Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

XP License on removable drive?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:35:55 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.

Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
going to be used on the single computer at any given time.

Thanks for any info.

John
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 4:57:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Hi it should be fine you can install it and do what you want but it will be
ok if you accessing only one copy at a time meaning if your only runnign
windows at one time then it's fine ok.

Reply back and let me know how it goes. Don't forget to select yes if this
was helpful on my post. I always like helping out people with there problems.
Thanks

"John Schmidt" wrote:

> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
> drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
> will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
> use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
> licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
> install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
> drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:05:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in
news:eZH9kxiuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

Would it not make more sense to have a fixed HDD with the OS and backup
utilities, and a removable one that will contain the backup of the data?


> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite
> storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable hard drives,
> only one of which will be in use at any time, swapping in and out with
> each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with
> XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer,
> can I install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both
> removable hard drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies
> of XP if only one is going to be used on the single computer at any
> given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:51:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I've already tried this and ran into problems with the removable drive
always causing problems when hot-swapped - they worked fine, but kept
reconfiguring things in Disk Manager so the backup software never knew which
was which. I guess I should see how it works if I power-down between swaps.
I'll try it when I get the chance.

John

"Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96D2A39D87671compguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
> "John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in
> news:eZH9kxiuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
>
> Would it not make more sense to have a fixed HDD with the OS and backup
> utilities, and a removable one that will contain the backup of the data?
>
>
> > I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
> > removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite
> > storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable hard drives,
> > only one of which will be in use at any time, swapping in and out with
> > each other every week.
> >
> > Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with
> > XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer,
> > can I install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both
> > removable hard drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies
> > of XP if only one is going to be used on the single computer at any
> > given time.
> >
> > Thanks for any info.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:43:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.

John Schmidt wrote:

> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
> drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
> will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
> use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
> licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
> install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
> drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:43:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Bob I" wrote:
> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.


That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
number of computers it will be run on.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 7:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> "Bob I" wrote:
>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.
>
>
> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
> number of computers it will be run on.


Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive trays,
not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
"image" files because the restoration process made to the original
HD would wipe out any installation there.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:11:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

My view in that matter, is that the "Microsoft" that makes the PC's work
and the "Microsoft" that pages thru the law books need to "agree" then.
I'm with the KB writers, not the "suits". ;-)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Bob I" wrote:
>
>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.
>
>
>
> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
> number of computers it will be run on.
>
> *TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 8:47:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote:

>I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable hard
>drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case, I
>will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
>use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
>Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
>licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
>install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
>drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
>going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
>Thanks for any info.
>
>John
>
>

My suggestion would be to create a backup image of the entire
partition using a program such as Image for Windows from
www.bootitng.com

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:27:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:eZH9kxiuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable
>hard
> drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case,
> I
> will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
> use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
> licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
> install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
> drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one
> is
> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John
>
>
>

From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period of time, or
remaining in the computer and not being turned on.
September 15, 2005 9:45:41 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:eZH9kxiuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable
>hard
> drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case,
> I
> will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
> use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
> licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
> install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
> drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one
> is
> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John


>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC. Not an issue.


> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>> number of computers it will be run on.


"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:S4mdnVcrqsj_frTeRVn-2A@comcast.com...
> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive trays,
> not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
> "image" files because the restoration process made to the original
> HD would wipe out any installation there.
>
> *TimDaniels*


Tim:
The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives. And there is *no*
problem with the user violating the EULA in this situation when the user
simply clones his or her OS to one of the removable drives for obvious
backup purposes. As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for
restoration purposes in the same machine that generated the clone, there's
no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made this clear a number of
times in meetings held with end users.

Note to John Schmidt:
Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your query, your use
of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion, a most desirable hardware
configuration, and yields enormous advantages in terms of the flexibility
you gain and the peace of mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system.
Don't even think of changing that arrangement.
Anna
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:45:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" wrote:
> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>
>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
>> used on the single computer at any given time.
>>
>> Thanks for any info.
>>
>> John
>
>
>>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
>>>> Not an issue.
>
>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>>> number of computers it will be run on.
>
>
> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive trays,
>> not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
>> "image" files because the restoration process made to the original
>> HD would wipe out any installation there.
>>
>> *TimDaniels*
>
>
> Tim:
> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.


