Upgrade Trick Still Present In Vista SP1

Chris Blanc writes "The new Service Pack 1 version of Windows Vista allows end users to purchase the 'upgrade edition' and install it on any PC — with no need to purchase the more expensive 'full edition.' The same behavior was present when Vista was originally released, but the fact that the trick wasn't removed from SP1 suggests that Microsoft executives approved the back door as a way to make the price of Vista more appealing to sophisticated buyers."

Comments

Alternatively

[adpsimpson]

I hear Ubuntu allows the full installation on any machine too...

Yeah, ok, I'll accept my -1, Troll.

Re:Alternatively

[Shakrai]

Yeah, ok, I'll accept my -1, Troll.

I wouldn't worry about that.

See, you've used the time honored Slashdot tradition of daring the moderators to mod you down. Such statements display a remarkable understanding of /. politics and show that you aren't afraid to go against the group. I'm hard pressed to think of a better way to ensure that your comment winds up with postive moderation -- short of a 4 digit UID, large cash contributions or being a former actor from Star Trek: The Next Generation ;)

Statements like "don't worry, I've got karma to burn" or "how long until I get modded down?" seem to be particularly effective ;)

Sophisticated Buyers

[Enderandrew]

You're suggesting that sophisticated buyers are buying Vista.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[BSAtHome]

You must give them some slack for being optimistic. Sitting with a sour face does not help the bottom line, does it. Then again, a sophisticated /buyer/ is merely a consumer that has had its brain turned off by advertising spin.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[dynamicdesign]

Why do people constantly bash on Vista. It runs great on my computer and I have no problems with it. They probably didn't fix the upgrade trick because if you're buying their product then they still hold onto that part of the market. If you bash vista it's because you haven't used it, you're a slow slow learner, or you've used it but hate microsoft so much that you didn't actually give it a chance. To many people bash vista and they've never owned a copy, used a copy, and just go off what other people say that meet the above statement. Ignorance and blatant disregard for how something works seems to be what the internet is for in todays society.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Enderandrew]

An honest question gets an honest answer.

Many tweaks to the UI cause you to jump through new hoops, slowing down productivity and causing me to get irate. An OS should enable me to use my computer, but slow me down.

Last week I was in a store purchasing a new computer for my step-dad, and all he needed was a web browser. I was damn tempted to give him a Linux box, and I'm not sure he'd notice. But we buy a new PC with Vista. He's used XP for years, but now he is totally lost. And the salesman was insisting 2 gigs of ram isn't enough for Vista, and that we needed a box with 4. Here is the crux of it. Vista offers no new features that will blow anyone away, yet the requirements are considerably higher.

Why slow down my machine with something that is going to cause nothing but trouble, when I get no benefit out of it?

There are people who cope reasonably well with Vista, but that isn't a reason to upgrade.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Shakrai]

Why do people constantly bash on Vista. It runs great on my computer and I have no problems with it

I have to say that I've gotten it here at the office and I haven't noticed any major problems with it. Take that with a grain of salt though because my environment doesn't involve any legacy software.

It's actually remarkably usable once you disable the Vista UI and return it to a Windows 2000 look (I never used the XP UI either), though it is a resource pig. I'm using over a gig of ram right now just for Outlook, a few putty sessions, Pidgin and Firefox. On XP I'd still be under 512.

All that said, after having used it for two months I really don't see any compelling new feature or reason to upgrade from XP -- particularly when Vista will require much more powerful iron to run as fast. Factor that in with all of the anti-consumer "features" (*cough* protected media path *cough*) added in by Microsoft and I'd still have a hard time recommending it to anybody and I doubt I'll be upgrading at home for the foreseeable future.

Ignorance and blatant disregard for how something works seems to be what the internet is for in todays society

You must be new here ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[k3vlar]

Ignorance and blatant disregard for how something works seems to be what the internet is for in todays society.

Yes, that is what the internet is for.

On a related note, I've used Vista, extensively, and don't like it. I don't bash it at every opportunity, but I do discourage its use for the following reasons

• - UAC is still the most aggravating privilege prompt I've used
• - Vista, compared with Ubuntu or OS X, runs extremely slowly
• - Control Panel, and other OS dialogs have been obfuscated and made extremely convoluted for no apparent reason
• - (Subjective) I dislike the Aero user interface

So there are three valid, and one personal reason that I prefer to use Ubuntu and OS X for my computing needs.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[sumdumass]

People constantly bashed on the Yugo and Chevrolet's Vega. It wasn't that they didn't go down the road perfectly for some people. It wasn't that they suited some people's need just fine, it was that they were unsafe and got people killed. Ironically, a relatively small amount of people like that but it happened.

Hence you ask why do people dump on vista when it works just fine for what you do. And the answer is because it has metaphorically killed others in ways that it shouldn't have. Why? Because they used their computers in perfectly legit ways that you don't seem to do.

It might have something to do with the Vista capable logo too. Where a computer was presented as having the ability to sufficiently run vista but in reality lacks a lot of what is neccesary. However, the people I know, have systems that meet the Vista specs well above the minimum and still have issues.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[pmbasehore]

Actually, I have used Vista--I have Home Premium running on one of my desktops. Before I say I don't like it, allow me to explain how I am educated enough to give an opinion on the subject.

If you bash vista it's because you haven't used it,
I believe I have shown that I do, indeed, use an OEM Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium on my Acer Aspire T180.

you're a slow slow learner
What does this have to do with anything? If I was a slow learner, I would complain about many pieces of software, not just Vista/Microsoft products.

or you've used it but hate microsoft so much that you didn't actually give it a chance.
This is really the only bit of your argument that could theoretically apply to me--so allow me to refute that. I see many improvements in Vista over XP and 2000. I will never deny that Vista is an improvement in some areas. My problem lies in two places:
1) The OS has been out for a year now and there are still major driver and software compatibility issues. An example: My ATI HD2600 video card driver was technically "supported" by Vista, but I had so many problems with the driver (including BSODs, screen lockups, and framerates in the single-digits) that I had to get an nVidia card. And before you say the problem was with my hardware, the card worked perfectly on my Linux installation on the same box.
2) It took Microsoft engineers 5 years to develop Vista? That is around twice their normal average development time of 2-3 years! What major improvements have we seen? The start menu was redesigned, UAC (need I say more), the GUI takes up a lot more memory and hard drive space for not much return in looks, and the "Explorer" file manager has copied so much from Apple's "Finder" that I expect to have a mouse with only one button!

Vista has improved, yes...but the improvements are not complex enough or adequate enough to warrant twice the development cycle on the same product. I am a Linux user. I am a Windows user. I am also a Mac user. Just because I use a certain operating system or software doesn't mean I love it and hate all others. If you don't like what people say about Vista, get over it. Use what software you want to use and let us do the same.

In the meantime, how about we get back to some decent conversation about the upgrade trick!

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Rary]

...though it is a resource pig. I'm using over a gig of ram right now just for Outlook, a few putty sessions, Pidgin and Firefox.

No it's not. It's actually making better use of your RAM.

In my opinion, Vista is only for sophisticated users. Sophisticated users (developers, for example) tend to already go for high end systems, and are willing (and able) to learn new stuff. Ordinary users are resistant to change. They don't want to learn a new way of doing things, and switching to Vista would force them to do that (as would switching to Linux or OSX). There are generally (though not always) pretty good reasons for Vista changing the way these things are done (ie. additional functionality), but those who refuse to learn something new should just stick with what they know.

All that said, after having used it for two months I really don't see any compelling new feature or reason to upgrade from XP...

I'm inclined to agree. If you're happy with XP, stick with it. But if you're out looking for a new computer, unlike most Slashdotters (who have likely never even tried Vista), I'd happily recommend getting one with Vista -- as long as the person I'm recommending it to is willing to put in the effort to learn something new.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[God of Lemmings]

People constantly bashed on the Yugo and Chevrolet's Vega. It wasn't that they didn't go down the road perfectly for some people. It wasn't that they suited some people's need just fine, it was that they were unsafe and got people killed. Its true! Vista killed my dog!

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[PitaBred]

In response to your sig... "I don't do genocide, but I don't bash it"

Sometimes, there's a reason to come out against something. I purposely chose a highly hyperbolic example, but it's only to make a point. Sometimes you do need to speak out about something being bad... ignoring it will not make anything better, it will just reduce conflict, which means that nothing will improve.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[drsmithy]

Many tweaks to the UI cause you to jump through new hoops, slowing down productivity and causing me to get irate. An OS should enable me to use my computer, but slow me down.

Like what ?

Last week I was in a store purchasing a new computer for my step-dad, and all he needed was a web browser. I was damn tempted to give him a Linux box, and I'm not sure he'd notice. But we buy a new PC with Vista. He's used XP for years, but now he is totally lost.

