Activaton of a upgrade using a clean install

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

I purchased Home Premium upgrade, because the store I purchased it from ran
out of the full version.. Because I'm not ready to boot XP I decided to do a
clean install of Vista on my second harddrive.. Put when I went to activate
it it said something like the license is for upgrade not a clean install..
Why has microsoft did away with the ability to do a clean install with the
upgrade version and won't let you activate it..
 
Because it was abused by too many and not used for the intended purpose: To
upgrade an existing installation. Apparently Microsoft felt that you should
use a full version for a clean install to a formatted drive. The upgrade
version will, by the way, do a clean install using the custom option, but it
still needs to start from within a qualifying OS and does wipe out the
existing one.

You can, by the way, do a clean install with an upgrade disk by installing
twice. The first time don't use the Product Key, then restart from within
the completed installation and use the key the second time. Whether you do
this or install a qualifying OS first, you still have to do two
installation.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
Thanks rick, but I tried that option of installing it a second time and it
did not good.. When i tried to install on the same drive "d" inserted the key
and it said i need to start from within an exsisting copy or something like
that... Could this be because it recognizes my "c" drive with xp all ready on
it...
 
Hi,

You *have* to start from within a qualifying OS the second time. If you are
on the first install, do not enter the Product Key after booting the DVD,
just click next and choose the appropriate version.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
 
doubledragon5 said:
I purchased Home Premium upgrade, because the store I purchased it from ran
out of the full version.. Because I'm not ready to boot XP I decided to do
a
clean install of Vista on my second harddrive.. Put when I went to
activate
it it said something like the license is for upgrade not a clean install..
Why has microsoft did away with the ability to do a clean install with the
upgrade version and won't let you activate it..
Click to expand...

Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license
and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.

I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you agree to
abide by when you install the product.
 
Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license
and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.

I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you agree
to abide by when you install the product.
Click to expand...

Where does it say that? I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble
setting up my XP system to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any
problems. Of course I do not run both at the same time. I don't see why
Microsoft would object to this, since the two are not in use at the same
time.
 
Michael A. Covington said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

In your end user license agreement
I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble setting up my XP system
to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any problems. Of course
I do not run both at the same time. I don't see why Microsoft would
object to this, since the two are not in use at the same time.
Click to expand...



You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create a
dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying license.
Think of it like trading in your car.
The new vehicle is cheaper as you are giving up the old.
You do not get to keep the one you are using to off set the price of the
new.
It is the same with the upgrade licensing - the price is lower as you are
giving up the right to use the older version as its license becomes part of
the new one.

Just because the system does not prevent you doing this (HOWEVER this is why
the upgrades are supposed to be run form inside the qualifying OS and
replace it) - does not mean that you are not in violation of the licensing
terms.

Read your End User License Agreement.

For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade
13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After
you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to get
the lower pricing.
 
Bill Yanaire said:
That is true, but if he doesn't tell anyone.... :-)
Click to expand...

Then he is a thief - guilty of software piracy/theft

(I know you put a smiley on your comment but software piracy and theft are
not really that funny, as we the legitimate users end up paying for it in
many ways)
 
Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
....
You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create
a dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying
license. ....
For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade
13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from.
After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to
get the lower pricing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... During the beta phase they encouraged us to set up dual-boot systems
like that. The installation procedure made it easy for me to do the same
thing the same way when using the commercially released version of Vista.
Somehow I think Microsoft might have a hard time enforcing this provision of
the license, if they actually intended it to have this consequence. Many
software licenses have just the opposite provision -- a "downgrade clause"
which says that if you have licensed the current version, you can also use
earlier versions (not at the same time).

Legal documents are not computer programs -- you have to ask not merely what
it says, but what was actually intended and what a judge would enforce.
From Microsoft we have two communications: (1) a passage of boilerplate
language in the EULA, almost certainly copied from other EULAs; (2) the
menus, behavior, etc. of the install program. The two have to be understood
together as an expression of Microsoft's intent.

I would appreciate clarification of this situation by Microsoft.
 
Mike Brannigan said:
Then he is a thief - guilty of software piracy/theft
Click to expand...

There is no willful theft or piracy here. I am a conscientious user who
bought a Microsoft product, I installed it according to instructions, it
performed numerous checks which I thought were sufficient to ensure the
legitimacy of the license, it was validated online, and it works.

In any case the amount of money I owe Microsoft appears to be negative,
because I could have gotten the System Builder Vista license more cheaply
than the Upgrade (though I didn't know it at the time). In that case I will
be glad to let them convert the one into the other and refund me the
difference.

As I have said, the sum total of information I have received from Microsoft
about this is contradictory, and I am reluctant to let one paragraph in the
EULA override all other indications of Microsoft's intent without further
indication that that is what they actually mean.

You are the first person ever to call me a thief publicly, I think. How
much experience do you have with legal issues? It is very common for laws
and contracts to be unclear.

Does Microsoft provide a way for us to ask them questions about licenses by
e-mail and get a definitive answer? Does anyone who can speak for Microsoft
monitor this newsgroup?
 
Actually, I am in the clear because I own another XP Pro license that is not
in use. So if I've lost one XP license, I'm still not using more than I
own.

But I would appreciate a clarification of Microsoft's intent. On this and a
couple of other points, the EULA does not seem to square with the setup
routines.
 
See below...

Mike Brannigan said:
In your end user license agreement


You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create
a dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying
license.
Click to expand...
For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade
13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from.
After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to
get the lower pricing.
Click to expand...

THE ANSWER, in my case (and probably also the reason the installation went
so smoothly) is that I was upgrading a dual-boot system that was XP and
Vista Ultimate RC1. So Vista Ultimate (commercial release) replaced the RC1
license, not the XP license. According to Microsoft, this is explicitly
permitted:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...s-vista-beta-2-rc1-and-rc2-set-to-expire.aspx

We are explicitly allowed to use an upgrade license to convert an RC1
installation to the commercially released version of Vista Ultimate.

So the $15, or whatever, for RC1 was money extremely well spent!

I think all of this was in the back of my mind when I made the purchase, but
I didn't remember all the details -- only that I was going to install it a
particular way, and did.
 
THE ANSWER, in my case (and probably also the reason the installation went
so smoothly) is that I was upgrading a dual-boot system that was XP and
Vista Ultimate RC1. So Vista Ultimate (commercial release) replaced the
RC1 license, not the XP license. According to Microsoft, this is
explicitly permitted:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...s-vista-beta-2-rc1-and-rc2-set-to-expire.aspx

We are explicitly allowed to use an upgrade license to convert an RC1
installation to the commercially released version of Vista Ultimate.

So the $15, or whatever, for RC1 was money extremely well spent!

I think all of this was in the back of my mind when I made the purchase,
but I didn't remember all the details -- only that I was going to install
it a particular way, and did.
Click to expand...

There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
 
There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.

Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended to
convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you can't
take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
(especially with application software) for people to want to have older and
newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to check
compatibility.

Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
 
The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade that the prior o/s license was consumed.

Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your case) your XP license should remain valid for the current machine(if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail version after removal from the current machine and installed on another.
...winston

:> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
: > would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
: > surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
: > certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
:
: That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
: knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
: realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
: in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.
:
: Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
: you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
: that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended to
: convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you can't
: take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
: installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
: (especially with application software) for people to want to have older and
: newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to check
: compatibility.
:
: Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
:
:
 
That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.

Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended
to convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you
can't take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
(especially with application software) for people to want to have older
and newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to
check compatibility.

Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
Click to expand...

The upgrade license restriction is that you cannot have the qualifying OS
and the upgrade license installed at the same time. The most common example
is using an upgrade version of Vista to upgrade XP. After the upgrade you
cannot have both Vista and XP installed. If you want both you need to use a
full version of Vista or have two licenses for XP, one for the upgrade and
one to install in the dual boot or separately.

In your case since the qualifying OS is RC1, then you can't have both the
retail upgrade of Vista installed and RC1 at the same time.

This is the same as it was with the upgrade to XP.
 
...winston said:
The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade
that the prior o/s license was consumed.
Click to expand...

Did someone at Microsoft tell you this or are you just guessing?
Fundamentally, the reason I think they fumbled, in wording this particular
passage, is that I can't see why they would want to prohibit dual-booting.
I can certainly understand that they would want people to understand that
the prior license is combined with the upgrade, i.e., you can't take the
prior version and install it somewhere separate.

If you look at the history of the Vista EULA, there have already been
revisions and corrections; I expect more.
Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your
case) your XP license should remain
valid for the current machine (if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail
version after removal from the current
machine and installed on another.
...winston
Click to expand...

That's what I found out.


:> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
: > would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
: > surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
: > certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
:
: That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
: knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
: realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
: in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.
:
: Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
: you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
: that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended
to
: convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you can't
: take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
: installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
: (especially with application software) for people to want to have older
and
: newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to
check
: compatibility.
:
: Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
:
:
 
It does not prohibit dual-booting when qualified o/s' are in one's legal possession.
If you wish to challenge it, you'll have to find a lawyer with less knowledge than the majority of people in this forum.
Let us know when you find the grail.

...winston


: >: >The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade
: >that the prior o/s license was consumed.
:
: Did someone at Microsoft tell you this or are you just guessing?
: Fundamentally, the reason I think they fumbled, in wording this particular
: passage, is that I can't see why they would want to prohibit dual-booting.
: I can certainly understand that they would want people to understand that
: the prior license is combined with the upgrade, i.e., you can't take the
: prior version and install it somewhere separate.
:
: If you look at the history of the Vista EULA, there have already been
: revisions and corrections; I expect more.
:
: > Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your
: > case) your XP license should remain
: > valid for the current machine (if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail
: > version after removal from the current
: > machine and installed on another.
: > ...winston
:
: That's what I found out.
:
:
: ::> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
:: > would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
:: > surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
:: > certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
::
:: That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
:: knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
:: realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
:: in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.
::
:: Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
:: you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
:: that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended
: to
:: convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you can't
:: take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
:: installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
:: (especially with application software) for people to want to have older
: and
:: newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to
: check
:: compatibility.
::
:: Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
::
::
:
:
 
Back
Top