Clean Install Vista Upgrade without reinstalling

A

arcsum68

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
408
I havent tried it yet, but if you need to do a clean install of Vista from your upgrade cd this looks to be a pretty good solution. Could be helpful if you OS has crashed or something, and makes it so you dont have to install and OS just to upgrade it.

http://www.techwrighter.com/index.p...ask=view&id=67&Itemid=27&limit=1&limitstart=2

Install the 30 day trial

Begin by disabling User Account Control (UAC). There are numerous methods for doing this, but the quickest and simplest is a registry edit.


Hold down the Windows key and tap ‘R’ to get the ‘Run’ box.
Type regedit and press the Enter key to launch the registry editor.
On the left pane, locate and select the key HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\
CurrentVersion\Policies\System
Locate the entry EnableLUA in the right pane, double-click it and alter the value to ‘0’ to disable UAC. (You can repeat the procedure later, changing the value to ‘1’, to turn it back on.)
Exit the registry editor and reboot the PC, and UAC will be inactive when you arrive at the desktop again.

Activate from the command line



With UAC disabled you can now issue a couple of commands which will fully activate your Vista installation using the Product key which accompanied your Vista Upgrade purchase.


Hold down the Windows key and tap ‘R’ to get the Run dialogue box.


To assign your product key to the installation issue the command:

cscript C:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs -ipk <upgrade product key>

(Don’t type <upgrade product key> of course. That where your actual product key goes, in full!)


You can now activate your installation online by firing up the ‘Run dialogue again and issuing the command:

cscript C:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs –ato


Verify that Vista is activated by issuing the command:

cscript c:\windows\system32\slmgr.vbs –dlv
 
You could do it this way, or you could do it the legal way by re-running the CD from within the trial.
 
I dont see how this is any more illegal, all you are doing is importing the key, agreeing the eula, and you are even activating online.

I dont see anything wrong there, just alot of time saved by not having to reinstall the os on top of itself.

And how is it not clean?

Boot up, install Vista, import the serial and register.

Almost as clean as it gets.
 
I guess it's just my opinion on what "Clean Install" means to me. All these extra steps (minor as it may be) does not justify "Clean" to me.

No copying files here and there, editing the registry or re-running the CD.

Wam bam thank you mam and that's it....lol
 
Clean install refers to booting from the disc, installing the OS and being done with it. I also wouldn't call this a clean install, considering something was existing on the drive before the fnial, legit install took place.
 
Well its as clean as it gets with an upgrade, sure if you have the retail version you save yourself a couple steps, but this isnt meant to replace that.

Geez, I was just posting an alternative to installing Vista and then installing it again as an upgrade.

If it doesnt apply to you cause you have something better then go with that, does everybody need to be so negative about it?

If you have an upgrade, then you have to admit, this seems to be the best solution for a "clean" install. If you dont then it doesnt apply.

I came across it and thought it was a good workaround, and thought maybe someone could benefit.
 
djnes said:
Clean install refers to booting from the disc, installing the OS and being done with it. I also wouldn't call this a clean install, considering something was existing on the drive before the fnial, legit install took place.
Click to expand...

Read the instructions again, blank hard drive, install vista, import key.

There was nothing on the drive before the final legit install took place, hence the reason I posted.
 
Considering Microsoft just says the upgrade is for "Upgrading Windows 2000, XP, and Vista" NOT installing and modifying it as a new install (even somewhat patching), I highly doubt this is legal. Microsoft may even prevent it from being doable with an update.

Installing a trial version is completely legal- they wouldn't give you that option otherwise.

I think "Clean Install" means just the OS. Upgrading Vista to Vista doesn't change a darn thing about your computer- all you are doing is allowing your upgrade key to work by going a different path- it has zippo to upgrade, and is not changing anything.
 
Technically I dont think either is legal, if it were then it would have been included in the instructions.

Both methods are workarounds designed to circumvent the standard procedure of upgrading from XP or 2000, anything that deviates from that would be considered illegal.

If you are going to install Vista from an upgrade without another OS already installed, you might as well do it this way since its faster and does not involve a redundant install.

If you want to be legal, purchase a retail or oem copy of the OS

As for them "fixing" this with a patch, highly unlikely as thats how OEM licenses are installed.

Take it for what its worth, I thought it was a good tip if you are going down that road anyway.

If not, then feel free to ignore it.
 
There you have it

The upgrade version of Windows Vista
An upgrade version of Windows Vista is a license that lets you install Windows Vista if you already own a compliant, licensed version of Windows. You can perform either an upgrade installation or a custom installation of Windows Vista by using an upgrade license. However, you must start the Windows Vista installation in the compliant version of Windows.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932616/en-us

Both are illegal, the way I posted is faster.


Man you guys are stubborn! LMAO
 
arcsum68 said:
Technically I dont think either is legal, if it were then it would have been included in the instructions.
Click to expand...
Microsoft generally does not include specific instructions on working around their setup their setup.

Both methods are workarounds designed to circumvent the standard procedure of upgrading from XP or 2000, anything that deviates from that would be considered illegal.
Click to expand...
See, Microsoft licensed it as an Upgrade from Vista as well. Legal to install the trial version, and Legal to upgrade from Vista to Vista.
We already know this is legal- I myself have told Microsoft I've done it. They do not just throw it out for the world to see, but it is legal.

On the other hand, this method propose here, I would challenge anyone to call Microsoft and tell them this is how you are activating Windows. I can guarantee you they won't be jumping up and down about it.
I would consider having to circumvent the intended purpose of how you are to go about activating it illegal.

Both are illegal, the way I posted is faster.
Click to expand...
As I established above... The upgrade trick is not illegal. Microsoft knows it is there, I've talked to them about it. The only thing they had to say was "Well, that isn't how it is intended to be...". You call Microsoft about this workaround, however, and they will not be happy with you.
 
Just got off the phone with Microsoft.

They don't like this one bit... They were wanting to know WHERE I found this, what website it was, etc.

Luckily for HardForum I didn't tell them where :) I just told them I was browsing the 'net and found a "forum".

They even had me talk to their manager about this.

That being said, this is illegal. I also verified that the way that has been posted at earlier (upgrading Vista to Vista) is legal.

I ran this through a recording company, and they should have the recording soon...

Edit- Also appears you are violating HardForum's rules as well:
(15) Observe all COPYRIGHT LAWS, TOS's and NDA's when posting copyrighted material. If the material belongs to someone else, credit the original author. Do not post messages that violate Federal, State, or Local laws which include, but are not limited to, anything that violates a copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret, or is bound by NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement).
(18) You will not discuss, suggest, engage, or encourage any ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES. Links provided to locations that deal with any such activity are also expressly forbidden.
Click to expand...
 
I do not know about the reg key and command line editing...but I have been told by an insider at MS, that the "upgrade from vista trial to vista" or the "over the top clean install" as some would call it, is technically LEGAL, although they did not intend it to be that way. The fact is, it was left in, it is NOT a "hack" and it does work. They should have been more careful is all I can say.

That being said, I have a FULL RETAIL copy of Utimate courtesy of MS that I fresh installed on my rig, and I am going to use the upgrade version I bought to "upgrade" my old XP cd that I have had for years.
 
This will be my last reply on this topic, I dont feel that its constructive anymore, just bickering.

I posted an article from MICROSOFT that says that the upgrade must be made from WITHIN THE COMPLIANT VERSION, meaning your licensed copy of XP.

You said yourself that MS said it wasnt intended to be used as an upgrade from the demo.

They made a mistake, and now they are dealing with it as best as they can, and since they probably dont have any real way to tell, what are they going to do about it?
They cannot at this point disable all upgraded licenses.

I have provided hard proof and documentation, you have provided hearsay.
I just talked to Microsoft, they said I can do anything I want. (doesnt mean its true, see how that works?)

If you want to believe that you are any more legal doing the install over install thing, go ahead if it makes you feel better. The end result is the same, its not how they meant it to work, read the link I posted.

Fact of the matter is, you know that it wasnt indended that way, and you justify it since its "built in", well technically so is registering your key. (again back to that article, it says you can do that)

As for the forum rules, in my opinion this isnt any less illegal than the install over install method and that has been discussed many times before, but if an admin feels that its not ok, then he or she can feel free to kill it.

