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.'"
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
and said make a ghost image like everybody else....
I'm not sure if it's ghost or another norton product, but there is one where norton thought it was a good idea to change the partition ID to refelect the fact that it employed some form of nortons crap. That sounds logical, and well and good, except for the fact that after blowing a motherboard, it was not possible to mount the drive in windows, it wouldn't see it. You "could" mount it under linux easily enough, it was a perfectly valid NTFS partition. Partition magic wouldn't touch it which is now owned by Symantec, paragon wouldn't touch it, nothing would. And it's not like i'd tweek with the paramaters until such time as I got the drive backed up.
Symantec has some good utilities, but unforunatly many of them are bug ridden pieces of filth, and none of the utilities they buy the rights to and sell seem to be aware of each other, which is the apex of stupid when you have one product using it's own unique partition ID number and nothing else in the Nortons sphere that deals with the drive on this level understands this idiot approach.
Paragon backup seems to do the trick, without alot of bullshit. I wouldn't touch nortons ghost.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
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 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
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.
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."
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.
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!
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
I'm still waiting for ONE reason why the average business should downgrade to Vista. Assuming they don't care about DX10, which most businesses won't, what are the benefits? How would Vista make a business more profitable?
Microsoft confirms this behavior:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930985/en-us
To resolve this problem, use one of the following methods.
Method 1
Upgrade to Windows Vista from an earlier, supported version of Windows that is already installed on the computer.
Method 2
Purchase a license that lets you perform a clean installation of Windows Vista.
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 *
I can see why they're confident: the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows 98 was so easy and problem free!
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.
BitLocker, for one. I know my company is about to spend a whole WAD of cash for an FDE solution that has several gaping security holes - having something integrated into the OS (which we get for free because of our licensing agreement) would save everyone a lot of money and headaches.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
Format usually repairs your OS, losing things like your documents, photos and e-mails is just collateral damage.
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 ]
To be fair to Microsoft, my OS X 10.3 Upgrade disks required 10.2 to be installed before running. When I did a wipe-reinstall, I had to first install 10.2 with the system recovery disk that came with the machine, then do an erase-and-upgrade to get a clean 10.3 system.
To be fair to Apple, the 10.3 upgrade only cost £15 ($20 for people in the USA), which is a little bit less than Vista.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Holy crap. Did I miss anything? Really, I'm working with OSs from M$ 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.
Since so many laws call for "reasonable effort" and use similar wording, can someone call using something like Windows a reasonable effort to stay secure and/or avoid data loss/theft?
Specially since there are some reasonably easy to use alternatives?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
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.
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.
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?
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.
"Is Microsoft just running down a list of crappy things to do that make me dislike Vista even less?"
That is, actually, what they're trying to do. Unfortunately for them, most of their decisions have made you dislike them more.
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.