Advice, Vista retail or OEM?

[Dave Cox]

"DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:e8WdhbAyHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> Dave:
> Two points --
>
> 1) There was a thread here about two months ago on this subject.
> It was headed "Using OEM versions of Vista." That thread
> referenced several sources that seemed to indicate that MS was
> looking upon the DIY community as falling under the designation of
> those folks eligible to use OEM copies. There were several links
> in several postings (most by me) that indicated MS would be more
> tolerant. Unfortunately, none of those links was from MS itself.
> However, one of those links referred to something on the MS site
> that's accessible by password only.
>
> 2) The OEM license says: "'System builder' means an original
> equipment manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or
> pre-installer of software on computer systems. "
> Seems to me that if you're installing an OS on a computer, you
> meet the definition of "system builder."
>


You don't meet the defintion of "System Builder" until you enroll as
such. Plain and simple

You guys can spin it around anyway you want in order to justify saving
a few bucks.

But like I said, don't start crying like the XBOX modders did when
Microsoft's tolerance runs out.

 

[Dave Cox]

norm <noone@afakeddomain.net> wrote in
news:O6jFL#$xHHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> Dave Cox wrote:
>> "Ed Forsythe" <EdForsythe@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:u8L1R29xHHA.4240@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Sure it is! Do you really think a reputable retailer like NewEgg
>>> , Fry's, and many others would risk their reputations and incur
>>> the wrath of MS by selling "illegal" copies. MS has graciously
>>> included hobbyists in their "system builders" definition and
>>> they no longer require the sale of hardware to qualify for an
>>> OEM version. MS is interested in avoiding piracy not in
>>> isolating legitimate buyers. BTW, do you know that MS has a
>>> built-in loophole in Vista Ultimate Upgrade copies which will
>>> allow you to install without having XP on your drive.
>>> Essentially it turns the upgrade version into a full version
>>> permitting clean installs. MS is fully aware of the loophole and
>>> has chosen not to plug it. That's why I cancelled my Ultimate
>>> full version at $267 and ordered the Upgrade version for $176.
>>> The OEM was more expensive at $184. Go figure??
>>>
>>> "Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns996F72BB5877Cdcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121...
>>>> "DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>>>> news:#iEc1x8xHHA.4392@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>>>>
>>>>> "Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> Well other then buying an illegal copy that you might not be
>>>>>> able to activate. Nope no holes at all go for the OEM !
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If by any chance you can't activate it make sure to come
>>>>>> back and let us all hear your story.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dave, I'm confused by what you mean by "illegal" and being
>>>>> unable to activate.
>>>>> Do you mean the initial installation? Or are you referring to
>>>>> an attempt to install it on a second machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as I know, there's nothing illegal about buying a
>>>>> fresh, sealed OEM version from a vendor like New Egg. That's
>>>>> what I did. Installation was no problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well if your not in compliance with this site.
>>>>
>>>> http://oem.microsoft.com/script/sites/public/licensing.htm
>>>>
>>>> your OEM version you got from New Egg is illegal.
>>>>
>>>> If you are then your good to go.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like I said if you comply with the link your good to go
>> otherwise it's illegal for you to use. Does Microsoft actively
>> persue all OEM illegal installs? NOPE! will they ? WHO
>> KNOWS......But you wont catch me whinning they deactivated my
>> version if/when they do.
>>
>> New Egg states you must be a qualified buyer to buy the OEM
>> version. do they check for licensing certificates or
>> enrollments or what ever the case may be prior to selling OEM
>> versions? Apparently not.....are they legally bound to? I don't
>> know or really care. But what I do know is, if you are not
>> enrolled or certified to BUY and use OEM versions as a OEM system
>> builder, you are commiting an illegal act and sooner or later it
>> just might come back and haunt you.
>>
>>
>> Dave
>
> You might do better to provide your legal advice to newegg,
> tigerdirect or other entities selling oem versions of vista.

I don't really know how to make "Are they legally bound to? I don't
know or really care" any clearer for you.



Dave

 

[huwyngr]

In article <Xns996F72BB5877Cdcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121>, Dave Cox
wrote:

> Well  if your not in compliance with this site.
>
> http://oem.microsoft.com/script/sites/public/licensing.htm

Have you actually read that document? <g>

It begins:

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

By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system builder. If
you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another system
builder. “System builder” means an original equipment manufacturer, an
assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on computer
systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in time when a
fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system builder. A
“fully assembled computer system” means a computer system consisting of
at least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive
(internally mounted (Solid State) NAND and/or internally mounted
revolving magnetic-based hard drive), a power supply, and a case.

