ahoypatty

What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop

"Jc" wrote:

> ok so i bought windows Vista ultimate and put it on my desktop so i liked it
> so i put it on my laptop thinking i could use the same product key on my
> laptop and vista is 4xx.xx bucks then after a little it ask to active it then
> it say its being used so i call them up and they want me to pay for a new one
> you cant use vista on more then one computer if u already bought it?
>

Bruce Chambers

ahoypatty wrote:
> What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop
>


You need to purchase a separate Vista license for each computer on
which you install it.

Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems, it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one Vista license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which Vista
licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows (up until
WinXP, that is) is that Microsoft has added a copy protection and
anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make
more difficult) multiple installations using a single license.

With Vista Ultimate, it's sometimes possible to qualify for
additional licenses, at a reduced cost:

Windows Vista: Windows Vista Family Discount
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ydiscount.mspx


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Nina DiBoy

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> ahoypatty wrote:
>> What was the answer? Can you put it on your own laptop
>>
>
>
> You need to purchase a separate Vista license for each computer on
> which you install it.

No Bruce. You *need* to eat. But you don't *need* to purchase a
separate license...

>
> Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,

This is incorrect.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926

"Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software and
Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard disk
or other storage device of a computer (other than a network server) and
one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the time it is in
use, then that person may also use the software on a portable or home
computer."

> it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
> copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
> technically) to purchase one Vista license for each computer on which it
> is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
> final applicability in your locale.) The only way in which Vista
> licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows (up until
> WinXP, that is) is that Microsoft has added a copy protection and
> anti-theft mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make
> more difficult) multiple installations using a single license.

Which fails miserably. It only inconveniences paying customers.

>
> With Vista Ultimate, it's sometimes possible to qualify for
> additional licenses, at a reduced cost:
>
> Windows Vista: Windows Vista Family Discount
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...ydiscount.mspx


--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

Bruce Chambers

Nina DiBoy wrote:
>
>>
>> Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
>
> This is incorrect.
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926
>
> "Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software and
> Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard disk
> or other storage device of a computer (other than a network server) and
> one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the time it is in
> use, then that person may also use the software on a portable or home
> computer."
>


Please point out just what part of the above makes any reference to any
*OPERATING SYSTEM*. You really should try to be more convincing when
you want to lie.

Please, if you're going to try to troll, at least read some of the
other trolls and develop a few basic skills, first.



--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

norm

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Nina DiBoy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
>>
>> This is incorrect.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926
>>
>> "Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software
>> and Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard
>> disk or other storage device of a computer (other than a network
>> server) and one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the
>> time it is in use, then that person may also use the software on a
>> portable or home computer."
>>
>
>
> Please point out just what part of the above makes any reference to
> any *OPERATING SYSTEM*. You really should try to be more convincing
> when you want to lie.
>
> Please, if you're going to try to troll, at least read some of the
> other trolls and develop a few basic skills, first.
>
>
>
Bruce, I am not trying to get in the middle of your disagreement with
nina, but the kb cited (83926) states: "Under the licensing agreements
for Microsoft applications software and Windows 3.0,............". If I
read correctly from wikipedia, windows 3.0 is designated an operating
system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.x
Windows 3.x can refer to the following versions of the Microsoft Windows
operating system:
* Windows 3.0
* Windows 3.1x
Also from this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating system to
the 1990 release of Windows 3.0, the first widely popular version of
Windows and the first version of Windows many PC users ever tried.

So whether or not there is a direct reference as to 3.0 being an os, why
would you argue otherwise? Possibly, you should consider changing the
following part of your statement about licensing terms: "Just as it has
*always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems......". Maybe that
is just not the case.

--
norm

Nina DiBoy

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Nina DiBoy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Just as it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
>>
>> This is incorrect.
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926
>>
>> "Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software
>> and Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard
>> disk or other storage device of a computer (other than a network
>> server) and one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the
>> time it is in use, then that person may also use the software on a
>> portable or home computer."
>>
>
>
> Please point out just what part of the above makes any reference to
> any *OPERATING SYSTEM*. You really should try to be more convincing
> when you want to lie.
>
> Please, if you're going to try to troll, at least read some of the
> other trolls and develop a few basic skills, first.
>
>
>

Why would MS compare the license agreements for 3.0 and 3.1 if they
weren't comparable software? Why would both versions be named "Windows"?

Noted that you snipped the rest without responding.

--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

...winston

Not applicable.

"Nina DiBoy" <nina@di.boy> wrote in message :
: This is incorrect.
:
: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926
:
: "Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software and
: Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard disk
: or other storage device of a computer (other than a network server) and
: one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the time it is in
: use, then that person may also use the software on a portable or home
: computer."

Nina DiBoy

....winston wrote:
> Not applicable.

How?

>
> "Nina DiBoy" <nina@di.boy> wrote in message :
> : This is incorrect.
> :
> : http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83926
> :
> : "Under the licensing agreements for Microsoft applications software and
> : Windows 3.0, if the software is permanently installed on the hard disk
> : or other storage device of a computer (other than a network server) and
> : one person uses that computer more than 80 percent of the time it is in
> : use, then that person may also use the software on a portable or home
> : computer."
>



--
Priceless quotes in m.p.w.vista.general group:
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/kick.html

Most recent idiotic quote added to KICK (Klassic Idiotic Caption Kooks):
"Spoken like a true NixTurd (oops, NixTard)."

"Good poets borrow; great poets steal."
- T. S. Eliot

Bruce Chambers

norm wrote:
>

> Bruce, I am not trying to get in the middle of your disagreement with
> nina, but the kb cited (83926) states: "Under the licensing agreements
> for Microsoft applications software and Windows 3.0,............".


Correct. That very same article states quite clearly that, unlike
Windows 3.0, Microsoft considered Windows 3.1 as "system software."
However, to anyione more than casually acquainted with computers, even
that is quite a stretch. In reality, Windows 3.1 (and 95 and 98, to a
certain extent, as well) was nothing more than a GUI shell that would
not work unless the real OS (MS-DOS) was loaded first. To the technical
world, the first version of Windows that could truly be considred an
operating system was WinNT3.x.

> If I
> read correctly from wikipedia, windows 3.0 is designated an operating
> system.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_3.x
> Windows 3.x can refer to the following versions of the Microsoft Windows
> operating system:
> * Windows 3.0
> * Windows 3.1x


Wikipedia has never struck me as a horribly reliable source, and it's
just plain wrong on this point.


> Also from this site:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryDesktop.mspx
> Many longtime PC users trace the Microsoft Windows® operating system to
> the 1990 release of Windows 3.0, the first widely popular version of
> Windows and the first version of Windows many PC users ever tried.
>


But that article doesn't actually state that Windows 3.0 was an
operating system, does it?


> So whether or not there is a direct reference as to 3.0 being an os, why
> would you argue otherwise?


For the simple reason Win3.0, by Microsoft's own words, was not an OS.


> Possibly, you should consider changing the
> following part of your statement about licensing terms: "Just as it has
> *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems......".


Why change a simple statement of fact, one actually documented by a
troll ineptly trying to refute the statement.

> Maybe that
> is just not the case.
>

It is the case, though, unless one goes back to pre-MSDOS days.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

Bruce Chambers

Nina DiBoy wrote:
>
>
> Why would MS compare the license agreements for 3.0 and 3.1 if they
> weren't comparable software?


Because the names were similar but that scope and licensing of the two
products were different. Is that so hard to grasp? Did you even read
the article? By the way, I really should have thanked you for pointing
it out and proving my point for me. I apologize for that lapse in manners.


> Why would both versions be named "Windows"?
>


Why does Microsoft have Windows *Explorer* and Internet *Explorer*,
*Outlook* and *Outlook* Express, Windows *XP* and Office *XP*? No one
ever accused Microsoft of using original, clear and/or distinctive names
for different products.


> Noted that you snipped the rest without responding.
>

Didn't think it was particularly relevant. Is that the same reason you
neglected to quote the portion of the KB Article that clearly stated that:

"However, Windows 3.1 is considered systems software and therefore
follows the same licensing agreement as MS-DOS (that is, you must
purchase one copy of the software for each machine)."

(Mind you, I don't actually consider even Windows 3.1 to be a true
operating system, despite Microsoft's statement/definition, as one first
had to boot into MS-DOS and then execute Windows. It was just a GUI
shell riding on top of the true OS, MS-DOS. I've much the same opinion
of Win9x, although they made the transition a bit more "seamless.")


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell