Will MS exchange Vista original disks for Vista w/ SP1 disks

[chucky2]

Since MS has taken away the slipstream option for Vista SP1, does anyone know if they'll allow us to send in our original Vista DVD and have them send back the same class of DVD (Retail, OEM, whatever) but with SP1 integrated in by them already?

This way, when we re-install, we can have all the benefits of Vista + SP1 right away?

Thanks either way!

Chuck

 

[nsafreak]

I don't use Vista but I'm curious how they would take away that option. From what I know nLite doesn't require anything special from MS in order to make a slipstream disc. It just takes all the data from your install disk, looks at the files & registry data that's changed in the service pack and integrates those changes into the new image. How did MS disable this?

 

[ViRGE]

They didn't take away the slipstream option, but they did change it. Windows installation is now image based, to "slipstream" SP1 you need to create a new image with SP1 as part of that image.

Anyhow, AFAIK they aren't exchanging discs right now. SP1 discs aren't even ready, they won't be until MS has SP1 out in every language they support.

 

[QuixoticOne]

The Vista + SP1 images ARE available on MSDN / Technet.
They confirm that fact with specific file names and so on here, so you can look for those specific searches to find what you need if you're having problems locating it:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/...-version-with-torrent/
http://www.mydigitallife.info/...-download-via-torrent/

You CAN slipstream your own SP1 + Vista Install image using this gargantuan 1GB bootable ISO image / tool set to get the job done after some slow and complex and difficult processes of installing vista, installing SP1, cleaning up SP1, making an install image from the installed system, etc:
http://www.microsoft.com/downl...657de08&DisplayLang=en

Frankly IMHO it is easier to just get the Vista+SP1 disc already slipstreamed from MSDN/Technet/a colleague etc.

If you are going to install SP1, I suggest you do NOT install unnecessary drivers (other than the ones needed to install vista and SP1 itself) before you apply SP1.
Here is a procedure that seems sensible to me:
http://trix-rox.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C2D60DDA0CFEED94!380.entry

If you DO want to find out more about automating the deployment or generating your own slipstream version of the installer, read these:
http://www.neowin.net/news/mai...sub=c_reply&cid=618531
http://blogs.technet.com/mnieh...ou-ready-for-them.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/james...ploying-vista-sp1.aspx
http://www.svrops.com/svrops/articles/sysprepvista.htm
...and of course the WAIK documentations after your 1.3GBy download and burn of the WAIK ISO just to get started.


I just downloaded the ISOs for Vista X86+SP1 & VistaX64+SP1 so they have them ready in some languages anyway but who knows when/how they'll mass deploy them.

You can possibly use the service here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...rdermedia/default.mspx
to order Vista CDs or a Vista 64 bit DVD for like $10 shipped, though I don't know exactly WHEN they'll switch over to sending out SP1 integrated discs.. you'd best wait a few weeks or call to find out what you'll get if you order now otherwise it's unknown if they might still have non-SP1 in stock...

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: chucky2
Since MS has taken away the slipstream option for Vista SP1, does anyone know if they'll allow us to send in our original Vista DVD and have them send back the same class of DVD (Retail, OEM, whatever) but with SP1 integrated in by them already?

This way, when we re-install, we can have all the benefits of Vista + SP1 right away?

Thanks either way!

Chuck

i asked microsoft this very question read for yourself what they told me.

 

[JustaGeek]

Isn't that like asking for a new CD/DVD of a patched game...?

Or any other software/product that has been updated...?

Or a 2008 model of a car, since you've purchased the 2007 and the new ones are out already...?

Why would anyone even think they would do that?

Just my $0.02.

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Isn't that like asking for a new CD/DVD of a patched game...?

Or any other software/product that has been updated...?

Or a 2008 model of a car, since you've purchased the 2007 and the new ones are out already...?

Why would anyone even think they would do that?

Just my $0.02.

to me a service pack is more than just a patch as you refer to it for a game. and software such as anti virus and so forth once bought you get free upgrades via download. not asking for something new like a later model car just a replacement for something we paid microsoft for.

anyhow i was able to get an image from a MSDN subscriber for nothing. google is great

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Isn't that like asking for a new CD/DVD of a patched game...?

Or any other software/product that has been updated...?

Or a 2008 model of a car, since you've purchased the 2007 and the new ones are out already...?

Why would anyone even think they would do that?

Just my $0.02.

to me a service pack is more than just a patch as you refer to it for a game. and software such as anti virus and so forth once bought you get free upgrades via download. not asking for something new like a later model car just a replacement for something we paid microsoft for.

anyhow i was able to get an image from a MSDN subscriber for nothing. google is great

There you go!

SP1 is a free upgrade via download, isn't it...?

But I'm glad you found a solution.

 

[QuixoticOne]

I think the point of suggesting that they ought to (gratis or for a very minimal shipping/handling fee) make SP1 integrated disc replacements available is:

a) the average user probably doesn't have the bandwidth to download the ISO image or even service pack itself without considerable hardship. There are a LOT of dialup users still.

b) the average user probably doesn't have the skill to find and download the ISO image unless it's pretty much automatically done by Windows Update and is then requested to "please insert a blank dvd+r now to make your new vista OS disc" given appropriate hardware.

c) the average MCSE probably cringes at the process for 'slipstream' re-imaging the SP1 install into the SP1 disc to make a new vista install disc. Good heavens you need to do a complete clean install on a real PC as part of the process. Normal people don't have anywhere near the skill, patience, disc space, bandwidth (the AIK is a 1.5GB download even before you download the 750MB SP1 itself), time, etc. to do this. You'd need basically a sandbox PC to blow away the OS on just to install to make the image. A lot of small businesses don't even have spare PCs / hard drives / etc.

d) Rather than download a 750MB service pack, or, actually, more like 1.5GB if you get both X86 and X64 which you're entitled and prudent to do, and even THEN have it take like 2-3 hours to install once they've got the SP1 most people would rather save the time and risk just get a disc that will clean install.

e) A lot of people's hardware WON'T clean install / run Vista RTM in a functional state, that's WHY they need a SP1 in the first place. So telling them to install Vista then update it isn't a very acceptable solution for a lot of people with relatively worse compatibility problems and relatively worse IT workaround / diagnostics skills.
For instance there's the bug where if you try to install RTM with 3GB or more installed it'll crash during Vista Install. I'd be ready to start some "WOW!" now with a steel toed boot up the bare bottoms of Microsoft officials if they with a straight face told me I had to tear apart my PC (and generally voiding the warranty on most people's systems), remove RAM sticks, install a known bad OS, then wait 3 hours for a SP to finish installing, then tear apart the PC again to put my RAM back. A very unsafe (ESD/damage) process, and one that would be neither cost effective of IT support time nor allowed by the IT/security policies of virtually any business. Hardly an acceptable workaround to getting an OS install disc that "just works" and installs an OS that is basically in usable shape right from the start.

f) One could certainly claim that Vista sans SP1 was "defective" enough that they shouldn't have released it until it had SP1 level compatibility / robustness. If it wasn't considered to be a responsible case of corrective action for MS to bear the cost of fixing, they wouldn't have engineered / released the SP1 in the first place. We paid for a working OS, and for an ongoing support process for that OS until its EOL which shouldn't be for at least another couple of years.

g) Rather than having millions of people trying to download hundreds of megabytes of updates all of a sudden, it is probably cost effective to bulk mail out a bunch of $0.20 cent discs rather than have the windows update servers clogged with the traffic for years to come every time someone reinstalled because, after all, SP1 would get re-downloaded with from WU every new install unless someone did have an integrated SP1 install disc or at least standalone SP1 disc they were knowledgeable and motivated to use.

h) if they made the SP1 install process faster / more risk free then there would be less chance for someone to mess up their PC doing the install over WU or with a standalone patch disc. As it is, it would've been vastly better for the average computer user to have made it so they could just use a new SP1 integrated install DVD, boot, and say "repair/upgrade this system" and have it be done.

i) They do tend to make these discs difficult to copy either due to intentional technical defects that frustrate copying, or due to the whole EULA/licensing/copyright mess so it isn't even necessarily practically or legally straightforward to make yourself a new set of custom install media based on SP1 + Vista or in similar patches + video game or whatever cases. If they don't permit you to have unrestricted ability to copy, patch, customize/fix their software to make derivative works from it, then it is their responsibility to give their customers the appropriately updated versions if there is a problem with the product that needs correction. They can't have it both ways and say "you don't own this software, we do, you can't copy it, can't patch it, can't make derivative works, can't make backups, but we have no responsibility to stand by our product / media / software which we license to you as being usable and free of defects that make them unfit for their intended uses". Either they assume the full responsibility to replace / update the product or they need to make it easy and possible for the users to do things like make backups, integrate patches, generate updated installable versions, etc.

j) This is an OS. The whole point is that it has to be successful in being bootable and functional, including the case where your PC isn't networked to be able to download updates, or for which the OS / networking doesn't work without the SP installed, etc. You can't just distribute a patch file and say "here use this" when the only workable / efficient solution is something that's a bootable OS disc by the nature of the product itself.

k) If they're so keen on their WGA thing, this could be one case where they'd actually be able to credibly give people a Windows Genuine Advantage as opposed to a Windows Gigantic Annoyance. Need a SP1 install disc? No problem, either send in your old disc, or activate your OS with its 'genuine' key and we'll send you a free freshly updated DVD if you so desire. Of course we'll make SP1 available as a standalone download too, but your advantage here is saving hours of wasted time and risk in downloading/applying the patch distinctly rather than having it be fully immediately integrated in your installs.

 

[RebateMonger]

Of course, I'd prefer that MS make all their software available via download. But the next best thing would be CD/DVD exchange program as mentioned. Microsoft has solved one problem (long installs) with Vista, but has made "slipstreaming" DVDs unrealistic for most people, even in a business setting.

 

[Don66]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne

The Vista + SP1 images ARE available on MSDN / Technet.
They confirm that fact with specific file names and so on here, so you can look for those specific searches to find what you need if you're having problems locating it:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/...-version-with-torrent/
http://www.mydigitallife.info/...-download-via-torrent/

Are those torrents safe, and would there ben any legal issues assiociated with the use of them?

 

[tommo123]

i wont use them since i dont trust the torrents to be safe and 'untouched'. the legal aspect of it doesnt bother me.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Originally posted by: Don66
Are those torrents safe, and would there ben any legal issues assiociated with the use of them?

Getting software from anywhere is completely utterly totally provably safe with respect to its authenticity if you know the SHA1 or MD5 hash that the software is supposed to have and then calculate yourself the hash of the version you have, if the hashes match, the software is totally intact.

The SHA1 hashes from the articles there (when I looked at them) matched *exactly* the SHA1's published on Microsoft Technet by Microsoft themselves, so I'd say that's as good as gold.

Just doublecheck the SHA1 when you get it.

As far as legal issues, of course there is no problem so long as you are entitled to use the OS, the service pack is something you're also entitled to get / use / integrate into the OS install CD. It doesn't matter if you do it yourself or if someone else does it for you, the result is that you have the same exact slipstreamed OS install disc you're entitled to use just as much as the original OS you have per Microsoft EULA.

 

[QuixoticOne]

Straight from MS's own site, I just personally verified the following facts concerning their updates
to help you all see if your discs may have been uh damaged by a scratch or anything else;
like I said, it matches what I've seen elsewhere too, and the SHA1 is a completely trustworthy way of verifying file integrity as long as you compute it locally on your file with a SHA1 utility.

So make the disc yourself, or have your favorite "IT subcontractor" somewhere make it for you, no difference if the hash is good.

en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso ISO-9660 DVD Image
File Size 3749 MB
SHA-1 Hash bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb
Description This file contains the following:
Windows Vista? Business with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Ultimate with Service Pack 1

Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (x86) - DVD (English)
File en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x86_dvd_x14-29594.iso ISO-9660 DVD Image
File Size 2943 MB
SHA-1 Hash bcd715a02739809e477c726ae4b5caa914156429
Description This file contains the following:
Windows Vista? Business with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Business N with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic N with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Ultimate with Service Pack 1

FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1

SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are the secure hash algorithms required by law for use in certain U. S. Government applications, including use within other cryptographic algorithms and protocols, for the protection of sensitive unclassified information. FIPS PUB 180-1 also encouraged adoption and use of SHA-1 by private and commercial organizations.

