Ran across this last week, and the more I think about it, the more concerned I get. I am one of those power users that is always tweaking the system, replacing key components with newer, better options on the same system. I also have been required to reactivate my XP system several times after making a major upgrade (network card replacements seem to trigger it every time), or after re-installing the system (same disk, same PID, same system but with newer mainboard).
An excerpt: "From past experience with Windows XP, a motherboard swap triggers a re-activation. I've successfully reactivated the same copy of Windows XP a number of times after a motherboard swap with no problem. But the above terms seem to indicate that the third activation will fail, meaning you, dear reader, get to feed the Microsoft machine more money.
If anything could be calculated to drive the DIY community away from Windows, this would be it. As it stands now, reactivating after installing a new motherboard is a minor pain, but not a big deal. And what about when you need to swap out a motherboard simply because the hardware failed? Does that count as well?"
If I read the EULA correctly, this will not be a problem if I simply want to re-install Vista to the exact same hardware (good cure for massive rootkit or virus infections) nor should it be a problem if I restore a clean image to that same system. But if I upgrade key components in the future . . . what will happen?
Read the article, tell me what you think.