«

Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.

Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if a
motherboard is changed or upgraded.
Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a PC
lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A 'new'
machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation. Other
license types do not face such restrictions.

Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil,” fumes one.
Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: “**** Micro$oft."
We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.

For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.

"An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new
personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has
been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."

End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well, whatever
next?

'Hot stuff', John. Although I wonder if someone really wanted to test
Microsoft (in court) on this enterpretation when everybody in 'Computers'
know the heart of the PC is the BIOS. In-so-far-as a new Motherboard
regularly arrives with a BIOS the Microsoft Enterpretation must be 'Bona
Fide' - however, IBM owns the BIOS and the point where I become quizzical is
wether MS can make dictates on IBM's behalf in relation to an OEM Product.

After all Microsoft isn't selling the product, so any legal matters would
logically be governed by the seller's arrangement with IBM, so who knows
where we stand? Did MS talk to IBM? Did the OEM Providers talk to IBM? I
would personally like to interpret a 'new PC' as all the stuff that is in
the box the consumer is buying and that is neccessary for it's operation,
rather than any single (even if major) part. And I would like to hear the
judge that would contest this view! Although he/she is probably out there
somewhere?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmm?


Tony. . .


"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
> New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.
>
> Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
> Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if
a
> motherboard is changed or upgraded.
> Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a
PC
> lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A
'new'
> machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation.
Other
> license types do not face such restrictions.
>
> Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
> than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil," fumes
one.
> Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: "**** Micro$oft."
> We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.
>
> For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
> And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.
>
> "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a
"new
> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer
has
> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating
system
> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
>
> End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well,
whatever
> next?
>
>
>
>
>
>

This is silly unless Microsoft is trying to scare us into purchasing retail
versions of Windows instead.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
> New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.
>
> Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
> Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if
> a
> motherboard is changed or upgraded.
> Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a PC
> lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A
> 'new'
> machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation.
> Other
> license types do not face such restrictions.
>
> Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
> than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil," fumes
> one.
> Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: "**** Micro$oft."
> We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.
>
> For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
> And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.
>
> "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a
> "new
> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer
> has
> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating
> system
> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
>
> End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well,
> whatever
> next?
>
>
>
>
>
>

John Barnes wrote:
> Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
> New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.
>
> Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
> Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if a
> motherboard is changed or upgraded.
> Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a PC
> lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A 'new'
> machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation. Other
> license types do not face such restrictions.
>
> Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
> than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil,” fumes one.
> Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: “**** Micro$oft."
> We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.
>
> For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
> And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.
>
> "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a "new
> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer has
> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating system
> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
>
> End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well, whatever
> next?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Just call India!
Frank

This is very old news and certainly not "newly-uncovered".
The techs that feel this is new have been living under a rock or had no
interest in the past and now simply see their personal discovery as new.
This has been a widely discussed issue escalating several years ago when the
OEMs starting BIOS locking their OSs as far back as Windows 98.

For the generic OEM, the motherboard upgrade usually goes with the
activation phone call, normally less than 5 minutes.
If from a major OEM such as HP, Dell, Gateway etc, the motherboard is
normally BIOS locked and Windows will not run or install on a motherboard
from a different manufacturer.
That is the way the OEM chose to do it and only one of the many options
Microsoft has given the OEMs.
If Microsoft is at fault, it is only for giving the OEM the option since it
is the OEM that makes the choice they feel best suits their customers.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
> New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.
>
> Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
> Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if
> a
> motherboard is changed or upgraded.
> Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a PC
> lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A
> 'new'
> machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation.
> Other
> license types do not face such restrictions.
>
> Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
> than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil," fumes
> one.
> Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: "**** Micro$oft."
> We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.
>
> For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
> And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.
>
> "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a
> "new
> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard is
> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer
> has
> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating
> system
> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
>
> End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well,
> whatever
> next?

Not new, but comes up here every month or two, with almost as many opinions
as there are posters.
I personally like Charlie's approach that the case is the determiner. After
all that is what the COA is attached to.


