Can I do this with Vista Ultimate

[DotNettie]

I would like to use Vista Ultimate 32bit on my present PC.

I would like my spouse to build me a PC that would run 64-bit. If I bought
the full version of Ultimate can I legally run 32-bit on one and 64-bit on
the PC that we have built?

I tried to google this question, but only got hits for questions regarding
32 v. 64-bit.

Thanks for your patience.

D.

 

[Jabez Gan [MVP]]

If you already have a 32-bit Vista Ultimate activated, and you would like to
have a 64bit Vista Ultimate installed on another computer, you will need to
purchase a new Vista Ultimate key.

However there's a family pack discount thingy:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=201

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

Sure, provided you purchase two licenses, one for each machine. Unless, of
course, you plan on removing the 32-bit code on the present system when you
install x64 on the new one.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Not with the same product key. The same product key works for either
version, but you may not have both versions installed at the same time using
the same product key. You may switch versions, but only one can be
installed at a time. To run both versions at the same time requires two
product keys.

 

[Guest]

Can I install both 32 and 64 bit on the sama machine on different hard
drives? I would like to compare the performance of the two systems on the
same machine.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Yes, but only with two licenses. The one product key can be used to install
the version of your choice but installing the second version without
removing the first requires a second product key. In other words, dual
booting means paying for Vista twice even if you get both the dvd's in the
box for the one price.

Having said that, I am dual booting Vista x86 and x64 without any issues at
all.

 

[Daniel E Jameson]

Hi,

If you want to compare performance, you can install both, and you have 30
days before you need to activate. You should have a good idea by then.

--
Daniel Jameson
·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·•·
If the man tells you to hate another,
It's not so you can benefit at the expense of the other...
It's so he can benefit at the expense of you!

 

[William]

If, for some unknown reason, they have the 32 bit Vista installed and activated and then install the 64 bit version on another computer using the same product key and it also successfully activates, then, even though they would be not in compliance with the EULA, I don't think they can be faulted. After all, if Microsoft permitted it to happen, it is Microsoft's responsibility to accept or deny activation.


Not with the same product key. The same product key works for either
version, but you may not have both versions installed at the same time using
the same product key. You may switch versions, but only one can be
installed at a time. To run both versions at the same time requires two
product keys.

 

[William]

You do not need to install either of them with a product key if you are testing. This will give you 30 days to test, and then you have 3 more times to rearm which could give you a total of about 120 days to complete you evaluation and make a choice.


Can I install both 32 and 64 bit on the sama machine on different hard
drives? I would like to compare the performance of the two systems on the
same machine.

 

[AJR]

Really a waste of time - how would you compare them - you would need both 32
and 64 bit versions of application(s) - comparing one 32 bit application
running on a 32 and 64 bit platform would not produce worthwhile results.
Check TechNet magazine - Microsoft has published several articles comparing
switching to 64 bit OS on several of their databases.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I believe the second activation will now fail with the message "this product key is in use."
If, for some unknown reason, they have the 32 bit Vista installed and activated and then install the 64 bit version on another computer using the same product key and it also successfully activates, then, even though they would be not in compliance with the EULA, I don't think they can be faulted. After all, if Microsoft permitted it to happen, it is Microsoft's responsibility to accept or deny activation.

 

[Dale]

Colin, this is not in response to your post but to William's post that you
were replying to.

To follow William's logic, if I go to a restaurant and order dinner and
dessert, and they forget to put dessert on the bill, do I say something or
do I keep my mouth shut? If I walk into a department store and walk out
with a new coat and they don't catch me, it is clearly their own fault -
after all, it was their responsibility to keep me from walking out with it.
What a totally rediculous idea that is!

Or, and this happened to me recently, if I go to the grocery store and the
checker misses the case of water under the cart, and I realize it when I get
to my car, do I keep the water and laugh at how I got one over on them or do
I take the water back in and pay for it? You guess which one I did.

Just because you get away with stealing something, William, does not make it
any less stealing. How do you sleep at night and then get up in the morning
and look at yourself in the mirror?

Dale


I believe the second activation will now fail with the message "this product
key is in use."
If, for some unknown reason, they have the 32 bit Vista installed and
activated and then install the 64 bit version on another computer using the
same product key and it also successfully activates, then, even though they
would be not in compliance with the EULA, I don't think they can be faulted.
After all, if Microsoft permitted it to happen, it is Microsoft's
responsibility to accept or deny activation.

