Facts on the "Upgrade Loophole"

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]> Leythos

You misunderstand - The XP SP2+ updates are what I was talking about. If
I were to virgin install XP +SP2 + almost 70 updates, it would still be
about the same amount of time as the initial Vista Business install
without the key and then the reinstall with the key. I've done this
enough times on enough machines to be sure that installing vist using
the "Upgrade" path is slower than installing XP.

Ahh -- Odd. Windows XP takes about 35-40 minutes to install on my
machine, Vista takes just under 20 (in both cases, from the initial boot
to the at-desktop, ready-to-be-activated stage)

XP requires a number of additional drivers simply to network (NVIDIA
gigabit ethernet chipset), whereas Vista gets running off the ground,
which saves a fair amount of time as well.

Is the Vista-over-Vista install really that much slower then
Vista-over-XP?

 

[Leythos]

In message <[email protected]> Leythos


Ahh -- Odd. Windows XP takes about 35-40 minutes to install on my
machine, Vista takes just under 20 (in both cases, from the initial boot
to the at-desktop, ready-to-be-activated stage)

XP requires a number of additional drivers simply to network (NVIDIA
gigabit ethernet chipset), whereas Vista gets running off the ground,
which saves a fair amount of time as well.

Is the Vista-over-Vista install really that much slower then
Vista-over-XP?

When I do an XP install I normally have to load drivers for video, intel
chipset, and NIC, when I do Vista, so far, I've had to hack a driver for
Nvidia chipset, find Aerthos wireless drivers and while the initial
install of each, to get to that point was faster under Vista, being that
you have to have an OS to install the upgrade to vista, the dual install
of vista (install on wiped drive without using key, then install from
vista using a key) the second install took a LOT longer than the fresh
install.

 

[Dale]

You missed the point.

Because you have to upgrade Vista from an existing OS, you have to start by
installing either XP or installing Vista (not as an upgrade). It is that
part where installing Vista first will be the faster, and cleaner, solution.
The second part, the upgrade installation of Vista over whichever you chose
first, will be the same either way.

Dale

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Sorry, but your workaround is not supported by Microsoft
and does, in fact, violate the EULA. Please review the following:

The Vista license “loophole†that isn’t:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=420

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

 

[James Kosin]

Sorry, but your workaround is not supported by Microsoft
and does, in fact, violate the EULA. Please review the following:

The Vista license “loophole†that isn’t:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=420

Not a license "loophole".
The packaging says you have the option to update Windows 2000 to Vista.
But, you can't upgrade Windows 2000 to Vista; because the upgrade only
runs on XP or Vista only.
So, Windows 2000 users have the legal edge in performing the upgrade in
this manner.

James

 

[john]

Sorry, but your workaround is not supported by Microsoft
and does, in fact, violate the EULA. Please review the following:

The Vista license "loophole" that isn't:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=420

April 3, 2008 - Psst! Wanna save $110 on Windows Vista SP1?
Microsoft still letting buyers 'upgrade' to Vista without XP or 2000
[ http://tinyurl.com/3txuu4 ]

"Experts say Microsoft is giving its quiet blessing to the loophole in order
to boost interest in Vista among the tech-savvy users likely to exploit it."

"The fact that the upgrade edition will still upgrade over itself in Vista
SP1 proves that Microsoft executives knowingly support the upgrade trick,"
said Brian Livingston, editorial director of the "Windows Secrets"
newsletter"

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

"Just because a piece of software installs on a PC, does not mean that it is properly licensed,"
wrote a spokeswoman in an e-mail. "The licensing states that upgrades require a fully licensed
version of Windows to be eligible to use an Upgrade license."

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience -
Windows System & Performance

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

:
April 3, 2008 - Psst! Wanna save $110 on Windows Vista SP1?
Microsoft still letting buyers 'upgrade' to Vista without XP or 2000
[ http://tinyurl.com/3txuu4 ]

"Experts say Microsoft is giving its quiet blessing to the loophole in order
to boost interest in Vista among the tech-savvy users likely to exploit it."

"The fact that the upgrade edition will still upgrade over itself in Vista
SP1 proves that Microsoft executives knowingly support the upgrade trick,"
said Brian Livingston, editorial director of the "Windows Secrets"
newsletter"

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Sorry, but your workaround is not supported by Microsoft
and does, in fact, violate the EULA. Please review the following:

The Vista license “loophole†that isn’t:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=420

It's against the Vista EULA to do a clean install with an upgrade disc?!
Carey, you really need to stop spouting crap out your rear end into the
newsgroup(s). You could stop if you could get your head out of your arse!

http://www.microscum.com/carey/

Carey shows himself to be the Most Voluminous Poopshooter of the group
again!


--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett