Hi
I installed Vista Home Premium upgrade as a dual boot with my original xp
installation. Both are on separate hard drives.
I now want to get rid of xp and use the hard drive for a Windows 7 machine I
am building.
Will this infringe the upgrade license?
If this is okay, how do I get rid of the boot screen with OS choice option?
Cheers
Paul

Just remember the license goes with the system you installed it on not just
the hard drive. If the system dies so does the license. This is my first
post so if anyone else can help please do so.
"Paul Lower" <paul-judy.lower@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:edImaLrDKHA.3708@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Hi
> I installed Vista Home Premium upgrade as a dual boot with my original xp
> installation. Both are on separate hard drives.
> I now want to get rid of xp and use the hard drive for a Windows 7 machine[/color]
I[color=blue]
> am building.
> Will this infringe the upgrade license?
> If this is okay, how do I get rid of the boot screen with OS choice[/color]
option?[color=blue]
> Cheers
> Paul
>[/color]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:07:44 +0100, "Paul Lower"
<paul-judy.lower@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Hi
>I installed Vista Home Premium upgrade as a dual boot with my original xp
>installation. Both are on separate hard drives.
>I now want to get rid of xp and use the hard drive for a Windows 7 machine I
>am building.
>Will this infringe the upgrade license?
>If this is okay, how do I get rid of the boot screen with OS choice option?
>Cheers
>Paul[/color]

No it would not violate the license any more that if you had formated
and done a clean install over XP in the first place. The only think
you can't do is install the upgrade on another system.

I've been looking into a similar point as I've just bought a PC with
Vista pre-installed and should be eligible to upgrade to Windows 7 when
it is released. I was wondering whether, when I install my Windows 7
upgrade, I can continue to use the pre-installed Vista as a dual boot.
As Windows 7 hasn't been released at time of posting the licence terms
don't seem to be available to look at. (Yes, ok I'm a lawyer). However,
I had a look on the Microsoft website and found a general Windows Vista
licence which contained the following provision:

"13. *UPGRADES. *To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed
for the software that is elgible 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, assuming that there is similar language in the Windows 7 licence,
it looks as though the licence says that I won't be able to use Vista
once I install Windows 7. That seems a bit unreasonable given that if I
set them up to dual boot, both versions would be installed on the same
machine and I could only ever use one at a time. It's not like I would
be 'cheating' microsoft by avoiding paying for their licence (the cost
of the licence was included in the price of the machine I bought) - but
I guess that as I am not paying for the upgrade I can't complain. :)

I would be more irritated if I knew that, by paying for an upgrade
licence, I effectively invalidated my original licence. It seems to me
that this goes against the general practice / my expectation of
"upgrading". Surely you should be free to roll back to a previous
version you have already paid for (if for example the upgrade doesn't
work with your hardware or you don't like it). Other than the hassle of
having to uninstall / reinstall every time you upgrade or roll back, is
there any real difference (from a licensing perspective) between doing
that and dual booting two versions on the same system?


--
toad
Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url]

Hi,

It's unlikely that the upgrade terms will change with Win7, as they haven't
since Win3.x. When you upgrade, the license for the existing installation
becomes part of the license for the upgrade. Were this not the case, then
there would be no need for an upgrade version and everyone would simply pay
full price for the new version. An upgrade is cheaper precisely because it
subsumes and existing license.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
[url]http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/[/url]
Windows help - [url]www.rickrogers.org[/url]
Vote for my shoe: [url]http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com[/url]

"toad" <toad.3wssoe@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message
news:toad.3wssoe@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...[color=blue]
>
> I've been looking into a similar point as I've just bought a PC with
> Vista pre-installed and should be eligible to upgrade to Windows 7 when
> it is released. I was wondering whether, when I install my Windows 7
> upgrade, I can continue to use the pre-installed Vista as a dual boot.
> As Windows 7 hasn't been released at time of posting the licence terms
> don't seem to be available to look at. (Yes, ok I'm a lawyer). However,
> I had a look on the Microsoft website and found a general Windows Vista
> licence which contained the following provision:
>
> "13. *UPGRADES. *To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed
> for the software that is elgible 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, assuming that there is similar language in the Windows 7 licence,
> it looks as though the licence says that I won't be able to use Vista
> once I install Windows 7. That seems a bit unreasonable given that if I
> set them up to dual boot, both versions would be installed on the same
> machine and I could only ever use one at a time. It's not like I would
> be 'cheating' microsoft by avoiding paying for their licence (the cost
> of the licence was included in the price of the machine I bought) - but
> I guess that as I am not paying for the upgrade I can't complain. :)
>
> I would be more irritated if I knew that, by paying for an upgrade
> licence, I effectively invalidated my original licence. It seems to me
> that this goes against the general practice / my expectation of
> "upgrading". Surely you should be free to roll back to a previous
> version you have already paid for (if for example the upgrade doesn't
> work with your hardware or you don't like it). Other than the hassle of
> having to uninstall / reinstall every time you upgrade or roll back, is
> there any real difference (from a licensing perspective) between doing
> that and dual booting two versions on the same system?
>
>
> --
> toad
> Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url]
>[/color]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:32:48 +0100, toad
<toad.3wssoe@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> I've been looking into a similar point as I've just bought a PC with
> Vista pre-installed and should be eligible to upgrade to Windows 7 when
> it is released. I was wondering whether, when I install my Windows 7
> upgrade, I can continue to use the pre-installed Vista as a dual boot.[/color]


Assuming that the Windows 7 license is the same as it has been in past
versions of Windows (and almost certainly it will be), no you can't.

The reason is a simple one. Note the sentence you quote below: "After
you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from."
When you buy and use an upgrade version, you end up with one license,
not two, and that's the reason the Upgrade version is cheaper than the
Full version.

If you want to dual-boot Windows Vista and Windows 7 (and personally,
I don't see much value in doing that; Windows 7 runs just fine here),
you'll need a Full version of Windows7, not an Upgrade version.


[color=blue]
> As Windows 7 hasn't been released at time of posting the licence terms
> don't seem to be available to look at. (Yes, ok I'm a lawyer). However,
> I had a look on the Microsoft website and found a general Windows Vista
> licence which contained the following provision:
>
> "13. *UPGRADES. *To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed
> for the software that is elgible 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, assuming that there is similar language in the Windows 7 licence,
> it looks as though the licence says that I won't be able to use Vista
> once I install Windows 7. That seems a bit unreasonable given that if I
> set them up to dual boot, both versions would be installed on the same
> machine and I could only ever use one at a time. It's not like I would
> be 'cheating' microsoft by avoiding paying for their licence (the cost
> of the licence was included in the price of the machine I bought) - but
> I guess that as I am not paying for the upgrade I can't complain. :)
>
> I would be more irritated if I knew that, by paying for an upgrade
> licence, I effectively invalidated my original licence. It seems to me
> that this goes against the general practice / my expectation of
> "upgrading". Surely you should be free to roll back to a previous
> version you have already paid for (if for example the upgrade doesn't
> work with your hardware or you don't like it). Other than the hassle of
> having to uninstall / reinstall every time you upgrade or roll back, is
> there any real difference (from a licensing perspective) between doing
> that and dual booting two versions on the same system?
>
>
> --
> toad
> Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Hi Ken and Rick,

Thanks for your quick replies and for confirming that you can't use the
licences that way. I thought the language was pretty clear. In fact, I
was only thinking of dual booting because I'm only going to have Vista
installed for the interim period between now and the upgrade arriving
and wanted to have a bit more of a chance to use it. Pretty silly
really.:)

If you'd excuse a bit of a rant though - I wouldn't agree that the
price of the upgrade has anything to do with the fact that the upgrade
invalidates a licence you have already paid for. I think there are a
number of reasons a software company might not charge full whack for an
upgrade:

1) When someone already has a product that works that they have paid
for in full, they're going to take more convincing that they need to pay
for another version of it that does essentially the same thing (albeit
better / with more features). If you can convince people to pay a
discounted price for the upgrade then you're getting more money from
them than if they don't upgrade at all.

2) If as a software company you know that you are only going to support
old versions for a given period of time, it is to your advantage if
people upgrade - especially if they pay you for the privilege.

3) Customers are more likely to stick with you if they feel that you
are rewarding them for their loyalty. A discount on the full price
gives customers that warm feeling.

4) As is the case before a big new release, if you don't offer free
upgrades then people will just hold of buying until the new version is
available: not great for the cash flow!

However, looking at this the other way, it is obviously in Microsoft's
gift to say to customers, hey you paid for the original version and paid
for the upgrade, so if you aren't going to abuse it by installing
multiple copies of the software on multiple machines, then why not go
ahead and use the old version you paid for if you want to. They just
happen to have chosen not to do that.

Comercially, that might make a difference to them if they think people
would pay extra to buy full versions of each OS to install on the same
machine - but I think that Ken's hit the nail on the head when he says
that there's no point in doing that. It's just sad anoraks like me who
might like to have a bit more of a 'go' on Vista and are prevented from
doing so who think that the Microsoft legal department are kill joys!


