Multiboot ME and XP upgrade?

[Alex2]

I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and XP on
the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition or can
I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98 to
upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Alex,

You asked the same question and you were answered an hour ago in the
setup_deployment group.

Here is my original reply:-


If you wish to have both Windows ME and Windows XP on your hard drive then
you will need to buy a FULL copy of Windows XP for the second partition.
An upgrade subsumes the original license into it so that you would no longer
be licensed to run Windows ME on the first partition, if you used an upgrade
CD.



--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Alex2" > wrote in message
...
> I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and XP
on
> the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition or
can
> I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98 to
> upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
>
>
>

[Earl F. Parrish]

"Alex2" > wrote in message
...
> I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition
and XP on
> the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP
partition or can
> I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of
98 to
> upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
>
>
>

It might be cheaper to use the installed Windows 98 to qualify for
the upgrade to Windows XP and buy a full version of Windows ME to
put on the first partition. You would have to install Windows XP
last to avoid overwriting the boot record. Windows 98 and/or
Windows ME will only run from the boot partition. You can install
Windows XP, on any partition.

--
Earl F. Parrish

[peter]

legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will do =
what you intent
peter
"Alex2" > wrote in message =
...
| I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and =
XP on
| the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition =
or can
| I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98 =
to
| upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
|=20
|=20
|=20


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003

[Tony Marston]

"peter" > wrote in message
...
legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will do what
you intent
peter

Absolute rubbish. It is not illegal to upgrade from ME to XP by installing
XP in its own partition and leaving the ME partition intact. What IS illegal
(according to the EULA) is to update from ME to XP one one PC then install
ME onto a different PC. I have upgraded from 95 to ME to XP and I have
always installed te new OS into its own partition. If this was illegal then
why would the installation process allow it?

Tony Marston

"Alex2" > wrote in message
...
| I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and XP
on
| the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition or
can
| I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98 to
| upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
|
|
|


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Actually Tony, you are mistaken.
If you use an upgrade product to upgrade ME to XP and you leave the ME
install intact and operational then you are in volition of the licensing
agreement.
Your right to use ME is removed by the fact that the license to use it
becomes part of the whole license for Windows XP, thus leaving you with only
one licensed OS - that is Windows XP.
The install location is not relevant (same or different partition - or even
inplace vs. clean install). This is a licensing issue.
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Tony Marston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "peter" > wrote in message
> ...
> legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will do
what
> you intent
> peter
>
> Absolute rubbish. It is not illegal to upgrade from ME to XP by installing
> XP in its own partition and leaving the ME partition intact. What IS
illegal
> (according to the EULA) is to update from ME to XP one one PC then install
> ME onto a different PC. I have upgraded from 95 to ME to XP and I have
> always installed te new OS into its own partition. If this was illegal
then
> why would the installation process allow it?
>
> Tony Marston
>
> "Alex2" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and XP
> on
> | the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition or
> can
> | I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98 to
> | upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
> |
> |
> |
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003
>
>

[Bill Wiggins]

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
...
> Actually Tony, you are mistaken.
> If you use an upgrade product to upgrade ME to XP and you leave the ME
> install intact and operational then you are in volition of the licensing
> agreement.
> Your right to use ME is removed by the fact that the license to use it
> becomes part of the whole license for Windows XP, thus leaving you with
only
> one licensed OS - that is Windows XP.
> The install location is not relevant (same or different partition - or
even
> inplace vs. clean install). This is a licensing issue.

I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding to
the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same PC.
The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
whatsoever!

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:8ef5c99e8974994e0842540f09cb5601@TeraNews...
>
> I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding
to
> the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same PC.
> The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
> whatsoever!
>

They paid for an UPGRADE license NOT a full product.
The upgrade is cheaper because it takes into account that you have already
paid for a previous product that you are upgrading (i.e. replacing) with the
newer product.
You may not continue to use the previous product as you are no longer
licensed to use it.
If they bought a full copy of Windows XP then there would be no issue
running both OS on the same machine or 2 different machines. The "devil is
in the detail" this is an upgrade where you replace an older product with a
newer one. You do not retain the right to continue to use the older
product.
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:8ef5c99e8974994e0842540f09cb5601@TeraNews...
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually Tony, you are mistaken.
> > If you use an upgrade product to upgrade ME to XP and you leave the ME
> > install intact and operational then you are in volition of the licensing
> > agreement.
> > Your right to use ME is removed by the fact that the license to use it
> > becomes part of the whole license for Windows XP, thus leaving you with
> only
> > one licensed OS - that is Windows XP.
> > The install location is not relevant (same or different partition - or
> even
> > inplace vs. clean install). This is a licensing issue.
>
> I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding
to
> the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same PC.
> The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
> whatsoever!
>
>

[Bill Wiggins]

Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> "Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
> news:8ef5c99e8974994e0842540f09cb5601@TeraNews...
>
>>I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding
>
> to
>
>>the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same PC.
>>The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
>>whatsoever!
>>
>
>
> They paid for an UPGRADE license NOT a full product.
> The upgrade is cheaper because it takes into account that you have already
> paid for a previous product that you are upgrading (i.e. replacing) with
the
> newer product.
> You may not continue to use the previous product as you are no longer
> licensed to use it.
> If they bought a full copy of Windows XP then there would be no issue
> running both OS on the same machine or 2 different machines. The "devil
is
> in the detail" this is an upgrade where you replace an older product with
a
> newer one.

And I will continue to disagree, as it is ONE PC, whether or not it is an
upgrade. I agree with limiting one disk for one PC, but not something like
this! If you're so adamant about it, why not have MS make the upgrade disk
so they cannot install as a dual-boot process, unless they have another disk
to upgrade from that isn't in use.


> You do not retain the right to continue to use the older
> product.

Not with me, I paid for it, and I should be able to use it, as long it is on
the same PC. Even the EULA is somewhat unclear what is the Same
computer/hardware, and can be construed otherwise. I have a dual boot
ME/XP-Pro using the same scenario you say isn't allowed. I say, "Too Bad" to
that, as it is ONE PC.

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Bill

You are just missing the point about this being an UPGRADE.

Yes you paid for ME - then you paid for an UPGRADE to XP. You paid a
fraction of the full price because it is an upgrade. This means you take
your ME and your license to use it and replace it with XP and the new
license to use that and that alone. The license to use ME becomes part of
the XP license and therefore is no more.
You may not continue to run the product you upgrade.

If you want to run 2 distinct operating systems then you need to pay for
BOTH operating systems - which means buying a FULL copy of Windows XP - not
an upgrade.

> I have a dual boot
> ME/XP-Pro using the same scenario you say isn't allowed. I say, "Too Bad"
to
> that, as it is ONE PC.

Then you have not fully paid for the copy of Windows XP and are in violation
of the Upgrade EULA.
This is not about ONE PC - it is about the understanding what it means to
UPGRADE and not just purchase another OS.

As an analogy:-
Think of it like buying a car and trading in your old one. You don't expect
to get the new car with the trade-in money off and then drive the new car
away and also take the old one too.
If you want to have both cars you pay full price for the new one and keep
the old one too.
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:05cfbd42b93496ae7ef5bb0b51492844@TeraNews...
>
> Mike Brannigan [MSFT] wrote:
> > "Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
> > news:8ef5c99e8974994e0842540f09cb5601@TeraNews...
> >
> >>I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding
> >
> > to
> >
> >>the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same
PC.
> >>The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
> >>whatsoever!
> >>
> >
> >
> > They paid for an UPGRADE license NOT a full product.
> > The upgrade is cheaper because it takes into account that you have
already
> > paid for a previous product that you are upgrading (i.e. replacing) with
> the
> > newer product.
> > You may not continue to use the previous product as you are no longer
> > licensed to use it.
> > If they bought a full copy of Windows XP then there would be no issue
> > running both OS on the same machine or 2 different machines. The "devil
> is
> > in the detail" this is an upgrade where you replace an older product
with
> a
> > newer one.
>
> And I will continue to disagree, as it is ONE PC, whether or not it is an
> upgrade. I agree with limiting one disk for one PC, but not something like
> this! If you're so adamant about it, why not have MS make the upgrade disk
> so they cannot install as a dual-boot process, unless they have another
disk
> to upgrade from that isn't in use.
>
>
> > You do not retain the right to continue to use the older
> > product.
>
> Not with me, I paid for it, and I should be able to use it, as long it is
on
> the same PC. Even the EULA is somewhat unclear what is the Same
> computer/hardware, and can be construed otherwise. I have a dual boot
> ME/XP-Pro using the same scenario you say isn't allowed. I say, "Too Bad"
to
> that, as it is ONE PC.
>
>

[Bill Wiggins]

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message =
...
> Bill
>=20
> You are just missing the point about this being an UPGRADE.
>=20
> Yes you paid for ME - then you paid for an UPGRADE to XP. You paid a
> fraction of the full price because it is an upgrade. This means you =
take
> your ME and your license to use it and replace it with XP and the new
> license to use that and that alone. The license to use ME becomes =
part of
> the XP license and therefore is no more.
> You may not continue to run the product you upgrade.
>=20
> If you want to run 2 distinct operating systems then you need to pay =
for
> BOTH operating systems - which means buying a FULL copy of Windows XP =
- not
> an upgrade.
>=20

I'm not sorry again to disagree, and when you say "fraction of the =
cost", that is misleading, as if I paid much less than half of what I =
did to get Pro upgrade than the full install. MS would have been better =
setting an upgrade process as one that cannot work in a dual-boot =
scenario (or whatever on the same PC) where the qualifying OS for the XP =
upgrade, still resides on the same PC in use. MS isn't getting anymore =
money from me than they did. I paid full price for the ME disk, and full =
price for the XP upgrade disk. I bet most of the experts here have done =
the same thing, though they wouldn't admit it.

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Bill,

I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE vs. a FULL
product.
You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
trade-in".

--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:326f37e9a55884c0a299c4739b901087@TeraNews...
"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
...
> Bill
>
> You are just missing the point about this being an UPGRADE.
>
> Yes you paid for ME - then you paid for an UPGRADE to XP. You paid a
> fraction of the full price because it is an upgrade. This means you take
> your ME and your license to use it and replace it with XP and the new
> license to use that and that alone. The license to use ME becomes part of
> the XP license and therefore is no more.
> You may not continue to run the product you upgrade.
>
> If you want to run 2 distinct operating systems then you need to pay for
> BOTH operating systems - which means buying a FULL copy of Windows XP -
not
> an upgrade.
>

I'm not sorry again to disagree, and when you say "fraction of the cost",
that is misleading, as if I paid much less than half of what I did to get
Pro upgrade than the full install. MS would have been better setting an
upgrade process as one that cannot work in a dual-boot scenario (or whatever
on the same PC) where the qualifying OS for the XP upgrade, still resides on
the same PC in use. MS isn't getting anymore money from me than they did. I
paid full price for the ME disk, and full price for the XP upgrade disk. I
bet most of the experts here have done the same thing, though they wouldn't
admit it.

[Bill Wiggins]

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message =
...
> Bill,
>=20
> I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
> You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE vs. a =
FULL
> product.
> You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
> trade-in".

Condescending aren't you!

I understand totally what you mean, and told you how I felt about it, =
hence you didn't understand what I stated the past few posts I made. If =
I didn't understand you, then you are not understanding how I am adamant =
about using the upgrade for such a purpose as I said I felt I should. I =
don't care if it is a full install disk or upgrade, it is on the same =
PC, and I am not paying for something that is the same thing. Incredible =
that an upgrade disk has all the things a full install disk does, only =
the upgrade needs qualification, but you feel I should pay MS the $100 =
dollar difference, for what is going on the same PC.

Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such a =
possibility.

