"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%23UiKYfODGHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Old Geezer wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> The OEM license, once installed, becomes tied to the entire computer,
> as a unit. It doesn't matter with which component it was originally
> purchased. This is explained in the OEM EULA.

It's explained all right, but it seems to me the explanation is more than a
little ambiguous. Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. My reading of the EULA is
that whatever system "the HARDWARE" purchased with the OEM software becomes
a part of, becomes "the COMPUTER" as described in the document, etc., but I
do not see anything saying that other components of the system (or that one,
for that matter) cannot be changed. That is, if (as is in fact the case) the
hard drive I bought the OEM software with is first installed as part of a
new system (again, as is the case), that whole system becomes "the
COMPUTER"--but isn't it still "the COMPUTER" if, say, the graphics card is
changed for a different one (which in fact I have already done more than
once)? Or any other component?


>
> According to its EULA, an OEM license may not be transferred from one
> distinct PC to another PC. Nothing is said about prohibiting one from
> repairing or upgrading the PC on which an OEM license is installed.
>
> Now, some people believe that the motherboard is the key component
> that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA does not make any
> such distinction.

Just so. And I seriously doubt that it could. If, for example, the
motherboard should fail to the point of uselessness, that would mean that
the license the consumer bought in good faith would become worthless on
entirely arbitrary grounds. I cannot imagine any court upholding the
legality of such a condition. The same applies to other parts needing
replacement, and let's face it, "repair" as a practical matter means
replacement.


> Others have said that one could successfully argue that it's the PC's case
> that is the deciding component, as that is where one is instructed to
> affix the OEM CoA label w/Product Key. Again, the EULA does not
> specifically define any single component as the computer. Licensed
> Microsoft Systems Builders, who are allowed to distribute OEM licenses
> with computers they sell, are contractually obligated to "define" the
> computer as the motherboard, but this limitation/definition can't be
> applied to the end user until the EULA is re-written.
>
> Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to define
> when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
> computer.

I think I can see why. :-)


> The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to this definition
> (in a public forum) is to tell the person making the inquiry to consult
> the PC's manufacturer.

Which, in this case, is me.


> As the OEM license's support is solely the responsibility of said
> manufacturer, they should determine what sort of hardware changes to allow
> before the warranty and support agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An
> incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original computer, as
> pertains to the OEM EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different
> computer. If you've built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD,
> then _you_ are the "OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer
> support your product.

That's the way I see it too.


>
>
>> I presume this will be enough of a change to mean re-activating Windows?
>>
>
> Oh, yes, and then some.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>
> Normally, and assuming a retail license (many OEM installations are
> BIOS-locked to a specific chipset and therefore not transferable to a new
> motherboard - check yours before starting), unless the new motherboard is
> virtually identical (same chipset, same IDE controllers, same BIOS
> version, etc.) to the one on which the WinXP installation was originally
> performed, you'll need to perform a repair (a.k.a. in-place upgrade)
> installation, at the very least:

In this case that isn't likely to be an issue, since I built the whole
computer from scratch.


>
> How to Perform an In-Place Upgrade of Windows XP
> http://support.microsoft.com/directo...;EN-US;Q315341
>
> The "why" is quite simple, really, and has nothing to do with
> licensing issues, per se; it's a purely technical matter, at this point.
> You've pulled the proverbial hardware rug out from under the OS. (If you
> don't like -- or get -- the rug analogy, think of it as picking up a Cape
> Cod style home and then setting it down onto a Ranch style foundation. It
> just isn't going to fit.) WinXP, like Win2K before it, is not nearly as
> "promiscuous" as Win9x when it comes to accepting any old hardware
> configuration you throw at it. On installation it "tailors" itself to the
> specific hardware found. This is one of the reasons that the entire
> WinNT/2K/XP OS family is so much more stable than the Win9x group.

Ah. That perhaps I didn't fully appreciate, but the new motherboard will be
very similar in practically all respects. Thanks for that link, I will read
it carefully before starting.


>
> As always when undertaking such a significant change, back up any
> important data before starting.
>
> This will also probably require re-activation, unless you have a
> Volume Licensed version of WinXP Pro installed.

<chuckle>
I'm just a retired old coot who enjoys building and tinkering with
computers. No Volume License here.


> If it's been more than 120 days since you last activated that specific
> Product Key, you'll most likely be able to activate via the Internet
> without problem. If it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute
> phone call.

Oh, it's about a year and a half since the only time I installed and
activated this.

Thanks very much for the help, Bruce.

O.G.


>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH

Old Geezer wrote:

>
> Thanks very much for the help, Bruce.
>
> O.G.
>
>

You're welcome.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH