From MS site (re: uprgrade versions of Vista)

[Rick Rogers]

There are still TIMED/plans out there? Sheesh!
I thought they were ALL "all you can eat" these days -- even dialup.

In the US this is the norm, but in many countries they still pay by the
minute, and some by the byte. Others have a monthly download limit.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Mr. Vista]

I agree.

Pertinent parts of a web page are essential. Absolutely. As I said, it
is just a courtesy not to get lazy and do a Select All/Copy when anyone
can just click the url.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I said "Please don't quote web pages verbatim" and suggested why.
What part of the word "please" makes me Gestapo?

 

[Kirk]

This is hilarious! Brian posts some interesting information and then the
following 12 posts talk about nettiquette and posting urls instead of
copying and pasting text in the interests of saving people with dial-up or
who pay by the minute $s. Most of you then include Brian's post in yours.
You cost people lots more $s going through your posts looking for further
information then Brian did with his original post.

 

[David Hearn]

I agree totally, Colin...but even worse, is the lazy or inconsiderate
individuals that reply, repeating the entire original post in their
response!!

John

And even worse is those doing that, WHILST telling others off for
unnecessary quoting of webpages!! The irony...

D

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"It is for no one to tell anyone.."
Perhaps.
But those with a sense of courtesy will respect common etiquette.
Those with no respect for common courtesy and netiquette should never
complain about whatever is said to or about them.

As for that person, Common courtesy was advised.
Nothing "Gestapo" about it, although some use such words on the mistaken
belief they add power to their statements.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Not at all a valid comparison since one using Vista in no way hampers
someone using another OS.
In this case the "lowest common denominator" is best, and not just for those
who pay for bandwidth although they are the most obvious and they are also
significant.

Quoting the entire article in one post is one thing, but you should go and
look at many posts.
If it became the norm for entire articles to be posted with the link,
especially when a portion will suffice, some news servers would have
significant bandwidth increases.
Further repercussions possible but not limited to:
Some forced out of newsgroups because of cost issues
Messages with shorter life on the servers
Fewer free or low cost server options, cost increases on others
Etc.

These are some of the same reasons HTML and binaries are inappropriate in
many newsgroups.
Netiquette much like etiquette exists because it is generally best for the
community as a whole.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The PK is not enough. I suspect that the activation data has to be
vailidated by WGA. Activation is what ties the license to the hardware
anyway. I guess that is why MS needs you in a running OS.

Win2K would have to be accomodated at this point because about all WGA can
do is notice that it is W2k and give silent assent. If W2k had reached End
Of Support it would not even be on the upgrade matrix.

 

[xfile]

If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished.

I am always like that whenever my first attempt for installing a new OS is
succeed without any problems.

It will be the same for Vista

 

[xfile]

Even more strangely,

I don't see our dear Jeff coming out to criticize anyone "hijacking" the
post, as he did to me for the very only one time and that was attempted to
stop those posts.

I wonder where is Jeff now?

 

[David Wilkinson]

The PK is not enough. I suspect that the activation data has to be
vailidated by WGA. Activation is what ties the license to the hardware
anyway. I guess that is why MS needs you in a running OS.

Colin:

The PK should be enough, because it allows to determine whether XP could
have been activated on the machine in question (virtual activation).
This check could be made from within Vista at the time that Vista is
activated. No need to install XP or 2K. All that proves is that the user
knows how to install XP or 2K given the disk and PK.

MS has this elaborate activation scheme, yet they fall back to primitive
mechanical methods when it comes to qualifying an upgrade. I just don't
get it.

David Wilkinson

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

The pk is a factor in the activation hash, but there are ten hardware
characteristics that get hashed in too. Validation needs the activation
data on the drive.

 

[David Wilkinson]

The pk is a factor in the activation hash, but there are ten hardware
characteristics that get hashed in too. Validation needs the activation
data on the drive.

Colin:

Vista can gather this information if the validation of XP is delayed
until Vista itself is validated (or at least until after Vista is
installed).

OK, so you could use Vista for 30 days with an invalid qualifying
product. Horrors! But if this is a problem (I really don't think so),
you could shorten the time before the XP validation must be done.

David Wilkinson

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It is not clear to me that how you could install Vista with the Upgrade
Edition for 30 days without a pk like you can the Full Edition, but that is
an interesting question.

 

[David Wilkinson]

It is not clear to me that how you could install Vista with the Upgrade
Edition for 30 days without a pk like you can the Full Edition, but that is
an interesting question.

Colin:

I think we have concluded that the upgrade disk is the same as the full
one. If you enter a Vista upgrade Product Key (PK), setup will ask for a
qualifying disk AND corresponding PK (even for Win2K it can do this). A
warning might be issued that when Vista is activated, this XP/2000
Product Key will be tested, and that the Vista validation will fail if
it does not pass, or if has been used previously for a different Vista
PK. Vista remembers the XP/2K Product ID, and then installs the same as
for the full edition.

