video card on a system running a shrink wrapped, store bought version of Vista. I had to call Microsoft support in India and get a new activation code. Microsoft deserves the success it has had with Vista. But it was a toll-free number, yes? |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
There would only be a EULA violation if the limitation is, as you say, cited
by the EULA. Only a few technical limitations are covered by the EULA. The few that are cited are items Marketing has identified as signature items that Marketing chooses to use to differentiate editions. Whatever issues surround working with other technical limitations, compliance with the EULA is not an issue for the non-cited limitations. "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well still to remain with the same example, LPD is windows component (you can add/remove it via add/remove windows components), if you want to print from Unix/Linux workstation to a Windows Workstation you need it. (So i think we can agree until this point no EULA violation happens, as it would be funny to violate EULA just by installing a Windows Component) As component not have "technical limitation" as defined in EULA (well it works as defined in RFC1179) so it is hard to circumvent it. (how to circumvent something not exists??) And that is the very same reason it can cause EULA violation. So there should be a technical limitation in it (just like in IIS/IFS if i remember good) for the 0.1% of windows users want to use it (iam not in the group ). Or EULA should be more precise (like.: Windows File Services, Windows Print Services, Internet Information Services) especially if the product contains Unix Print Services which not contains the technical limitation defined by EULA. Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: The EULA also prohibts workarounds that circumvent any term of the EULA. "8. SCOPE OF LICENSE. The software is licensed, not sold. This agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights. Unless applicable law gives you more rights despite this limitation, you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so, you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. For more information, see http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/userights. You may not · work around any technical limitations in the software; · reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the software, except and only to the extent that applicable law expressly permits, despite this limitation;...." "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well that is all nice, but it is still user fault if a product not technically not block at the limit (a 6th connection made) if we look at the EULA. Example: Take an XP Home (think Vista too but never tried) system, add Windows Component LPD Unix Print Services (it is a Printing Service EULA tells YOU can only allow 5 connection to it (less if you using IIS/IFS concurrently)). Well that LPD Print Server (in my experience) will not really care about open IIS/IFS connections, more of that not really cares how many client using it. (think it would broke it would broke RFC if do so). So if there is 5 IFS share connection to that machine, and another machine on network just start scanning for LPD print servers (connection required). EULA violated there is a nice chance user not even knew he was violated it but still he is as he let 6th connection made. Question: Is it users fault? Ok i know Windows users 0.1% use Unix Printing Services. But still if there is a limit in EULA, there should be a coresponding technical limit in software too. Csaba |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 03:36:35 -0700, "Bender"
wrote: My research a few months ago found that Microsoft considers the mother board to the the heart of the computer and changing the mother board constitutes a new computer. While Microsoft may or may not "consider that", they make absolutely NO mention of it in our licenses. Therefore, they cannot make their "consideration" part of the license. IF they want to do that, they MUST mention it SPECIFICALLY in the EULA. Don't believe me? Ask a lawyer what he thinks. He will just laugh at such a concept of "their internal consideration" being part of our licenses. Folks, time to grow up, and stop letting Microsoft give us an EULA, then saying it "really means such and such". The EULA is very clear on the terms of our license agreements. Additionally, the U.S. Constitution is very clear about Grandfather laws -- they are strictly illegal. [snip irrelevant information] No, at the discretion of the System Builder. IF we build our own machine, we ARE the System Builder. IN that case, it would be at OUR OWN discretion. -- Donald L. McDaniel |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:04 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst"
wrote: Where "computer" is defined is in the OEM (System Builder) License. That license is not an end user license at all but licenses the installation of the software on a computer for sale to a customer. That's the license the buyer of OEM software (for example on NewEgg) is bound by. The purchaser of the OEM sb license only has the right to install the software on a customer system. He does not have the right to use the software himself. In any case, "computer" is a: "1. Definitions. a. Customer System means a fully assembled computer system that includes a CPU, a motherboard, a power supply, an internally mounted NAND or revolving magnetic-based hard drive, and a case." Since this is NOT part of our EULA, It does NOT apply to end-users. Check with your lawyers, Colin. It is definitely NOT legal to require one to keep terms which are NOT contained in the WRITTEN DOCUMENT itself. ONLY a bribed judge would ever attempt to uphold such a license. When we sign off on a legal agreement, we sign off ONLY on the document itself. The end user is bound by the EULA which the system builder puts on the machine automatically when he installs Windows (required). NOT ALL SYSTEM BUILDERS do such a thing "automatically", nor do they "Always" put Windows on their machines, Colin. The OEM license expires when the Customer System passes into the control of the customer and the EULA takes effect