I recently bought the "uber" edition of Vista Ultimate, which comes with both
install dvds for the 32 and 64 bit versions. I installed the 64-bit version
first, which I do like very much. However, my work Cisco vpn connection
doesn't support 64-bit windows. So I installed the 32bit version of vista on
a spare hard drive on the same PC. Of course, I'm getting the "unable to
activate" message on the 32bit version since I've already activated the 64bit
version.

Since I'm running both copies on the same PC, this shouldn't violate the
EULA, right? So if I'm "legal" in running both versions on the same PC, how
can I make sure both installations are activated and eligible for updates? By
activating the 32-bit version, will this deactivate the 64-bit version? Or
will they appear to the update site to be under the same serial number?

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the EULA allows EITHER 32 or 64 bit,
not both.
Having said that, you can probably activate by phone if you forget to
mention to the MS rep what your doing.

--

----
Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
How to Post http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
_________________________________________________________________________________


"Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FA425322-7704-4FB7-B837-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I recently bought the "uber" edition of Vista Ultimate, which comes with
>both
> install dvds for the 32 and 64 bit versions. I installed the 64-bit
> version
> first, which I do like very much. However, my work Cisco vpn connection
> doesn't support 64-bit windows. So I installed the 32bit version of vista
> on
> a spare hard drive on the same PC. Of course, I'm getting the "unable to
> activate" message on the 32bit version since I've already activated the
> 64bit
> version.
>
> Since I'm running both copies on the same PC, this shouldn't violate the
> EULA, right? So if I'm "legal" in running both versions on the same PC,
> how
> can I make sure both installations are activated and eligible for updates?
> By
> activating the 32-bit version, will this deactivate the 64-bit version? Or
> will they appear to the update site to be under the same serial number?

You violate the EULA and each time Vista phones home from a different
system, it will realise that it is installed on another hard drive. At best
you will frequently be calling in for activations. Why not just buy an OEM
version of a lesser version for those activities you don't need Ultimate.

"Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FA425322-7704-4FB7-B837-(E-Mail Removed)...
>I recently bought the "uber" edition of Vista Ultimate, which comes with
>both
> install dvds for the 32 and 64 bit versions. I installed the 64-bit
> version
> first, which I do like very much. However, my work Cisco vpn connection
> doesn't support 64-bit windows. So I installed the 32bit version of vista
> on
> a spare hard drive on the same PC. Of course, I'm getting the "unable to
> activate" message on the 32bit version since I've already activated the
> 64bit
> version.
>
> Since I'm running both copies on the same PC, this shouldn't violate the
> EULA, right? So if I'm "legal" in running both versions on the same PC,
> how
> can I make sure both installations are activated and eligible for updates?
> By
> activating the 32-bit version, will this deactivate the 64-bit version? Or
> will they appear to the update site to be under the same serial number?

You can only use and activate the license for
either the 32-bit version or the 64-bit version
of Windows Vista, but not both. You would
need to purchase a second license for the
32-bit installation.

Ordering Additional Licenses for Windows Vista
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...e/default.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

---------------------------------------------------------------

"Brian" wrote:

I recently bought the "uber" edition of Vista Ultimate, which comes with both
install dvds for the 32 and 64 bit versions. I installed the 64-bit version
first, which I do like very much. However, my work Cisco vpn connection
doesn't support 64-bit windows. So I installed the 32bit version of vista on
a spare hard drive on the same PC. Of course, I'm getting the "unable to
activate" message on the 32bit version since I've already activated the 64bit
version.

Since I'm running both copies on the same PC, this shouldn't violate the
EULA, right? So if I'm "legal" in running both versions on the same PC, how
can I make sure both installations are activated and eligible for updates? By
activating the 32-bit version, will this deactivate the 64-bit version? Or
will they appear to the update site to be under the same serial number?

Interesting point. I really don't need Vista AT ALL... Especially since
driver support is lax, many of my games don't work. And, of course, the
latest Cisco vpn software doesn't work either.

Perhaps Microsoft would be willing to find a way to allow both copies to
work on the same physical machine? Otherwise I'll be forced to return vista
and pick up a copy of XP pro instead. There is NO WAY I will shell out any
more money for another copy of Vista. After already spending $399, I should
be entitled to use both versions on the same physical hardware.

It is unfortunate that Microsoft doesn't seem to consider the massive
inconvenience their bleeding-edge users experience by taking a chance and
running something new. I KNOW Microsoft wants to improve quality and support
for their 64-bit environments, which means they need end users like myself.
Bleeding edge users of the 64-bit version should have the option to switch
back and forth between versions when compatibility issues arise.

If I can't obtain a reasonable solution from Microsoft, I'll be forced to
return Vista and demand a full-refund. Sad but necessary so I can connect to
work.



