How does MS get away with...

[newbiestnoob]

... charging for their OS's per socket/physical cpu, and at the same time tying their OEM licenses to motherboards? Seems to me they should be forced to skin this cat one way or the other, but not both ways. How could this stand to legal scrutiny???

I'm not sure how this works out with retail licensing.

Just wondering...

 

[drizzt81]

since it is their product, they can license it any way they want. If you read through the EULA, you will note that you do owe them you first and second born child.


I understand your frustration, since most property that a person acquires does not come with stipulations for its use, which makes me wonder about the way IP is being 'licensed' and whether it is a 'good' way.

 

[pxc]

... charging for their OS's per socket/physical cpu, and at the same time tying their OEM licenses to motherboards?

How is that a problem? The versions with different socket # support are aimed at different segments (1S XP Home, 2S XP Pro, 4S WS2003, etc). There is a lot of flexibility within those choices and MS is not really charging "per socket". The capabilities of each level is significantly different.

OEMs are responsible for support for their discounted licenses. MS knows that changing the motherboard will likely trip reactivation. I don't agree with that choice since a motherboard upgrade is a reasonable task within the lifetime of the system. Peeling a WinXP sticker off an OEM case and sticking it on another should be the only thing banned.

 

[newbiestnoob]

since it is their product, they can license it any way they want. If you read through the EULA, you will note that you do owe them you first and second born child.


I understand your frustration, since most property that a person acquires does not come with stipulations for its use, which makes me wonder about the way IP is being 'licensed' and whether it is a 'good' way.

Yeah, I understand the differance from normal things that we buy and this being something that we license. I'm not exactly frustrated, but this does have the peculiar smell of a pure money grab (I'm not a MS hater). Certainly, anyway, it cannot be true that they can license it any way they want. There have to be legal "no-no" areas for sure.

 

[newbiestnoob]

How is that a problem? The versions with different socket # support are aimed at different segments (1S XP Home, 2S XP Pro, 4S WS2003, etc). There is a lot of flexibility within those choices and MS is not really charging "per socket". The capabilities of each level is significantly different.

OEMs are responsible for support for their discounted licenses. MS knows that changing the motherboard will likely trip reactivation. I don't agree with that choice since a motherboard upgrade is a reasonable task within the lifetime of the system. Peeling a WinXP sticker off an OEM case and sticking it on another should be the only thing banned.

No, no, no...! MS says that if you are running dual processors on a single board, and therefore only one instance of the software, you still have to pay for two licenses. On the other hand, they tie OEM licenses to motherboards and say that if you switch one out (except for the MB dying), you have to purchase a new license. The problem is they want it both ways: Dual processors on a single MB are two separate computers, but in the other case the MB is the computer and not the processor.

It just seems to me they should be made to decide unequivocally just exactly what a computer really is. It's Microsoft for cryin' out loud, you'd think they'd know!

 

[Catweazle]

MS knows that changing the motherboard will likely trip reactivation. I don't agree with that choice since a motherboard upgrade is a reasonable task within the lifetime of the system. Peeling a WinXP sticker off an OEM case and sticking it on another should be the only thing banned.

I don't even acknowledge that a motherboard change necessitating a new license is a problem, and I think that Microsoft's stance to the effect of a motherboard change meaning it's a new system is a reasonable one.

Unless you're into some pretty heavy-duty performance chasing you won't be changing a motherboard unless it's also to change to better alternatives for CPU, RAM type and onboard integrated features. That's changing to a newer system in my eyes.

And if you're the sort of performance nutter (which many of us are) who's gonna get a new motherboard a month or three down the track because it has a better chipset which lets you get another hundred 3DMarks, or another few frames per second..........





...shoulda bought a bloody retail license rather than an OEM one, shouldn't you?

 

[Dew]

And if you're the sort of performance nutter (which many of us are) who's gonna get a new motherboard a month or three down the track because it has a better chipset which lets you get another hundred 3DMarks, or another few frames per second..........

...shoulda bought a bloody retail license rather than an OEM one, shouldn't you?

Or an Academic Volume License copy. Taking a college class every now and then has its perks.

 

[Catweazle]

heh heh...

As I explained in another topic, being Aussie has its perks. Academic Upgrade version of XP Pro straight from the shop shelf is less expensive than XP Home OEM

 

[GreenMonkey]

It's called a "almost a monopoly".

 

[djnes]

MS says that if you are running dual processors on a single board, and therefore only one instance of the software, you still have to pay for two licenses.

Show me where it says that. Do you know how many people are running dual processor workstations using a single license of XP Pro?

 

[Oldie]

Show me where it says that. Do you know how many people are running dual processor workstations using a single license of XP Pro?

XP Pro and Home are licensed per installation, and not per processor, so there's no issue there.

Towards the bottom.

 

[Chernobyl1]

agreed.

