This is a topic I eluded to in this thread. I started this one to get a more broad opinion...and not to derail his thread.

Suppose I wish to install Windows on a portable hard drive. Barring the gross inconvenences of having to reconfigure Windows EVERY time I plug in the hard drive to another machine, and get it working, would I be in violation of the EULA?

My argument is yes. The EULA states that I'm allowed to install ONE copy on ONE computer, period. By unplugging the portable hard drive and carrying it on to another machine, and having it boot off that one, I'm essentially using one copy of Windows on two different machines.

Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

Post Script: Yes, I know Linux et al. does not incur such licensing snafus. I'm not planning to implement said hypothetical situation (I do not have the hardware). So no "omq get linux"

Whoops, I derailed the other thread before I saw this one

I suppose there's the argument that you're only installing the OS on one computer. However, I think the legalese of the EULA will stop you using this approach.

You could argue that you're not switching the hard drive between computers, but actually switching every other component of the computer.

As quoted by Windows 2000 EULA (and on that thread):

"TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a
different Workstation Computer. "

f*** the EULA. the only reason why MS bothered to have it written is out of pure greed. They want you to buy another copy of windows for every computer in oyur house.

I don't see the need to accommodate their pure corporate greed. do what you want, I doubt anyone will stop you.

Haha, funny story. My mom's friend got a call from Microsoft Canada two weeks ago. She had bought a legit copy of Office 2003 and was giving it to all of her friends. These old ladies, not knowing how to bypass activation, all activated their un-legit copies of Office 2003 with the original CD-key. Stupid old bags :p

The only legit copy of Windows I am running is the one I was forced to buy with my Compaq laptop. My other two computers run Linux (Ubuntu and FC2), and the Ubuntu computer dual-boots WinXP Corporate, acquired by the usual means. :p

And to answer the original question, I believe installing the OS to a USB HD would NOT be in violation of the EULA, specifically because of the quote CM posted above.

Exactly. You can use the same copy on two computers, just not at the same time. Which would make it legit, assuming that the copy on the portable drive was only installed on it. Not the case with me.

Meh, for the heck of it, I just e-mailed Microsoft. We'll find out for sure.

Without the EULA you don't actually have ANY right to use the software. Although you're right (particularly when considering software without activation) that it would be almost impossible for companies to trace, it doesn't make it legal. If you aren't happy paying the amount Microsoft is asking for their licences, use alternative software. Propping up the monoculture by installing Windows in breach of the licence isn't going to do anything to end the effective monopoly of Windows, introduce competition and therefore force Microsoft to lower prices.

As to the Win2K clause, I agree that that would make it legal. I don't think they had that clause in previous EULAs though (I may be wrong).

I have to admit I'm surprised they let you install win2k on anyhting other than just one machine. Maybe when I graduate I'll start to play with Linux, as it is, I tried once, failed, realised as much as I hate filling thier pockets, that right now I need windows for various things, so will have to shut up and put up too.