Activaton of a upgrade using a clean install

2 views
Skip to first unread message

doubledragon5

unread,
May 20, 2007, 9:13:00 PM5/20/07
to
I purchased Home Premium upgrade, because the store I purchased it from ran
out of the full version.. Because I'm not ready to boot XP I decided to do a
clean install of Vista on my second harddrive.. Put when I went to activate
it it said something like the license is for upgrade not a clean install..
Why has microsoft did away with the ability to do a clean install with the
upgrade version and won't let you activate it..

Rick Rogers

unread,
May 20, 2007, 9:47:33 PM5/20/07
to
Because it was abused by too many and not used for the intended purpose: To
upgrade an existing installation. Apparently Microsoft felt that you should
use a full version for a clean install to a formatted drive. The upgrade
version will, by the way, do a clean install using the custom option, but it
still needs to start from within a qualifying OS and does wipe out the
existing one.

You can, by the way, do a clean install with an upgrade disk by installing
twice. The first time don't use the Product Key, then restart from within
the completed installation and use the key the second time. Whether you do
this or install a qualifying OS first, you still have to do two
installation.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"doubledragon5" <double...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:35898505-63A4-42C3...@microsoft.com...

doubledragon5

unread,
May 20, 2007, 9:59:00 PM5/20/07
to
Thanks rick, but I tried that option of installing it a second time and it
did not good.. When i tried to install on the same drive "d" inserted the key
and it said i need to start from within an exsisting copy or something like
that... Could this be because it recognizes my "c" drive with xp all ready on
it...

Rick Rogers

unread,
May 20, 2007, 10:14:22 PM5/20/07
to
Hi,

You *have* to start from within a qualifying OS the second time. If you are
on the first install, do not enter the Product Key after booting the DVD,
just click next and choose the appropriate version.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"doubledragon5" <double...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:142D61A7-C368-4BB0...@microsoft.com...

doubledragon5

unread,
May 20, 2007, 10:36:00 PM5/20/07
to
Ok I understand thanks...

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 21, 2007, 11:18:18 AM5/21/07
to
"doubledragon5" <double...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:35898505-63A4-42C3...@microsoft.com...

Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license
and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.

I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you agree to
abide by when you install the product.


--

Mike Brannigan

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 21, 2007, 12:07:55 PM5/21/07
to
"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:FD0655E0-E8DA-40C0...@microsoft.com...

> Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
> upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
> which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
> licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license
> and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
> So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
> another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.
>
> I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you agree
> to abide by when you install the product.

Where does it say that? I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble
setting up my XP system to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any
problems. Of course I do not run both at the same time. I don't see why
Microsoft would object to this, since the two are not in use at the same
time.


Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 21, 2007, 12:39:42 PM5/21/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%23NyezI8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> news:FD0655E0-E8DA-40C0...@microsoft.com...
>
>> Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
>> upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
>> which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
>> licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license
>> and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
>> So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
>> another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.
>>
>> I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you agree
>> to abide by when you install the product.
>
> Where does it say that?

In your end user license agreement

> I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble setting up my XP system
> to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any problems. Of course
> I do not run both at the same time. I don't see why Microsoft would
> object to this, since the two are not in use at the same time.

You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create a
dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying license.
Think of it like trading in your car.
The new vehicle is cheaper as you are giving up the old.
You do not get to keep the one you are using to off set the price of the
new.
It is the same with the upgrade licensing - the price is lower as you are
giving up the right to use the older version as its license becomes part of
the new one.

Just because the system does not prevent you doing this (HOWEVER this is why
the upgrades are supposed to be run form inside the qualifying OS and
replace it) - does not mean that you are not in violation of the licensing
terms.

Read your End User License Agreement.

For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade
13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After
you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to get
the lower pricing.
--

Mike Brannigan
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%23NyezI8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

Bill Yanaire

unread,
May 21, 2007, 3:49:14 PM5/21/07
to
That is true, but if he doesn't tell anyone.... :-)


"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message

news:AAEBE027-D5BD-4317...@microsoft.com...

