Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Windows Operating Systems Software

Install Vista Upgrade Without Preexisting XP 196

Johannes K. writes "It has previously been claimed that to install Windows Vista from an upgrade DVD requires having Windows XP installed on your computer. DailyTech reports on a workaround: no previous version of Windows is required at all." Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Install Vista Upgrade Without Preexisting XP

Comments Filter:
  • by Sancho ( 17056 ) * on Thursday February 01, 2007 @10:56AM (#17842972) Homepage
    I've seen many blogs that proclaim that XP keys are invalidated after upgrading with Vista. They always link to a discussion of the EULA, which claims that the license is invalidated.

    Is there any evidence whatsoever that Microsoft will invalidate XP keys for their WGA check (because they'll certainly still work to install the media) if you upgrade that installation of XP to Vista? Has anyone actually tried it?

    Certainly, Microsoft could probably link the two installations, if you do an actual upgrade. If they can do that, what do you think they'll do to 'upgrade' copies that were installed using the Vista->Vista trick? Maybe they'll wait awhile, then decide that these copies are 'pirate' installations, and lock you out of upgrades (possibly drop you down to degraded mode) until you pay a fee to convert your installation to a Full install.
  • by james_bray ( 188143 ) * on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:02AM (#17843074) Homepage
    God I hate when submitters force you to read an entire article, so heres the important bit:

    1. Boot with the Windows Vista Upgrade DVD.
    2. Click "Install Now."
    3. Do not enter a Product Key When prompted.
    4. When prompted, select the Vista product edition that you do have.
    6. Install Vista normally.
    7. Once the install is complete, restart the DVD-based Setup from within Windows Vista. Perform an in-place upgrade. 8. Enter your Product Key when prompted.
  • by robosmurf ( 33876 ) * on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:09AM (#17843178)
    I've still not managed to get a clear answer to whether the EULA for Vista means you can never re-install it.

    The problem is that the upgrade version invalidates the agreement for XP, which means you are not allowed to re-install XP, which is needed to re-install Vista...

    I suppose this work-around does allow you to re-install Vista, but they may well remove this in the future.

    I submitted a support request to Microsoft about this a few days ago, but they haven't responded.
  • That's the plan (Score:3, Informative)

    by Nasarius ( 593729 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:16AM (#17843282)
    After years of bouncing back and forth, I've finally decided to move everything over to Linux and ext2 or reiserfs partitions, even though I do Windows development professionally. With a Core 2 Duo processor, I can run XP in a VM fast enough for all my needs. KDE4 should be superior to Vista in every way once it's released this year. I'll probably even throw the KDE team some money.
  • by IHawkMike ( 564552 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:19AM (#17843318)
    Try this [newegg.com]. Lite-on makes great drives and this DVD burner is only $28.99. You can save a whopping $5 if you don't need to burn.
  • by HxBro ( 98275 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:21AM (#17843384)
    What you need is a copy of legitcontrolcheck.dll from any validated and activated copy of XP on a partition anywhere on your machine, then:

    1.) create \windows\system32\ on any partition you want (even extended partitions)
    2.) copy a validated 'legitcontrolcheck.dll file into the directory.
    3.) you might need ntdetect.com and ntldr in the root, (try without)

    (I've not tested this)
  • Re:What a solution. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Ruprecht the Monkeyb ( 680597 ) * on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:33AM (#17843568)
    Much faster. Surprisingly so. I don't know what team has been writing the installers for MS lately, but they've been doing a damn good job. The Office 2007, SQL 2005 and now the Vista installs have been much improved.

    I did a re-install on Vista the other night (not because I had to, but because I wanted to test differences between 64 and 32 bit). I slicked the partition, and started the re-install. I looked over at the screen a few minutes later, and it had progressed so far I wondered for a second if I'd forgotten to wipe the partition and it wasn't really re-copying all the files. So far, it's been under a half-hour from first boot to working system.

    Note, however, that this is installing from DVD. I don't know if the performance/process is different installing off of CD.
  • Slashdot FUD (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:44AM (#17843744)
    Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?

    How about, "invalid question since Vista doesn't do that?". Please stop trying to be the new digg and spreading misinformation.

  • by markild ( 862998 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @11:47AM (#17843778)

    By the way, does Vista dump if you change your motherboard like XP does because of the IDE drivers only being changeable during an install?
    Earlier today I read on a Norwegian tech site that vista is counting points for different hardware changes, and then, when it reaches 25, you will be booted and need to reactivate. This will be possible on the full retail version, but not the OEM version. (Dunno about upgrade)

    Translation may be a bit off, didn't understand a few of the details

    • CD-ROM/CD-RW/DVD-ROM (1 point)
    • IDE adapter (3 point)
    • Physical operating system-hard disk - new hard disk S/N (11 points)
    • Graphics card (1 point)
    • SCSI adapter (2 points)
    • Sound card (2 points)
    • NIC - new MAC address (2 points)
    • Processor - CPU (3 points)
    • RAM (0->512MB, 512MB->1GB, 2GB->4GB, etc) (1 point)
    • BIOS (bios ID) (not bios upgrade) (9 points)
    For those of you interested (or Norwegian), the blog article is here [msdn.com]
  • by RxScram ( 948658 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:26PM (#17844542)
    If you RTFA, you would see that this loophole actually lets you install the upgrade version with no previous version at all. Essentially, it's a mistake on Microsoft's part that allows the upgrade version to consider the "30 day trial" version of Vista as the previously installed version.