You provide me proof that the install over install thing is legal, as stated by Microsoft, then I will concede gracefully. Until then I will rejoice, cause I think im right and you are wrong. :)
 
The reason they WON'T do anything is because they CAN'T do anything to the dvd's or owners that have the "install over the install" method enabled. They have NO legal ground to stand on and that silly EULA is just words at this point, since the option to install that way is ENABLED BY MS. Just because they SAY you have to upgrade from another OS does not make it so, same as they SAY you can do anything you want. :D

Not fighting with you or anyone else, just discussing.


arcsum68 said:
This will be my last reply on this topic, I dont feel that its constructive anymore, just bickering.

I posted an article from MICROSOFT that says that the upgrade must be made from WITHIN THE COMPLIANT VERSION, meaning your licensed copy of XP.

You said yourself that MS said it wasnt intended to be used as an upgrade from the demo.

They made a mistake, and now they are dealing with it as best as they can, and since they probably dont have any real way to tell, what are they going to do about it?
They cannot at this point disable all upgraded licenses.

I have provided hard proof and documentation, you have provided hearsay.
I just talked to Microsoft, they said I can do anything I want. (doesnt mean its true, see how that works?)

If you want to believe that you are any more legal doing the install over install thing, go ahead if it makes you feel better. The end result is the same, its not how they meant it to work, read the link I posted.

Fact of the matter is, you know that it wasnt indended that way, and you justify it since its "built in", well technically so is registering your key. (again back to that article, it says you can do that)

As for the forum rules, in my opinion this isnt any less illegal than the install over install method and that has been discussed many times before, but if an admin feels that its not ok, then he or she can feel free to kill it.

You provide me proof that the install over install thing is legal, as stated by Microsoft, then I will concede gracefully. Until then I will rejoice, cause I think im right and you are wrong. :)
Click to expand...
 
Bleh, there's nothing new here, and it's even simpler than that process Cat has posted at his site:

1) Install Vista

2) Open an Admin Command Prompt, do the 3 commands.

3) ?!?!?!?!?!

4) PROFIT!!!

There's no reason to disable UAC at all, which is (even for this procedure) simply a bad idea.

After step 1 all that's needed is an Administrative Command Prompt to execute the 2 necessary commands and then the 3rd optional command to verify the "Licensed" status.

As for the legality of this "clean install" of an upgrade edition, we had a rather long drawn out discu---errr... whine and bitch session in the recent past where I took the moral high ground to say it wasn't legit and was basically told by "someone in charge" around here to get off my soapbox, sooo... you folks keep right on discus---errr... whining and bitching about it, be my guest. ;)

'Nuff typed.
 
Also, Microsoft does indeed state:

"The upgrade version of Windows Vista An upgrade version of Windows Vista is a license that lets you install Windows Vista if you already own a compliant, licensed version of Windows. You can perform either an upgrade installation or a custom installation of Windows Vista by using an upgrade license. However, you must start the Windows Vista installation in the compliant version of Windows."

The thing is, Vista Trial install in itself, is one of the "compliant versions". :cool: :p
 
msny said:
Countdown to thread lock....10 9 8 7...
Click to expand...


I get heartily sick of seeing people posting comments like that one. I get heartily sick of seeing threads locked rather than action taken toward the people trolling threads to generate argument.

Poor form on both counts! It's legitimising the actions of the trolls!


So, before you lot actually get this locked how about I get a chance to repsond here. It's MY bloody article that's the topic of discussion here, after all!



First, the legality matter!


The way you get your Windows install on the disk has absolutely NOTHING to do with its eventual legality or otherwise. The legality is in the validity of your license, and not in the installation technique.

Doesn't matter if you download an ISO, borrow a friends disk, do whatever you like. The simple fact is that you assign the installation your valid install code, you activate it, and the end result is a legal installation. Got that?

Right, now let's move on to the 'Upgrade' situation. Two simple things make your Upgrade key create a valid licensed installation. You must have been the owner of a valid qualifying license previously. You must discontinue using that license afterwards, because you've voided it. That's all. Installation technique doesn't impact on it. Microsoft has only ever suggested "Recommended" prodcedure. They don't, and can't, insist that it is "Mandatory" procedure. How would that work in a commercial environment where deployment is image based, for starters?

