My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon power
up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i noticed
brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the MOBO, so i
figured the MOBO is the problem.
the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
motherboard.... I want to buy it off ebay. Could someone point out to
me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
motherboard?
anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
correct? does that go also for the PSU?
i'll start looking for replacement parts on ebay and ask you if it's
suitable or not.
Zed Rafi wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
> repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
> replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>
> The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon power
> up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i noticed
> brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the MOBO, so i
> figured the MOBO is the problem.
>
> anyway, the specifications of his computer are here:
> http://tinyurl.com/juy2y
>
> the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
> MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
> motherboard.... I want to buy it off ebay. Could someone point out to
> me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
> motherboard?
>
> anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
> non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
> correct? does that go also for the PSU?
>
> thanks a lot for your time and help
"Zed Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153935118.016029.231690@s13g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Hello all,
>
> My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
> repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
> replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>
> The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon power
> up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i noticed
> brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the MOBO, so i
> figured the MOBO is the problem.
What the heck is it with HP motherboards and bad caps? It seems like every
time I see leaky caps the board was from a Pavilion! Are they trying to
manufacture the stuff to fail???
> anyway, the specifications of his computer are here:
> http://tinyurl.com/juy2y
>
> the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
> MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
> motherboard.... I want to buy it off ebay. Could someone point out to
> me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
> motherboard?
>
> anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
> non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
> correct? does that go also for the PSU?
>
> thanks a lot for your time and help
Personally, I hate HP mid-towers. Those cases drive me nuts. They always
seem cramped and always collect tons of dust and other crap. I don't know
about the buttons, but sometimes you are really pressed for layout space in
there. I wouldn't try to put a non-HP board in one of those things. You'd
end up losing a fraction of a inch somewhere and it wouldn't fit. You'd
have RAM sticking in your power supply or CD drive or something.
It should be a Socket A if that helps.
I'd get a new mobo, and a new case, then just flop everything into the new
case and do a repair install or whatever you need to do. If you get the
right board, and a good heat sink & fan you can even overclock it a little.
No miracles, but it would be worth doing since you're shopping for a new
board anyway.
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Zed Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1153935118.016029.231690@s13g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>> Hello all,
>>
>> My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
>> repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
>> replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>>
>> The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon
>> power up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i
>> noticed brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the
>> MOBO, so i figured the MOBO is the problem.
>
>
> What the heck is it with HP motherboards and bad caps? It seems like
> every time I see leaky caps the board was from a Pavilion! Are they
> trying to manufacture the stuff to fail???
Mindless conspiracy theory.
>> anyway, the specifications of his computer are here:
>> http://tinyurl.com/juy2y
>>
>> the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
>> MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
>> motherboard.... I want to buy it off ebay. Could someone point out to
>> me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
>> motherboard?
>>
>> anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
>> non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
>> correct? does that go also for the PSU?
>>
>> thanks a lot for your time and help
>
>
> Personally, I hate HP mid-towers. Those cases drive me nuts. They
> always seem cramped and always collect tons of dust and other crap. I don't know about
> the buttons, but sometimes you are really pressed
> for layout space in there. I wouldn't try to put a non-HP board in
> one of those things. You'd end up losing a fraction of a inch
> somewhere and it wouldn't fit. You'd have RAM sticking in your power
> supply or CD drive or something.
> It should be a Socket A if that helps.
> I'd get a new mobo, and a new case, then just flop everything into
> the new case and do a repair install or whatever you need to do.
Could get messy, its got a recovery disk system.
> If you get the right board, and a good heat sink & fan you can even
> overclock it a little. No miracles, but it would be worth doing since
> you're shopping for a new board anyway.
In article <1153936083.011750.316410@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, "Zed
Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Aha!!!!!
>
> just found the motherboard type:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pfhm6
>
> i'll start looking for replacement parts on ebay and ask you if it's
> suitable or not.
>
Here is another link to the motherboard, with a picture for
verification. The motherboard is manufactured by FIC.
it seems to get good reviews (good value for price)
one little thing: the spec page says it supports PC2700 memory.
However, my bro's old system's got only PC2100 DDR if i recall
correctly. Will it still work and just simply operate at a lower speed
to accomodate the slower memory?
In article <1153939144.474543.73000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups. com>, "Zed
Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote:
> would that mobo do the trick?
>
> http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applicatio...Tab=2&NoMapp=0
>
> it seems to get good reviews (good value for price)
>
> one little thing: the spec page says it supports PC2700 memory.
