It may be all you need technically, but it's not all you need legally. The usage agreement will say that you need to own a particular Windows prior version, and the fact that the system can be bypassed doesn't make the installed system any more "legal".

I'm sure this was at the request of the large integrators - just like the universal serials for previous versions of Windows that eventually leaked to the public.

The reason why this work-around is good is because even if you owned a previous version, you could not do a clean install. There is no mechanism for inserting a proper cd/dvd of a previous version for authentication. So unless you went and re-installed the old os first, you could not install the Vista upgrade.

That was dumb. This work-around definately takes care of that problem, which is a good thing.

I think those that use this method are going to get a surprise when they get prompted to put in the cd for the accredited previous version of windows at some point in the future. Microsoft will force people to re-validate quietly through a forced critical update system. The same why they forced some people to update to ie7 recently.

This might actually be a Microsoft method of getting people to update to Vista.

How many people would not purchase Vista if they were locked into a machine running it for 30-90days? Once you install Vista and use it for that long - you are committed.

I'd say it's just a basic MS cockup. In any case, the upgrades are good for Win 2000 for which there is no validation so the worst case scenario is that anyone using this method will need a Win 2000 CD - not really a big problem.

Given that you can find Vista for OEM prices (I've already been offered it from a reputable company I've dealt with before) this issue is largely irrelevant.

Kaled.

Didn't IBM do something similar with OS/2 demo CDs? The rumor then was some sneaky IBM tech had done it on purpose to increase the number of users, in turn increasing potential for future sales and third party software demand.