OEM vs Retail XP Pro

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
John.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote...
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
> occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.

Included drivers.

Support -- none from MS on an OEM serial number.

Lack of some add-ons (e.g., NetBEUI).

You may not get a CD for OEM.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:

> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
> of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
> upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
> problems with oem versions.

I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
long time ago), so OEM is fine.

In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.

This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh wrote:
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
> John.

the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
another computer.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD wrote:

> jeh wrote:
>
>> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
>> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
>> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
>> John.
>
>
> the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
> or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
> and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
> new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
> OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)

Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior O.S..


> Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
> another computer.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions
>>of xp pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing
>>upgrading here and there occasionally you might run into
>>problems with oem versions.
>
>
> I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install with
> the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway (maybe once a
> long time ago), so OEM is fine.
>
> In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is any
> difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations with the
> retail version, you are more likely to run into problems. Doing
> clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to you.
>
> This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the real
> way to install Windows is to make incremental backup copies and keep
> copies you can revert to when things go wrong. Even now with XP's
> stability, I wouldn't do without a disk manager.

Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for Longhorn?
Thanks.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
news:116bokneipv1s5a@corp.supernews.com...
> JD wrote:
>
>> jeh wrote:
>>
>>> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
>>> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and
>>> there occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
>>> John.
>>
>>
>> the main difference between OEM and Retail is that OEM has no packaging
>> or instructions (other than a quick start), there is no product support
>> and you cannot transfer the operating system to another pc eg. you buy a
>> new computer without windows you cannot install a previously installed
>> OEM version on it (well your not supposed to)
>
> Which is also why the OEM version does not support 'upgrading' a prior
> O.S..
>
I have updated a Toshiba laptop of mine that had a Toshiba version of XP
Home with an OEM version of XP Pro and it worked just fine. As far as
updating from 98 or ME I don't know because back then I upgraded with a
retail version. I wound up reinstalling XP Pro clean after deciding I didn't
want or need all the junk that Toshiba installs with it's version of XP
Home.
>
>> Retail version has product support, packaging and you can transfer it to
>> another computer.
>
The above OEM XP Pro that I installed on the Toshiba was previously
installed on a Sony Vaio laptop that bit the dust. I didn't even need to
call MS to activate. It activated just as a retail version would. I think
the largest difference is the packaging and lack of product support. If you
can do without those, I think the OEM version is a good deal. Of course, you
must purchase a major computer component (supposedly) to get an OEM copy. I
have an OEM version of XP Pro on this system and it is my "test" system
(guinea pig if u will) and have changed virtually everything in it and have
had to make the 10 min call to MS on a few occasions but just telling them I
upgraded, which is true, and they just reactivated normally.

Ed
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If your hardware is up to the challenge, you will find that XP is a big
improvement over W98, such as for the security enhancements that you
mentioned.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

--
DaveW



"jeh" <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote in message
news:d139d$42659e90$4ee038a$18368@ALLTEL.NET...
> Is there any real difference between the oem and retail versions of xp
> pro? I've heard that if you're going to be doing upgrading here and there
> occasionally you might run into problems with oem versions.
> John.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh <jehno@spamalltel.net> wrote:
> John Doe wrote:

>> I think the only difference is that you must do a clean install
>> with the OEM version. I never do an upgrade install anyway
>> (maybe once a long time ago), so OEM is fine.
>> In direct answer to your question, No, I don't think there is
>> any difference in that way. If you do upgrade installations
>> with the retail version, you are more likely to run into
>> problems. Doing clean installs is more work upfront. It's up to
>> you.
>> This might be more advanced than the options you need, but the
>> real way to install Windows is to make incremental backup
>> copies and keep copies you can revert to when things go wrong.
>> Even now with XP's stability, I wouldn't do without a disk
>> manager.
>
> Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing
> pretty good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I
> do some work online with various companies and they are starting
> to require a more updated os for the security aspect of it.
> Think I should wait for Longhorn?

I put my personal computer to the test, persistently. Currently, I
am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
Windows dance on my verbal command.

Even if you do little with your computer, a disk manager probably
is useful. Apparently you do enough, since you are concerned
enough to ask about OEM versus retail versions of Windows XP.

If you don't mind the hassles, stick with Windows 98. I wouldn't
recommend Windows XP because I want to increase Microsoft's
wealth. You just have to keep paying personal computer user dues
if you want a smooth running system.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:16:56 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid>
wrote:

.. Currently, I
>am beginning what in my little world is a new era of speech
>recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am looking forward
>to integrating speech into my system wide macro recorder, to make
>Windows dance on my verbal command.
>
If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp
and
http://www.generation5.org/articles.asp?Action=List&Topic=Speech%20Recognition

I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play ..." and
it does (most of the time!)
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

sdeyoreo@hotmail.com wrote:
> John Doe <jdoe@usenet.love.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Currently, I am beginning what in my little world is a new era
>> of speech recognition, integrating that into the whole. I am
>> looking forward to integrating speech into my system wide macro
>> recorder, to make Windows dance on my verbal command.

> If you're into C++. here's a great page on making speech reco
> programs. http://www.generation5.org/content/2001/sr00.asp and
> http://www.generation5.org/articles.asp?Action=List&Topic=Speech%
> 20Recognition
> I wrote a speech-driven Windows Media Player. Just say "Play
> ..." and it does (most of the time!)

My impression of the personal computer user interface is that it
must work nearly 100% of the time to be practical/acceptable. That
goes for macroing and speech recognition. Currently, I am using
Dragon NaturallySpeaking. It is by far the most accurate speech to
text I have found. I would like to apply speech recognition to my
macroer but I won't be writing the speech recognition part.
Thinking mainly for gaming, I don't want to use NaturallySpeaking
because its overhead is high, and only the Pro version will do
speech to keyboard keystrokes. I tried Shoot but I'm not sure it
will be accurate enough. Microsoft's effort at accurate speech
recognition looks like a failure so far.