All the 'workaround' techniques are valid procedures which can be used, in situations where the customer is fulfilling the requirement that they discontinue use of that earlier, qualifying licensed installation. The capacity to use workarounds is inbuilt by design. Customers have need to perform clean installs from time to time, and their capacity to do so is provided to them

It is NOT legal to use such a workaround to install with an Upgrade code when no qualifying license is pre-existant. There is no check for this involved. It is up to the honour and integrity of customers to ensure it doesn't happen!


Second, does this work?


I've had a few people give feedback that the technique described doesn't work for them. It should. There's no reason that I could determine why it wouldn't. I suspect that people having problems might be typing out the install code incorrectly. It needs to be typed in full, with the hyphens included. If spaces are used it'll return an 'invalid key' error when you try to issue the commands.

But I'd like further feedback from people who try it. I've done a lot of checking and as far as I can determine there is no record kept in the installation of any previous Windows install. Nevertheless, if at some stage Microsoft 'block' activation via use of this technique then I'd like to know, so I can remove the article. I don't want to leave it there if the technique is ever rendered unworkable.

But, for most people who've tried it, the technique works just fine. As far as I'm aware it basically just uses perfectly valid commands which are included for the benefit of OEM assemblers who are deploying preinstallations. I'm not really sure on that point. But there isn't a single thing done here which doesn't use Microsoft provided capabilities ;)




As said, the 'legal' situation is up to the honesty and integrity of the end-user. Installation technique does not and can not invalidate your license! If you own a qualifying license, wipe the system, install Vista and then discontinue using the previous license you'vve fulfilled your 'Upgrade' requirements! Upgrading the installation is a convenience technique. Upgrading your license is simply a matter of tearing up the earlier one and using the later one instead! A license is only an agreement between one party and another.
 
Well said catweazle.....

I will be trying it soon....not on this rig.

I will be sure to not use my copy of Win2k anymore either after I clean install Vista.
 
Catweazle said:
I get heartily sick of seeing people posting comments like that one. I get heartily sick of seeing threads locked rather than action taken toward the people trolling threads to generate argument.

Poor form on both counts! It's legitimising the actions of the trolls!


So, before you lot actually get this locked how about I get a chance to repsond here. It's MY bloody article that's the topic of discussion here, after all!



First, the legality matter!


The way you get your Windows install on the disk has absolutely NOTHING to do with its eventual legality or otherwise. The legality is in the validity of your license, and not in the installation technique.

Doesn't matter if you download an ISO, borrow a friends disk, do whatever you like. The simple fact is that you assign the installation your valid install code, you activate it, and the end result is a legal installation. Got that?

Right, now let's move on to the 'Upgrade' situation. Two simple things make your Upgrade key create a valid licensed installation. You must have been the owner of a valid qualifying license previously. You must discontinue using that license afterwards, because you've voided it. That's all. Installation technique doesn't impact on it. Microsoft has only ever suggested "Recommended" prodcedure. They don't, and can't, insist that it is "Mandatory" procedure. How would that work in a commercial environment where deployment is image based, for starters?

All the 'workaround' techniques are valid procedures which can be used, in situations where the customer is fulfilling the requirement that they discontinue use of that earlier, qualifying licensed installation. The capacity to use workarounds is inbuilt by design. Customers have need to perform clean installs from time to time, and their capacity to do so is provided to them

It is NOT legal to use such a workaround to install with an Upgrade code when no qualifying license is pre-existant. There is no check for this involved. It is up to the honour and integrity of customers to ensure it doesn't happen!


Second, does this work?


I've had a few people give feedback that the technique described doesn't work for them. It should. There's no reason that I could determine why it wouldn't. I suspect that people having problems might be typing out the install code incorrectly. It needs to be typed in full, with the hyphens included. If spaces are used it'll return an 'invalid key' error when you try to issue the commands.

But I'd like further feedback from people who try it. I've done a lot of checking and as far as I can determine there is no record kept in the installation of any previous Windows install. Nevertheless, if at some stage Microsoft 'block' activation via use of this technique then I'd like to know, so I can remove the article. I don't want to leave it there if the technique is ever rendered unworkable.

