XP Activation??

Don't think of the Windows opertaing system as something you just put in a
PC and use then put in any other (like a DVD movie of music CD).
Think of it more like a part of your PC (like your CPU or memory).
Yes you can take it out and put it in another PC but if you want 2 working
machines you buy 2 CPUs and 2 sets of memory.

So in answer to your question, No. It is 1 license = 1PC

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups

"CD" <cdkleymann@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0a3201c37f18$1d9d5a20$a301280a@phx.gbl...

> If you purchase Windows XP Pro and install and activate it
> on one computer, Can you install and activate on a second
> computer? Have two computers that I use on for all my
> work and the second for playing. New work computer came
> with XP. Would like to install it on play computer, but
> don't think I should have to purchase another XP disc.
>

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cableone.net> writes:

> Greetings --
>
> Does your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three
> loaves of bread when you've paid for only one? Can you drive two
> cars home if you've paid for only one? Does your local clothier
> allow you to leave the shop with two shirts if you've purchased only
> one? Have you noticed a trend yet? Why would you ever imagine that
> software manufacturers would sell their product licenses any
> differently?

But RedHat does, and they are a software manufacturer. You can buy
Linux once, and install it as many times as you like. Too bad the
Microsoft monopoly makes it impractical.

I realize we are in the Dark Ages of computing right now. But you can
help by not expounding the "flat earth" theory as if it were natural
law.

Software is almost entirely unlike bread.

- Pat

Greetings --

Aw, shucks, I guess I'll need to rephrase that to "Why would you
ever imagine that any SUCCESSFUL software manufacturers would sell
their product licenses any
differently?" Raise the issue again when all the different varieties
of Linux together have more than a 2% share of the desktop market.

And _what monopoly_? If Microsoft were a true monopoly, by
definition, there'd be no other choices. You, yourself, have offered
one alternative. Don't you even read what you post? And then there's
Apple, OS/2, FreeBSD, Unix, and countless other varieties of Linux.
Microsoft has no monopoly; it's just that the computing public has
"voted with their wallets."


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:s5gekybzkin.fsf@egghead.curl.com...

>
> But RedHat does, and they are a software manufacturer. You can buy
> Linux once, and install it as many times as you like. Too bad the
> Microsoft monopoly makes it impractical.
>

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospam.cableone.net> writes:

> Aw, shucks, I guess I'll need to rephrase that to "Why would you
> ever imagine that any SUCCESSFUL software manufacturers would sell
> their product licenses any differently?" Raise the issue again when
> all the different varieties of Linux together have more than a 2%
> share of the desktop market.

Phrase it however you like. The fact remains that the
bread/cars/clothes analogy is garbage.

> And _what monopoly_? If Microsoft were a true monopoly, by
> definition, there'd be no other choices.

I guess you and I have different definitions. Mine is the one used by
the U.S. District Court in its findings of fact. Search for
"monopoly" in <http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm>.

But hey, what do they know?

> You, yourself, have offered one alternative. Don't you even read
> what you post?

Nope. I always keep my eyes closed when I type and I always cover my
ears when I speak.

> And then there's Apple, OS/2, FreeBSD, Unix, and countless other
> varieties of Linux. Microsoft has no monopoly; it's just that the
> computing public has "voted with their wallets."

Hilarious.

- Pat

"Patrick J. LoPresti" <patl@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in
news:s5gekybzkin.fsf@egghead.curl.com:

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cableone.net> writes:
>

>> Greetings --
>>
>> Does your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three
>> loaves of bread when you've paid for only one? Can you drive two
>> cars home if you've paid for only one? Does your local clothier
>> allow you to leave the shop with two shirts if you've purchased only
>> one? Have you noticed a trend yet? Why would you ever imagine that
>> software manufacturers would sell their product licenses any
>> differently?

