Windows Product Activation and software changes

I just had to reactivate Windows becasue I made hardware chantges. The person at Microsoft told me that now anytime I change software, as well, I will have to reactivate. For example, if I install a new game, uninstall then reinstall Microsoft Office, etc. How can this be true? Is it?

 

Usually you only have to activate again if you change something like the mainboard or processor. The only time I had to re-activate is when I replaced a mainboard and CPU, any other hardware components you shouldnt have to re-activate.

When he says "software" he is probably referring to Office or something, but if you activate once you shouldn't ever have to activate again unless you upgrade or something like that. Hardware shouldnt affect your software activation in any way.

 

Thanks for your reply. I asked her if this meant all software, (including games, etc.), and she said yes. Perhaps something was miscommunicated, but I find the idea that you have to reactivate after every installation\uninstallation a little ridiculous.

 

There is a limit to the number of times you are entitled to activate Windows XP under the E.U.L.A. (End User Licensing Agreement). I don't remember the exact number, but it will be on the agreement you paged through when you installed. The license says something to the effect that if you change out your hardware X number of times, you can no longer reinstall and therefore reactivate your Windows. Supposedly, this is to ensure you are not frivolously disregarding their right to more of your money by transferring it to a new machine.

They can make exceptions, but in doing so they are looking for a "trend". Whatever. I suggest you call again and ask for a supervisor. Microsoft can be flexible about it, but the point is to make you grateful for being able to install the software you paid for.

The incredibly bad part of this, the part that should make the whole setup void: Microsoft will not take back opened software, yet to read the E.U.L.A., you must open the package.

I certainly had no idea of the restrictions in the E.U.L.A. when I bought. Had I known, I would not have upgraded. I also naively activated within a day or two of installing Windows XP, then over time installed all the software for my other stuff--DVD-player, modem, sound card, flashed the bios, etc. I was on a learning curve with installing stuff on the computer that I had put together. I was, thank goodness, able to reactivate. The customer service was helpful and polite and he checked with a supervisor. However, as far as I am concerned, the E.U.L.A. is unacceptable.

My next operating software will be Linux-based.

 

You can activate Windows on ONE desktop and ONE laptop. If for some reason you have to re-activate because of hardware you can simply call Microsoft if you can't activate from the activation wizard.

Referring to the installing software, this was most likely a miscommunitcation because I've never heard of this.

 

No sir. One machine, and one machine alone.

The two machine license (PC and laptop) is ONLY for Office applications.

 

I thought that applied for Windows to? Didn't know that. :\

 

Couple of things. You have unlimited activations on the same machine. You can also legally move it to another machine, if it is NOT on any other (running or not) machine.

 

The store you purchased it from must refund your money if you return it, regardless of the spin they put on it.

If you don't agree to the EULA, and as you said you have to open the packaging to read it, then under law they must refund the money.

Otherwise the EULA is basically worthless, it has to work both ways.

 

The EULA even says you can return it if you do not accept its terms.
Not only that, it says right on the box that activation is required, and iirc, it even says its for one machine. There is licensing information on the box. Having worked for the devil incarnate, I know this is true. People returned their software all the time. You have one year to do so, with a receipt. Exceptions are made after that, but it has to be a damn good reason. I got a customer's money abck after 2 years of owning the product. It helps if you have called in, and documented your isssues, or distaste with the OS. Customer service can look that up and make a judgement call from it. Of course, now that its almost entirely outsourced, it would be tougher to slide things in under the radar.

 

Obviously I should have been clearer in some of my language.

The number of times that Microsoft chooses to let the purchaser activate Windows is not stated in the E.U.L.A. However, there is in practice, in the parameters given to Microsoft customer support personnel, a variable number of times you can reinstall your software before Microsoft considers itself justified in having the customer call in for reactivation. This is a fact that may not be very clear to people higher up in the food chain. Many of you very sophisticated programmers may not be aware of it, but this is an active policy with Microsoft to help them decide who might be at risk in twitting them out of money. Technicians who own independent computer repair companies are very aware of this. I've been told that the customer has six shots. This thread states that the number is ten: http://www.devhood.com/messages/message_view-2.aspx?thread_id=22986

This policy is, under current legal interpretation, supported by a close reading of the E.U.L.A., so I used the words "under the E.U.L.A." Please read closely this paragraph from the E.U.L.A. for Windows XP Home Edition:

"1.2 Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after you first install the Software unless you supply information required to activate your licensed copy in the manner described during the setup sequence of the Software. You can activate the Software through the use of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply. You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software. There are technological measures in this Software that are designed to prevent unlicensed use of the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software. If you are not using a licensed copy of the Software, you are not allowed to install the Software or future Software updates."

Note the sentence that starts on line three: "You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software."

This sentence is why our friend Pra3tor1an could be asked to reactivate Windows XP. Remember, Microsoft is "looking for a trend." A type of profile? And Pra3tor1an is a gamer ("if I install a new game"). Mmmmm.

Note the next sentences in the E.U.L.A.: "There are technological measures in this Software that are designed to prevent unlicensed use of the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software."

So Pra3tor1an was required to call in and whatever the nature of the interchange, he was not allowed to reactivate. My bet is that if he is persistent and asks for a supervisor, he will have no problem. A soft answer turneth away wrath. Go for it, Pra3tor1an.

Insomniac probably has more rights on this issue than we have. This is also part of the E.U.L.A.:

"Consumer rights - Consumers in Australia, New Zealand or Malaysia may have the benefit of certain rights and remedies by reason of the Trade Practices Act and similar state and territory laws in Australia, the Consumer Guarantees Act in New Zealand and the Consumer Protection Act in Malaysia in respect of which liability cannot lawfully be modified or excluded. If you acquired the Software in New Zealand for the purposes of a business, you confirm that the Consumer Guarantees Act does not apply. If you acquired the Software in Australia and if Microsoft breaches a condition or warranty implied under any law which cannot lawfully be modified or excluded by this agreement then, to the extent permitted by law, Microsoft's liability is limited, at Microsoft's option, to: (i) in the case of the Software: a) repairing or replacing the Software; or b) the cost of such repair or replacement; and (ii) in the case of support services: a) re-supply of the services; or b) the cost of having the services supplied again."

Cheers, Insomniac!

 

Well, I don't want to spend all night addressing each of your points on a point by point basis, but I will say this.

1. Activation is unlimited. It is well documented all over the net that hardware changes can cause a reactivation. Software can cuase reactivation in the form of registry damage, modifications that it shouldn't be doing(read: WPA hacks), and virtual drivers. Driver changes can cause reactivation, but should not. Things do go wrong, of course. In general, it should not cause a reactivation, but MS covered themselves in the EULA.

Microsoft has made it quite clear that WPA can only take place online a limited number of times before you must call in. This isn't permanent, it resets every 120 days. This is a well known fact too, and not some ploy. Multiple reinstalls in a short amount of time are a concern, and the online computer rejects it, if too many are done in a short period.

No. MS reps don't even ask if you are a gamer, just if this is the only computer you have it installed on. They do not ask personal information either. The reason why they said each time software is installed, is because he talked to an idiot. The clearinghouse is separate from MS, and has NO TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE. They are not part of the technical centers, and share a different database, that is not accessible by anyone in a technical center.

I didn't read that anywhere in this thread.

 

Rest assured, it was a bunch of crap. If it does happen, there is something wrong with your OS, and it will need to be fixed.

 

Adrynalyne, I'm sorry you seem to have taken this personally. And I wish you would read what I wrote before making this a personal attack. I never said that the Microsoft representative asked if Pra3tor1an was a gamer, I merely pointed out, by quoting him, how easily this could have come up in the conversations to which you and I were not privy.

Also the information is not a well-known fact or it would not have come up in this forum. The problem is none of us wants to have to read our software agreements this carefully. But if you do not, you will be assuming that what you think should be so, is so.

I simply find this practice a reason to not deal with Microsoft because I do not like to ask mamma if I can use the software I have paid for.

The market weeds out the arguments. Obviously, most people are willing to put up with this stuff. I am not.

Please extend me the courtesy of reading what I post before taking off on it. And let's shake hands and be friends. Thanks.

 

I am a little confused, I see absolutely nowhere that I took this personally. I'm sorry you thought I did, there is no aggression in my tone.

