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.'"
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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
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!
Is Microsoft just running down a list of crappy things to do that make me dislike Vista even less? I mean, aside from having 20 different versions with separate 32-bit and 64-bit editions (apparently Apple's engineers are much smarter than Microsoft's since they've packaged it all in one version)?
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
I wish: - I didn't waste today's mod points - There was a +1 sarcasm tag
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!
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).
I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever! Surely there will be no need for disaster recovery!?
It is. It's better than all other versions of Windows. But that doesn't make is stable or secure.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
So that you can restore one backup to your entire fleet of machines on the network. Heard of Ghost?
Is Microsoft just running down a list of crappy things to do that make me dislike Vista even less? I mean, aside from having 20 different versions with separate 32-bit and 64-bit editions (apparently Apple's engineers are much smarter than Microsoft's since they've packaged it all in one version)?
I think it's an issue of Apple management being smarter their Microsoft counterparts. In a company as large and high-profile as Microsoft, it's folly to assume that they don't have some good engineers . . . but it's quite apparent that their management tree could use some pruning.
Mikey-San
Karma: +Eleventy billion (mostly affected by watching Celebrity Jeopardy)
It wont, which is why Microsoft cuts off support after so many years. Businesses dont care about the shinies, but they do care about support.
"apparently Apple's engineers are much smarter than Microsoft's since they've packaged it all in one version"
No, BSD's engineers are smarter since that is basically all OSX is.
I think it's an issue of Apple management being smarter their Microsoft counterparts. In a company as large and high-profile as Microsoft, it's folly to assume that they don't have some good engineers . . . but it's quite apparent that their management tree could use some pruning.
You are not the target market. Large corporations do not need to take steps to make the minority markets happy, even if those markets may be better educated on the given product. Why does everyone on Slashdot assume they're an expert who could manage Microsoft better? Guess what, they're doing alright!
more, yes, much more, perhaps, so much more.. not really. As I write this from my macbook, I obviously appreciate the aquaness of the system, but I wouldn't have made the switch with out bsd and all of the accompaning tools availible. I wouldn't have bought it if it was just a rehash of classic mac os. Yeah, its great and much better than BSD for desktop, but only because they stood on the shoulders of giants.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The BSD guys are (clearly) amazing, but you're terribly misguided if you think they had anything to do with the fact that 32-bit IOKit drivers can be loaded into the 64-bit kernel, or that 64-bit Cocoa is 32-bit safe.
Retail discs include both 32-bit and 64-bit binaries (OEM and VLK discs have separate discs, for some reason).
The reason why OEM discs are like that should be pretty obvious - you (supposedly) buy an OEM copy for a specific machine, so the disc would only have the version of Windows for that specific machine on it.
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 ]
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.