2 Windows 7, but I can't Start with only 1 HDD

That may be, I'm not accusing them of anything nefarious, just explaining that Windows is specifically designed to make this sort of thing difficult and even very experienced people can fail to achieve any measure of success on this. There are also licensing issues if you're trying to use XP (or 7) on multiple computers, so while there may be a number of legitimate reasons for doing so, and the OP might have absolutely no intention of trying to pirate a copy of Windows, it'd still be a violation of the EULA which states you get one copy to use on one computer.

seems he has 2 hard drives, each has 2 systems on it, consisting of W7 and XP. What I don't understand is how he managed to get himself in this situation of needing both drives plugged in to boot one of them. That just doesn't happen with cloning, if that's what he was doing. It would seem he has crossed the two drives while verifying an upgrade from XP to windows 7, perhaps one W7 using the XP of the other drive and having that in it's boot loader, and vice versa. Now that would make more sense, but what an odd way to do it, unless he already head two drives installed in the same computer, both with XP on it.

His solution would be to unplug one drive, reinstall W7, then unplug that drive an reinstall W7 on the second drive. That way each drive could be independent of the other drive.

It's easy and I explained it in my first post. When installing Windows, it detects the boot loader on the first drive, so the installer just adds an entry pointing to the second drive rather than installing a duplicate/redundant bootloader on the second drive. Every Linux distribution I've ever used operates more or less the same way, except you can run an advanced mode on the installer and get the option to override that decision. Probably on 99.999999999999% of installs that makes the most sense and for the few people who don't fall into that category the general assumption is that they know how to handle that variant config.

The simple solution would be to first use something like EasyBCD to remove the "errant" entry from the bootloader config. It wouldn't hurt anything being left there, but it's an unnecessary nuisance. After that, you go in and unplug the main drive and leave only the secondary drive connected. Install the OS on that one, do whatever else you need to do with it, then disconnect that one in favor of the first one until such time that you need that second drive again. Of course Windows being a device dependent OS, trying to use the same drive across different computers will almost certainly crash and burn, regardless of the EULA terms. Microsoft engineered it that way intentionally to add some teeth to the EULA terms everyone disregarded with great abandon in the early days. Starting with Windows 95 Microsoft started down the path of preventing this sort of thing. They upped the ante quite a bit as well with the whole Windows activation scheme in XP. It can be overcome, but such is beyond what's permitted by the rules of this forum to discuss. Even if you're using it purely as a diagnostic tool, you're not trying to do anything illicit, it's still technically a violation of the EULA and those things aren't allowed here.

In Linux if I want to boot more than one system, I create a boot partition and install the Grub bootloader there. It doesn't matter if all drives or just the one I want to boot is in the computer then. The MBR points to the /boot and it in turn points to the various distros either current or previously installed, until I update the grub, which is when it gets rid of any not current.

From the EULA;

"1.1 Installation and use. You
may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on
a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than
one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer."

I interpret "one copy of THE Software" as what they sold me. Therefore I may install that single software copy on more than one drive so long as it's for the same single computer. That means I can install it on two drives within the same computer. If they had meant "one installed copy of the Software" then they should have stated it clearly.

I find it's a lot safer if you have two drives to have a copy of the software installed on each, so if one develops a problem, won't boot properly, you can resort to the second drive, use it as needed to continue the use of "THE Software" , which also makes it easier to repair the problem drive sometimes when you can't get it into Safe Mode, or Last Known Good Configuration can't be accessed.

In fact, I'd advise anyone with two drives to do the same so you won't have to suffer downtime for software repair until you have the time to deal with it, when you might be needing to deal with other things with your computer at the time.

I've followed that practice since win98 and when drives became cheaper, and it's been a big help.

You're free to try that, but you'd lose at trial if it ever came to that. The EULA very clearly says: "You may INSTALL, use, access, display and run ONE COPY of the Software on A SINGLE COMPUTER".

They specifically called out installing the software, they didn't simply state that you were only allowed to USE/RUN one copy on a computer at a time. Then in the same sentence as saying you are restricted in how many copies you can install they further restrict it to a single computer.

If you were to ever be hauled into court over this, Microsoft would file for a summary judgment and win because the EULA is quite clear. It's all one sentence where they say one installed copy per computer. It's not like we're talking about two disparate parts of clauses at opposite ends of the entire contract, it is all one sentence out of a single clause. That one sentence explicitly mentions installations and computers and limits you to one of each per license., so you would absolutely lose in court trying to argue what you put in your post. Any lawyer who shouldn't be disbarred for incompetence would tell you to try and settle.

They'd lose since each drive could be considered "work station" which in other terms of EULA allows 5 of those with each license. They also lose since they have backup software which basically is the same as me putting the system on two drives in the same computer. The second drive is my "backup". They also can't force the use of their own backup software, which leaves it open to me to choose the method of backup, so long as it's for the single computer. There are other legal precedents they'd lose on, but not going to argue it all here and now.

