Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stupot
  • Start date Start date
S

Stupot

Guest
I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.

I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit. All
on different drives.
I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64 to
hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is within
the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same machine. Not the
32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but the two versions of XP
x64 should be good, IMHO.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>
> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
> All on different drives.
> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64
> to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Stupot has posed a good question. I have 2 instances of XP
Pro and 1 of XP x64. I was always under the impression thar
MS's EULA only allowed on active/working installation per
Product Key. I have 2 different Keys for my XP Pro
installations. Why would x64 be any different and allow 2
instances of XP x64 on the same computer, different drives,
with one Product Key?

My impression is that you can only have one legal
installation per Product Key, except Enterprise/Volume licenses.


Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
> Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
> expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is
> within the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same
> machine. Not the 32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but
> the two versions of XP x64 should be good, IMHO.
>


"Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems
with activation.
>
> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one
of XP 32 bit. All on different drives.
> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean
uncluttered XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise
any problems?
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
understand.

The license terms are available here, among other places:
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx

Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as long
as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the one
currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable process/procedure.
Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the system and un-marking it
installs it. However, this precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit copy
since one cannot be the back-up for the other. Activation is a distinct
and separate issue.

Other similar schemes can be postulated.

Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.

Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
scheme.

Tom
MSMVP 1998-2007


"Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>
> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
> All on different drives.
> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64


Woops- should have been

*and the other partition, the one _not_ currently in use, is marked as
"hidden"*

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>understand.
>
> The license terms are available here, among other places:
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>
> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as
> long as they are on separate partitions *and the other partition, the
> one currently in use, is marked as "hidden"* by suitable
> process/procedure. Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the
> system and un-marking it installs it. However, this precludes setting
> up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot be the back-up for the
> other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>
> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>
> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>
> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
> scheme.
>
> Tom
> MSMVP 1998-2007
>
>
> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>
>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32
>> bit. All on different drives.
>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
impediment.

"Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>understand.
>
> The license terms are available here, among other places:
> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>
> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably imply
> the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as long as
> they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the one currently
> in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable process/procedure. Marking the
> partition effectively uninstalls the system and un-marking it installs it.
> However, this precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot
> be the back-up for the other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>
> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>
> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>
> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the scheme.
>
> Tom
> MSMVP 1998-2007
>
>
> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>
>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
>> All on different drives.
>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64
>> to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

You may be correct - notice the disclaimer I made. <G>

However, given that only ONE can be active at any time, and given that it is
on identical hardware, I would argue that it is not a violation. I might be
wrong, and Darrell or someone else may well jump in to say so. It hasn't
been an issue for me personally, but this was just my personal take on fair
use.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Theo" <theo@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Ot0SSorBIHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Stupot has posed a good question. I have 2 instances of XP Pro and 1 of
> XP x64. I was always under the impression thar MS's EULA only allowed on
> active/working installation per Product Key. I have 2 different Keys for
> my XP Pro installations. Why would x64 be any different and allow 2
> instances of XP x64 on the same computer, different drives, with one
> Product Key?
>
> My impression is that you can only have one legal installation per Product
> Key, except Enterprise/Volume licenses.
>
>
> Charlie Russel - MVP wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
>> expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is within
>> the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same machine. Not
>> the 32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but the two versions
>> of XP x64 should be good, IMHO.
>>
>
>
> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems
> with activation.
> >
> > I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one
> of XP 32 bit. All on different drives.
> > I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean
> uncluttered XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
> >
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>impediment.
>
> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>understand.
>>
>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>
>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
>> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
>> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as long
>> as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the one
>> currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable process/procedure.
>> Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the system and un-marking it
>> installs it. However, this precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit copy
>> since one cannot be the back-up for the other. Activation is a distinct
>> and separate issue.
>>
>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>
>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>
>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>> scheme.
>>
>> Tom
>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>
>>
>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>>
>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
>>> All on different drives.
>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64
>>> to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

The first time, I assume that it will get a 'license in use message' (I know
Vista does). After that XP is a lot more forgiving on the phone-homes.
Vista would realise on each boot to the other system that it is on a
different drive, since Vista has the installed hard drive as the most
important component of the algorithm.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:A3F280AF-BB83-4B80-9F6B-5D5AF8342909@microsoft.com...
> Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>>impediment.
>>
>> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>>understand.
>>>
>>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>>
>>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
>>> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
>>> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as
>>> long as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the one
>>> currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable process/procedure.
>>> Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the system and un-marking
>>> it installs it. However, this precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit
>>> copy since one cannot be the back-up for the other. Activation is a
>>> distinct and separate issue.
>>>
>>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>>
>>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>>
>>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>>> scheme.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>>
>>>
>>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>>>
>>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
>>>> All on different drives.
>>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>>>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Always learning from you, Charlie.
One way or the other.
I do like that IANAL achronym.
I had to go here:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IANAL
in order to confirm what I was guessing it meant.
Added to my bag of achronyms now.
Carlos

"Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:

> Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
> expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is within
> the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same machine. Not the
> 32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but the two versions of XP
> x64 should be good, IMHO.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
> >
> > I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
> > All on different drives.
> > I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered XP64
> > to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
> >
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Ah, but this was XP x64 in the original requirements (see the subject).

I would argue that even Vista it is a "fair use", but that's _my_
interpretation of the legal status. But with XP? I doubt I'll see an issue.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%235ixUKsBIHA.3456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The first time, I assume that it will get a 'license in use message' (I
> know Vista does). After that XP is a lot more forgiving on the
> phone-homes. Vista would realise on each boot to the other system that it
> is on a different drive, since Vista has the installed hard drive as the
> most important component of the algorithm.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:A3F280AF-BB83-4B80-9F6B-5D5AF8342909@microsoft.com...
>> Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>>>impediment.
>>>
>>> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>>>understand.
>>>>
>>>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>>>
>>>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
>>>> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
>>>> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as
>>>> long as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the
>>>> one currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable
>>>> process/procedure. Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the
>>>> system and un-marking it installs it. However, this precludes setting
>>>> up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot be the back-up for the
>>>> other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>>>>
>>>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>>>
>>>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>>>> scheme.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32
>>>>> bit. All on different drives.
>>>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>>>>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Not one we see here much, but often seen in other areas of usenet where it
seems to always preceed someone's idiotic misinterpretation of the legal
status of something else. ;)

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Carlos" <Carlos@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:74A01095-9814-4C8D-A6F9-09A8AE382636@microsoft.com...
> Always learning from you, Charlie.
> One way or the other.
> I do like that IANAL achronym.
> I had to go here:
> http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IANAL
> in order to confirm what I was guessing it meant.
> Added to my bag of achronyms now.
> Carlos
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" wrote:
>
>> Disclaimer: I don't work for Microsoft, IANAL, and I am not a licensing
>> expert. All that being said, I would _personally_ argue that it is within
>> the fair use of the software, since it is on the exact same machine. Not
>> the
>> 32-bit, that's going to take a separate license, but the two versions of
>> XP
>> x64 should be good, IMHO.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>> >
>> > I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32 bit.
>> > All on different drives.
>> > I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>> > XP64
>> > to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>> >
>>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

I think we are thinking of 'technical' in slightly different senses.
Activation would be a legal issue, a legal technicality, if you wish.
However it is not a technical issue in terms of the details of the OS
install or operation. However, in the end, that is an argument over word
use rather than substance.

Tom

"John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>impediment.
>
> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>understand.
>>
>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>
>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
>> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
>> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as
>> long as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the
>> one currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable
>> process/procedure. Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the
>> system and un-marking it installs it. However, this precludes setting
>> up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot be the back-up for the
>> other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>>
>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>
>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>
>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>> scheme.
>>
>> Tom
>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>
>>
>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>>
>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32
>>> bit. All on different drives.
>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Thanks for your input guys. I will try and do the dual boot and hope it
doesn't bring an end to the support of the first version.Are there any
pitfalls to look out for as when I added the 32 bit to dual boot I had to
copy the NTLDR file to the root before the original Windows would boot..


--
Remove 'nospam' from the address to email me
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:33E99299-EA9D-43B9-BC2A-301CF9A3C751@microsoft.com...
> Ah, but this was XP x64 in the original requirements (see the subject).
>
> I would argue that even Vista it is a "fair use", but that's _my_
> interpretation of the legal status. But with XP? I doubt I'll see an
> issue.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
> news:%235ixUKsBIHA.3456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> The first time, I assume that it will get a 'license in use message' (I
>> know Vista does). After that XP is a lot more forgiving on the
>> phone-homes. Vista would realise on each boot to the other system that it
>> is on a different drive, since Vista has the installed hard drive as the
>> most important component of the algorithm.
>>
>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
>> news:A3F280AF-BB83-4B80-9F6B-5D5AF8342909@microsoft.com...
>>> Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Charlie.
>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>
>>>
>>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>>>>impediment.
>>>>
>>>> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>>>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>>>>understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>>>>
>>>>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken together
>>>>> with back-up rights contained in the document, they might reasonably
>>>>> imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and use them as
>>>>> long as they are on separate partitions and the other partition, the
>>>>> one currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by suitable
>>>>> process/procedure. Marking the partition effectively uninstalls the
>>>>> system and un-marking it installs it. However, this precludes setting
>>>>> up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot be the back-up for the
>>>>> other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>>>>
>>>>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>>>>> scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with activation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32
>>>>>> bit. All on different drives.
>>>>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>>>>>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
 
Re: Is Dual boot allowed using same copy of XP 64

Can't think of any. A normal install of X64 should add it to the boot and
you should be off and running.


"Stupot" <mongrel1999NoSpam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%237wVT%23DCIHA.5960@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for your input guys. I will try and do the dual boot and hope it
> doesn't bring an end to the support of the first version.Are there any
> pitfalls to look out for as when I added the 32 bit to dual boot I had to
> copy the NTLDR file to the root before the original Windows would boot..
>
>
> --
> Remove 'nospam' from the address to email me
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:33E99299-EA9D-43B9-BC2A-301CF9A3C751@microsoft.com...
>> Ah, but this was XP x64 in the original requirements (see the subject).
>>
>> I would argue that even Vista it is a "fair use", but that's _my_
>> interpretation of the legal status. But with XP? I doubt I'll see an
>> issue.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>> news:%235ixUKsBIHA.3456@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> The first time, I assume that it will get a 'license in use message' (I
>>> know Vista does). After that XP is a lot more forgiving on the
>>> phone-homes. Vista would realise on each boot to the other system that
>>> it is on a different drive, since Vista has the installed hard drive as
>>> the most important component of the algorithm.
>>>
>>> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in
>>> message news:A3F280AF-BB83-4B80-9F6B-5D5AF8342909@microsoft.com...
>>>> Might be interesting, since the hardware is, obviously, identical.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Charlie.
>>>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>>>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "John Barnes" <jbarnes@email.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:%23clIv7rBIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>>>I generally agree, but think that activation could be a technical
>>>>>impediment.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Tom Ferguson" <tom.newsgroups@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eZkJHrrBIHA.912@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>I am neither a lawyer nor do I, at any time, represent or express
>>>>>>Microsoft's interests or opinions. Like many other, I just struggle to
>>>>>>understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The license terms are available here, among other places:
>>>>>> http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note section 2 and how device is defined. Also note 15. Taken
>>>>>> together with back-up rights contained in the document, they might
>>>>>> reasonably imply the right to install two copies, 32 or 64 bit, and
>>>>>> use them as long as they are on separate partitions and the other
>>>>>> partition, the one currently in use, is marked as "hidden" by
>>>>>> suitable process/procedure. Marking the partition effectively
>>>>>> uninstalls the system and un-marking it installs it. However, this
>>>>>> precludes setting up a 32 and a 64 bit copy since one cannot be the
>>>>>> back-up for the other. Activation is a distinct and separate issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other similar schemes can be postulated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Otherwise, in my view, each copy requires a separate license.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Legalities aside, I can't think of any technical impediment to the
>>>>>> scheme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tom
>>>>>> MSMVP 1998-2007
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Stupot" <mongrel1999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%23a3lMnqBIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>I don't want to infringe MS rules and create problems with
>>>>>>>activation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I want to run triple boot with two copies of XP64 and one of XP 32
>>>>>>> bit. All on different drives.
>>>>>>> I am already running 1 of each and want to have a clean uncluttered
>>>>>>> XP64 to hand. Does anyone in the know visualise any problems?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
 
Back
Top