Whilst on this subject, I'd appreciate it if someone could clarify the
following -
Do you need a seperate license for each and every seperate computer you
own? (ie you pay extra for each computer)
Will this be different with Vista?
If so, this is an insane policy - it's like needing to own a different
set of tools for every car you own - just nuts!
I'm thinking about getting an eye patch with matching parrot real soon -
some companies really ask for it don't they!?
> That's true that XP keeps track of changes but after 120 days of no
> changes, you start fresh with a new baseline based on the current
> hardware. Also if you change an item in the same category e.g. video card,
> you can change it as many times as you want and you won't be any more
> likely to have to activate.
> The likely reason that Byron and Scott had to re-activate when they
> changed their NIC is that the NIC counts for three "votes".
> See WPA info here:
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm
> It'll be interesting if Vista will work the same way.
> The article "debunking" licensing changes mentions that only 5% of PC
> owners upgrade their own computers. That may be true but how many upgrade
> their friends and relatives computers? I know that I've upgraded quite a
> few over the years. Also, how many people take their machines in to a
> computer store and have it upgraded.
> Bill
>>> I ONLY added a NIC card recently and had to re-activate.
>> That's because XP keeps track of minor changes. When you accumulate
>> enough small changes they add up to a big change and trigger activation.
>> Anyway, this is a side issue. The real issue is WTF does Vista have
>> which is worth paying for? Obviously there are always people who must
>> have the latest car/furniture/vid card/OS, but unlike previous upgrades
>> XP already provides a pretty solid base, and issues like security are
>> only issues to people who are careless.
>> I'll be interested to see how sales go in the first 12 months.
>> Andrew McP