Mistake in SP2 RTM EULA

M

Mike Brannigan [MSFT]

PCyr. said:
In the EULA of SP2 RTM, it says that it is a 180 day license.

I guess MS missed that one :p

http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/uploads/post-3-1092151093.jpg
Click to expand...

The EULA for the final build of SP2 does not mention 180 day trail.
You have an old EULA from the RC2 or beta version.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
 
P

PCyr.

No, I am 100% possitive I have the RTM version, I got it from the Network
Install page on Microsoft.com. If it was Beta or RC2 then why would winver
say "RTM"? You did look at my link didn't you?

I did upgrade from RC2. Perhaps a glitch?

Many other people in windowsxp.basics are having the same problem. They
have installed the RTM, but the EULA is like mine.

I was told that there were a few builds of the RTM, and that mine may have
been an older on where this was an issue, the thread is here:
http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3251&s=0dde626dd8ec93dee72a37f96c65615d

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

Mike Brannigan said:
PCyr. said:
In the EULA of SP2 RTM, it says that it is a 180 day license.

I guess MS missed that one :p

http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/uploads/post-3-1092151093.jpg
Click to expand...

The EULA for the final build of SP2 does not mention 180 day trail.
You have an old EULA from the RC2 or beta version.

--

Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
newsgroups
Click to expand...
 
N

Nathan McNulty

Yes. It is a glitch from what I have seen. If you upgrade from RC2 to
RTM, it leaves the old EULA.txt file.

As to your different builds of RTM. It is true that 2179 that leaked
and everyone was installing said RTM in the tag, but apparently
something wasn't right with it since they moved to a new build. There
is only one true build that is RTM and that is 2180.
 
U

Uncle Gus

Correct Winver is:

Version 5.1(Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.o40803-2158:Service Pack2)

Uncle Gus
: Yes. It is a glitch from what I have seen. If you upgrade from RC2 to
: RTM, it leaves the old EULA.txt file.
:
: As to your different builds of RTM. It is true that 2179 that leaked
: and everyone was installing said RTM in the tag, but apparently
: something wasn't right with it since they moved to a new build. There
: is only one true build that is RTM and that is 2180.
:
: ----
: Nathan McNulty
:
:
: PCyr. wrote:
: > No, I am 100% possitive I have the RTM version, I got it from the Network
: > Install page on Microsoft.com. If it was Beta or RC2 then why would winver
: > say "RTM"? You did look at my link didn't you?
: >
: > I did upgrade from RC2. Perhaps a glitch?
: >
: > Many other people in windowsxp.basics are having the same problem. They
: > have installed the RTM, but the EULA is like mine.
: >
: > I was told that there were a few builds of the RTM, and that mine may have
: > been an older on where this was an issue, the thread is here:
: > http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3251&s=0dde626dd8ec93dee72a37f96c65615d
: >
 
P

PCyr.

Which is what mine says.o_O I think Nathan is right on the ball.

--
Paul Cyr

-----

The Debate Continues... www.xvsxp.com

Protect Yourself and Others in 6 Simple Steps...
http://davechalkconnected.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1802
-----

Correct Winver is:

Version 5.1(Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_rtm.o40803-2158:Service Pack2)

Uncle Gus
: Yes. It is a glitch from what I have seen. If you upgrade from RC2 to
: RTM, it leaves the old EULA.txt file.
:
: As to your different builds of RTM. It is true that 2179 that leaked
: and everyone was installing said RTM in the tag, but apparently
: something wasn't right with it since they moved to a new build. There
: is only one true build that is RTM and that is 2180.
:
: ----
: Nathan McNulty
:
:
: PCyr. wrote:
: > No, I am 100% possitive I have the RTM version, I got it from the
Network
: > Install page on Microsoft.com. If it was Beta or RC2 then why would
winver
: > say "RTM"? You did look at my link didn't you?
: >
: > I did upgrade from RC2. Perhaps a glitch?
: >
: > Many other people in windowsxp.basics are having the same problem. They
: > have installed the RTM, but the EULA is like mine.
: >
: > I was told that there were a few builds of the RTM, and that mine may
have
: > been an older on where this was an issue, the thread is here:
: >
http://bbs.xvsxp.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=3&t=3251&s=0dde626dd8ec93dee72a37f96c65615d
: >
 
J

JB

PCyr. said:
Which is what mine says.o_O I think Nathan is right on the ball.
Click to expand...
Erm Guys, I'm of the opinion that you should NEVER upgrade to a final
from an RC!

That is just asking for problems!

J
 
N

Nathan McNulty

It is a supported upgrade path. There should be nothing left over of
the old installs which means you should be able to (if you had access to
all of them) install each and every build over the top of each other one
build at a time, and still not have problems.
 
J

JB

Nathan said:
It is a supported upgrade path. There should be nothing left over of
the old installs which means you should be able to (if you had access to
all of them) install each and every build over the top of each other one
build at a time, and still not have problems.
Click to expand...
Yeah Right like we have time to test every eventuallity that might come
out of that!

Hasn't anyone learned NOT to trust Micro$oft yet? I know they CAN'T
test all software I might want to install in a cluster and I've plenty
of past experience to suggest that they tell lies and get it wrong a LOT.

J
 
N

Nathan McNulty

Truth is, it isn't Microsoft's responsibility for other companies
applications to work on their Operating System. When they make changes
like this to the OS, they provide the proper tools and documentation for
the software designer to reform their code. The beta testing program is
a good way of seeing what programs work and which ones don't. They can
also then notify that company (example: Symantic NAV) and possibly even
work with that ocmpany to fix whatever issues need to be resolved.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

The best advice so far!! 9

Top