Someone who is "lost" in Vista after using XP for years, is going to be vastly more "lost" using Linux (or OS X for that matter).

Seriously. The fundamental UI in Vista is still the same as Windows 95.

And the salesman was insisting 2 gigs of ram isn't enough for Vista, and that we needed a box with 4.

Of course he'd say that. He's on commission. 2 gigs is plenty.

Here is the crux of it. Vista offers no new features that will blow anyone away, yet the requirements are considerably higher.

One could make that same argument about just about every version of Windows since Windows 95 (and every version of every other OS from some time back in the '90s, with the exception of OS X since it was so late to the party).

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[binaryspiral]

OK I'm sorry but I am gonna call bullshit on that. Right now this very second I am running 3 putty windows, firefox (with 2 tabs open), and I am using 560 mb of ram. I am wondering if Vista is really using that much more RAM than XP or is it that Vista made it so easy to get that information (the side bar, and the Task Manager in Vista tells you the % of Ram used unlike XP) and therefore more noticeable.

No, he's pretty much accurate. But it's no big secret Vista was rewritten to cache more data in ram and so appears to be using more memory. I stopped looking at memory usage along time ago... when I'm on a machine that is paging a lot, then it's time to pay attention.

On Vista, though, you do get an easy to read resource monitor that will give you much more information about the resources you're using. I like the memory section that gives you percentage of physical memory in use and the number of hard faults per second.

You can drill down for more detail, but those two items are pretty much all I need for most performance investigations.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[drsmithy]

Super invasive DRM.

Not at all. "DRM" is quite possibly the biggest non-argument about Vista there is (with the possible exception of "hardware requirements").

It boils down to two possible scenarios:
1. You don't have DRM-encumbered media. Therefore the DRM is irrelevant.
2. You do have DRM-encumbered media. Vista lets you watch it. Vista doesn't impose any more restrictions than any other player. Therefore, the DRM support is good, because the alternative is either a degraded output or none at all.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Enderandrew]

Like what ? Where do I begin? UAC, for one. Deleting a shortcut shouldn't ask me to approve three times. I have to move over and scroll within a start menu, and then click on folders instead of mousing over. Dialogs, control panel extensions, and options are nested and hidden all over the place, making me take extra steps here and there. Plenty of people have documented the list of issues, and usability studies have shown that people are less productive since the UI slows them down.

Someone who is "lost" in Vista after using XP for years, is going to be vastly more "lost" using Linux (or OS X for that matter). Sadly, this is why I didn't just give him an openSUSE box. Upfront I'd spend more time getting him comfortable with the Linux box, but in the long run I'll likely support his Windows box more.

Seriously. The fundamental UI in Vista is still the same as Windows 95. Then you might as well suggest that KDE, Gnome, Win95, Vista, OS X, etc. all basically have the same fundamental UI. They use windows and you click on icons. Except that argument is overtly flawed. The UI has changed considerably over the years. Fire up NT 4, or 95 in a VM and use it for a bit. Largely, you'll know how since you've been using Windows for years, but you'll find that many shortcuts and interface elements you've come to rely on simply aren't there.

Of course he'd say that. He's on commission. 2 gigs is plenty. And when XP launched, 256 megs of ram was plenty! Yet I wouldn't try to run XP without a gig today. As service packs and such come out, requirements go up. Apps and patches require more resources. And 2 gigs isn't "plenty", it is adequate for Vista, especially if Aero is enabled. Plenty of people in this very thread have noted Vista using well over 1 gig of physical memory with just a few putty sessions and Firefox open. It isn't hard to break the 2 gig barrier.

One could make that same argument about just about every version of Windows since Windows 95 (and every version of every other OS from some time back in the '90s, with the exception of OS X since it was so late to the party). And I'd say you're wrong. I don't hate on MS. XP is the best iteration of Windows ever put out. I preferred DOS to 3.1. I loathed 95. 98 SE wasn't bad. ME was terrible. NT was terrible. 2000 was decent. XP after SP1 was great. Vista is terrible. Even the biggest Microsoft supporters agree, and Microsoft agrees, which is why they are rushing the next version of Windows.

Ahhh upgrade...

[SatanicPuppy]

I have a full version of Windows 95 lying around, and it has saved me quite a penny over the years.

It's definitely a scam; there is no reason why the "upgrade" should cost less, since it is identical to the full version and you can "upgrade" using an original disk that wasn't used to install the OS that's currently on the machine.

Re:Ahhh upgrade...

[headkase]

It's a loyalty ploy - agree or disagree. It's the same thing as one of those "free sub" Subway® cards. You walk in off the street and you pay full price but if you've been hanging around for a while you get a discount. All loyalty programs are like bribes too, "stick with us and you'll get a discount" instead of going over to the competition. Whether or not you should go to the competition is another discussion.

Re:Repackaged shit

[calebt3]

Would you prefer they repackage it for more, like the RIAA wants to do?

Re:Or

[moderatorrater]

Or maybe they just don't think it's worth the time and effort to block the people who can exploit the hole. After all, if someone's willing to exploit this hole, they're probably willing to pirate it some other way, so why not get the lesser amount and not spend precious development and qa time on a fix that could easily introduce more bugs?

Sophistication

[imstanny]

but the fact that the trick wasn't removed from SP1 suggests that Microsoft executives approved the back door as a way to make the price of Vista more appealing to sophisticated buyers Dave: Excuse me, but the car you sold me is missing a gas tank. Salesman: Yes, we know. This is an upgradable model. We sell them to sophisticated buyers, hence the discount. Dave: So I can upgrade for free? Salesman: You're sophisticated, you'll figure it out. Dave: Well, what does it upgrade to? Salesman: All updated GPS maps can be downloaded directly from the dealer's website. Dave: Great! And what about the gas tank? Salesman: .................. Dave: Sir?!?!

Re:Sophistication

[Zakabog]

I don't think you get it, this is like a car dealer with two identical cars on the lot, one's an upgrade and costs half as much as the other but to legally buy it you need an older version of the same car. The thing is, the dealer isn't checking if you have the older car so you can buy the cheaper one and save on money.

Re:Sophistication

[imstanny]

I don't think you get it, this is like a car dealer with two identical cars on the lot, one's an upgrade and costs half as much as the other but to legally buy it you need an older version of the same car. The thing is, the dealer isn't checking if you have the older car so you can buy the cheaper one and save on money. I DO get it. My point is, even with the 'free' upgrade, you're still getting Windows.

Re:Sophistication

[luder]

Huh? The windows were missing, too?

The wonders of rationalization

[dlsmith]

the fact that the trick wasn't removed from SP1 suggests that Microsoft executives approved the back door as a way to make the price of Vista more appealing to sophisticated buyers And I'm sure my neighbor leaves his front door unlocked because he wants me to come on in and make a sandwich.

Re:The wonders of rationalization

[Triv]

And I'm sure my neighbor leaves his front door unlocked because he wants me to come on in and make a sandwich.

That reminds me: You're outta mayo.

--Your Neighbor

Re:The wonders of rationalization

[Junior J. Junior III]

Oh, and your wife is running low on condoms. Please pick some more up at the drug store on your way home, please.

What does the EULA permit?

[PPH]

Perhaps Microsoft is "letting" people get away with this and counting on the BSA dropping by later to collect.

Re:What does the EULA permit?

[mbge7psh]

From the EULA:

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. Buying the upgrade version when your not entitled to it doesn't make you copy any more legal than a pirated copy.

Re:What does the EULA permit?

[pegr]

Buying the upgrade version when your not entitled to it doesn't make you copy any more legal than a pirated copy.
 
But before you can get in trouble, they have to prove you don't own a prior version. Good luck with that!

Research shows...

[Starturtle]

...you're more inclined to buy something you don't want if you think you're getting a deal or getting away with something.

MS always fucks you at the drivethru

[elrous0]

I actually considered upgrading recently, just because I wanted to set up a remote connection server on my home PC. Then I found out that, as with XP, this doesn't come with the Home edition (even Home Premium) of Vista. So I'm going to get stuck buying the $200+ "Vista Ultimate" edition for one lousy crippled feature. Thanks, MS!

Re:MS always fucks you at the drivethru

[Ark42]

Have you ever tried comparing RealVNC to Microsoft's RDP over a low-bandwidth connection? RDP blows it away, easily. Not to mention that RDP supports changing resolution on the fly and serial/floppy/printer/sound redirection. TightVNC, at least, supports screen resolution changes, and with the Mirror Driver option, is much faster than regular VNCs. I couldn't really care about serial/floppy/printer/sound at all though.