When Vista is activated, both PK's are submitted to Microsoft. An added
bonus (for Microsoft) is that the qualifying PK and the Vista PK can be
permanently linked in the database, which could prevent use of the same
XP/2K PK for a different Vista PK (even for 2K).

Physical installation does not provide any security that the disk and
the product ID do not provide. It just inconveniences the user.

Am I missing something here?

David Wilkinson

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Where are you seeing anything that says that entering the Upgrade Edition pk
will trigger a request for "a
qualifying disk AND corresponding PK"? Vista Upgrade Edition does not ask
for shiny media. Since you have to run the Upgrade Edition setup on the
running legacy OS you are already on the disk. The hard disk partition you
are about to upgrade to Vista.

 

[DCR]

Isn't he just proposing a "possible scenario"?

| Where are you seeing anything that says that entering the Upgrade Edition pk
| will trigger a request for "a
| qualifying disk AND corresponding PK"? Vista Upgrade Edition does not ask
| for shiny media. Since you have to run the Upgrade Edition setup on the
| running legacy OS you are already on the disk. The hard disk partition you
| are about to upgrade to Vista.
|
| | > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
| >
| >> It is not clear to me that how you could install Vista with the Upgrade
| >> Edition for 30 days without a pk like you can the Full Edition, but that
| >> is an interesting question.
| >
| > Colin:
| >
| > I think we have concluded that the upgrade disk is the same as the full
| > one. If you enter a Vista upgrade Product Key (PK), setup will ask for a
| > qualifying disk AND corresponding PK (even for Win2K it can do this). A
| > warning might be issued that when Vista is activated, this XP/2000 Product
| > Key will be tested, and that the Vista validation will fail if it does not
| > pass, or if has been used previously for a different Vista PK. Vista
| > remembers the XP/2K Product ID, and then installs the same as for the full
| > edition.
| >
| > When Vista is activated, both PK's are submitted to Microsoft. An added
| > bonus (for Microsoft) is that the qualifying PK and the Vista PK can be
| > permanently linked in the database, which could prevent use of the same
| > XP/2K PK for a different Vista PK (even for 2K).
| >
| > Physical installation does not provide any security that the disk and the
| > product ID do not provide. It just inconveniences the user.
| >
| > Am I missing something here?
| >
| > David Wilkinson
|
|

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Maybe, but the upgrade scenario is set. The question is how does it work.
How it might work better has to wait for Windows Codename Vienna.

If you boot with any Vista dvd, run Setup, and put in an Upgrade Edition
product key you will be instructed that the pk you entered requires that you
exit Setup and start Windows and rerun Setup from the desktop. When you run
Setup from the desktop and reenter the pk you will be offered options that
make sense in an upgrade scenario. Since the legacy OS is already running
you will not be asked for shiny media or legacy pk's any more than you would
be if you were upgrading from Win ME to XP the same way.

Since the legacy system is running, Upgrade Setup know jolly well where the
installation is going, you're running in it. If an upgrade-in-place is not
allowed then you must chose to do a Custom install of Vista onto the
partition of the legacy OS that is running or exit Setup. The only thing
that is really new here is that you have to start from the desktop of a
running OS if you are using an Upgrade Edition pk.

 

[David Wilkinson]

Where are you seeing anything that says that entering the Upgrade Edition pk
will trigger a request for "a
qualifying disk AND corresponding PK"? Vista Upgrade Edition does not ask
for shiny media. Since you have to run the Upgrade Edition setup on the
running legacy OS you are already on the disk. The hard disk partition you
are about to upgrade to Vista.

Colin:

I am suggesting a way that this COULD have been done, without forcing
the user to have the qualifying OS installed.

I just cannot believe that MS could not have come up with a better
solution than requiring that the qualifying OS be installed on the machine.

As it is, anyone who has the technical savvy to successfully install an
upgrade version of Vista will certainly have the savvy to know that
he/she would be better off with a full version.

David Wilkinson

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I see. Sure, they could. But...

The legacy cd doesn't mean anything. A copy of a Windows cd is
indistinguishible from the original so all the media means is that you at
least have a copy. It doesn't even prove you own it. The pk is not on the
cd, so typing in the pk for the legacy cd doesn't add anything since you had
to have a correct pk to have installed the legacy OS in the first place.
Why bother repeating it now?

Where I see the problem is that there are a lot of computers with Windows
preinstalled and for which the owners have no Windows cd. The major system
builders have long been shipping Windows preinstalled with only a recovery
partition, or recovery cd's with only a Ghost image of the hdd as it was set
up at the factory. There simply is no Windows cd. Most who could have
ordered a cd for a fee didn't.

My wife's Compaq laptop came with an OEM Windows cd but it a Compaq BIOS
locked cd. Since it cannot be used to install Windows on any computer
without the correct BIOS chip, there is no need to enter any pk and it is
preactivated. I did a complete restoration a few weeks ago and that's when
I noticed that Windows installed normally without my entering a pk.

These kinds of preinstalled Windows far outnumber the retail editions. They
are the norm. It looks to me like the methods MS is now using for the
Upgrade Editions more closely resembles where the majority of users are
rather than those of us who always like to be prepared for anything.