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 21, 2007, 4:28:29 PM5/21/07
to
"Bill Yanaire" <bi...@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:%23ksAdE%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> That is true, but if he doesn't tell anyone.... :-)
>

Then he is a thief - guilty of software piracy/theft

(I know you put a smiley on your comment but software piracy and theft are
not really that funny, as we the legitimate users end up paying for it in
many ways)
--

Mike Brannigan
"Bill Yanaire" <bi...@yanaire.com> wrote in message
news:%23ksAdE%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 21, 2007, 9:12:24 PM5/21/07
to
>>> Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
>>> upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
>>> which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
>>> licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista
>>> license and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
...

>> I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble setting up my XP
>> system to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any problems. Of
>> course I do not run both at the same time. I don't see why Microsoft
>> would object to this, since the two are not in use at the same time.
...

> You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create
> a dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying
> license.
...

> For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade
> 13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
> software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
> takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from.
> After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.
>
> So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
> upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to
> get the lower pricing.

Hmmm... During the beta phase they encouraged us to set up dual-boot systems
like that. The installation procedure made it easy for me to do the same
thing the same way when using the commercially released version of Vista.
Somehow I think Microsoft might have a hard time enforcing this provision of
the license, if they actually intended it to have this consequence. Many
software licenses have just the opposite provision -- a "downgrade clause"
which says that if you have licensed the current version, you can also use
earlier versions (not at the same time).

Legal documents are not computer programs -- you have to ask not merely what
it says, but what was actually intended and what a judge would enforce.
From Microsoft we have two communications: (1) a passage of boilerplate
language in the EULA, almost certainly copied from other EULAs; (2) the
menus, behavior, etc. of the install program. The two have to be understood
together as an expression of Microsoft's intent.

I would appreciate clarification of this situation by Microsoft.


Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 21, 2007, 9:21:20 PM5/21/07
to

"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:usbNZa%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> "Bill Yanaire" <bi...@yanaire.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ksAdE%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> That is true, but if he doesn't tell anyone.... :-)
>>
>
> Then he is a thief - guilty of software piracy/theft

There is no willful theft or piracy here. I am a conscientious user who
bought a Microsoft product, I installed it according to instructions, it
performed numerous checks which I thought were sufficient to ensure the
legitimacy of the license, it was validated online, and it works.

In any case the amount of money I owe Microsoft appears to be negative,
because I could have gotten the System Builder Vista license more cheaply
than the Upgrade (though I didn't know it at the time). In that case I will
be glad to let them convert the one into the other and refund me the
difference.

As I have said, the sum total of information I have received from Microsoft
about this is contradictory, and I am reluctant to let one paragraph in the
EULA override all other indications of Microsoft's intent without further
indication that that is what they actually mean.

You are the first person ever to call me a thief publicly, I think. How
much experience do you have with legal issues? It is very common for laws
and contracts to be unclear.

Does Microsoft provide a way for us to ask them questions about licenses by
e-mail and get a definitive answer? Does anyone who can speak for Microsoft
monitor this newsgroup?


Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 21, 2007, 9:29:28 PM5/21/07
to
Actually, I am in the clear because I own another XP Pro license that is not
in use. So if I've lost one XP license, I'm still not using more than I
own.

But I would appreciate a clarification of Microsoft's intent. On this and a
couple of other points, the EULA does not seem to square with the setup
routines.


Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 21, 2007, 10:52:54 PM5/21/07
to
See below...

"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message

news:AAEBE027-D5BD-4317...@microsoft.com...


> "Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
> news:%23NyezI8...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
>> news:FD0655E0-E8DA-40C0...@microsoft.com...
>>
>>> Point of Note : irrespective of what you are being told about how to do
>>> upgrades and clean install the fact is you purchased an UPGRADE edition
>>> which means you MAY NOT install it side by side with XP. You are NOT
>>> licensed to run both. Your XP license becomes part of your Vista
>>> license and is no longer valid for use anywhere.
>>> So if you want a side by side you must purchase a full Vista license or
>>> another XP licenses if you wish to use the upgrade Vista you bought.
>>>
>>> I realize this seems harsh but you should adhere to the license you
>>> agree to abide by when you install the product.
>>
>> Where does it say that?
>
> In your end user license agreement
>
>> I bought Vista Ultimate Upgrade and had no trouble setting up my XP
>> system to dual-boot XP and Vista. It activated without any problems. Of

>> course I do not run both at the same time...


>
> You are in breach of the licensing of your upgrade if you use it to create
> a dual boot system with the XP that you are using is the qualifying
> license.

> For example from the Ultimate Edition Upgrade


> 13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the
> software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement
> takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from.
> After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.
>
> So once you use this you no longer have the license to use the one you are
> upgrading from - in this case he copy of XP on the machine being used to
> get the lower pricing.

THE ANSWER, in my case (and probably also the reason the installation went
so smoothly) is that I was upgrading a dual-boot system that was XP and
Vista Ultimate RC1. So Vista Ultimate (commercial release) replaced the RC1
license, not the XP license. According to Microsoft, this is explicitly
permitted:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/04/24/windows-vista-beta-2-rc1-and-rc2-set-to-expire.aspx

We are explicitly allowed to use an upgrade license to convert an RC1
installation to the commercially released version of Vista Ultimate.

So the $15, or whatever, for RC1 was money extremely well spent!

I think all of this was in the back of my mind when I made the purchase, but
I didn't remember all the details -- only that I was going to install it a
particular way, and did.


Rock

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:00:43 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" wrote

<snip>

> THE ANSWER, in my case (and probably also the reason the installation went
> so smoothly) is that I was upgrading a dual-boot system that was XP and
> Vista Ultimate RC1. So Vista Ultimate (commercial release) replaced the
> RC1 license, not the XP license. According to Microsoft, this is
> explicitly permitted:
>
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/04/24/windows-vista-beta-2-rc1-and-rc2-set-to-expire.aspx
>
> We are explicitly allowed to use an upgrade license to convert an RC1
> installation to the commercially released version of Vista Ultimate.
>
> So the $15, or whatever, for RC1 was money extremely well spent!
>
> I think all of this was in the back of my mind when I made the purchase,
> but I didn't remember all the details -- only that I was going to install
> it a particular way, and did.

There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:10:54 AM5/22/07
to
> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
> would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
> surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
> certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.

That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.

Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended to
convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you can't
take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
(especially with application software) for people to want to have older and
newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to check
compatibility.

Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.


...winston

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:31:47 AM5/22/07
to
The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade that the prior o/s license was consumed.

Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your case) your XP license should remain valid for the current machine(if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail version after removal from the current machine and installed on another.
...winston

"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message news:uYajzcCn...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
:> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's

:
:

Rock

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:36:12 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" wrote

The upgrade license restriction is that you cannot have the qualifying OS
and the upgrade license installed at the same time. The most common example
is using an upgrade version of Vista to upgrade XP. After the upgrade you
cannot have both Vista and XP installed. If you want both you need to use a
full version of Vista or have two licenses for XP, one for the upgrade and
one to install in the dual boot or separately.

In your case since the qualifying OS is RC1, then you can't have both the
retail upgrade of Vista installed and RC1 at the same time.

This is the same as it was with the upgrade to XP.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:42:23 AM5/22/07
to
>"...winston" <merlin@druid9#.com> wrote in message
>news:%23GI4XoC...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade
>that the prior o/s license was consumed.

Did someone at Microsoft tell you this or are you just guessing?
Fundamentally, the reason I think they fumbled, in wording this particular
passage, is that I can't see why they would want to prohibit dual-booting.
I can certainly understand that they would want people to understand that
the prior license is combined with the upgrade, i.e., you can't take the
prior version and install it somewhere separate.

If you look at the history of the Vista EULA, there have already been
revisions and corrections; I expect more.

> Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your
> case) your XP license should remain

> valid for the current machine (if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail

> version after removal from the current
> machine and installed on another.
> ...winston

That's what I found out.

...winston

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:55:43 AM5/22/07
to
It does not prohibit dual-booting when qualified o/s' are in one's legal possession.
If you wish to challenge it, you'll have to find a lawyer with less knowledge than the majority of people in this forum.
Let us know when you find the grail.