> However, my bro's old system's got only PC2100 DDR if i recall
> correctly. Will it still work and just simply operate at a lower speed
> to accomodate the slower memory?
>
> thanks a lot
The FSB and the memory clock should go hand in hand. A FSB266
processor should run the memory at 266 too. 266*8=PC2100.
Should not be a problem. Only the recovery disk/tattoo would
be a problem.
The Southbridge is also slightly different, and if you are
lucky, maybe the same driver will work for both. I would
clone the disk to a backup disk, in case there is trouble.
Worst case, you restore from the clone, and do a Repair Install.
Best case, it just works.
On 26 Jul 2006 10:31:58 -0700, "Zed Rafi"
<backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
>repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
>replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>
>The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon power
>up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i noticed
>brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the MOBO, so i
>figured the MOBO is the problem.
>
>anyway, the specifications of his computer are here:
>http://tinyurl.com/juy2y
>
Pretty much useless, we don't care what the specs are, only
what the chassis and power are like, which would require
extensive documentation or real pictures.
>the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
>MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
>motherboard....
What CPU is it?
probably socket A
>I want to buy it off ebay.
That might be a poor idea, if you're spending all this time
to do it, why take the risk with ebay parts? Socket A
boards aren't that old yet, you should be able to find one
online.
>Could someone point out to
>me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
>motherboard?
>
mATX
Socket A
At least 133MHz/DDR266 FSB
Integrated video
Integrated audio
Integrated NIC (Network adapter).
I'm assuming the system still used all the motherboard
features. If on the other hand, the user had installed a
video card upgrade, it wouldn't be necessary for the
replacement board to have integrated video, but most mATX
boards do.
>anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
>non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
>correct?
Not really but it depends on your definition of compatible.
You need to measure the available space in the case, how
wide the board can be without interfering with the drive
rack, and where the two overlap (when seen from the side),
how tall any parts can be on the board at that point.
I'd expect most mATX boards to fit, and the case does have a
standard, removable rear IO panel (though you'd need to make
sure whatever you buy has a matching IO panel too).
The PSU should be standard. We don't know that you need a
new PSU at all so you might as well try the original first.
Note the specs on the PSU label, or whether it has an ATX 4
pin connector. If it has no 4 pin 12V connector or it isn't
rated for many 12V amps, this might effect the motherboard
selection.
>does that go also for the PSU?
>
>thanks a lot for your time and help
Until we have further into, the best generic answer is to
buy a name-brand (like MSI, Abit, Asus or Gigabyte) nForce2
board, mATX, "IGP" type which means it has the integrated
video. You could get a more similar board to what it had
already, a KM266 based board, but they're a little slower
technology than nForce2, less upgradable, and the video is
much slower for gaming (not that nForce2 is fast as any
modern video card, but at least it can play old games).
However, if the HP system uses quickrestore type of factory
HDD image to install the operating system or software, you
may not be able to use that anymore since the replacement
board won't be an HP brand (the board bios has a string to
identify it).
On 26 Jul 2006 10:31:58 -0700, "Zed Rafi"
<backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
>repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
>replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>
>The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon power
>up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i noticed
>brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the MOBO, so i
>figured the MOBO is the problem.
>
>anyway, the specifications of his computer are here:
>http://tinyurl.com/juy2y
>
>the spec page on the HP site does not mention the socket type of the
>MOBO, so it's kindda hard for me to choose a replacement
>motherboard.... I want to buy it off ebay. Could someone point out to
>me which characteristics i should be looking for in a replacement
>motherboard?
>
>anyway, i've also been told that HP cases are not compatible with
>non-hp motherboards (size and power-up/reset buttons)... is that
>correct? does that go also for the PSU?
>
>thanks a lot for your time and help
As for the power, LED and reset buttons, yes those are a
possible issue. I have a somewhat similar empty HP case
here that has a single row 8 pin connector for the power and
LEDs on the front. It is not compatible with most
motherboards. If yours is similar, you can take a needle or
X-acto knife and gently pry up the plastic tabs on the
connector just enough to slip out the wires, then take a
knife and cut the connector lengthwise to make it into 2 or
3 smaller connectors.
