Gordon wrote:

> "Rock" <rock@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:eqgR5M%23QHHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> If you want transferability get a retail version. OEM is cheaper
>>> and that's
>> one reason why.
>>
>
> I am still baffled by the logic (or not) of this. The only reason
> that the OEM version is cheaper is that MS do not support OEM
> versions - the OEM vendor does.


That's your interpretation. I don't agree with it. My view is that the
reason it's cheaper is that it comes with *three* restrictions, not one:

1. Its license ties it permanently to the first computer it's installed on.
It can never legally be moved to another computer, sold, or given away.

2. It can only do a clean installation, not an upgrade.

3. Microsoft provides no support for OEM versions. You can't call them with
a problem, but instead have to get any needed support from your OEM.


> So why should that curtail the User's
> right to move it to another PC?


You are stating that restriction 3 shouldn't cause restriction 1. I agree,
but I think that that cause and effect relationship you're imputing doesn't
exist. They are separate restrictions. Neither causes the other, but they
are equal, along with restriction 2.


> Totally illogical,


I don't see it either as a matter of logic or lack or logic.at all. They
offer a license for sale that comes with certain restrictions. If you think
it's a good deal, then accept the offer. If you don't, then don't accept it.
They get to choose the terms of their offers. We, the customers, get to
accept their offers or not.

Personally, I don't think it's a good deal, and that's why I recommend
Retail Upgrades instead. But we each get to make our own choice.

But if I had my druthers, there would be only a single kind of license,
without this differentiation between Retail and OEM versions, and all the
confusion it causes.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup