Tiled Linux Distros
-
-
It is stored in BIOS but I can't find the field as is its a hidden record using a special chip designed by microsoft for just this purpose.
Using a retail ISO or CD will never pull the BIOS OEM key.
-
From Ubuntu run this command:
ls /sys/firmware/acpi/tables -
10 Last night, being as it's a free upgrade which also asked for a product key. Which is why it's likely that the downloader Microsoft has is providing the Retail Installer
-
Scott I will try that tonight.
-
During the install when Windows asks for the key, choose skip. Once you're inside Windows 8 go to the activation screen and see if you can activate it. It should read from the BIOS/UEFI and activate.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
10 Last night, being as it's a free upgrade which also asked for a product key. Which is why it's likely that the downloader Microsoft has is providing the Retail Installer
You can't go directly to Windows 10 - you must upgrade from Windows 7/8 to Windows 10 first... then in the future you can install Windows 10 from scratch, and it will activate via the hardware key that MS will have stored for that machine.
-
I'll download that same image and see if I can install it to my spare laptop sitting here allowing it to pull from the UEFI.
-
LOL - as it just to happens, I'm doing something similar with Windows 10 right now.
Last night I upgraded a domain joined Volume License ISO KMS key deployed image. I was wondering if Windows 10 would activate from this. After the install Windows 10 indicated that it was indeed activated.
I'm presently installing Windows 10 from scratch on that same PC to see if it will activate automatically.
FYI I have not changed my local KMS server with a new key - but I'm not sure if one of the recently released patches would have solved that anyhow.
-
Total drag - I downloaded the Windows 8 ISO from the above listed site and was stopped cold in my tracks. It demands a product key to continue - I thought MS had fixed that.
-
I think that they might have but only in 8.1 and later, maybe.
-
OK well, apparently not, as the MS tool only allows you to download 8.1not 8
-
Oh, I guess no luck then. You had mentioned 8, I was surprised you were trying the older version.
-
@mlnews said:
Oh, I guess no luck then. You had mentioned 8, I was surprised you were trying the older version.
Frankly I use 8 and 8.1 interchangeably - typically it doesn't matter, though in this case it might.
I found this page
http://dellwindowsreinstallationguide.com/download-microsoft-windows-and-office/download-microsoft-windows/download-windows-8-1-retail-and-oem-iso/#Downloadingthat talks about there being 3 different versions of non Pro you can download using the tool. I'm trying again to see what I get.
-
@Dashrender said:
Frankly I use 8 and 8.1 interchangeably - typically it doesn't matter, though in this case it might.
No different than using 7 and 8 interchangeably or 8.1 and 10. It's a separate OS with a different kernel. It's part of the Vista -> 7 -> 8 -> 8.1 -> 10 desktop family.
Windows 8 is 2012 and NT 6.2. Windows 8.1 is 2012 R2 and NT 6.3.
-
Yes teacher - I understand... Frankly calling it 8.1 was the dumbest, it would have been better off called Windows 8 second edition... this point names imply to the masses (obviously not to people like Scott) that the lineage is very close and the above distinction is unwarranted.
-
@Dashrender said:
Yes teacher - I understand... Frankly calling it 8.1 was the dumbest, it would have been better off called Windows 8 second edition... this point names imply to the masses (obviously not to people like Scott) that the lineage is very close and the above distinction is unwarranted.
It implies but is incorrect. Very important that IT not treat the naming casually. It can matter, like in this case, where we are talking about licensing or compatibility or features. Really, when doesn't it matter? It's easy to say that they are similar, but they are still as different as any two others members of the same lineage when it comes to what matters (solving problems, knowing how things work, licensing, etc.) While they "look" similar, I can't think of any scenario where not knowing which OS you are discussing doesn't matter.
Absolutely the naming was terrible. The .1 makes people feel one thing. But they sort of corrected that by jumping to 10, reverse implying that it was spiritually 9.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
reverse implying that it was spiritually 9.
Not even once have I ever seen that inferred. So I would say not.
-
Windows 8 SE would not be the same, in theory. There should have been no connection to Windows 8 as it was a full OS. It should have been 9 or something weird like Vista was, just a name. It wasn't an update to 8, it was a full fledged new OS. And even the visual components of the interface changed.
-
@JaredBusch said:
Not even once have I ever seen that inferred. So I would say not.
Why not? Doesn't the missing link between 8 and 10 imply nothing more or less than the completely "read into" implication of .1? What makes one more meaningful than the other?
