P2V from Lenovo Laptop to Recover PST
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
@MattSpeller said:
Clone the drive (as a backup), then stick it into a desktop. Run windows repair(s) until it boots into safe mode, do the needful, bill the customer. Unsure what requires P2V etc etc
Can you legally boot a copy of Machine1 on Machine2 like this?
If it is FPP, yes. If it is OEM, no.
I'd love to get some feedback from a MS rep for this. It seems insane to screw a customer for such a minor thing.
You and I both know nothing would ever come of it, but I am pretty sure a MS rep is going to state the legalities and leave it at that.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BRRABill said:
@MattSpeller said:
Clone the drive (as a backup), then stick it into a desktop. Run windows repair(s) until it boots into safe mode, do the needful, bill the customer. Unsure what requires P2V etc etc
Can you legally boot a copy of Machine1 on Machine2 like this?
If it is FPP, yes. If it is OEM, no.
I'd love to get some feedback from a MS rep for this. It seems insane to screw a customer for such a minor thing.
They've commented before. Nothing new here. OEM restores are extremely clear. And it is not MS screwing anyone, it is...
- The wrong way to do a restore.
- The customer's option to have used OEM rather than FPP, they already saved money giving up this feature
- Not MS' fault that the customer didn't take a backup of any sort, anywhere.
-
@IRJ said:
You and I both know nothing would ever come of it, but I am pretty sure a MS rep is going to state the legalities and leave it at that.
What else is there to state. Customer made decisions, had tons of ways to not have this happened and now that they have not been proactive are hoping that MS will cover their butts for them.
There ARE options here, even now the reasons that we can't do a restore are a Staples' decision. In no way is MS blocking any recovery.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I stopped years ago. I don't work on family machines, friends' machines... nothing. There is nothing good that can come from that.
I don't have the chutzpah.
-
@MattSpeller said:
It seems insane to screw a customer for such a minor thing.
That is what I have been saying forever now.
And trust me, many more people do this than do it the legal way. (Not me.) You want to look like a hero and save the data, or the guy saying "sorry".
-
@MattSpeller said:
It seems insane to screw a customer for such a minor thing.
It makes NO SENSE to not allow this.
It's good for the customer (they get their data back).
It's good for MS (they don't lose customers to Apple because "their products suck".) -
@BRRABill said:
@MattSpeller said:
It seems insane to screw a customer for such a minor thing.
It makes NO SENSE to not allow this.
It makes NO SENSE to have opted to give up this feature and now blame the company that gave you a discount for giving it up for a decision that they left up to the customer.
It makes EVERY sense for MS not not allow this. How can this in any way be seen as illogical on MS' part?
-
@BRRABill said:
It's good for MS (they don't lose customers to Apple because "their products suck".)
No, it is not good for MS to "give in" when a customer opted to not take backups, not pay for the correct licensing and now want someone ELSE to pay for their mistakes. Not good at all.
This doesn't just undermine Microsoft, it undermines all of IT if we can always just "expect someone else" to fix any mistake we make, any planning that we didn't do.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
It makes EVERY sense for MS not not allow this. How can this in any way be seen as illogical on MS' part?
Data recovery should not be tied to licensing. You should be allowed to get your data back by ANY means possible.
Thank goodness MS isn't involved in the medical field.
DOCTOR: We could have saved him, if only we hadn't (unknowingly) given up our rights.
-
@BRRABill said:
It's good for the customer (they get their data back).
This has nothing whatsoever to do with getting data back. That they already have. It is a combination of going to a store that is refusing to do the recovery and trying to do everything except just recover the files that is the issue. Any discussion of this being about recovering data is misdirection. This is about attempting to misuse a license and nothing more.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with getting data back. That they already have. It is a combination of going to a store that is refusing to do the recovery and trying to do everything except just recover the files that is the issue. Any discussion of this being about recovering data is misdirection. This is about attempting to misuse a license and nothing more.
I don't mean in the Staples scenario. I mean in general, what @MattSpeller said about how MS is screwing the customer.
-
@BRRABill said:
Data recovery should not be tied to licensing. You should be allowed to get your data back by ANY means possible.
That's ....
- Not in any way related to what is being discussed here and is just misdirection to make it sound plausible that somehow this is MS' fault when it is not in the least.
- No different than if this happened on an Apple device - can't make a VM of that either.
- It is totally unreasonable to assume that people should have the "right" to violate licensing that they agreed to whenever they feel like it.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
This has nothing whatsoever to do with getting data back. That they already have. It is a combination of going to a store that is refusing to do the recovery and trying to do everything except just recover the files that is the issue. Any discussion of this being about recovering data is misdirection. This is about attempting to misuse a license and nothing more.
I don't mean in the Staples scenario. I mean in general, what @MattSpeller said about how MS is screwing the customer.
But they are NOT screwing anyone.
- This has nothing to do with data recovery. That's simple and provided for.
- The licensing limitations are ones that the customer opted to take in exchange for saving money up front.
If you buy a car and they offer you a discount to not get a spare tire, do you rant later that "every car should have a spare tire" when the time comes and you need one. And then demand that the car company should provide it to you on the spot even though you specifically opted to save money by not paying for one?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
- No different than if this happened on an Apple device - can't make a VM of that either.
If my iPhone/iPad dies ... I get a new one, and restore from the included backup, and within minutes I am back up and running as I was before.
If I can do that with a MS desktop device, than that would be apples to apples.
-
@BRRABill said:
DOCTOR: We could have saved him, if only we hadn't (unknowingly) given up our rights.
Are you saying that doctors don't let people die when they've signed a "DNR" order? Because that is exactly what this is like. The "patient" here gave up the specific VM and movable license rights here by choice, up front. They had NO requirement to use Windows nor to use OEM licensing. They opted to. Now you feel that MS should have no rights to their own code and that people should be allowed to override what they've paid for because it "seems reasonable" now that the situation they decided not to allow has arrived. Where does this end?
Why don't we just say "Windows should be free" and seize the company with Federal agents and make all Microsoft products the property of "the state" - because that's what I am hearing. That we don't feel that MS should have the right to license their product and the people who optionally decide to use it should not be held to their contracts that they agreed to in exchange for getting to use the product.
-
And yet another thread showing why Chromebooks and Linux make sense for average home users.
-
@BRRABill said:
If my iPhone/iPad dies ... I get a new one, and restore from the included backup, and within minutes I am back up and running as I was before.
You can only do that if you took a backup.
-
@BRRABill said:
If I can do that with a MS desktop device, than that would be apples to apples.
OF COURSE YOU CAN!!!!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you buy a car and they offer you a discount to not get a spare tire, do you rant later that "every car should have a spare tire" when the time comes and you need one. And then demand that the car company should provide it to you on the spot even though you specifically opted to save money by not paying for one?
If MS said ... BTW, if this thing dies, you cannot use any methods to get your data back unless you only need the files. If you, for some reason, needed to boot to a virtual copy of this (which is very easy to do, dear customer) you are out of luck unless you pay XYZ. Then I would be OK with it.
People would know, they would probably never do it, and be left with their decisions.
Considering how many people HERE are discussing illegal recovery scenarios ... how can the general public even be thought of to know?
-
@johnhooks said:
And yet another thread showing why Chromebooks and Linux make sense for average home users.
I, from this discussion, that it should be illegal for end users to license software.
