Looks easy enough...
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
Looks easy enough...
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
Well that's all very well, but my understanding was that Upgrade DVDs are not bootable, thus anyone trying that would fall at the first hurdle.
I'm getting more and more confused by the whole thing, there don't seem to be any two sources of info that say the same thing :confused: I wish I had an upgrade disc to try.
Arie, the owner of WindowsBBS is contacting MS about all this.
Suppose there's nothing to stop you having an install of activated XP on a ghost image. My concern with this though would be if you actually get a clean install.
I would tread real carefully with this one. Lots of rumors and confusion all over the net on this issue. If it is true, then either someone at Micro$oft will be fired this week or someone will be commended for keeping this a big secret until after people have purchased Full versions. From what I heard, Paul Thurrot had very early info and that may be what he based his "proposal" on. As with SuperSparks, as far as I know the Vista Upgrade versions are NOT bootable, which throws the whole proposed procedure out. It may be that since Thurrot wrote this, M$ switched gears and made the CDs unbootable.
Only way to find out is for someone to try it. I would be more than willing for the sake of clarifying the issue for us, but I already got my Full version of Ultimate (at a discount...yay!).
Theres even mention of it in todays issue of Windows Secrets news letter
Quote:
I believe it is. Microsoft itself created the upgrade process. The company designed Vista to support upgrading it over a previously installed copy of XP, W2K Pro, or Vista itself. This isn't a black-hat hacker exploit. It's something that's been deliberately programmed into the approved setup routine.
Microsoft spent years developing and testing Vista. This upgrade trick must have been known to many, many people within the development team. Either Microsoft planned this upgrade path all along, knowing that computer magazines and newsletters (like this one) would widely publicize a way to "save money buying Vista." Or else some highly placed coders within the Vista development team decided that Vista's "full" price was too high and that no one should ever have to pay it. In either case, Vista's setup.exe is Microsoft's official install routine, and I see no problem with using it exactly as it was designed
I heard that this will only extend the OEM license, and void the XP license, whether retail or not....confusion aplenty, i think that a lot of people thought that this meant they could install on a clean drive and it would be as good as a retail license.
Liam
One person's experience from another forum site:The odd thing is that he was able to boot from the DVD....didn't get very far, but he was able to boot.Quote:
I've just received my MAPS (Microsoft Action Pack) copy of Vista Business Upgrade. When booting from the DVD the installer asks for the Serial Key which I entered. However the installer refuses to install as "This version must be launched from Windows" So I deleted the key and continued the install selecting BUSINESS as the install at the relevant screen. However when now I try to activate Vista I get the following error code: 0xc004f061 and the text "The Software Licensing Services determined that this specified product key can only be used for upgrading not for clean installations" WTF! Upgrades in the past have always allowed you to clean install as long as you had the original disks. So now it looks like I'll have to install a clean copy of XP just to get this version installed...
But if no XP licence is used in the first place whats to void??
If you use the install instructions above [press cancel] the initial install is the 30 day trial set up.Which is then used as proof of upgrade.Quote:
Originally Posted by bistro
Has anyone actually tried it? There lies the proof.
In the News letter I mention above the author has gone through the whole process succesfully.
EDIt: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201
Then, once again, Micropuff is playing games. The procedure is leaked out, then M$ comes out with an "official" announcement that one CAN'T use the usual upgrade procedure (leading people to believe there was an actual change to the coding), but in reality nothing really has changed.
Why does this sound so familiar? I'd love to be a fly on the wall at Redmond when they have their marketing strategy meetings...
I wonder if the service pack will allow a WGA type check, and then set it to a limited mode.Quote:
Why does Vista's secret setup exist?
It's reasonable for us to ask ourselves whether buying an upgrade version of Vista, and then installing it to an empty hard disk that contains no previous version of Windows, is ethical.
I believe it is. Microsoft itself created the upgrade process. The company designed Vista to support upgrading it over a previously installed copy of XP, W2K Pro, or Vista itself. This isn't a black-hat hacker exploit. It's something that's been deliberately programmed into the approved setup routine.
Microsoft spent years developing and testing Vista. This upgrade trick must have been known to many, many people within the development team. Either Microsoft planned this upgrade path all along, knowing that computer magazines and newsletters (like this one) would widely publicize a way to "save money buying Vista." Or else some highly placed coders within the Vista development team decided that Vista's "full" price was too high and that no one should ever have to pay it. In either case, Vista's setup.exe is Microsoft's official install routine, and I see no problem with using it exactly as it was designed.
We should also think about whether instances of Vista that were installed using the clean-install method will continue to operate. I believe that this method will continue to be present in Vista DVDs at least until Microsoft begins distributing the Service Pack 1 edition of Vista around fall 2007. Changing the routine in the millions of DVDs that are now in circulation would simply be too wrenching. And trying to remotely disable instances of Vista that were clean-installed — even if it were technically possible to distinguish them — would generate too many tech-support calls and too much ill will to make it worthwhile.
Installing the upgrade version of Vista, but not installing over an existing instance of XP or W2K, probably violates the Vista EULA (end-user license agreement). If you're a business executive, I wouldn't recommend that you flout any Windows license provisions just to save money.
Either way i'd try it, for the simple fact that the VFD doesn't apply to the UK, and the pricing is disgaceful as usual.:mad: If i bought retail Ultimate from Newegg i would only pay £186 based on the exchange rate now.
Liam
Whoa......THAT would really tee off a lot of folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by liam858
It's worth pointing out that there is nothing to stop MS, now or at any time, from linking the product key of Vista and the product key of the OS that was upgraded from on their activation server. For all I know they may have already set it up like that. Therefore there would be no need for a specific WGA check, they might already know which installations are in violation of the EULA.
I would suggest that anyone thinking of trying this, only buys an Upgrade version if they are in a position to genuinely upgrade, so that they can do an upgrade install in the approved manner in the future if necessary. Ethics aside, you could potentially end up paying for an upgrade disc and end up in reduced functionality mode.
I read from another forum site were this person bought Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade and said that it does work
But for how long? Micro$oft has never cared in the past how many people they tick off with software/registration changes.....wouldn't put it past them to do something like what SuperSparks suggested: zap the bypass installation to limited mode upon activation.Quote:
Originally Posted by snooker
Hi, greed is always the downfall of scoundrels and as such people who work for the greedy tend to make mistakes, we discovered this upgrade a while ago and Nick no reference to an earlier OS is recorded, if you do it right and we have a legal team that say's MS have stuffed up on this one (greed again). Go for it people and enjoy.Bistro this works a treat just look for more detail then in the posted links use your head and work it out we did.
Here, apparently, is Microsoft's response:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37453