We should be thankful MS hasnt licenced XP for the number of cores being used.
At the moment the licencing is based on the number of CPU sockets.
With Quad core coming up that could have been expensive!

To Oldie
XP Pro is licenced to use 2 physical cpu sockets so its to be expected some people will be running 2 physical CPU's on XP Pro.
XP Home is licenced to use 1 cpu socket.

 

[newbiestnoob]

XP Pro and Home are licensed per installation, and not per processor, so there's no issue there.

Towards the bottom.

Yeah! Waaay at the bottom. If you don't read it all the way through you'd swear, as I was, that you must pay per processor regardless. I was already aware it didn't effect dual core processors, which was clear from the beginning.

So, what versions are not per installation??? XP Pro x64? What? They only said the per processor rule didn't effect XP Pro or Home.

BTW: I'm not personally sweating anything. I was just doing some reading and it hit me kinda hard that something just ain't right. Per installation makes all the sense (though how about dual booting... ), but it still looks like some versions will require multiple licenses on dual processor machines even if there is only a single installation. If that's so, wouldn't someone file a lawsuit or something. That would be Microsoft overstepping it's bounds to tell us the configuration of the box we are allowed to run OUR licensed software on.

 

[newbiestnoob]

To Oldie
XP Pro is licenced to use 2 physical cpu sockets so its to be expected some people will be running 2 physical CPU's on XP Pro.
XP Home is licenced to use 1 cpu socket.

According to the linked page, XP Home won't support 2 cpu's.

 

[pigster]

So, what versions are not per installation???

It's says pretty clearly SERVER SOFTWARE

 

[pxc]

No, no, no...! MS says that if you are running dual processors on a single board, and therefore only one instance of the software, you still have to pay for two licenses.

Lurk and/or read more. That is completely untrue.

 

[newbiestnoob]

It's says pretty clearly SERVER SOFTWARE

Doh! My bad. I couldn't see the forest for all the trees in my way!

 

[newbiestnoob]

Yeah, I should have read all the way to the bottom of the page linked above (which is where I think I was reading the other day).

That page sure could be better, in my opinion. It burries the fact that this doesn't effect XP Pro or Home way down in the FAQ.

Lurk and/or read more. That is completely untrue.

Completely untrue won't quite stand. Obviously it is true for server software.

 

[drizzt81]

I love this one:

Q. With the advent of multicore processors, customers may plan to acquire fewer and/or smaller systems. Due to this fact they may have acquired more server software licenses than they think they will need. Will Microsoft issue refunds?

A. No. Many factors influence the number of licenses customers need. The licenses are still valuable and customers may make use of them as their software needs change.

Thanks for telling me what I need, Microsoft

 

[pxc]

Completely untrue won't quite stand. Obviously it is true for server software.

No, no, no...! MS says that if you are running dual processors on a single board, and therefore only one instance of the software, you still have to pay for two licenses.

That statement is completely false.

 

[djnes]

Completely untrue won't quite stand. Obviously it is true for server software.

I'm with pxc on this one. It's never even been an issue, and I've been wondering where you came up with this theory. Just from common knowledge of using Windows for years would have said this isn't the case. I don't want to make assumptions about your knwoledge or age, but you must have missed out on the whole Abit BP6/Dual Celeron 366A craze.

 

[newbiestnoob]

I'm with pxc on this one. It's never even been an issue, and I've been wondering where you came up with this theory. Just from common knowledge of using Windows for years would have said this isn't the case. I don't want to make assumptions about your knwoledge or age, but you must have missed out on the whole Abit BP6/Dual Celeron 366A craze.

Well, after having the bottom portion of the FAQ brought to my attention concerning XP Pro and Home not falling under this licensing strategy, I now see it is for server software. All I'm saying now is what the linked page says; certain (server edition) OS's will be required to be licensed per processor.

Customer C has a system with two processors, and each processor has two processor cores. One server software license would be required per processor.

 

[newbiestnoob]

That statement is completely false.

Are you being pedantic in some way I'm not catching? I do mean two separate physical processors when I say "dual processor"; not dual core.

In my initial typing I certainly was mistaken about which software this affected, but it does affect server software.

 

[BBA]

The processor licensing is pretty clear. Home version is good for one physical processor, which can have multiple logical processors or cores. The Pro versions support two physical processors, and they can even have multiple logical or cores. The server editions basically go up from there. Server OS's can be used up to four times on a single server in virtual sessions...so one license can run four instances of the OS.

The difference is these are OPERATING SYSTEMS.

The licensing is TOTALLY different for APPLICATIONS. Each app has it's own licensing model. SQL for instance, has two different price models: for NON-Internet accessible SQL, you can get the cheap version, not pay by number of processors but for Internet accessible SQL, you pay a higher price and that is multiplied by the number of processors you have. (the built-in version of sql that everything comes with is free though, but it's functionality is severely limited)