Re: win7 32/64 bit dual boot same machine

[cj@heaven.org]

>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,

>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one

>time.

>

>[There's the clincher. it is forbidden in the EULA.]

>

>Oh well I guess I can't try it, but I think it will work.



IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.

it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.



If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,

IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.

 

[Joel]

cj@heaven.org wrote:



>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,

>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one

>>time.

>

>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.

>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.

>

>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,

>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.





It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be

written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any

event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the

other at one time.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Andrew]

"Joel" wrote in message

news:5dahr5lln5ncol9e8m38okg6sdo0os63n2@4ax.com...

> cj@heaven.org wrote:

>

>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,

>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at

>>>one

>>>time.

>>

>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you

>>may only install one version.

>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.

>>

>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does

>>not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,

>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION

>>AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one

>>time.

>

>

> It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be

> written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any

> event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the

> other at one time.

>

Yeah that's the exact verbage from the site. It does tell you that you can

only install 64 or 32 higher up in the EULA.



http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows

7_Ultimate_English_6b5dbb25-2871-4073-904d-9f2d3a9a0497.pdf



It forbids you from running a 64 bit machine and using the 32 bit one in a

VM which is how most users would probably try it.



--

Andrew

 

[cj@heaven.org]

>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,

>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one

>>>time.

>>

>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.

>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.

>>

>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,

>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.





>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be

>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any

>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the

>other at one time.



>--

>Joel Crump



Most people are not lawyers. None the less, I don't see any verbage that requires a lawyer.

Your interpretation is your opinion and while it may well be correct, as written,

it can also be interepeted as I stated. If MS can't write a EULA more clearly, how can they possibly

expect people to understand intent?

 

[Joel]

cj@heaven.org wrote:



>>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be

>>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any

>>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the

>>other at one time.

>

>Most people are not lawyers. None the less, I don't see any verbage that requires a lawyer.

>Your interpretation is your opinion and while it may well be correct, as written,

>it can also be interepeted as I stated. If MS can't write a EULA more clearly, how can they possibly

>expect people to understand intent?





I would tend to agree they should be as clear as they can. However,

my concern is with making sure people understand what the harm would

be if they were to violate the license agreement. Fair or not,

understandable or not, it's their headache if they let their key get

marked as being misused.



--

Joel Crump

 

[Char Jackson]

On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 11:01:17 -0400, Joel wrote:



>cj@heaven.org wrote:

>

>>>Alternative Versions. The software may include more than one version,

>>>such as 32-bit and 64-bit. You may install and use only one version at one

>>>time.

>>

>>IF THAT IS THE EXACT VERBAGE it's very poorly worded. It does not say you may only install one version.

>>it says you may install AND ONLY USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME.

>>

>>If it said you may install ONE version, it would be different. But it does not say that. Therefore based on that verbage,

>>IMO, that gives you the right to install both and then use USE ONE VERSION AT ONE TIME. Geesh it's not even possible to use both versions at one time.

>

>

>It says both individual things in one phrase. Perhaps it could be

>written in an easier form to understand for non-lawyers, but in any

>event, it means both that you can only install and use one or the

>other at one time.



No offense, but I never take legal advice from random Usenet postings

and recommend others do likewise. Relying on someone I don't know to

tell me what something means seems like a recipe for failure.

 

[Joel]

Char Jackson wrote:



>No offense, but I never take legal advice from random Usenet postings

>and recommend others do likewise. Relying on someone I don't know to

>tell me what something means seems like a recipe for failure.





Ideally, no one would have taken action based on any of these

posts - but I believe, in case anyone might, that it's best to put it

in perspective as best I can, and hope people make a wise decision, in

particular by looking at the opposing viewpoints and investigating it

properly for themselves.



--

Joel Crump