..winston


"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message news:%23X9JauC...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
: >"...winston" <merlin@druid9#.com> wrote in message

::
:
:

Rock

unread,
May 22, 2007, 12:57:19 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" wrote

> >"...winston" <merlin@druid9#.com> wrote in message
> >news:%23GI4XoC...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>The language used was added to ensure understanding when using an upgrade
>>that the prior o/s license was consumed.
>
> Did someone at Microsoft tell you this or are you just guessing?
> Fundamentally, the reason I think they fumbled, in wording this particular
> passage, is that I can't see why they would want to prohibit dual-booting.
> I can certainly understand that they would want people to understand that
> the prior license is combined with the upgrade, i.e., you can't take the
> prior version and install it somewhere separate.
>
> If you look at the history of the Vista EULA, there have already been
> revisions and corrections; I expect more.
>
>> Since Msft allows upgrade versions of Vista to use the prior RC1(in your
>> case) your XP license should remain
>> valid for the current machine (if retail or OEM) and valid if a retail
>> version after removal from the current
>> machine and installed on another.
>> ...winston

The Vista upgrade license does not allow for dual booting of the qualifying
OS and the Vista upgrade. It's was the same as for the XP upgrade. MS
considers the number of users who dual boot to be small.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 1:24:08 AM5/22/07
to
> The Vista upgrade license does not allow for dual booting of the
> qualifying OS and the Vista upgrade. It's was the same as for the XP
> upgrade. MS considers the number of users who dual boot to be small.

Why do they object to dual-booting an upgraded system?


Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 1:23:00 AM5/22/07
to
"Rock" <Ro...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:%232Xz6qC...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> The upgrade license restriction is that you cannot have the qualifying OS

> and the upgrade license installed at the same time. ...

> This is the same as it was with the upgrade to XP.

Ah, I hadn't remembered that detail of the 2000-to-XP upgrade, probably
because there is much less difference between the two (especially when you
think of XP before service packs), hence little need for a dual-boot
arrangement.


Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 1:34:49 AM5/22/07
to
"...winston" <merlin@druid9#.com> wrote in message
news:O0Lvw1Cn...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

It does not prohibit dual-booting when qualified o/s' are in one's legal
possession.
If you wish to challenge it, you'll have to find a lawyer with less
knowledge than the majority of people in this forum.
Let us know when you find the grail.

..winston


No, I don't want to overturn it in court, I want to get more clarification
from Microsoft as to what they felt they were accomplishing. They have had
a good bit of dialogue with customers and have already made modifications to
the EULA in response to this dialogue. Companies *do* make mistakes
formulating license agreements.

This particular provision of the EULA (that an upgrade license doesn't allow
dual-booting the old and new OSes on the same machine) took me by surprise,
so if it is indeed what they intended, maybe they need to publicize it more.
It is not a limitation that I would have expected in an upgrade EULA. Many
upgrade EULAs have just the opposite, a "downgrade privilege" as I have
already mentioned.

Admittedly, I have only 34 years of experience developing software, and have
only been a regular writer for 3 major computer magazines and 4 book
publishers, and have only been on the Internet since 1979, so by the
standards of this newsgroup, I may be a clueless newbie, but I am at least a
specimen of a customer.


Rock

unread,
May 22, 2007, 2:06:35 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" wrote

There is no objection to dual booting, but the XP in the dual boot cannot be
the one used as the basis for the upgrade. The XP license is subsumed into
the Vista license. It becomes, in essence, a single license. That's one
reason why the upgrade cost is less.

As I said before you can dual boot XP with a full version of Vista, or have
two XP licenses.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 3:19:11 AM5/22/07
to
Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:e9y5D%23AnHH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
> "Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
> news:usbNZa%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> "Bill Yanaire" <bi...@yanaire.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23ksAdE%23mHH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> That is true, but if he doesn't tell anyone.... :-)
>>>
>>
>> Then he is a thief - guilty of software piracy/theft
>
> There is no willful theft or piracy here. I am a conscientious user who
> bought a Microsoft product, I installed it according to instructions, it
> performed numerous checks which I thought were sufficient to ensure the
> legitimacy of the license, it was validated online, and it works.
>

No the setup routines are not designed to entirely enforce the EULA. The
fact you are press the "I agree" button is a requirement of the setup
process and thus here is an expectation that you as the end user are willing
to be bound by he EULA. It is not appropriate to expect a setup routine to
enforce every aspect of the EULA or that the product itself (or related
services such as WPA or WGA) will be able to enforce every aspects of a
Licensing agreement . This is where you as a person are expected to follow
the "contract" you agree to participate in by stating your acceptance of the
EULA during the setup process.