But, for most people who've tried it, the technique works just fine. As far as I'm aware it basically just uses perfectly valid commands which are included for the benefit of OEM assemblers who are deploying preinstallations. I'm not really sure on that point. But there isn't a single thing done here which doesn't use Microsoft provided capabilities ;)




As said, the 'legal' situation is up to the honesty and integrity of the end-user. Installation technique does not and can not invalidate your license! If you own a qualifying license, wipe the system, install Vista and then discontinue using the previous license you'vve fulfilled your 'Upgrade' requirements! Upgrading the installation is a convenience technique. Upgrading your license is simply a matter of tearing up the earlier one and using the later one instead! A license is only an agreement between one party and another.
Click to expand...

The entire thread is not a discussion, it's a debate on ethics, And don't get me started on legal/illegal. It crosses the line even if you don't label it stealing or theft it is, to justify this is a technicality...now I'm on my soapbox and I don't plan on getting off. So if you feel sick take an Aspirin or Pepto Bismo...but we need to move along....

Thread should be locked....6 5 4 3....
 
TheRapture said:
Also, Microsoft does indeed state:

"The upgrade version of Windows Vista An upgrade version of Windows Vista is a license that lets you install Windows Vista if you already own a compliant, licensed version of Windows. You can perform either an upgrade installation or a custom installation of Windows Vista by using an upgrade license. However, you must start the Windows Vista installation in the compliant version of Windows."

The thing is, Vista Trial install in itself, is one of the "compliant versions". :cool: :p
Click to expand...
Exactly. The installing trial version and re-running the upgrade from within that Trial version is LEGAL.

However, this tweak posted in this thread is ILLEGAL. Hmmm... who to trust? A guy who posts a workaround (Just like all the other Microsoft pirates out there)... or Microsoft itself?

As I said- I called Microsoft on this today. I have an audio recording of the whole thing (I just can't download the darn file outside this user interface... trying to work with the co. to get me a downloadable version to post).
 
Let's see. We'll examine the posts which have been made since I clarified the situation.

The entire thread is not a discussion, it's a debate on ethics, And don't get me started on legal/illegal. It crosses the line even if you don't label it stealing or theft it is, to justify this is a technicality...now I'm on my soapbox and I don't plan on getting off. So if you feel sick take an Aspirin or Pepto Bismo...but we need to move along....
Click to expand...

You present absolutely no argument whatsoever there. You're basically saying that it offends you, and that's neither argument nor justification.

Exactly. The installing trial version and re-running the upgrade from within that Trial version is LEGAL.

However, this tweak posted in this thread is ILLEGAL. Hmmm... who to trust? A guy who posts a workaround (Just like all the other Microsoft pirates out there)... or Microsoft itself?
Click to expand...

For starters, the 'install Vista from within Vista' workaround is indeed 'legal'. But your argument here is depending on - I know you didn't explicitly so so but believe me I've been following all this from day dot - the assumption that Microsoft has 'justified' it in a KB article. I'd suggest you go look again. The MS KB article doesn't even mention installing Vista from Vista, Instead it mentions uinstalling XP first ;)

Your blunt claim that this workaround is illegal is unsupported by anything but your own opinion and an implication that, as an author, I must somehow be untrustworthy and the implication that I must be a 'pirate' because I've published a workaround. Let me put your mind at ease. I'm a 'bylined' journalist. The software I use to develop these articles is provided to me, free of charge, by Microsoft for the express purpose of using it to construct articles about Windows and other MS software for the benefit of my readers. Got that?

Microsoft gives me the software so I can write about it! I do my homework! I'm an honest and honourable man! Stop being scared!

- Supposed MS terms of use -
Click to expand...

Th EULA stipulates this, in reference to Upgrade packages:

"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."

The EULA does NOT stipulate that you must necessarily perform an upgrade install. The EULA is the legal agreement. Other utterances of Microsoft are not part of the legal agreement.


As I said- I called Microsoft on this today. I have an audio recording of the whole thing .....
Click to expand...

Who you gonna call?