Although, stick around, and I'll see what links I can find, before you dismiss it as not being, well known.

 

O-kee Do-kee, I'll be here!

 

This is just a random gathering of links, but should cover what I did mention, and more. I could probably post two pages worth.

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.php
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/activation_faq.mspx
http://www.licenturion.com/xp/fully-licensed-wpa.txt
http://www.pcbuyerbeware.co.uk/ProductActivation.htm

I read your post fully Getkumi. I think you misunderstand just how activation works. I worked very closely with it for several years, so naturally, I have a very different outlook on it. I've used software from other companies that require activation, and their policies have not b een terribly different.

Keep in mind when you buy software, you are buying a license to use the software. You have no rights to the actual software itself, aside what the license entitles you to. Al MS is doing is making sure you abide by the law and are the rightful owner of a legit license.

 

In the end, the truth is clear: Unlimited activations on one machine, per license. It may require a phone call due to set limitations by the online server, but thats all it requires ina worse case scenario. Even then, waiting 120 days between each reinstall of XP cures any problem with that, as well.

 

I'd still like to know why/how you thought I was making a personal attack

 

Personal attack interpretations are always tricky, and happily often wrong. I hope you aren't offended on this, but you hadn't read the post closely before writing. You said you didn't "want to spend all night addressing each of my points" (yet here we are )--but you did some picking and choosing to find things to comment on in the negative. And you misunderstood what I was saying about gaming (just some overly-subtle advice to Pra3tor1an about how much to say to the customer representative so that he or she doesn't get the wrong idea--IF that could have been an issue.) I just think careful reading is essential in giving respect. And It's something that almost none of us does enough of the time.

Nice links. I like mine too. I won't share all of them or we would bore each other to death. Try these just for interest--

Here's a nice one: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2005/02/25/380351.aspx t also sketches out the rights in Germany and Australia, always nice to see how one's country defends the consumer.

And this: http://www.mcse.ms/archive55-2004-11-1237639.html It also makes a point I think is very fair. You wind up making people into criminals when you have what seems to them in their immediate experience, to be irrational restrictions. I believe this can be a factor in engendering a lack of respect for laws in general. People become toughened and cynical under certain business practices.

Oh, yes. I know. That is precisely why the tightening of successive E.U.L.A.s (for successive versions) is so insidious. I do not mean by this that Microsoft is doing anything illegal, but I do think it points to personal computer usage as being more restrictive and more expensive than it needs to be. Remember, Bill Gates' father was a lawyer and Bill bought MS-DOS. His brilliance is in his business acumen, not in programming. The model that the licensing (rather than ownership) points toward is the model of IBM. I don't know how IBM works now, but their model when Bill's father was a top-flight practicing lawyer, was to lease their machines to businesses. Where Microsoft has lead, other software concerns have followed. And after only a few years, it becomes "how things are done" and "what's the big deal? Everybody does it."

As a consumer, I resist that model. I can understand that programmers would admire that model. What puzzles me is why programmers (and you're not the first at all) think that consumers do not understand the model just because they think it's idiotic. I think it's idiotic, for the consumer at least!

 

At the end of the day when its all said and done, I use Windows XP activated, like any other piece of software. It hasn't disrupted my life, it hasn't hurt my productivity. I don't notice its there, because it cause no issues for me.

Many other companies use activation schemes, and some even use hardware devices as keys. Why they don't get the same verbal attack as Microsoft, I'll never understand. Joe Smith doesn't have a problem with activation, until he tries to install it against what the EULA states. Joe Smith doesn't have to worry about calling phone activation either, because he spends more time using his computer and not constantly reinstalling his OS. Lets face it. If you are constantly reinstalling your OS, you either have: hardware problems, which will need to be addressed no matter what, are pirating, or have computer useage issues only you can deal with (malware, lack of computer knowledge, etc).

Powerusers are some of the loudest complainers when it comes to activation. Reasoning? They want to be able to install the software wherever they want, whenever they want. The whenever they want part is fine. Wherever, obviously, is not.

I'd be willing to bet that if MS made their EULA state that you can install the OS on any machine, but will need to activate, many arguments out there would cease. That in itself is rather telling.

