Re: OT: W2K et al

["Robert Holmgren" holmgren@xxxxxxxx]

** Reply to message from  on Thu, 9 Mar 2006
07:04:00 -0800


> As far as I know Patricia, with W2K you're not supposed
> to load it on more than one machine AT A TIME

That's my W2K understanding too. And on several occasions, I have phoned
Microsoft and reauthorized "full" retail versions of XP (and XP Office) for a
new machine, saying that I was retiring an old machine in exchange for a new
one. The XP SP2 EULA is unambiguous:

"14. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the
Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The
initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this
EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include the Software and the Proof
of License label. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Software must
agree to all the EULA terms."

W2K doesn't require activation, of course.

What you may not realize is that it's not so much the disk that you own, it's
the *key*. If you have a retail key, you can install with a completely
different disk than the one you purchased, as long as it too is a retail disk
and you use *your key* to activate it. You can then take the same disk and
install on somebody else's machine using her key. The key is what counts.

Anybody who attempts to transfer a license (key) to, and activate, a new
machine but does not truly decommission the old one may be in for a surprise.
I have read that Windows Update ceases to work.

Notwithstanding anything I may have said hitherto about my preference for W2K
(it *is* a better, much leaner, more businesslike OpSys generally, IMO), as a
practical matter, if I had a new machine, I would go for the most recent
version of Windows, in order to be on the current leading edge. Assuming that
you've "bought in" to the Windows world, I think you just have to accept the
good with the bad. The easiest way to understand what's wrong with Windows is
to understand what's right with Linux. Linux has a zillion different
distributions, most of them tailored for a specific kind of environment or
optimum use, or particular hardware. Windows is a one-size-fits-all OpSys, and
therefore you are always dragging around a ton of unnecessary baggage. That's
just the way it is. You need to buy powerful computers for Windows, because a
lot of that power is going to be chewed up and sacrificed by the operating
system -- you want something substantial left over for yourself. Therefore,
trying to calculate the minimum that you can "get by" with is not a recipe for
a satisfying machine. You want power overkill -- the more, the better. Lots
of RAM, lots of HD space. And guess what: it may still seem sluggish.

-----------------------------
Robert Holmgren
holmgren@xxxxxxxx
-----------------------------