That's not meant to be a very meaningful reply to your advice, just
my thoughts. Thanks.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

DaveW writes:

> The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a hardware
> system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.

Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
deal.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

jeh wrote:

>
> Sounds like you have a lot of problems with XP. I've been doing pretty
> good with 98, and I'm sort of hesitant to change, but I do some work
> online with various companies and they are starting to require a more
> updated os for the security aspect of it. Think I should wait for
> Longhorn?
> Thanks.

If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
all the popular web tools are there. Its also free and as you are still
using win9x its fair to assume that your hardware is dated also, another
good point about using linux is it runs well on older hardware. check
out Suse (www.suse.com),Ubuntu (www.ubuntu.com),Gentoo (www.gentoo.org)
and Fedora Core (redhat - www.fedora.redhat.com) you can purhase,
download or even get a copy on magazines such as linux format , linux
magazine.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD writes:

> If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
> of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
> all the popular web tools are there.

Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
>as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
>Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.

And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
Almost the same thing.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> JD writes:
>
>
>>If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security functions
>>of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure than Windows and
>>all the popular web tools are there.
>
>
> Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
> as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
> Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
>

The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows! and as
far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
windows that you cannot do on Linux. you can even run windows programs
on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators you can even play
Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.

and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD wrote:
> Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> JD writes:
>>
>>
>>> If your main reason for upgrading is for the enhanced security
>>> functions of winXP seriously consider Linux it is far more secure
>>> than Windows and all the popular web tools are there.
>>
>>
>>
>> Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
>> as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
>> Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
>>
>
> The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux

The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100
viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist and are
growing in number.

The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of thing
with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather small market
share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude of systems then
you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate it. And as Linux
becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and lose that 'feature'
Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make it more popular. The
curse of success.


> and the
> strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

One can run with root privileges in Linux just as easily as one can run as
Administrator in Windows.

> and as
> far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish as long as you
> don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing you can do on
> windows that you cannot do on Linux.

Not quite right either, depending on what it is you want to do. In a
business environment one of the big drawbacks to Linux has been the lack of
a full featured replacement for the MS Exchange server, which then
translates to what the client needs to be.

Bynari claims to have a replacement (using Outlook with it requires their
plug-in) but it isn't 'free' and neither is their client on the desktop.

> you can even run windows programs
> on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators

Partly true. The emulators are always 'behind' compared to Windows and not
all Windows apps will operate properly.

> you can even play
> Halflife2 and Doom3 on Linux.
>
> and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
> ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
> Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 21:16:26 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Linux is no more secure than Windows, and it has enormous disadvantages
>>as a desktop system as compared to Windows. If you don't want to run
>>Windows on the desktop, buy a Mac.
>
>
> And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
> Almost the same thing.

I meant to put that in the end of my other post .. it uses a heavily
modified version of the FreeBSD kernel as far as im led to belive.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k6be611ulfinnl6tmrfelelb5b177bhivo@4ax.com...
> DaveW writes:
>
> > The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a
hardware
> > system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.
>
> Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
> deal.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

A warning about OEM versions Microsoft programs. This is what Microsoft says
they plan to do. It's not been implemented yet.
Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
etc.,you'll be SOL.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

dawg wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k6be611ulfinnl6tmrfelelb5b177bhivo@4ax.com...
>
>>DaveW writes:
>>
>>
>>>The OEM version is cheaper because it is meant to be sold with a
>
> hardware
>
>>>system and does NOT come with Microsoft support.
>>
>>Given how useless MS support can be sometimes, that's a pretty good
>>deal.
>>
>>--
>>Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
>
>
> A warning about OEM versions Microsoft programs. This is what Microsoft says
> they plan to do. It's not been implemented yet.
> Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
> packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
> to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
> market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
> etc.,you'll be SOL.
>
>

That's not completely true they are planning to withdraw the oem
activation codes for the top 20 pc manufacturers, if however you own a
legitimate copy you will be redirected to a activation telephone number
where you will have to answer a few questions, after that you can use it
as normal for updates etc.


"Starting February 28, Microsoft will indefinitely begin to disable
Internet product activation on OEM keys used by the top 20 worldwide PC
makers.

If a customer attempts to activate Windows XP with an OEM key from a
COA, they will be directed to call customer support specialists to
obtain an override code - provided they can prove that their copy is
legitimate by answering a series of questions." -
http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Closes_Activation_Loophole/1109293194
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD writes:

> The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
> strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
user identification than a simple user/root philosophy. Under Windows,
each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
centralized control of access to all individual PCs.

> ... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
> as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
> you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.

The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
and only under Windows.

> you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
> Windows emulators ...

You can run them much more easily under Windows.

> and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
> ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
> Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.

UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Aldwyn Edain writes:

> And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
> Almost the same thing.

Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even
though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which
is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent,
user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount
of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget
by comparison.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows
(slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however
(although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many
major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft
products).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Aldwyn Edain writes:
>
>> And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well
>> ok, BSD. Almost the same thing.
>
> Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of
> UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as
> opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is
> vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and
> secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by
> Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison.
>
> Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
> operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats
> Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications
> available, however (although there are far more than you can
> find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications,
> such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products).

And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
threatened to stop making Office for the Mac. Apple is dependent
on Microsoft. People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
out of plain ignorance.
 
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"dawg" <don't look@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
> packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
> to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
> market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
> etc.,you'll be SOL.

Since I typically never upgrade an OS after installing it, this is not a
very big issue.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom