TheAeonicMajesty
n00b
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6
I'm not sure if this is accurate or not, and as usual, I keep coming across contradictory and confusing information regarding the OS's situation.
I've seen it stated that at XP's EOL, that any retail versions will be able to continually be installed without activation due to a "patch" that MS is supposedly going to release. Is this true?
OEM versions are supposedly going to be difficult to use, because you have to "prove" it's not a pirated version, but retail versions are supposedly "safe", and will be able to be continually installed with no problems.
I use XP Pro SP2 retail at home for both my self and my wife, and need to continue to do so, as it's most compatible with everything, from games to the business-related apps we both need (Vista has proven quite unreliable for some important things we need to use).
So, I need some clarification as to whether or not this supposed "patch" to allow XP retail versions to be installed as much as you want/need without dealing with activation (since XP will not be supported at that point) is actually true, or just another fallacy.
Thanks.
I've seen it stated that at XP's EOL, that any retail versions will be able to continually be installed without activation due to a "patch" that MS is supposedly going to release. Is this true?
OEM versions are supposedly going to be difficult to use, because you have to "prove" it's not a pirated version, but retail versions are supposedly "safe", and will be able to be continually installed with no problems.
I use XP Pro SP2 retail at home for both my self and my wife, and need to continue to do so, as it's most compatible with everything, from games to the business-related apps we both need (Vista has proven quite unreliable for some important things we need to use).
So, I need some clarification as to whether or not this supposed "patch" to allow XP retail versions to be installed as much as you want/need without dealing with activation (since XP will not be supported at that point) is actually true, or just another fallacy.
Thanks.
Last edited: