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

jimmy fallon wrote:

> Well that sucks, cuz we all know a clean install is MUCH preferred.
> Sorry MS, I love you guys but FU on this one. I bought the GD XP disc
> so i should be entitiled to a GD clean install! That's some F-ing
> nerve man. jf
>
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?

--
Paul-B

"Jon" <Email_Address@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:%23SK9CQhSHHA.4404@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> "jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:70851404-9C53-41E2-8D4A-93C0D8D72B4B@microsoft.com...
>> Does it work like with xp where you can just put in the xp cd during
>> installation? or does it force you to load xp on the machine and do the
>> upgrade?
>> thanks...
>> jf
>>
>>
>
>
> Officially the latter, although workarounds have emerged.
>
> Either way it's a looooooooooooong process with the upgrade, so get the
> full version if you can.
>
> --
> Jon


I have a free upgrade coming from Dell soon (hopefully) to Vista Home
Premium. But I decided to go ahead and purchase a Generic OEM from the
local computer shop.

1) The installation went FAST. I mean FAST. 30 minutes or less, including
formatting my HD (300GB). Normally, a clean installation takes anywhere
from 45 minutes to an hour (if one also formats the HD) -- or longer with a
larger HD.
2) However, moving my files to the new installation took a long time, since
they had to be moved piece-meal.
3) The "Upgrade" choice was grayed out. As in the past, "Generic Full OEMs"
must be installed "clean". Personally, this is my favorite kind of
installation of a Windows product. The installation was clean and simple.
4) The shop owner was very careful this time to warn me that I would be
subject to the "System Builder License" for Vista, and would be the one who
supplied all support for the product.. This has NEVER happened since I've
been using Microsoft OSes (since DOS 2.11). That's OK, since I'm the one
who is the "system builder". Personally, I wouldn't want to leave support
for my OS in the hands of some stranger at Dell. While my Dell was put
together very well, I HATE the crap they put on their OS disks.
5) The package containing my product was NOT the normal "shrink-wrapped"
package with a little booklet. It was actually in a cardboard container
which stated that it was a "System builder kit", and the owner would be
subject to the System Builder License. The COA was already stuck to the
plastic DVD case containing the disk, and had no other branding on it than
the Microsoft brand (unlike many "Full OEM" products for XP, which have the
sticker with the COA on it somewhere in the shrink-wrap itself, and easily
lost, since the shrink-wrap is usually discarded immediately.

All-in-all, I am very happy with my product. Transitioning to a new OS is
never an easy process, but I really expended very little energy making the
move, since all my backups were on a secondary disk.

The REAL problems are the software manufacturers who have not prepared for
the transition, such as Apple and a few others.

Anyway, good luck to all who are changing over to Vista.
I do have ONE thing to say: The final released product is MUCH more stable
than the Betas and Release Candidate. Microsoft really cleaned this product
up.. In addition, I've really not had many notifications from either UAC or
the Firewall. I was prepared for lots of hassle from them, but so far,
I've not had many problems.

Donald L. McDaniel
orthocross@comcast.invalid
"To validate me, simply 'net' me."
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.instantvista.com/windows-vista-upgrade.html




"ChrisM" <chris_mayersblue@suedeyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uIPetOhSHHA.3500@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> In message 70851404-9C53-41E2-8D4A-93C0D8D72B4B@microsoft.com,
> jimmy fallon <jimmyfallon@discussions.microsoft.com> Proclaimed from the
> tallest tower:
>
> :: Does it work like with xp where you can just put in the xp cd during
> :: installation? or does it force you to load xp on the machine and do
> :: the upgrade?
> :: thanks...
> :: jf
>
> IFAIK, you have to have XP installed on the machine first...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Chris.
> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>

"Zim Babwe" <zimbabwe@doyoureallythinkthisisreal.com> wrote in message
news:OKtHQnhSHHA.3316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> http://www.instantvista.com/windows-vista-upgrade.html
>
>
>


This is the most significant comment in that article.......


"BUT Microsoft have created this process.... It is not something you have to
try and crack in their software or run a third party application to perform
this process... Their development team created it. Which kind of begs the
question WHY?"

--
Jon

Alias wrote:
> Roscoe wrote:
>> It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade.
>> Convenient, eh?
>
> Read this:
>
> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
>
> Alias

This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a violation
of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise. Only time
will tell if there are any other problems with using this method and
circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have
known about this workaround, so they may well have broken it in some
subtle way that hasn't been found yet.
So, our options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over'
XP, or break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very
much...

CybrGuy wrote:

> Alias wrote:
> > Roscoe wrote:
> > > It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade.
> > > Convenient, eh?
> >
> > Read this:
> >
> > http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
> >
> > Alias
>
> This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a
> violation of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise.
> Only time will tell if there are any other problems with using this
> method and circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they
> wouldn't have known about this workaround, so they may well have
> broken it in some subtle way that hasn't been found yet. So, our
> options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over' XP, or
> break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very much...

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.

--
Paul-B

Why does it break the license agreement? If you own a legitimate copy of
XP, install Vista, when it's all said and done, you have a licensed copy of
Vista on your PC. You are not cheating anyone. You are not stealing from
the Gods of Microsoft. You are not going around their software, they allow
it!

