Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Stupot, Oct 4, 2007.

  1. Stupot

    Stupot Guest

    I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.

    I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit. All
    on different drives.
    I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64 to
    hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
     
    Stupot, Oct 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
    expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is within
    the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same machine. Not the
    32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but the two versions of XP
    x64 should be good, IMHO.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Stupot

    Theo Guest

    Stupot has posed a good question. I have 2 instances of XP
    Pro and 1 of XP x64. I was always under the impression thar
    MS's EULA only allowed on active/working installation per
    Product Key. I have 2 different Keys for my XP Pro
    installations. Why would x64 be any different and allow 2
    instances of XP x64 on the same computer, different drives,
    with one Product Key?

    My impression is that you can only have one legal
    installation per Product Key, except Enterprise/Volume licenses.


    of XP 32 bit. All on different drives.
    uncluttered XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise
    any problems?
     
    Theo, Oct 4, 2007
    #3
  4. Stupot

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
    Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
    understand.

    The license terms are available here, among other places:
    http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

    Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
    with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
    imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as long
    as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the one
    currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable process/procedure.
    Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the system and un-marking it
    installs it. However, this precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit copy
    since one cannot be the back-up for the other. Activation is a distinct
    and separate issue.

    Other similar schemes can be postulated.

    Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.

    Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
    scheme.

    Tom
    MSMVP 1998-2007
     
    Tom Ferguson, Oct 4, 2007
    #4
  5. Stupot

    Tom Ferguson Guest

    Woops- should have been

    *and the other partition, the one _not_ currently in use, is marked as
    "hidden"*
     
    Tom Ferguson, Oct 4, 2007
    #5
  6. Stupot

    John Barnes Guest

    I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
    impediment.
     
    John Barnes, Oct 4, 2007
    #6
  7. You may be correct - notice the disclaimer I made. <G>

    However, given that only ONE can be active at any time, and given that it is
    on identical hardware, I would argue that it is not a violation. I might be
    wrong, and Darrell or someone else may well jump in to say so. It hasn't
    been an issue for me personally, but this was just my personal take on fair
    use.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 4, 2007
    #7
  8. Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 4, 2007
    #8
  9. Stupot

    John Barnes Guest

    The first time, I assume that it will get a 'license in use message' (I know
    Vista does). After that XP is a lot more forgiving on the phone-homes.
    Vista would realise on each boot to the other system that it is on a
    different drive, since Vista has the installed hard drive as the most
    important component of the algorithm.
     
    John Barnes, Oct 4, 2007
    #9
  10. Stupot

    Guest Guest

    Always learning from you, Charlie.
    One way or the other.
    I do like that IANAL achronym.
    I had to go here:
    http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IANAL
    in order to confirm what I was guessing it meant.
    Added to my bag of achronyms now.
    Carlos
     
    Guest, Oct 5, 2007
    #10
  11. Ah, but this was XP x64 in the original requirements (see the subject).

    I would argue that even Vista it is a "fair use", but that's _my_
    interpretation of the legal status. But with XP? I doubt I'll see an issue.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 5, 2007
    #11
  12. Not one we see here much, but often seen in other areas of usenet where it
    seems to always preceed someone's idiotic misinterpretation of the legal
    status of something else. ;)
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Oct 5, 2007
    #12
  13. Stupot

    Stupot Guest

    Thanks for your input guys. I will try and do the dual boot and hope it
    doesn't bring an end to the support of the first version.Are there any
    pitfalls to look out for as when I added the 32 bit to dual boot I had to
    copy the NTLDR file to the root before the original Windows would boot..
     
    Stupot, Oct 6, 2007
    #13
  14. Stupot

    John Barnes Guest

    Can't think of any. A normal install of X64 should add it to the boot and
    you should be off and running.
     
    John Barnes, Oct 7, 2007
    #14
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.