Microsoft clearly stated that they have no intention of putting VL edition of Office 2010 in MSDN or TechNet subscribers section. So THERE IS NO SUCH MSDN VL EDITION.
The keys for office 2010 V14.0.4734.1000 (RC) and V14.0.4760.1000 (RTM) are different sorry man but thats the truth.... Sorry....
Just FYI, in the image you posted above, "MSDN (VL)" refers to a Volume Licence subscription to MSDN - not a VL edition of Office 2010. As stated earlier, all Office 2010 releases on MSDN/TechNet are Retail Licence. Regards
Ok Thanks for info Let it be it's working for me what else I need Thanks I'll be back to MDL after some days
The "RTM-Escrow" build was the last "beta" of Office 2010 released just before the final RTM version. It is not an "edition" of Office 2010. You should not be interested in the RTM-escrow build now. It is outdated and superceded by the final RTM build. Regards
V14.0.4730.1010 is not the official version - in fact that is an RC edition....the only official version that is endorsed and created by Microsoft is 14.0.4763.1000. Check your PM for a a link to both the X64 and X86 editions of Office 2010 Professional Plus VL Editions 14.0.4763.1000
Someone who has the VL final, do the version numbers of the different programs match or are they different?
How can you say so 'V14.0.4730.1010 is not the official version' I just downloaded Hindi ver of office & it is ver 14.0.4730.1010 I downloaded it direct it directly from M$ as trial I'm just installing it now.... Also as I mentioned ver 14.0.4730.1010 actually it was ver 14.0.4760.1000 not 14.0.4730.1010 it was just named in the folder & I thought it was VL but it was retail ver & I don't need VL now because I'm able to activate it with a key without using any crack what else I need!!!! I was already having English ver 14.0.4760.1000 with me which I suppose is RTM & latest and today I got a Hindi ver from M$ as a trial having ver 14.0.4730.1010(it is having digital signed on dated 2 April the same day on which english ver 14.0.4760.1000 was signed) which you say is not official you've wrong info the key which I've works perfectly on my english ver now I'll try it on Hindi ver after reinstalling OS I'm sure it will work there also So now I'm not running behind any more builds and also it is not possible for me to dwnlod 9.6Gb you provided coz it will take me around 5-6 days to download I'm not stupid.... Anyway thanks I already have what I needed
Mods pls close this thread. The poster "vvvvv5" obviously has no idea what the hell he is talking about and has nothing new to contribute.
i got the following iso image, not sure it is final but it is VL. the iso no. is started with 52 (retail started with 51) SW_DVD5_Office_Professional_Plus_2010_W32_English_MLF_X16-52536 SW_DVD5_Office_Professional_Plus_2010_W32_ChnSimp_MLF_X16-52528
Dude, if you had bothered to search this forum and read everything carefully, you would have found your answer. There was absolutely no need to start a new topic.
I have a Microsoft Partner Network (MPN) subscription and confirm those are OFFICIAL Volume License versions. And NO, I can NOT give a Volume License key. File Name: SW_DVD5_Office_Professional_Plus_2010_W32_English_ MLF_X16-52536.ISO Date Published (UTC): N/A Last Updated (UTC): N/A SHA1: 9F1D385A8989C4D4951B55F0EDFAEA9066B8F54EISO/CRC: 4ECADBBB File Name: SW_DVD5_Office_Professional_Plus_2010_64Bit_English_ MLF_X16-52545.ISO Date Published (UTC): N/A Last Updated (UTC): N/A SHA1: 2EA4241171B974463BCD9B4617111B46B981C238ISO/CRC: E723ADC6 May the force be with you...
VL 32bit - Sorry can't upload it X16-52536.iso CRC32: 4ECADBBB MD5: 80C74952D1601690E22D461057F157DF SHA-1: 9F1D385A8989C4D4951B55F0EDFAEA9066B8F54E
The best is to use retail from ms server and convert to vl. If you want visio ect (not included in retail plus version) then probably use 14.0.4763.1000_Select_volume_ship_x86_en-us_dvd.iso
To Gavineer or To thepfy Do you have a direct microsoft link or can you post a copy from microsoft of the sha1 hash for your VL .iso image? I googled and downloaded the same 32 bit vl, and got the same hash. But can this hash be proven to be the real thing?