[Earl F. Parrish]

"Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
news:1f9b8b7ee22926ed26cc36650c5a9d47@TeraNews...



"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in
message ...
> Bill,
>
> I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
> You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE
vs. a FULL
> product.
> You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
> trade-in".

Condescending aren't you!

I understand totally what you mean, and told you how I felt about
it, hence you didn't understand what I stated the past few posts I
made. If I didn't understand you, then you are not understanding how
I am adamant about using the upgrade for such a purpose as I said I
felt I should. I don't care if it is a full install disk or upgrade,
it is on the same PC, and I am not paying for something that is the
same thing. Incredible that an upgrade disk has all the things a
full install disk does, only the upgrade needs qualification, but
you feel I should pay MS the $100 dollar difference, for what is
going on the same PC.

Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such
a possibility.

Microsoft did think of it. This is a paragraph from the End User
License Agreement accompanying Windows XP and most other companies'
products:

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.

--
Earl F. Parrish

[Tony Marston]

If it is wrong for someone to use an upgrade version to install into a fresh
partition, thus leaving the original OS intact in a dual boot situation,
then Microsoft would make it physically impossible to do this. Not only do
they allow it, but in the case of Win2K and XP the new OS will detect the
existence of the original OS and provide a screen to choose which OS to boot
into without the need for a third party boot manager.

So if Microsoft have gone to all this trouble to allow an upgrade version to
be installed into a separate partition and provide a boot manager so that
you can decide which OS you want to boot into, how the f*ck can it be
illegal?

Tony Marston

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
...
> Actually Tony, you are mistaken.
> If you use an upgrade product to upgrade ME to XP and you leave the ME
> install intact and operational then you are in volition of the licensing
> agreement.
> Your right to use ME is removed by the fact that the license to use it
> becomes part of the whole license for Windows XP, thus leaving you with
only
> one licensed OS - that is Windows XP.
> The install location is not relevant (same or different partition - or
even
> inplace vs. clean install). This is a licensing issue.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
> Please use these newsgroups
>
> "Tony Marston" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "peter" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will do
> what
> > you intent
> > peter
> >
> > Absolute rubbish. It is not illegal to upgrade from ME to XP by
installing
> > XP in its own partition and leaving the ME partition intact. What IS
> illegal
> > (according to the EULA) is to update from ME to XP one one PC then
install
> > ME onto a different PC. I have upgraded from 95 to ME to XP and I have
> > always installed te new OS into its own partition. If this was illegal
> then
> > why would the installation process allow it?
> >
> > Tony Marston
> >
> > "Alex2" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > | I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition and
XP
> > on
> > | the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition
or
> > can
> > | I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of 98
to
> > | upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
> > |
> > |
> > |
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003
> >
> >
>
>

[Tony Marston]

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
> news:8ef5c99e8974994e0842540f09cb5601@TeraNews...
> >
> > I disagree, as the EULA states one PC (or in some other wording alluding
> to
> > the same machine). The ME is on the same PC, and the XP is on the same
PC.
> > The person paid for each disk, so I think that it is not in violation
> > whatsoever!
> >
>
> They paid for an UPGRADE license NOT a full product.
> The upgrade is cheaper because it takes into account that you have already
> paid for a previous product that you are upgrading (i.e. replacing) with
the
> newer product.
> You may not continue to use the previous product as you are no longer
> licensed to use it.

********. The EULA says that once you have upgraded an OS on one PC that you
cannot install the old OS onto a different PC.
Keeping both the old and the new OS on the same PC is not illegal.

> If they bought a full copy of Windows XP then there would be no issue
> running both OS on the same machine or 2 different machines. The "devil
is
> in the detail" this is an upgrade where you replace an older product with
a
> newer one. You do not retain the right to continue to use the older
> product.

YES YOU DO, otherwise Microsoft would not have built the dual boot
capabilities into the upgrade version.