    Is is painful, since you have to install vista twice (once for the trial, then once for the upgrade from the trial), but it does give you a steep discount from the "full" version, without requiring any old version at all.

    How long it is until MS fixes this loophole is anybodies guess, but as of right now, it works.
  • Re:What a solution. (Score:4, Informative)

    by delinear ( 991444 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @12:32PM (#17844690)

    And don't say that doesn't matter if the keys don't get invalidated. If you are going to completely ignore the EULA, why are you not just pirating it in the first place?

    Because ignoring a EULA which hasn't been proven to have any force in law and probably isn't worth the bits it occupies on the disk is a lot different to downloading the entire software without paying for it and installing it without any kind of license? Most licenses have to stand up to a test of reasonableness at the very least before they can have any kind of binding effect - if I have a legitimate copy of XP and install a Vista upgrade, don't like it and go back to XP I'd not have a hard time arguing in court that it was unreasonable for the EULA to prevent me doing this. To say that I have to either accept a blatantly unreasonable EULA or download pirated software and these are my only options is just wrong, the third option is to contest the EULA (and the fourth is to use *nix of course... or is that the first?)

  • by gfxguy ( 98788 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @01:55PM (#17846412)
    OEM license can't be moved to a new machine. Are you planning on any sort of complete upgrade over the next four years (including collectively replacing every component, even if not all at once)?

    Then, according to MS, you're SOL. At some point, with either a completely new system rebuild or enough significant upgrades, your OEM license will be invalidated.

    You could probably call up and beg MS, but they are under no obligation to issue you a new key or reactivate your old one.

    Am I a genius and know all about this stuff? No, it's just what I understand to be the case after reading the comments from from linked article, where they raise the same question.

    On a side note, I just bought XP-Pro. It comes with a free upgrade to Vista. If I can use that upgrade for a different system using this hack, then WOOHOO! A two-fer!
  • Re:What a solution. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:04PM (#17846606) Journal
    Before, the installer installed individual files from the disc which cause among other things pretty bad seek times.

    With Vista, the installer now simply decompress an image file to your hard drive.
    One can read on about WIM here and how to create and manipulate such images yourself: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/aa 905070.aspx [microsoft.com]
    A less technical article here: http://www.apcstart.com/3834/inside_vistas_new_ima ge_based_install [apcstart.com]
  • Re:What a solution. (Score:3, Informative)

    by THESuperShawn ( 764971 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:32PM (#17847202)
    The laptop I am typing on now dual-boots Windows XP AS WELL AS Vista "upgrade" using said Windows XP install as my upgrade permission. While I fully intend on going full Vista and being compliant on this box, I was not ready to risk losing apps that might not be Vista compatible yet.

    My "upgrade" did not invalidate anything. I can still use Windowsupdate.Microsoft.Com on both boxes with WGA.

    FYI...two separate partitions on the same box, booting using a custom boot loader.
  • by Lumpish Scholar ( 17107 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @02:55PM (#17847658) Homepage Journal
    WindowsSecrets.com's latest newsletter also has this information [windowssecrets.com]. "The secret is that the setup program in Vista's upgrade version will accept an installed copy of XP, W2K, or an unactivated copy of Vista itself as evidence of a previous installation." (Emphasis theirs!) They also address the ethics issues.

    Why is this important? Because a clean Vista install is strongly preferred to an in-place upgrade install (munging your existing XP installation so it's now a Vista installation); but Microsoft does not allow this [microsoft.com]: "you cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean installation of Windows Vista". This same Microsoft Knowledge Base article then provides a workaround, the same thing discussed by DailyTech and WindowsSecrets: "Start the installation from a compliant version of Windows, such as Windows Vista, Microsoft Windows XP, or Microsoft Windows 2000. After you have started the installation, you can select Custom at the installation choice screen to perform a clean installation."

    I'm glad for this particular huge security hole, but it makes me wonder how many more they are.
  • by 3choTh1s ( 972379 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @03:43PM (#17848532)
    Just to clarify as per the article. Number 7 should be Once the install is complete, restart the DVD based setup from Vista. Choose "Custom" install so that you can do a clean install.

    Just saying perform a in-place upgrade could lead to misunderstanding and confusion.
  • by treeves ( 963993 ) on Thursday February 01, 2007 @05:59PM (#17850852) Homepage Journal
    . . .and the explicit instructions for how to do it are here: http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070201 [windowssecrets.com]

    I'm not gonna do it since I have legal XP already, and I don't want Vista. But Brian Livingston (of windowssecrets.com) argues that Microsoft put this loophole in intentionally, so it's ethical to do. I have my doubts, but. . .

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...