Q. Which component is an OEM copy of Windows linked to? A. Motherboard

Wheety

Can I swap the CPU and still use the OEM version of Windows with it? Is it linked to the motherboard?

Deano12345

Wheety wrote: »

Can I swap the CPU and still use the OEM version of Windows with it? Is it linked to the motherboard?

On my Windows 7 install it un-verified when I changed the CPU,although that was on a RTM.I think it is linked to the motherboard though

Capt'n Midnight

Microsoft windows OEM is linked to the motherboard.

If the motherboard dies and it's not replaced under warranty by the supplier then the copy of windows dies too.

BOZG

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Microsoft windows OEM is linked to the motherboard.

If the motherboard dies and it's not replaced under warranty by the supplier then the copy of windows dies too.

You can contact Microsoft and they'll unlock the OEM version if you're upgrading though I've heard mixed responses. Some said they did it no probem, others have said they had to do a bit of arguing.

Shane O' Malley

I have changed the motherboard and Windows was still fine.

It is a number of items. MB, Graphics, Networking, HD

No one item will cause Windows to deactivate.

Fysh

Shane O' Malley wrote: »

I have changed the motherboard and Windows was still fine.

It is a number of items. MB, Graphics, Networking, HD

No one item will cause Windows to deactivate.

The fact that it is technically possible to do this does not mean that the OEM licence is valid after a non-warranty-replacement motherboard swap, which is usually where confusion/arguments about them arise.

Capt'n Midnight

BOZG wrote: »

You can contact Microsoft and they'll unlock the OEM version if you're upgrading though I've heard mixed responses. Some said they did it no probem, others have said they had to do a bit of arguing.

The people you contact work in a call centre and aren't Microsoft employees , technically this is fraud on your part !

Most (99%) drivers break the speed limit of 50Km/hr on certain link roads. Doesn't make it legal. Gardai haven't prosecuted many people illegally driving on L plates. Just because a condition isn't enforced to the letter of the law in every event doesn't make OEM legal,

Overheal

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The people you contact work in a call centre and aren't Microsoft employees , technically this is fraud on your part !

Most (99%) drivers break the speed limit of 50Km/hr on certain link roads. Doesn't make it legal. Gardai haven't prosecuted many people illegally driving on L plates. Just because a condition isn't enforced to the letter of the law in every event doesn't make OEM legal,

those call centres work with the authority of microsoft.

BOZG

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The people you contact work in a call centre and aren't Microsoft employees , technically this is fraud on your part !

Most (99%) drivers break the speed limit of 50Km/hr on certain link roads. Doesn't make it legal. Gardai haven't prosecuted many people illegally driving on L plates. Just because a condition isn't enforced to the letter of the law in every event doesn't make OEM legal,

Fair enough but I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep over committing fraud against Microsoft.

Fysh

BOZG wrote: »

Fair enough but I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep over committing fraud against Microsoft.

Heh, licences don't work like that. At the very least you're opening yourself up to potential future activation issues, but if you're not willing to pay for the product why not use some linux variant that you can legitimately download and install for free? Yes it can be hassle to get it to work, but on the other hand you're not having to violate the licence under which it's distributed.

And if you do want to specifically use Windows, where's the problem with paying for it?

cython

Shane O' Malley wrote: »

I have changed the motherboard and Windows was still fine.

It is a number of items. MB, Graphics, Networking, HD

No one item will cause Windows to deactivate.

Bingo. According to this page

The WPA system checks ten categories of hardware:

1. Display Adapter
2. SCSI Adapter
3. IDE Adapter (effectively the motherboard)
4. Network Adapter (NIC) and its MAC Address
5. RAM Amount Range (i.e., 0-64mb, 64-128mb, etc.)
6. Processor Type
7. Processor Serial Number
8. Hard Drive Device
9. Hard Drive Volume Serial Number (VSN)
10. CD-ROM / CD-RW / DVD-ROM

However it can happen that a motherboard replacement will force reactivation, as items 1, 2, 3, and 4 can all be on board. As long as 7 of the categories match first activation, then you should be ok. Of course this may have changed with more recent versions, but this was a case, and MS probably haven't changed it too much.

BOZG

Fysh wrote: »

Heh, licences don't work like that. At the very least you're opening yourself up to potential future activation issues, but if you're not willing to pay for the product why not use some linux variant that you can legitimately download and install for free? Yes it can be hassle to get it to work, but on the other hand you're not having to violate the licence under which it's distributed.

And if you do want to specifically use Windows, where's the problem with paying for it?

I do use Linux and I would pay for the licence to use Windows purely because of activation issues, having used copies of Windows XP a few years ago which became useless after Service Pack 1.

As for the licence, I wouldn't care in the slightest about breaking a licence that defends intellectual property rights and closed source technology, both of which have a negative impact on the further development of technology. I've no moral scruples with not paying a company who've made their profits over monopolising technology.

Fysh

BOZG wrote: »

I do use Linux and I would pay for the licence to use Windows purely because of activation issues, having used copies of Windows XP a few years ago which became useless after Service Pack 1.

As for the licence, I wouldn't care in the slightest about breaking a licence that defends intellectual property rights and closed source technology, both of which have a negative impact on the further development of technology. I've no moral scruples with not paying a company who've made their profits over monopolising technology.

If you don't like the nature of Microsoft's licence scheme, you shouldn't be using their stuff. In the case of OEM licences preinstalled on vendor-supplied hardware, you contact them and and arrange to return the media in exchange for a refund of the licence cost. That's a fair way of proceeding.

Using their software because you got it cheap and then blatantly contravening the terms of the licence and agreed usage under which you got it cheap, on the other hand, is not fair. There's no right to violate licences because you want the stuff and don't think the full price is reasonable.

mukki

BOZG wrote: »

Fair enough but I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep over committing fraud against Microsoft.

EDIT... i am not a mod but this is the way i look at it....



neither would i, and i am sure no one would care if they (or someone they know) had something that works thats not legally installed on thier pc


but this is not a warez jukie site, start posting how to do one thing that is against licensing,and people will be looking for crakz, appz and pron.


you will end up with a site that has pop up windows trying to install stuff to your pc, 100's of spam email daily from when you register, etc, like the rest of those shyte warez site

Bodan

You should be fine if you only want to replace the CPU. I read this in an article earlier today.

You can upgrade any components or peripherals on your PC and keep your license intact. You can replace the motherboard with an identical model or an equivalent model from the OEM if it fails. However, if you personally replace or upgrade the motherboard, your OEM Windows license is null and void.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1514&page=2&tag=col1;post-1514


As you can see, it is only if you replace the motherboard where you will lose the oem licence.

Dartz

Fysh wrote: »

If you don't like the nature of Microsoft's licence scheme, you shouldn't be using their stuff. In the case of OEM licences preinstalled on vendor-supplied hardware, you contact them and and arrange to return the media in exchange for a refund of the licence cost. That's a fair way of proceeding.

Using their software because you got it cheap and then blatantly contravening the terms of the licence and agreed usage under which you got it cheap, on the other hand, is not fair. There's no right to violate licences because you want the stuff and don't think the full price is reasonable.

The same old debate.
If I buy a basic model car, I can tweak the firmware in the ECU to get more power, right? Technically, your not supposed to do that (In the US it's actually outright illegal.)
If I buy a book, I can annotate it, copy the odd page for educational use and use it as fuel for a political rally bonfire. Technically you're not supposed to add content.
If I buy a computer, I can tweak and chop and change, because it's mine. I can overclock a budget CPU to beat the latest and greatest. Technically I'm not supposed to.

I don't see what the big deal is about obeying the letter of a software license is. You pay's your money, get on with using it. It might technically be fraud, but at the same time, so is crossing the road in the middle of traffic technically an offence. But nobody actually cares. It really does seem to me to be just anally retentive. It really bugs me.

Technically, you're not supposed to copy your CD's to your computer either... but nobody even blinks at that.

Software licensing.... can you imagine if a car manufacturer licensed your car to you, rather than sold it. Only use our parts, only use certain roads, never exceed a certain RPM, pay us 5 grand to activate the airbag? And if you break a rule, your car will know and refuse to start..... or stop in the middle of traffic.

I understand half of why it's necessary...digital content is so easy to redistribute.... but at the same time, I also wonder why it all has to be so complicated.

And yes, for your information... I did change Operating Systems in part because of this. I only have Windows 7 installed atm because I was able to get it without paying for it.

/wafflish rant.

Fysh

*sigh*

Yes, it is the same old debate. You seem to be assuming that I like this state of play. I don't. I hate it. I hate that living in the UK means that if I build a media centre/jukebox at home and rip my DVDs onto it, I'm breaking copyright. I hate that buying a CD and ripping it means breaking copyright, even though I don't generally share them with anyone. I hate that software licences are fundamentally based on the principle of patenting equations, despite equations themselves being specifically excluded from the scope of most patent systems.

