Glad you can clean install

  • Thread starter Thread starter Breaker
  • Start date Start date
B

Breaker

So glad to see the links here posting how you can make the upgrade
version install Clean. Also got the same information in email today
from the Windows Secrets newsletter.

Will make it much more likely for me to buy Vista now that I can save
over $150 and get the Ultimate Upgrade instead of the full version.
 
I'm very surprised by this. DailyTech reports that they've tried it and it
works flawlessly. Not only are you able to do a clean install but you can
install the upgrade without having XP or any other legacy OS at all!

It's a little time consuming as you have to run the installer twice.
Although that's not a big issue as the full Vista installation took under
30mins on my machine so doing it twice is still way faster than even
installing XP alone.

MSFT couldn't have done that on purpose, could they? All along they've been
stressing the fact that (a) you cannot do a clean install, at least not with
x86 and (b) you will need a fully activated legacy OS to upgrade from.
 
This is called a *major* goof on Microsoft's part.

The ability to do this has a lot of implications.

-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
This is called a *major* goof on Microsoft's part.

The ability to do this has a lot of implications.

-Michael
Click to expand...

Yes, like who's going to buy the full version when you can get the upgrade
that does the same thing for a lot less albeit takes a little longer to
install.
 
In message <[email protected]> Rob
Yes, like who's going to buy the full version when you can get the upgrade
that does the same thing for a lot less albeit takes a little longer to
install.
Click to expand...

While true, perhaps it was done accidentally on purpose to reduce the
number of people who decide having to reinstall and reactivate XP just
to reinstall Vista is too much hassle and just stick with XP?
 
DevilsPGD said:
In message <[email protected]> Rob


While true, perhaps it was done accidentally on purpose to reduce the
number of people who decide having to reinstall and reactivate XP just
to reinstall Vista is too much hassle and just stick with XP?
Click to expand...

I guarantee this was not done on purpose.

This way, anyone can use an upgrade version. Even with *no*
qualifying OS installed or without a qualifying disk.
Anyone using a pirated copy of WinXP, no longer has to worry
about being "validated". Also, user could setup a blank partition and
install the upgrade there, without losing their WinXP.
An upgrade sku/key has basically been turned into a retail version.

No, Microsoft didn't do this "accidently on purpose".

Take care,

Michael
 
Rob said:
Yes, like who's going to buy the full version when you can get the upgrade
that does the same thing for a lot less albeit takes a little longer to
install.
Click to expand...

Heads will probably roll over this one.
 
In said:
While true, perhaps it was done accidentally on purpose to reduce the
number of people who decide having to reinstall and reactivate XP just
to reinstall Vista is too much hassle and just stick with XP?
Click to expand...

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
In message <[email protected]> Rob


While true, perhaps it was done accidentally on purpose to reduce the
number of people who decide having to reinstall and reactivate XP just to
reinstall Vista is too much hassle and just stick with XP?
Click to expand...

Or maybe Vista has a way to tell if it was installed this way, vs being
done properly through a preinstalled XP. Maybe a year from now when
they've suckered enough people in, all these 'improperly-installed' vistas
will be shut down by Microsoft - and what right does anyone have to
complain about the fortune it then costs them to get their systems working
again?
 
Not even I can defend Microsoft's licensing on this one. I laughed out loud
for several minutes over this one.

Of course, the right thing is, if you know you don't qualify for the
upgrade, you should not do this... Now, the question is, how the heck are
you supposed to know that a trial version of Vista doesn't qualify for an
upgrade to the full version? I guess we'll have to wait for some official
word from Microsoft. *still laughing my a.. off*

Dale
 
Why shouldn't he do it? If Microsoft allows it, then he should do it for
convience. It's not like he is stealing. The software allows it, it's
Microsoft's goof.
 
Your logic is flawed.

If you make a $3.64 purchase and the clerk mistakenly gives you $2.36 in
change instead of the correct $1.36 (and you realize that they made a
mistake), does that make it right or ethical to keep the extra money?

That's kind of the case here.

Of course, in terms of the ethics of the situation, there are two
distinctly different cases:

-The customer really does have a copy of a qualifying earlier OS (XP,
for example) that they COULD install.

-The customer does not have legal right (based on the Eula and license
terms) to use an upgrade copy instead of a full-product retail or OEM
copy, but he's doing it anyway.

I think that most of us would agree that in the first case, it's really
not a problem. You may not think that the second case is an ethical
problem either, but I do.
 
If I go to the grocery store and the checker misses the cases of bottled
water under my basket and I intentionally don't say a word and they don't
catch it, am I stealing the water or is it free because it was the store's
goof?
 
I read my post over again and it does look like I'm saying that it's OK to
take advantage of Microsoft, but I'm not. Microsoft wants you to install XP
and then install Vista, which I think is crazy if you don't have to. Yes, I
know that some people will take advantage, but there are people who will
install cracked versions of Vista also.

On the other hand, if a clerk did make an error and give me more change than
I should get, I would do the right thing and send it to Microsoft!





Barry Watzman said:
Your logic is flawed.

If you make a $3.64 purchase and the clerk mistakenly gives you $2.36 in
change instead of the correct $1.36 (and you realize that they made a
mistake), does that make it right or ethical to keep the extra money?

That's kind of the case here.

Of course, in terms of the ethics of the situation, there are two
distinctly different cases:

-The customer really does have a copy of a qualifying earlier OS (XP, for
example) that they COULD install.

-The customer does not have legal right (based on the Eula and license
terms) to use an upgrade copy instead of a full-product retail or OEM
copy, but he's doing it anyway.

I think that most of us would agree that in the first case, it's really
not a problem. You may not think that the second case is an ethical
problem either, but I do.
Click to expand...
 
it's stealing. and you did it on purpose. if a thief doesn't get caught in
the act it doesn't make it legal, nor right

Dale said:
If I go to the grocery store and the checker misses the cases of bottled
water under my basket and I intentionally don't say a word and they don't
catch it, am I stealing the water or is it free because it was the store's
goof?
Click to expand...
 
Back
Top