Whether activation is in a piece of software, or not, the EULA remains the same for most companies. So, IMO, what offends people the most is their inability (without resorting to cracks) to break the EULA and pirate to their little back heart's desire. Sorry, but the days of one OS purchase for the home network is over.

Then there is the issue where most computers are OEM, and if bought within 2001 to 2006 contain XP already without user controlled activation, is another story altogether. SLP controls activation for muh of the masses.


In conclusion (again), activation does not stop someone from using their OS unless something goes wrong. Then, a phone call may need to be made. It happens sometimes. Activation is the least common showstopper in XP. Malware and registry damage are probably the most common.

I wasn't aware you made any positive points regarding activation. I'll have to read over your post again.


I understand some people don't like activation, yet here we are. Many companies use activation, and yet MS gets raked over the hot coals for it. Why? Because they are the big, bad wolf. Alternatives are out there.

Lets just look at Windows alone:

1. Windows 2000 for the consumer who hates to be "forced" to follow the EULA. Its basically XP, without the eye candy. No more, or less, difficult, generally speaking.
2. Windows XP OEM preinstalled for those who like to use their computer, instead of constantly upgrade, and so forth (Joe user). They don't ever see or deal with activation unless they change to a retail copy of XP, or changed the motherboard, which isn't possible in most of these machines. (Had trouble phrasing this one, basically, this is the most common form of XP in existence).

3. Volume licensing for companies who also do not want to deal with activation (which is a pain over large networks).


---------------

Note the original question. Its obviously not true, and the rep gave poor, incorrect information. If we are discussing activation on this point, (which would upset me too if it were true) then this entire conversation is moot.


I'm sure many people readin this will be seeing me as a MS fanboy. Did I mention my main machine is a Mac, and is what I typed this up on?

 

I'm pretty much done posting on this, because internet disputes never get resolved, and my goal isn't to change anyone's mind, merely to inform them. We agree to disagree and we (well, I) move on.

The original question has been analyzed several times and found to be false. No, you do not need to reactivate every time you install a piece of software. It does happen, however, if the software breaks something, and thats a risk we all take. This is the most important point of the thread.

 

I see I've started a good thread here. Thanks everyone, for your replies. I was allowed to re-activate without any fuss. I just thought it was strange that software changes might imply reactivation. Reactivation after the hardware changes make more sense. It's an annoyance, but I guess we have to deal with it. Besides, I don't mind speaking to those nice people at Microsoft, Bagalore. By software, I think what that may mean is Microsoft software.

 

Adrynalyne,

I already knew your main machine was a Mac. I read the posts rather carefully.

Again, other companies don’t get attacked because Microsoft is bigger and because they started many of the practices. This is human nature. People expect and hope the big guy will be the leader. I, for one, have a great deal of respect for the wonderful merchants out there, both big and small. I have posted nice things about them here and made recommendations for good products and great companies.

But I see that to make some things clear, I may have to offend you (as if you’re not already ). I prefer ending my forum posts on a lighter note, but I don’t want people here to think that I feel all programmers hold the view that Microsoft is right. Many programmers that I know personally, will not touch Microsoft products. Many feel far more strongly about these issues than I do. However no one I know feels he has the truth. We all just have strong feelings about some things. And some feel that Microsoft does not represent their value system.

You, however, have stated twice that you have the truth.

And you don’t think you take things personally?

I just don’t want you to feel I am saying you are wrong. I think that was a closer reason for why I felt you were taking what I said personally. And when a person uses terms such as:

“And in the end the truth is clear” post#18

“And found to be false” second to last post

That in itself is rather telling.

I hear that stuff a lot on the web. I think it says at least much about the person who thinks this way, as it does about those it is said about. Many people like to think that others do not share their “high values” simply because they do not agree with them and are willing to boycott products. I do not violate the DRM, but I will not buy Sony after the rootkit stuff. Yes, most people are only concerned about whether they are discomfited. As I have tried to make clear, I am not saying that they should, but what totally amazes me is being attacked for not wanting to use Microsoft because I think their policies are inappropriate.

This is why I think you take this stuff personally. It is as if you are being disapproved of or reprimanded, not Microsoft. Why imply that I must not “know the truth”? Why imply that those who disagree with you would not complain if they weren’t pirates?

