Is this a myth re Windows disable after overclocking?

A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He claimed
that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and updates) and
disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.

Is this correct?

regards,

Beemer

"Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
news: m...
> 'Beemer' wrote:
>> A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
>> activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He claimed
>> that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and updates) and
>> disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>
> No. Your friend is not correct.
>
> In addition, when you boot your computer, it starts up operating on
> instructions in the BIOS chip, not the operating system. After tests and
> start-up housekeeping under control of the BIOS, the operating system is
> invoked and loaded from a drive or through a connection like an ethernet
> card.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Beemer" <> wrote in message
> news:mxYJk.18524$2...
>>A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
>>activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He claimed
>>that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and updates) and
>>disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>>
>> Is this correct?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Beemer

Phil,

thanks for your reply. My friend, seemingly more computer savé than I,
had also said to me that changing from a single Intel processor to a dual
core would have the same effect.

To me his statement re overclocking and MS intervention did not make sense
but thisis the most appropriate group to get confirmation.

thanks,

Beemer

Beemer wrote:
> A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not
> have activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400.
> He claimed that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and
> updates) and disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>
> Is this correct?
>
> regards,
>
> Beemer

Your "friend" doesn't know what s/he's talking about. The only time M$
has a problem with a system is if certain physical hardware has changed,
like a motherboard. Overclocking doesn't physically change any
hardware.

> Phil,
>
> thanks for your reply. My friend, seemingly more computer savé than I,
> had also said to me that changing from a single Intel processor to a dual
> core would have the same effect.
>
> To me his statement re overclocking and MS intervention did not make sense
> but thisis the most appropriate group to get confirmation.
>
> thanks,
>
> Beemer

Even changing the processor may not trigger reactivation in and of itself.
If you changed the processor AND video card it most likely would. I am not
sure how they determine how many or which components trigger reactivation
but it usually takes two or more. The only single component I have seen that
almost always triggers reactivation is the MB, although I have changed a MB
out to one with the same chipset and it did not, even though it was a
completely different model.


Ed
>

I've always discovered , while in my attempts to thwart additional
aggreements that windows recognizes the changes very early in the booting
process and displays a BSOD. Even Windows2000 will do this.
If one re-installs the OS with the setup disc in the optical drive, then the
chances of running XP with the new hardware is very good. Mind you, I've
only experienced these extreme circumstances when I've pulled a completely
working HD with XP installed and mounted the drive in a completely different
system...not just a few hardware changes as you can tell

"Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
news:Hr-...
> 'Beemer' wrote, in part:
>> thanks for your reply. My friend, seemingly more computer savé than I,
>> had also said to me that changing from a single Intel processor to a dual
>> core would have the same effect.
> _____
>
> In addition to what others have posted, even if you change enough hardware
> to trigger a request for reactivation, your system will still boot.
> Windows will still work, just at a reduced level (how else would you know
> that reactivation is required?) You can still use the system to
> reactivate (otherwise there would be no way to reactivate.) The
> diagnostic approach that reveals the truth of your friend's statements are
> the same as the approach that reveals the source of a computer problem;
> logical analysis.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Beemer" <> wrote in message
> news:Sp4Kk.25892$2...
>>
>> "Phil Weldon" <> wrote in message
>> news: m...
>>> 'Beemer' wrote:
>>>> A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not
>>>> have activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He
>>>> claimed that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and
>>>> updates) and disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>>>
>>> No. Your friend is not correct.
>>>
>>> In addition, when you boot your computer, it starts up operating on
>>> instructions in the BIOS chip, not the operating system. After tests
>>> and start-up housekeeping under control of the BIOS, the operating
>>> system is invoked and loaded from a drive or through a connection like
>>> an ethernet card.
>>>
>>> Phil Weldon
>>>
>>> "Beemer" <> wrote in message
>>> news:mxYJk.18524$2...
>>>>A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
>>>>activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He
>>>>claimed that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and
>>>>updates) and disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>>>>
>>>> Is this correct?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>>
>>>> Beemer
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> thanks for your reply. My friend, seemingly more computer savé than I,
>> had also said to me that changing from a single Intel processor to a dual
>> core would have the same effect.
>>
>> To me his statement re overclocking and MS intervention did not make
>> sense but thisis the most appropriate group to get confirmation.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> Beemer
>>
>

"John Whitworth" <sexyjw@g_EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE_mail.com> wrote in message
news:48f90da6$0$2918$...
>
> "Beemer" <> wrote in message
> news:mxYJk.18524$2...
>>A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
>>activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He claimed
>>that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and updates) and
>>disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>>
> The OS *may* detect a swapped out processor (i.e. for a different model).
> But not the same processor working at a different speed. Most overclockers
> ramp their clock speed up and down more times than a tart's knickers. It
> would be a well known phenomenon on this group if it were so!
>
> I think it used to be the case that you could upgrade/change two or three
> devices before activation would kick in. And after six months, your slate
> was wiped clean anyway. Certainly, despite protestations from many people,
> and legality preaching from others, it is even possible to reinstall OEM
> copies of XP on completely different machines if you give it six months or
> so between activations.
>
> JW

Even if you don't wait the six months, MS will activate an OEM copy over the
phone just like a retail copy.


Ed

"Random" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>>>A friend has said that when installing XP prof and SP3 I should not have
>>>activated Windows until after I had overclocked my Intel 8400. He claimed
>>>that Microsoft would detect this (I assume during WGA and updates) and
>>>disable Windows such that my computer will not boot.
>>>
>> The OS *may* detect a swapped out processor (i.e. for a different model).
>> But not the same processor working at a different speed. Most
>> overclockers ramp their clock speed up and down more times than a tart's
>> knickers. It would be a well known phenomenon on this group if it were
>> so!
>>
>> I think it used to be the case that you could upgrade/change two or three
>> devices before activation would kick in. And after six months, your slate
>> was wiped clean anyway. Certainly, despite protestations from many
>> people, and legality preaching from others, it is even possible to
>> reinstall OEM copies of XP on completely different machines if you give
>> it six months or so between activations.
>>
>> JW
>
> I think its 120 days, so about 4 months then your hardware profile is
> wiped. Does it work the same way for WinXP retail and *Windows Vista*?
> I've only had Vista on a laptop where its unlikely I will ever change any
> part, even if I changed or upgraded memory and HD I doubt it would need
> reactivating (infact my laptops are factory activated) but on a desktop
> using Vista you will want to change a lot more parts.
>
I am not sure about Vista, but XP OEM and Retail are the same as far as
activation goes.


Ed