If I buy the VISTA upgrade instead of the full version....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
My experience of the generic oem clean install was pretty similar - very
fast and smooth. Also noticed the speed-up in the formatting.

I don't think the upgraders have been quite so fortunate though, judging
from some of the nightmare stories in here.
 
I always get a laugh when someone who has discovered a legal workaround
and publishes it is then told "It isn't ethical" or "It's immoral", or
"It's against the spirit" etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...

These big megacorps sure don't care about ethics, morality, or the finer
points of law when they're screwing consumers and stabbing business
partners in the back. It's rather hypocritical of their supporters to
turn a blind eye to these activities and yet moan about consumers' lack of
ethics when they play by the very same rules.
 
From the procedure, one reason is that Microsoft wanted folks doing
this to have twice the pleasure of running clean installs....
 
So that works on a blank computer, even if you don't have a valid copy of XP
to upgrade from???
Click to expand...
Not that I'd ever consider doing anything like that... honest Guv!
Click to expand...

Right, that's what would be a license violation (as would continuing to
run XP on the original computer.
 
So I went out and bought the Upgrade....
Then, I took someones advice on this thread.
When it asked me for the key code, i put it in... then, setup told me to
install using that keycode from within windows..

THEN, I simply erased the key code, and went ahead with the install.
Formatted the Raid drive after installing drivers for it,,,
And I got a clean install!!! No problems whatsoever!!
So thanks Microsoft for the workaround!!!! I assume you knew about it all
along, wish you'ld clue us all in!
jf
 
Paul-B said:
I always get a laugh when someone who has discovered a legal workaround
and publishes it is then told "It isn't ethical" or "It's immoral", or
"It's against the spirit" etc. etc. etc.

I don't know if any of you remember, but when AMD brought-out their
socket A Athlon/Duron chips they produced them all with the same (high)
clock speed, so as to gain from economies of scale in production, then
downrated some of the chips by breaking the L2 bridges so that the
clock-speed was lower. These they sold at a lower cost. It was
possible, using just a pencil, to bridge the broken L2 bridges so that
the chip ran at the original high speed. I managed to turn my 600MHz
Duron into a 900MHz one by simply doing this, thus saving myself a
considerable sum.

No-one at the time considered that to be illegal, immoral, cheating AMD
or anything else. I can't see what the difference is if you are
installing an upgrade, provided you have a genuine copy of XP and are
not going to re-use it or sell it on.
Click to expand...

I'm not telling anyone not to do it. I may end up doing it myself when
my upgrade disk arrives. I am merely saying that it is a violation of
the licensing agreement as written (1) and MS would be within their
rights to invalidate your install of Vista. I don't know that they
will, but neither do I know that they wont. MS is very picky about
their legalese and have a whole slew of lawyers on retainer for no other
purpose than to protect their products.

(1) There are several places where working around their intended install
method would be a violation of their license, but the clearest and
simplest is Section 8. "Scope of license". "The user may not: work
around any limitations in the software. Blanket as that may be, it is
all they need for this issue.
 
excuse my potential ignorance, but I purchased an UPGRADE and boot from the
DVD and it performed the clean install without the workaround.
 
CybrGuy said:
MS is very picky about their legalese and have a whole slew of
lawyers on retainer for no other purpose than to protect their
products.
Click to expand...

Heh! They must be sitting on their arses over here in Europe, then,
'cos we rarely see or hear from them. And when we do they end-up
costing Microsoft a fortune, 'cos they always lose.
 
excuse my potential ignorance, but I purchased an UPGRADE and boot from the
DVD and it performed the clean install without the workaround.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you got a new install DVD. I was able to boot from the
DVD, but when I responded with the correct key code, the prompt
indicated I needed to do this from within XP.
 
CybrGuy said:
(1) There are several places where working around their intended install
method would be a violation of their license, but the clearest and
simplest is Section 8. "Scope of license". "The user may not: work
around any limitations in the software. Blanket as that may be, it is
all they need for this issue.
Click to expand...

It's not working around any software limitations; it's using the
features that are offered with the software. IOW, Vista's software is
not limited to having to install XP or W2K before using the update Vista CD.

Alias
 
Paul-B said:
AFAIK when you do *any* Vista install, be it Retail/OEM/Upgrade the
Vista software is laid-down on a newly-formatted hard drive as a
complete Vista image, without carrying anything over from whatever was
on that hard drive prior to the Vista install... anything which Vista
decides should be retained is copied into a seperate folder on the new
installation.

Others may correct me if I'm wrong.

That is the same as a clean install, is it not?
Click to expand...

You are correct, Paul.

It's just hard from some of us old dogs to grasp/accept this.

The install procedure used in Vista is vastly different than in
previous OS installs, fundamentally different. And, it is hard for
many us to get used to that. We've been through the old way
and know from experience, that a "clean install" is always best.
But, now, as far as the actual OS install is concerned, there is
not any old code left behind. The problems that do arise, can
be from the programs that are imported back into that "clean" install
when doing an in place upgrade.


-Michael
 
I don't know why MS didn't build in a compliance check for Vista before
allow the upgrade, as they have with XP. I'm sure they'll do an update to
fix this, or it'll be in the next service pack
 
Paul-B said:
I always get a laugh when someone who has discovered a legal workaround
and publishes it is then told "It isn't ethical" or "It's immoral", or
"It's against the spirit" etc. etc. etc.

I don't know if any of you remember, but when AMD brought-out their
socket A Athlon/Duron chips they produced them all with the same (high)
clock speed, so as to gain from economies of scale in production, then
downrated some of the chips by breaking the L2 bridges so that the
clock-speed was lower. These they sold at a lower cost. It was
possible, using just a pencil, to bridge the broken L2 bridges so that
the chip ran at the original high speed. I managed to turn my 600MHz
Duron into a 900MHz one by simply doing this, thus saving myself a
considerable sum.

No-one at the time considered that to be illegal, immoral, cheating AMD
or anything else. I can't see what the difference is if you are
installing an upgrade, provided you have a genuine copy of XP and are
not going to re-use it or sell it on.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with you, Paul. I will also add, there is no way Microsoft
did not know about this prior, none. They knew this would be figured out.
Perhaps, not as quick as it was. I believe that is exactly why Microsoft
had very limited in house testing of the Upgrade procedures. They were
begged for those upgrade keys, even by MVP beta testers- not one was
given out to test. Which is exactly why everyone in these groups were
flying blind about the upgrade procedure- none of us knew how it would
work for sure.

Microsoft built this function into Vista, it is not a hack or a crack.
If a user has copy of XP that they paid for, I see nothing wrong
with using this install procedure.

Ironically, I also believe that the attention this has received
will spur some users to buy Vista, now knowing they can do
the install their way... almost. Especially, the power users.
When this first broke, I thought it was a major mistake on
Microsoft's part. How could they miss this? They didn't.

Paul Thurrott was one of the first to write about this, I guarantee
you he asked for a comment from Microsoft first, and with the
ramifications this has- even went as far to ask "permission" to
write about it. Microsoft's silence on the matter speaks volumes.


-Michael
 
MICHAEL said:
I tend to agree with you, Paul. I will also add, there is no way
Microsoft
did not know about this prior, none. They knew this would be figured out.
Perhaps, not as quick as it was. I believe that is exactly why Microsoft
had very limited in house testing of the Upgrade procedures. They were
begged for those upgrade keys, even by MVP beta testers- not one was
given out to test. Which is exactly why everyone in these groups were
flying blind about the upgrade procedure- none of us knew how it would
work for sure.

Microsoft built this function into Vista, it is not a hack or a crack.
If a user has copy of XP that they paid for, I see nothing wrong
with using this install procedure.
Ironically, I also believe that the attention this has received
will spur some users to buy Vista, now knowing they can do
the install their way... almost. Especially, the power users.
When this first broke, I thought it was a major mistake on Microsoft's
part. How could they miss this? They didn't.

Paul Thurrott was one of the first to write about this, I guarantee
you he asked for a comment from Microsoft first, and with the
ramifications this has- even went as far to ask "permission" to
write about it. Microsoft's silence on the matter speaks volumes.
Click to expand...


I'm currently reading a book on Vista published by Microsoft Press that
discusses the method.
 
MICHAEL said:
You are correct, Paul.

It's just hard from some of us old dogs to grasp/accept this.

The install procedure used in Vista is vastly different than in
previous OS installs, fundamentally different. And, it is hard for
many us to get used to that. We've been through the old way
and know from experience, that a "clean install" is always best.
But, now, as far as the actual OS install is concerned, there is
not any old code left behind. The problems that do arise, can
be from the programs that are imported back into that "clean" install
when doing an in place upgrade.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Bet I'm older than you are... my first real PC was a state-of-the-art
8086 DOS only with a 32Mb hard drive, 2 x 5 1/4" floppies and a
monochrome display. I bought it new and I was then 39.
 
Paul-B said:
LOL!

Bet I'm older than you are... my first real PC was a state-of-the-art
8086 DOS only with a 32Mb hard drive, 2 x 5 1/4" floppies and a
monochrome display. I bought it new and I was then 39.
Click to expand...

You've got me beat by a few years... I've reached the ripe old age of 38. ;-)


-Michael
 
Brian W said:
I don't know why MS didn't build in a compliance check for Vista before
allow the upgrade, as they have with XP. I'm sure they'll do an update to
fix this, or it'll be in the next service pack
Click to expand...


You may well be right. Seems like the sort of thing they could modify the
activation / validation process to encompass.
 
MICHAEL said:
You've got me beat by a few years... I've reached the ripe old age of 38.
;-)


-Michael
Click to expand...

I have you all beat. My first computer was an abacus. I was a beta tester.
 
Back
Top