DOUBLE XP INSTALLATION

  • Thread starter Thread starter anon
  • Start date Start date
A

anon

can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto 2 separate hard
drives, within the same computer???

ie: Disk 1 partitioned into 3 - C: drive is winxp install

Disk 2 partitioned into 3 - F: drive is also winxp

How will i know which one i am booting at the boot-up stage if both are xp

will xp even let me install onto the second drive when it recognises xp
already on the sytem as a whole???

all help appreciated
 
anon said:
can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto 2 separate hard
drives, within the same computer???

ie: Disk 1 partitioned into 3 - C: drive is winxp install

Disk 2 partitioned into 3 - F: drive is also winxp

How will i know which one i am booting at the boot-up stage if both are xp

will xp even let me install onto the second drive when it recognises xp
already on the sytem as a whole???

all help appreciated
Click to expand...

I believe it can be done, but a simpler and easier to understand solution is to
use a hard drive tray. It fits into the cdrom sized bays, and you put your
first hard drive inside it. Set all your hard drives to be autodetected. If
you start the computer with the tray in, it will boot from that hard drive. If
you start the computer without the tray in, it will boot from the second hard
drive. (You might have to adjust this in your bios. If it doesn't have an
option for booting from something like IDE0 and IDE1, then make sure "try other
boot devices" is enabled and it should work.

You can find a hard drive tray for around $20-$30 at most. This place has them
for $10 (never bought from there, just one of the first results on google)
http://www.pcdirectsource.com/Item.cfm?ID=457 and this site has a nice picture
of what they look like: http://www.toppsoft.com/shop/udmatray.html
 
anon said:
can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto 2
separate hard drives, within the same computer???

ie: Disk 1 partitioned into 3 - C: drive is winxp install

Disk 2 partitioned into 3 - F: drive is also winxp

How will i know which one i am booting at the boot-up stage if both
are xp

will xp even let me install onto the second drive when it recognises
xp already on the sytem as a whole???

all help appreciated
Click to expand...
 
anon said:
can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto 2
separate hard drives, within the same computer???

ie: Disk 1 partitioned into 3 - C: drive is winxp install

Disk 2 partitioned into 3 - F: drive is also winxp

How will i know which one i am booting at the boot-up stage if both
are xp

will xp even let me install onto the second drive when it recognises
xp already on the sytem as a whole???

all help appreciated
Click to expand...

You can edit the boot.ini to change the name in the boot menu.
Click on or copy and paste the link below into your web browser address box.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html#menu
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
(e-mail address removed)
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
 
"anon" asked:
can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto
2 separate hard drives, within the same computer???
Click to expand...

No problem. The OSes can be differentiated by the HD
boot sequence in the BIOS or by the multi-boot feature
of Windows XP. See the posting on about November 18
in several NGs, including
microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
by Timothy Daniels titled
"Multi-boot Windows XP without special software".
It's in the Groups.Google.com archives if it's no longer
on your server.
Also see the Microsoft document:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=306559&product=winxp

*TimDaniels*
 
anon said:
can anyone tell me if there is a problem installing xp onto 2 separate hard
drives, within the same computer???
Click to expand...
....

No problem other then you will require to purchase another license for the
second installation of Windows XP.
This is covered in your End User License Agreement (EULA)

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following
rights provided that you comply with all terms and
conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer,
such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation
Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than two (2)
processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

The key point here is the "You may install ... one copy ... on a single
computer..."
Your second installation on the other harddisk requires another license.

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
 
Mike Brannigan said:
...

No problem other then you will require to purchase
another license for the second installation of Windows XP.
This is covered in your End User License Agreement (EULA)

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following
rights provided that you comply with all terms and
conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer,
such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation
Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than two (2)
processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

The key point here is the "You may install ... one copy ... on a single
computer..."
Your second installation on the other harddisk requires another license.
Click to expand...


You mis-quote the EULA. The last sentence pertains to workstations
which have more than one CPU.

Notice that the EULA says "Installation and use", not "Installation
OR use". The use of AND in this phrase and in the sentence that
follows can be argued, I believe, to exclude the *sequential* use of
multiple WinXP OSes installed in the same computer because they
cannot all be used at the same time. Furthermore, by saying that the
software may not be used by more than 2 CPUs in the same computer,
it differentiates "use" from "access". I argue that by having a second
WinXP installed but not booted (and therefore accessible simply as data,
i.e. not part of a functioning OS) does not violate the EULA. I am not
a lawyer, but I know logic, and that logic is bolstered by the fact that
Microsoft does not, to my knowledge, prosecute people for having
multiple copies of WinXP installed in their single computer.

I appreciate your ethics, and I applaud your effort to remind readers
of what you believe are their agreements, but I think you're being too
narrow in your interpretation of the EULA in this case.

*TimDaniels*
 
By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"
...

No problem other then you will require to purchase another license
for the second installation of Windows XP.
This is covered in your End User License Agreement (EULA)

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following
rights provided that you comply with all terms and
conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer,
such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation
Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than two (2)
processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

The key point here is the "You may install ... one copy ... on a
single computer..."
Your second installation on the other harddisk requires another
license.
Click to expand...

No, Microsoft is trying to require it through their Post-Sale FUD-ULA,
the second installation isn't requiring anything other than the Product
Key, & Activation. And activation should go smoothly over the internet
since all the hardware is the same, except for the VSN.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Mike Brannigan said:
...

No problem other then you will require to purchase another license for the
second installation of Windows XP.
This is covered in your End User License Agreement (EULA)

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following
rights provided that you comply with all terms and
conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer,
such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation
Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than two (2)
processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

The key point here is the "You may install ... one copy ... on a single
computer..."
Your second installation on the other harddisk requires another license.

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
Click to expand...

So if I clone my hard drive to a second drive, and put it somewhere save incase
something goes wrong, am I violating the EULA? I do this so I can easily get a
system up and running if the OS fails.Would it be any different if I had both
drives installed, and could boot from either one? The way I see it, I can only
"use, access, display and run one copy of the Software" at a time, and
technically, I only installed it once.
 
The people make the laws, not corporations! Just because a EULA spouts
something doesn't mean it is legal!
 
No, Timothy, I am aware of the clause about 2 CPU for multi CPU system.
This is not relevant to this discussion. It just quoted the whole section
in the post.

The section I paraphrased is the pertinent one.
You may not create a dual boot system without purchasing additional
licenses.

This is not my "interpretation" of the EULA but a direct confirmation of
this when I asked our internal licensing department.

If you are in doubt about this then please contact you local Microsoft
subsidiary for further confirmation.

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
 
Clint Eastwood said:
The people make the laws, not corporations! Just because a EULA spouts
something doesn't mean it is legal!
Click to expand...

I never used the word illegal. I reminded the original poster of the issue,
that in agreement with the EULA, which is required to complete the
installation they would be in violation of this, if they used a single copy
to build a dual boot system.

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
 
"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"
No, Timothy, I am aware of the clause about 2 CPU for multi CPU
system. This is not relevant to this discussion. It just quoted the
whole section in the post.

The section I paraphrased is the pertinent one.
You may not create a dual boot system without purchasing additional
licenses.

This is not my "interpretation" of the EULA but a direct confirmation
of this when I asked our internal licensing department.

If you are in doubt about this then please contact you local Microsoft
subsidiary for further confirmation.
Click to expand...

Last time I looked, neither party of a contract can be arbiter, or judge
about what the terms mean. That is left for a judge to decide, if there
is a conflict between the parties. Plus what rational human being is
gonna think that the interpretation of a convicted predatory monopolist
is more valid than their own interpretation.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"
I never used the word illegal. I reminded the original poster of the
issue, that in agreement with the EULA, which is required to complete
the installation they would be in violation of this, if they used a
single copy to build a dual boot system.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, Mike. It would be MS's unproven supposition that it is a
violation of the FUD-ULA, and that is no where close to actually being a
real violation under the law. MS is not now, nor as long as I still
have the faintest breath in my body, a law unto itself. MS is a proven
law breaker, not a proven law maker.

You should really just stay out of these topics, Mike, because you only
help me show other people how tenuous & rediculous MS's legal position
on it's FUD-ULA really is!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
 
Mike Brannigan said:
The section I paraphrased is the pertinent one.
You may not create a dual boot system without purchasing
additional licenses.

This is not my "interpretation" of the EULA but a direct
confirmation of this when I asked our internal licensing
department.

If you are in doubt about this then please contact you local
Microsoft subsidiary for further confirmation.
Click to expand...


:-) And how else *could* Microsofts's own licensing
department respond? In this instance, the department
is bluffing because a license requirement for each copy
of the same OS in a single PC wouldn't stand up in court!
And I think you know it. But I agree that people should
know Microsoft's public stance on the issue. And, I hold,
people should know what the real deal is.

*TimDaniels*
 
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following
rights provided that you comply with all terms and
conditions of this EULA:
1.1 Installation and use.
Click to expand...

The license begins with a false premise; this is not Microsoft's right to
grant. The right belongs to the owner of the copy of software under both
American & Canadian copyright laws. If the owner of the copy is to give
up or restrict this right, Microsoft needs to provide consideration to
form a contract. What consideration does Microsoft provide?
 
The license begins with a false premise; this is not Microsoft's right to
grant. The right belongs to the owner of the copy of software under both
American & Canadian copyright laws. If the owner of the copy is to give
up or restrict this right, Microsoft needs to provide consideration to
form a contract. What consideration does Microsoft provide?
Click to expand...

Have you read *any* software license agreements? The MS one doesn't look
that much different than any others I've seen.
 
Have you read *any* software license agreements? The MS one doesn't
look that much different than any others I've seen.
Click to expand...

Just because they *all* start with bullshit doesn't make it *not* bullshit.
 
Just because they *all* start with bullshit doesn't make it *not* bullshit.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your opinion about the contents, they all read just about the
same. There are obviously common standards implemented throughout the
industry for licensing software.
 
Regardless of your opinion about the contents, they all read just about the
same. There are obviously common standards implemented throughout the
industry for licensing software.
Click to expand...

BTW, I don't agree with the interpretation of the license Mike got from
legal. I see nothing wrong wiht a dual boot option of the same copy of XP
on a single machine. If virutual PC is used, a second copy license seems to
be necessary but sure don't see it needed in a dualboot as only one copy is
used at a time.
 
Back
Top