Next put the wires back in to match the pinout for your new
motherboard (as seen in the new motherboard manual). If
you don't have enough positions available by cutting up the
original connector, you may need to find an old system being
trashed somewhere and take the connector off of it. Even
very old AT systems often had a few of these plastic
connectors you can salvage, as HP did use a standard size,
just a proprietary pin positioning (on "some" of their
boards, I don't know for sure about yours).
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ipqoiF4qufsU1@individual.net...
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Zed Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1153935118.016029.231690@s13g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy about
>>> repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying the
>>> replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>>>
>>> The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon
>>> power up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i
>>> noticed brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the
>>> MOBO, so i figured the MOBO is the problem.
>>
>>
>> What the heck is it with HP motherboards and bad caps? It seems like
>> every time I see leaky caps the board was from a Pavilion! Are they
>> trying to manufacture the stuff to fail???
>
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
Well, a joke, actually.
>> I'd get a new mobo, and a new case, then just flop everything into
>> the new case and do a repair install or whatever you need to do.
>
> Could get messy, its got a recovery disk system.
I forget. Yeah, those are nearly worthless unless you get the exact same
board. If you want to talk about conspiracies let's talk about M$ refusing
to ship OEM disks with new PCs within the last 6 or 7 years! That drives me
nuts! You get an OS with a very limited capacity for upgrades, which really
helps devalue your hardware in the long run. Essentially, you can't
"transfer" your license to the "new" computer. The only work around is
paying an arm and a leg for OEM discs. It keeps you in the market for a new
budget system with the same shitty pre-installed OS. It's like paying for
something you don't get.
I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it
even.
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ipqoiF4qufsU1@individual.net...
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> "Zed Rafi" <backuplm2@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1153935118.016029.231690@s13g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> My brother's computer crashed a while back, and i've been lazy
>>>> about repairing it. I've now gathered the courage to starts buying
>>>> the replacement parts and repair the damn thing.
>>>>
>>>> The computer completely crashed; it displays a blank screen upon
>>>> power up (no bios text or anything). After opening up the case, i
>>>> noticed brown goo had seeped out of some of the capacitors on the
>>>> MOBO, so i figured the MOBO is the problem.
>>>
>>>
>>> What the heck is it with HP motherboards and bad caps? It seems
>>> like every time I see leaky caps the board was from a Pavilion! Are they trying to
>>> manufacture the stuff to fail???
>>
>> Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> Well, a joke, actually.
>
>
>>> I'd get a new mobo, and a new case, then just flop everything into
>>> the new case and do a repair install or whatever you need to do.
>>
>> Could get messy, its got a recovery disk system.
>
> I forget. Yeah, those are nearly worthless unless you get the exact
> same board. If you want to talk about conspiracies let's talk about
> M$ refusing to ship OEM disks with new PCs within the last 6 or 7
> years! That drives me nuts! You get an OS with a very limited
> capacity for upgrades, which really helps devalue your hardware in
> the long run. Essentially, you can't "transfer" your license to the
> "new" computer. The only work around is paying an arm and a leg for
> OEM discs. It keeps you in the market for a new budget system with
> the same shitty pre-installed OS. It's like paying for something you
> don't get.
> I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it even.
Yeah, I do that just to avoid the activation stupidity too.
> it seems to get good reviews (good value for price)
tigerdirect has some who pour scorn on their operation.
> one little thing: the spec page says it supports PC2700 memory.
> However, my bro's old system's got only PC2100 DDR if i recall
> correctly. Will it still work and just simply operate at a lower speed
> to accomodate the slower memory?
Should be fine.
BUT you may need to buy an XP license because that system
uses a recovery system that may well refuse to allow other
than the original motherboard. Or get a hacked XP CD anyway.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4iq13iF50kc4U1@individual.net...
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>> I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it
>> even.
>
> Yeah, I do that just to avoid the activation stupidity too.
Well the guy said it was packaged with Windows ME. That right there solves
that. No reason to keep the recovery discs, therefore no reason to get the
same motherboard. Hell, if the guy has been putting up with ME for a few
years, Microsoft should have to give *him* some money!
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it even.
>> Yeah, I do that just to avoid the activation stupidity too.
> Well the guy said it was packaged with Windows ME. That right there solves that.
Yeah, noticed that after I had posted that.
> No reason to keep the recovery discs, therefore no reason to get the same motherboard.
Yep.
> Hell, if the guy has been putting up with ME for a few years, Microsoft should have to
> give *him* some money!
I've never agree with that line about ME, it did work pretty well.