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

Nothing after that excludes what we do. So if you preinstall software
on computer systems, as we all do, we are system builders ....

Nuff said?

 

[huwyngr]

In article <#hiwOg9xHHA.5888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:

> Bullcrap. Using a generic OEM copy of Windows does not a system builder 
> make unless you plan to SELL the computer as a BUSINESS.

Read the system builder's licence .... or my excerpt from it in this
thread.

My Grannie would have called Microsoft "Too clever for its own good" <g>

 

[Dave Cox]

huwyngr <Hugh_Wyn_Griffith@simpilot.net> wrote in
news:VA.00000470.010b365f@unspam.tampabay.rr.com:

> In article <Xns996F72BB5877Cdcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121>, Dave Cox
> wrote:
>
>> Well  if your not in compliance with this site.
>>
>> http://oem.microsoft.com/script/sites/public/licensing.htm
>
> Have you actually read that document? <g>
>
> It begins:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system
> builder. If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to
> another system builder. “System builder” means an original
> equipment manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or
> pre-installer of software on computer systems. ”Distribution” and
> “distribute” means the point in time when a fully assembled
> computer system leaves the control of system builder. A “fully
> assembled computer system” means a computer system consisting of
> at least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive
> (internally mounted (Solid State) NAND and/or internally mounted
> revolving magnetic-based hard drive), a power supply, and a case.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
>
> Nothing after that excludes what we do. So if you preinstall
> software on computer systems, as we all do, we are system builders
> ....
>
> Nuff said?
>

You must enroll to say you are a system builder.



Dave

 

[Dave Cox]

huwyngr <Hugh_Wyn_Griffith@simpilot.net> wrote in
news:VA.00000470.010b365f@unspam.tampabay.rr.com:

> http://oem.microsoft.com/script/sites/public/licensing.htm

How OEM System Builder Licensing works
For system builders, the licensing process works like this:

Acquire the Microsoft OEM System Builder License from authorized
Microsoft OEM distributors.
Preinstall the license onto PCs.
Distribute the PCs to customers.


Have you read?

nuff said?

Dave

 

[Ed Forsythe]

Dave, it seems that you won't be confused by the facts <BG> Here's a direct
quote from MS in response to an email I sent. "...You do not have to sell
your systems to use OEM Software but you must agree to the licensing
agreement upon installation. You can read it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/default.mspx." and as explained
elsewhere MS stipulates that you agree to the license by removing the
shrink-wrap on the software. That's it!
MS considers the DIY crowd System Builders therefore they/we are entitled to
use OEM versions. The OEM versions are motherboard sensitive so that If you
change the motherboard you must purchase another copy of the OS. However,
the MS validators will ask "...have you installed this OS on any other
computer?" (or something similar). The truthful answer is no, cuz it's just
an updated version of the same computer. Just say no and you're good to go.
No piracy. No theft. No smoke and mirrors. We're happy and so is MS.
The end -)

"Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns996FB6F87C38Fdcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121...
> "DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:e8WdhbAyHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>> Dave:
>> Two points --
>>
>> 1) There was a thread here about two months ago on this subject.
>> It was headed "Using OEM versions of Vista." That thread
>> referenced several sources that seemed to indicate that MS was
>> looking upon the DIY community as falling under the designation of
>> those folks eligible to use OEM copies. There were several links
>> in several postings (most by me) that indicated MS would be more
>> tolerant. Unfortunately, none of those links was from MS itself.
>> However, one of those links referred to something on the MS site
>> that's accessible by password only.
>>
>> 2) The OEM license says: "'System builder' means an original
>> equipment manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or
>> pre-installer of software on computer systems. "
>> Seems to me that if you're installing an OS on a computer, you
>> meet the definition of "system builder."
>>
>
>
> You don't meet the defintion of "System Builder" until you enroll as
> such. Plain and simple
>
> You guys can spin it around anyway you want in order to justify saving
> a few bucks.
>
> But like I said, don't start crying like the XBOX modders did when
> Microsoft's tolerance runs out.

 

[DP]

"Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message

> You guys can spin it around anyway you want in order to justify saving
> a few bucks.

Dave: I'm not trying to spin anything. You make it sound like I bought an
OEM version and then went looking for a way to justify it. It was quite the
opposite. It wasn't until I saw stories that said MS considers DIYers to
fall under the OEM umbrella did I give any serious consideration to buying
an OEM version.

