Vista EULA: What's a Hack or a Work Around? Other Vista Discussions Discuss Vista EULA: What's a Hack or a Work Around? in the Windows Vista forums; I don't know why MS wouldn't provide all necessary for a bootable DVD. But, your additional information, to me, just strengthens the case for the VLite type of ...

[Znod]

I don't know why MS wouldn't provide all necessary for a bootable DVD. But, your additional information, to me, just strengthens the case for the VLite type of procedure being a non-EULA breaker.

[felix8406]

I don't know the answer either, but I meant my question to be more of a statement. If Microsoft is not supplying the user with the ability to create a bootable disc, they must have a reason. And, if they didn't include the boot option, then will adding the additional file be a violation?

I don't believe it is, but could it be considered a hack by someone? Or maybe a walk around?

A hack or a walk-around?...that is the question.

[Znod]

Yes, I think many would consider the procedure to be a EULA breaking hack or work around. But, of course, what I am doing is trying to make reasonable arguments that many such procedures are not necessarily EULA breakers unless found to be so via legal procedures. In this regard, unless daz requires otherwise, my tendency will be to not frown on the discussion and recommendation of such procedures to help others (as opposed to using them for profit-seeking purposes). And, not that this observation should be a determinant of anything, but I doubt that MS is the least bit interested in pursuing the use of the sorts of procedures that I am talking about legally. For one thing, the use of such procedures does not cost MS anything but trivial amounts at most.

[newtech2008]

That is, without first doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista, how would I do (1)--"work around any technical limitations of the software?" In this regard, the software will either do what I want it to do, without doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista or not. If it will, then the software is not technically limited in regard to what I want it to do, and the Vista EULA would not be broken if I did it. Similarly, without first doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista, how would I do (3)--"use components of the software to run applications not running on the software?" In this case, a component of Vista will either run an application without doing (2) or otherwise altering Vista or not. If it will, then the component would be running an application that is "running on the software," and the Vista EULA would not be broken if I ran it.

[newtech2008]

My second conclusion is that there are procedures, which some might view initially to be Vista EULA breakers, that actually don't conflict with the Vista EULA. For example, many of us are familiar with one of the procedures for using a Vista upgrade disk to do a clean install of Vista. In this regard, my opinion is that use of these procedures is not specifically outlawed by the Vista EULA and neither requires one to do (2) or to otherwise alter Vista.

Admittedly, there is a gray area here. That is, MS provides instructions for using an upgrade disk. However, it falls short of saying that an upgrade disk can be used only consistently with its instructions--which would outlaw the upgrade disk/clean install procedure under the Vista EULA. Consistently, one well-known and well-respected Vista site