See your quote of the original poster above. There
is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
USB or FireWire external hard drive).


> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.


I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
*legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
machine where the original installation was made. I likened
it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
personal use and backup.

If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
those discussions.



> Note to John Schmidt:
> Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your
> query, your use of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion,
> a most desirable hardware configuration, and yields enormous
> advantages in terms of the flexibility you gain and the peace of
> mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system.
> Don't even think of changing that arrangement.
> Anna


I agree. Nobody's gonna come 'n getcha, and the convenience
and security are tremendous.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 9:45:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Anna" wrote:
>
>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>
>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
>>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
>>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
>>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
>>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>
>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
>>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
>>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
>>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
>>> used on the single computer at any given time.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
>>>>> Not an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>>>> number of computers it will be run on.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive
>>> trays,
>>> not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
>>> "image" files because the restoration process made to the original
>>> HD would wipe out any installation there.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim:
>> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.
>
>
>
> See your quote of the original poster above. There
> is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
> to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
> USB or FireWire external hard drive).
>
>
>> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
>> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
>> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
>> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
>> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
>> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
>> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.
>
>
>
> I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
> were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
> clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
> very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
> a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
> which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
> sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
> *legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
> installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
> machine where the original installation was made. I likened
> it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
> personal use and backup.
>
> If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
> and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
> those discussions.


This happens to be an example of one of those dicey calls in
which little or no thought was given to such an actual scenario.
My resident legal guru opines this way: There is no reason why
the OS needed to be installed on each one of the removable drives
since their purpose was for weekly backups instead of being a
operating component with a functioning OS. Because of this fact,
and each OS can be fully functional when plugged into the rest
of any similarly configured computer, then [her opinion] each
OS in each removable HD should be separately licensed.

But if the OP were to have provided information that each OS
in the removable hard drives were also backups of the original
OS in the first computer, then it is a different scenario.

Her summary: Become a lawyer and learn how to write.
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:20:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Ghostrider" wrote:
>
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>> "Anna" wrote:
>>
>>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
>>>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
>>>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
>>>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
>>>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>>
>>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
>>>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
>>>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
>>>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
>>>> used on the single computer at any given time.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
>>>>>> Not an issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>>>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>>>>> number of computers it will be run on.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive
>>>> trays, not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS
>>> objects to "image" files because the restoration process made
>>> to the original HD would wipe out any installation there.
>>>>
>>>> *TimDaniels*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim:
>>> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.
>>
>>
>>
>> See your quote of the original poster above. There
>> is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
>> to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
>> USB or FireWire external hard drive).
>>
>>
>>> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
>>> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
>>> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
>>> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
>>> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
>>> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
>>> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
>> were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
>> clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
>> very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
>> a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
>> which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
>> sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
>> *legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
>> installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
>> machine where the original installation was made. I likened
>> it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
>> personal use and backup.
>>
>> If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
>> and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
>> those discussions.
>
>
> This happens to be an example of one of those dicey calls in
> which little or no thought was given to such an actual scenario.
> My resident legal guru opines this way: There is no reason why
> the OS needed to be installed on each one of the removable drives
> since their purpose was for weekly backups instead of being a
> operating component with a functioning OS.


Part of being a "backup" is speed of substitution, and
bootable clones are the fastest to substitute for an original
OS that has gone belly up. What the purpose is for a backup
is immaterial. What is substantive is that the clone will be
run in the same PC as the original and that only one installed
OS can run at a time.


> Because of this fact, and each OS can be fully functional when
> plugged into the rest of any similarly configured computer,


"Similarly-configured" is vague. Even Microsoft remains
vague on what changes in the hardware will trigger a
requirement for activation of WinXP. And whether the clone
*can* be run in another computer is immaterial. What is
pertinent is whether it *will* be used in the same or different
computer. In this case, it will only be used in the same
computer.


> then [her opinion] each
> OS in each removable HD should be separately licensed.


Well, what she means is that each *installation* should
be separately licensed, since one HD can contain
many installations. But what she means and what is
grounded in copyright precedent are 2 different things.


> But if the OP were to have provided information that each OS
> in the removable hard drives were also backups of the original
> OS in the first computer, then it is a different scenario.
>
> Her summary: Become a lawyer and learn how to write.