> In any case the amount of money I owe Microsoft appears to be negative,
> because I could have gotten the System Builder Vista license more cheaply
> than the Upgrade (though I didn't know it at the time). In that case I
> will be glad to let them convert the one into the other and refund me the
> difference.
>
> As I have said, the sum total of information I have received from
> Microsoft about this is contradictory, and I am reluctant to let one
> paragraph in the EULA override all other indications of Microsoft's intent
> without further indication that that is what they actually mean.
>

Where do you see a contradiction in the licensing terms of the product ? An
upgrade has never allowed you to continue using the license you use as a
qualifying product (under its licensing terms). The fact that physically
you may be able to is not relevant.

> You are the first person ever to call me a thief publicly, I think.

I did not call you a thief - my response was to the previous poster about
anyone who deliberately tries to evade their requirements under the terms of
the software license.

> How much experience do you have with legal issues?

I have extensive experience with Microsoft licensing.

> It is very common for laws and contracts to be unclear.
>

If you are unclear about the terms of a contract or other agreement that you
are about to agree to be bound by then you should seek professional advice
from an appropriate source. (not an online newsgroup)

> Does Microsoft provide a way for us to ask them questions about licenses
> by e-mail and get a definitive answer?

See http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/?ws=mscom there is a link about
licensing programs - this will take you to a country specific page where
there is usually link for "Contact US" (on the side bar) that will give you
details of e-mail or phone numbers to speak to the licensing team.
You can also contact your large account reseller (if you are a LAR customer
as they have staff trained by Microsoft in licensing specifics and have
access to the internal teams to clarify questions etc. ) - this is not open
to general public enquires,

> Does anyone who can speak for Microsoft monitor this newsgroup?
>

This is a peer to peer support newsgroup and questions that you require a
direct official response from Microsoft from should be direct to Microsoft
by the appropriate channels.


--

Mike Brannigan
"

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 3:24:52 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:OUFXmCBn...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Actually, I am in the clear because I own another XP Pro license that is
> not in use. So if I've lost one XP license, I'm still not using more than
> I own.
>

Sounds fine - then you are now adhering to the EULA

> But I would appreciate a clarification of Microsoft's intent.

There is no intent here - the EULA is very clear on this. If you are in
doubt then you should seek professional advice.
The intention of the upgrade is to allow owners of previous version to
upgrade to the new version at a lower cost by absorbing the cost previously
paid and the license into he new upgraded product - this allows upgrade
licenses to be sold for less then the retail product. It does not allow for
the continued use of the license that is used as qualifying license for the
upgrade - it has always been this way with Windows upgrade licensing. The
enforcement of this loss of the previous license is via the wording of the
EULA that you agree to be bound by during the install process.

> On this and a couple of other points, the EULA does not seem to square
> with the setup routines.
>

As I stated in my last answer the setup routine is not required or designed
to enforce the EULA - you agree to be bound by it. section 13 applies and
you should follow it. It is quite clear in it's statement and meaning.


--

Mike Brannigan

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 3:37:59 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:uYajzcCn...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> There was no information during the beta to indicate that any of the RC's
>> would be a qualifying OS for the use of an upgrade license. This was a
>> surprise when MS made the announcement recently that it was, which is
>> certainly good news for all the folks in the CPP who tested Vista.
>
> That's interesting. Although I now can't track it down, I'm fairly sure I
> knew about the upgrade provision quite a while back, although I didn't
> realize it would save me so much money. Or perhaps my memory distorted it
> in a way that happened to match the change Microsoft actually made.
>

The ability to upgrade to the final builds from RC's was well known the
offer to use lower cost product to do this was a late additional to the
program.