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:d7igc2t6ikbrcjmp1iq00eahjm27sbq2bq@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:06:50 GMT, "visions of effty"
> <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>If you want to talk about conspiracies let's talk about M$ refusing
>>to ship OEM disks with new PCs within the last 6 or 7 years!
>
> Whatever gave you that idea? I've seen plenty that had one.
> Most were your bog-standard OEM XP Home. It costs a couple
> bucks more though, so OEMs will save that $$ when they
> can... too few people think to check that before ordering,
> apparently.
Right. I have too. It seems to be losing popularity. I exagerate.
>>That drives me
>>nuts! You get an OS with a very limited capacity for upgrades, which
>>really
>>helps devalue your hardware in the long run.
>
> Huh? It's still XP, for all it's good and bad aspects, and
> should have the necessary XP files on the drive to
> facilitate PNP.
>
>>Essentially, you can't
>>"transfer" your license to the "new" computer. The only work around is
>>paying an arm and a leg for OEM discs.
>
> You couldn't transfer your license to a new computer if you
> had the OEM discs, that's what an OEM disc is- non
> transferrible (to another system).
Yeah, but in reality it's easier with the OEM discs. Am I getting the
terminology wrong? I don't think of Restore Discs as OEM, but I'm certain
that they are. Except the ones you make yourself. I wouldn't think of
those that way, just because you can make changes before you make them.
> HOWEVER, you are licensed to use the version of XP that came
> with the system, regardless of whether it was on an OEM CD
> or a restore disc. The license is not tied to the media, if
> you want to use an alternate installation source it just has
> to be same version- accept the system's license key.
Well, I know. You used to be able to send $10 bucks in and get the OS on
media too. Not anymore. Right?
>>It keeps you in the market for a new
>>budget system with the same shitty pre-installed OS. It's like paying for
>>something you don't get.
>
> Well you do save $ on that OEM system, and they have that
> practically worthless support, and replacement/warranty...
> so you are getting what you paid for, and if you don't like
> what you paid for then of course it makes no sense to pay
> for it.
Right. Right.
>>I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it
>>even.
>
> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
> full so it is for that system only.
Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and transfer
the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to the machine, don't
they? New motherbard = new system. No?
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:33:06 GMT, "visions of effty"
<impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
>> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
>> full so it is for that system only.
>
>
>Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and transfer
>the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to the machine, don't
>they? New motherbard = new system. No?
It depends on who you ask. It never hurts to read the EULA
on the system HDD. OK, it may hurt a little, but if it
doesn't specify motherboard, many will end up taking the
interpretation that if the rest of the system was static but
only the board changed, it is the same system, not a
_second_ system.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>>> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
>>> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
>>> full so it is for that system only.
Its more complicated than that, legally.
>> Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and
>> transfer the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to
>> the machine, don't they? New motherbard = new system. No?
> It depends on who you ask. It never hurts to read the
> EULA on the system HDD. OK, it may hurt a little, but if it
> doesn't specify motherboard, many will end up taking the
> interpretation that if the rest of the system was static but only
> the board changed, it is the same system, not a _second_ system.
And legally its just a repaired system, whatever MS likes to try and claim.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4irf75F562eiU1@individual.net...
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>>> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
>>>> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
>>>> full so it is for that system only.
>
> Its more complicated than that, legally.
>
>>> Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and
>>> transfer the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to
>>> the machine, don't they? New motherbard = new system. No?
>
>> It depends on who you ask. It never hurts to read the
>> EULA on the system HDD. OK, it may hurt a little, but if it
>> doesn't specify motherboard, many will end up taking the
>> interpretation that if the rest of the system was static but only
>> the board changed, it is the same system, not a _second_ system.
>
> And legally its just a repaired system, whatever MS likes to try and
> claim.
>
> Doesnt matter what the EULA says, thats the law.
>
Hmmm...
This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that
MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right to define what
constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?
Legally, yes, I think it would be easier to consider the HDD, and the
install on it as "the computer" for all purposes. I remember reading
somewhere in the XP clickwrap (or somewhere) that "significant upgrades"
could cause activation to be refused, but what that means is pretty
ill-defined.
I'm going to do some research on this. I agree with you guys that the
customer (or "end user") has to maintain some rights, but I'm guessing that
they are less than we suppose.
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>> There is no need to hack the OS, the system's license
>>>>> doesn't just disappear... but, it IS an OEM license, not
>>>>> full so it is for that system only.
>> Its more complicated than that, legally.