Before that I was trying to figure out what MS's Vista "upgrade" policy was
for owners of XP x64 because that was the most likely route I was going to
take. (The policy was that although you'd have to do a clean install, anyone
who owned XP x64 would be able to buy an upgrade version of Vista.)

I'm an MS stockholder. Definitely not a BIG one, but I do have some of their
stock in my IRA.
I WANT to see them prosper. But I'm also not going to turn away from what
looked like a good deal to me.


> But like I said, don't start crying like the XBOX modders did when
> Microsoft's tolerance runs out.

I promise: When the jackbooted Microsoft license police kick in my door and
forcibly remove the OS from my system and take away the OEM DVDs, I won't
cry. At least not publicly on this newsgroup.

 

[Dave Cox]

"DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
news:#xekqsEyHHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> "Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> You guys can spin it around anyway you want in order to justify
>> saving a few bucks.
>
> Dave: I'm not trying to spin anything. You make it sound like I
> bought an OEM version and then went looking for a way to justify
> it. It was quite the opposite. It wasn't until I saw stories that
> said MS considers DIYers to fall under the OEM umbrella did I give
> any serious consideration to buying an OEM version.
>
> Before that I was trying to figure out what MS's Vista "upgrade"
> policy was for owners of XP x64 because that was the most likely
> route I was going to take. (The policy was that although you'd
> have to do a clean install, anyone who owned XP x64 would be able
> to buy an upgrade version of Vista.)
>
> I'm an MS stockholder. Definitely not a BIG one, but I do have
> some of their stock in my IRA.
> I WANT to see them prosper. But I'm also not going to turn away
> from what looked like a good deal to me.
>
>
>> But like I said, don't start crying like the XBOX modders did
>> when Microsoft's tolerance runs out.
>
> I promise: When the jackbooted Microsoft license police kick in my
> door and forcibly remove the OS from my system and take away the
> OEM DVDs, I won't cry. At least not publicly on this newsgroup.
>
>
>

DP

My reponse(s) wasn't a personal attack on you.

I just want people who read this to be aware that "OEM" is a very
gray area......and yes Microsoft might not/probably wont take any
action. It would just makes me very uneasy knowing at some point a
license could get pulled and I'd hate to see some unsuspecting
person loose out on their hard earned money.

Dave

 

[DP]

"Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9970183FABAB5dcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121...


>
> I just want people who read this to be aware that "OEM" is a very
> gray area......and yes Microsoft might not/probably wont take any
> action. It would just makes me very uneasy knowing at some point a
> license could get pulled and I'd hate to see some unsuspecting
> person loose out on their hard earned money.



Agreed. MS says one thing very clearly in their OEM regulations and then
puts out word, sort of informally, that they're not going to stick to it.

People are taking a gamble buying OEM, but I don't think it's a big one. But
things could always change and that gamble could turn into a nightmare. I
don't see that happening, but, you're right, it's in the realm of
possibility.

Regards.

 

[Alias]

huwyngr wrote:
> In article <#hiwOg9xHHA.5888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:
>
>> Bullcrap. Using a generic OEM copy of Windows does not a system builder
>> make unless you plan to SELL the computer as a BUSINESS.
>
> Read the system builder's licence .... or my excerpt from it in this
> thread.

Why should I? When I bought my generic OEM licenses, they didn't come
with a system builder's license to read. I did not need a system
builder's license to buy them in Spain and the USA.

Oops.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Ed Forsythe wrote:
> Dave, it seems that you won't be confused by the facts <BG> Here's a direct
> quote from MS in response to an email I sent. "...You do not have to sell
> your systems to use OEM Software but you must agree to the licensing
> agreement upon installation. You can read it here:
> http://www.microsoft.com/oem/sblicense/default.mspx." and as explained
> elsewhere MS stipulates that you agree to the license by removing the
> shrink-wrap on the software. That's it!

Um, that is NOT an agreement, sorry.

Alias
> MS considers the DIY crowd System Builders therefore they/we are entitled to
> use OEM versions. The OEM versions are motherboard sensitive so that If you
> change the motherboard you must purchase another copy of the OS. However,
> the MS validators will ask "...have you installed this OS on any other
> computer?" (or something similar). The truthful answer is no, cuz it's just
> an updated version of the same computer. Just say no and you're good to go.
> No piracy. No theft. No smoke and mirrors. We're happy and so is MS.
> The end -)
>
> "Dave Cox" <dcox1961@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns996FB6F87C38Fdcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121...
>> "DP" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:e8WdhbAyHHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Dave:
>>> Two points --
>>>
>>> 1) There was a thread here about two months ago on this subject.
>>> It was headed "Using OEM versions of Vista." That thread
>>> referenced several sources that seemed to indicate that MS was
>>> looking upon the DIY community as falling under the designation of
>>> those folks eligible to use OEM copies. There were several links
>>> in several postings (most by me) that indicated MS would be more
>>> tolerant. Unfortunately, none of those links was from MS itself.
>>> However, one of those links referred to something on the MS site
>>> that's accessible by password only.
>>>
>>> 2) The OEM license says: "'System builder' means an original
>>> equipment manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or
>>> pre-installer of software on computer systems. "
>>> Seems to me that if you're installing an OS on a computer, you
>>> meet the definition of "system builder."
>>>
>>
>> You don't meet the defintion of "System Builder" until you enroll as
>> such. Plain and simple
>>
>> You guys can spin it around anyway you want in order to justify saving
>> a few bucks.
>>
>> But like I said, don't start crying like the XBOX modders did when
>> Microsoft's tolerance runs out.
>
>

 

[huwyngr]

In article <Xns996FD3333FBD4dcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121>, Dave Cox
wrote:

> You must enroll to say you are a system builder.

I intend to see what happens if you Register which is free .....

 

[huwyngr]

In article <Xns996FD3E45D4F1dcoxgmailcom@69.28.186.121>, Dave Cox
wrote:

> nuff said?

Seems to confirm what I was saying.

 

[huwyngr]

In article <eMegdVFyHHA.1568@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:

> Why should I?

Because you're the person who said "bullcrap"

 

[huwyngr]

In article <unX8fEHyHHA.5888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:

> Um, that is NOT an agreement, sorry.

But the OEM licence is an agreement and two of us have quoted the words
of the OEM licence to you which are precise and legally binding.

The licence does not say anything about signing up or having to sell
the PC:

<< By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system builder.
If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another system 
builder. “System builder” means an original equipment manufacturer, an 
assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on computer 
systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in time when
a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system builder.
A “fully assembled computer system” means a computer system consisting
of at least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive
(internally mounted (Solid State) NAND and/or internally mounted 
revolving magnetic-based hard drive), a power supply, and a case. >>

Note the word is "or" not "and".

 

[Alias]

huwyngr wrote:
> In article <unX8fEHyHHA.5888@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:
>
>> Um, that is NOT an agreement, sorry.
>
> But the OEM licence is an agreement and two of us have quoted the words
> of the OEM licence to you which are precise and legally binding.
>
> The licence does not say anything about signing up or having to sell
> the PC:
>
> << By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system builder.
> If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another system
> builder. “System builder” means an original equipment manufacturer, an
> assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on computer
> systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in time when
> a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system builder.
> A “fully assembled computer system” means a computer system consisting
> of at least a central processing unit, a motherboard, a hard drive
> (internally mounted (Solid State) NAND and/or internally mounted
> revolving magnetic-based hard drive), a power supply, and a case. >>
>
> Note the word is "or" not "and".
>

There is nothing in the XP Pro or XP Home EULA that I agreed to that
says *anything* about a systems builder. You must be quoting the Systems
Builder EULA which, of course, is not relevant. Now, if systems builder
is in the EULA of Vista, I don't know as it isn't available on line.

Alias

 

[huwyngr]

In article <uahO4shyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:

> You must be quoting the Systems 
> Builder EULA which, of course, is not relevant.

Of course I am because the discussion moved onto that. The message from
you that I quoted the EULA in reply to was a reply to someone, and
quoted from someone who was specifically quoting the SBEULA.

It may not be relevant to what you did in the past but it is relevant
to what is being discussed and to your replies. You need to read what
you quote when replying.

 

[Alias]

huwyngr wrote:
> In article <uahO4shyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>, Alias wrote:
>
>> You must be quoting the Systems
>> Builder EULA which, of course, is not relevant.
>
> Of course I am because the discussion moved onto that. The message from
> you that I quoted the EULA in reply to was a reply to someone, and
> quoted from someone who was specifically quoting the SBEULA.
>
> It may not be relevant to what you did in the past but it is relevant
> to what is being discussed and to your replies. You need to read what
> you quote when replying.
>

The OP was talking about buying a generic OEM for his personal computer.
Some *idiot* said that NewEgg's OEMs are illegal because they don't come
with a System's Builder's EULA.

Enuff fukkin said.

Alias

 

[huwyngr]

He's not the only person who posted here -- the discussion broadened.