My summary: Become a copyright lawyer and learn
about computers. Too bad if you have to pay the tab,
though.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 10:26:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"D.Currie" wrote:
>
> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize
>> a removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week
>> for offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these
>> removable hard drives, only one of which will be in use at
>> any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>
>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's
>> only *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single
>> copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems
>> unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
>> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
> difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period
> of time, or remaining in the computer and not being turned on.


In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
still hasn't clarified that point.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:31:18 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in message
news:BqGdnRJMvcXdgrfeRVn-rA@comcast.com...
>
> "D.Currie" wrote:
>>
>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize
>>> a removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week
>>> for offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these
>>> removable hard drives, only one of which will be in use at
>>> any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>
>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's
>>> only *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single
>>> copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems
>>> unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
>>> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>>
>> From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
>> difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period
>> of time, or remaining in the computer and not being turned on.
>
>
> In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
> a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
> on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
> for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
> i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
> still hasn't clarified that point.
>
> *TimDaniels*

I was only responding to the technicality of it. Since I'm not Microsoft,
nor do I work for them or represent them, I can't speak for what their point
of view would be on something like this since it's a little out of the
mainstream. My personal experience with MSs legal reps is that in private,
they're a lot more reasonable than they have to be in public or in print,
and if I had to bet, I'd bet that in private they'd think something like
this is no big deal. And since activation isn't going to be an issue, it's
pretty much unenforceable.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:16:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"D.Currie" wrote:
> My personal experience with MSs legal reps is that in private,
> they're a lot more reasonable than they have to be in public or
> in print, and if I had to bet, I'd bet that in private they'd think
> something like this is no big deal. And since activation isn't
> going to be an issue, it's pretty much unenforceable.


I totally agree, and that was my opinion a year ago. And at
that time, the MVPs in these microsoft.public.windowsxp.*
NGs were on me like a pack of junkyard dogs, using some
pretty nasty epithets. In contrast, they today completely
ignore this thread. How time - and perhaps a little seminar
with Microsoft's legal staff - have changed them! :-)

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 9:51:11 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Timothy Daniels" <TDaniels@NoSpamDot.com> wrote in
news:BqGdnRJMvcXdgrfeRVn-rA@comcast.com:

>
> "D.Currie" wrote:
>>
>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize
>>> a removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week
>>> for offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these
>>> removable hard drives, only one of which will be in use at
>>> any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>
>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's
>>> only *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single
>>> copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems
>>> unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is
>>> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>>
>> From the individual hard drive's point of view, it wouldn't know the
>> difference between being pulled out of the computer for a period
>> of time, or remaining in the computer and not being turned on.
>
>
> In Microsoft's point of view, each copy of an installation requires
> a license. What is important here is whether the copy residing
> on the "removable drive" is an installation or not. I believe that
> for a copy to be an "installation", it must be directly bootable,
> i.e. resident on an IDE/ATA hard drive. But the original poster
> still hasn't clarified that point.
>
> *TimDaniels*

My reading of the OP's thoughts was not that the computer was backing
/itself/ up, but rather it was used to backup the data from somewhere
else, hence my suggestion of a fixed OS drive and a removable data drive.
In that case, i believe that each drive would be considered a separate
install.
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 10:32:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

If there is a problem, too bad.

Am using a same size HD for a weekly clone, removable. Purpose: emergency
backup in event of physical hard drive failure.
Image restoration, I use for hard drive non-physical problem fixing.
Nothing faster and easier.
2 or more forms of backup can save your goose when in a bind. Which to use
for restore depends on the problem at hand.
"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:eZH9kxiuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a removable
hard
> drive that gets swapped out every week for offsite storage. In this case,
I
> will have two of these removable hard drives, only one of which will be in
> use at any time, swapping in and out with each other every week.
>
> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I deal with XP
> licensing and authentication? Since there's only *one* computer, can I
> install and authorize a single copy of XP (Pro) on both removable hard
> drives? It seems unfair I would have to buy two copies of XP if only one
is
> going to be used on the single computer at any given time.
>
> Thanks for any info.
>
> John
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:33:31 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

But you should know that Windows XP won't run from a USB or Firewire
drive. So that leaves IDE caddies. There is the EULA and the intent is
that one copy is INSTALLED AND RUNNING on one PC. Many people misread
the AND as OR, and that is a BIG difference.

Timothy Daniels wrote:

> "Anna" wrote:
>
>> "John Schmidt" wrote:
>>
>>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
>>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
>>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
>>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
>>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
>>>
>>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
>>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
>>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
>>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
>>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
>>> used on the single computer at any given time.
>>>
>>> Thanks for any info.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "Bob I" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
>>>>> Not an issue.
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>>
>>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
>>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
>>>> number of computers it will be run on.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive
>>> trays,
>>> not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects to
>>> "image" files because the restoration process made to the original
>>> HD would wipe out any installation there.
>>>
>>> *TimDaniels*
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim:
>> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.
>
>
>
> See your quote of the original poster above. There
> is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
> to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
> USB or FireWire external hard drive).
>
>
>> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
>> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
>> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
>> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
>> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
>> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
>> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.
>
>
>
> I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
> were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
> clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
> very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
> a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
> which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
> sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
> *legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
> installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
> machine where the original installation was made. I likened
> it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
> personal use and backup.
>
> If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
> and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
> those discussions.
>
>
>
>> Note to John Schmidt:
>> Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your
>> query, your use of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion,
>> a most desirable hardware configuration, and yields enormous
>> advantages in terms of the flexibility you gain and the peace of
>> mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system. Don't even think of
>> changing that arrangement.
>> Anna
>
>
>
> I agree. Nobody's gonna come 'n getcha, and the convenience
> and security are tremendous.
>
> *TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 12:33:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Yes, I'm talking about removable IDE drives. The intent is only one copy
running on this single computer at any one time, and not on any other
computers. The drives are where our company data backups would reside, not
to have as their own backups of each other.

I'm not concerned so much about the EULA - my concern is activation and
validation. I believe I'm within the spirit of the EULA as long as only one
drive is in use on this single computer at any one time, and not used on any
other computers.

I guess my main question is *technically* will this work, both at
installation authorization and future upgrades/validation?

John

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uPWgaOsuFHA.2512@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> But you should know that Windows XP won't run from a USB or Firewire
> drive. So that leaves IDE caddies. There is the EULA and the intent is
> that one copy is INSTALLED AND RUNNING on one PC. Many people misread
> the AND as OR, and that is a BIG difference.
>
> Timothy Daniels wrote:
>
> > "Anna" wrote:
> >
> >> "John Schmidt" wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have a computer used for weekly backups that will utilize a
> >>> removable hard drive that gets swapped out every week for
> >>> offsite storage. In this case, I will have two of these removable
> >>> hard drives, only one of which will be in use at any time,
> >>> swapping in and out with each other every week.
> >>>
> >>> Since these hard drives will also contain the OS, how do I
> >>> deal with XP licensing and authentication? Since there's only
> >>> *one* computer, can I install and authorize a single copy of
> >>> XP (Pro) on both removable hard drives? It seems unfair I
> >>> would have to buy two copies of XP if only one is going to be
> >>> used on the single computer at any given time.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for any info.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> "Bob I" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Read the EULA. You are only running one copy on one PC.
> >>>>> Not an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> That is your and my interpretation. Microsoft thinks otherwise.
> >>>> They count the number of installations currently viable, not the
> >>>> number of computers it will be run on.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Timothy Daniels" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sorry, I thought the reference was to clones on removable drive
> >>> trays,
> >>> not to Firewire or USB external drives. I don't think MS objects
to
> >>> "image" files because the restoration process made to the original
> >>> HD would wipe out any installation there.
> >>>
> >>> *TimDaniels*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim:
> >> The reference *is* to clones on removable hard drives.
> >
> >
> >
> > See your quote of the original poster above. There
> > is no mention of removable tray or to a "clone" - only
> > to "removable hard drive" (which usually means a
> > USB or FireWire external hard drive).
> >
> >
> >> And there is *no* problem with the user violating the EULA
> >> in this situation when the user simply clones his or her OS to
> >> one of the removable drives for obvious backup purposes.
> >> As long as the cloned drive will be used *only* for restoration
> >> purposes in the same machine that generated the clone,
> >> there's no problem re the EULA. Microsoft reps have made
> >> this clear a number of times in meetings held with end users.
> >
> >
> >
> > I suspect that the "Microsoft reps" that spoke with you
> > were referring to "image" files of an OS, not to bootable
> > clones that reside on an IDE hard drive. There was a
> > very heated and lengthy exchange on this subject about
> > a year ago in the microsoft.public.windowsxp.* NGs in
> > which I was caustically villified by the MVPs and their
> > sycophants for opining that Microsoft's EULA does not
> > *legally* restrict users from making clones of their Windows
> > installations as long as those clones will only be run on the
> > machine where the original installation was made. I likened
> > it to music CD owners making copies of their CDs for
> > personal use and backup.
> >
> > If the MS reps were indeed referring to *bootable* clones
> > and not just restorable image files, please elaborate on
> > those discussions.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Note to John Schmidt:
> >> Contrary to the comment made by a poster responding to your
> >> query, your use of two removable hard drives is, in my opinion,
> >> a most desirable hardware configuration, and yields enormous
> >> advantages in terms of the flexibility you gain and the peace of
> >> mind you get from a near-failsafe backup system. Don't even think of
> >> changing that arrangement.
> >> Anna
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree. Nobody's gonna come 'n getcha, and the convenience
> > and security are tremendous.
> >
> > *TimDaniels*
>
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 1:26:54 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" wrote:
> Yes, I'm talking about removable IDE drives. The intent is only
> one copy running on this single computer at any one time, and
> not on any other computers...
> [..........]
>
> I guess my main question is *technically* will this work, both at
> installation authorization and future upgrades/validation?


Yes, it works - I do that on a weekly basis. I even put 4 or more
archived WinXP OSes on the same backup hard drive, each
selectable and bootable. Updatable software on each clone
can be updated as if intervening updates had never been
done. For instance, Windows updates and Norton Anti-Virus
updates proceed normally for the clone despite any updating
having been done for the "parent" or for its other clones. Any
subscriptions for these updates carry over to the clones since
the software vendor doesn't keep track of how many times a
user downloads an update for his purchased software.

But you must be sure NOT to start up the clone for the
FIRST time with the "parent" OS visible to it, or the
clone will thereafter depend on the continued presence
of the "parent".

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 2:14:27 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Bob I" wrote:
> [.......]]There is the EULA and the intent is that one copy is INSTALLED AND RUNNING on one PC.
> Many people misread the AND as OR, and that is a BIG
> difference.


The following is the pertinent line from the WinXP EULA:

"Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display
and run one copy of the Product on a single computer,... "

Although legal terminology may confuse the meanings of
AND and OR that exist in binary logic, and the placement
of a single comma may completely reverse the meaning
of a clause, I also read the above passage to mean that it
permits ("you may") install AND run ONE COPY of WinXP
on a single computer. One might argue that the "one copy"
is as important as the "and".

But regardless of the meaning or intent of the EULA, it
hasn't been tested in court for making multiple copies
that are used only on the same computer. I argue that it
falls under the concept of "fair usage" whereby a buyer
of a music CD can make copies for his personal and sole
usage and backup since he can only use one such copy
at a time.

As recently as May of this year, Carey Frisch (MVP),
was waving the EULA in regards to cloning:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windows....*&rnum=1&hl=en#de1d1c10e5e1383d

(Or go to Groups.Goole.com and search on the Subject:
"clone of winxp hard drive" if the above link doesn't work.)

It's interesting that such condemnation of cloning is not
being raised at this time by the MVPs.

*TimDaniels*
September 16, 2005 3:53:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%234%23bzxsuFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yes, I'm talking about removable IDE drives. The intent is only one copy
> running on this single computer at any one time, and not on any other
> computers. The drives are where our company data backups would reside, not
> to have as their own backups of each other.
>
> I'm not concerned so much about the EULA - my concern is activation and
> validation. I believe I'm within the spirit of the EULA as long as only
> one
> drive is in use on this single computer at any one time, and not used on
> any
> other computers.
>
> I guess my main question is *technically* will this work, both at
> installation authorization and future upgrades/validation?
>
> John


John:
There is absolutely no problem involving activation when you will be using
your "cloned" removable HD in the manner you described. The system will
treat that cloned drive in *exactly* the same way as the source disk from
which you cloned the contents of that latter disk to your removable drive.
No activation will be requested nor is it necessary.