>
> But RedHat does, and they are a software manufacturer. You can buy
> Linux once, and install it as many times as you like. Too bad the
> Microsoft monopoly makes it impractical.
>
> I realize we are in the Dark Ages of computing right now. But you can
> help by not expounding the "flat earth" theory as if it were natural
> law.
>
> Software is almost entirely unlike bread.
>
> - Pat

Technically, RedHat does not sell the Linux OS. Just documentation and
extra programs. Linux is licensed under GNU and is free. You can download
it from many sites, including RedHat.

What RedHat does s3ell, you can't get many for one.

--

David

"Due to Viewer dicretion...
Graphic violence is advised"

Technically, it has not "*always* been with *all* Microsoft operating
systems." Only since the release of 3.1

--
Please be polite.
------
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospam.cableone.net> wrote in message
news:vmncr0jhbauhf5@corp.supernews.com...

> Greetings --
>
> Does your local grocer let you walk out of the market with three
> loaves of bread when you've paid for only one? Can you drive two cars
> home if you've paid for only one? Does your local clothier allow you
> to leave the shop with two shirts if you've purchased only one? Have
> you noticed a trend, yet? Why would you ever imagine that software
> manufacturers would sell their product licenses any differently?
>
> As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
> it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright
> laws, if not technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each
> computer on which it is installed. The only way in which WinXP
> licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
> Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft
> mechanism, Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more
> difficult) the sort of multiple installations you're asking about.
>
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "CD" <cdkleymann@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:0a3201c37f18$1d9d5a20$a301280a@phx.gbl...

> > If you purchase Windows XP Pro and install and activate it
> > on one computer, Can you install and activate on a second
> > computer? Have two computers that I use on for all my
> > work and the second for playing. New work computer came
> > with XP. Would like to install it on play computer, but
> > don't think I should have to purchase another XP disc.
> >

>
>

lol, I guess I technically blundered.
You are correct, only NT, 2k, XP, and Server 2003 are true operating
systems.
While 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 95, 98, and ME are just GUIs.

--
Please be polite.
------
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
news:vms10kkspsgv6f@corp.supernews.com...

> Greetings --
>
> Windows 3.1 wasn't an operating system. It was never anything
> more than graphical interface shell that required an operating system
> (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, DRDOS, etc.) to be present as a prerequisite. Simple
> test: what happens when you try to install Windows 3.1 onto an empty,
> freshly formatted hard drive?
>
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Comp Guy" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
> news:%23mqUV1GgDHA.1700@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> > Technically, it has not "*always* been with *all* Microsoft

> operating

> > systems." Only since the release of 3.1
> >

>
>

Hmm... you make an excellent point. I guess it's just a matter of
definition. At school, they taught us that "a true operating system must
have complete control over the hardware." If this were true, wouldn't 9x be
just a GUI, (but I guess hybrid, as you said, is the best definition.)

--
Please be polite.
------
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@nospamcableone.net> wrote in message
news:vmv41sanusi816@corp.supernews.com...

> Greetings --
>
> Actually, I've somewhat ambivalent feelings about Win95/98. These
> included and could be booted to a truncated version of MS-DOS, but
> didn't require any earlier OS to be present as a prerequisite to
> installation. While they're evidently some sort of hybrid, I'm
> inclined to give them the tentative credit of being operating systems.
> Perhaps I'll categorize them as the evolutionary "missing links"
> between Microsoft's text/command-line based operating systems and
> their graphical operating systems. ;-}
>
> I can form no opinion of WinMe, as I've never even seen a PC with
> it installed, much less used or had to support one.
>
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> --
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
> having both at once. -- RAH
>
>
> "Comp Guy" <no@spam.please> wrote in message
> news:eLsT4%23HgDHA.3204@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > lol, I guess I technically blundered.
> > You are correct, only NT, 2k, XP, and Server 2003 are true operating
> > systems.
> > While 1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 95, 98, and ME are just GUIs.
> >
> > --
> > Please be polite.
> > ------

>
>