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..

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 mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - rickrogers.org My thoughts rick-mvp.blogspot.com
"doubledragon5"

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" wrote:

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 mvp.support.microsoft.com/ Windows help - rickrogers.org My thoughts rick-mvp.blogspot.com
"doubledragon5"

Ok I understand thanks...
"Rick Rogers" wrote:

"doubledragon5"

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 Your XP license becomes part of your Vista license and is no longer valid for use anywhere.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

"Mike Brannigan"

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.

"Michael A. Covington"

In your end user license agreement

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"

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

"Bill Yanaire"

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"

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.

"Mike Brannigan"

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?

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.

See below...
"Mike Brannigan"

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:
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.

"Michael A. Covington" wrote
<snip>

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]

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.

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" :> 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. : :

"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]

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.

That's what I found out.
"Michael A. Covington" :> 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. : :

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" : >"...winston" : > : >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. : : : "Michael A. Covington" : ::> 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. :: :: : :

"Michael A. Covington" wrote

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]

"Rock"

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.

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

"...winston" 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.

"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]

Michael A. Covington"

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.

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.

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.

I have extensive experience with Microsoft licensing.

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)

See 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,

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 "

"Michael A. Covington"

Sounds fine - then you are now adhering to the EULA

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.

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

"Michael A. Covington"

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.

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.

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

Mike Brannigan

"Michael A. Covington"

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