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.'"
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.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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.
Damn typing whilst tired. Better start again.
I remember the version check on an early version of Word (6.0? Maybe earlier). It came on floppies, and the 'full' version cost 3 times the cost of the upgrade version.
Trouble was it would accept its own installation floppy as 'proof' you owned the earlier product! So it was a no brainer that nobody got the full version..
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 "$500 special" at Staples when it was brand new) even after tossing in a ton of ram (ironically the LiveCD would run, but the install disk just blackscreened, even in recovery modes).
There are other distros, even other Ubuntu variants like Xubuntu, that are better choices for the hardware you're discussing. In my case, I grabbed an Xubuntu install CD and it ran perfectly, and the old 600MHz is now a nice light-office workstation.
Ubuntu has diverged from some other distros in that it's no longer what I would consider "lightweight." In some ways, it's even topheavy; for most people, this is an OK tradeoff, because it makes it feature-comparable with a modern XP system in most cases. But it also means that it doesn't do well, or sometimes run at all, on less-than-modern hardware (with some exceptions -- sometimes it works great). As a general rule, I'm hesitant to install mainline Ubuntu or Kubuntu on a machine that wasn't designed or previously running Windows XP; Xubuntu is a better match for Win98-era systems, and DSL, Vector, or Puppy are best if you want a snappy, responsive GUI on "Designed for Windows 95" gear.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This may be vista off topic, but I installed ubuntu on a slower than molasses in January original Mac Mini. It works so will, I am going to put it on a 1 ghz iLamp I have hanging around.
..... Symbian?
Now for the Vista Part. I am really thinking M$ 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 *
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.