Tony Marston

[Tony Marston]

"Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
...
> Bill
>
> You are just missing the point about this being an UPGRADE.
>
> Yes you paid for ME - then you paid for an UPGRADE to XP. You paid a
> fraction of the full price because it is an upgrade. This means you take
> your ME and your license to use it and replace it with XP and the new
> license to use that and that alone. The license to use ME becomes part of
> the XP license and therefore is no more.
> You may not continue to run the product you upgrade.

Then why does the upgrade version allow you to boot into a different
partition instead of over the existing OS partition?

Tony Marston

[Tony Marston]

"Earl F. Parrish" > wrote in message
...
>

<snip>

> Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such
> a possibility.
>
> Microsoft did think of it. This is a paragraph from the End User
> License Agreement accompanying Windows XP and most other companies'
> products:
>
> 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 personally don't give a **** what the EULA says. If Microsoft did want us
to continue using the qualifying operating system after upgrading to a new
OS then they would not allow the original OS to exist after the installation
process. Not only do they NOT prevent the original OS from being used, with
Win2K and XP they actually provide a boot manager that will allow you to
choose which OS to boot into, the old one or the new one.

If it was wrong they would prevent it. As they do not prevent it, it cannot
be wrong.

If Microsoft would like to take me to court over this issue, then here I am,
ready and waiting.

Tony Marston

[Hawkeye]

They don't want to take you court, they just want to extort as much
money as they can. The whole idea that once you buy something, you can't
use it on more than one computer or in any other way that you choose is
absurd.

> If Microsoft would like to take me to court over this issue, then here I am,
> ready and waiting.
>
> Tony Marston
>
>

[Silly You]

"Earl F. Parrish" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> "Bill Wiggins" > wrote in message
> news:1f9b8b7ee22926ed26cc36650c5a9d47@TeraNews...
>=20
>=20
>=20
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in
> message ...
> > Bill,
> >
> > I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
> > You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE
> vs. a FULL
> > product.
> > You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
> > trade-in".
>=20
> Condescending aren't you!
>=20
> I understand totally what you mean, and told you how I felt about
> it, hence you didn't understand what I stated the past few posts I
> made. If I didn't understand you, then you are not understanding how
> I am adamant about using the upgrade for such a purpose as I said I
> felt I should. I don't care if it is a full install disk or upgrade,
> it is on the same PC, and I am not paying for something that is the
> same thing. Incredible that an upgrade disk has all the things a
> full install disk does, only the upgrade needs qualification, but
> you feel I should pay MS the $100 dollar difference, for what is
> going on the same PC.
>=20
> Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such
> a possibility.
>=20
> Microsoft did think of it. This is a paragraph from the End User
> License Agreement accompanying Windows XP and most other companies'
> products:
>=20
> 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.
>=20

You ****witted pillock! You obviously cannot grasp the concept of =
"reading comprehension"! Bill stated he understood in no uncertain =
terms, but you obviously neglected to understand the point he said about =
MS making it "NOT" possible to do the scenario discussed in this thread. =
He didn't say that the EULA did not say what you farked in the arse =
fingers typed!

[Earl F. Parrish]

"Tony Marston" > wrote in message
...
> If it is wrong for someone to use an upgrade version to install
into a fresh
> partition, thus leaving the original OS intact in a dual boot
situation,
> then Microsoft would make it physically impossible to do this.
Not only do
> they allow it, but in the case of Win2K and XP the new OS will
detect the
> existence of the original OS and provide a screen to choose which
OS to boot
> into without the need for a third party boot manager.
>
> So if Microsoft have gone to all this trouble to allow an upgrade
version to
> be installed into a separate partition and provide a boot manager
so that
> you can decide which OS you want to boot into, how the f*ck can it
be
> illegal?
>
> Tony Marston
>
Don't you realize that if everybody takes advantage of the upgrade
price and keep the old version installed, companies will stop
offering discounts on upgrades? It is equivalent to the store
charging you twice the price because a shoplifter will steal one of
the products.

--
Earl F. Parrish

[Mike Brannigan [MSFT]]

Tony, maybe we expect you to be able to abide by the EULA that YOU say YOU
Agree to when you use the upgrade product - in which it Clearly States :-

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.

