gawd - when will MS be cotrolled by fair legislation? The congress and the courts seem to just perpetuate this kind of monopoly minded intrusion into personal use and innovation. This is un American. In America when you purchase a product you can modify it or change it in any way you please. You own it. MS was allowed to force consumers to buy their product (major computer manufacturers were not allowed to sell machines without MS installed without paying severe penalties) and now they are allowed to force you to continue using their product after you get it home. This so absurd it's Kafkaesque.

Great when my heardware breaks down or becomes faulty i will send microsoft the bill (no pun) then.

Since it is all covered under the one licence.

This makes microsoft responsable for the whole machine their os is installed on!

They have to replace a faulty products don't they ?

As if!.. it would be good though but i doubt it.

personally it sounds as if the reporter is taking disparate statements and merging them together to form an argument against MS. From reading the MS site it seems to make pretty clear sense and not be to far out of line.
When you purchased an OEM computer it came with an OS (package deal) that OS is non-transferable unless being transferred as packaged with the hardware. This keeps people from selling the hardware/installed software one place and selling the original media another place (I've seen this at computer shows).
One should be aware that when receiving OEM hardware that it most likely came with an OS, media, and license. Keeping track of a small box of disks and a booklet that usually has the license on it shouldn't be too difficult a feat. If the donor does not have the information it IS possible that the OS is fraudulently installed. It would be better legally for the group receiving the donation to steer clear of any issues where this might occur. Point in fact - the problem we are having now with BSA/audits.

I don't see anywhere that it states that the OS must be installed and/or cannot be uninstalled. I think it simply states that if it was originally packaged with an OS and software that the software and licensing should always remain with the equipment. If it does not then you might need to jump through hoops to show that you legally own what you have.

Again it's like taking a car donation, if you don't have the title you're going to be in trouble when you get pulled over driving the car. Especially if it turns out the car is stolen. How many people have we all seen on cops getting pulled over and saying "Nah Man this guy over down the street told me I could have it. I dunno I never met him before I think his name was Steve."

I get donations of equipment all the time. Alot of equipment I get comes with all the manuals, disks, and licensing and the few that don't

Quoted from Microsoft's own page:

"A. It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. If a company or individual donates a machine to your school, it must be donated with the operating system that was installed on the PC. "

While the prima facie intent may be to specify that if a donated pc originally had an oem version of windows, and if windows is still installed on the pc, then it must have the license, this statement is worded in such a fashion as to be (apparently) intentionally confusing.

There is no legal requirement that says I may not buy a PC with an oem version of windows, and then throw that version of windows away, and install some other legally licensed operating system (Linux, OS2, BeOS, etc.). And there is no legal requirement that I may not donate said pc (with legal non-windows OS) to anyone who wishes to receive it. I do NOT need to provide the original oem version of windows in that case, regardless of what MS would wish.

This donation 'issue' is just like their other issue about 'Naked PC's'. Their whole argument about Naked PC's is that the user who gets one has no other option but to pirate an operating system. They make no distinction about other legitimate OS's that may be installed, legally.

This obtuseness is deliberate on the part of Microsoft, and it is done with the express intent of frightening the average user in an effort to prevent them from even considering another solution.

I'm pretty much OS agnostic, as I actively use 5 different systems, including windows, but I know many people who are VERY pro Microsoft who nonetheless think this whole issue about donations and naked pc's is a very bad move on Microsoft's part.

The automotive analogy above misses the mark, also. It is not as if you have a car without a title, it is more like you have a properly titled car that has an engine different from the one originally installed. No sensible person would argue that changing the engine in a car is automatically illegal, just because it isn't the one that came with it.

If Microsoft don't believe in 'naked' PCs, then why do they sell Windows in a version for 'PCs without Windows'?

You're correct about the engine issue. In the past, when it was my hobby to modify cars, the only real issue you had was to make sure that the new engine met the emissions standards for the year and make of car, and the state you lived in. And while it's a good idea to keep those numbers together, you won't automatically be suspected if you don't, it just places more of the burden of proof on you.

But back to the MS issue. What I'm saying is that while MS, when pushed, will admit that all these conditions mean is that you should obey the software license, the fact is that the way they word the issue (or the way their lawyers do), is specifically intended to cause confusion and doubt about accepting a legal donation of a computer without a Microsoft operating system.

The issue about Naked PC's came up a year or so ago, when MS decided to offer incentives to OEM's who informed MS about customers who bought PC's without operating systems. MS's stated reason for this was that they were concerned about customers who were confused about volume licensing issues, but all in all, it made them look pretty silly, and they had to back away from it a bit. They still raise this issue in their FAQ about volume licenses though.

I don't have a fundamental problem with MS, or with their software, which I mostly like (I wouldn't be visiting a site called WinCustomize if I were that much against Windows). The problem I have with them, and others, like the RIAA, etc., is the standard presumption on their part that their customers are thieves and scoundrels unless proven otherwise, and apparently, no level of proof seems to be enough.

Sooner or later, the customers will realize what low regard they are held in by these companies, and that behaviour will backfire on the companies. It is a poor business plan that will fail at some point.