>>>> Right, right. I know, but how do you upgrade a motherboard, and
>>>> transfer the license? You don't. Not anymore. They tie that to
>>>> the machine, don't they? New motherbard = new system. No?
>>> It depends on who you ask. It never hurts to read the
>>> EULA on the system HDD. OK, it may hurt a little, but if it
>>> doesn't specify motherboard, many will end up taking the
>>> interpretation that if the rest of the system was static but only
>>> the board changed, it is the same system, not a _second_ system.
>> And legally its just a repaired system, whatever MS likes to try and claim.
>> Doesnt matter what the EULA says, thats the law.
> Hmmm...
> This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that MS takes
> advantage of,
Nope, not when the system is repaired.
> but I wonder where the right to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually
> falls?
Its irrelevant legally. You are legally entitled to repair
your system regardless of where the failure is.
> Legally, yes, I think it would be easier to consider the HDD, and the install on it as
> "the computer" for all purposes. I remember reading somewhere in the XP clickwrap (or
> somewhere) that "significant upgrades" could cause activation to be refused, but what
> that means is pretty ill-defined.
Legally they cant stop you continuing to use their OS
when you upgrade the system significantly either.
And the OEM systems dont have the validation crap anyway.
> I'm going to do some research on this. I agree with you guys that the customer (or "end
> user") has to maintain some rights, but I'm guessing that they are less than we suppose.
No they arent. The law is VERY clear, you are legally entitled
to repair a system. MS gets to like that or lump it and cant do
anything about that with some uttery bogus EULA 'agreement'
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:21:52 GMT, "visions of effty"
<impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that
>MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right to define what
>constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?
>
It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there is
no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>> This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey
>> area that MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right
>> to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?
> It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there
> is no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.
Yes there is when its repair being discussed.
That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4isn7iF56sosU1@individual.net...
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>
>>> This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey
>>> area that MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right
>>> to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?
>
>> It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there
>> is no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.
>
> Yes there is when its repair being discussed.
>
> That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
> to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
> either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.
Yeah. If they're going to change things on the software end that cause
major pains for hardware upgrades, I think it's a valid topic.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are 100% right, kony. And yes, it has
been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
The intention with Vista is to make a Windows license non-transferable
through an upgrade of the motherboard.
I hate to turn any thread into a bitch about M$ thing (not really) but if
this is true then I don't see a lot of the people in this group going to
Vista. We love shiny new motherboards. If they tell us we can't have them,
then I think they'll lose some segment of alt.comp.hardware as a customer
base.
Microsoft doesn't make computers, they make software, yet this claim of
tying software to hardware makes them de facto computer manufacturers. In
my mind it comes down to your software trying to define your hardware in
order to sell you more software. If not illegal, it certainly seems
unethical.
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>>>> This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey
>>>> area that MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right
>>>> to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?
>>> It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there
>>> is no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.
>> Yes there is when its repair being discussed.
>> That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
>> to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
>> either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.
> Yeah. If they're going to change things on the software end that
> cause major pains for hardware upgrades, I think it's a valid topic.
> Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are 100% right, kony.
Not legally he aint with the repair being discussed.
> And yes, it has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.
> 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.
> I hate to turn any thread into a bitch about M$ thing (not really) but if this is true
> then I don't see a lot of the people in this group going to Vista.
I doubt that most will give a damn about that particular M$ stupidity.
> We love shiny new motherboards. If they tell us we can't have them,
They arent even saying that. That is clearly just
relevant to the OEM versions, not the retail package.
> then I think they'll lose some segment of
> alt.comp.hardware as a customer base.
I doubt it. I doubt many of those are using an OEM package anyway,
and those that are should be able to do an end run around that shit.
> Microsoft doesn't make computers, they make software,
They do make some hardware.
> yet this claim of tying software to hardware makes them de facto computer manufacturers.
No it doesnt. Its just a software license detail.
> In my mind it comes down to your software trying to
> define your hardware in order to sell you more software.
Nope, since it ONLY applys to the OEM versions of the OS.
> If not illegal, it certainly seems unethical.
Its hardly that when you dont have to get the OEM version.
"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.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:25:08 GMT, "visions of effty"
<impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"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,
.... pretty big leap, why assume that unless explicitly
written? Remember, nobody and I mean nobody (short of a
court), can redefine the terms of your EULA after the
license has been paid for and it has been accepted.
>...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.