This is not legalise - but a simple statement that if you use an upgrade
you're no longer eligible to use the previous OS on this or any other
machine.

Still if your word is not enough then maybe we need to use stronger
measures.
(and people wonder why we now have Windows Product Activation)
--
Regards,

Mike
--
Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights

Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
Please use these newsgroups

"Tony Marston" > wrote in message
...
> If it is wrong for someone to use an upgrade version to install into a
fresh
> partition, thus leaving the original OS intact in a dual boot situation,
> then Microsoft would make it physically impossible to do this. Not only
do
> they allow it, but in the case of Win2K and XP the new OS will detect the
> existence of the original OS and provide a screen to choose which OS to
boot
> into without the need for a third party boot manager.
>
> So if Microsoft have gone to all this trouble to allow an upgrade version
to
> be installed into a separate partition and provide a boot manager so that
> you can decide which OS you want to boot into, how the f*ck can it be
> illegal?
>
> Tony Marston
>
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually Tony, you are mistaken.
> > If you use an upgrade product to upgrade ME to XP and you leave the ME
> > install intact and operational then you are in volition of the licensing
> > agreement.
> > Your right to use ME is removed by the fact that the license to use it
> > becomes part of the whole license for Windows XP, thus leaving you with
> only
> > one licensed OS - that is Windows XP.
> > The install location is not relevant (same or different partition - or
> even
> > inplace vs. clean install). This is a licensing issue.
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Mike
> > --
> > Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights
> >
> > Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions.
> > Please use these newsgroups
> >
> > "Tony Marston" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "peter" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will
do
> > what
> > > you intent
> > > peter
> > >
> > > Absolute rubbish. It is not illegal to upgrade from ME to XP by
> installing
> > > XP in its own partition and leaving the ME partition intact. What IS
> > illegal
> > > (according to the EULA) is to update from ME to XP one one PC then
> install
> > > ME onto a different PC. I have upgraded from 95 to ME to XP and I have
> > > always installed te new OS into its own partition. If this was illegal
> > then
> > > why would the installation process allow it?
> > >
> > > Tony Marston
> > >
> > > "Alex2" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > | I want to have a multiboot configuration with ME on one partition
and
> XP
> > > on
> > > | the other. Will I have to have the full version for the XP partition
> or
> > > can
> > > | I just use the upgrade version? (Upgrading from my full version of
98
> to
> > > | upgrade of ME to upgrade of XP.)
> > > |
> > > |
> > > |
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > > Version: 6.0.487 / Virus Database: 286 - Release Date: 01/06/2003
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Microsoft relied upon the presumed honesty of their customers, who
read and agreed to be bound by the terms of the EULA. That position
has since proven to be overly optimistic, shall we say, so Microsoft
has introduced WPA.

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
----
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH


"Tony Marston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "peter" > wrote in message
> ...
> legally you would need the full version but the upgrade version will
do what
> you intent
> peter
>
> Absolute rubbish. It is not illegal to upgrade from ME to XP by
installing
> XP in its own partition and leaving the ME partition intact. What IS
illegal
> (according to the EULA) is to update from ME to XP one one PC then
install
> ME onto a different PC. I have upgraded from 95 to ME to XP and I
have
> always installed te new OS into its own partition. If this was
illegal then
> why would the installation process allow it?
>
> Tony Marston
>

[Michael Stevens]

Bill Wiggins wrote:
> "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Bill,
>>
>> I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
>> You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE vs.
>> a FULL
>> product.
>> You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
>> trade-in".
>
> Condescending aren't you!
>
> I understand totally what you mean, and told you how I felt about it,
> hence you didn't understand what I stated the past few posts I made.
> If I didn't understand you, then you are not understanding how I am
> adamant about using the upgrade for such a purpose as I said I felt I
> should. I don't care if it is a full install disk or upgrade, it is
> on the same PC, and I am not paying for something that is the same
> thing. Incredible that an upgrade disk has all the things a full
> install disk does, only the upgrade needs qualification, but you feel
> I should pay MS the $100 dollar difference, for what is going on the
> same PC.
>
> Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such a
> possibility.

