16 replies to this topic

[MedEvil]

Hi!
Back with XP based PE the differences were, booting from CD, running of ro media without the need for EWF, FBWF or similar overlay drivers. Hence a PE was more RAM friendly, than a smallish XP.

With Win7 based PE, i can't find any advantages, that the PE has, over a smallish Win7.
Both boot from whatever and both require FBWF to work.

Did i miss or overlook something?

[pscEx]

IMO the main advantage depends on license.

 

You are not allowed to copy a (lightened) version of your host OS to e.g. an USB stick, and use it on a different host.

 

But you are (currently still) allowed to build a PE from your licensed Win7 source CD.

 

Question besides: When you download a souce CD and have no license for it, are you allowed to build / use a PE?

 

Peter

[Wonko the Sane]

But you are (currently still) allowed to build a PE from your licensed Win7 source CD.

But in theory, NOT to use the PE derived from your Windows Licensed DVD on any other machine or concurrently to the licensed OS and NOT for anything else but for "diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software".
 

 

Windows Pre-Installation Environment. You may install and use the Windows Pre-Installation Environment for purposes of diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software. For the avoidance of doubt, you may not use the Windows Pre-Installation Environment for any other purpose, including without limitation as a general operating system, as a thin client or as a remote desktop client.

 

Question besides: When you download a souce CD and have no license for it, are you allowed to build / use a PE?

Download WHAT from WHERE?


Wonko

[pscEx]

But in theory, NOT to use the PE derived from your Windows Licensed DVD on any other machine or concurrently to the licensed OS and NOT for anything else but for "diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software".
 

Download WHAT from WHERE?#1: exactly my concerns

#1 exactly my concerns / considerations

#2 e.g. official M$ CD from digitalriver

 

Peter

[MedEvil]

I think you two should update your knowledge concerns.
1. M$ grants everyone a free trail period of Win7. Hence one can download and use it as full OS. (for a while.)
2. M$ grants everyone a free trail period of Win7. Hence one can download and build a PE from it.

The full version will eventually time out and stop working. The PE will not. But since it was legaly created and is not bound to owning any licence. The PE will stay legal. At least as long as it is used acording to the license agreement.

--------------------------

So you two don't know any technical differences either?

[paraglider]

The license for PE is quite clear - you may use it for diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software on your devices. If you own one licensed copy of win 7 you may use your copy of PE on that one win7 device only.

[Wonko the Sane]

The license for PE is quite clear - you may use it for diagnosing and recovering Windows operating system software on your devices. If you own one licensed copy of win 7 you may use your copy of PE on that one win7 device only.

Well, not really-really. it depends on license you have, it is OEM it is "linked" to the device, if it's full it is transferrable all the times you want on different devices and the limit is "concurrent use", if you have a "VLK" you can use it on *any* device within the number of licenses you have.

@Medevil
JFYI, try upgrading from XP to Win 7 through Microsoft:
http://www.msfn.org/...ost__p__1035903



Wonko

[paraglider]

The full license is not concurrent use - you have to remove the OS from one device to install it on another and reactivate on new device thus making the original activation invalid. Concurrent would imply you could just power off one PC and power on another. VLK still has to be activated etiher using a MAK ( multiple activation key ) or a local license server.

[Wonko the Sane]

The full license is not concurrent use

Sure it is not:

 

 

...  if it's full it is transferrable all the times you want on different devices and the limit is "concurrent use" ....

 

I was not talking about validation, I was talking of the difference of Licensing between OEM as "linked to a given hardware" as opposed to "full", i.e. "transferrable on other systems".

 

 

Wonko

[MedEvil]

The full license is not concurrent use - you have to remove the OS from one device to install it on another and reactivate on new device thus making the original activation invalid. Concurrent would imply you could just power off one PC and power on another.

If that's the case, then the EULA has been changed. It used to be concurrent use.
It used to be perfectly legal, to have just one licence and use it on your computer in your office as well as on your home machine.
Pretty much like you're allowed to take your Home-Laptop to your office and use it there too and are not required to buy a second one.

[Wonko the Sane]

If that's the case, then the EULA has been changed. It used to be concurrent use.
It used to be perfectly legal, to have just one licence and use it on your computer in your office as well as on your home machine.
Pretty much like you're allowed to take your Home-Laptop to your office and use it there too and are not required to buy a second one.

Can you name specifically a MS Operating System version/edition that EVER had this form of license?

 

There was a (similar) License type for some software, like MS Office:

http://superuser.com...an-one-computer

and they also attempted changing it, BTW the good MS guys attempted to make "OEM" even a "retail" license for Office 2013 (in order to promote the senseless Office 365):

http://winsupersite....rable-second-pc

http://blogs.office....ferability.aspx

http://blogs.office....ansferable.aspx

(they backed up after the rebellion of half the customers).

 

but there was NEVER that I can recall a single OS license allowing "concurrent use".

And in any case even the Office one was for "licensed device" + "portable device", never "office" + "home".

 

Wonko

[MedEvil]

Maybe it is/was a local law thing and not an EULA, if you can't find it.
The reasoning went something like this.(if i remember correctly)

My compater is not a legal entity and can therefore not aquire a licence to use Windows from M$. Only i can do so.
Therefore i'm licenced to use Windows, not my computer. So the licence moves with me. Not with my computer!

It follows/ed the copyright law for book and record for instance.
Which also allows me to make copies for my own private use.
When i own a record, i'm not / was not required to buy a tape or install a recordplayer to listen to the music in my car.
My recordplayer did not aquire a licence to play the record, i aqired a licence to listen to the music.

As long as software companies fight, to keep their products covered by copyright, to not fall under the same liabilty laws as hardware.
They can only licence use to people and not allowing the licencee to move the licenced product whereever he wants, is not covered by the copyright law.

Just imagine you would need the ok of the bookcompany, when you want to read your book in another room, than stated during purchase!

[Wonko the Sane]

Maybe it is/was a local law thing and not an EULA, if you can't find it.
The reasoning went something like this.(if i remember correctly)

...

Just imagine you would need the ok of the bookcompany, when you want to read your book in another room, than stated during purchase!

Sure, or you just dreamed about it.

 

And no, the book comparison does not stand, and EULA's have traditionally allowed to make copies of Operating Systems (or software in general) for backup purposes allright.

 

The "tape" to be used on the car has been treated very differently in different countries, as an example in Italy it is allowed to duplicate (for personal use ONLY) a music record or CD, etc. BUT there is a tax on the media AND on recording apparata:

http://www.normattiv...oArticolo=0#art

http://www.parlament...ghe/03068dl.htm

 

Wonko

[MedEvil]

And no, the book comparison does not stand

Sure it does. To read(make use of) the book(OS), i need a lamp (hardware playback device).
Since i don't take my lamps with me, when i change rooms, i switch the hardware playback device. The one for OS is usually called a computer.

The only difference is, that one can create a OS, which will not work on a different computer, but one can't create a book, which can't be read under a different lamp.

Sure, or you just dreamed about it.

Whatever amkes you happy!

[Wonko the Sane]

The only difference is, that one can create a OS, which will not work on a different computer, but one can't create a book, which can't be read under a different lamp.

Oh yes, it is possible, think of ink sensible to a particular light wavelength, only it would be foolish.

 

And in the case of the book there is the not-so-trifling issue of the additional hardware needed to read it (you are probably too young to have experienced Presbyopia ), but I can assure you that the lamp and the book are only two of the items I need to read a book .

 

On a side note - you missed two of the most failed attempts at DVD's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay

and no, they never learn, the Germans are at it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-D

http://www.einmal-dvd.com/

Just for the record the first sentence here:

http://www.einmal-dvd.com/dvdd.htm

That google translates as:

 

 

Films inexpensively and legally: the DVD Disposable



The already successful in Italy, France and Scandinavia launched DVD disposable, as opposed to permanent DVD called one-DVD or DVD-D, a new DVD-type, which is currently implemented in Germany and for licensees and customers offers numerous advantages.

 

is completely false, never seen one of them in Italy.

 

However, you might appreciate this :

 

http://www.einmal-dvd.com/dvdd.htm

Wer denselben Film ein zweites Mal sehen möchte, muss sich eine zweite DVD-D kaufen. Im Lebensmittelbereich ist dies seit jeher üblich: Wer eine zweite Schokolade essen will, muss auch eine zweite kaufen. Das ist eigentlich selbstverständlich.

 

Wonko

[MedEvil]

The worst is not that they say such nonsense, but that people actually believe it!

Just go and ask people, if downloading music from the web without paying, is legal.
10 out of 10 will tell you it's illegal.

10 points for the music industry, which touted so loud, that downloading without paying is stealing, that people completely forgot, what a copy is!

But to say it with Schiller: "Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain."

[Wonko the Sane]

But to say it with Schiller: "Against stupidity even the gods fight in vain."

I like this better:

 

 

“Stupidity—The top of the list for Satanic Sins. The Cardinal Sin of Satanism. It’s too bad that stupidity isn’t painful. Ignorance is one thing, but our society thrives increasingly on stupidity. It depends on people going along with whatever they are told. The media promotes a cultivated stupidity as a posture that is not only acceptable but laudable. Satanists must learn to see through the tricks and cannot afford to be stupid.”
― Anton Szandor LaVey

 

And now, for NO apparent reason:

 

 

 

 

 

Wonko