Why go through the install of XP just for the hell of it when you can start
with a clean Drive? Doesn't make sense to me.


"CybrGuy" <none@none.inv> wrote in message
news:e3J4b9hSHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Alias wrote:
>> Roscoe wrote:
>>> It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade. Convenient,
>>> eh?
>>
>> Read this:
>>
>> http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
>>
>> Alias
>
> This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a violation
> of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise. Only time
> will tell if there are any other problems with using this method and
> circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have
> known about this workaround, so they may well have broken it in some
> subtle way that hasn't been found yet.
> So, our options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over' XP,
> or break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very much...

Depends. If you DO already own XP, then no, it isn't. I used this
method because when running the installation, from XP, even tho I was
REQUIRED to install to a different drive(I was "downgrading" from XP
Pro to Vista Home Premium), Vista wouldn't let me install it to a
completely empty, alternate harddrive. It kept telling me the volume
wasn't suitable for installation. I found out that the drive you are
installing to, must be the first drive in your system. Since this
drive wasn't(it was a SATA raid setup, with Vista drivers installed as
per the installation routine, which took them fine), it wouldn' let me
install. If I made that drive my first drive, then there wasn't any OS
to boot up with. The funny part is, the installation can handle the
type of install I was trying to do, IF the drives are IDE. However, if
they are SATA drives(like all my 4 drives running in 2 raid 0 arrays),
you cannot.

Using the method, from dailytech, allowed to get Vista installed
properly and was pretty much my only alternative. Thank you Dailytech.

IMO the reason this "loophole" was probably left in, was because of
the poorly written installation process and situations like mine.
Don't get me wrong, I like Vista, now that it's installed, but the
installation process is a PITA, that doesn't need to be that way.

On Feb 6, 1:48 pm, CybrGuy <n...@none.inv> wrote:
> Alias wrote:
> > Roscoe wrote:
> >> It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade.
> >> Convenient, eh?
>
> > Read this:
>
> >http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
>
> > Alias
>
> This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a violation
> of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise. Only time
> will tell if there are any other problems with using this method and
> circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have
> known about this workaround, so they may well have broken it in some
> subtle way that hasn't been found yet.
> So, our options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over'
> XP, or break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very
> much...

Yeah! That's what I'm talk'n 'bout!


"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1.net> wrote in message
news:52s21qF1pt828U1@mid.individual.net...
> CybrGuy wrote:
>
>> Alias wrote:
>> > Roscoe wrote:
>> > > It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade.
>> > > Convenient, eh?
>> >
>> > Read this:
>> >
>> > http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
>> >
>> > Alias
>>
>> This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a
>> violation of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise.
>> Only time will tell if there are any other problems with using this
>> method and circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they
>> wouldn't have known about this workaround, so they may well have
>> broken it in some subtle way that hasn't been found yet. So, our
>> options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over' XP, or
>> break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very much...
>
> 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.
>
> --
> Paul-B

Hi, as long as you don't use that purchased copy of XP again as far as I am
concerned there can't be any breach of licence. Interestingly enough it was
myself who first published this method before dailytech. Mine was published
here http://www.warp2search.net/modules.p...icle&sid=31186
some two days earlier....
ChrisC
"Chuck" <nospam@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:1170789776.464519.174050@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Depends. If you DO already own XP, then no, it isn't. I used this
> method because when running the installation, from XP, even tho I was
> REQUIRED to install to a different drive(I was "downgrading" from XP
> Pro to Vista Home Premium), Vista wouldn't let me install it to a
> completely empty, alternate harddrive. It kept telling me the volume
> wasn't suitable for installation. I found out that the drive you are
> installing to, must be the first drive in your system. Since this
> drive wasn't(it was a SATA raid setup, with Vista drivers installed as
> per the installation routine, which took them fine), it wouldn' let me
> install. If I made that drive my first drive, then there wasn't any OS
> to boot up with. The funny part is, the installation can handle the
> type of install I was trying to do, IF the drives are IDE. However, if
> they are SATA drives(like all my 4 drives running in 2 raid 0 arrays),
> you cannot.
>
> Using the method, from dailytech, allowed to get Vista installed
> properly and was pretty much my only alternative. Thank you Dailytech.
>
> IMO the reason this "loophole" was probably left in, was because of
> the poorly written installation process and situations like mine.
> Don't get me wrong, I like Vista, now that it's installed, but the
> installation process is a PITA, that doesn't need to be that way.
>
> On Feb 6, 1:48 pm, CybrGuy <n...@none.inv> wrote:
>> Alias wrote:
>> > Roscoe wrote:
>> >> It forces you to load xp on the machine and do the upgrade.
>> >> Convenient, eh?
>>
>> > Read this:
>>
>> >http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
>>
>> > Alias
>>
>> This may very well work, I haven't tried it yet. But, it is a violation
>> of the license agreement, at least until MS says otherwise. Only time
>> will tell if there are any other problems with using this method and
>> circumventing MS's intentions. I can't imagine that they wouldn't have
>> known about this workaround, so they may well have broken it in some
>> subtle way that hasn't been found yet.
>> So, our options with upgrade disks at this point are to install 'over'
>> XP, or break our license agreements. I don't like either choice very
>> much...
>
>