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> This is very old news and certainly not "newly-uncovered".
> The techs that feel this is new have been living under a rock or had no
> interest in the past and now simply see their personal discovery as new.
> This has been a widely discussed issue escalating several years ago when
> the OEMs starting BIOS locking their OSs as far back as Windows 98.
>
> For the generic OEM, the motherboard upgrade usually goes with the
> activation phone call, normally less than 5 minutes.
> If from a major OEM such as HP, Dell, Gateway etc, the motherboard is
> normally BIOS locked and Windows will not run or install on a motherboard
> from a different manufacturer.
> That is the way the OEM chose to do it and only one of the many options
> Microsoft has given the OEMs.
> If Microsoft is at fault, it is only for giving the OEM the option since
> it is the OEM that makes the choice they feel best suits their customers.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Techies in Microsoft license reading bombshell -
>> New Motherboard =New PC = New OS, says Redmond.
>>
>> Tech blogs are fizzing with rage at the 'revelation' that
>> Microsoft small print says a new Windows OEM license must be purchased if
>> a
>> motherboard is changed or upgraded.
>> Microsoft is quoted as saying that the 'heart and soul' of a
>> PC
>> lies therein, and so changing it amounts to creating a new machine. A
>> 'new'
>> machine, according to Microsoft, requires a new Windows Installation.
>> Other
>> license types do not face such restrictions.
>>
>> Comments about the newly-uncovered atrocity are typically less
>> than complimentary towards Redmond. "They are trully [sic] evil," fumes
>> one.
>> Several others go for the succinct and to-the-point: "**** Micro$oft."
>> We felt more gracious, so we threw in some asterisks instead.
>>
>> For Microsoft's part, it claims this has always been the case.
>> And their licensing document seems to corroborate the assertion.
>>
>> "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a
>> "new
>> personal computer." Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be
>> transferred from one computer to another. Therefore, if the motherboard
>> is
>> upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect then a new computer
>> has
>> been created, the original license expires, and a new full operating
>> system
>> license (not upgrade) is required. This is true even if the computer is
>> covered under Software Assurance or other Volume License programs."
>>
>> End Users reading their license agreements? Well, well,
>> whatever
>> next?
>
>

Perhaps, but the major OEMS do not lock Windows to the case, Windows is
locked to the BIOS.
Whether it may or may not be legal to move Windows to a new computer, no one
has to help if the BIO lock creates a problem with a replacement
motherboard.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"John Barnes" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Not new, but comes up here every month or two, with almost as many
> opinions as there are posters.
> I personally like Charlie's approach that the case is the determiner.
> After all that is what the COA is attached to.

Most of those I have seen posting here, about this issue, build their own
computers and are not concerned with a BIOS lock from a major builder. Most
of the major builders have non standard mobo's anyway, and even non standard
plugs, though that is not as common anymore. Compaq used to have their own
PS2 plugs etc.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <> wrote in message
news:%23$...
> Perhaps, but the major OEMS do not lock Windows to the case, Windows is
> locked to the BIOS.
> Whether it may or may not be legal to move Windows to a new computer, no
> one has to help if the BIO lock creates a problem with a replacement
> motherboard.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "John Barnes" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Not new, but comes up here every month or two, with almost as many
>> opinions as there are posters.
>> I personally like Charlie's approach that the case is the determiner.
>> After all that is what the COA is attached to.
>
>

John Barnes wrote:
> Not new, but comes up here every month or two, with almost as many opinions
> as there are posters.
> I personally like Charlie's approach that the case is the determiner. After
> all that is what the COA is attached to.

Good thought, but the case is one of the few hardware items not included
in the "hash figure" used by MSFT to determine that a new activation is
needed. The mother-board may contain several of these hardware items.

My computer is like the axe that's been in the family for generations:
It's has had several new handles and a couple of new blades, but it's
the same axe! (I have even changed the case for a larger PS.)

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

>>>That is the way the OEM chose to do it and only one of the many options
Microsoft has given the OEMs.
If Microsoft is at fault, it is only for giving the OEM the option since it
is the OEM that makes the choice they feel best suits their customers.

Jupiter, I think this would be more understandable if you said it was "one
of many pricing options." OEM's get better pricing on the OS because they
lock the OS to their BIOS or make it impossible for someone to rip off the
OS.

Ken