Non-applicable unless it was a specific case of an OEM EULA
with the explicit clause about the motherboard. Remember
that OEM license IS significantly cheaper than retail, and
it is for this reason- that arguably there has to be a line
drawn, it ceases to distinguish between an OEM and retail
license if you can change anything... and if we take the
arguement that the board would simply have to fail, what's
to stop someone from just taking a screwdriver to it to kill
it after it's 5 years old, then worn out and worthless?
Again I will mention that you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.
There is NO POINT to pursue this discussion as it has been
rehased time and time and time again in group after group
after group.
>Also, the *only* reason people use OEM software to begin with is that
>Windows is repulsively expensive.
Mainly it's because most people buy pre-built OEM systems,
and when they buy the replacement pre-built OEM system, they
need not reuse their old license because that next OEM
license, actually the cumulative total cost for both, is
still lesser cost than one retail license you'd want to
transfer.
It may be that retail licenses are expensive but that has to
be treated as separate, because the legal system still
pretends it's a free market even though they haven't gotten
around to doing anything about the MS monopoly. We could
speculate why but it seems most likely that some feel
keeping MS whole is in the public interest and it is a fair
arguement since the evolution of the PC benefitted greatly
from a unifying platform... just a pity it was MS at the
helm.
>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.
It doesn't keep people from building their own, the desire
to have a custom system overrides the ~ $70 cost difference.
Also, remember your prior desire to reuse the license if
retail so the cost of the retail license would be spred over
the next system vs buying more than one OEM license to cover
that next system (or upgrade to the old one substantial
enough that it's deemed a different system).
Basically, the high price of Windows Retail is an example of
why the MS monopoly is bad for consumers. We can ignore the
finer details because nothing is going to change so long as
they have no need to compete in the market.
visions of effty wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>Could get messy, its got a recovery disk system.
>
>
> If you want to talk about conspiracies let's talk about M$ refusing
> to ship OEM disks with new PCs within the last 6 or 7 years! That drives me
> nuts! You get an OS with a very limited capacity for upgrades, which really
> helps devalue your hardware in the long run. Essentially, you can't
> "transfer" your license to the "new" computer. The only work around is
> paying an arm and a leg for OEM discs. It keeps you in the market for a new
> budget system with the same shitty pre-installed OS. It's like paying for
> something you don't get.
>
> I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it
> even.
visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> 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?
Legally you dont have to, regardless of what MS wants to claim.
> They would ask you to *repair* the machine where *upgrading* it would probably be
> cheaper.
Legally MS gets no say on that choice.
They dont if you want to upgrade either legally.
> I mean, at some point in every computer's life upgrading the mobo is probably cheaper
> than finding an exact replacement.
Sure.
> No, you don't have to buy computers with bundled software, but most people do.
Most in here likely dont.
> I think it's an odd agreement.
Legally it isnt even an '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.
Nope, the bit cited clearly doesnt apply to a REPAIR.
And what MS claims isnt the law anyway.
> You purchased both, but you cannot use both independantly.
Legally you can in any country with a decent legal
system, regardless of what MS trys to claim.
> You can use the hardware without the OS, but you can't use the OS without the hardware.
Legally you can in any country with a decent legal
system, regardless of what MS trys to claim.
> It's a bizarre trick
Yes, its clearly just another MS con job legally.
> they have us buying into,
Those who understand the law dont buy into that con job.
> and I find it hard to justify.
Sure. MS essentially claims that you are getting a cheaper
version of the OS with an OEM so they claim that they can
say what it can be run on. They are wrong, legally.
> Also, the *only* reason people use OEM software to begin with is that Windows is
> repulsively expensive.
It isnt necessarily. MS isnt bothering with any proof of qualification
here with academic editions and the price isnt too bad for those.
> It's the main deal breaker that keeps people from building their own computers.
Nope. Plenty dont bother to buy a licensed copy at all.
> If Windows XP were around $30, I would have bought 10 copies by now. Over $100? I've
> only bought one.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> 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,
> ... pretty big leap, why assume that unless explicitly
> written? Remember, nobody and I mean nobody (short
> of a court), can redefine the terms of your EULA after the
> license has been paid for and it has been accepted.
Wrong. You're always welcome to work out what isnt legally
enforceable and make an obscene gesture in MS's general direction.
>> ...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.
> Non-applicable unless it was a specific case of an OEM
> EULA with the explicit clause about the motherboard.
Replacing parts on a HP pavillon 