Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS

Posted by kdawson on from the recovery?-disaster dept.

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.'"

15 of 561 comments (clear)

  1. Are you surprised? by alshithead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Are you surprised? by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Are you surprised? by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

  2. How long? by _merlin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How long? by theurge14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    2. Re:How long? by cheater512 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. Another reason to keep backups current. by Jhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  4. Well... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
  5. Are you kidding me? by Ancil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Are you kidding me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  6. Disasters vs Pirates by flyingfsck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  7. Re:And the problem is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  8. Fuck that! by Robber+Baron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  9. Re:And the problem is? by Jessta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  10. Re:thank u bill by Nataku564 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.