Warm XP Pro 79.99

[mrVW]

Originally posted by: Xyanafalk
If you're going to go this route, and buy an OEM Windows XP cd.... You can get it for even less than this.
They are selling XP Licenses for $68.00 at http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid=520485&lot_id=456834 (as per pricegrabber)

Ha, he is selling 0em (ZERO-EM) versions.

 

[eminemrh25]

Wouldn't that be the same as this??

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7210202405&category=41888

 

[RebateMonger]

I have to admit it.....
eDirectSoftware is gutsy!

They list Windows Small Business Server 2003 Premium Edition for $789.
They state:
"Note: The words "Not For Resale" are imprinted on the CD however it can legally be used for commercial and educational use."

Yeah, but what part of "Not for Resale" don't they understand?

Gutsy! You can buy legal SBS 2003 Premium RETAIL version, in a sealed box, for not much more. I guess if you print, "Is your copy of Windows Genuine", people will believe that you aren't selling software illegally....

 

[Devistater]

Originally posted by: abc
so what's the cheapest legal windows, the educational edition?

and what if i have a pc that comes with it a system restore disc, and this disc is the only way to put the OS back whilst at the same time including all useless pc utilities of the pc maker along with it.


I just need Windows XP SP2 Prof. cd clean, as presumably I own the license...have the prod key etc. already as well as activation code I guess.

Sure I can go the 'warez' route but these days I'm not sure which warez group's release to 'trust'...

But you go the warez route, you can install a version that doesn't require anything to be typed in anyway.

Depends on where you are and who you have access too. There's no "educational" version per say of win xp, like there's a student & teacher version of MS office.

So here's a few examples of ways you can get cheaper MS stuff legit:
For instance: In CA, all the california university campuses can get discounted windows and office, I think its about $60. Its very similar. Many educational things have similar deals. In fact, sometimes a particular program (like computer science department at my university) has a setup where you can get some MS stuff for free. You sign up with your student email, checkout the cd at the "library" and get a cd key from MS sent to you.

If you are part of a non profit, you can get non profit prices from MS, or goto techsoup.org and pay a small fee to get MS donated software. You can get them as low as about $8 for a copy of windows xp pro, $20 for office pro full, $24 for windows 2003 SBE, etc. HOWEVER, you will need to provide proof that you are a 501c3 org, and the non profit liscenses for windows are only upgrade liscenses. The assumption is that the computer you aquired already has a windows installed on it, and you are upgrading it.
Finally you can get very hefty volume discount prices from MS if you buy a mere 5 liscenses of anything.
Oh and BTW, windows isn't like office. Office lets you install on a laptop and a desktop. Windows does not.


Now to address your second question about what if you had a restore setup. Well its going to be a little tough. The cd keys from differant versions are NOT compatible. So you could have a dell OEM, the cd keys from that wont work with any other versions of windows. For example tehre's XP home upgrade, full, oem. There's xp pro upgrade, full, oem. And there's others as well. The cd keys from one wont work with others. So your cd key from that computer might NOT work with a random warez version or a random purchased, or borrowed one.
Best thing to do is order a copy of the OS cds from the company that sold the computer if you want to be legit. Like dell sends them out for $10 if you bought a computer from them. And dont wait for years to do it either. I tried to fix an old compaq from someone, they won't send out replacement cds for the old win 95/98 anymore. You can't even order them. Eventually companies will do the same for XP when vista comes along.

Also, a random warez version wont pass the validation check. It might not need activating if its oem/corp, but it wont pass the validation (they are separate things).


BTW, what with MS's new program where you can report ppl who sell copies they aren't supposed to, you can get the reward of a legit version of what you ordered. So theoretically you could order windows, report them to MS, and get a legit version from MS.

 

[babuddha]

"Note: The words "Not For Resale" are imprinted on the CD however it can legally be used for commercial and educational use." [/i]

Yeah, but what part of "Not for Resale" don't they understand?

Just a quick civics lesson: Congress makes laws that are signed by the President. Microsoft, Dell, HP and others make money selling compact discs with cute little labels. Cute little labels are not laws. I will admit that both groups are given to hyperbole, hype and doubletalk and they have at least one other thing in common: You can believe it ain't only God that likes its sheep compliant.

eDirect has links that address themselves to some of the history of software licensing and some legal theory about the enforceability of shrinkwrap licenses, including an order from a case in the District Court of California that appears to have been going badly for Adobe.

I did a quick, but fruitless search -- looking for a final opinion or an opinion on appeal. I would speculate that Adobe saw things going poorly and found a way to settle. But speculation is just that. No matter. Point is, if complex issues of law were simple, lawyers wouldn't make so much money encouraging judges to adopt their particular perspectives about their clients's legal rights.