> Incidentally, I'm going to query them about paragraph 13 of the EULA (when
> you upgrade you lose the right to use the original software). I suspect
> that's not exactly what they intended to say. I think what they intended
> to convey was that an upgrade is not a separate license; that is, you
> can't take the original software away and install it somewhere else after
> installing the upgrade on your computer. But it must be fairly common
> (especially with application software) for people to want to have older
> and newer versions installed side by side on the same machine in order to
> check compatibility.
>

No this is exactly what is inteded - you may not contiune to use the
qualifying licese once you use the upgarde.

It is there in the XP EULA also

9. UPGRADES. To use Software identified as an upgrade, you
must first be licensed for the software identified by
Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading,
you may no longer use the software that formed the basis
for your upgrade eligibility.

The same in Windows2000

2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you
must first be licensed for the product identified by
Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you
may no longer use the product that formed the basis for your
upgrade eligibility.

I could go on...

It has always been this way.
If you want 2 versions of window on your PC then you pay for 2 full
versions.

> Microsoft has been known to revise EULAs in response to dissent.
>

This upgrade provision has been this way for a number of years and product
versions.

--

Mike Brannigan

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 3:41:53 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:OYuFtLDn...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

The downgrade rights available under Windows Vista you mention also DO NOT
allow you to dual boot using one license - you are required to downgrade to
the previous version and use that until you are ready to step up back to the
original one. You may not run 2 different version under the same license.
(Note: downgrade rights are not available on all products SKUs)

--

Mike Brannigan

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 3:43:55 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%236uHvFD...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

Because effectively you have not paid the price to use both operating
systems
Your upgrade price was low as it assume hat you were replacing the old OS
with the new so you get a discount by taking into account the previous
payment.
If you want to run two operating systems then you need to pay for both
outright; that is 2 full licenses.
--

Mike Brannigan

mikeyhsd

unread,
May 22, 2007, 9:21:56 AM5/22/07
to
there is a well known, frequently mentioned technique to enable using update disks to do a clean install.
 
the mvp who think they are microsoft lawyer with the appropriate legal degrees will not tell you about this intentionally.
 
if microsoft wished to block this out changes would have been made for the install process to insure you provided PROOF of upgrading.
 
 
take a read.
 
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message news:ecV3NxBn...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 9:50:03 AM5/22/07
to

The method of using an upgrade DVD to do a clean install has no relevance to
this discussion.
The issue being discussed is the erroneous assumption that there is the
right to continue using an OS license used to qualify for an upgrade post
deployment of the upgrade OS.
There is no reason why the setup routine should do anymore then it already
does as there is a responsibility on your to honor your agreement to abide
by the EULA that you press that you accept during the setup process.

Also there are no MVPs currently involved in this discussion (at the time of
this post) so I suggest you look a little ore closely at the thread try and
stick to the topic or refrain from posting.

--

Mike Brannigan


"mikeyhsd" <mike...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Oy215QHn...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:34:35 AM5/22/07
to
Mike, I should explain that I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying:

(1) As written, the EULA does not allow dual-booting (the upgraded and
un-upgraded versions) from an upgrade license;

(2) People have an obligation to follow the EULA whether or not the software
actually requires them to. (It looks like most or all releases of Vista
have the same install procedure, which allows some things other than what
the particular EULA actually permits. These might be useful for rescuing
situations where the license is valid but the software can't easily verify
it; but they do not warrant violating the EULA.)

The question I was speculating about is whether Microsoft actually intended
for the EULA to work this way, since many manufacturers' upgrade EULAs work
quite differently, and there have already been other updates to the Vista
EULA to permit things that were originally prohibited. I will be contacting
Microsoft to see if they've had anything further to say about it.

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:39:11 AM5/22/07
to
> The question I was speculating about is whether Microsoft actually
> intended for the EULA to work this way, since many manufacturers' upgrade
> EULAs work quite differently, and there have already been other updates to
> the Vista EULA to permit things that were originally prohibited. I will
> be contacting Microsoft to see if they've had anything further to say
> about it.

I should add that assertions from people who don't work for Microsoft or
cite any other sources of information are irrelevant. The quotations that
you posted from other EULAs, however, are useful.


Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 10:50:58 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:%23FfUU5H...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Mike, I should explain that I agree wholeheartedly with what you are
> saying:
>
> (1) As written, the EULA does not allow dual-booting (the upgraded and
> un-upgraded versions) from an upgrade license;
>

The EULA only forbids the use of the license used to qualify for the upgrade
to a later OS once you deploy that OS. Dual booting is up to you but the
operating systems you use both must be properly licensed (so the use of an
original and upgrade is not permitted in your case).

