"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4isqk7F5cra0U1@individual.net...
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote

>> The intention with Vista is to make a Windows license non-transferable
>> through an upgrade of the motherboard.
> > http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49364
>
> That isnt legally sustainable in any country with a decent legal system.
> And clearly doesnt even apply to the REPAIR being discussed anyway.


Okay, here's the point though. Microsoft wants to define a new computer as
a new motherboard for the most common licensing arrangement, but if you have
a machine with 5 years on it and the motherboard dies are you going to
replace it with an exact duplicate? They would ask you to *repair* the
machine where *upgrading* it would probably be cheaper. I mean, at some
point in every computer's life upgrading the mobo is probably cheaper than
finding an exact replacement.

No, you don't have to buy computers with bundled software, but most people
do. I think it's an odd agreement. I can't think of any other things you
might purchase that when one part breaks (the motherboard) you aren't
legally allowed to continue to use the other part (the OS), but that seems
to be the crux of the OEM licensing deal. You purchased both, but you
cannot use both independantly. You can use the hardware without the OS, but
you can't use the OS without the hardware. It's a bizarre trick they have
us buying into, and I find it hard to justify.

Also, the *only* reason people use OEM software to begin with is that
Windows is repulsively expensive. It's the main deal breaker that keeps
people from building their own computers. If Windows XP were around $30, I
would have bought 10 copies by now. Over $100? I've only bought one.

~e.