Doing a clean install with Vista Upgrade edition -- legal?

B

Bona Fide

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
2,382
I saw a guide online, allegedly by a Microsoft employee or something, that showed how you can use the upgrade version of Vista to perform a clean install. I'd prefer to use the upgrade version because it's not much more expensive than the OEM, and you get full support from Microsoft and access to the 64-bit version as well. It's also quite a bit cheaper than the full version.

Can anyone tell me where this procedure stands in terms of legality? I assume that since Microsoft allowed this "back door" that it's not illegal, but at the same time it's probably not something you'd want to advertise.
 
The way I look at it is if Microsoft objected to their own miscalculations, they would have corrected the flaw. I read several articles stating that Microsoft actually built the feature into the install on purpose mainly to appease the hobbyists who would have found a way in any case to do a clean install. It would be a rare household that doesn't contain at least one copy of XP, so the procedure is as close to legal as it can get without Microsoft actually blessing the procedure.
 
MajorDomo said:
The way I look at it is if Microsoft objected to their own miscalculations, they would have corrected the flaw. I read several articles stating that Microsoft actually built the feature into the install on purpose mainly to appease the hobbyists who would have found a way in any case to do a clean install. It would be a rare household that doesn't contain at least one copy of XP, so the procedure is as close to legal as it can get without Microsoft actually blessing the procedure.
Click to expand...
I suppose you're right. Microsoft knows as well as anyone that a LOT of people are using illegitimate copies of XP, so by offering this it makes it seem like a cheap little alternative to buying the full copy. I have a feeling that the full copy is purposely bloated, and the upgrade it the "correct" price.

Martyr said:
ide expect the sp1 disks to have this little thing fixed.
Click to expand...
Fortunately I have a retail copy of XP to "upgrade" from in case they did fix it, but somehow I doubt it.
 
MajorDomo said:
The way I look at it is if Microsoft objected to their own miscalculations, they would have corrected the flaw. I read several articles stating that Microsoft actually built the feature into the install on purpose mainly to appease the hobbyists who would have found a way in any case to do a clean install. It would be a rare household that doesn't contain at least one copy of XP, so the procedure is as close to legal as it can get without Microsoft actually blessing the procedure.
Click to expand...
Articles which have suggested that Microsoft intentionally[//i] included the workaround capability would be incorrect. The intention was and is to provide 'workaround' capability which follows the procedure of installing XP first then installing Vista. The fact that it can 'qualify' itself is the result of omission, not inclusion.

A decision was taken to omit eligibility checks, because including it wasn't really compatible with the new method of deployment. The decision was taken to include only a check for an achievable 'upgrade path', because the migration from a 'Home' to a 'Pro' installation had to be blocked. The decision was taken to allow an installation without product key assigned, because the entirety of Vista is on every install disk, and the 'Trial' install is a promotional mechanism.

Amidst all this decision making nobody noticed that the trial install could serve as an achievable 'upgrade path' itself. It's not the first time such an oversight has been made. When MS Office was making the transition to CD rather than floppy deployment, for example, nobody noticed that the installer could be pointed at the installation CD to 'qualify' itself!


Since retail release date MS has made definite public statement that they have no intention of closing the loophole, and that they do not consider there will be large proportions of their customer base using such a workaround to obtain a low cost Vista installation. Those comments do not constitute a statement of acknowledgement that the workaround is somehow acceptable as a means of obtaining a license.



By the way. The 'legality' aspect has been adequately covered in the clean install topic mentioned in the forum section FAQ sticky. Here is the relevent excerpt:
FAQ said:
The legal Concerns

IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO USE A WORKAROUND TECHNIQUE TO CLEAN INSTALL YOUR SYSTEM!

To remain legal when deploying a Windows Upgrade package, you MUST be replacing an existing qualifying license. Your license is a contract or agreement. It is not the actual disk, it is not the actual installation. Your license is represented by your legitimate product key code, your COA sticker, and your use of the legitimate key code to legitimate and activate your Windows installation.

In large part, legality depends upon the ‘honour system’:

  • You must own a legitimate qualifying Windows license in order to be eligible to use an Upgrade product.
  • You must discontinue the use of that pre-existing license after you deploy the Vista Upgrade license.

That’s it, in a nutshell. It is one thing to use a ‘workaround’ as a method for putting a clean install on the primary drive/partition in your system, rather than running an actual upgrade over an earlier installation. That’s fair enough. So is installing Vista as a dual-boot, side by side with your existing qualifying installation to enable you to access and use both whilst you are making the transition from one OS platform to the next. But using these techniques as a ‘cheap’ way of getting Vista, or using them as a means to continue using your qualifying license, on an ongoing basis or on a different machine, is another matter entirely. That’s illegal! Don’t kid yourself that you can have clear conscience if you do that!
Click to expand...
 
Well I think that I'm covered legally then. This is for a primary system, the only system, in fact. It's not a duplicate or illegitimate copy, and I have a legit key as well (the one that comes with the upgrade CD, lol).
 
Funny thing is...since I've got upgrades only, I technically have to keep every version dating back to WIN 3.1 (OEM install from my Gateway 486-33) to remain "legal". :rolleyes:
 
yossarian said:
Funny thing is...since I've got upgrades only, I technically have to keep every version dating back to WIN 3.1 (OEM install from my Gateway 486-33) to remain "legal". :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I guess I'm in good shape then. I actually still have original DOS 6 and Win 3.1 floppies on my shelf. :D Well actually my XP is OEM, so thats all I need to keep.

I've been toying with dragging out and old 486 I still have and installing DOS and Win 3.1 on it just for S&G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top