And also, in the spirit of the hot deal, I bought Win XP from these guys during the holidays and my folks are using the computer now. It works pretty much like folks in the thread are telling you it works.

 

[Devistater]

Originally posted by: babuddha

"Note: The words "Not For Resale" are imprinted on the CD however it can legally be used for commercial and educational use." [/i]

Yeah, but what part of "Not for Resale" don't they understand?

Just a quick civics lesson: Congress makes laws that are signed by the President. Microsoft, Dell, HP and others make money selling compact discs with cute little labels. Cute little labels are not laws. I will admit that both groups are given to hyperbole, hype and doubletalk and they have at least one other thing in common: You can believe it ain't only God that likes its sheep compliant.

No, but so far they've been able to keep the EULA mostly out of the courts, and until a higher court says the EULA isn't enforceable, it essentially is. Theoretically, by installing the software, you agree to the stuff.

The not for resale thing could be termed a copyright violation by MS, since MS has control of how thier stuff is distributed.
And that IS part of our law.

 

[babuddha]

The not for resale thing could be termed a copyright violation by MS, since MS has control of how thier stuff is distributed.
And that IS part of our law.

You should read up on copyright law now, too..

 

[Devistater]

Originally posted by: babuddha

The not for resale thing could be termed a copyright violation by MS, since MS has control of how thier stuff is distributed.
And that IS part of our law.

You should read up on copyright law now, too..

Copyright law basically says that the owners of the copyright have full control over how thier works are distributed. There's some leeway in "fair use" but that isn't at issue here.
Should you need verification of this:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies...
To distribute copies ... of the work to the public by sale...

I bolded part above.
I think that is pretty clear.
Now, depending on if you view the software as being liscensed or sold, you may be able to argue that only dell could get in trouble for selling/giving it, thus perhaps this company owned it and sold it and since they hadn't bought from MS, they weren't bound. But that view may only be valid if companies sell the software, not the liscenses.

 

[babuddha]

Originally posted by: Devistater

Originally posted by: babuddha

The not for resale thing could be termed a copyright violation by MS, since MS has control of how thier stuff is distributed.
And that IS part of our law.

You should read up on copyright law now, too..

Copyright law basically says that the owners of the copyright have full control over how thier works are distributed. There's some leeway in "fair use" but that isn't at issue here.
Should you need verification of this:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
To reproduce the work in copies...
To distribute copies ... of the work to the public by sale...

I bolded part above.
I think that is pretty clear.
Now, depending on if you view the software as being liscensed or sold, you may be able to argue that only dell could get in trouble for selling/giving it, thus perhaps this company owned it and sold it and since they hadn't bought from MS, they weren't bound. But that view may only be valid if companies sell the software, not the liscenses.

Yeah, 17 USC 106 is clear enough. So is the exception to it in 17 USC 109.

17 USC 109

 

[Devistater]

Originally posted by: babuddha

Originally posted by: Devistater

Copyright law basically says that the owners of the copyright have full control over how thier works are distributed. There's some leeway in "fair use" but that isn't at issue here.
Now, depending on if you view the software as being liscensed or sold, you may be able to argue that only dell could get in trouble for selling/giving it, thus perhaps this company owned it and sold it and since they hadn't bought from MS, they weren't bound. But that view may only be valid if companies sell the software, not the liscenses.

Yeah, 17 USC 106 is clear enough. So is the exception to it in 17 USC 109.

17 USC 109

Which is why I said it depends if you argue that its a copy or a liscense. A copy belongs to the person that purchased it. Hence that "owner" section would apply. A liscense just allowes you to use it, but never says you actually own it.

 

[babuddha]

Originally posted by: Devistater

Originally posted by: babuddha

Originally posted by: Devistater

Copyright law basically says that the owners of the copyright have full control over how thier works are distributed. There's some leeway in "fair use" but that isn't at issue here.
Now, depending on if you view the software as being liscensed or sold, you may be able to argue that only dell could get in trouble for selling/giving it, thus perhaps this company owned it and sold it and since they hadn't bought from MS, they weren't bound. But that view may only be valid if companies sell the software, not the liscenses.

Yeah, 17 USC 106 is clear enough. So is the exception to it in 17 USC 109.

17 USC 109

Which is why I said it depends if you argue that its a copy or a liscense. A copy belongs to the person that purchased it. Hence that "owner" section would apply. A liscense just allowes you to use it, but never says you actually own it.

OK, I guess federal law isn't so clear after all, since you now seem to be misreading subsection (b), which relates to renting, leasing or lending copies of copyrighted material and has pretty much nothing to do with licensing.