However, I can hate it and disagree with it all I like - I work in IT support and that means I have to enforce these things in the workplace, which brings a certain level of clarity to reviewing my home usage (where, due to the nature of the world, I could very likely infringe in all sorts of ways without ever getting caught). And the point is - laws and conventions like this don't exist on the premise that you only adhere to the ones you like or agree with. If you don't like it, lobby for change. Protest against it. Don't just sit there and break the rules, boasting about how you have no problem breaking the rules because you don't think they're fair.

New services that better suit the usage patterns and licences we want arise when people refuse to use old services and ask for something different. Point in case - I have an eMusic account, which allows me to legitimately download 50 un-DRMd mp3s a month. No ripping issues there. If everyone just bought CDs and ripped them and ignored the fact that they might not actually want a physical CD and they weren't supposed to rip the thing anyway, I wouldn't be able to get an eMusic account because they wouldn't be able to viably run the service.

In short - yes, a lot of software licences suck ass, but that doesn't give you any kind of carte blanche to ignore them. If you do so, you're as responsible for the perpetuation of crappy software licences as the vendors are, because you're pretending to the world (by using the software) that you agree with the licence terms under which it's distributed.

Dartz

But that's the thing.

I didn't *buy* Windows 7... I got it through MSDNAA. I ran the beta/RC because I got it free. I'd never have paid for it, just dropped back to the OEM Vista that I got with this jalloppy.

I'll never buy a Windows operating system. I may use the one that came with my PC... but that's just because asking for a refund is a pain in the arse, and I do actually use it from time to time. The only thing I actually use Windows for these days, are games (The ones I play actually run in Wine anyway), and MS Access/Visio for college courses. I don't really want it, and would never run out to actually buy it, but it was offered at no cost, so I thought what the hell?

I use Linux precisely because the licensing is so uncomplicated for the end user. Copy it however you like, download it, tweak it, mirror it, sell it, pirate it... do what you want, so long as you show how you did it.... just don't ask for a warranty. It doesn't get in my way, or nag, or whatever.

I do buy software I like though. I bought Kaspersky Internet Security. 3 PC license, so long as it's only running on 3 PC's at the same time, they aren't bothered. It doesn't get in the way of just getting on with using it. And here's the thing... 90% of people just want to use the damn thing... the license is just a screen they have to click past which gets in the way of them getting on the internet. They don't care about software licensing, they just want to use the thing they paid for.

I buy CD's, because they're more convenient for me than downloading. I rip them. I have a 1Tb NAS drive filled with over 200 DvD movies and several Gig of CD-rips. Took a long time to do, but it's so much more convenient to have that lot digitised than rooting through such a large collection, or choosing what I want to bring with me. And it's nice to have a hardcopy, just in case the drive goes poof.

The vast majority of people just get on with what they're doing, and don't give a sod. There's a lot of stuff in my day to day life that's probably illegal... up to and including jailtime... but at the same time, it doesn't bother me. There's a difference between something that is wrong and something that is unlawful. I'll do what I need to do to get on with life without harming anyone.

Fysh

You're missing my point, I think.

OEM Windows appears to be free at point of purchase because the cost is absorbed into the overall cost of the machine. You've still paid the vendor, who in turn has paid Microsoft, for a licence. That licence has set terms. Don't like 'em? Fine. Don't use the software. Given the range of software platforms out there now, the best way you can hurt a platform you dislike for whatever reason (whether it's stability, licencing, handling of graphics or something else) is to starve it of attention. If more people who dislike the licencing terms of Windows licences actually put the elbow grease into finding an alternative whose terms they accepted and using them instead, we'd see more commercial OS rising up on the back of user-palatable licences and support infrastructures.

In the exact same way that DRM-free subscription music download services started to appear when it became apparent that music fans just weren't going to put up with the shoddy efforts that were the early DRM-heavy digital music services. I hope that the video entertainment industry will be smart enough to learn from the music industry's mistakes and avoid this, but it's not looking likely given DVD region coding, the horrible DRM most digital video download services are lumbered with, and the abject terror with which they respond to the word "streaming". But, well, nascent industry and all that.

The fact that something is technically possible doesn't make it permissible. Whether you've got what you feel is a good excuse doesn't matter.

Capt'n Midnight

Oh boy , this is turning into the old debate again

BUT this forum is about software you have a legal right to use, so advocating breaching microsofts EULA is just not on. Especially since there is such a wide choice of free software out there. You can even install evaluation versions of windows server that are good for a few months.

In case anyone thinks they are fightin the powar by breaking the EULA you aren't.
All you are doing is extending the wintel monoculture and removing breeding space from open source.