Yes, do that. And you can’t understand the personal attack methods you use? It's called, for one, being catty.

This sort of statement will drive lots of people right up the wall. It is inflammatory to use words like truth, especially in this kind of discussion. This is a question of the actual practices that Microsoft uses. Your statement is not “the truth.” Many people have not found it easy to get their issues cleared up. They haven’t learned yet that persistence or even downright ugliness, may be required to get their rights. It is inflammatory to invalidate another’s experience. It can be taken as calling the other person a liar. I believe P had his experience, not only because it has happened to others, but because it happened to me, as I explained in post #4.

As for the current legal interpretation of the E.U.L.A. by Microsoft, you are mistaken. Please remember that legal interpretation is not a matter of common sense and using common language skills. This area is just as specialized, intricate, arcane as programming. Just as arcane as any lawyer could wish.

You will understand this and the uses of the law a great deal better when you get out of school and get a programming job. Why do you think Microsoft was able to keep Kai-Fu Lee out of work for quite some time? http://news.com.com/Google+taps+legal+muscle+for+Microsoft+case/2100-1014_3-5842851.html

Read this so you will understand how the law can tie you up in your future job prospects:
http://news.com.com/Legal+argument+could+hamper+high-tech+job-changers/2100-1022_3-5843773.html

This issue already came up two years ago to a friend of mine who was not hired for a job because he wanted to make minor modifications to a contract that would have given the company the legal right to prevent his working in programming in a future job—whether his services were retained by the first company or not. That’s right, “Thanks for working here, now pick a different profession.”

I do know what activation is and I know to a much larger extent than you can realize (because of my own education and job experience) the very broad interpretation that Microsoft gives the E.U.L.A. My initial reason for posting was to let Pra3tor1an know that what he had heard from the customer service rep was a genuine Microsoft concern, but that he should have no problems if he pursues the matter even a little bit. Microsoft knows how closely people look at this stuff. There are many personal stories of honest people having problems getting their software reactivated. Don’t begrudge the circulation of those very real stories. The circulation of information is what keeps Microsoft and every other business honest. They need it and we need it, because without exposure of abuse, the honest business person would be forced into more and more ethical dilemmas about how to feed his family when “everybody else is doing ___(dishonest thing), how can I survive?”

Circulating the information allows the playing field so that the honest business person can survive without compromising his ethics.

You said that you thought I misunderstood how activation works. I think what you meant to say was that I didn’t understand why MS was using the activation model (as a method to fight piracy). I think I have repeatedly made it clear that I simply reject being required to call in to activate as part of a very lame way of dealing with the problem. (And would have been another reason I would not have bought Windows XP.)

I think it is shortsighted to inconvenience the legitimate customers in this manner. There actually are a number of other suggestions on the web for dealing with the problem. Almost any www.zdnet.com news article on the matter draws interesting discussions. Also, if you don’t mind the advice, keep in mind that company shills are often paid to correspond on internet threads such as those at Ziff Davis, because of their influence. One of the threads I quoted, the www.devsource.com, is a developer’s news source site sponsored by Microsoft.

 

Congrats, Pra3tor1an! I knew you'd do it. And congrats on asking around here, moral support is always nice and the Major Geeks are nice without exception!
As you well know by now.

 

Well, I'm not arguing any further, and once people think it is personal, it is--for them. I stayed focus, calm, and professional throughout. I did not take any of it to heart.

I do want to clear this up. I've been working in IT for about 8 years. I've gone back to school to change careers, and am not a programmer. My field is engineering, and has nothing to do with these issues.

I don't think anyone can accurately prove anything I said to be false. In two posts I used the word truth, or true, was completely correct.

I wasn't aware of me being catty, in fact I didn't know the meaning of it.

So I looked it up.

1. Subtly cruel or malicious; spiteful: a catty remark.
2. Catlike; stealthy.


Under no circumstance did I do any of the above, and there was no spite in my remarks or tone. I've verified this from other members who read this thread for me, just to make sure I wasn't just being one sided and blind.

Seeing how feelings got hurt and things were taken personally, I'm opting to close this thread. The original poster had his question answered and as such, is now a waste of bandwidth continuing any further.

Catty, eh? I'm just not seeing it.