From: RobertB 

In article ,
 "Rich Gauszka"  wrote:

> What if I don't desire Microsoft's protection when I build my computer? I
> once had to argue on the phone to get reactivated when I re-flashed my BIOS
> and didn't change the motherboard. I doubt very much that Microsoft worries
> about the system builder.
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html?s
o
> urce=NLC-GRIPE&cgd=2007-05-15
> Fortunately, I was able to find a Microsoft official who was gracious enough
> to look into the reader's questions for me. "The rule is in place
to protect
> the OEM, or in this specific case the System Builder, so that as computers
> are upgraded, the System Builder is not obligated (per the EULA) to support
> a version of Windows that may be on what is essentially a new
PC," wrote Tom
> Moran, director of customer and partner experience for Microsoft Operations.
> "Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on
> your customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the
> original Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an
> upgrade or replacement of the motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard
> essentially results in a new computer, to which the original operating
> system software cannot be transferred. This is not the case if the
> motherboard is replaced (same make/model) due to a defect."
>
> Microsoft had to draw the line somewhere. "Understanding that end users,
> over time, upgrade their PC with different components, Microsoft needed to
> have one base component 'left standing' that would still define that
> original PC - the motherboard, in essence, is the 'heart and soul' of the
> PC," Moran wrote. "In the case with Dell that your reader
mentions, the
> situation was evidently caused by a defective motherboard, and the
> replacements would have been just that - direct replacements vs. upgrades. A
> replacement of a defective motherboard would not require a new license,
> while an upgrade would."
>
> Nonetheless, there are any number of contentious issues raised by this
> policy. Just for example, if you replace a motherboard because it doesn't
> have enough memory to run Vista beyond a slow crawl, is that a discretionary
> motherboard replacement? How do you suppose Microsoft's product activation,
> authentication, verification, and future copy protection schemes are going
> to be able to tell if the old motherboard was defective or not? And under
> what law does Microsoft have the right to decide when your changing a
> component requires you to give them more money? It's certainly not copyright
> law, and since there's nothing in their EULA about it, it's not contract law
> either. If Microsoft can do this, why can't the people who made your car
> stereo charge you for moving it to another vehicle?
>
>
>
> Yes, there is a lot to debate here, but on one point there should be no
> argument. Customers have the right to know about any policy that might cost
> them money before they purchase a computer with bundled Microsoft software.
> Not only should Microsoft explicitly state their motherboard replacement
> policy in their EULAs and on their website, but computer manufacturers
> should warn customers of the potential consequences should they
"choose"
> Vista as their operating system. After all, we do have choices, don't we?

Why does MSoft have to draw the line anywhere? It's my computer isn't it?
If I replace every single component, it's still my computer, isn't it?
Maybe MS should start selling motherboards if they insist on tying the OS
to the mobo. Not only does Msoft sell you a license to use their OS on a
single machine, they get to define what that machine is.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5