The big reason to use VNC is it is cross-platform. I have 1 Linux, 1 Vista, 2 OS X, and 3 XP computers in my house, and regularly VNC from one OS to another.

I guess it's better than a money-back rebate

[davidwr]

They could do what Symantec, McAfee, and a lot of other vendors do:

Antivirus: $50 - $30 rebate - $20 upgrade rebate

Only it would be

Vista Home Basic: $399 - $100 rebate - $100 upgrade rebate = your price $99

Dear Sucker, we mean Customer:
To get the upgrade rebate, fill in the form with the version and registration keys or "Registered to:" number for both the old and new copies of Windows. Limit one upgrade rebate per new copy. Limit one upgrade credit per old copy. Violators will be persecuted, we mean prosecuted, to the full extent of the law.
Sincerely,
Microsoft Customer Relations

Re:I guess it's better than a money-back rebate

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Only it would be

Vista Home Basic: $399 - $100 rebate - $100 upgrade rebate = your price $99

OK, I see this post was modded as "funny", but
$399 - $100 - $100 != $99 (try $199)
Unintentional mistake? Or an example of what we might call "Microsoft Math"?

That word does not mean what you think it does

[victim]

sophisticated adj - aware of or able to interpret complex issues

But you've used it in a sentence where you meant "willing to commit fraud to steal a license, but not willing to outright steal the license in its entirety". We don't have an english word that completely covers that, but "criminal" would do. I'd rewrite the last line to end...

"the back door as a way to make Vista more appealing to criminals."

Re:Sophistication?

[Pojut]

the most sophisticated users do not use MS products, preferring Linux or *BSD

Fuck you. My dad started teaching me about computers when I was only 5, and I have been huge into them ever since. The biggest, most important thing he taught me was this:

"Some people look down on others because of the operating system, brand of computer, or programming language of your choice. Whenever this happens, I want you to say "Fuck you" to them. Why? Because it doesn't matter what operating system, brand of computer, or programming language you use. As long as it enables you to get done what you need and want to get done, then use it. Whenever someone looks down on your for your technology choices, just picture them as a grumpy old man at a rich country club telling you that you arent good enough for their tee times. That's ok; you don't want to be around those kinds of people. Stay away from them."

I personally use a Linux/Windows combination...Linux for when I feel like messing around, Windows because it has far reaching hardware support and doesn't require nearly as much tweaking to get it how I want. Forgive me for blaspheming by not using Linux exclusively; just don't look down on people like me because we CHOOSE to use what works for us.

Still Illegal

[MoToMo]

I'm sure that the upgrade license agreement does not allow this, even if it is technically possible, so why would i spend money and still have an illegal copy of windows? If you're going to use an illegal copy, use one, if you're going to do the right thing and purchase a license, you might as well buy the right one.

Re:Still Illegal

[Sancho]

Never upgraded Windows before, eh?

Since at least Windows 2000, you've been able to just pop out the disc, put in the older version to prove that you own it, then switch back and continue with the install. This gets you a clean install of the new OS while still verifying access to the older media. It takes less time, too (don't have to install the new OS twice in order to get a valid activation.)

Not just Vista

[Deadstick]

...the same capability exists in the upgrade versions of WinXP. If no Windows version is present on the hard disk, it asks you to briefly insert a disk of a qualifying version, including 95/98/Me, and it activates on the new disk's product key.

rj

Re:Not just Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that vista doesent even ask for previous media, it just installs no questions asked

Re:Not just Vista

[gEvil (beta)]

I think the point is that vista doesent even ask for previous media, it just installs no questions asked

That's nice of them, because I do have a fully licensed version of XP MCE that came with a machine I bought a few years ago. However, it was an HP, so I only have the crappy "Restore" discs that it let me make, which includes all the crapware they were paid to include. I'm fairly certain a Windows upgrade disc wouldn't accept these as "genuine" media that's eligible for upgrade, even though they should be. It's nice to know that I can install Vista onto a fresh HD without having to deal with first installing XP and all the extra crap, only to blow it away with the upgrade.

Re:Not just Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the article? Vista upgrades can only be applied to an already-installed Windows 2000, XP, or Vista (not simply by validating against one of their installation disks). The trick is that you can do a clean install using the Vista upgrade disk, then do an upgrade install over the clean install. The upgrade install will recognize the clean install as a legitimate qualifying version to which the upgrade can be applied.