Bill,
Mike has not done anything other than explain the Microsoft policy, this is
a courtesy to inform you of what the EULA grants you and what you agreed to.
What you do with the information is up to you, but you can consider it
information that may come in handy if the situation warrants it. With both
activation and setup limitatations; great degrees of latitudes are necessary
to allow for special cases that as a by product allows the less than honest
to take advantage of or dissenting users an opportunity to do as they feel
they deserve even though they violate the EULA.
If in the unlikely event you were charged with a violation, at least you
would know why and how to wiggle out of it.
--

Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm

[Bill Wiggins]

"Michael Stevens" > wrote in message =
...
> Bill Wiggins wrote:
> > "Mike Brannigan [MSFT]" > wrote in
> > message ...
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> I will obviously stop banging my head against this brick wall.
> >> You are clearly not understanding the issues around and UPGRADE vs.
> >> a FULL
> >> product.
> >> You would obviously think "you get you keep your old car after the
> >> trade-in".
> >
> > Condescending aren't you!
> >
> > I understand totally what you mean, and told you how I felt about =
it,
> > hence you didn't understand what I stated the past few posts I made.
> > If I didn't understand you, then you are not understanding how I am
> > adamant about using the upgrade for such a purpose as I said I felt =
I
> > should. I don't care if it is a full install disk or upgrade, it is
> > on the same PC, and I am not paying for something that is the same
> > thing. Incredible that an upgrade disk has all the things a full
> > install disk does, only the upgrade needs qualification, but you =
feel
> > I should pay MS the $100 dollar difference, for what is going on the
> > same PC.
> >
> > Again, MS should have thought about this when they allowed for such =
a
> > possibility.
>=20
> Bill,
> Mike has not done anything other than explain the Microsoft policy, =
this is
> a courtesy to inform you of what the EULA grants you and what you =
agreed to.
> What you do with the information is up to you, but you can consider it
> information that may come in handy if the situation warrants it. With =
both
> activation and setup limitatations; great degrees of latitudes are =
necessary
> to allow for special cases that as a by product allows the less than =
honest
> to take advantage of or dissenting users an opportunity to do as they =
feel
> they deserve even though they violate the EULA.
> If in the unlikely event you were charged with a violation, at least =
you
> would know why and how to wiggle out of it.
> --=20

Hi,

I don't do what I do to be a rebel, if at anything like that at all. The =
EULA can say what it wants, but, the installations are on the same PC, =
paid for. I also can never be charged with a violation, since I didn't =
break any law, unless getting a civil suit lodged against me counts as a =
violation. But that isn't criminal as a violation (as you put it) would =
be construed. Not to make it an excuse to do what I do (as I do it =
because I feel I have the right) since did pay for the copies, and they =
are not used on another PC (I only have this one at home with Pro/ME on =
it). Anyway, I have seen (I won't name anyone as it is up to them to =
admit this publicly here) 2 MVPs, and a few other well noted people that =
help here, say they have the same installation (not exactly the same =
OSes, simply the same method of a dual boot). One even admitted to =
having used a previous upgrade disk (ME upgrade) to go from 98, to ME, =
then used the 98 as qualifying media for the Pro upgrade, all in a =
triple boot system.

Anyway, enough said, and I respect yours and Mike's integrity to the =
wording, and though I am sure you two don't agree with mine, I feel I am =
within my rights to use this in the way I do. MS would have been better =
to make the upgrade so it could either only do that by actually =
upgrading over the existing installation, or formatting the existing =
previous install (as a clean install method) as to not be able to use it =
as a dual boot scenario. IOWs, an upgrade can only be installed on a =
system without the existence of another OS. This would then justify =
reasoning for one to have to purchase a full install OS if one wanted a =
dual boot scenario, and also the cost difference.

Bill