at that point. The customer is bound by that EULA once he accepts it during the first run routine. Ok, now, Colin: since you want to give quasi-legal opinions, what about the man who is his OWN system builder? IN any case, the EULA NOWHERE defines what a "computer" is (or is not). Therefore, we are NOT bound by the System Builder License (unless we build our own systems). So WHAT are we bound by AFTER we install the OS, other than the EULA? Which does NOT define just what a computer is? I think Microsoft is going to HAVE to change the language of our EULAs, if they want to be telling us what they MEANT to say (but DID NOT!). IF that happens, they will have a FIGHT On their hands for sure. All this is why NewEgg prints the disclaimer on the Product Specifications Tab on the order page for each System Builder package it sells. I guess you would have to ask THEIR lawyers, wouldn't you, before going off and deciding for yourself their motives. "Disclaimer Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows software and cannot be transferred to another computer once it is installed. To acquire Windows software with support provided by Microsoft please see our full package "Retail" product offerings." Looks to me they are just trying to cover their arses, not inform the end user about his EULA. I hope all this helps us all at least get our terminology straight. ONLY A COURT OF LAW can do that. As far as I Know, the EULA has NEVER been tested in a court of law here in the States. You have defintely failed to do that, Colin (unless you claim to be a licensed attorney, and can prove it). "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well it mentions device, but a device that "you may install the software to" and the same device that "you may use a software on". If we look that strict that means if you acquired OEM Vista with a piece of hardware (like a cable ) there is no way installing/using it without violating EULA. NOT so, friend. The EULA SPECIFICALLY gives the owner the right to install the software on his licensed machine, if needed, as long as he legally acquired the license (i.e., "didn't steal it"). There is definitely NO question about that. (Well unless your acquired with a harddrive and it's internal DSP can run it. (most likely not )) Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: The Consumer_OEM EULA does not mention "computer." It uses the term "device." "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. That device is the licensed device. A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device. a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. You may not use the software on any other device." In any event, the EULA does not address the issue of whether a component or particular set of components constitute a new computer if changed because it is an activation issue and not a licensing issue. Then if it is NOT a "licensing issue", WHY would they DENY anyone an activation, since as long as one keeps the terms of the EULA, Microsoft is REQUIRED BY LAW to activate one's installation? Face it folks, if you want a LEGALLY binding opinion, DON'T come to a newsgroup, even if it IS sponsored by Microsoft -- in fact, ESPECIALLY if it is sponsored by Microsoft, since they "seem" to misuse their authority. NOTE that I am NOT accusing them of doing such a thing -- only that it appears to ME that that is what they are doing. I do advise MVPs to STOP the appearance of giving advice about legal matters. I also advise them to properly state that they are NOT lawyers, and as such, NO SUCH ADVICE they give is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they will be subject to legal action themselves. If you want to find out about the Law, go to a real lawyer. "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ... No, you're not screwed. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070130-8730.html It's not an official Microsoft article, but I believe that it is correct. The short version: you can upgrade anything except the motherboard. Not true. The EULA that the user agrees to makes NO mention of the motherboard. All it says is "New Computer" and then singularly fails to define what a "new computer" is.... Apparently you can even do upgrades to the extent that would require Vista to be activated again.You may be able to replace the motherboard (with a different model) if it dies, but that would be at the discretion of Microsoft. No, at the discretion of the System Builder. -- Donald L McDaniel ANY advice I give is NOT to be construed as "Legal advice". ANYTHING I publish is to be taken as MY OWN OPINON. If you want legal advice, you MUST obtain the services of a Licensed Attorney, which I am NOT. See a lawyer, friends. |
|
|||
If i got OEM Vista am i Screwed
The OEM (System Builder) License requires the use of additional MS software
in preparation of the machine to be sold. That installs the first run routines. They are required. The EULA IS automatically installed right along with the rest of Windows. It is a part of it. The system builder is not permitted to alter the Windows software being installed in that manner. Read the OEM (System Builder) License for yourself. It lists the requirements for the software to be used during the installation. The use of the OPK (OEM preinstallation kit) is required. "5. Distribution. a. Software Preinstallation. i. For each unit of Software in the Pack, you must pre-install one copy of the Software on a Customer System prior to distribution. If the Software includes more than one language version, you must install only one language version. ii. For such pre-installation, you must use the OPK provided in the Pack or otherwise made available by us. You may use the information, tools and materials contained in the OPK solely to preinstall the Software in accordance with the OPK. See www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/OPK for additional information about the OPK. You may not distribute the OPK to the end user." The License in pdf format is at http://oem.microsoft.com/public/sbli...se_english.pdf "Donald L McDaniel" wrote in message ... On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:08:04 -0600, "Colin Barnhorst" wrote: Where "computer" is defined is in the OEM (System Builder) License. That license is not an end user license at all but licenses the installation of the software on a computer for sale to a customer. That's the license the buyer of OEM software (for example on NewEgg) is bound by. The purchaser of the OEM sb license only has the right to install the software on a customer system. He does not have the right to use the software himself. In any case, "computer" is a: "1. Definitions. a. "Customer System" means a fully assembled computer system that includes a CPU, a motherboard, a power supply, an internally mounted NAND or revolving magnetic-based hard drive, and a case." Since this is NOT part of our EULA, It does NOT apply to end-users. Check with your lawyers, Colin. It is definitely NOT legal to require one to keep terms which are NOT contained in the WRITTEN DOCUMENT itself. ONLY a bribed judge would ever attempt to uphold such a license. When we sign off on a legal agreement, we sign off ONLY on the document itself. The end user is bound by the EULA which the system builder puts on the machine automatically when he installs Windows (required). NOT ALL SYSTEM BUILDERS do such a thing "automatically", nor do they "Always" put Windows on their machines, Colin. The OEM license expires when the Customer System passes into the control of the customer and the EULA takes effect at that point. The customer is bound by that EULA once he accepts it during the first run routine. Ok, now, Colin: since you want to give quasi-legal opinions, what about the man who is his OWN system builder? IN any case, the EULA NOWHERE defines what a "computer" is (or is not). Therefore, we are NOT bound by the System Builder License (unless we build our own systems). So WHAT are we bound by AFTER we install the OS, other than the EULA? Which does NOT define just what a computer is? I think Microsoft is going to HAVE to change the language of our EULAs, if they want to be telling us what they MEANT to say (but DID NOT!). IF that happens, they will have a FIGHT On their hands for sure. All this is why NewEgg prints the disclaimer on the Product Specifications Tab on the order page for each System Builder package it sells. I guess you would have to ask THEIR lawyers, wouldn't you, before going off and deciding for yourself their motives. "Disclaimer Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale. This OEM System Builder Channel software requires the assembler to provide end user support for the Windows software and cannot be transferred to another computer once it is installed. To acquire Windows software with support provided by Microsoft please see our full package "Retail" product offerings." Looks to me they are just trying to cover their arses, not inform the end user about his EULA. I hope all this helps us all at least get our terminology straight. ONLY A COURT OF LAW can do that. As far as I Know, the EULA has NEVER been tested in a court of law here in the States. You have defintely failed to do that, Colin (unless you claim to be a licensed attorney, and can prove it). "Bistey Csaba" wrote in message ... Well it mentions device, but a device that "you may install the software to" and the same device that "you may use a software on". If we look that strict that means if you acquired OEM Vista with a piece of hardware (like a cable ) there is no way installing/using it without violating EULA. NOT so, friend. The EULA SPECIFICALLY gives the owner the right to install the software on his licensed machine, if needed, as long as he legally acquired the license (i.e., "didn't steal it"). There is definitely NO question about that. (Well unless your acquired with a harddrive and it's internal DSP can run it. (most likely not )) Csaba Colin Barnhorst wrote: The Consumer_OEM EULA does not mention "computer." It uses the term "device." "2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. The software license is permanently assigned to the device with which you acquired the software. That device is the "licensed device." A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device. a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. You may not use the software on any other device." In any event, the EULA does not address the issue of whether a component or particular set of components constitute a new computer if changed because it is an activation issue and not a licensing issue. Then if it is NOT a "licensing issue", WHY would they DENY anyone an activation, since as long as one keeps the terms of the EULA, Microsoft is REQUIRED BY LAW to activate one's installation? Face it folks, if you want a LEGALLY binding opinion, DON'T come to a newsgroup, even if it IS sponsored by Microsoft -- in fact, ESPECIALLY if it is sponsored by Microsoft, since they "seem" to misuse their authority. NOTE that I am NOT accusing them of doing such a thing -- only that it appears to ME that that is what they are doing. I do advise MVPs to STOP the appearance of giving advice about legal matters. I also advise them to properly state that they are NOT lawyers, and as such, NO SUCH ADVICE they give is to be taken seriously. Otherwise, they will be subject to legal action themselves. If you want to find out about the Law, go to a real lawyer. "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Bob Knowlden" wrote in message ... No, you're not screwed. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070130-8730.html It's not an official Microsoft article, but I believe that it is correct. The short version: you can upgrade anything except the motherboard. Not true. The EULA that the user agrees to makes NO mention of the motherboard. All it says is "New Computer" and then singularly fails to define what a "new computer" is.... Apparently you can even do upgrades to the extent that would require Vista to be activated again.You may be able to replace the motherboard (with a different model) if it dies, but that would be at the discretion of Microsoft. No, at the discretion of the System Builder. -- Donald L McDaniel ANY advice I give is NOT to be construed as "Legal advice". ANYTHING I publish is to be taken as MY OWN OPINON. If you want legal advice, you MUST obtain the services of a Licensed Attorney, which I am NOT. See a lawyer, friends. |