Is Microsoft getting desperate?

[Toe, The]

I can't imagine that MS is completely unaware of this workaround. After all, they have a licensing department that is larger than many (most?) corporations.

That inclines one to suspect that this hack was left in intentionally.

Now why would Microsoft let people steal from them so easily? That seems diametrically opposed to most of their past behavior. However, if their brand is indeed on a "sharp decline," then this action would suddenly make sense.

But it is still amazing to see Microsoft to be (seemingly) actually encouraging theft of their product. What will they think of next? Voluntarily coding to standards?

Re:Sophistication?

[redelm]

Why do you equate "less sophisticated" with any sort of depracation? It is a reflection of a state of knowledge, not any reflection of intelligence nor the propriety of that state of knowledge nor any moral failing. In general, less sophisticated is better because whatever task can be accomplished with less mental effort. MS-Windows certainly is appropriate for users with very simple requirements.

BTW, a "Fsck you" on any subject is functionally identical to a concession that you possess no further logical argument, and likely indicates you lack the grace or strength to stand by a personal perference and must instead verbally attack.

Re:Repackaged shit

[Digi-John]

Oooh, ooh, I know, mod parent up, +5 RIAA Tie-in

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[lattyware]

If you can't manage to install Ubuntu, you deserve to run Windows. Seriously, it's so easy these days. Yeah, Those -1 trolls coming my way, I guess. But someone had to say it.

Re:Even if the upgrade trick didn't work

[The MAZZTer]

In the original article about the trick, the author noted that a Vista install is quicker than an XP one. Microsoft reworked the install process for Vista with their new WIM format which is sorta like a traditional archive but it stores FILE ATTRIBUTES and NTFS ONLY METADATA so we should be excited about it I guess... anyways I would hope it wouldn't be slower, but then again I hoped Vista wouldn't be slower either...

Re:Or - a way around upgrade nightmares

[zoward]

Another possibility: the only time I tried to use an (admittedly beta) version of Vista to upgrade an XP box, it trashed my hard drive. Since this was just test hardware, I wasn't concerned, and just did a clean install. I'd be pretty ticked off if it happened on my main machine, but I'd be even madder if I couldn't install it on my now-hosed drive without having to reinstall XP first. Hell, I might just stay with XP (definitely not something MS wants to see happen), especially if my copy of XP was actually a restore disc (which probably won't allow you to verify an OS upgrade), or even a restore partition, either of which I may or may not still have ... turning my $149 upgrade disc into a very expensive coaster while simultaneously wiping my hard drive.

Microsoft may just be trying to save themselves some support headaches by making each upgrade disc able to authenticate itself.

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[Dog-Cow]

The default install of Ubunto 10.whatever-it-is fails on VMware Fusion because Fusion presents the virtual disk as scsi and the front-end to Grub in the installer doesn't get it.

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[Anonymous Coward]

The default install of Ubunto 10.whatever-it-is fails... I'm not surprised, Ubuntu 10.whatever is not entirely stable yet.

Conspiracy? Please

[UnknowingFool]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. --Robert J. Hanlon

Considering the other more important fixes that Vista SP1 needed, I'm sure it was just overlooked or ignored.

Re:Sophistication?

[geekoid]

You might want to ask your dad if that applies to people pointing out the flaws in your system.
Of course, I doubt your story is true...unless your about 12.

I can drive a nail into a piece of wood with a wrench, but when people point out why an hammer would be better I wouldn't say "Fuck You"

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you can't spell Ubuntu! Wow, you really showed him.

He can capitalize letters and punctuate properly though so I'd cut him some slack.

IP35

[Simian Road]

Ever tried installing Ubuntu on an IP35 chipset? I did last week and it was a real ass.

First had to switch the Sata connections over on my motherboard from the lower 1-4 ports to the5-6 ports, then turn on AHCI in the Bios. Then it won't boot from CD whilst AHCI is on so I turn it back off. Finally found out that I needed to use the alternate install disc and add the -irqpoll setting to get it to even begin installing. Once it was installed it wouldn't boot into Ubuntu properly so I had to turn AHCI back on (which makes it work fine!). Although this has the downside of making me unable to boot from CD, the CD still works in the OS and now that I have everything working I don't care about booting. The slight downside (or upside depending on how you look at it) is that XP then stopped working because of the AHCI. One final reset back to normal Sata, tweak the registry, switch back the bios and I was done.

