Re: Problems with Windows XP

[Norman Bauman nbauman@xxxxxxxx]

Microsoft *already* disables Windows 98 , using technical locks, if you
make major hardware changes.

I have a Hewlett-Packard Pavillion 6330, with Windows 98. On the HP owners'
board, on the HP web site, several people complained that after they chaged
the motherboard, they could no longer install Windows 98.

The HP support technicians acknowledged that yes, if you change the
motherboard -- or upgrade the CPU chip -- you can no longer install the
bundled OEM Windows 98, because the software is linked to that model CPU
only. If the motherboard burns out, you have to replace it with an original
HP motherboard in order to continue to use the bundled Windows 98. If you
want to use a different motherboard, or upgrade the chip or motherboard,
you have to buy a new, retail version of Windows 98.

I called the Microsoft Piracy Hotline, (800) RU-LEGIT, and spoke to "Ryan,"
who told me that, according to the license, the OEM Windows 98 can only be
used on 1 computer, and if the computer dies, the operating system "dies
on that computer."

So what's a computer? If a parts die, and I replace the parts, when does it
become a new computer?

According to Ryan, I am allowed to replace "3 components."

So, I asked him, I replaced my keyboard and my mouse. Now I'm going to
upgrade my hard drive. Does that mean I have to buy a new operating system?
Yes, he said.

Finally Ryan referred me to the licensing department, (800) 426-9400, where
I spoke to "Pearl."

According to Pearl, the end-user licensing agreement would let me change
external components, such as the keyboard and mouse, or monitor, but
changing any 3 of the motherboard, hard drive, graphics board, or sound
board would void my license to the OEM version of Windows 98. I would be
committing piracy unless I removed the OEM Windows 98 from my computer and
bought another copy of Windows 98.

Pearl referred me to OEM Licensing, (800) 325-1233, where I spoke to
"Vicky," who confirmed what Pearl said. A major component would include the
motherboard, chip set, chassis that includes the serial number, the power
supply, and a new or replacement hard drive.

I told Pearl and Vicky that this was the first time I had heard about this
rule, and I asked them to show me where I had been informed in writing of
this rule. She told me to go to Windows Help and search for EULA. This gets
me to a file called Windows/License.txt, which says that the operating
system is limited to the original computer. However, it doesn't say
anything about being limited to a particular motherboard, or replacing 3
components.

I once read "Contract Law in a Nutshell." My understanding of contract law
is that you can't make a contract unless you understand what you're
agreeing to, and I never agreed to buy a computer with an operating system
that would only work with that motherboard. Yet, I'm stuck with this
technical restriction.

This is a defective product. My inclination would be, if I had to change my
motherboard, to buy a shrink-wrapped Windows 98, and sue HP and Microsoft
in small claims court for the cost.

I don't want to use Windows XP if I can avoid it. I'm worried that for no
fault of my own, but because of an error in the copy-protection system, it
might lock up and I'd be unable to use it. (That happened to me with a
30-day trial version of Eudora that malfunctioned and stopped working
before I could register it. I switched back to the freeware version.)

I know journalists, photographers and doctors who travel to places like
sub-Saharan Africa where they might not be able to get to a telephone, much
less a modem line. What are they supposed to do if a copy-protection scheme
locks them out because of a malfunction? What am I supposed to do if it
crashes at 2am when I'm on deadline?

As I understand it, the military doesn't even consider using copy-protected
software.

If I got stuck with a computer loaded with XP, and if there are
non-protected versions as Mossberg says, I think it would be completely
ethical and justified to get a pirated copy of XP to replace it, although
as I said I'd rather keep evrything legal and sue them.

Ideally, I'd like to set up my next computer with a dual-boot of Windows
and Linux, but as I understand it Microsoft forbids manufacturers from
offering me such a computer. So I'll have to install Linux myself. I guess
Linux is the best revenge against Microsoft.

I can understand Microsoft's problems with piracy, although I don't think
it's as bad as they claim. They could still survive even if they sold
Windows only to OEMs and people pirated the upgrades. I've seen the manager
of a small department buy one copy of Word and install it on the
department's half a dozen computers, and that didn't seem fair. (Although
if Microsoft hadn't driven its competitors, like DrDOS and Netscape, out of
business, we would have cheaper alternatives too.)

I could accept technical copy protection if it worked perfectly, and never
prevented someone from using the software in a reasonable way (like
upgrading the motherboard), if they disclosed it. But, like the death
penalty, it's never going to work perfectly.

I suspect Bill Gates may have had a traumatic experience at the Home Brew
Computer Club when people started copying his punched tapes.

Norman


At 09:52 AM 7/9/01 -0500, Richard Giering wrote:
>
>In an article printesd in our local newspaper this morning, Wall Street
>Journal writer Walter Mossberg reports on a "new" (or maybe newly
>enforced) problem with the introduction of Windows XP.
> According to Mossberg, Microsoft will continue to give businesses
>volume discounts for the many copies they employ. In the past, however,
>home users could use a copy of windows on their two or three machines on
>the premise that only one woulld be used at a time. With Windows XP,
>now, each machine MUST have its own copy and any attempt to install on a
>different machine will not be allowed. If a home user has three
>machines, for example, a separate upgrade to XP (at about $100 a copy,
>with no volume discount) will be required for each machine.
> Another problem with this "feature" is the nature of the "activation"
>process. Microsoft will be recording (in their data base) information
>about the machine on which XP is installed. If a user makes some
>"major" (whatever that means) alteration of the machine and then need to
>re-install, Microsoft will possibly look at this as a "new Machine" and
>disallow the installation.
> I don't know about anyone else, but I have two machines in two
>separate locations (Illinois and Florida)! Only one can be used at a
>time. In my opinion this is another example of Microsoft abusing their
>windows monopoly.
>Dick Giering


-------------------------------------------------------
Norman Bauman
411 W. 54 St. Apt. 2D
New York, NY 10019
(212) 977-3223
http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman
-------------------------------------------------------