 

[Guest]

I think that Colin will agree that at the present time with so few purely 64
bit programs, there is no sense to installing both versions, because you will
probably see no significant difference between the two versions regarding
speed.

 

[thetruthhurts]

I have a feeling that MS is going to regret this nazi approach to
pirating. I think the pirates will suceed anyway or go to Linux and
they'll royally piss off their good customers.

 

[Dale]

Nazi approach? You have got to be kidding. Things like letting Windows be
copied or stolen at will for the first 20 years before ever trying seriously
to crack down?

It wouldn't be nearly so bad as to be called Nazi-like if they were to even
simply monitor these newsgroups and file suits against just those who openly
admit here to having stolen Vista or other Microsoft products.

They have been so completely concerned with their public image that they
have overlooked thousands of computer shops that buy one copy of Windows and
yet sell hundreds of PCs in the US alone.

Microsoft has been anything but Nazi-like in their approach to pirating.

Dale

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The way I would put it is that if you need x86 for something that won't run
on x64 then you will probably spend most of your time in x86 anyway. I am
dual booting x86 and x64 and spending 99% of my time in x64 so I really
didn't need x86. However, the reason I am dual booting is like the reason
people climb Mt. Everest; just because it is there.

 

[William]

I thought that would be the case.

I believe the second activation will now fail with the message "this product key is in use."
If, for some unknown reason, they have the 32 bit Vista installed and activated and then install the 64 bit version on another computer using the same product key and it also successfully activates, then, even though they would be not in compliance with the EULA, I don't think they can be faulted. After all, if Microsoft permitted it to happen, it is Microsoft's responsibility to accept or deny activation.

 

[William]

If you ask for the coat and they give you the coat, then it is their fault.

Colin, this is not in response to your post but to William's post that you
were replying to.

To follow William's logic, if I go to a restaurant and order dinner and
dessert, and they forget to put dessert on the bill, do I say something or
do I keep my mouth shut? If I walk into a department store and walk out
with a new coat and they don't catch me, it is clearly their own fault -
after all, it was their responsibility to keep me from walking out with it.
What a totally rediculous idea that is!

Or, and this happened to me recently, if I go to the grocery store and the
checker misses the case of water under the cart, and I realize it when I get
to my car, do I keep the water and laugh at how I got one over on them or do
I take the water back in and pay for it? You guess which one I did.

Just because you get away with stealing something, William, does not make it
any less stealing. How do you sleep at night and then get up in the morning
and look at yourself in the mirror?

Dale


I believe the second activation will now fail with the message "this product
key is in use."
If, for some unknown reason, they have the 32 bit Vista installed and
activated and then install the 64 bit version on another computer using the
same product key and it also successfully activates, then, even though they
would be not in compliance with the EULA, I don't think they can be faulted.
After all, if Microsoft permitted it to happen, it is Microsoft's
responsibility to accept or deny activation.

 

[Paul-B]

It wouldn't be nearly so bad as to be called Nazi-like if they were
to even simply monitor these newsgroups and file suits against just
those who openly admit here to having stolen Vista or other Microsoft
products.

What a silly idea. How are they going to identify pirates who don't use
their correct names, who post using Googlegroups, etc. etc. etc? Let
alone against pirates who operate from Countries where piracy isn't
illegal. And how are they going to prove that someone who says he/she
runs pirated software actually does so?

 

[Barry Watzman]

Microsoft's product activation database ties a product key to a machine
description and only allows one machine description per product key (one
ever for OEM copies, one at a time for retail copies). It would
probably prevent what you have suggested.

However, it probably would not prevent installing the 32-bit and 64-bit
versions both on the same machine (dual boot), because the product keys
would be the same, and the machine hardware descriptions would also
match (since it was, in fact, the same machine).

I'm not even clear if installing both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions ON
THE SAME MACHINE is, or is not, permitted by the EULA. The rule is one
machine, one license, and there is no conflict in that regard. But even
if it's not in strict accordance with the EULA, I'd view it as a minor
transgression that, if I had a use for it, and if it wasn't physically
prohibited by PA and WGA, I would not have problems with doing. But
still that is on the same machine, one single computer. I don't think
that you can install the 32-bit version on one machine and the 64-bit
version on another machine. I'm sure it's not legal, and I doubt that
it's physically possible (e.g. PA and WGA will block it).