Re: WinXP move to a different motherboard
"Anna" wrote:
>
> "Old Geezer" <nowhere@all.net> wrote in message
> news:ej3aw6JDGHA.3140@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> >I am planning on putting a new motherboard in this Windows XP system as the
> >present one has various problems. I built this system a year and a half ago
> >with an OEM version of WinXP, purchased with a new hard drive. So as I
> >understand the EULA, the hard drive is the part that this software is
> >"tied" to. That's fine with me, since it's just the motherboard that I want
> >to change anyway.
> >
> > I presume this will be enough of a change to mean re-activating Windows?
> >
> > There have been countless updates and upgrades to Windows itself and
> > various other software (ISP, antivirus, security, etc.) on the system over
> > that year and a half, and I hate to do all that all over again, so I am
> > wondering if there's any reason I can't just change the motherboard and
> > keep the existing hard drive as is, rather than doing a reinstall. The
> > present board has a VIA chipset and the new one will also, so I should
> > think just a motherboard drivers update would be all that's necessary, if
> > even that.
> >
> > Am I missing anything here? (It happens. :-) )
> >
> > O.G.
>
>
> O.G.
> I see you've received a number of responses to your query but I'm not sure
> they've been totally responsive to the issue you raise, so let me give you
> my experience...
>
> It's a crapshoot at best as to whether you'll even be required to
> re:activate the system following installation of your new motherboard,
> although there's a strong likelihood that activation *will* be necessary.
> However, we have encountered a number of instances, similar to your
> situation, where the activation process was not required.
>
> In other instances where activation *was* necessary, in some cases it was
> automatically accomplished without further ado, and in other instances the
> telephone process involving speaking to a MS rep was necessary. After
> explaining to the rep the need for a motherboard change to replace a
> defective one, in every instance I'm acquainted with, the system was
> activated. I'm unaware of any instance where activation was refused under
> these circumstances.
>
> Now as to the motherboard change itself...
>
> It is likely, but not necessarily absolute, that you will need to run a
> Repair install following the motherboard change as Rock has indicated. And,
> of course, I'm sure you're knowledgeable enough to know that you will have
> to install the necessary drivers from the motherboard's installation CD
> after you install the new motherboard. But there is a real possibility that
> the system will boot *without* the need for a Repair install. Even if the
> new motherboard is a completely different make/model from the one it's
> replacing.
>
> You needn't fear to try to boot with the new motherboard immediately
> following its installation (including its drivers). As I've previously
> indicated, it's worth a try. I note Rock's comment, "Don't try to boot the
> system first just to see if it works. Run the repair install first." And
> I've come across other similar admonitions in this situation. I'm at a loss
> as to why that cautionary note is expressed so frequently. I have performed
> dozens of motherboard changes in an XP environment and I've never come
> across a *single* instance where a failed first attempt with a new
> motherboard caused any subsequent problems with the operating system. I've
> talked with other technicians about this and they confirm my experience. At
> worst you'll have to perform a Repair install.
> Anna
>
>
> That's if you don't have a copy of Windows like I do that has no option for a repair install.
|