No... They wouldn't. Not sure where you're getting the 5 work station thing per license, but the whole backup idea is getting into something you might call a loophole. First off, it's not a viable install, in that you couldn't just pop it into any random computer and boot it, you have to restore an image of some sort. Even if you had some program that created a viable and bootable backup, that would be a violation of the EULA, but it gets back to Hollywood's attempts to get the VCR banned, which rather backfired on them when the Supreme Court ruled that the VCR's recording function could be used for non-infringing purposes, thus could not be banned. It would be a violation of the EULA for you to use it for that purpose with Windows, but because you could, for example, potentially use the same software to create backups of Linux or FreeBSD installs, both of which do not place any restrictions on the number of computers you can install the software on, it would have non-infringing uses and thus it's how the individual chooses to use the software.

It's really very simple, no matter how complex you want to try and make it. The EULA for Windows prohibits multiple installations on any given computer barring things like multiple licenses and volume licenses. End of story, do not pass go, period, the end, finale, etc, etc. You have to agree to said EULA before you are allowed to even install Windows, so you're basically screwed by the time it gets to court.

Personally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone were to take the Windows install disc, make their own image of it (perfectly legal under copyright law to make a backup copy of install media) then edit the text file that contains the EULA text and is read in by the installer. If someone were to modify that EULA to read as giving them the ability to do pretty much whatever they please with the software, I would not be at all surprised if they won. Courts have been rather dubious of click-wrap licenses as it is and if the company chooses to basically assign power of attorney to a piece of software like that, they'd probably have a hard time finding a viable legal argument to challenge it with. It'd be even worse than the "robo-signers" that the banks got into big trouble with, because at least in those cases there was an actual person signing the documents, even if they didn't do the due diligence required. In the case of companies like Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, Google... They rely entirely on a piece of software to register that you agreed to something. And one of the lesser known facts about contract law, is that until both parties sign, you're free to modify it any which way you want. You can strike out parts of it, add in other parts, and if both parties sign the document indicating they read and agreed to the terms, it's binding. So again, if all these large software companies are giving power of attorney to a piece of software, which is based on the assumption that people will not modify the contract before agreeing to it, that's their problem. You could even go after them by saying they're intentionally trying to deprive you of your legal rights to modify the terms of the agreement.

As soon as the first person did that, you'd see the software industry move faster than you've ever seen it move before. It'd be interesting to see what they came up with. The obvious first move would be to try and just stuff the text of the EULA into the binary blob of the setup program, but that wouldn't address the legal right of you and me to modify those terms, so that probably would not put them in the good graces of the Court. It'd be interesting to see what the companies did ultimately come up with. Microsoft might just try and pout and say they won't activate the software, but you could write into the EULA that you are free to install software that removes or disables that particular functionality and also give yourself the same retroactive powers companies write into EULAs for themselves, so that you can modify the terms of the agreement at any time and submit it to some address at Microsoft and if they do not respond within X number of days, it is assumed that they agree.

I would gets me some popcorn to watch that particular bit of legal drama play out.

from XP to Office 2013, and see the difference.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/products/microsoft-software-license-agreement-FX103576343.aspx

RETAIL?

"Under our license we grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) for use by one person at a time, but only if you comply with all the terms of this agreement. Our software license is permanently assigned to the licensed computer. "

OEM license

"Under this agreement we grant you the right to run one copy only on the computer with which you acquired the software (the licensed computer) for use by one person at a time, but only if you comply with all the terms of this agreement. Our software license is permanently assigned to the licensed computer. "

The difference is clear between the two EULA's.

Since you can only run one copy at a time on a single computer (other than usiing virtualization methods, which is now specifically banned in EULA), then having XP on two hard drives within the same computer would not violate anything since you can only run it from the drive you booted to.

Your VCR argument is a good one. There's also what's known as "spirit and intent" in law, which looks to any harm done and if the use met the "spirit and intent" of the license agreement which is one copy used on one computer at a time. In fact, some of the restoration methods microsoft endorses ends up creating two copies of windows on a computer, such as renaming the windows folder and then doing a new install on top of it. Anyway, the license is to the computer, not to the hard drive. If so OEM would put stickers on the hard drives and not the cases.

If MSFT has a problem with that, there's my name, they can give me a call, and I also have some Vista software I'd like to sell back to them too, I don't think I'll get as much for it on EBay.

It's neither here nor there to me really, I use Linux most of the time now anyway.

Microsoft didn't lighten up their rules in response to LibreOffice's new release->

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/01/libreoffice-upgrade-targets-windows-integration-and-power-users/

and : http://www.zdnet.com/bigger-better-faster-libreoffice-4-2-7000025807/

I'm fed up with activation virus and genuine advantage virus messing up a computer when I change some hardware on it, especially when upgrading the motherboard or CPU, and even worse getting locked into activation loop where it says needs activation, then says it's already activated, but still refuses to boot past the welcome screen until you enter Safe Mode and remove Oobe and WPA Events section so you can do a complete fresh activation all over again. How many users have suffered that and not know what I do about correcting it?! You can find them on this and many other forums. What stands in their way, acting like a virus? The windows operating system, that's what. The last time I didn't have to call in and get a long string of characters to enter thankfully. It's like having your operating system deliberately working against you, instead of for you. Never had such problems with win95, win98, win200.