"John Barnes" wrote:

> You violate the EULA and each time Vista phones home from a different
> system, it will realise that it is installed on another hard drive. At best
> you will frequently be calling in for activations. Why not just buy an OEM
> version of a lesser version for those activities you don't need Ultimate.
>
> "Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:FA425322-7704-4FB7-B837-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >I recently bought the "uber" edition of Vista Ultimate, which comes with
> >both
> > install dvds for the 32 and 64 bit versions. I installed the 64-bit
> > version
> > first, which I do like very much. However, my work Cisco vpn connection
> > doesn't support 64-bit windows. So I installed the 32bit version of vista
> > on
> > a spare hard drive on the same PC. Of course, I'm getting the "unable to
> > activate" message on the 32bit version since I've already activated the
> > 64bit
> > version.
> >
> > Since I'm running both copies on the same PC, this shouldn't violate the
> > EULA, right? So if I'm "legal" in running both versions on the same PC,
> > how
> > can I make sure both installations are activated and eligible for updates?
> > By
> > activating the 32-bit version, will this deactivate the 64-bit version? Or
> > will they appear to the update site to be under the same serial number?
>
>

Brian;
From your description, your best option may be to return Windows Vista
and go back to Windows XP.
Do not wait to long, you have 45 days to return.

Read the agreement for details.
Start/Run
Type "winver" ENTER
Click "Microsoft software license terms"

Paragraph 2 a of the license:
"You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device"

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:48037E27-24F6-42AB-BBF4-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Interesting point. I really don't need Vista AT ALL... Especially
> since
> driver support is lax, many of my games don't work. And, of course,
> the
> latest Cisco vpn software doesn't work either.
>
> Perhaps Microsoft would be willing to find a way to allow both
> copies to
> work on the same physical machine? Otherwise I'll be forced to
> return vista
> and pick up a copy of XP pro instead. There is NO WAY I will shell
> out any
> more money for another copy of Vista. After already spending $399, I
> should
> be entitled to use both versions on the same physical hardware.
>
> It is unfortunate that Microsoft doesn't seem to consider the
> massive
> inconvenience their bleeding-edge users experience by taking a
> chance and
> running something new. I KNOW Microsoft wants to improve quality and
> support
> for their 64-bit environments, which means they need end users like
> myself.
> Bleeding edge users of the 64-bit version should have the option to
> switch
> back and forth between versions when compatibility issues arise.
>
> If I can't obtain a reasonable solution from Microsoft, I'll be
> forced to
> return Vista and demand a full-refund. Sad but necessary so I can
> connect to
> work.

If I recall that is US only. I also recalled 30 days, but you are probably
more familiar than I. In any case the OP should act as soon as possible.

"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Brian;
> From your description, your best option may be to return Windows Vista and
> go back to Windows XP.
> Do not wait to long, you have 45 days to return.
>
> Read the agreement for details.
> Start/Run
> Type "winver" ENTER
> Click "Microsoft software license terms"
>
> Paragraph 2 a of the license:
> "You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device"
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "Brian" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:48037E27-24F6-42AB-BBF4-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Interesting point. I really don't need Vista AT ALL... Especially since
>> driver support is lax, many of my games don't work. And, of course, the
>> latest Cisco vpn software doesn't work either.
>>
>> Perhaps Microsoft would be willing to find a way to allow both copies to
>> work on the same physical machine? Otherwise I'll be forced to return
>> vista
>> and pick up a copy of XP pro instead. There is NO WAY I will shell out
>> any
>> more money for another copy of Vista. After already spending $399, I
>> should
>> be entitled to use both versions on the same physical hardware.
>>
>> It is unfortunate that Microsoft doesn't seem to consider the massive
>> inconvenience their bleeding-edge users experience by taking a chance and
>> running something new. I KNOW Microsoft wants to improve quality and
>> support
>> for their 64-bit environments, which means they need end users like
>> myself.
>> Bleeding edge users of the 64-bit version should have the option to
>> switch
>> back and forth between versions when compatibility issues arise.
>>
>> If I can't obtain a reasonable solution from Microsoft, I'll be forced to
>> return Vista and demand a full-refund. Sad but necessary so I can connect
>> to
>> work.
>

North America and 45 days:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/prod...nd/refund.mspx
It used to be 30 days, but that changed a year or two ago.

Also there may be other options in some of the other continents.
But if there are, I have not seen them.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If I recall that is US only. I also recalled 30 days, but you are
> probably more familiar than I. In any case the OP should act as
> soon as possible.

Thanks for the update.


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OCpw%(E-Mail Removed)...
> North America and 45 days:
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/prod...nd/refund.mspx
> It used to be 30 days, but that changed a year or two ago.
>
> Also there may be other options in some of the other continents.
> But if there are, I have not seen them.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
> http://www.dts-l.org
>
>
> "John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> If I recall that is US only. I also recalled 30 days, but you are
>> probably more familiar than I. In any case the OP should act as soon as
>> possible.
>