Michael;
Finished a few minutes ago.
Repartitioned a drive, installed and activated Windows Vista Ultimate
RC-2 using a never before used key.
Rebooted a few times to verify installation complete.
Then, while at the Desktop inserted Retail Windows Vista Ultimate
Upgrade.
This key had also never been used before.
Installed and activated fine.

The Vista Upgrade was purchased about a week after release removing
the possibility that only later versions can upgrade from a Beta.

There are many possibilities and this is only my guess:
Microsoft did not realize this until recently, possibility after
investigating the workaround for installing an upgrade without a
qualifying OS already installed.
I would have expected Microsoft to release this information at release
if this was intentional.

In other words, I verified an upgrade from Vista Beta works.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:ebadFg7hHHA.2028@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Here's one for you-
>
> The Vista beta keys were allowed to
> be activated on 10 different computers,
> and each beta tester could actually request
> two different keys, or was it three?
> If a user had actually done that, and installed
> Vista beta on all those computers or even just a
> few (even on computers that didn't have a prior Windows OS,
> just the free Vista beta), well, it seems that all
> those computers could be upgraded with the upgrade version.
>
>
>
> -Michael[/color]

No attempt to mislead.
If you see a deception, that is entirely you.
The fact MVPs quickly point the facts proves there is no intent to
deceive.
The FAQ is further proof.
There is no change in tone.
But if you want to find something wrong with anything, not just
Microsoft, you can always see fault, even if as in this case, there is
none to see.

I am not playing "rude games", if you want to, that is your own
problem.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
[url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
[url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]


"xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uV$bX08hHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green]
>> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself
>> official since we are not an official source.[/color]
>
> Except they like to mislead people by emphasizing they are
> "Microsoft MVP" or "Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals" because
> regular people won't know what that actually means.
>
> When things went wrong, they will change tone and then said - we are
> volunteers and ....
>
> Again, a few bad rats ruined the supposed-to-be-good program. But
> if they cancelled the program and use real support, BG won't be the
> richest man in the world.
>
> Since some people here enjoy to play rude games, I'll play with you
> for a few rounds.
>
>
> But up to this point,
> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
> news:exXxfi8hHHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> "YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not Microsoft
>> employees"
>> That amazes you?
>> That is a simple fact.
>> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself
>> official since we are not an official source.
>> Though most MVPs have good sources within Microsoft.
>>
>> I never suggested this blog page and website were not "on the same
>> page".
>> In this case they are, but that does not mean blogs are official.
>> Blogs are not official and that is why anything important on a blog
>> can be referenced to the website.
>> If it can not be referenced to the website, then it can not be
>> assumed it represents Microsoft policy.
>> I am referring to blogs on the Microsoft site in general, not just
>> this blog.
>>
>> "Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money
>> as well."
>> If that is what you believe, hopefully you have contacted Microsoft
>> appropriately.
>> Since these are peer to peer support newsgroups, there is no
>> requirement or expectation that Microsoft get your suggestion if
>> this newsgroup is the only place you post your suggestion.
>>
>> --
>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>>
>>
>> "Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
>> news:OKikgW8hHHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:e8bjZK8hHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Amazed at what?
>>>> The fact blogs are not necessarily official?
>>>
>>> No. that YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not
>>> Microsoft employees.
>>>>
>>>> I did not make up anything.
>>>> If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls
>>>> many who make assumptions.
>>>
>>> You fell into the trap. I didn't have the desire to go through it
>>> word-for-word but the blog and website, except for appearance, ARE
>>> "on the same page" as they say. Perhaps it is even word-for-word.
>>> I'm afraid that from what I can glean from reading the blog, then
>>> going to the website, the blog IS - much as you may designate it
>>> "unofficial" - functioning as something official.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The word for word similarity means little other than the source
>>>> was the same or close.
>>>> The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a
>>>> source of information with a link to the authority for obvious
>>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> Read both. They say the same thing. The blog doesn't, to my
>>> recollection, say it "may" be correct; it puts the information out
>>> there just as the MS site does.
>>>
>>> Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money
>>> as well.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>>>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url][/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

> But if you want to find something wrong with anything, not just Microsoft,[color=blue]
> you can always see fault, even if as in this case, there is none to see.[/color]

Good try but won't work.

Hey, tell you what? Our company is Microsoft's partner, and no, we don't
take any gifts or rewards from it.

Try something harder, if you could.