A prime motivation for the publication of the Secure Hash Algorithm was the Digital Signature Standard, in which it is incorporated.
...
To find an actual collision [for even a single file/hash], however, a massive distributed computing effort or very large parallel supercomputer such as those possessed by the NSA would be required.

Here's the facts about a SHA1 calculating utility from MS:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841290
http://download.microsoft.com/...s-kb841290-x86-enu.exe

Warning The Microsoft File Checksum Integrity Verifier (FCIV) utility is an unsupported command-line utility that computes MD5 or SHA1 cryptographic hashes for files. Microsoft does not provide support for this utility. Use this utility at your own risk. Microsoft Product Support Services (PSS) cannot answer questions about the File Checksum Integrity Verifier utility.

The File Checksum Integrity Verifier (FCIV) utility can generate MD5 or SHA-1 hash values for files to compare the values against a known good value. FCIV can compare hash values to make sure that the files have not been changed.

With the FCIV utility, you can also compute hashes of all your critical files and save the values in an XML file database. If you suspect that your computer may have been compromised, and important files have been changed, you can run a verification of the file system files against the XML database to determine which files have been modified.

The FCIV utility runs on Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: hclarkjr

Originally posted by: chucky2
Since MS has taken away the slipstream option for Vista SP1, does anyone know if they'll allow us to send in our original Vista DVD and have them send back the same class of DVD (Retail, OEM, whatever) but with SP1 integrated in by them already?

This way, when we re-install, we can have all the benefits of Vista + SP1 right away?

Thanks either way!

Chuck

i asked microsoft this very question read for yourself what they told me.

Sorta unbelieveable...I hope they fix this somehow when Vista SP2 comes out.

Chuc

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek
Isn't that like asking for a new CD/DVD of a patched game...?

Or any other software/product that has been updated...?

Or a 2008 model of a car, since you've purchased the 2007 and the new ones are out already...?

Why would anyone even think they would do that?

Just my $0.02.

Sure, it's like asking for a new CD/DVD of a patched game...as long as I either pay them to send me a new one for a nominal fee. I'd be happy to send my original to them too, just to be sure I'm not asking for something I don't have.

A 2008 model car vs. the 2007 I'd have doesn't cost the company $10 to give me...and a $10 that I'm willing to give me.

Why would I even think they wouldn't do that if I paid them a nominal fee?????

Chuck

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Straight from MS's own site, I just personally verified the following facts concerning their updates
to help you all see if your discs may have been uh damaged by a scratch or anything else;
like I said, it matches what I've seen elsewhere too, and the SHA1 is a completely trustworthy way of verifying file integrity as long as you compute it locally on your file with a SHA1 utility.

So make the disc yourself, or have your favorite "IT subcontractor" somewhere make it for you, no difference if the hash is good.

en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso ISO-9660 DVD Image
File Size 3749 MB
SHA-1 Hash bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb
Description This file contains the following:
Windows Vista? Business with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Ultimate with Service Pack 1

Windows Vista with Service Pack 1 (x86) - DVD (English)
File en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x86_dvd_x14-29594.iso ISO-9660 DVD Image
File Size 2943 MB
SHA-1 Hash bcd715a02739809e477c726ae4b5caa914156429
Description This file contains the following:
Windows Vista? Business with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Business N with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Basic N with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Home Premium with Service Pack 1
Windows Vista? Ultimate with Service Pack 1

FYI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha1

SHA-1, SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 are the secure hash algorithms required by law for use in certain U. S. Government applications, including use within other cryptographic algorithms and protocols, for the protection of sensitive unclassified information. FIPS PUB 180-1 also encouraged adoption and use of SHA-1 by private and commercial organizations.

A prime motivation for the publication of the Secure Hash Algorithm was the Digital Signature Standard, in which it is incorporated.
...
To find an actual collision [for even a single file/hash], however, a massive distributed computing effort or very large parallel supercomputer such as those possessed by the NSA would be required.

Here's the facts about a SHA1 calculating utility from MS:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/841290
http://download.microsoft.com/...s-kb841290-x86-enu.exe

Warning The Microsoft File Checksum Integrity Verifier (FCIV) utility is an unsupported command-line utility that computes MD5 or SHA1 cryptographic hashes for files. Microsoft does not provide support for this utility. Use this utility at your own risk. Microsoft Product Support Services (PSS) cannot answer questions about the File Checksum Integrity Verifier utility.

The File Checksum Integrity Verifier (FCIV) utility can generate MD5 or SHA-1 hash values for files to compare the values against a known good value. FCIV can compare hash values to make sure that the files have not been changed.

With the FCIV utility, you can also compute hashes of all your critical files and save the values in an XML file database. If you suspect that your computer may have been compromised, and important files have been changed, you can run a verification of the file system files against the XML database to determine which files have been modified.

The FCIV utility runs on Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Server 2003.

Thanks for all your help on this!

I got BitTorrent installed on my PC and downloaded the 64-bit .iso from the website you linked to (since I have have Vista x64).

The only problem I have now is that, while the file size matches, the hash does not using the MS fciv utility you linked to. The hashes are:

Correct: bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb
What I have: 6dd69d738e9adbaddaedb7faede6f7f3ad3defbd1ee1f75b

First I created a db.xml file using notepad.txt and put in the full filename including .iso extension in between the name tags, and then I put in just the sha1 hash correct value in between the sha1 tags.

Then I used the following command line: fciv -v -sha1 -xml db.xml

Not sure if running the fciv under Vista x64 is legit or not...I ran it native and in Windows XP w/ SP2 compatibility mode, and it made no difference.

Not sure what else to try at this point, except re-downloading it again, maybe it was just a bad d/l or something??? Never used a torrent program before...

Chuck

 

[QuixoticOne]

Chucky2, thanks, I'm glad to help if I can, I'm sorry to see this SP1 thing has been such a painful process for all the users (like us) who just want the OS we paid for to work and not be a hassle to update / reinstall / etc.

We appear to be using the fciv program in different ways; the "What I have" you listed has too many characters in it to even be a SHA1 hash, so it must be something else that you've read, maybe it is the BASE64 encoding of a SHA1 hash or something.

Hopefully your download is good after all, and you didn't delete it in error.

Let me tell you what worked for me:
From a command prompt with its current directory as the directory with the file to be checked :

$ ./fciv.exe -sha1 -add en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso
//
// File Checksum Integrity Verifier version 2.05.
//
bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso

I don't think it is a good idea or intended use to manually create the xml.db file the way you did with notepad. From what I can tell (the ReadMe documentation is a bit poor), I think this is the idea:

fciv.exe -sha1 -xml db.xml -add en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso

...starting with an empty / nonexistent db.xml to get the db.xml file automatically generated :

$ cat db.xml
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<FCIV>
        <FILE_ENTRY><name>en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso</name><SHA1>va3EaiY6e/Z+s4YJdw5P29BSR8s=</SHA1></FILE_ENTRY></FCIV>

And then you can verify the SHA1s of the files in the database against the stored values (and keep in mind they're stored in BASE64 encoded form of the SHA1, and they're calculated/stored automatically in the db when you check with "-add" as above):

$ fciv.exe -v -sha1 -xml db.xml
//
// File Checksum Integrity Verifier version 2.05.
//
Could not create the registry key.
Starting checksums verification : 03/23/2008 at 22h00'03

All files verified successfully

End Verification : 03/23/2008 at 22h01'55

So try the command I showed you using the command that doesn't use the xml db and just shows you the SHA1 and
then match that against the known good value to see if it's OK or not.

As for the download, I know each client program has a different user interface, and I've barely ever used them (and probably not the one you have). So I can't say too much specifically about how to use the client program you have, but
as a general rule there is some kind of way to have it check the "hash" of the file and the chunks of the file to determine that everything has transferred successfully. In the client I've seen there's a menu option to do that at any time while you have a transfer selected/listed to make it check if any received chunks are bad or missing. It should either show you that there are bad/missing parts that it has to transfer or that it has all been pulled successfully. I don't know if there's a way to check the history once you already have something "complete".

Anyway once the transfer is supposedly checked and complete as far as the client transfer program is concerned, then it is a good idea to do the FCIV thing and hopefully that'll all be correct.

I have just used FCIV on Vista64 to verify the sha1 calculation it does as well as compared it against the sha1 checking program I usually use and the sha1 that I and others (including MS) have published, and they all do match for my system.

The problem might just be the way you used FCIV.

Good luck.

Originally posted by: chucky2

The only problem I have now is that, while the file size matches, the hash does not using the MS fciv utility you linked to. The hashes are:

Correct: bdadc46a263a7bf67eb38609770e4fdbd05247cb
What I have: 6dd69d738e9adbaddaedb7faede6f7f3ad3defbd1ee1f75b

First I created a db.xml file using notepad.txt and put in the full filename including .iso extension in between the name tags, and then I put in just the sha1 hash correct value in between the sha1 tags.

Then I used the following command line: fciv -v -sha1 -xml db.xml

Not sure if running the fciv under Vista x64 is legit or not...I ran it native and in Windows XP w/ SP2 compatibility mode, and it made no difference.

Not sure what else to try at this point, except re-downloading it again, maybe it was just a bad d/l or something??? Never used a torrent program before...

Chuck

 

[QuixoticOne]

PS just to be super clear lest it cause a problem,
when you enter files into FCIV's db, it just calculates the sha1 hash of the file as it exists
right now on your disk and assumes that is the *correct* value that should always remain correct for the file.

When you verify against the database, it just verifies that the currently calculated hashes of the files listed in the database are the same as the recorded hashes made at the time the db was created.

So in no case does it verify that the original hash stored in the DB was actually correct, it just ensures it has not changed since then.

If you're trying to manually check the hash against a known/published value, you want it to just calculate the hash and
show you what it has calculated for you to manually compare against your known string. The database isn't helpful in this case.

Though you could certainly maintain a database so that when you check in the future you can see if a disc error or whatever
has corrupted the file since you originally put the hash of a known perfect version into the DB.

 

[chucky2]

Yep, you were totally right. This first command line you gave produced the correct hash and it matched up perfectly!

fciv.exe -sha1 -add en_windows_vista_with_service_pack_1_x64_dvd_x14-29595.iso

Thanks for all the help QuixoticOne!!!

I'll post back here after I get all 48GB of my family pics backed up and everything re-installed. I'm curious to see if the AHCI madness that is 680G/780G has been fixed...we'll see...

:thumbsup:

Chuck

 

[Viper GTS]

Does this mean that the MSDN ISOs will work with retail keys?

I have an MSDN subscription at work so I can get any ISO I could possibly want, but never bothered since I figured my keys wouldn't work.

Viper GTS

 

[hclarkjr]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Does this mean that the MSDN ISOs will work with retail keys?

I have an MSDN subscription at work so I can get any ISO I could possibly want, but never bothered since I figured my keys wouldn't work.

Viper GTS

I downloaded one of the ISO's and used my retail key with no problem at all. activated fine for me

 

[hclarkjr]

this is the MD5 of the ISO i downloaded e4ce0b193d94279e4dce1098d6b5afeb and this is the name of the ISO 6001.18000.080118-1840_amd64fre_Client_en-us-FRMCXFRE_EN_DVD.iso

 

[mooseracing]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
but has made "slipstreaming" DVDs unrealistic for most people, even in a business setting.

Why do you feel that way?

I like the end results of the imaging process. Sometimes it's annoying to mount the image make your changes, apply your changes, then unount it. It's worked great for me with a mixed mode RIS server. Also HAL independant, alot better than the universal restores for XP.

Too bad my biz isn't looking at Vista anytime soon since thats the only upside I see.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: mooseracing

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
but has made "slipstreaming" DVDs unrealistic for most people, even in a business setting.

Why do you feel that way?

Because RIS and Sysprep aren't practical tools for most small businesses, and that's where you'll see most Vista implementations right now. For smaller businesses, it's more practical to use Windows Updates or wait for a Microsoft-supplied, pre-integrated, Vista .iso.