Hi Hunt,
1. Yes, but not exactly. There is a known work-around that involves
installing twice (first without the key, then with it, you just have to make
sure to choose the right edition the first time). However, this method may
eventually be blocked from activation, so it is not recommended. If you want
to be able to do a clean install by booting the disk, then purchase a full
version.
2. You may need to phone in re-activation after substantial hardware
changes. This is perfectly legitimate, even with generic OEM licences. It
may take a few minutes, but it does work. Vista's activation is based on the
hardware at the time of installation. Cumulative changes to the hardware
will eventually cause the system to be viewed as a new machine, and require
a new activation. Activations subsequent to the initial one generally have
to be done manually (over the phone), but again this is a perfectly
legitimate, allowed scenario.
--
Best of Luck,
Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help -
www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts
http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com
"Hunt" <Hunt@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FC390E95-14D0-47CF-BF6E-99AFB5CB54C4@xxxxxx
> 1). Is it true that you cant do a clean install of Vista from the
> upgrade
> disc? Like
>
> the one I had done before from 95 to 98SE to XP, I hate the unnecessary
> clutter
>
> and space it takes up.
>
> 2). I've been seeing alot of trouble with windows validation from
> forums
> which
>
> has put me off from upgrading, But again if I do get Vista Upgrade Home
> premium
>
> will I have to call them everytime I upgrade my hard drive, CPU ,
>
> Motherboard,GPU,Ram? For now I'm planning to get a new MB, then a while
> later
>
> CPU & a HDD, but that'll be in a month or two and right now I just want to
> upgrade
>
> the OS, so down the line will I run into trouble with having to constantly
> call MS to
>
> explain what I'm doing to my PC after dumping the old hardware?
>
> I read from prior discussions that you cant upgrade mobos from OEM's
> so
> thats
>
> out of the question.