dell vista upgrade license?

"RnR" wrote in message ...

Tom, I do understand how you feel even if I don't 100% agree. I'll
stop here because we agree and disagree and think we both made points.
No hard feeling of course as I welcome differences of opinion to mine
because I don't claim I'm always correct and on occasion do change my
position.

Changing the subject, have you NOW settled in your new home? Got all
your networking worked out? Better get your vette checked out because
I think it should be capable of greater than 170 mph if my memory
serves me correctly because I had a cousin who once had a 427/390hp
vette and I thought he said it should do 180 (many years ago) ! I
heard that he tested it once on a track and because it didn't get up
to speed, brought it back to Chevy to look at it. I never had to
worry about that issue as I knew my first car was lucky to reach half
that speed (pinto).

Please don't take my passion as criticism (OK, just a little

One last comment. Shrink wrap licenses have also held up in court so by
using it you agreed. Last I'll say about it.

Reasonably close to settled in. Network and TV servers all operating as
they should. Need the replacement motherboard for the 620 to get my office
TV operating as I'd like but other than that.....

So far Vista is also cooperating. Even my old Seiko label print is working.
Surprise surprise.

Oh and yes I know the Vette will do 180+. Just being modest OK,
perhaps averaging the capabilities of my cars.....

Tom

However, in many (perhaps not all) Vista Licenses it goes on to say that
the license may be "downgraded" to run XP. So, in that case, presumably
(as I would read it), dual boot in which you were effectively changing
back and forth between XP and Vista (on one single machine, with one
single copy of each) would be ok.

I think that the INTENT of the "After you upgrade, you may no longer use
the software you upgraded from" sentence was to preclude use of both the
"old" and "new" software on two different machines, not to preclude dual
booting on the same machine.


RnR wrote:


Well, I am surprised, but I just read the Vista EULA and it says:

"
UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible

for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the
agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you
may no longer use the software you upgraded from.?

So technically, you may no longer use your XP license once you have
installed Vista. However, since Microsoft explicitly provides the
technology to allow dual boots, I think their argument that you are breaking
their license when using both licenses ON THE SAME MACHINE would be weak.

I would be surprised if they ever pursued it.

Tom

Thanks Tom for strengthening my opinion (my previous post) !
I'm just getting tired of MS trying to dictate how or what we can do
with their software we purchased legally especially for personal use.

WOW I can't believe different versions of "is it illegal to install Vista
on?" keep popping up... But this one seems to be pushing the envelope a
bit.. My opinion, dual boot is perfectly legal, both OS's were intended to
be used on THAT computer so how can anyone see that as illegal? Using them
on different computers or separate computers is a different issue but on the
computer which Dell sent you the disks for absolutely.. Actually I think it
wise to go dual boot, WHAT IF a week or even a month from the day you
installed Vista problems pop up and you find Vista is a bad fit for your
needs and/or your PC, with dual boot you just copy back the documents and
such you took from the XP disk and no harm done, with only Vista running and
days could be lost reinstalling having to reinstall XP, programs, settings
and putting back backed-up info.. I'm running dual boot and honestly feel it
is absolutely legal, both operating systems were intended for THIS Dell E520
and are used only on THIS E520..


"georgie" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's what I thought...technically you can't dual-boot. While it's
probably true that Microsoft would not "pursue" anyone dual-booting
with an upgrade version of Vista, the EULA does state that you may no
longer use the software you upgraded from...it doesn't say you can use
it in certain circumstances, like dual booting. It actually makes
sense for Microsoft to word the EULA the way they did, because the
upgrade version of Vista costs a lot less than a full version. So if
you want to dual boot then you have to buy a full copy of Vista, not
just an upgrade version. At least that's how I read it...



On Apr 7, 9:49 pm, "Tom Scales" wrote:


Well, I am surprised, but I just read the Vista EULA and it says:

"
UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible

for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the
agreement for the software

you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software
you
upgraded from.?

So technically, you may no longer use your XP license once you have
installed Vista. However, since Microsoft explicitly provides the
technology to allow dual boots, I think their argument that you are
breaking
their license when using both licenses ON THE SAME MACHINE would be weak.

I would be surprised if they ever pursued it.

