Slashdot Mirror
Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS
kapaopango writes "Ars Technica is reporting that upgrade versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Premium, and Starter Edition cannot be installed on a PC unless Windows XP or Windows 2000 is already installed. This is a change from previous versions of Windows, which only required a valid license key. This change has the potential to make disaster recovery very tedious. The article says: 'For its part, Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS, since otherwise the only option for disaster recovery in the absence of backups would be to wipe a machine, install XP, and then upgrade to Vista. This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.'"
the article should say Vista DOWNgrades?
What's your GCNSEQNO?
I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever! Surely there will be no need for disaster recovery!?
Respectfully...So? This isn't really surprising. MS has always tried to have UPGRADE versions require a previous MS OS already installed. Their allowing you to use a CD key from a previous OS version to do a fresh install of the new was somewhat of a kindness on their part. It is an UPGRADE version. If this is a pain in the ass, then buy a full version. Better yet...go Ubuntu.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
I honestly can't see them holding out for long with this policy (like the one about only being able to transfer the license to a new machine once that they dropped). Besides disaster recovery, there are times when you just want to re-install because it's the simplest way to get rid of all the crap you've put on your system, or that has been left behind by badly behaved apps that don't uninstall cleanly. No-one is going to put up with having to install an old OS first and then upgrade.
and said make a ghost image like everybody else....
I don't think we'll find a very large corporate install base of "upgrade" versions of Vista. This will affect home users the most.
I'm more concerned with the "'per device' obsession" TFA mentions. I'm in no hurry to swap out XP/2k workstations at my shop for Vista -- and this just re-enforces that. I doubt I'm the only IT professional who feels that way.
Microsoft is crippling Windows and making life harder for their customers? Good. I welcome this change and hope to see more changes like this one!
I'd really like it if Microsoft could deny OS updates to anyone running an unlicensed Windows, too. Does anyone know if Vista does that?
upgrade has never meant install from clean hence the price differential
tagged with moran
1 in 4 Maine children in struggle with hunger.
This is just to keep people from buying the upgrade for new equipment. Everyone I know has been doing that (unless they buy the OEM). It's always fun to go searching around from my Windows 3.1 disks everytime I need to reinstall. (Actually that was windows 98, but you get my point.)
Who is going to use Vista?
Media companies: Heh heh, if you like 520p.
Regular companies: 2000 is good enough for them.
Small businesses: Whatever looks good to pirate (not vista).
Gamers: PS3 and Wii, and XP (no game co's will make for one OS only)
Media users: 2000 or Linux. Both play things good enough.
"I just bought a Dell": Vista.
Well... I think that sums it up.
This sounds like a Pain In The Ass.
Recovering of data and reinstalling Windows is what I spend a lot of my week doing.
Oh well, we'll probably have business edition or ultimate at work anyway.
Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
Well, I don't know how good Vista's repair is, but I know I usually reformat my computer once a year or so. That would make things extremely irritating. I don't see what real purpose this serves though. Will it stop people with pirated versions from updating? That I could understand, but still, wouldn't using a pirated liscense key from XP do the same thing then? This decision just doesn't make sense to me.
How many lusers will buy the upgrade edition, then after it crashes buy the full edition? I think MS will get a lot of bad press from this.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
Absolutely ridiculous.
Most people who upgrade the OS will probably also be buying a new PC within a few years.
This policy makes installing Vista with a transferred license on that new PC a total chore (and maybe impossible, if you've thrown out the original media and license data for the old OS installation).
Screw Upgrading, I finally have the hardware to allow my Windows XP install to boot as fast as my Amiga used to.
Ya know, for an online community where almost everyone wishes Windows would just go away, there are sure an awful lot of articles here picking at MS for every little thing that they do. It's like we don't care a whit about Vista, practically no one here's going to install it, and yet we want to give it the anal exam and scrutinize every nook and cranny.
Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
The last time I tried upgrading a Windows OS was ME. That compounded a disaster on a disaster. Most of my system fonts disappeared and it largely killed a machine. I managed to somehow scrub ME out of the machine and managed to even recover my fonts, they were still there. I swore never again to try to install a Windows upgrade. Better to get a full copy and just swap out the hard drive until you are sure all is well. I then use the original hard drive as a back up drive then drag across my files. Costs a bit more but it's a lot safer.
Out of morbid curiosity I decided to install XP, worked like a charm. I then put in the Vista CD, and it booted and installed a fresh copy of Vista without problem. (Complete overwrite, not upgrade).
So, from my experience, Vista won't even install on a totally fresh hard drive.
A co-worker had a very similar experience, but had to go with installing XP, then upgrading - which leaves you with some decidedly annoying problems with the admin controls.
Overall Vista isn't as bad to work with as some stories would lead me to believe, but there are definitely days where it's easy to see it is not fit for prime-time.
I'm not sure if it is still the case, but I remember a lot of the beta testers complaining that there was a noticeable performance hit when upgrading to Vista from an installed XP. In order to get the best of a Vista install, they recommended fresh installs.
to not buy Vista.
XP works just fine for me.
I don't see an overwhelming problem with this. Most disaster recovery situations need a professional or someone who has significant know-how with computers. If you backup the entire drive and need to recover it, you won't need the Vista install disk anyway. The only situation where it will be a pain is if you reformat your drive often and install a fresh copy. There will likely be a way around this soon.
For professionals, they will likely keep a Windows XP or 2000 image hanging around if they need to reformat a customer's computer that has vista upgrade. It also keeps computer techs one step ahead of customers.
95 did this too. But, it only checked for one file, and by name. The answer was to create a zero-length file names whatever.dll and put it on a floppy.
Have you read my journal today?
"...as new information indicates that the company is breaking tradition when it comes to Windows Vista upgrades." (emphasis mine)
Perhaps Ken should have included a link to his information. It is the web after all. Until then I think Ken's full of shit and spreading FUD. Where did this information come from? Has Microsoft been given the ability to respond to the criticism or was this just hack/ambush journalism? Ken is the worst blogger on Ars (I hesitate to call him a journalist).
So does this mean the Ultimate upgrade works like the XP upgrade?
And can you have both the version of XP you own as well as a Vista upgraded from that same copy of XP on the same system?
Schnapple
...if they would treat an existing Linux install as an "upgrade." This is not flame-bait, it's just an observation of a marketing gimmick that Microsoft might have pulled but no doubt it would have backfired on them in some way... for example, people saving money by simply installing Knoppix or something and then spending less to get the upgrade... or worse (for them) people install Linux and decide to keep it. :)
Or maybe I should say that they're becoming their own BIGGEST enemy. Inconveniences like this will drive people away from Vista and into the arms of Apple or Linux.
Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
I know the only thing holding me hostage to Windows is gaming. I have an Ubuntu box and would gladly switch to it full time if it was not for the games.
The day that happens will begin the death, or at least the crippling, of Microsoft.
It's only paranoia if your wrong...
I don't believe that repair will always work, especially on a system that has had a few service packs installed. I've seen a "repair" turn a system that was malfunctioning into one that would not boot.
Secondly, what does repair do to security? In my experience, after a repair, the system does not require all the security patches to be re-installed, yet the repair must have overwritten some files that had been patched for security fixes. In other words, some of the security patches have been rolled back, yet the system does not apparently detect this.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I always assumed that getting an "upgrade" version for cheaper was to reward you for loyalty: since you bought their previous OS versions, the new version is only an incremental extra amount of features, so you shouldn't have to pay as much.
In my opinion, an "upgrade" version, says NOTHING about how you actually install it. It's just the same thing but cheaper because you bought the old one.
I see a bunch of people suggesting that it only applies if you're "upgrading" your machine. That seems like a complete non-sequitur, given the usual rationale (as above). Are we seriously to believe that an upgrade edition is only an "install once and that's it" version? Completely ridiculous.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
I'm fine with a Vista license... as long as it means I can have a valid XP Pro install on my machine with that Vista License.
I for one welcome our new time wasting overlords
I'm not planning to upgrade any of my Windows machines to Vista, and I bet you're not either.
In the past, we've been lucky enough to just stick the CD in the drive when I install an upgrade and have it work. I hope they haven't put this into place but I guess I'll find out on Tuesday.
I don't 'upgrade' any OS, I backup my data and start from scratch. There's so many pieces of software and drives out there that aren't yet released, how do they expect it to work?
I really hope everyone to runs into this call Microsoft for support, maybe that'll cause them to fix it.
I love Microsoft. I don't care how difficult they make make it for me. I will pay as much as they demand to get Vista. I will do anything they ask. You must all realize that it is not just an operating system - it is GOD. It is the only reason to live. It is more important than air, food and water. Without Microsoft there is simply no meaning to life.
Now just be quiet and send them money.
The newly supplied "backup" utility is incompatible with the .bkf file format, which goes back to 1993, and worse yet - it cannot operate in Safe Mode. Many times when trying to restore an inoperable system, Safe Mode is the only available way to access the system!
Vista - a glossy step backwards.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
I can't tell you how many times I've seen people buy new computers because theirs was filled with spyware, viruses, and tons of crapware. I'm sure Microsoft is aware of this trend....especially with $500 computers.
Now that consumer versions of Vista are not bootable, this trend will only increase. More people will say "fuck it....i'll just buy a new one".
I can't think of any other reason for Microsoft to do this nonsense.
-ted
Totally off-topic, but I initially read that as, "Not if you ghost drive after doing the upgrade," thinking "ghost driving" was something like "ghost riding". I could see how ghost riding your "whip" (and subsequently crashing or getting it stolen) could make OS disaster recovery less irritating by comparison.
Then I realized you meant Norton Ghost, the drive-imaging software, and your comment was suddenly much less funny.
But I think I speak for everyone when I say, boy oh boy, I can barely wait until Tuesday to get my $300-something Windows Vista Ultimate Bill Gates Limited Edition... ...BAHAHAHAhahahahahaahahahahahahahahaahaha
Microsoft is crippling Windows and making life harder for their customers? Good. I welcome this change
what do you mean "change"?
Push Button, Receive Bacon
This OS must be some sort of practical joke just to get all of us talking about it. No company that respects its customers... oh wait, nevermind.
I hate sigs.
What about just installing the OS? Upgrade simply means you own an existing version and are getting a discount to upgrade that license to a Vista license. Perhaps I want to start clean and format my machine when upgrading. Why the hell should I have to install XP first? From my experience this is a shitty way to install an OS anyway. I never install one OS on top of an old one.
I hear some people saying people like me should buy a full license? Why??? Just for the privilege of being able to install on a blank hard drive even though I already paid for XP?
What happens when the next version of windows, post-Vista comes out. Do I have to install XP, install Vista, and then install whatever they call the next shitty version of the OS? Fuck.
Explain to me why you schmucks are still using Windows. Wake up people, MS doesn't give two shits about you. They are only interested in your money and the quickest way to remove it from you. Do your self a favor, switch!
I don't keep one (OK I use Linux, and most valuable stuff is replicated elsewhere), but I doubt very much that more than 5% of Windows users keep full backups, let alone current ones. Suggesting that people should do this as a matter of course is just ignoring reality.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
98 SE upgrade required a working 98 installation.
Were that I say, pancakes?
This may potentially mean that the user that upgraded from Win3.11 to Win95 to Win98 to WinMe to Win2000 to WinXP and then wants to upgrade to WinVista, but in the meantime had done several hardware upgrades, may in fact need to reinstall each and every version of MS Windows that they'd ever installed if they get a crash of the PC that requires re-installation of the OS onto a new HDD. :o|
All that requirement will do is force everybody doing a disaster recovery to use a pirate copy of Vista, since it will be much less trouble.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Many companies only backup irreplaceable data. Have you priced LTO3 drives, tapes, or autoloaders recently? Those damn things are expensive. Why backup operating systems and consume precious, expensive backup space?
Most companies have hot/warm redundant systems off-site for mission critical systems. System images don't usually help in the event of a Katrina type disaster. After all, how can you guarantee that you'll get the exact same hardware you had? DR companies like Agility only guarantee that you'll get a 1u Intel Xeon server, not necessarily a Dell PowerEdge 1850....
Because of these limitations, entire operating systems are seldom backed up.
-ted
For its part, Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS, since otherwise the only option for disaster recovery in the absence of backups would be to wipe a machine, install XP, and then upgrade to Vista. This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.'"
Well, it's a good thing the only real reasons for a reinstall nowadays is a massive virus or spyware infection.
Oh, wait... vista is windows right?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
There should be one and the pay more for Ultimate and get 2 home for $90 each is not the way to go.
It should be like apple use one key for up to x systems.
Is it based on guesswork? More FUD?
to "upgrade" my existing OS. Too much changes and I am just not comfortable without doing a full format.
That said, I'm admittedly a Microsoft fanboy (to a reasonable extent).
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
As I recall, my Windows 95 Upgrade required the presence of Windows 3.1/3.11 to install. Now, this was tied to exactly ONE file, so if you had a copy of it and you could produce it at the appropriate step during install, it would go ahead.
I wound up going this upgrade route when I went from 95 to 98. When I started having to format and reinstall the OS because of malware, I found this to be a huge pain in the butt adding far more time to the install process than was necessary. I promised myself I would never go that route again. Having to do it year in and year out everytime you needed to remove all the crap, hidden logs that slowed down Win, and all the other BS that makes it a near annual ritual.
Does anyone not remember the SP2 upgrade where everyone and their bother seemed to be having problems with their computer and programs with tons of folks reporting hung up installs gone wrong? Recovery was not possible with the first SP2.
I'm not after Vista, sure am not going to go the upgrade route, and don't want the extra expense that buying hardware just to satisfy DRM requirements carries as a price to install.
1) Buy an upgrade version that requires a previous OS version to already be installed.
2) Buy the full version to install however the hell you want.
3) Use an alternate OS other than MS. Fuck that! I'll be using option 4:
4) Download a cracked version and install it instead.
Bill Gates can go attempt asexual reproduction if he thinks I'm going to run through two installs just to get one O/S working.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Actually, they previously required *proof* of an old copy. For 95 you could have it scan your 3.x disks, 98 could scan the 95 discs, and XP you could let scan the 95/98 discs.
You didn't need to install the OS, just have the installation media. Not sure how this works when XP is often installed with a prebuilt image for many laptops etc though, or if Vista even supports the got-a-disc authentication.
Somebody made a conscious decision to do it this way. You have to wonder what they were thinking.
"We're Microsoft and we can do as we damn well please because few of our customers know they have options?"
I do wish that more people would move to Linux and/or that Apple would port their OSX to PCs. (which I believe Apple has expressed no or little interest) If Microsoft had more real competition, they wouldn't be so smug and willing to hang their own customers by the short and curlies.
Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS Hahaahahaha I didnt know Format was a Repair Process?
Umm two things:
1) No shit, it is an upgrade disk
2) the XP upgrade disk required the same/similar. It required either that you had a windows OS installed or that you had the disk and could insert it.
My main argument lies with (1).
It's available, but you don't get it unless you ask for it, when you place your volume license order.
-ted
Well, if this is anything like the previous upgrades, it will only get more and more difficult. I started with WFW3.11 and DOS 6.22, the upgrade was seamless and the install after crash was just using the new disks. Now, I never purchased 95, 98 or Me as I feel they were in beta during the entire life of the product and don't feel one bit guilty for it. The upgrade there was to either have the previous OS installed or have a disk. Windows 2000, I don't know, I never used it much, but I do know that the hack to the INF file makes it a cinch to upgrade or install. XP asks for the previous OS to be installed or the disk, no big deal. My big deal comes when you need to reinstall XP and don't have the exact, perfect, precise fracking CD. Oh, call the manufacturer to add to your repair bill please. UGH. It's only going to get worse with Vista. You will probably need to your credit card that you used to purchase the upgrade when you install! And, pay a $50 fee to reinstall, oh, I should not have given them the idea. Things will do nothing but get worse as far as Windows goes and do nothing but get better as far as Linux goes. Once upon a time, Windows freed you on your computer, now it is nothing but a curse and a trap. The DRM, the excessive overhead (a visit to Best Buy and checking several laptops showed Vista consuming 350 to 600 MB at IDLE), the licensing crap, etc will hopefully drive Windows to the end. Linux will, with all hope, take over PC's. When all my games (yes I am sad) and the more important programs that I use will run on Linux without my monetary input, then Windows will be gone forever from my systems. The only things that keep me on Windows are the programs that won't run on Linux and that I must support it at my employment. Just my 2 cents and rants.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Last time I checked, there was no such thing as an upgrade key, only retail and OEM keys. Go torrent a Vista RTM disc.
"Vista UPGRADES Require Presence of Old OS"
No shit.
I've had software packages requiring the installation of the upgrade product first. Doesn't sound like a lot of work, but the reality is it's a major pain in the rear.
MSFT sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to make this transition painful for their users. I can't tell if it's intent or incompetence. Ineptitude, raised to a high enough power, is indistinguishable from malice.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
XP upgrade will still let you install to a blank hard disk with just a Win95 CD as confirmation.
What if you xcopy all the files on an XP CD to the hard disk. Maybe that will trick the Vista installer into working?
I pre-ordered the super-de-duper Bill Gates autographed Vista Ultimate Upgrade but I'm gonna return it if I can't do clean installs somehow. You'd think MS would let you insert an XP CD during the Vista install to "prove" that you own XP.
Ubuntu is, despite what some of its proponents will say, not really a solution for low-end hardware that you want to keep running. It's designed for systems that are only one or two upgrade cycles out, not elderly sub-600MHz systems. I had a devil of a time getting it running on an older Celeron system (a crappy Compaq that was a "$500 special" at Staples when it was brand new) even after tossing in a ton of ram (ironically the LiveCD would run, but the install disk just blackscreened, even in recovery modes).
There are other distros, even other Ubuntu variants like Xubuntu, that are better choices for the hardware you're discussing. In my case, I grabbed an Xubuntu install CD and it ran perfectly, and the old 600MHz is now a nice light-office workstation.
Ubuntu has diverged from some other distros in that it's no longer what I would consider "lightweight." In some ways, it's even topheavy; for most people, this is an OK tradeoff, because it makes it feature-comparable with a modern XP system in most cases. But it also means that it doesn't do well, or sometimes run at all, on less-than-modern hardware (with some exceptions -- sometimes it works great). As a general rule, I'm hesitant to install mainline Ubuntu or Kubuntu on a machine that wasn't designed or previously running Windows XP; Xubuntu is a better match for Win98-era systems, and DSL, Vector, or Puppy are best if you want a snappy, responsive GUI on "Designed for Windows 95" gear.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
tries to upgrade from one version of an OS to another. It's one of those things you do only once then kick yourdelf for being too cheap to buy a full copy of the OS. You should ALWAYS go with a full clean install of an OS if you can. Upgrading tends to be like having a rootcanal w/o the nice drugs.
Anyone who buys into Vista deserves exactly what they get.
I know that Windows 98 SE upgrade CD required you to have a Windows 95 or Windows 98 CD before you could install it. You could not just type in a cd-key or anything. If you lost the Windows 95 or 98 cd you were out of luck. This is no more different than requiring a previous installation, except you have to install XP before you can install Vista which could become a headache for some.
This may be vista off topic, but I installed ubuntu on a slower than molasses in January original Mac Mini. It works so will, I am going to put it on a 1 ghz iLamp I have hanging around.
..... Symbian?
Now for the Vista Part. I am really thinking M$ is headed in the wrong direction. Anyone that uses Google docs, calendar, etc, can see that the OS is becoming less and less important. If internet connections will be getting faster and faster, then the Google world approach should mean that computer OS's would be getting lighter and faster.
To bad BeOS isnt around any more. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, on BeOS would really be the bomb.
People will continue to whine about the DRM laded pig Vista, but maybe the time is getting near for a quick, light, new OS.
How bout a nice little ARM based lappy with a zillion hours of battery life, and
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I can see why they're confident: the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98 was so easy and problem free!
Yet another reason to run everything in a VM and keep a back up of the image on an external drive.
If it all craps out just grab the virgin image off the backup and start over..
Or, just use a Mac, and do something similar with disk imaging/cloning...
I've never met a Window's upgrade I liked. Things always seem to get bent out of shape down the road after the upgrade. I've always taken the approach to do fresh installs. So I guess I'll avoid these interim machines with XP and a forth coming Vista upgrade, since my only option is to upgrade in those cases.
Just too many bad experiences upgrading to Win95, WinNT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0. and so on. Sorry, Microsoft, I'm not going to trust your ability to upgrade yet.
--
Q
This could be a major problem in the future more so then it is right now. I suspect that hardware vendors will quit supporting XP with their new hardware and drivers as Vista becomes the dominant operating system.
If that happens, then it could get to the point where a person who simply has an Upgrade version of Vista would not be able to install their OS because they wouldn't be able to get a working version of XP in the system to "Upgrade" from.
Java has no friends.
There will be people trying to return opened copies of this. Guaranteed. Poor Best Buy and Circuit City workers. Its going to be a nightmare.
Theres no way in hell that this is going to float in a corporate environment and if there trying to win back linux users saying that you need to have a copy of XP already installed seems to be the wrong way to go about it. Also I have never once been able to use the recovery function in place of a reinstall. I don't really see this bit of M$ BS going anywhere but the toilet real fast.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
You can buy the OEM versions for just a tad more than the upgrade versions. what's the big deal?
Of course I, for one, have never had a hard drive failure (apart from the 3 Dead Maxtors in the basement).
How does Microsofts prescious OS recovery work from scratch? Oh Wait, I have to re-install my previous OS first? They are joking right?
So, say I want to build my own computer from scratch. Am I going to have to buy a copy of XP and Vista, just so i can install Vista? Or am I going to have to wait for them to eventually release versions of Vista that can be installed without an existing OS present?
I have several copies of NT 4.0 partly because I was a dealer back then and got burned and never managed to sell some of them. Mind you, on one of my systems was a copy of an upgrade version of 4.0.
NEVER AGAIN
That was such a pain in the ass to install that I will NEVER touch any crap like that ever again. It was authorized from NT3.5 or Winders 95 and I recall having to fart around looking for the previous CD and even having to install a copy and boy what a joke.
NEVER AGAIN
Another joke was upgrading the motherboard to a dual processor board. I used a MICROSOFT utility. It never even checked to see if the DLL versions were ok. It was a bloody nightmare and I swear I have seldom seen such shoddy workmanship in my life.
It was 3 days before I could get the system to boot and about the only reason I could fix it is because I used a FAT organisation for the boot partition and was able to boot to DOS to rescue the system. Fortunately nothing was lost but what a nightmare.
NEVER AGAIN
If I'm not mistaken, one needs to be a Ferrari owner to be considered for their exclusive models too...
This is just making sure that ardent fans of the famous mark are rewarded!
is a change from previous versions of Windows, which only required a valid license key
No, they required the install CD if the previous OS or current OS was not installed. At the very minimum, you would have to pop in that CD... it would not ask you for the previous license. E.g. XP would ask you to pop in a Windows 2000 CD if XP or Windows 2K was not on any HDD on your system.
Oh, crap. I just realized you installed from the WinXP disk. Boot sequence wasn't your issue.
Vista CD probably wasn't bootable.
Srry. Ignore the above post. My bad.
It'd have been vastly simpler for all involved if this had been an upgrade license to just have the user enter in the Windows XP license key, or even insert the cd in the drive or something. This is not secure enough for MS because clearly the evil pirates will just use fake keys and circumvent WGA (which shows you how much faith they have in the thing) I still think most lusers should upgrade to Vista if only because the UAC and ASLR will save them from the run of the mill stupidity, but I'm already prefacing it with wait until SP1 in December. I don't think they can actually maintain this for very long because too many people reinstall windows relatively frequently and its going to piss them of. I still haven't seen any evidence that the upgrade to Windows Vista offers with new PCs and laptops will give you this upgrade disk, rather than a full license.
/. - I still haven't had to reinstall XP ever, some of their software is actually good, and I've a lot of friends who work there but really why must they be such fucking retards and piss everyone of so. They are seriously pulling a PS3 with Vista and theres enough bad press surrounding it that even if it actually works well no one is going to say anything positive at all. And of course you have the option of not buying a PS3, but if you don't wan't Vista you have to go to some lengths to avoid it in todays world.
If that is the case (and really I'm resigned to the fact that it is) it sorta pisses me off because the laptop I got in Dec didn't come with the XP disc - just an image in a hidden partition, which you should be able to recover from. SO maybe I will call the lovely folks at averatec after I get my vista upgrade disc and complain that it wiped my HDD and now I can't install it, and demand a XP media center CD. This though is more an Averatec issue than an MS issue. (This isn't an actually an issue at all - I formatted the damn thing and put Zen on it within an hour of buying it - I wanted the Vista disc for the desktop which does have a Windows XP disc but still its the principle of the thing)
I'm not as virulent towards MS as most of
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
According to:
s p/
http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista_03.a
"How you acquire Windows Vista play a large part in any decision about how you will actually install the operating system. At a high level, you have the following basic choices:
Clean install. With this method, you boot the PC from the Windows Vista install DVD, run interactive Setup, format the PC's hard drive, and install Windows Vista as the only OS. This is probably the rarest way to get Vista on a PC. You can use a "Full" or "Upgrade" retail version of Windows Vista to perform a clean install, though you will need "qualifying media"--typically a Windows XP or 2000 CD that proves you qualify for the Upgrade version."
Format is a repair process, commonly used after ZAPing your hard drive's MBR and boot sectors, so everything gets back to working order. Sometimes that MBR and stuff refuses to fucking clear, and ZAP+format *USUALLY* fixes the problem. Either that, or go the more expensive route and just buy a new harddrive (you'd be surprised how many people do that for their laptops when the Geek Squad can't figure it out. Only those adamant customers that stick with the tried and true repair depot get their warranty reward.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
... the "lite" version of Vista. I thought the install media was a DVD and about 3.5 gig. Actually, that could be interesting. Most of the corporate desktops that I have seen don't have DVD drives. Can you do a network deploy with it?
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
so if you buy the vista upgrade, basically you're buying a cd full of diffs?
.
Almost no slashdotters are going to use such a DRM-laden monstrosity as Vista anyway, and those that do are going to pirate it. It amazes me how slashdotters continue to bitch about an OS that they aren't going to use, or at least certainly are not going to pay for.
A quick search of a Q&A forum on Microsoft's Vista web site shows a MS Vista support tech claiming that this is bull. There is no such thing as an "upgrade" DVD. There is one version of the DVD and it contains all version of Vista. The key you input determines what gets installed. You can even choose not to give a key, and install any version you want, but on the 30th day if you haven't activated, it will be severely locked down. Check it:
g radeadvisor/default.mspx
f ault.mspx
Hello,
I am currently in training as a Vista Support tech for Microsoft Tech
Support.
I have been reading the posts here and thought maybe some things need
clarifying.
First - the Vista CD contains all versions of Vista. The product key you
enter will determine the version that is installed. You have the option to
not enter a product key and uncheck the box that tells it to activate after
installation. This would seem like a good thing to those that paid for a
basic version and want to install the Ultimate.
However, once the installation is sucessfull Vista will start a countdown
timer. after about 72 hours it will begin to nag you to activate. You can
ignore this for up to about 28 days or so at which time it will get more
insistant.
If you do not activate it by the 30th day it will go into severly reduced
functionality, sort of like being in Safe Mode. You will basically only have
access to your data so you can back it up, which I would highly advise you to
do since there are only two ways out of this.
The first one is to call and activate or activate online by paying the fee
to upgrade your key from what you actually paid for and what you had
installed. You might want to go ahead and do that if you have found that
version of Vista is what you want.
The second option is to wipe your hard drive clean, and I mean wipe it
clean, and reinstall Vista, this time choosing the correct version and
entering your product key.
As stated earlier, you cannot upgrade from Win 2000. You can do a clean
install to another partition or another hard drive and keep Win 2000 in dual
boot, but you cannot start setup from within Win 2000. An upgrade
installation is where you start setup from inside the current operating
system and then replace the operating system.
You also HAVE to install to a partition that is NTFS. It will not install to
anything else.
You do not need a current operating system at all to install Vista. There is
no such thing as an upgrade CD, in fact there is currently no such thing as a
Vista CD, it is on DVD. All versions of Vista are on the same DVD.
Once you get it installed you have two activations available, in case you
make significant changes to your hardware after istallation. Microsoft is
stating that they are going to be very strict in this, not like the leanency
they showed with XP. So if you try to install on a different machine it
better be identical to the one it was activated on. This is one reason why
you have 72 hours after installation before it nags you to activate. You have
time to make hardware changes if you find your hardware does not work well
with Vista.
I HIGHLY advise, and Microsoft does too, to first run the Vista Upgrade
Advisor to identify any hardware or software issues that might get in the way
of Vista installation.
Find it here free
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/up
Also here is a site that will give you a lot of information to help you plan
your Vista implimentation:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/de
- Michael
Oh, and one computer per key. Period.
It is an UPGRADE version.
I have stopped the upgrade treadmill as I have learned from my mistakes. For the younger set who have not had to deal with it, it goes like this.
I had DOS 3.21. Windows came out. I skipped the 3.0 version because it was buggy. I moved up to DOS 6.22, then upgraded to Windows 3.1. Later the biggie came out.. Windows 95. I picked up an upgrade version (the early one without Internet Explorer).
Running on slightly older hardware, things went fine except things just started getting unstable. (normal) After backing up important files to streaming tape, it was time to format and reinstall. 5 hours later I was back up and running. It takes forever with all the required reboots, driver installs, office installs, upgrade installs, IE install (it was seprate) and recovery from backup tape, and entering networking settings and reboots.
After 5 more crashes and rebuilds, I swore off MS upgrades forever. (One laptop of mine for MIDI use is still running Windows 95)
I hope this helps anyone considering the upgrade treadmill. Upgrade by key only. A prior install requirement is a pain and waste of your valuable time.
The truth shall set you free!
Yes, I agree Google's apps are impressive. The problem is the information sits on THIER servers not YOUR servers.
This means transferring over to them is a non-starter for many businesses. Especially businesses that handle legally confidential information.
If you run a law or doctor's office you have confidential information, that either you are legally required to keep confidential. It isn't your choice. Once you turn that information over to a third party (e.g. stored on Google's servers) you have just driven your liability thru the roof. Google doesn't guarantee the confidentiality of your information. In fact Google is pretty upfront about telling you they'll look through your confidential information (to aid with Google Ads). So, for all those businesses they can't switch to Google even if they want to.
