Thanks for all the replies.I've gotten the problem fixed by having the computer owner bring over his motherboard cd.
The issue doesn't seem to be a MicrO$oft issue. The issue was that the cd's were needed to install the drivers. All is good.
On the notes as far as the licensing, you've all made correct points, and I thank you all for that. I read their user agreement on their site, and this will have to be discussed in a different thread, but I read something that can, and will probably raise alot of debate. But... "Oh Well
Whatever you all do, please don't take this the wrong way.... ok?
I've concentrated on this section of their version of the EULA of Office/XP versions.Microsoft source:http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspxQ. What happens when you try to install and activate on more PCs than the end user license agreement (EULA) allows?A.
Per the EULA, installing on more PCs than the EULA allows would
be in violation of the EULA. Technically
, product activation does not limit
the number of PCs the software can be installed on. It would be possible technically to install the software on, for example, 100 PCs. Activation would fail though on 99
(98 for Office XP or Office 2003) of those 100 PCs thereby limiting the usefulness of the illegal installation. Outside of an activation attempt, Microsoft does not know how many PCs Windows XP, Office XP family product, or Office 2003 System product have been installed on.
does not limit
could be argued by attorneys all day long because those words do NOT specifically identify what they mean, nor what they pertain to, technically.
In the first sentence where the word would
is bold, tells that it may, or may not be a violation. The word would
has no definite meaning in making an exact distinctive point/law/reference to such subject in the EULA about such program(s)/software(s).
It is very clear and openly honest to say "Per the EULA, installing on more PCs than the EULA allows is against the law AND in violation of the EULA".
That clearly states the nature of that part of the agreement/EULA, and no one could challenge that part and win.
In the second sentence where is says...... Technically, product activation does not limit the number of PCs the software can be installed on.
Now check this out... If a license agreement/EULA allows you to ONLY install on limited computers, then why is it that it's said that there is a limit that you ARE ALLOWED to install on, but then then states that the installations will fail at 99 installations.. 98 on the other?
My point is this...... if I'm ONLY ALLOWED 1-2 concurrent installations at one time, why is it NOT blocked on those many installations,,,, but instead let you try to do 98+ installations before it fails? Does that raise any questions to anyone. If that's such an agreement they want enforced, I'm wondering how they can stop activations after 98+, but NOT on any installations less than that.
Since I get computers donated to me, and I install operating systems just to make sure the computer doesn't need to be trashed (before I strip it down)... I install my operating sys on them all, and I test all the functions, even the Internet, just to make sure everything is working, why would I need and (or) want to pay for the same thing that I aleready rightfully paid for?
I've installed one xp operating system on numerous computers with no problems at all (not 98+), and many of them were 100% different computers, and they all activated. Once they work ok, I donate them away to needy sources, (without the OS) and the ones that aren't good enough to use, I salvage what I can from them.
I'm not in any computer buying/selling business,,, and I never want to do that either, but there is a thick line of understanding the legal and rightful rights of what people pay for, and this is what people are missing. The true meaning of what an EULA really means.
As long as I'm not selling computers with operating systems on them, I don't believe I'm breaking any laws. Also, I haven't read anywhere on Micr0$0ft$ where it says it's either the law, or against the law
to do so either. And I've been activating computers for years, many with the same product information, and have never had any trouble doing so, although they're not all online together either.
Like I said, this may be a debateable issue, but I just wanted to tell you all that my problem has been fixed, and this is also my personal opinion of the EULA of their product(s). I do have a brand new 160G HD, and I'm going to install UNIX on that system.. Fedora 5,, i believe that's what I downloaded, and ween myself away from the Micr0$0ft altogether. I've already done it with Frontpage, since '98 - 2004,,, and now using DreamweaverMX, and I'll NEVER go back to FrontPage again.
Like I said,, no offense to anyone that reads this... this is just my opinion only. My opinion.
Thanks for your valued time.
One Man's Opinion
Edited by Walkman, 24 October 2006 - 07:15 PM.