"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23%2328L$8hHHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> No attempt to mislead.
> If you see a deception, that is entirely you.
> The fact MVPs quickly point the facts proves there is no intent to
> deceive.
> The FAQ is further proof.
> There is no change in tone.
> But if you want to find something wrong with anything, not just Microsoft,
> you can always see fault, even if as in this case, there is none to see.
>
> I am not playing "rude games", if you want to, that is your own problem.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>
>
> "xfile" <cou-cou@remove.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uV$bX08hHHA.4624@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself
>>> official since we are not an official source.[/color]
>>
>> Except they like to mislead people by emphasizing they are "Microsoft
>> MVP" or "Microsoft Most Valuable Professionals" because regular people
>> won't know what that actually means.
>>
>> When things went wrong, they will change tone and then said - we are
>> volunteers and ....
>>
>> Again, a few bad rats ruined the supposed-to-be-good program. But if
>> they cancelled the program and use real support, BG won't be the richest
>> man in the world.
>>
>> Since some people here enjoy to play rude games, I'll play with you for a
>> few rounds.
>>
>>
>> But up to this point,
>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:exXxfi8hHHA.4300@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> "YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not Microsoft
>>> employees"
>>> That amazes you?
>>> That is a simple fact.
>>> MVPs do NOT represent Microsoft and what we say is not in itself
>>> official since we are not an official source.
>>> Though most MVPs have good sources within Microsoft.
>>>
>>> I never suggested this blog page and website were not "on the same
>>> page".
>>> In this case they are, but that does not mean blogs are official.
>>> Blogs are not official and that is why anything important on a blog can
>>> be referenced to the website.
>>> If it can not be referenced to the website, then it can not be assumed
>>> it represents Microsoft policy.
>>> I am referring to blogs on the Microsoft site in general, not just this
>>> blog.
>>>
>>> "Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as
>>> well."
>>> If that is what you believe, hopefully you have contacted Microsoft
>>> appropriately.
>>> Since these are peer to peer support newsgroups, there is no requirement
>>> or expectation that Microsoft get your suggestion if this newsgroup is
>>> the only place you post your suggestion.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>>>
>>>
>>> "Non-entity" <notavalidaddress@nonentitynohow.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OKikgW8hHHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:e8bjZK8hHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Amazed at what?
>>>>> The fact blogs are not necessarily official?
>>>>
>>>> No. that YOU and MVP's are not necessarily official. You are not
>>>> Microsoft employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not make up anything.
>>>>> If you assume I did, you fall into the same trap that befalls many who
>>>>> make assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> You fell into the trap. I didn't have the desire to go through it
>>>> word-for-word but the blog and website, except for appearance, ARE "on
>>>> the same page" as they say. Perhaps it is even word-for-word. I'm
>>>> afraid that from what I can glean from reading the blog, then going to
>>>> the website, the blog IS - much as you may designate it "unofficial" -
>>>> functioning as something official.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The word for word similarity means little other than the source was
>>>>> the same or close.
>>>>> The fact it is on the website is the authority, the blog is a source
>>>>> of information with a link to the authority for obvious reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Read both. They say the same thing. The blog doesn't, to my
>>>> recollection, say it "may" be correct; it puts the information out
>>>> there just as the MS site does.
>>>>
>>>> Time to end the MVP program after this debacle. Refund some money as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
>>>>> [url]http://www3.telus.net/dandemar[/url]
>>>>> [url]http://www.dts-l.org[/url]
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

I appreciate the info. But, I've known that for
awhile, I'd say for almost two months. My first
problem with this whole situation is that more
than a few said it could not be done, absolutely
no way. Then some users started reporting, that
yes it could be done because they did it. So, then
it seemed the message became, "even though it can be
done, Microsoft doesn't allow it." Others liked throwing
around the words "legal" and "illegal", as if Microsoft
made law. Even making accusations of thievery and questioning
the character of those users who did it, or wanted to do it.
Similar crap was said when it was found out that an upgrade
version can actually do a classic clean install.
Of course, there were also those few idiots who said using
the "slmgr -rearm" trick 3 times was not allowed. Wrong.
I even remember those fools who said that the full versions
would not upgrade a beta version. Wrong.

In other words, I knew that this could be done, but had
been convinced it was not allowed by Microsoft.

So, you first have folks being told that it wouldn't work.
When it did, they were then told it was not allowed. Beta
users being told that they had to reinstall XP, update to SP2,
activate it, in order to get the upgrade price. Wrong.
If the user didn't want to do all that, then they were told
they had to buy the full retail version. Wrong. Even if I
had a machine that had no OS and I wanted to test Vista beta,
I could have installed it on that machine and been allowed
to update with the Vista RTM upgrade version. See, this is the
type of information that needs to come out *before* a product launches.
How can this possibly be an effective support forum when even the
MVP's don't know what the heck is going on? Microsoft employees
post here, too. They could have taken the time to clear up a lot
of this confusion. of course, they would've had to of known. If they
didn't, it speaks volumes about how scattered brain Microsoft is,
how ineffective they are at communicating pertinent information in a
timely manner... or, how hard they try to conceal the truth, and how
long can they get away with it. Usually, someone or group has to loud
them out before Microsoft admits a dam thing. The endless apologetics
that some MVP's dish out on Microsoft's behalf is embarrassing, and makes
those MVP's look like fools.
Reminds of the summer when I was telling folks in this forum that
Bitlocker would protect Vista's restore points when dual-booting
with XP, and was basically told I didn't know WTF I was talking about.
Wrong, again.

In other words, I think some know-it-alls just need to STFU.


-Michael

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael;
> Finished a few minutes ago.
> Repartitioned a drive, installed and activated Windows Vista Ultimate
> RC-2 using a never before used key.
> Rebooted a few times to verify installation complete.
> Then, while at the Desktop inserted Retail Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade.
> This key had also never been used before.
> Installed and activated fine.
>
> The Vista Upgrade was purchased about a week after release removing the
> possibility that only later versions can upgrade from a Beta.
>
> There are many possibilities and this is only my guess:
> Microsoft did not realize this until recently, possibility after
> investigating the workaround for installing an upgrade without a
> qualifying OS already installed.
> I would have expected Microsoft to release this information at release
> if this was intentional.
>
> In other words, I verified an upgrade from Vista Beta works.
>[/color]

"Bill Yanaire" wrote:
[color=blue]
> So you're the guy that Vista works well with !
>
> I have installed and run three versions of Vista with no problems: Vista Ultimate 32 BIT, Ultimate 64 BIT and Home Premium 32 BIT. Vista works just fine for millions of customers, probably because we don't install incompatible software and hardware and because we don't make revisions and changes we are not qualified to make. Have a nice day.
> "Mellowed" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:e3QXh.4477$A72.1321@trnddc07...[color=green]
> >
> > I did a clean install of Vista and I would never go back to XP. This
> > thing purrs like a kitten.
> >
> >
> > "Bill Yanaire" <BillYanaire@viceman.com> wrote in message
> > news:e07S3I4hHHA.3512@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
> >> Best thing to do is wipe your machine clean of Vista and install XP back
> >> on. Then you are good to go
> >>
> >>
> >> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> >> news:OZi%23ox3hHHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>>I don't know how many times I've seen those who
> >>> claim to know WTF they are talking about, say
> >>> that it is not "legal" or allowed by Microsoft
> >>> for folks using a Vista beta to be able to purchase
> >>> an Upgrade version of Vista and install it on top of
> >>> their Vista beta. Numerous posters were told they would
> >>> have to buy the full version. Wrong.
> >>>
> >>> [url]http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/04/24/windows-vista-beta-2-rc1-and-rc2-set-to-expire.aspx[/url]
> >>>
> >>> <quote>
> >>> There are no product discounts specifically for participants in the
> >>> Customer Preview Program; however, because you are using a pre-release
> >>> version of Windows Vista Ultimate, you can purchase and use the Upgrade
> >>> version of Windows Vista.
> >>> </quote>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -Michael
> >>
> >>[/color]
> >[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

"MICHAEL" wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
> Plato wrote:[color=green]
> > MICHAEL wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> I don't know how many times I've seen those who
> >> claim to know WTF they are talking about, say[/color]
> >
> > Adding blogs to your post does NOT help your augument.[/color]
>
>
> WTF are you talking about? The blog is the official
> Vista blog. The post was written by Nick White who is
> a Product Manager at Microsoft working on the Windows Vista
> launch team. Jim Allchin, Co-President, Platform and Services Division
> posts there, too.
> [url]http://windowsvistablog.com/tags/Jim+Allchin/default.aspx[/url]
>
> [url]http://windowsvistablog.com/about.aspx[/url]
> The Windows Vista Team Blog is a collaboration among various employees of Microsoft's Windows
> division. It's our aim to take you behind the scenes of the Windows Vista development process,
> give you a sense of who we are and the decisions and challenges we face daily, and hopefully
> show you something new once in awhile, too.
>
> Topics we cover include delving into the development process, points of view from our partners,
> customers and people on the Windows Vista team at Microsoft, and context or "back story" that
> explains why the product is the way it is today, and how it got to be that way.
>
> It's all in an effort to provide you with the information you need to be a more informed
> Windows Vista user.
>
> We hope that the insight and analysis provided via this blog will spark interesting and useful
> conversations for everyone who visits. We expect some of the commentary the blog receives to
> be controversial or even critical in nature, but that's part and parcel of the blogoshpere.
> Nevertheless, you can rest assured that your feedback is reviewed by and relayed to the Windows
> Vista product team on a regular basis.
>
> Drop us an email and let us know what you think.
>
> © Copyright 2006 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> that it is not "legal" or allowed by Microsoft
> >> for folks using a Vista beta to be able to purchase
> >> an Upgrade version of Vista and install it on top of
> >> their Vista beta. Numerous posters were told they would
> >> have to buy the full version. Wrong.
> >>
> >> [url]http://windoaawdsvdaaistaadfadbasddlog.com/blogs/wiasdfdndasdowasdsista/archive/2007/04/24/wire.aspx[/url][/color]
> >[/color]
> I bought a 1972 Z28 Camaro painted silver. I had a problem with the quality of the paint job and the GM zone manager informed me that GM would not repaint it. I paid someone to repaint it for me. GM, at a later date, decided that the silver paint on 1972 Camaros had problems. GM decided at that time to repaint the cars at no cost to the customer. I had already paid to have mine repainted and GM did not reimburse me since I had done this before they made the decision. I didn't cry about it. Life is not always fair.[/color]