Windows Actavation

[Randyman...]

One is my Everything Install. Internet, Audio, AV, Spyware tools, the works. Install #2 is a base install with all A/V and Spyware - I use this install if I am not comfortable with a certain site, or for D/L'ing "Questionable Content" to keep viruses quarintened to one install. Install #3 is optimized for Nuendo (Digital Audio Workststion), and is stripped down, and the NIC is also disabled. I use the SAME OEM License for all 3 installs (no "Added Cost", just "Added Security and Stability" as needed), and all 3 activated online on the same day!

Same on my Shulle xPC. Install #1 is my DAW/Nuendo Optimized install and the NIC is disabled (this PC lives in a 19" / 12 Space rack with a ton of AD/DA converters and discrete transformer-balanced Mic Preamps for on-location multitrack recording). Install #2 is "Everything" with Internet, A/V, etc. I use the same OEM Home license for both installs (again, no "added Cost", only "Added Functionality" where needed), and BOTH activated online the same day.

In addition to the 2 PC's in my sig, I also have a P4P800-E Dlx w/ 2.8E and 1 Gig DDR400, a Dell 1GHz Cely Laptop, and an OLD Dell 700MHz Cely that all run XP.

If you want to run 2000, that is all you. I want to run XP, so I do. And I do it the cheapest way possible

The ONLY thing Retail versions would offer me over my current OEM installs is a smaller pocketbook . I don't play that game, as I like my money where it belongs (invested in expensive Audio Production gear and my DRUMS!).

 

[MRD]

Ah, ok. I thought you meant you had 3 licenses for one PC, which seemed bizarre. That makes more sense now. I've never really had big virus/spyware problems. I'm not sure quite why so many other people seem to, so I don't worry about having a separate install for questionable content. I prefer the convenience of not having to reboot. I do often have to reboot though, as this PC has 5 OS's installed anyways (Gentoo Linux, Debian Linux, FreeBSD, DOS 6.22 yeah baby!, and windows 2000). That's down quite a bit from what I used to have installed. Something like 10 OS's, mostly different linux distros.

I wasn't implying you should run 2K, just that I do. Personally, I think it's a better OS, but really I don't see a huge difference between 2K and XP. If I had either one on a PC, I wouldn't recommend buying a license for the other. Heck, if I had 98 SE on a comp, I'd probably just leave that too, it runs most stuff. Windows ME on the other hand should ALWAYS be immediately purged from any magnetic or optical media that it may be currently defiling by its unholy presence. That OS was evil.

Avoiding activation is a big deal to me, although others seem less bothered by it. I make a point to boycott software with activation. That is why I switched from M$ Office to Open Office, why I use 2K over XP, why I stopped using Mathematica, and why I won't buy Photoshop and use Gimp instead. I just find it really, really insulting that they don't trust me. Also, I find it very inconvenient to have to keep activating stuff. Wolfram is the WORST though. They make you jump through so many hoops to get stuff working after the smallest hardware changes. You have to talk to someone every time, there are no auto reactivations, and they make you keep faxing them proof of student status each time. Plus they are not open 24/7 as (I think) M$ is. So what I found was that I had many periods where I needed Mathematica to do my coursework, yet it simply would refuse to work because of activation crap. That forever soured me on product activation.

All of my PC's except one have at least gentoo installed. Running linux on my mythtv systems, my laptop, and the computers used for non gaming tasks really cuts down a lot on licensing costs for windows. I have 2K set up as a multiboot on computers where gaming is an issue.

Considering the pricing difference for OEM licenses, I can see why you'd get one. I still find the idea of having a license tied to specific hardware far too annoying. It wouldn't work well for someone like me who is continually upgrading, as even if it activates, it's still a license violation if the pc no longer resembles the one you initially installed the os to. However, if you really do just install windows once and then leave a pc alone, I can see cases where an OEM would be better. It is quite interesting that it costs more for the upgrade than a full OEM. That's surprising to me and doesn't really make a lot of sense.

M$ really pushes the OEM licenses I think because they really like the idea of an ongoing stream of income from windows. They want every pc to be sold with a copy of windows. A retail license would work against them in this case. Also, it's harder for them to police a retail license. Say you install it on computer A, and then activate, then install on computer B, and activate. You can't activate on B because it's already installed and activated on A. If it's OEM, M$ can just tell you to **** off. On the other hand, if it's a retail, you can just say you uninstalled it from A, and how would they know? This is probably why M$ favors the OEM license.

 

[Randyman...]

I can agree 100% with everything you just said! Right on!

3 sepertare XP licenses on 1 PC would be a bit silly

The only reason I have the "Questionable Content" install is because I can - and I just wanted to have one install that I could totally botch, and not really loose any functionality (the DAW install and Everything install should remain un-affected). It is my "Let's Try This" install .

I'm not too bothered by Activation (but it can be a put-off to some), and I have never even owned 2000. I'd bet that my DAW application (Nuendo) would still work great on 2000. You have given me some food for thought.

I knew we would see each other's reasoning at some point!

 

[MRD]

The beauty of 2000 nowadays, besides the lack of activation, is that you can pick up new, full products (not upgrades) on pricegrabber for as little as $35-$50. This is a big savings over XP, which is $150-$300. Now, if you have one pc, it's not such a big deal. I have 10 pc's in my house atm that are operational, and another 2 in various states of repair. Not that I have windows on anywhere near all of them, but even so, the price difference has potential to really add up.

If you need the latest and greatest, as is important to some people, then of course XP is the way to go (or wait for Vista even). However, if you're like me, you don't care if the version you're running is the latest, you just want it to 1) be compatible with your hardware and 2) run the programs you want. I have heard there are programs that require XP, but I haven't actually encountered one yet.

One warning on 2K though is that I have heard it simply does not support, and probably will never support, SLI. This is a total non issue for me atm since all of my machines are AGP and thus incapable of SLI. However, some people do want that, and that is currently XP only (at least in windows, I'm not sure where linux stands on SLI, I haven't really looked into it).

 

[K15]

Ok I have had my copy of xp since the day it came out 5 years ago I reinstalled today and it says I have installed it to much, from looking around you can only install it 10 times mad.even those microsoft says you should format every 6 months

I dont want to buy another copy because while I dont have enough money and why bother when vista is coming out next year.

Did you give M$ a call? Tell them the situation, tell them it's for an old computer. If they still don't let you activate, that's bull****

 

[MRD]

Well, for one thing, any computer that is 5 years old won't have 1/10 the processing power necessary to run vista even reasonably well.

Even so, if you're trying to install on the same computer, they will almost certainly let you do so. You just have to call them and beg.