Tom

"I still believe if I buy a legal copy of software (regardless of
what the EULA says) feel that I have the right to copy it and use it
in my home as many times as I need to (say for multiple pc's) as long
as it's NOT for profit."

As you said, some disagree with you. On that one, I'm one of the ones
who strongly disagrees. You are clearly wrong in that regard from a
legal perspective. If this was hardware and not software, I think you
would see that. For example, if your stereo system needs two
[identical] speakers, you don't have the right to buy one and steal the
2nd one. Or tires, or anything else. An OS is a "part" that a computer
needs. Each computer needs an OS. Because it's software, you may be
able to physically do it (although MS is making it harder), but it's
neither legal nor in accordance with the EULA (the spirit of the EULA, I
agree that SOMETIMES I'm willing to ignore the letter of it). It's
because of people with your attitude that we have to put up with Product
activation. And note that in SOME cases, MS allows what you say you
want to do, for example the HOME (previously Student & Teacher) editions
of Office 2003 and 2007 DO allow installation on three computers (for
the purchase of one single license). But on OS', the position has
always been that you need one (separate and unique) OS license for each
computer. Of course, normally, a computer comes with an OS, although it
may not be the edition that you want, and at some point there will be a
newer version of Windows out.

RnR wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 13:19:28 GMT, Bob Levine
wrote:

Tom Scales wrote:


I would be surprised if they ever pursued it.

As would I. I'm firmly against software piracy but I'm much more
concerned about the spirit of an EULA than the letter of it.

Bob


Well put Bob. I agree 99% with it. The only 1% I'm holding out on is
that I still believe if I buy a legal copy of software (regardless of
what the EULA says) feel that I have the right to copy it and use it
in my home as many times as I need to (say for multiple pc's) as long
as it's NOT for profit. I know some disagree with me as well as some
EULA's but that's how I feel. That said, I feel authors perhaps
should price their wares accordingly to allow for this (again how I
feel may not agree with others).

Your bed analogy makes no sense at all. It's more like a car tire, you
are arguing that because you bought one tire, you should be able to
steal the other three, since you have 4 wheels that need tires (or 8 or
12, if you have more than one car). Of course, with physical objects,
it SOUNDS absurd, but it's your argument that is equally absurd just
because software CAN be duplicated.

[Microsoft never said that everyone in a family could not use the ONE
computer on which a given copy of Windows is installed .... THAT is the
bed analogy.]

And as to "I agree I have seen some volume licenses stated as 1-3 which
I hadn't thought about when I posted my previous post. That more or
less is how I feel all EULAs should read", well, you are entitled to
feel that that is how they SHOULD read, but that doesn't mean that when
they don't read that way, you have a right to totally ignore them (and
we are not talking about the "letter" of the EULA here, but the intent).
I feel that GM should have a nice new car at $9,999, but they don't,
and I don't therefore have a right to steal a car and send the dealer
$9,999.

You are just rationalizing your own actions, which in this case are
simply theft, plain and simple.


RnR wrote:


Tom, to me its analogous to saying if I buy a single bed, only one
person at a time (and maybe only a certain person at that) can use it
unless I buy another. I guess no matter what I say will/will not
change other's minds but I still feel it's NOT stealing (despite what
the EULA says) as long as it is purchased legally and NOT used for
profit (and used in my own home on my own pc/laptops). I guess this
is ONE topic I'm aware of that we STRONGLY disagree.

And yes, I agree I have seen some volume licenses stated as 1-3 which
I hadn't thought about when I posted my previous post. That more or
less is how I feel all EULAs should read. I suppose we could bicker
if 3 is enough but at least the intent of the law is in line with my
feelings.

Sorry, you ARE being dishonest. And not just in your theft, but in your
attempt to rationalize and justify it to yourself.

And I'm not even the person to whom you were responding.


RnR wrote:


Give me a break. Just because I don't agree with you, you judge me to
be dishonest. That's not intelligent to do.