> (2) People have an obligation to follow the EULA whether or not the
> software actually requires them to. (It looks like most or all releases
> of Vista have the same install procedure, which allows some things other
> than what the particular EULA actually permits. These might be useful for
> rescuing situations where the license is valid but the software can't
> easily verify it; but they do not warrant violating the EULA.)
>

Absolutely correct - there is always 2 parts to this the physical software
processes and the EULA to abide by.

> The question I was speculating about is whether Microsoft actually
> intended for the EULA to work this way, since many manufacturers' upgrade
> EULAs work quite differently, and there have already been other updates to
> the Vista EULA to permit things that were originally prohibited. I will
> be contacting Microsoft to see if they've had anything further to say
> about it.
>

With my background (feel free to Google for me) I will state that the
upgrade sections for the operating systems EULAs are exactly as intended as
it has been this way for a great number of years (in excess of a decade).
Upgrade licenses have always subsumed the previous license and thus it is no
longer available for valid use.
I'm not sure why you seem to be having such an issue with a section of EULA
over 10 years old that is pretty well understood and common throughout the
industry (and other Microsoft product and families) where you get a discount
to upgrade and that upgrade replaces you right to use the previous version
elsewhere (same machine or otherwise is not a concern).

--

Mike Brannigan

>

Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 11:10:42 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:O1U047Hn...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

As this is a peer to peer support newsgroup you are unlikely to get any
further response on this matter, as final legal statements would not be made
in such arenas.

By all means contact a licensing rep in your local subsidiary or Microsoft
Legal and Corporate Affairs (all the addresses are on the website)
The EULA and this policy has remained pretty much "as is" with regard to
upgrades and the use of the license used to allow the upgrade

So lets go back some more


Windows NT 4.0 EULA

3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as
an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a
product identified by Microsoft as being eligible
for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces
and/or supplements the product that formed the basis
for your eligibility for the upgrade, and following
the upgrade you may use the resulting SOFTWARE PRODUCT
only in accordance with the terms of this EULA.

and further ...

The Windows95 EULA

3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade from another product,
whether from Microsoft or another supplier, you may use or transfer the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT only in conjunction with that upgraded product, unless you
destroy the upgraded product. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a
Microsoft product, you now may use that upgraded product only in accordance
with this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a component of a
package of software programs that you licensed as a single product, the
SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of that single
product package and may not be separated for use on more than one computer.


etc etc

The EULA really does not need any further clarification - if you use a
license to qualify for an upgrade then that license is no longer valid for
use.
--
Mike Brannigan

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 11:37:39 AM5/22/07
to
> So lets go back some more
>
>
> Windows NT 4.0 EULA
>
> 3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as
> an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a
> product identified by Microsoft as being eligible
> for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
> A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces
> and/or supplements the product that formed the basis
> for your eligibility for the upgrade, and following
> the upgrade you may use the resulting SOFTWARE PRODUCT
> only in accordance with the terms of this EULA.


Ah. That's far enough back to shed some light on the history of it. It
looks like that version does not forbid you to continue using the older
version as long as you treat the old and new versions as a single license
(i.e., not separable).

>
> and further ...
>
> The Windows95 EULA
>
> 3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade from another product,
> whether from Microsoft or another supplier, you may use or transfer the
> SOFTWARE PRODUCT only in conjunction with that upgraded product, unless
> you destroy the upgraded product. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of
> a Microsoft product, you now may use that upgraded product only in
> accordance with this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a
> component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single
> product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of
> that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than
> one computer.

That is even vaguer about prohibiting continued use. What it definitely
asserts is that the upgrade and the original product together form a single
license (are not separable).


Interesting data points.


