Slashdot Mirror
How Much Does a Vista Upgrade Cost?
dptalia writes "Microsoft has rolled out its Vista upgrade program, where people can buy a qualifying PC with XP today and upgrade to Vista later for free. This article talks about what free really means. Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home. And then comes the question of actually trying to upgrade your computer... Is "free" really worth it?"
The Ultimate version will run around $400 from what I've heard (yes, it's rumor). While the home/basic version will run a LOT cheaper, you'll be unable to do a lot of the stuff "tweakers" like to do to customize and manage things. Think: XP Pro had Remote Desktop, where XP Home did not. That kinda stuff.
The problem with that line of thinking is that the Christmas season presents sales opportunities that simply don't come around again later in the year. No one wants to get a coupon for a Vista computer in their stocking, and a computer with XP pre-installed simply isn't as competitive an offering as a computer with Vista installed would be. That means that a significant amount of money that would have gone towards PCs this Christmas will probably go towards something else. OEMs are pissed, and rightly so. Missing the Christmas season is the unpardonable sin in the retail business.
Windows XP support USB keyboards and mice in the base install. The XP installer fully supports a PS2 keyboard and mouse.
Your sound and video were the gimped versions that are installed with the Linux distro. You still need to go out and download the proper 3d accelerated optimized drivers from the chipset vendors. Same for sound. Sorry, but that's just a fact of life for Linux, at least it was the last time I installed it.
If you didn't have support for your USB keyboard or mouse you had non-standard components. Albeit rare, some are out there. My customers are always told to buy for something other than price. In other words, never buy that el-cheapo mouse that is not a recognizable name or you'll pay in time and gas trying to get it to work and then driving back to the store to return it.
The issues described in his posting are demonstrative of a lack of experience and/or prioritization.
After 5 years of distribution with a large number of new products released over that half decade it would be no wonder that some people have problems with some new components and their drivers.
XP HAS NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH PS2 DRIVERS, EVER.
If you have a problem it is your problem not XP.
I do not in any way support Microsoft and I do not care to protect their name or business. It isn't my job to police for them and I don't care what anyone I encounter does with XP legal or otherwise. It just isn't my problem.
I do dislike the fact that Microsoft has stolen, deceived, and broken so many laws to get and maintain their monopoly. I hate monopoly companies. But I can honestly say that those comparative stories about XP vs. Linux are not giving the fully story to the readers, so I am commenting.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Yes.
More to the point: The free software/open source software community is not a market, and I really don't like the business-speak that comes to the surface every time free software comes up. The goal of everything is not profit or some idea of "winning." Sometimes people just like to share things that they've written to be useful, in the hope that it will help someone else.
I don't write code for a living; instead, it's a hobby to me. I would argue that much of the free software community began like that: they write code because they enjoy it as something to do on the side, not because it makes them money. I don't really feel any compusion to try to charge people for the things I produce for fun.
Legalize it.
Yeah, unmodifiable.
My Computer > C Drive > Sharing and Security > C$ > "Do Not Share This Folder"
Fuck me, that was hard.
(Now, an argument about it being enabled by default, that would have a lot more merit.)
Then, however, I read this:
Where's my tinfoil hat? Not to mention those open source BIOSes for my Asus laptop. And the open source BIOS for its ATI Mobility Radeon X1600. And the open source BIOS for it's Samsung 120GB HDD. Oh, man. Ye gods. What do you when you get home from work, write missives about the black helicopters and how John Lennon is working as a CIA agent?
But of course, you wouldn't be writing that on MS Office, of course:
Congrats, AC, I sprayed Mountain Dew with laughter.
I Vista 64 they require that drivers are 64bit and signed. So wait for better times. :P
I can't speak for the odd problems that the GP had with keyboard/mouse, but Windows XP *DOES NOT* come with drivers for most modern hardware. Most Linux distributions come with drivers for nearly anything out there.
To finish installing XP, you need to go download video drivers, sound drivers, network drivers, motherboard drivers, etc. Hell, you can't even install on many SATA systems without having a floppy drive and teaching XP how to talk to a SATA controller.
To make Vista have accelerated 3D, I still needed to go download and install a driver. The MS driver for my network chipset won't do gigabit, but Linux and XP don't have trouble with it. It also wasn't too fond of my 802.11g USB dongle, and doesn't (and probably never will) support some of my older hardware, like a scanner and a few printers.
As for Linux, I've never had to install a non-distribution supplied driver for my system for anything other than video. In that case, I clicked "Add/Remove..." from my "Applications" menu, selected "NVIDIA binary X.Org driver", and hit OK. The one place I see Linux having bad support is for 802.11g chipsets, and that is 100% a problem created by the manufacturers and not one with Linux.
I have learned from my past mistakes what the upgrade treadmill problems are.
I would agree with you if I hadn't tried Debian GNU/Linux. The big problem of Windows is that it doesn't use a database managed installation system. When you remove a program under Windows (add/remove program in control pannel), what Windows does is simply calling the uninstaller of said program. Then it's up to the uninstaller to handle the uninstallation properly. When the uninstaller asks you something like "This is a shared library, are you sure you really want to remove it ?", you'd better say no unless you are really really sure. This is because Windows doesn't use a database managed installer, and hence cannot determine whether a given shared library can be safely removed or is used by another program. For the very same reason, when Windows is upgraded, it cannot be determined if the components that are removed/upgraded will be incompatible with installed programs or not. I have been running Debian Sid for more than four years now, upgrading the packages every days. Still no major problem for me.
Anyway for the case of Windows, I would tend to agree with you anyway ...
From my experience (upgrade versions of Windows 2000 and XP), qualifying prior versions have never needed to be "installed" to perform a "replace/fresh/clean/start-from-scratch" install using an upgrade version. When installig on a bare hard drive, the upgrade version might ask you to pop in the previous version's CD for proof. I didn't use the upgrade version of Windows 95 like you did, but didn't it ask if you wanted to wipe the hard drive and start from scratch (instead of upgrading "on top" of the old installation)?
Just like previous versions of Windows, Windows Vista upgrade versions will still allow clean installations and in-place upgrades (that's what Microsoft calls them). MS describes these options on this page: Upgrade Planning for Windows Vista.
Heck, I'll just cut-and-paste the relevant info from that page:
The options
You can upgrade from your current edition of Microsoft Windows XP or Windows 2000 to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista by purchasing and installing an upgrade copy of Windows Vista. Depending on which edition of Windows you are running and the edition of Windows Vista you would like to install, you have two options for the installation process:
In-place upgrade
You can upgrade in-place, which means you can install Windows Vista and retain your applications, files, and settings as they were in your previous edition of Windows.
Clean install
Upgrading to Windows Vista with a clean install means that you should use Windows Easy Transfer to automatically copy all your files and settings to an extra hard drive or other storage device, and then install Windows Vista. After the installation is complete, Windows Easy Transfer will reload your files and settings on your upgraded PC. You will then need to reinstall your applications.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
I think the whole point of Consumer IT is to make life easier, more productive, enjoyable and entertaining. I'd rather have an OS that enables me to process, edit and share photos and videos of my last vacation with my friends and family then one that enables me to "pwn" my HW or compile a new version of vi. We shouldn't be slaves to our computer or barred from using IT just because we're not smart enough.
That problem has been solved. The software is there.
The issue right now is marketing and distribution.
Ubuntu with Automatix does everything you want, easily.
Installing Ubuntu from the live CDs is too easy.
And they send you the CDs for free, if you don't want to download them, or don't get them from a friend (at least 5 friends of mine converted with my CDs, successfuly, and with Ubuntu 7.04 I'm planning on all my familiy as they need new OSes).
Microsoft beats them, because you get Windows readily installed on new computers.
It's not feature of the software per se, but a distribution issue.
I think that the focus should be there, right now. Not about the software itself, but improving the way it gets distributed, and marketed.
Once it is installed, there is another issue, Automatix, that takes care of codecs, and proprietary software(there you get the ability to share pics with your friends with Picasa, just like your friends do it).
After that, using and administering Ubuntu is a walk in the park. A consistent interface, very easy. Installing new stuff is done in two ways. Most stuff is either preinstalled, like OpenOffice, or comes through the Package Manager.
Proprietary stuff comes from Autmatix. No hunting for the downloads.
There, the distribution problem is solved much more easily in Ubuntu.
I think that with better distribution, and more publicity, Ubuntu is ready for the desktop, when ease of use is our target. Or at least it's a lot more ready than XP.
Windows upgrades have always worked on bare hard drives by inserting a CD (or floppy) for the product you are upgrading from, no need to have it actually installed.
I can tell you never did the Windows 95 upgrade. It does not boot. It does not install from DOS. It does require Windows 3.X which requires DOS. After that to get on the web, required installing a browser such as IE seprately. After my 3rd system rebuild, I swore off upgrades on upgrades and opted for fresh installs only.
The truth shall set you free!