--
toad
Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 20:57:19 +0100, toad
<toad.3wtn8e@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Hi Ken and Rick,
>
> Thanks for your quick replies and for confirming that you can't use the
> licences that way. I thought the language was pretty clear. In fact, I
> was only thinking of dual booting because I'm only going to have Vista
> installed for the interim period between now and the upgrade arriving
> and wanted to have a bit more of a chance to use it. Pretty silly
> really.:)
>
> If you'd excuse a bit of a rant though - I wouldn't agree that the
> price of the upgrade has anything to do with the fact that the upgrade
> invalidates a licence you have already paid for. I think there are a
> number of reasons a software company might not charge full whack for an
> upgrade:
>
> 1) When someone already has a product that works that they have paid
> for in full, they're going to take more convincing that they need to pay
> for another version of it that does essentially the same thing (albeit
> better / with more features). If you can convince people to pay a
> discounted price for the upgrade then you're getting more money from
> them than if they don't upgrade at all.
>
> 2) If as a software company you know that you are only going to support
> old versions for a given period of time, it is to your advantage if
> people upgrade - especially if they pay you for the privilege.
>
> 3) Customers are more likely to stick with you if they feel that you
> are rewarding them for their loyalty. A discount on the full price
> gives customers that warm feeling.[/color]


I basically disagree with almost everything you say above, but don't
want to repeat myself; you have a right to those opinions. I'm
replying just to address the following point you made.


[color=blue]
> 4) As is the case before a big new release, if you don't offer free
> upgrades then people will just hold of buying until the new version is
> available: not great for the cash flow![/color]


Microsoft does not offer free upgrades to Windows 7 (or any new
version of Windows). If you are being offered a free upgrade, it's
your OEM who is offering it to you (and likely for a reason like the
one you mention).

[color=blue]
> However, looking at this the other way, it is obviously in Microsoft's
> gift to say to customers, hey you paid for the original version and paid
> for the upgrade, so if you aren't going to abuse it by installing
> multiple copies of the software on multiple machines, then why not go
> ahead and use the old version you paid for if you want to. They just
> happen to have chosen not to do that.
>
> Comercially, that might make a difference to them if they think people
> would pay extra to buy full versions of each OS to install on the same
> machine - but I think that Ken's hit the nail on the head when he says
> that there's no point in doing that. It's just sad anoraks like me who
> might like to have a bit more of a 'go' on Vista and are prevented from
> doing so who think that the Microsoft legal department are kill joys!
>
>
> --
> toad
> Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"toad" <toad.3wtn8e@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com> wrote in message
news:toad.3wtn8e@no-mx.forums.vistaheads.com...[color=blue]
>
> Hi Ken and Rick,
>
> Thanks for your quick replies and for confirming that you can't use the
> licences that way. I thought the language was pretty clear. In fact, I
> was only thinking of dual booting because I'm only going to have Vista
> installed for the interim period between now and the upgrade arriving
> and wanted to have a bit more of a chance to use it. Pretty silly
> really.:)
>
> If you'd excuse a bit of a rant though - I wouldn't agree that the
> price of the upgrade has anything to do with the fact that the upgrade
> invalidates a licence you have already paid for. I think there are a
> number of reasons a software company might not charge full whack for an
> upgrade:
>
> 1) When someone already has a product that works that they have paid
> for in full, they're going to take more convincing that they need to pay
> for another version of it that does essentially the same thing (albeit
> better / with more features). If you can convince people to pay a
> discounted price for the upgrade then you're getting more money from
> them than if they don't upgrade at all.
>
> 2) If as a software company you know that you are only going to support
> old versions for a given period of time, it is to your advantage if
> people upgrade - especially if they pay you for the privilege.
>
> 3) Customers are more likely to stick with you if they feel that you
> are rewarding them for their loyalty. A discount on the full price
> gives customers that warm feeling.
>
> 4) As is the case before a big new release, if you don't offer free
> upgrades then people will just hold of buying until the new version is
> available: not great for the cash flow!
>
> However, looking at this the other way, it is obviously in Microsoft's
> gift to say to customers, hey you paid for the original version and paid
> for the upgrade, so if you aren't going to abuse it by installing
> multiple copies of the software on multiple machines, then why not go
> ahead and use the old version you paid for if you want to. They just
> happen to have chosen not to do that.
>
> Comercially, that might make a difference to them if they think people
> would pay extra to buy full versions of each OS to install on the same
> machine - but I think that Ken's hit the nail on the head when he says
> that there's no point in doing that. It's just sad anoraks like me who
> might like to have a bit more of a 'go' on Vista and are prevented from
> doing so who think that the Microsoft legal department are kill joys!
>
>
> --
> toad
> Posted via [url]http://www.vistaheads.com[/url]
>[/color]

Well and good, but that's not how it is.

The upgrade price recognizes that you have residual value in the old
software and discounts the new software in return for your retiring
something for which you still have some value. If you want to keep the
value of the old software and still have the new, you buy a full license.
Software which has been retired by Microsoft, such as Win98, has no residual
value and that's why it is not eligible for the upgrade discount to the
newer software.