Then you have the many business that need to store information that is confidential only in the trade secret sense. Once again, they loose rights when they turn information over to a third party. Maybe if the information is disclosed they can sue the 3rd party, but the information is still out there.
Also, you have the Google Mail delete issue that occurred a month or so ago. A few people's GMail email was deleted. Now Google was nice an tried to restore it, but they were also upfront about the fact that even though te deletion was due to a bug in Google's system, they had no obligation to restore it from backup. In a real business that just isn't acceptable.
There is an advantage to having your data under your direct control.
Google needs to sell their server software not just offer it on-line. Many would use theior software if it was on the INTRA-net but not over the INTER-net.
For the most part what is being said is not true. XP Home and Pro upgrades either required an install or verification by inserting a CD into the drive for verification. IMHO there's no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista so the best bet is to ensure that your family, friends, and customers know that upgrading to Vista is primarily unnecessary as it offers no real compelling reason to upgrade and a significant cost in time and money to actually upgrade.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
and are saying 'thankyou sir, may I have another'. So is there any surprise that Microsoft is deciding to beat them with a stick also? Microsoft is not REALLY beating them, they're beating themselves and paying Microsoft for the honor.
What's Microsoft got to worry, once they purchase the MS Vista upgrade and try to fix their existing system, they own it. And like what was mentioned, their only option is to re-install the previous MS OS and then, since they already have an paid for MS Vista, they might just as well flog themselves...I mean install that too.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
To quote TFA:
What does all of this mean on a practical level?
What it means is that, at most, I will buy one (1) legitimate copy of Vista. The rest of my machines will a) continue to run XP, b) be migrated to Mandriva Linux (I'm a club member), or c) I'll fly the Jolly Roger over the machine while it runs a pirated copy of Vista, as determined by the requirements of each machine.
And I may not even buy the one copy. It depends on my mood on Tuesday.
Since the dawn of time and the birth of Microsoft, I have run only legitimately obtained copies of Microsoft software. I have, quite literally, spent more on Microsoft software in the last 20 years than I have spent on cars during that same time period (off the top of my head, I've spent about $25k on cars). And now, as my reward for being honest and loyal, each passing day Microsoft treats me more and more as a thief. So if that's how they view their customers, then that is what their customers, starting with me, should become.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
I'm sure someone will figure out how to slipstream the installation Vista and a previous version of Windows, but this is ridiculously inconvenient.
RTFT.
This is a bad idea on Microsoft's part. The best possibility for a good user experience for Vista is for a clean install. The only good option now is to reformat the hard disk, do a clean XP install, and then do a Vista upgrade install, but most people will forgo the clean XP install and upgrade to Vista from an XP system which has been mucked with, had software installed over, and probably picked up some malware. It'd be better for Microsoft in the long run if they encouraged clean installs even for upgrades.
This is what happens when the OS works to protect the interests of the vendor rather than the interests of the user. It started with WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage) and it will get worse.
I did the 'upgrade' yesterday.
Yes I was annoyed that the upgrade would not install on a 'clean' system.
So I had to install a copy of XP. I didn't authenticate it.
Then I started the upgrade from within XP and chose 'Overwrite existing system'
About an hour later and several (3+ I think) reboots I have a Vista System running.
M$ Could have done this better by not only asking for the original CD Media for XP but also the Key for that version of the OS.
Then you would not have to waste an hour with the XP Install before totally obliterating the newly installed XP.
Now I usually use Server running Windows Server 2003 which use "Windows Classic" by default. My XP System is also configured to use Classic. I tried the same with Vista.
I always put an Explorer and DOS icons on the desktop.
Vista let me put the DOS on no problem. But, would it let me do the same with explorer? Fat chance.
(Start->Programs->Accessories->Windows Explorer, Right Click->Send to Desktop)
The Right Click on "Windows Explorer" just closed the Start->Programs...
It is as if M$ have deliberately disable this functionality.
Vista, Not fit for Service.
Classic is Broken or is this a deliberate ploy by M$?
The system now runs Fedora Core 6.
Vista is there as a boot option but really M$, your boot editor is pure Cr*P. Was the UI designed by a 6 year old. Please do something aqbout it pronto. Why oh Why is this needed?
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
This is funny, in a weird rather than ha-ha way.
For the first time in history we have a product nobody wants with features no user wants hoisted on a public by a company that's making it as hard to use as possible. Any other company would be at panicstations. Microsoft don't care, because they know ultimately we will end up buying it off them any way.
My idea: a web site exchange that sells old licenses of XP. When your laptop breaks, you can sell the license. We can even require you mail in your certificate to ensure its legit. eBay turned down this money. Lonely businessgeek looking for an idea, Will you?
Are you saying that to use Windows Vista UPGRADE, you have to have some form of Windows on your computer to UPGRADE from? OMG! o rly?
I'll tell you what's an irritating experience. I went to Best Buy Sunday afternoon to buy a new HP desktop similar to one I purchased in August. I walk in and what do I find? NO COMPUTERS IN THE STORE. The sales guy tells me that they have systems, but they can't sell them until the 30th when Vista debuts. Well what if I don't want Vista? I wanted an XP box because you can't yet virtualize Vista in Linux. No dice. They aren't selling XP boxes anymore. So much for MS not being a monopoly. I went to a few other stores and all with the same answer. I finally lucked out at CompUSA because they still had one floor model that I could buy as well as a copy of Windows XP Pro in order to accomplish what I wanted (A Linux box with Xen virtualization running Windows XP Pro). I suspect that things are going to get really sticky for people like me who want to do whatever we feel like with OUR PCs. MS + Vista + a PC = You don't own your machine.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Of course Vista Upgrades require a current Windows version. What idiot would think otherwise? Upgrade by definition means to improve/or add upon an existing item. Geniuous article guys
When I bought my first PC, about 8/9 years ago, I bought it second hand from a friend of a friend. It came with a Windows 95 upgrade CD and a floppy disk marked something like "For Windows 95 Upgrade DO NOT DELETE". (Hand-written of course, this wasn't anything official...) The Win95 upgrade CD required that you prove to it that you had a qualifying previous OS before it would install; in this case, there was enough of a suitable OS on that floppy to satisfy it.
Ok, so it didn't have to be installed (I just inserted the floppy when prompted for proof, iirc), but it needed a little more than just a valid key.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
... use Windows either for games, which won't work on Vista yet, or just because they don't know much about computers, which equals not being able to purchase h/w able to handle Vista's requirements.
From old MS campaign: "The less you know about computers, the more you need Microsoft."
I think XP is "good" enough for now and unless they come up with something useful and productive I don't see much change.
An ordinary user doesn't have SLI/Crossfire to work fast with Aero, and a gamer who does have it doesn't want Aero sucking up resources while he's playing a game with full AA in a big resolution and other cool effects on.
A developer will likely kill himself if toolbars keep flying around and shit start fading in/out.
For the non-gamers power-users/developers/geeks, there's the much loved Linux with something like XGL/Beryl/X11R7 which seems utterly fantastic, much faster than it's MS equivalent and less resource demanding.
Sure, I'll install Vista myself some day, just out of curiosity and to see what all the fuss is about but I'll never leave my Slack box thank you very much.
Just my 2 cents...
At least thats what the want adds will read when M$ discovers that gaping, bleeding hole in their foot.
--
Cheers, Gene
You think so? Let me tell you a little story:
I was writing a paper, on Vista. Then suddenly the computer was like "beepbeepbeepbeepbeep" and I was like: "...huh?" And then like, half of my paper was gone. It was a really good paper. And I had to write it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good, which is kind of... a bummer.
My name is Jesus_666 and I'm a student.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
... also has this problem, so add one more to the list! :)
Format usually repairs your OS, losing things like your documents, photos and e-mails is just collateral damage.
I guess this means you're essentially buying a service pack for Windows XP...
Trust me, no matter what happens, in ten years there will be a better way to write web applications than there is today, whether it's a new dominant plugin or an entirely new paradigm for delivery.
i thought upgrade, ment, you need to upgrade. your not upgrading if there is nothing there to upgrade.
portfolio
From all I've seen so far it's mislabelled. It's really a DOWNgrade, not an UPgrade :-).
Insert
Maybe MS could deactivate the XP key when the key for the Vista disk is used?
And suddenly there's a huge rush of virus with the ability to both infect the OS running on computer and the VHD file containing the backup.
Every time the user try to reverts to the VHD backup, in fact he re-installs the virus.
Thank you, Microsoft ! By leveraging your monopoly to push your own backup solution to every user, you've made it an easier task for virus writers to circumvent backups.
* : specially the clueless "My nephew installed my computer, he's a computer genius, you know !" -kind of users.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
"This is a change from previous versions of Windows, which only required a valid license key."
Wrong. Been like that before with preious upgrade versions, win 95 was last time i encountered this (never had an upgrade version of XP so no idea if was same there)
Would you switch to OSX if (that's a BIG if) Apple were ever to release it "officially" for the PC platform?
You're all a bunch of turkeys.
Microsoft can repackage Windows 3.1 and sell it and we'll all be trying to operate it no matter how crap it is.
It's the corporations that buy it and use it cause they're trapped into their hardware cycles.
HP/Dell and whoever will push it and push it and push it.
And those that think that they have a 'choice', really don't.
Sooner or later you will come up against it and have to use it, if not now, then soon.
Have you ever given any consideration to the poor computer techs who have to buy the shit, learn it and fix other people's problems?
Microsoft's operating systems have always been crap - except maybe MS Dos. The only way MS is going to wake up if they get banned on a country level. Competition is good and will level the playing field.
Congratulations to the New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (Australia) for ditching their PCs and installing Macs.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
I guess M$ figures that Motherboards never fail and the customer will never upgrade their system. This confirms my opinion that Vista was design to sell new hardware.
Holy crap. Did I miss anything? Really, I'm working with OSs from M$ for last decade and half - and not yet encountered the aforementioned "disaster recovery" functionality.
Simple broken driver with couple of dependencies brings Windows down - try to recover that. Spending N days cleaning registry of all the crap installed along with driver (often automatically w/o even asking for user consent) - or spending one day on new installation? Choice is all yours. And not that M$ gives you tool to repair borked Windows - you have to buy them separately.
Windows doesn't have any "recovery" - all it has some excuses M$ made up so it can blame all on user later.
P.S. Compare that to Linux which I (without any backups) have been routinely brining up from totaled hard drives in under two hours. Not that Linux does have any dedicated tools for that - standard one do the job perfectly. My last record (with backup) was 15 minutes: copy all data to new hard drive (tar -C $oldroot cf - | tar -C $newroot xf -), repair installed software (rpm --verify --root=$newroot), validate checked out source code (cvs update). All was done by N-liner shell script I wrote before going to lunch. After lunch I just rebooted system and went on working as before. Duh...
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Case in point: xbill ;)
o bad BeOS isnt around any more.
This must be news to the current developers of BeOS.
So basically something like what you would get if you took a blackberry and shot at it with an enlarging ray? :)
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
On the other side of the fence, the only way to reinstall ubuntu from a live cd (post dapper) is to format the partition. Yes even if you uncheck don't format the partition, it insists on doing so. And it's not a bug, it's a feature.
Perhaps, but the description scares me. To quote:
"Schnell: Erfahren Sie was es heißt das Potenzial Ihres Rechners wirklich zu nutzen und trotzdem sicher und effizient zu arbeiten. Mit magnussoft® ZETA ist dies nun kein Widerspruch mehr."
I ran this through google translations and it says (and I'm paraphrasing):
The potential for the creation of a new Reich that is both efficient and arbritrary is enormous. With ZETA, we will spread far and wide.
That scares the willies out of me.
Taking a strict reading of the licence agreement, doesn't this mean that if you have the upgrade version, you can't EVER reinstall it?
To use the upgrade, you need the previous version installed. However, the licence agreement for Vista says:
13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible
for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software
you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.
The last part seems to indicate that you are not allowed to reinstall the previous version. Thus, if your hard disk gets trashed, you can't install the previous version in order to do the upgrade.
This is funny stuff (even if the moderators have ignored you).
Back in the day, when "Norton Utilities" was actually owned by Peter Norton, their stuff was noted for tight, good programming and doing stuff that nothing else could do.
Now, every bit of their utilities and programs are exactly the kind of stuff you don't want to use. I'm always surprised when their AV comes highly rated, particularly when you have free, good alternatives (AVG, amongst others).
For every one of their products, there are notably cheaper (usually free) alternatives that work better for the average person. That is definitely a case of people buying a name.
If someone from Symantec is here... tell the truth... is all your stuff programmed on spec in the 3rd world? There never seems to be any pride in what you develop.
...Let you burn an upgrade reinstall disc right after you install? It would have some identifying keys and whatnot generated based on the state of the machine, license key from the previous Windows, etc. Then, if you go to reinstall the upgrade, you could have a copy of Windows already on the disk, OR simply put in the upgrade reinstall disc you created.
Seriously, I thought of that in like 10 seconds, and it never crossed their minds?
Sadly (oh i'm so very sad) format won't help here. I just wonder how many people will still have their old winxp install CD when they want to recover. Maybe M$ will need more Linux licenses from Novell, because Vista won't sell so hot.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
The final straw is a cliche, but the camel's back just broke. I have zero confidence that I will never need to reinstall Vista, whatever Microsoft says about their new ultra-reliable OS, so what this means is that I will have to reinstall XP first. Sorry, but that's ludicrous. No thanks.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
ubuntu has no upgrade option, no repaire option I can't even tell it to fetch all the files off the web instead of asking me to insert a disk and when I tried to install it over an old copy of ubuntu it kept saying that I hadn't set a root partition. And that's before I get onto the number of times it asked me to set something simple like my location and language.
and Ubuntu's supposed to be an easy to use version of Linux.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Ok people, we need to draw an arbitrary line in the sand in order to call this what it is. We are no longer purchasing or even licensing MS products. We are merely renting them under any and all provisions and restrictions MS feels like imposing unilaterally.
Can timed rentals be far behind? Will the next turn of the crank impose annual licensing fees, I mean rental agreements? You know I wouldn't mind if MS actually stood up for any kind of SLA or commitment that THEIR software, which you are only RENTING had some basic functional warranty.
Apart from that I'm enjoying the eye candy in vista (the visual clues do make a subtle difference to knowing which window has focus when lots are open). I had to disable UAC as we use Visual Studio 2005 here and it still doesn't play nicely. The only thing I'm really stuggling with is NOD32 which crashes the computer on boot if installed - but the support people at ESET are guiding me through various options and hopefully it'll be working soon.
I am NaN
Just like a ferrari, without the exclusivity, speed, or beauty.
And let me add without rancor or rhetoric that XP will in fact be the last MS OS I install and use, for my own use. My employer is of course free to load whatever they like on the machine they give me to use. But for my own use, and, given I am a miser who still keeps one machine at home running Win95OSR2 I will keep my installation of XP Home machines running long past the day MS cuts support, such as it is. And by the time Vista is mainstream MS support of older OS's will be irrelevant anyhow given how their support is mostly in the form of security patches which will largely be unnecessary for a now 'abandoned' OS. Application compatibility may suffer as it always does in the long run, but by that time I will be able to run desktop Linux which is at least as capable as XP Home is now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This only means more tech support hours to bill!! (Or it's "to Bill"?)
I misread an article about the automatic backup-feature. You can manually create a backup.
The installed OS must be activated in order to upgrade to Vista. If one wants to upgrade, the process must be started from within a system running normally - so no upgrade for safe-mode boots and no upgrade if booted from DVD.
Wojtek
He "can only speculate" but he doesn't even get around to explaining that, of course, it isn't enough to put your old disk in for validation anymore because XP now requires registration and validation of the _installation_. Was that so hard to say succinctly?
Windows XP upgrade editions require the presense of a preivous, eligible operating system.
I've seen it a number of times - many system admins recommend wiping and reinstalling Windows on a yearly basis as it clogs up with various installers, viruses, adware, spyware, basic junk, etc.
Microsoft heralded Vista as a "new" OS but the word out these days is it's just a flashier XP with more nag dialogs, etc. Maybe it won't be as likely to benefit from yearly fresh installs, but if it does, anyone doing the "upgrade" version will be forced to slog through two installs instead of just one and entering a previous authorization code.
Full installations also require reinstalling all of your applications. Not on the first but definitely on the second for Vista. So be prepared for reinstalling all of your applications and two operating systems yearly. Not my idea of an easy to maintain OS.
Maybe Norton will be able to Ghost a full backup so the pain only happens once, but do people really want to buy and sequester another hard drive just to store a backup image? And go through keeping track of and applying all the interim patches to make the sequestered image up to date? I know you might also be able to partition but that puts the backup at risk running on the same computer and doesn't address the patches issue.
Anyone who thought Linux was hard to administer might want to look again now that Microsoft has decided to come out with their own version of "New Coke".
maybe you should check "don't format the partition" instead then?
Yeah, right. I have a new computer at work. One day it stopped working - it would boot, but was barely functional. Almost nothing would run properly, including most of the Microsoft applications. The IT guy looked in the software installs, and sure enough, the last thing installed was an automatically loaded patch from Microsoft. Of course, we couldn't uninstall it (though, boy howdy, we tried). So eventually we had to wipe and reinstall the whole damn thing. After that, my audio no longer works.
Now, there was no new hardware in there - we never opened the case - and the third party software consisted of fairly standard (if high end) engineering software. So I don't really have a lot of confidence in Microsoft's ability to make an OS that can be repaired.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Make an image of the whole drive after installation. You can make harddisk image using Vista's Backup utility. It would be much faster to restore than fresh reinstall.
With the knowledge that you can actually transfer the OEM license from machine to machine, just buy the OEM version. http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=352&type=expe rt&pid=4
... that it states in the upgrade description: "Backup and clean install may be required."
"We need to have you reinstall Vista, so format your drive, find your Windwos XP CD and reinstall XP, load Service Pack 2, load patches/fixes/updates, then restore your data backup, and you can now reinstall Vista. Oh, dont do this too often or you will have to call us, explain yourself and get a activation code over the phone. Oh, you didnt install it yourself, they did it at CompUSA? Well, hopefully they still have your backups, have a nice day. "
There's no way I'm paying for a full retail version, and no way in hell I'm going to go through this garbage every time I have to reinstall Windows. Looks like I'll be skipping Vista.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
...to individually certify, monitor and maintain licensing of its OS.
If you're not home during the monthly checkup your OS downgrades to Windows 3.1.
It required a copy of 95 or 3.1, or at least that was what the installer said. I remember doing a sys a: c: and creating an empty c:\windows directory convinced it to continue :)
This is also contrary to a number of MS blogs I have seen, actually stating that all you need is previous version CD and the upgrade license key.
However you can install a fresh install of Vista without upgrading the older OS. But it does make the install process annoying.
This sucks from my point of view when building Windows systems, but how does this compare to Apple's offerings? When a new version of OS X comes out, do you usually do an upgrade to the new version, or do you flatten the drive first, then install from scratch? If you're upgrading in place, does it reliably work?
MS dos was/is crap too, especially in comparison to a unix or linux shell.
I have a win98 upgrade disc that demands a previous version of Windows before it will continue installing. I have to put in a win95 CD or even a win 3.11 floppy, if I remember, and then it will let me install. This is after entering the product code from the distribution CD.
It seems like Vista is doing exactly what win98 has done before.
Theoretically, you could need install media for win 3.1, 95,98 etc... if you kept getting the upgrade versions of MS OSs.
They've always created annoyances. And it shouldn't be anything new to anyone who's been around that Vista upgrade version continues with the harassment, though activated SP2 version of XP does raise the bar.
The real dealbreaker against any version of Vista is the repurchase on hardware upgrades. I require a minimum 5 year life expectancy from my OS, and cling to the option of upgrading or replacing (broken) components without OS repurchase.
The fact that there is no value added over XP is also a factor.
+1 smartass
A good nitpick here and there is good for everyone! Thanks for the morning laugh.
-Ben
How the hell did the OP get modded insightful?
P.S.,
This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
This happened with the special lower-priced (R$25 Brazilian Reais at the time, no idea how much this was in US dollars) upgrade version from Windows 98 to Windows 98 Second Edition that you purchased directly from Microsoft and received by mail. You couldn't use that W98SE CD to install from scratch, you had to first install W98, then upgrade the installation to W98SE. My, that was annoying!
Interestingly enough, a little later Microsoft released on stores a higher priced (R$100 Brazilian Reais) W98SE upgrade version that did allow you to install it from scratch. So, now and then, the message from Microsoft is clear:
"Wanna spend little (kinda of anyway) on upgrading? Sure! Just don't mind your computer technician complaining about double work when you call him. What? You're a power user who will be doing lots and lots of reinstalls yourself? No problem! We have this Ultimate Edition here that costs A LOT more, but it'll make your life easier! Oh? You are the technician the first guy calls? My, oh my! Well, look, why don't you suggest your customer to upgrade to the Ultimate Edition too? This way everyone will be happy, won't we?"
Smart. Sick, but smart nevertheless.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I had to walk a friend on dial-up through this once over the phone. He had a liveCD but his internet was too slow to even think about doing a dist-upgrade. He's still up and hasn't had problems. It isn't the easiest thing to do, but it works, and I dare say updating Windows isn't that easy either.
Just to point out...I think this might be wrong. According to the following website, Microsoft states that you will able to do a "clean install" as one of it's upgrade paths.
v ista/buyorupgrade/upgradepaths.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windows
I take it this means that you don't have to install 2 operating systems in order to get to Vista from a blank/formatted system. I don't have a copy of the upgrade CD myself so I couldn't test it. Anyone with an upgrade CD want to take a shot at it?
Disaster recovery wont matter. If you get ultimatre or business edition windows backup lets you do a complete system image. Why would you need to reinstall the os when you can just redo the image? I hate when people bash microsoft when they have no idea what they are talking about.
Yes it works, I just did it 2 days ago from my powertogether windows vista business copy.
-Dave
I had to have an MS OS already installed. So, now it looks like a clean install will consist of installing my old copy of Win98, then installing XP on top of that, THEN installing Vista on top of that! As usual, I'll probably have to call to validate XP during that part of install.
About ten cents?
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
I wish I had that option. My "repair" disk just starts formatting after you approve it. Which is odd, I thought there would have been a "repair" option.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Just what we need, an installer like this:
[ ] Don't not install Windows Premium Video Auto-Degradation Service
[ ] Don't not uninstall Windows Genuine Disadvantage Uninstaller Live Action Update Service
etc.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The real upgrade you need is here.
Vista really is a Downgrade,
Vista slows down your start up,
Vista slows down your desktop,
Vista slows down your applications...
That is why you got to go buy a $3000 machine just to get the thing to start up.
Vista Downgrade.
Puppy Linux - is a real Upgrade.
Whole OS + Apps - boots from USB Flash Drive Memory Stick.
Whole OS & many Apps run in RAM from RAM drive.
Save files and settings back to USB Flash Drive.
Unplug - nothing left behind in hard drive - much more secure.
Puppy runs great on a 486 with limited ram,
just think how great it runs on a Core 2 Duo.
Puppy Linux even supports Windows XP themes and Vista Themes for that look-alike feel.
Can Vista equip a whole CyberCafe for under $60 bucks?
Vista? - Give me Vista on a booting 2GB USB memory stick, with MS Office, Outlook, Access, Windows Media Player, Net Meeting, Internet Explore, Antivirus, WinDVD Gold, iTunes, and Visual developer tools all running in RAM and leave 1 GB free for my own files.
Bloatware is not Betterware.
Contrary to the slashpost, every previous "upgrade" version of windows I've ever seen also required a previously installed version of windows (or DOS, in some cases).
The fix has always been pretty simple; boot the first installation disk, exit to a prompt, partition & format the drive, and create a directory called "C:/windows". Fdisk and format are both on the first installation disk so it's dead easy.
Restart installation and everything works fine. It's just checking for a directory name. Similarly, Vista has to be checking for something, so you just provide that something and roll on.
I've read a lot of the comments on this article, and much of it seems to be complaining about Windows installations.
Kill me for complaining, but I've had ten times more problems installing Red Hat Linux or SuSE than I ever had installing Windows. I've never had a Windows installation freeze up on me and then leave my computer in a totally unusable state. Windows has never suddenly rejected CDs from a clean, verified burn for absolutely no reason and refused to continue installing. I've never had to boot from an emergency disc to try and figure out what in the hell the installer didn't like about my hardware. Windows may not be the most nerd-friendly operating system around, but hell, it installs just fine. I'll admit I have to ratchet up security on Windows once it's installed (firewall, anti-virus and OS patches) but at least it runs on most of my hardware. One installation of Linux has given me more obscure, PITA installation problems than five spyware, virus-laden Windows system run by my computer-illiterate, Neo-Napster using friends. Some I've actually been able to figure out by doing some combination of Ctrl+F2 or F3 to switch to the non-GUI install screen and actually see the freaking error message. I've only used Windows Vista RC1 briefly, but the install was clean and without problems. I can never say that about any Linux upgrades or installs I've done. I do have a Mac, and the re-install of OS X I did after the hard drive went was fairly clean too.
I have some news for Linux fans--the user interface isn't the killer. It's the difficulty in finding a distro (I have to scour the Net for 30 minutes just to find an appropriate ISO) and then installing the damn thing.
Sorry you can't do that with ubuntu live cds. The alternate install cd can be added as an apt source, but not so with the live cds. Also the alternate cd allows you to install without formatting.
/home you sol. Back it up and restore it, or move it to another partition. Terrible decision for an installer.
And yes, haha, I screwed up with the don't in there. I meant "even if you uncheck the format the partition box" its still insists on formatting. There is no way around formatting the partition where you put / with any ubuntu live cd after dapper. Dapper is the last one with this 'bug'.
I thought it was a bug, went to file and found out through other postings that it's a feature, as someone in the past installed ubuntu on top of a previous linux install (gentoo I think) and ended up with a borked install. So to ensure a proper install it's now mandatory formatting.
How that makes sense to developer of ubiquity (the gui installer for ubuntu) is beyond me. Even strongly warn the user that they may end up with a borked install if there are previous installs there. But even if you just have
Now, if only format /s was all that was required to get a running Windows installation onto a disk...
Anyone that uses Google docs, calendar, etc, can see that the OS is becoming less and less important.
Yeah, for typing text, decorating it with boldface and italic, and storing it on someone else's machine. Are web applications the right solution for desktop publishing? video editing? robotics control? driving 3d printers? Native application developers should pick a technology that is less than 20 years old rather than cribbing or switching over to AJAX.
Or maybe radio buttons?
(*) Don't not install Windows Premium Video Auto-Degradation Service
( ) Install Windows Premium Video Auto-Degradation Service
-Dave
Is there a way to "format" Bill Gates, so we could lose him, too (without too much in the way of criminal penalties?)
Say, have a hacker revoke his passport or put him on the watch list while he's at Davos, so he can't get back into the country without being sent to Guantanamo as a potential terrorist?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I've noticed that Ubuntu is KNOWN for terrible decisions.
The whole "dumb down root" thing makes no sense to me at all.
What they should have done is allow you to install without formatting if the previous Linux on the partition IS an older version of Ubuntu. I can understand requiring formatting if it isn't.
I recently reinstalled Windows 2000 on a client's machine and left the previous NTFS file system intact. The install worked, but 2000 didn't on reboot. Formatting the partition first fixed the problem. So Windows can't even upgrade itself let alone another OS.
Such decisions shouldn't be rocket science, but we all know how these decisions are made - by some geek at 3AM over a can of Jolt cola...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Don't bother upgrading!
sigpending(2)
You can only do VHDs or complete image based backups and restores on Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate. So home user's are basically screwed and will have to continue to rely on 3rd parties for real backups. Now, how many of those users which MS is leaving hung out to dry will actually go and buy something like True Image?
Way to go Microsoft, way to stick it to home users. Oh well, I guess IT consultants who deal with home users will be more then happy to benefit from MS's greediness.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Heck yes everyone wins! Not to be a total Apple fanboy but I started recommending Macs about 8 months ago after I finally got fed up supporting everyone around me.
So far, 6 for 6 are asking me why I didn't recommend Macs before. Its been a very nice switch and yes, I do take pride in what I recommend to other people so I am a bit picky about what I recommend. After all, I usually wind up supporting them.
If there's any way that a virus could abuse to hide itself, it will do it.
Whatever Microsoft invents, Thrusty Computer or whatever else, virus writers will always find a way to abuse it. Speciall given all the past history of poor security and shody implementations of security layers that Microsoft has demonstrated. How many of the aunts and the grannys whose computer you have fixed do regularly make backups of their Windows using Norton Ghost or PowerQuest Drive Image and then burn the image file on a CD-R ?
None.
How many regular users do backup the afore mentionned "save point" on a separate drive ?
Not many.
Therefore I can safely predict that a very significant amount of users will let the default configuration make VHD file and never bother to burn them.
Power Users aren't the main target for virus writers. It's the 99% rest of clueless users that are targeted.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I could have sworn this was the point of the upgrade version.
Probably agree with that, but as that was the IBM PC default operating system at the time, it has to be considered as a benchmark. Mind you, I had to re-write the file save,append and open/read/load for a dynamic ramdisk app at the time 'cause MS DOS couldn't do it properly. Still, there was so many programs and utilities at the time for it that Win 3.1 was a real step backwards in many respects. Visual Basic was a real turkey.
Don't forget how popular CP/M was as an OS for the Zilog - 8088 type processor.
Almost saw the death of MS DOS! If it wasn't for Microsoft's involvement in Apple's OS, I think Gatesy would still be writing Visicalc and Multiplan code.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Generally, you've been able to simply supply the install disc for the previous version as part of the install, rather than needing it to be actually installed.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I went from MS-DOS 3.3 to Win98se using only upgrade versions (with stops at DOSv5, v6, Win3.0, Win3.11, and Win95 on the way) so trying to dig original disks up every time I installed a bigger hard drive would have been a major pain.
/windows (or /dos, as required) than rummage around trying to find an obsolete OS install disk.
It was always easier and faster for me to format the new disk and create an empty directory named