I've said it before, on numerous occasions and in many places. Call centre staff are often junior employees and their statements are not formally endorsed and legally binding statements of the MS corporation. If you want to spout something said to you on the telephone be sure it was a member of Microsoft's legal department you were talking to ;)
 
God, sometimes I wonder how you people ever made it to a text-based communication medium. :p

The simple fact of the matter is the upgrade isn't illegal - Microsoft even has a KB article with instructions on how to do this iirc; what is wrong here, and I won't go into a legal perspective on things is just this:

When you buy an upgrade version of Vista, you are morally obliged to surrender the use of the product you're using as the "upgrade" OS - if you have 2K, and you're "upgrading" to Vista, then that means by all rights you're not supposed to continue using the 2K installation or key anymore. If you use XP as the product you're upgrading from, you're supposed to surrender the use of the XP Product Key from the time you install Vista.

This is clearly evident in the Vista EULA as plain as day for those that can read:

"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."

Take that last sentence, stick it in your pipe(s), and smoke it.
 
Catweazle said:
Let's see. We'll examine the posts which have been made since I clarified the situation.

You present absolutely no argument whatsoever there. You're basically saying that it offends you, and that's neither argument nor justification.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY...now your getting it, I'm saying THIS is an argument not a discussion so there will be no winners.

People know whats right and what isn't, and when they don't YES that offends me and should offend anyone who does the right thing and purchased the product legally.
 
THIS is an argument not a discussion so there will be no winners.
Click to expand...

Sorry to say so, but whoever made you Master of Ceremonies made a mistake!

Neither argument nor discussion which need lead to 'winner' or 'loser'. Simple fact is that some erroneous claims have been made and those have been refuted.

People know whats right and what isn't, and when they don't YES that offends me and should offend anyone who does the right thing and purchased the product legally.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit bewildered by this comment, as it doesn't seem to be directed in any way.

Do you mean by it that people should not use this technique as a means of 'cheating' themselves into a cheap Vista install? If so then I wholeheartedly agree!

alternatively, do you perhaps mean that anybody using this technique must necessarily NOT be meeting their obligations? If so then I wholeheartedly DISAGREE. I've used it. Perfectly legitimately. I had a dozen valid XP linces here, only one of which I plan to continue using. I've ditched one of them after clean-installing a system with a Vista Upgrade. That leaves me 10 more if I choose to use them to qualify Vista Upgrades.

I mentioned before that an installation technique has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the license. It also has nothing to do with how I've obtained the licensed product.
 
Catweazle said:
Sorry to say so, but whoever made you Master of Ceremonies made a mistake!

Neither argument nor discussion which need lead to 'winner' or 'loser'. Simple fact is that some erroneous claims have been made and those have been refuted.


I'm a bit bewildered by this comment, as it doesn't seem to be directed in any way.

Do you mean by it that people should not use this technique as a means of 'cheating' themselves into a cheap Vista install? If so then I wholeheartedly agree!

alternatively, do you perhaps mean that anybody using this technique must necessarily NOT be meeting their obligations? If so then I wholeheartedly DISAGREE. I've used it. Perfectly legitimately. I had a dozen valid XP linces here, only one of which I plan to continue using. I've ditched one of them after clean-installing a system with a Vista Upgrade. That leaves me 10 more if I choose to use them to qualify Vista Upgrades.

I mentioned before that an installation technique has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the license. It also has nothing to do with how I've obtained the licensed product.
Click to expand...


WOW!
Thanks so much for correcting the error of our ways via the EULA.
As to the 'Master of Ceremonies' you seem to be better able to handle that title then any of us. I think we all have opinions, but since you have the facts then YOU must be right!

I'm done.
 
The whole OP suggests this is a workaround to cleanly install Vista Upgrade without previously owning a license.
Honestly, if you have XP or 2000, and bought the upgrade, don't care about your settings, and want a fresh start- I don't have much problem with it. As section #13 in the EULA states, you must own a prior version of Windows. The EULA also states you are not to workaround any limitations in the software... which is exactly what this does. And is exactly why Microsoft didn't like me telling them about it.
I don't even care if the OP himself personally owned a copy prior... the thing in question- is how do you think OTHER people are going to use this?


Your blunt claim that this workaround is illegal is unsupported by anything but your own opinion
Click to expand...
Actually, its not. I have my whole phonecall to Microsoft recorded. As soon as I get the company I ran the call through to send me a download of it (as currently I can only listen through their user interface... so I can't post it here), I'll post it.