Mike Brannigan

unread,
May 22, 2007, 11:58:53 AM5/22/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:OoQqjcIn...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> So lets go back some more
>>
>>
>> Windows NT 4.0 EULA
>>
>> 3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is labeled as
>> an upgrade, you must be properly licensed to use a
>> product identified by Microsoft as being eligible
>> for the upgrade in order to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
>> A SOFTWARE PRODUCT labeled as an upgrade replaces
>> and/or supplements the product that formed the basis
>> for your eligibility for the upgrade, and following
>> the upgrade you may use the resulting SOFTWARE PRODUCT
>> only in accordance with the terms of this EULA.
>
>
> Ah. That's far enough back to shed some light on the history of it. It
> looks like that version does not forbid you to continue using the older
> version as long as you treat the old and new versions as a single license
> (i.e., not separable).
>

No the upgrade REPLACES the the product that formed the basis for the
upgrade so you do not get to continue to use it.
The "supplement" bits are with reference to other parts of the EULA that I
deleted to aid clarity that refer to an upgrade to a sub component of a
larger product.

>>
>> and further ...
>>
>> The Windows95 EULA
>>
>> 3. UPGRADES. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade from another product,
>> whether from Microsoft or another supplier, you may use or transfer the
>> SOFTWARE PRODUCT only in conjunction with that upgraded product, unless
>> you destroy the upgraded product. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade
>> of a Microsoft product, you now may use that upgraded product only in
>> accordance with this EULA. If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade of a
>> component of a package of software programs that you licensed as a single
>> product, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT may be used and transferred only as part of
>> that single product package and may not be separated for use on more than
>> one computer.
>
> That is even vaguer about prohibiting continued use. What it definitely
> asserts is that the upgrade and the original product together form a
> single license (are not separable).
>
>

Not vague at all.
YES - the upgrade and the previous one become ONE license - so you can only
use ONE of the product either the original or the one you are upgrading too.
One license - one product.

> Interesting data points.
>
>

--

Mike Brannigan

Michael A. Covington

unread,
May 22, 2007, 4:21:37 PM5/22/07
to

"Mike Brannigan" <Mike.Brannigan@localhost> wrote in message
news:FB2FBB79-4FDE-4040-B46B-

> Not vague at all.
> YES - the upgrade and the previous one become ONE license - so you can
> only use ONE of the product either the original or the one you are
> upgrading too.
> One license - one product.

And I would argue that a single computer, with both versions installed but
not usable at the same time, would not violate this. The user is just
exercising his right to take one out of use and use the other.

Anyhow, I've submitted a question to Microsoft through my employer. We are
a fair-sized customer (maybe 10,000 Windows and Office licenses) so they'll
probably answer.


mikeyhsd

unread,
May 22, 2007, 6:43:51 PM5/22/07
to
exactly, using the upgrade to do a clean install gets rid of the problem of the os license problem.
 

...winston

unread,
May 22, 2007, 7:43:33 PM5/22/07
to
Reasoning with someone reading between the lines is futile.
No mention of dual booting is present or inferred only that a valid license is required.
You've a valid license for XP(still in use), a valid install of RC1 to use and replace per Msft's approval to install an upgrade version of Vista(now in use)....what more clarification is necessary ?

Since you've also mentioned a line about a fairly sizeable installed Window base company...it would seem that volume licensing would be in play(if not, your company needs a new IT manager soon). Volume licensing contractual requirements can be modified with supplements and/or addendums, or new contracts to modify or even limit the EULA.

...winston


"Michael A. Covington" <lo...@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message news:%23FfUU5H...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
: Mike, I should explain that I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying:

:
:
:

Rock

unread,
May 23, 2007, 12:38:53 AM5/23/07
to
"Michael A. Covington" wrote >
> "Mike Brannigan" wrote in message

>> Not vague at all.
>> YES - the upgrade and the previous one become ONE license - so you can
>> only use ONE of the product either the original or the one you are
>> upgrading too.
>> One license - one product.
>
> And I would argue that a single computer, with both versions installed but
> not usable at the same time, would not violate this. The user is just
> exercising his right to take one out of use and use the other.
>
> Anyhow, I've submitted a question to Microsoft through my employer. We
> are a fair-sized customer (maybe 10,000 Windows and Office licenses) so
> they'll probably answer.

The license agreement specifically mentions installation. It doesn't matter
that you can't run both at the same time, both can't be installed at the
same time.

--
Rock [MS-MVP User/Shell]

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages