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.'"

Comments

Are you surprised?

[alshithead]

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.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Mistlefoot]

And what about EVERYONE who bought a computer since last November or so who purchased their PC because they got Vista with it, even though they had to wait for it? Is this really an upgrade for them? They are already dealing with the inconvenience of having to find tune XP before upgrading to Vista and fine tuning again. Only to find out that this is the process for every subsequent format.

I am sure a good many of them do not consider this an upgrade, but rather final delivery of the OS they were promised when they purchased their hardware.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Mistlefoot]

To quote from the article that you forgot to read "If things worked according to the old scheme, people with upgrade coupons would essentially get a "free" OS because they could install the Vista upgrade anywhere, and continue to use the version of Windows XP that came with their computer."

If you want to think I am "way the hell out there" then the author of the article is way the hell out there too. You expect that Microsoft will personally visit each persons home and ensure they return their XP disk as well as format the drive?

Re:Are you surprised?

[ZG-Rules]

Ok, I'll bite.

You are a prime example of what I hate about Ubuntu. Ubuntu users see their personal OS as being the best, most userfriendly solution to any trouble with Windows. They fail to recognise that what Ubuntu does can be done to any other Linux system under the sun and there are still downsides to Ubuntu - Ubuntu is not special. It is quite well configured for your average 1-computer owning user, that I'll grant you, but it is not the solution to the problem you recognised, nor is it the best way to advocate Linux use.

One of the prime motivations for the creation of GNU/Linux was personal freedom - In this case freedom of choice. You should not be saying Ubuntu is the solution to every Windows problem, you should be suggesting that the User picks up ANY Linux distribution that takes their fancy and tries it.

I personally puke every time I see the shit-stained colour scheme of Ubuntu, so I try not to use it. Some of my supportees do and I don't have a problem with that, just as I don't have a problem with them using Fedora Core or something more esoteric like PC-BSD, whatever floats their boat.

Any to call me narrow minded is a bit rich. I am pretty much OS agnostic, supporting as I do BSD, Solaris and Linux systems numbering in the thousands on a day-to-day basis, plus I have some uses for Windows (shock! horror!). I use Fedora on my workstation, OSX at home and plenty of other OSes in between. I haven't fixated on one distribution as the answer to everyone's problems.

Tosser.

Re:Are you surprised?

[joe_cot]

Any to call me narrow minded is a bit rich. I am pretty much OS agnostic, supporting as I do BSD, Solaris and Linux systems numbering in the thousands on a day-to-day basis, plus I have some uses for Windows (shock! horror!). I use Fedora on my workstation, OSX at home and plenty of other OSes in between. I haven't fixated on one distribution as the answer to everyone's problems.

OS agnostic, eh? What OS is running your website, the babbages difference engine?

Why do Ubuntu people suggest Ubuntu? Because we know Ubuntu works; because if the people I recommend Ubuntu to have a problem, I'll see their forum post. Because I know that if I recommend a Distro that doesn't "just work", they'll be reinstalling Windows within the week. That's why, when people are getting off Windows, I don't recommend FreeBSD, or Gentoo, or Redhat; I recommend an OS/Distro that has QA, is easy to set up, and has fanatical community support (which doesn't consist of "RTFA"). I'm going to send them to a distro where what the wiki/forums/help docs don't cover, 40 people in IRC will.

Linux and BSD have tons of choices, options, and ability to customize. That said, for the user that's used to Windows, and is looking for not-Windows, I'm not going to send them to bootstrap Gentoo. I'm going to send them to a distro that works out of the box, is supported, and is free. I use Ubuntu on my server, Ubuntu on my workstation, Ubuntu on my desktop, and Ubuntu on my laptop. I haven't decided on a distribution that's right for everyone, but for me it's Ubuntu.

If that's your definition, then yes, I'm a tosser.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Eravnrekaree]

I am planning on staying with XP too. The only thing I am concerned about is the possibility that software released for Vista will not run on XP. This is often how users are forced to upgrade.

How long?

[_merlin]

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.

Re:How long?

[theurge14]

I believe you underestimate what Windows users are willing to put up with.

Re:How long?

[cheater512]

Oh they dont put up with it. They just dont know there is a alternative.

From what they hear, Linux is a OS for hippies which only geeks who live in their parent's basements can use.

Another reason to keep backups current.

[Jhon]

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.

I just don't see this as a huge deal. It's just one more of many many countless reasons to keep backups -- and in the case of VISTA -- it sounds like keeping an HD image of the OS partition is of particular interest.

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.

Re:Another reason to keep backups current.

[LazyBoy]

Vista will even do the image for you. In the new backup utility included with the OS there is an option for a full system backup. Vista creates a VHD (Microsoft's Virtual Hard Disk format from their virtualization products) file of the entire disk and saves it where you tell it to. It's easy enough to boot up to restore mode and drop that image back on.

And if your problem is a dead hard disk?

LB

Just Plugging Holes

[JavaPunk]

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.)

Well...

[Creepy Crawler]

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.

Re:Well...

[norman619]

You haven't a clue do you? Most home computers are used for email, internet, and playing video games. Gamers will be moving to Vista if they want to play the coming Direct X games. The first crop of Direct X (Vista Ready) video cards were released this past November with more on the way. MANY of the game development houses are already working on Direct X games with the first few due out this qurater. Direct X is the next big thing to happen to games. It makes the stuff you see on the new consoles already obsolete. Let me enlighten you a bit more. Direct X is Vista only technology. There isn't going be an XP version of Direct X. The migration from XP to Vista will be just like the migration from 2000 to XP. Some will go willingly while others will go kicking and screaming. But in the end most people on a windows box will be running Vista. Also remember new computers will be shipping with Vista on them. And it will not be the end of the world people seem to make it sound like it will be. XP is on it's way out and Vista is on it's way in. It's called change. It's something you need to come to terms with when dealing with technology. Get used to it.

Re:Disaster recovery

[Ekhymosis]

Indeed, or if you have a comp from large retailers that don't give out os disks, only the 'recovery cds' or have a recovery partition on the hard drive, you are in trouble. However, as mentioned above, this has been done for ages since 3.1 (I bought the windows for workgroups upgrade) and dos 5 (6.22 upgrade. god i loved 6.22) days.

Trouble is, as windows gets more 'advanced' it gets more 'stuff' that makes an upgrade go 100% smoothly. Hell, even upgrading between version updates from any linux distro you see many people have problems, just look on the forums (especially the ubuntu 5 to 6 update, gentoo during the major portage change,etc.)

Like the forums always say, it is better to install a clean version of the newest OS instead of upgrading from old, if you can that is =)

Are you kidding me?

[Ancil]

This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.

If your idea of disaster recovery is to install the OS from scratch, I hope to hell you don't work in my company's IT department.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your idea of disaster recovery is to install the OS from scratch, I hope to hell you don't work in my company's IT department.

Your company must not use Windows as its OS. I have learned a lot about how Microsoft's gift to the world works by troubleshooting the various fatal errors it can throw. I am glad my company pays me for my time and not results. I can say after 5 years in the business that in many cases more time is saved by doing a fresh install than attempting to figure out and neutralize the cause. It is fun to do the latter, but generally wildly inefficient when it comes to Windows. Other operating systems behave better in this regard.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Guspaz]

Did you ever consider that many companies centralize the important data into shared user directories? A redundant centralized server with proper backups are much simpler than setting up dedicated backup solutions on EVERY workstation.

So, reinstalling the OS from scratch on a workstation certainly is a good way to perform disaster recovery; the workstation is borked, and all the user settings are server-side, so why NOT nuke the workstation?

Of course, such a company would probably also install the workstations from a ghost image. However I work for a company that does go the centralized route and yet doesn't use ghost images (we have an instruction list of what to install and how to set the machine up).

What is an "upgrade" about?

[AaronLawrence]

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.

Disasters vs Pirates

[flyingfsck]

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.

Re:thank u bill

[Overly Critical Guy]

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)?

Re:And the problem is?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish: - I didn't waste today's mod points - There was a +1 sarcasm tag

Fuck that!

[Robber Baron]

There are multiple options.
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.

And what is wrong with this? XP did the same

[FliesLikeABrick]

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).

Re:And the problem is?

[Jessta]

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.

Re:thank u bill

[Nataku564]

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.

The best Microsoft present to virus writers

[DrYak]

Of course, the backup-utility is only available in Vista Ultimate (which is th emost expensive version of Vista).

And which will also be the most pirated version of Vista, and therefore the most widely available version on home computers*.

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.

Re:Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista

[Sark666]

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.