My point- installing the Upgrade- and re-running the disk within the 30-day trial is legal. Again, there is still a bit of morality to be taken into account (owning a previous version), but nonetheless is legal.
The OP here completely violates the EULA inside and out. Right on the dagum box, read it:
For upgrading Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista.
Click to expand...
Now, is installing the trial, and patching the system an upgrade? NO!!!
 
zacdl said:
The whole OP suggests this is a workaround to cleanly install Vista Upgrade without previously owning a license.
Click to expand...

The OP states:

"..Could be helpful if you OS has crashed or something, and makes it so you dont have to install and OS just to upgrade it..."

..is installing the trial, and patching the system an upgrade? NO!!!
Click to expand...
The technique does not 'patch' anything. The commands included in it do two things only:

1. Assign the install code.
2. Run product activation.

It's not qualitatively different to the 'install Vista from Vista' workaround in way other than that an extra installation isn't needed to assign the install code.

Could people please stop posting utter nonsense?

I've got an upgrade box right here beside me, by the way. It also mentions that:

BACKUP AND CLEAN INSTALL MAY BE REQUIRED
Click to expand...

The box information does not mandate an upgrade install. The disk itself does not carry any stipulation that an upgrade install is mandatory. The EULA does not carry any stipulation that an upgrade install is mandatory.

Keep throwing up the misinformation. I'll chop it down in flames every time. Misusing clean install workarounds to obtain a Vista installation from Upgrade packages without owning a qualifying license is illegal. Misusing such techniques to install an upgrade package and then continue using the qualifying license is illegal.

Using a clean install technique rather than an upgrade install technique when the license is validly purchased and a qualifying product owned and then afterwards discontinuing use of the qualifying product is NOT illegal.
 
Catweazle said:
"..Could be helpful if you OS has crashed or something, and makes it so you dont have to install and OS just to upgrade it..."
Click to expand...
Good job to take my comment out of context!

The technique does not 'patch' anything.
Click to expand...
Wow, what a comeback!

To make it easier for you to understand, let me reprhase it:
Now, is installing the trial cleanly an upgrade? NO!!!

Hence this goes against the EULA no matter what way you want to talk about it.

Keep throwing up the misinformation. I'll chop it down in flames every time.
Click to expand...
A little arrogant are we?

Using a clean install technique rather than an upgrade install technique when the license is validly purchased and a qualifying product owned and then afterwards discontinuing use of the qualifying product is NOT illegal.
Click to expand...
I agree. See my first comment in that last post of mine. How do you think people are going to use this information? Legally? yea... right.
However, because this technique does not TECHNICALLY upgrade anything (a clean install), it does violate the EULA.

Edit- I personally don't see the point in arguing with someone who has disreguard for black and white text printed in the EULA. For those that can read, it is right there.
I have an entire phone conversation with Microsoft archived. I gave them the commands and steps needed to perform this technique, and was told it was illegal. I asked them three times to confirm the fact. I also asked them three times if the upgrade loophole trick is legal- and it is.
Unless you are saying you know more than the people that actually set the copyright and terms of use on the product, you are sadly mistaken. For anyone that wants a copy of the recording, PM me and when I get the audio file I will send it to you.
 
Here is the EULA. In its entirety. Nothing else whatsoever is the EULA.

Read it. Find the bit where it prohibits the use of clean install techniques. Quote that back to me. If you can't, then stop spouting nonsense about the EULA. The EULA refers to upgrading the license. It does not refer to the technique used to install the software itself.

I'm not arrogant. I'm simply correct. You, and anybody else claiming that this is illegal, are failing to understand the difference between an installation and the license to use that installation. The EULA relates only to the license.

You do understand, don't you, that the acronym EULA refers to End User LICENSE Agreement?
 
pitbull46 said:
Wow it looks like a fierce cat fight in here guys.
I read this article in a newsletter that is sent to me each week all about the "Clean Install" business.......

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070208/

http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201/
I hope it helps;)
Click to expand...


That is a gas. Somebody just had to come along and write a book about this stuff.
Were all dumb for arguing about it, but even dumber for not making any money at it either.
Nice one...reminds me of a best seller out now called "the secret" if your in to that kind of thing...:D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764577042/ref=nosim/isbnat

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Rhonda-Byrne/dp/1582701709/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6233586-9448806?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1175197453&sr=8-1
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top