I'm not hugely tech-savvy but I was quite happy at getting it to work in the end. Just don't tell me that Ubuntu is easy to install!

***Puts on Flame-proof coat***

Re:IP35

[HooDee]

Off topic stuff, but...

Yes I have. Asus P5K-E Wifi (Intel P35 chipset), 8800 GTS, 4GB, C2D E6750. AHCI on all the time.

After very easy installation everything works just fine "out of the box". Yes, even the built-in WLAN adapter, sound card, graphics card, compiz effects. etc etc.. The version I tried was 64-bit Ubuntu Hardy Heron Alpha version something.

I did have a blank screen problem after booting from the installation cd, but it was very easy to fix. Just remove the splash -keyword from boot params in the boot selection menu.

After installation + doing dist-upgrade the splash problem was gone too. Apart from the initial blank screen problem installation was amazingly easy.

Sorry for my crappy English. I've been lurking around here in Slashdot for a long time now, way before I even created my account, but I tend to stay out of the discussions because of my lacking English writing skills, but this was something I think needed correction / another experience.

Re:IP35

[Curtman]

Sorry for my crappy English. I've been lurking around here in Slashdot for a long time now, way before I even created my account, but I tend to stay out of the discussions because of my lacking English writing skills, but this was something I think needed correction / another experience.

Don't let that stop you. Many people here speak English fine, but make no sense at all.

Re:no need to purchase the more expensive...

[geekoid]

Um, violating a contract isn't illegal.
It's a violation of an agreement and thus actionable through civil channels.

Not even taking into account the fact that not following a one sided contract may not even be actionable in a civil court.

But, you sit there on your high horse, make ad Hominem attacks, and continue to keep your brain in idle. The rest of us recognize you for the ass hat you are.

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[Technician]

The default install of Ubunto 10.whatever-it-is fails on VMware Fusion because Fusion presents the virtual disk as scsi and the front-end to Grub in the installer doesn't get it.

For a non-standard install, download and install from the Alternate ISO. It fits nicely on a bootable DVD. You can skip Grub if needed. The live install CD was not intended for power users.

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[ZsoL]

The default install of Ubunto 10.whatever-it-is fails on VMware Fusion because Fusion presents the virtual disk as scsi and the front-end to Grub in the installer doesn't get it. Well I guess you should provide it with an IDE virtual disk using the options of VMware Fusion...

Re:Sophistication?

[Pojut]

Quite good, actually. Been slowly moving up in my company, living in a condo with my girlfriend (who last June graduated from Towson and this past October got a job as a 3rd grade special ed teacher.)

We just finished paying off her car, got the last book in the Akira Manga series, managed to obtain an unpunched and unplayed copy of the board game Hero Quest, and my 24th birthday is tomorrow.

All told, things have been great.

Thanks for asking:-)

Re:Sophistication?

[redelm]

"Good judgement comes with experience. And experience, well, that comes from bad judgement"

Re:Its easy unless something goes wrong

[Curtman]

Why are you installing if you have a previous version of Ubuntu installed already? Change your repo's and apt-get dist-upgrade.

There's even an easy way.

Anytime Upgrade

[RWarrior(fobw)]

Great to know this thing still works on SP1.

What does NOT work on SP1 is the Anytime Upgrade I bought. I have a copy of Vista Business OEM, and for various reasons I bought an Ultimate key through the Anytime Upgrade program.

It works like this:

- Install Vista Business OEM
- Activate Vista Business OEM
- Run key package for Vista Ultimate Anytime Upgrade
- Run installer from Vista Business OEM DVD, that actually does an upgrade install - takes hours

Here's the wrinkle:

- Install Vista Business OEM
- Activate Business OEM
- Use Business for a while because I have more pressing things to do than a second OS installation.
- Install SP1.
- Run key backage for Vista Ultimate Anytime Upgrade
- Run installer from Vista Business OEM DVD, but instead of doing an upgrade install, the upgrade option is deactivated and it will only do a full format and install.

Thanks, MS. Guess I'll wait until the next time I format the machine (two or three months) to go back to Ultimate.

What?

[Arancaytar]

"the fact that the trick wasn't removed from SP1 suggests that Microsoft executives approved the back door as a way to make the price of Vista more appealing to sophisticated buyers."

Are you saying that MS deliberately levies an idiot tax on customers who are not smart enough to (well, partially) pirate their product?

That sounds a bit implausible to me.