I do believe in truth and ethics but it has to be fair to ALL. If
licensing is such as you say, then I don't agree. I should have the
right to do as I want in my "own" home with regard to software (the
one I reside in). I'm not for loaning it out to family if they live
else where even if I own that home. I'm ONLY talking about in the one
home/space I reside in. You are stretching my words into areas I
didn't imply or say. For example, if I lived in an apartment (I
don't) and I had your software for example, I'd want to be able to
install it in my, say pc and laptop in my apartment unit, NOT other
units even if I own them because I don't live in those units.

And you site businesses that stole your software ( and I assume they
were using your multiple copies for profit). If you remember I said
my belief is NOT for the purposes of profit even if used in my home.
Realistically for NON business use at home, I would probably never
want to buy more than one copy of software but allowing me to have it
loaded on more than one pc "at home" concurrently just makes it more
convenient rather than installing it, uninstalling it, installing it
from pc to pc at home. Inotherwords, you aren't losing money from my
multiple copies used at home because I'd never buy more than one copy
of software in the first place, if I intended to use it only at home
and not for profit.

And just because the laws favor your opinion at the moment doesn't
mean they won't change. As years go by, laws do change.

Tom, just because we don't agree doesn't mean I'm dishonest or your
stupid. It just means we don't agree period.

Except that many Vista licenses have another clause that allows them to
be downgraded and used as an XP (or Windows 2000) license. Which would
seem to thus allow dual booting (essentially, you are flip-flopping one
single license back and forth between XP and Vista on one single machine).

georgie wrote:
That's what I thought...technically you can't dual-boot. While it's
probably true that Microsoft would not "pursue" anyone dual-booting
with an upgrade version of Vista, the EULA does state that you may no
longer use the software you upgraded from...it doesn't say you can use
it in certain circumstances, like dual booting. It actually makes
sense for Microsoft to word the EULA the way they did, because the
upgrade version of Vista costs a lot less than a full version. So if
you want to dual boot then you have to buy a full copy of Vista, not
just an upgrade version. At least that's how I read it...

Interestingly, the license I read was for retail Vista and made NO mention
of downgrading. That may be limited to Corporate licenses now.


"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
However, in many (perhaps not all) Vista Licenses it goes on to say that
the license may be "downgraded" to run XP. So, in that case, presumably
(as I would read it), dual boot in which you were effectively changing
back and forth between XP and Vista (on one single machine, with one
single copy of each) would be ok.

I think that the INTENT of the "After you upgrade, you may no longer use
the software you upgraded from" sentence was to preclude use of both the
"old" and "new" software on two different machines, not to preclude dual
booting on the same machine.


RnR wrote:


Well, I am surprised, but I just read the Vista EULA and it says:

"
UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible

for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the
agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you
may no longer use the software you upgraded from.?

So technically, you may no longer use your XP license once you have
installed Vista. However, since Microsoft explicitly provides the
technology to allow dual boots, I think their argument that you are
breaking their license when using both licenses ON THE SAME MACHINE
would be weak.

I would be surprised if they ever pursued it.

Tom

Thanks Tom for strengthening my opinion (my previous post) ! I'm just
getting tired of MS trying to dictate how or what we can do
with their software we purchased legally especially for personal use.

As I mentioned, I read the entire license and looked for that loophole and
it is not in the retail license.

"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
Except that many Vista licenses have another clause that allows them to be
downgraded and used as an XP (or Windows 2000) license. Which would seem
to thus allow dual booting (essentially, you are flip-flopping one single
license back and forth between XP and Vista on one single machine).

georgie wrote:
That's what I thought...technically you can't dual-boot. While it's
probably true that Microsoft would not "pursue" anyone dual-booting
with an upgrade version of Vista, the EULA does state that you may no
longer use the software you upgraded from...it doesn't say you can use
it in certain circumstances, like dual booting. It actually makes
sense for Microsoft to word the EULA the way they did, because the
upgrade version of Vista costs a lot less than a full version. So if
you want to dual boot then you have to buy a full copy of Vista, not
just an upgrade version. At least that's how I read it...

I believe that clause is in some but not all OEM licenses.
Assuming you are eligible, you need to acquire the media and product
key at your expense.
No one has to provide them to you.

The intend is for larger users that already have the media and keys so
little or no expense is necessary.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Tom Scales" wrote in message
...
As I mentioned, I read the entire license and looked for that
loophole and it is not in the retail license.