The idea is that you bought a system replete with OS and installed
hardware. I can take out any item of hardware from the system and use
it elsewhere. Why not the OS, as long as I'm not using it twice? It's
like a book, I can use it anywhere I want, but I can't copy it and use
it at the same time in two locations. And, who in the world will even
know? The retail copy has the advantage that you don't need to pay for
any other hardware to get it. Hence, the distinction is very clear.
All of my OEM windows provide a license to use that copy one one
computer. If the legal BS says it can only be used on that one PC, then
that ought to be illegal. It's likely unenforceable anyhow. The fact
that I get it cheaper because I bought a full system is simply an aid to
move systems and to move MSs OS. Hence, from an economical POV, it's to
MSs advantage to do so. No shelf space need for a copy of an OS that
goes out the door on an OEM machine.
Ben Ruset wrote:
Take it up with Microsoft's lawyers.
They say it's tied to the hardware. You either deal with the license
or you use Linux/BSD.
The idea is that you buy the OS at a steep discount versus the retail
copy. If the retail copy offers no benefit to the end user versus the
90 days (or whatever) support, why bother having two lines?
Anthony Q. Martin wrote:
why? I bought a copy with a PC...my hardware, I own it. I don't need
vendor support after i know the system works. why should anything be
tied to hardware and what makes hardware unique? Do we now consider
a PC to be a disposable unit...don't fix it, change it, or upgrade
it....just toss it out (OS and all) and get a new one?