Contrary to some of the views expressed in this thread, you, or anyone else,
are *not* violating the spirit nor the letter of Microsoft's EULA when you
use a removable HD containing a cloned copy of the OS as a restoration
device in the identical machine from which the clone was created.
Anna
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:53:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

OK - am I correct that I will have no problems if I *clone* the drives, but
might have problems if XP was manually installed on both drives from the CD,
even though the computer is the same? This scenario obviously involves
authenticating twice. I'm just trying to avoid buying cloning software -
'might as well buy another copy of XP in that case...

John

"Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
news:o snAUbtuFHA.664@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> "John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:%234%23bzxsuFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Yes, I'm talking about removable IDE drives. The intent is only one copy
> > running on this single computer at any one time, and not on any other
> > computers. The drives are where our company data backups would reside,
not
> > to have as their own backups of each other.
> >
> > I'm not concerned so much about the EULA - my concern is activation and
> > validation. I believe I'm within the spirit of the EULA as long as only
> > one
> > drive is in use on this single computer at any one time, and not used on
> > any
> > other computers.
> >
> > I guess my main question is *technically* will this work, both at
> > installation authorization and future upgrades/validation?
> >
> > John
>
>
> John:
> There is absolutely no problem involving activation when you will be using
> your "cloned" removable HD in the manner you described. The system will
> treat that cloned drive in *exactly* the same way as the source disk from
> which you cloned the contents of that latter disk to your removable drive.
> No activation will be requested nor is it necessary.
>
> Contrary to some of the views expressed in this thread, you, or anyone
else,
> are *not* violating the spirit nor the letter of Microsoft's EULA when you
> use a removable HD containing a cloned copy of the OS as a restoration
> device in the identical machine from which the clone was created.
> Anna
>
>
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

John Schmidt wrote:
>
> authenticating twice. I'm just trying to avoid buying cloning software -
> 'might as well buy another copy of XP in that case...

You dont have to buy cloning software. It's free:


XXCLONE Freeware Package (for personal use only)

* No sign up necessary.
* Supports the basic XXCLONE features.

http://www.xxclone.com/







--
http://www.bootdisk.com/
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:53:46 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"John Schmidt" wrote:
> OK - am I correct that I will have no problems if I *clone* the drives,
> but might have problems if XP was manually installed on both drives
> from the CD, even though the computer is the same? This scenario
> obviously involves authenticating twice. I'm just trying to avoid buying
> cloning software - 'might as well buy another copy of XP in that case...


I tried the free trial download of Casper XP for 30 days,
and I liked it, so I popped for the full $50 retail copy.
Considering the convenience and safety afforded by that
utility, it was well worth the price. Check it out at
www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/ .

I've also bought Acronis's True Image (which can't clone
individual partitions - only entire HDs), and I bought
Ghost 9.0 when it was called Drive Image 7.0 , and for
*cloning*, Casper XP is easiest and best.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 3:53:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Plato" wrote:
> John Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> authenticating twice. I'm just trying to avoid buying cloning software -
>> 'might as well buy another copy of XP in that case...
>
> You dont have to buy cloning software. It's free:
>
>
> XXCLONE Freeware Package (for personal use only)
>
> * No sign up necessary.
> * Supports the basic XXCLONE features.
>
> http://www.xxclone.com/


It took more than 2 hours for xxClone to clone a
20GB partition on my HD. The author said that
the time was used to prepare for later incremental
backups which would go very fast. But since I
don't do incremental backups, the slow initial
cloning was a major negative.

*TimDaniels*
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 4:16:33 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

Timothy Daniels wrote:

>
> It's interesting that such condemnation of cloning is not
> being raised at this time by the MVPs.


....because, borrowing from your earlier response in this
thread, they have been constanty reminded that they may
know computers and how to read the EULA but that they are
also not [copyright] lawyers...like some of the rest of
us.
September 16, 2005 7:54:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

> "Anna" <myname@myisp.net> wrote in message
> news:o snAUbtuFHA.664@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:%234%23bzxsuFHA.3048@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> > Yes, I'm talking about removable IDE drives. The intent is only one
>> > copy
>> > running on this single computer at any one time, and not on any other
>> > computers. The drives are where our company data backups would reside,
> not
>> > to have as their own backups of each other.
>> >
>> > I'm not concerned so much about the EULA - my concern is activation and
>> > validation. I believe I'm within the spirit of the EULA as long as only
>> > one
>> > drive is in use on this single computer at any one time, and not used
>> > on
>> > any
>> > other computers.
>> >
>> > I guess my main question is *technically* will this work, both at
>> > installation authorization and future upgrades/validation?
>> >
>> > John
>>
>>
>> John:
>> There is absolutely no problem involving activation when you will be
>> using
>> your "cloned" removable HD in the manner you described. The system will
>> treat that cloned drive in *exactly* the same way as the source disk from
>> which you cloned the contents of that latter disk to your removable
>> drive.
>> No activation will be requested nor is it necessary.
>>
>> Contrary to some of the views expressed in this thread, you, or anyone
> else,
>> are *not* violating the spirit nor the letter of Microsoft's EULA when
>> you
>> use a removable HD containing a cloned copy of the OS as a restoration
>> device in the identical machine from which the clone was created.
>> Anna


"John Schmidt" <johnaec-nospam-@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:%23DdodttuFHA.3388@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> OK - am I correct that I will have no problems if I *clone* the drives,
> but
> might have problems if XP was manually installed on both drives from the
> CD,
> even though the computer is the same? This scenario obviously involves
> authenticating twice. I'm just trying to avoid buying cloning software -
> 'might as well buy another copy of XP in that case...
>
> John


John:
With all due respect, in my opinion you're really going about this all
wrong. Frankly, it borders on the absurd to install two separate copies of
XP on your computer - one on one drive, another on another drive. What is
really the point of all this if what you really want (and need) is a
fail-safe (or at least *near* failsafe) backup system that you can establish
& maintain on a routine basis? Isn't that your real goal?

And with your removable HD (better still if you would use two) and I assume,
an internal HD, you can achieve precisely that through the use of a disk
imaging program such as the ones mentioned in various responses to you. The
cost of these programs is trifling compared to the cost of another retail
copy of XP. And there's no reason why you couldn't use these programs to
good advantage, i.e., to systematically & routinely clone the contents of
one drive to another drive. Having a removable HD, such as you have or will
have, makes the process even more effective. Using these disk imaging
programs to create direct disk-to-disk clones is relatively simple &
straightforward.

The ones that have been mentioned, i.e., Symantec's Norton Ghost & Acronis
True Image are fine programs in my experience. I would recommend the Ghost
2003 program rather than the Ghost 9 program (this is the latest version)
because I find it simpler to use for straight disk-to-disk cloning purposes
and just as effective as the Ghost 9 program. I've no recent experience with
the Casper XP program mentioned by one poster. I worked with an earlier
version some time ago and found it quite inferior to the Ghost program. But
perhaps this latest version is OK. As to the XXCLONE program someone
mentioned, my advice is to forget about that one. Based on my experience
with it, it's so painfully slow and awkward to use that I wouldn't recommend
it as a routine disk imaging program.
Anna
Anonymous
September 16, 2005 7:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

"Anna" wrote:
> .....if what you really want (and need) is a
> fail-safe (or at least *near* failsafe) backup system
> that you can establish & maintain on a routine basis?
> Isn't that your real goal?
>
> And with your removable HD (better still if you would
> use two) and I assume, an internal HD, you can achieve
> precisely that through the use of a disk imaging program
> such as the ones mentioned in various responses to you.

I agree. And if I had the room in the PC tower, I'd
install *two* removable drive racks. That makes it *so*
much easier to substitute drives in case of a failure,
and it makes it *so* much easier to "hide" the "parent"
OS when starting up the clone for a test drive before
archiving it as a backup - instead of disconnecting or
removing the source HD, you just turn its power switch
to "off" before starting up the computer. I use the remov-
able drives by Kingwin, specifically the model with the
fan in the bottom of the tray which draws cooling air
directly past the circuit card on the underside of the HD:
http://www.kingwin.com/pdut_detail.asp?LineID=&CateID=2...
It has aluminum construction for added cooling by conduction,
and for long-term dimensional stability. It also comes
in other fan configurations and in 3 different finishes.

By doing a search at various sites such as Nextag.com
and PriceWatch.com, etc., on the model no. that interests
you, you can find these assemblies for $24 and less, with
extra trays for $15 and less. All you need are the empty
5 1/2" bays to put them in.

*TimDaniels*
!