I purchased the Upgrade Version of Vista Ultimate and I fail to see what the big deal it. If I ever need to reinstall it I can just install my legal Windows 2000 or XP versions that I do not use anymore and then install Vista. All it does is make you install it as an upgrade, which is why it's called an upgrade. I was kind of surprised that they let us install the XP upgrade, almost just as we did the full version. I can still do a "clean" install, but I have to do it from a previous version of Windows is all.

Get Vista upgrade, never pay full price

By Brian Livingston

Many people are upset by the fact that the economical, "upgrade" version of Vista won't accept a Windows XP or Windows 2000 CD-ROM as proof of ownership. Vista Upgrade is said to install only to a hard disk that already has XP or 2000 already on it.

But I've tested a method that allows you to clean-install the Vista upgrade version on any hard drive, with no prior XP or W2K installation — or even a CD — required.

Save by avoiding the 'full' version

Windows Vista, in my opinion, is a big improvement over Windows XP in many ways. But the new operating system is distinctly overpriced.

The list price of the "full" (not "upgrade") version of the most expensive edition, Vista Ultimate, is $399.95 USD, with a street price around $380. That gold-plated retail figure is only possible because Microsoft long ago achieved monopoly pricing power in the PC operating system market.

Most computer users would prefer to keep using an older version of Windows, such as XP, rather than paying the inflated prices for the "full" version of Vista. To encourage switching to a new OS, Microsoft has historically offered a lower, "upgrade" price to people who can prove that they've previously purchased an older copy of Windows.

The difference between Vista's full and upgrade prices can be substantial. Based on the asking prices shown at Shopping.com on Jan. 31 — the day after the consumer version of Vista became available — the four most popular Vista versions will set you back approximately as follows:

Edition Full version Upgrade version
Vista Home Basic $192 $100 ($92 less)
Vista Home Premium $228 $156 ($72 less)
Vista Business $285 $192 ($93 less)
Vista Ultimate $380 $225 ($155 less)

The upgrade versions of Vista have street prices that are 32% to 48% cheaper than the full versions. If you're truly installing Vista over an old instance of XP or W2K, the upgrade version of Vista will find the older OS on your hard drive and install without question. The problem is that Vista, unlike every version of Windows in the past, doesn't let you insert a physical disc from an older operating system as evidence of your previous purchase.

Vista has an undocumented feature, however, that actually allows you to "clean install" Vista to a hard disk that has no prior copy of XP or W2K.

Use Vista's 'upgrade' version to clean-install

The secret is that the setup program in Vista's upgrade version will accept an installed copy of XP, W2K, or an unactivated copy of Vista itself as evidence of a previous installation.

This enables you to "clean install" an upgrade version of Vista to any formatted or unformatted hard drive, which is usually the preferred method when installing any new operating system. You must, in essence, install Vista twice to take advantage of this trick. But Vista installs much faster than XP, so it's quicker than installing XP followed by Vista to get the upgrade price.

Before you install Vista on a machine that you don't know is 100% compatible, you should run Microsoft's free Upgrade Advisor. This program — which operates only on 32-bit versions of XP and Vista (plus Vista Enterprise) — reports to you on any hardware or software it finds that may be incompatible with Vista. See Microsoft's Upgrade Advisor page.

Also, to see which flavors of XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 officially support in-place installs and clean installs of the different Vista editions, see Microsoft's upgrade paths page.

Here's a simplified overview of the steps that are required to clean-install the upgrade version of Vista:

Step 1. Boot the PC from the Vista DVD.

Step 2. Select "Install Now," but do not enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Leave the input box blank. Also, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I'm online. In the next dialog box that appears, confirm that you really do want to install Vista without entering a Product Key.

Step 3. Correctly indicate the version of Vista that you're installing: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate.

Step 4. Select the "Custom (Advanced)" install, not the "Upgrade" install.

Step 5. Vista copies files at length and reboots itself one or more times. Wait for the install to complete. At this point, you might think that you could "activate" Vista, but you can't. That's because you haven't installed the Vista upgrade yet. To do that, run the DVD's setup.exe program again, but this time from the Vista desktop. The easiest way to start setup again is to eject and then reinsert the DVD.

Step 6. Click "Install Now." Select Do not get the latest updates for installation. (You can check for these updates later.)

Step 7. This time, do enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Once again, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I'm online.

Step 8. On this second install, make sure to select "Upgrade," not "Custom (Advanced)." You're not doing a clean install now, you're upgrading to Vista.

Step 9. Wait while Vista copies files and reboots itself. No user interaction is required. Do not boot from the DVD when asked if you'd like to do so. Instead, wait a few seconds and the setup process will continue on its way. Some DOS-like, character-mode menus will appear, but don't interact with them. After a few seconds, the correct choice will run for you automatically.

Step 10. After you click a button labeled Start in the Thank You dialog box, Vista's login screen will eventually appear. Enter the username and password that you selected during the first install. You're done upgrading to Vista.

Step 11. Within 30 days, you must "activate" your copy of Vista or it'll lose functionality. To activate Vista, click Show more details in the Welcome Center that automatically displays upon each boot-up, then click Activate Windows now. If you've dismissed the Welcome Center, access the correct dialog box by clicking Start, Control Panel, System & Maintenance, System. If you purchased a legitimate copy of Vista, it should quickly activate over the Internet. (You can instead activate by calling Microsoft on the phone, which avoids your PC exchanging information with Microsoft's server.)

I'm not going into detail today on the merits of buying Vista at retail instead of buying a cheaper OEM copy. (The OEM offerings don't entitle you to call Microsoft for support, while the retail packages do.) Also, I'm not touching here on the least-expensive way to buy Vista, which is to take advantage of Microsoft's "educational" rate. I'll describe both of these topics in next week's newsletter.

Why does Vista's secret setup exist?

It's reasonable for us to ask ourselves whether buying an upgrade version of Vista, and then installing it to an empty hard disk that contains no previous version of Windows, is ethical.

I believe it is. Microsoft itself created the upgrade process. The company designed Vista to support upgrading it over a previously installed copy of XP, W2K Pro, or Vista itself. This isn't a black-hat hacker exploit. It's something that's been deliberately programmed into the approved setup routine.

Microsoft spent years developing and testing Vista. This upgrade trick must have been known to many, many people within the development team. Either Microsoft planned this upgrade path all along, knowing that computer magazines and newsletters (like this one) would widely publicize a way to "save money buying Vista." Or else some highly placed coders within the Vista development team decided that Vista's "full" price was too high and that no one should ever have to pay it. In either case, Vista's setup.exe is Microsoft's official install routine, and I see no problem with using it exactly as it was designed.

We should also think about whether instances of Vista that were installed using the clean-install method will continue to operate. I believe that this method will continue to be present in Vista DVDs at least until Microsoft begins distributing the Service Pack 1 edition of Vista around fall 2007. Changing the routine in the millions of DVDs that are now in circulation would simply be too wrenching. And trying to remotely disable instances of Vista that were clean-installed — even if it were technically possible to distinguish them — would generate too many tech-support calls and too much ill will to make it worthwhile.

Installing the upgrade version of Vista, but not installing over an existing instance of XP or W2K, probably violates the Vista EULA (end-user license agreement). If you're a business executive, I wouldn't recommend that you flout any Windows license provisions just to save money.

If you're strictly a home user, contributing editor Susan Bradley points out that Microsoft's so-called Vista Family Discount (VFD) is an economical package that avoids any license issues. If you buy a retail copy of Vista Ultimate, MS lets you upgrade up to two additional PCs to Vista Home Premium for $50 each. For example, if you buy the upgrade version of Ultimate for $225, the grand total after you add two Home Premiums is $335. That's about $133 less than buying three upgrade versions of Home Premium. Details are at Microsoft's VFD page.

Microsoft did revise a Knowledge Base article, number 930985, on Jan. 31 that obliquely refers to the upgrade situation. It simply states that an upgrade version of Vista can't perform a clean install when a PC is booted from the Vista DVD. A clean install will only work, the document says, when the Vista setup is run from within an older version of Windows (or if a full version of Vista is being used).

This article doesn't at all deal with the fact that the Vista upgrade version will in fact clean-install using the steps described above. It'll be interesting to see whether MS ever explains why these steps were programmed in.

Personally, I consider Vista's ability to upgrade over itself to be Digital Rights Management that actually benefits consumers. It's almost cosmic justice.

I invite my readers to test Vista's undocumented clean-install method for themselves. There certainly must be aspects of this setup routine that I haven't yet discovered. I'll print the best findings from those sent in via our contact page. You'll receive a gift certificate for a book, CD, or DVD of your choice if you're the first to send in a tip that I print.

I'd like to thank my co-author of Windows Vista Secrets, Paul Thurrott, for his research help in bringing the clean-install method to light.

Oh wow, Microsoft screw its customers once more, and yet, they just sit back and take it all down. When will they stand up for themselves and demand changes?

Like music DRM the new MS policy for Vista prejudices only the users that pay for the software... It's just sad that such big company can't get the entire picture.

Well seeing as you can do a clean install from an upgrade disc (just you have to do it within an existing version of Windows) I don't see what the problem is.

Not only that, you can simply buy the "full" version anyway (which is what you're supposed to be doing) which will let you do it.

Stop being a cheapskate and get the right version.

I can see an issue here:
Many times when using the Repair Install of XP, it won't see that there's already an install of XP to repair, and leaves you hanging...so what happens when Vista can't see the MFT (or whatever is holding up the XP repair installs) - you won't be able to install your brand new Vista...that's what!

This may make sense to them because of the pirated copies of XP floating around out there, but for those of us who've actually purchased their products, I feel it's US who's being reprimanded...

So, get the FULL VERSION seems to be the common denominator throughout this thread...what it really comes down to is 'spend more money on the OS and it will *let* you do a clean install' - so if there's a REPAIR INSTALL on Vista at all, is it going to have the same problem???

Vista has a repair console, and from what I can tell it's quite good.

Ya know...not to mention the enhanced disk imaging and backup capabilities of Vista.

Oh crap, I mentioned them.

I own XP Home. If I buy a new HD (for any reason) and if I need to install Vista upgrade again I'll have to install XP first (or Vista twice) to get it working again. XP upgrade requires just the 98/Me CD.

Finally, reading what you wrote makes me think that money is not a problem for you but that's not a general rule. Good for you.

No, you use the Vista tools (System Image) to back up your system and then restore it on your new hard drive.

Helps if ya know what yer talking about...

Come on PC_Tool you can do better than tell the obvious.

In addition, we're talking about a feature that was removed from Vista upgrade not ways to restore a broken system.

It seems that you don't care but I do.

Well if money is a problem you should really be thinking about why you are getting Vista upgrade in the first place. Do you REALLY need it? If you do, you have to know the entire pitfalls and perils. This "upgrade can't boot to clean-install" thing really is minor and can be sidestepped by buying either the cheaper OEM or the "full" version.

If your really care, then buy the OEM or "full" version. You're just sounding stubborn when the solution is already out there!

OK testman. There's a solution but that's not my point. I'll be forced to buy a full when I have the right to get the upgrade. That's not right. That's all.

Upgrade workaround...

1. Boot with the Windows Vista Upgrade DVD.

2. Click "Install Now."

3. Do not enter a Product Key When prompted.

4. When prompted, select the Vista product edition that you do have.

6. Install Vista normally.

7. Once the install is complete, restart the DVD-based Setup from within Windows Vista. Perform an in-place upgrade.

8. Enter your Product Key when prompted.

*Edit* Sorry 'TomeOne', the page you link to has the same info as I found on this issue, and your URL is graphical for those that like (need?) pictures. ;-

If this works, and you can use Vista to upgrade itself, then they've removed the only legitimate reason for this change. You don't actually need a prior product, and all this does is add to the annoyance. Great. Same loophole they've always had in their upgrades, which is nice, but the change is annoying.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932

Does Betanews have moderators? This site is becoming unusable with every article full of childish trolling and hateful attacks on other members. Seriously, can we clean the place up or at least move to a system like OSNews uses where the trash can be moderated down by other members.

Back to Vista, I see nothing wrong with this. It is what an upgrade is supposed to do. If you need to install on an empty hard drive you really should be buying the full version.

The look-alike names are getting a tad ridiculous.

But hey...free speech, even for idiots, right?

I agree, they really need to implement the score system for registered users so we can mod down the cruft. It's getting to the point where I come here only for comic relief or to point and laugh....or both.

Well this had me worried bad. i just bought xp MCE on 12/12. (bought it for the free vista upgrade.)its for a new system build. i have not even completed my build yet.
so you could imagine when i read this i was really ticked off. i was thinking i would have to sit though 2 installs of windows when i complete my system.
anyway i just got off the phone with M$ and they told me that is only true on the home basic. the premium and the ultimate versions will upgrade with a view of the cd. like the older ones.
P.S. probably should have pointed that out in the main article.
just hope i talked to somebody @ M$ that really knows and not a poser

Not true. I just bought an upgrade of Vista Ultimate. Guess what? If you boot directly from the DVD, after you enter your product key and get to the disk partitioning screen Vista Ultimate pops up a message stating that in order to use the upgrade product key you have to start the installation from within your previous OS.

What does upgrade mean to you? Like most people, I have several business applications, games, utilities, and others. I only have one that’s an original software package and it's days are numbered. The remainders are upgrades. I have found upgrade software requiring the original software to be installed extremely unreliable. Normally this kind of software runs slower, requires more hard drive space, is buggy, and doesn't clean up the registry and the hard drive file system. Now imagine your going to upgrade Windows XP with all of your applications installed. What would be required of Vista to accomplish such a massive task? In my opinion, it’s a nightmare about to unfold not only for the customer but for Microsoft as well. Let’s assume for a moment, that Microsoft required all OS upgrades have the previous version install. So what you would have to do is install MS 3.x than 97 than 98 than Me than 2000 than XP than Vista. I don't think so!

Some have pointed out the availability of Vista OEM, which can be installed from starch. However, where did Microsoft support go? You have none! You are your own support.

You can do a clean install with the Vista upgrade. It moves the old installation to a folder where you can delete it later if you wish.

Not always.

You seem to forget that you can buy the "full" version, which lets you boot to do clean installs.

Im not the biggest fan of microsoft, but if it hasn't occured to you before you make some rant comment about how microsoft has infringed on your 'rights', remember that they are a company. A company that makes and sells products for profit. If you do not like their product, do not buy it. Lenovo and other computer manufactures do sell computers with Linux and Apple still sells Macs. I have used the loophole before and it is convenient, but not necessary.

The reason Vista requires the previous OS to be installed AND activated is so that Vista confirms its genuine THEN it makes the previous OS unable to be validated in the future. I wonder what happens if you have a Corp version of XP, and upgrade to Vista, does it make all the systems that used the Corp key invalid? Can you not use the Corp key in the future? What about if you want to do a fresh install in the future and then cant activate XP because its already been locked the first time Vista was installed. One thing is for sure, I am not jumping on the Vista boat as fast as I jumped on the 98, 2K and XP boats. There are too many hidden "features" in Vista.

THEN it makes the previous OS unable to be validated in the future

Where are you getting this information? I've not seen anything about it deactivating your previous installation.

http://www.tomcoyote.org...alidates-your-xp-key/74/

There is the source of the story. I have not seen any official word from Microsoft though.

The license has always been this way, they are just enforcing it now. It should be common sense. If you upgrade your previous version of Windows to a newer one, that prevous version is no longer valid. People are used to buying upgrades and then using their previous version on another computer or even dual booting with it. You are not allowed to do this.

"I wonder what happens if you have a Corp version of XP, and upgrade to Vista, does it make all the systems that used the Corp key invalid?"

I am not certain how this works but I wouldn't think VLK versions would be eligible. The VLK versions are not for sale to regular consumers. Companies that have VLK licenses would be using Vista Enterprise when they upgrade. Again I'm not sure what the rules are there though.

"What about if you want to do a fresh install in the future and then cant activate XP because its already been locked the first time Vista was installed."

I have not seen any information saying that XP has to be activated. I do know for a fact that you can use a Windows 2000 installation with the Vista upgrade and it has no activation, so I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that XP must be activated. I would also think that you could simply use your existing Vista installation when you need to reinstall it.

If you upgrade your previous version of Windows to a newer one, that prevous version is no longer valid.

Makes sense.

The discount is basically a fraction of the purchase price of the product it's replacing. Keyword: Replacing.

Never even thought of doing that though... I suppose if you've got older hardware lying around, but, eh...that's what Linux is for. :p

Personally I like sitting through installs it's fun to me so that way I'd get to sit through 2 instead of just 1 =) I can't upgrade to vista anyway because I'm legally blind and my sreenreading / magnifcation software (zoomText 9.04) doesn't support vista so for me it's a mute point ether way. Happy upgrading =)

SkyWarpTFB =)

people are pretty dumb on this site.

... that is all

I don't follow...

Could you elaborate?

Do you have a newsletter I could subscribe to describing the situation in detail?

While I can appreciate what would drive you to say something that useless, wouldn't it be better to try to educate people then just tell them they are dumb? A futile effort most likely, but at least you don't end up looking just as dumb.

i award you no points....

This is ridiculous, guys. Seriously.

It's an upgrade. It's sole purpose is to upgrade an existing system. It was *never* intended to be a replacement for a full-retail or OEM install.

Now, I understand that it was possible in the past. The key there is that while it was possible, it was not the intended purpose. As the headline states, it was a loophole. Now it's fixed.

All it means is that the people who were buying the "upgrade" to do full installs must now purchase the version (full or OEM) that they *should* have been purchasing all along or deal with first installing their previous OS.

There's no big conspiracy. There's no added inconvenience (when used as intended).

The only people this negatively affects are those who were using the upgrade versions in some other way than how it was intended to be used...and for some reason now think they have some actual right to use it in that way.

If you plan to upgrade an existing install, buy the upgrade. It's cheaper and less hassle, and once it verifies your old install, you can choose to blow it away and do a clean install.

If you plan on installing this on systems with no installed OS, buy the OEM or retail.

It's really that simple. All the pissing and moaning in the world does not alter the fact that the upgrade version was never intend to be used as a stand-alone install disc.

You cant call it a "loophole" when it was designed that way. They didnt close a loophope they altered functionality. The sequence designed by MS was that the installation asked for the previus OS CD, then asked for the current one and continued. Thats not a loophole. Thats a design.

The facts are before all you needed was the OS CD, now you have to install the OS first then upgrade. Change of function, not a close of loophole.

:Edit:
This was not only XP, you could do a full install with an upgrade disk for 98, ME and 2K as well by only providing the previous OS CD or with 98, Windows 95 install floppies. I believe it required disks 1, 2 and 6 or something like that.

I fail to see your point. (unless it was merely to nit-pick...)

Yes, it was designed in. Yes, it was functional.

The intent was the same, but it was easier to use the upgrade CD to do a full install on a clean system, in spite of the CD's intended purpose.

Call it a loophole, call it a rhino. I couldn't care less, it does nothing to diminish the point I made.

BTW: I never said this was limited to XP.

I just upgraded to Office 2007. I first removed office 2003. I then pointed Office 2007 to the CD of 2003 which was also a upgrade.

So it looks like they only closed this function in Vista and not Office 2007

The loophole was that people could take advantage of that design to use pirated CDs or to continue using their old version of Windows on another PC.

Thanks MR. I can repeat the Article like a parrot. LOL@retard

Your trolling is weak.

I don't get why people are complaining. What big 'upgrade' product has ever allowed a user to run it as a full installation? Sure, MS spoiled customers on this with XP, but how is it that they're 'screwing their customers' now with this path? I agree that it would have been great to allow the upgrade disks to work like the XP versions but come on people....this is a company and they're out there to make money like every other for-profit company out there. If you can't afford retail pricing then simply go the OEM/System Builder path....these disks are the same price as the upgrade disks and the only physical difference is that it's either/or, not both (either 32bit OR 64bit vs. both on the retail disk). In any case, I do believe it's too late now to do anything about it, as they have already shipped full copies with the same installers. Just go out there and buy an OEM disk, or the full - the prices are reasonable, imho - unless you're looking for something like Ultimate.

They got used to being able to cheat it with XP. Now they seem to think that because they could do it with XP, it's their God-given right to do it with Vista.

They are unbound by such minor things as logic and common sense.

Anyone who supports MS buy purchasing Vista deserves all the headaches they end up getting.

I tell you - MS is abusing their position and people are just following along like lemmings.

There is no reason to pull this sort of crap. There is no harm asking a user to type in a CD Key from XP and inserting the disk for verification.

Why should you have to have it installed and activated? Are they trying to make this so inconvenient that people will just say "Screw It" and go purchase the full-on retail version just to avoid the hassle?

They drive the price of the software up by splitting into a bunch of different iterations and charging more for XP equivalent functionality.

Why not make Vista Home Basic $49 and Vista Home Premium $79 or $99? Isn't XP Home $99 to upgrade?

How much money do these people want to squeeze out of consumers anyway? When are tens of billions of dollars not enough?

What if folks don't want Vista importing any stuff from XP? What if folks don't want all that legacy crap on their system? Who wants Vista relying on any content in the XP Registry or some such thing? Who wants obsolete drivers left installed? Isn't there enough potential problems with Vista already? Why even tempt fate by having ANY of that XP stuff around when you install Vista? Out of date DLL's, tons of legacy crap in the registry from XP? Isn't the registry fragile enough as it is? Why take the chance?

True, clean installs are always better..... I wonder how much of XP's files and structure will remain though.... with XP 64Bit Edition and Windows 2000, upgrade is possible but it requires a clean install! So either MS is not worrying about upgrade loopholes for these users or there IS an alternative to having the OS cleanly installed and using an upgrade copy of Vista....

"If you are currently using Windows 2000 Professional or Windows XP Professional x64, you are eligible for an upgrade copy to a corresponding or better edition of Windows Vista, but a clean install is required."

http://www.microsoft.com...grade/upgradepaths.mspx

So 64bit XP and 2000 users are the winners here.

There are three types of installs:
(1) Upgrade - keeps everything...all your program files, documents etc
(2) "clean install" on an existing OS - keeps all files (i.e. documents) but programs have to be reinstalled
(3) A true clean install - need to boot from the cd, install drivers, programs, etc.

What the article is saying is that option (3) is no longer an option with vista upgrade discs. And as far as xp 64bit and 2000, the only option is #2 with upgrade discs.

My only concern with this move by Microsoft is what happens if Vista gets corrupted (doesn't boot) AND a vista repair doesn't solve the issue? Since you can't do a clean install, will these people just be screwed? Sucks.

You utterly fail to realize how few folks this will actually affect. You also miss the entire point of it completely. I'll try and explain:

Pre-Vista: Anyone could buy an upgrade and download, borrow, or grab from work an ISO, and do a full clean install (Not an upgrade). That means that *anyone* who bought full retail just got suckered for being honest.

Post-Vista: Previous OS must be installed. Vista *still* allows a clean install. Stops people from being able to borrow, download or grab the ISO from work to install the upgrade.

Everyone got so used to being able to cheat the system they now somehow started to think it was their "right" to be able to do so.

Don't like the upgrade option? Buy OEM. Can't deal with the OEM restrictions? Buy upgrade. Can't handle either? Buy full retail. Got a problem with MS that logic and common sense can't touch? Go linux or Mac.

Simple. Easy. Legit.

Well then I have a question if you may indulge me...

How would I upgrade from my hp restore disc? Recently purchased an hp laptop and of course the pre-installed xp media center has a TON of s*** that I'd hate to have installed. Will any of this stuff disappear if I do a vista upgrade? I think I'll need to get an OEM version of xp before I decide on an upgrade path...

Simply use your restore disc, then install Vista in XP, selecting the "clean install" option.

The only thing Microsoft have stopped is booting from disc to do a clean install with the upgrade keys. This is no real change, according to past EULAs, but they are enforcing it now.

If you buy the full or OEM versions with corresponding keys, this is allowed.

Same here. Microsoft has just gotten sad, and I used to be the biggest fanboy. Perfect time to make the move to Ubuntu or Freespire.

You're still the biggest fanboy. You've just switched camps.

Those darn personality flaws just follow you everywhere, don't they?

now now, at least he didn't claim that the Vista upgrade is a right wing conspiracy. That's new for him.

It's a corporation...obviously, it's a right-wing conspiracy.

Free-Market is nothing *but* right-wing conspiracy, isn't it?

/sarcasm

I dont know i rather just make a switch to osx, linux, this vista mess is just getting out of hand

The upgrade path might seem a pain but if you own a legit version of XP its really worth the savings.

It's no big deal here is what I would do:

Install XP
Activate it. (this is mandatory)
Create a Ghost image of XP.
Burn the image to a DVD, store with your copy of Vista.

There, now when you need to re-install Vista after a hard disk crash or whatever, XP will only take about 10 minutes to install from a ghost image dump. Simple.

Here I thought I was one of the biggest MS lovers...(I do love their products, not their price hehehe). But then I see some people protecting this MS atrocity. Why the F does MS need Vista to be run from within a working XP partition? Yeah, it's hard for some people to locate their XP code... Still... Why not OPTIONALLY just ask for the XP product key during Vista installation and as soon as you get online, verify with MS dbase that indeed that XP serial belongs to YOU (hardware hash) on that SINGLE MACHINE and immediately proceeds to disable that key and replaces it with your ONLY legitimate license to Vista?

I'll tell you why, because MS wants to make it just a tiny bit harder to choose "Upgrade". They want you to choose "Retail"! So they give you another incentive. Logically speaking, even if you FORGOT your XP Key, but you are a REGISTERED CUSTOMER, you can just call MS and DEMAND that you can upgrade "somehow" since clearly they know you are legit on that specific hardware config (individual PC). In fact, I'm pretty sure the support guys will give you a nice method (probably a non-upgrade key but a real full-retail key) in such cases if you start to scream. Legally, I'm pretty sure they have to comply, especially being a monopoly walking on such a tight rope.

So I say: whatever. MS can play their games and we as consumers should play ours... OEM/Upgrade/"borrowed" KMS licenses from workplace..whatever. As always, if you got hookups, you got juice.

Amen. That was stated... well... extremely well.

Are you an idiot? This only applies to the upgrade keys, if you bought the full or OEM versions you can do so! They are only enforcing the EULA which was similar in past Windows!

Not that I would ever run this Pig-In-A-Wig but anything in the Windows world that requires me to have the OS installed just so that it can do a "dirty upgrade" as opposed to a clean install immediately gets tossed as far as I'm concerned. The other solution was much more civil and customer oriented.

This is typical of the new face of MS and DRM in general:

Screw the customer.

Pure filth.

I've heard (from MS support on MS groups) that this will also eventually apply to MS Office too. In the future you will need a validated copy of Office installed on your system before you can install an Office upgrade.

I'm not sure when this will take place though.

It states clearly in the following link (at the top) that ALL future MS products will be a PITA to pirate (using KMS, no more VLK, etc)..just like Vista will be.

http://www.microsoft.com...ources/vol/default.mspx

"In the future, Volume Activation technology will be used for all Microsoft products, but it is being introduced in Windows Vista."

Does it matter? There are at least 10 ways to crack vista already.... Unless you are a noob who cant handle the light technical aspect of the K. I should call this site BetaNoobs

No current cracks for Vista actually works for real.

Oh look at me, I'm going to tell everyone that I know all about cracking and all that, and call them noobs even though it has nothing to do with the story at all. This is about enforcing their upgrade licenses not stopping piracy of Windows. Then I'll pull some number out of nowhere to back up my claims (at least 10 ways, BS) and finish off by insulting the name of the site itself.

Mission accomplished captain troll. Now go crawl back in your hole and let the adults talk.

How about the "Run 24 virtual machines and license your business Vista, then shut down the 24 machines for the next 170 days" crack/workaround?

This works until they block the key. Show me one that actually works and is easier than going legit.

I didn't say it was easy, he just said that none actually work. That one works, if in an unwieldy fashion. :)

I think the stop timer crack still works. It froze the count at 30 days. Don't know how long it going to last, don't care anyway. Got my Vista Business here, but not planning to install it any time soon.

As long as you don't turn on automatic updates or need to pass WGA for any reason.

You'd have to be extremely technical to REALLY secure your machine (against the monthly slew of security holes) without Windows Updates. Clearly anyone who can achieve such feat deserves a free copy of Vista Ultimate. ;)

I MAY become such a person, if only for the intellectual challenge of it. ;) So every six months when you gotta re-do the crack, might as well reinstall a new fully-patched (slipstreamed) Vista. Could be cool, who knows. Could also be very annoying and not worth the effort...especially since Home Premium which will come on any half-decent PC has everything most people care for.

That's the trade-off. It's becoming harder and harder, and no longer really worth the effort.

It amazes me how many people can spend hours a week manually updating and securing a pirated system. You gotta wonder sometimes how $200 is worth all that extra work.

LOL@betanoob

Do your research before you look stupid.. AGAIN. haha

LOL@frustrated noob. Take your obsessive ranting somewhere else troll. I have seen your posts and I am pretty sure you are 8 years old, if not... you are just a 34YR old with the mental capacity of an 8yr old. hahaha Dance for me you little monkey! haha

You amuse me. Do it again.

Sorry aredo, that was uncalled for. I just get these urges to go onto message boards and call people names because it makes me feel important. You see I have no life so I make up for it by being a douche bag on the internet.

Dance for me you little monkey! haha

Isn't that one of PC Rat's fave lines?

"LOL@frustrated noob. Take your obsessive ranting somewhere else troll. I have seen your posts and I am pretty sure you are 8 years old"

Usage of the term "noob" automatically puts YOU in the 8 year old category. Gratz on showing everyone what an immature fool you are. Lemme guess, your a script-kiddie that just got off mommies AOL account?

Screen name look-alikes = lame

OMG you're right. Minus the weird formatting, this guy sounds a lot like the computer rodent.

...

*cringes*

Apparently if you don't put in a product key during install you can run the "upgrade" over an empty HD, then input it afterwards.

I don't have an upgrade disc... but from what I've heard it's only bootable to perform diagnostics. It apparently won't boot for installation purposes.

From posts I've seen on the matter - this won't work. When you input the key afterwards you get an error about having a bad key or somesuch.

Just another way of Microsoft "Sticking it to the Man" Us!!!

Whatever...

"Just another way of Microsoft "Sticking it to the Man" Us!!!"
----------------------------------------------
You sound typical of victim mentality.

People have been exploiting their upgrades for years. I remember with the MS-DOS upgrades (or perhaps Windows 3.1) you could simply create a blank text file with a certain name on the hard drive and it would pass the upgrade check. Later on they moved to having you insert the setup disks for a qualifying product, for example it would check your Windows 3.1 floppy disks to allow you to install the Windows 95 upgrade. It could not differentiate between genuine disks and pirated ones though and people took advantage of that. This is just another step to keep people from doing stuff like that anymore. Nothing to see here, move along.

Why didn't microsoft check for the key from the XP disc when upgrading? If the XP key is pirated/banned by WGA, then Vista could shut down in 30 days or something.

This method of upgrading - requiring that the OS already be installed is insane. It essentially means that for all practical purposes it's a one use disc as who wants to install XP in two years from now when you reformat or buy a new hard drive?

It's funny how this comes out on the eve of release. The greed from Redmond never fails to amaze.

"Why didn't microsoft check for the key from the XP disc when upgrading?"

Because you could then use that key over and over to install Vista upgrades on different machines. For example a person buys 3 Vista upgrade versions and then uses a genuine XP key to install all of them.

"It essentially means that for all practical purposes it's a one use disc."

It means no such thing, unless your dumb enough to throw away your XP discs. Yeah you'd have to install XP first every time you want to do a clean install of Vista, but there's an easy way around that. Buy the full version. Most people only install an OS once if ever (most take what comes on the computer from the store).

All it means that if you have to do a clean install first you have to reinstall your older version of Windows, activate it, and then upgrade to Vista.

All this is going to do is punish those who were honest enough to buy the product. It does nothing to stop piracy.

...

Because the key isn't on the disc?

...for all practical purposes it's a one use disc as who wants to install XP in two years from now when you reformat or buy a new hard drive?


It says that nowhere. One would assume, since it can detect an XP install that it can also probably detect a Vista install.

???

You're buying the upgrade...obviously, this implies you *have* an install.

If you don't, too bad. Buy the retail or OEM.

As far as hurting the honest consumer, you're full of it. I've yet to see any indication that even on a re-install it would somehow be unable to detect the current Vista install as a legitimate "upgrade".

MS limits XP serials to one computer. They could allow each XP serial to be used for one upgrade. Too much trouble for them.

Of course the solution is to buy the full version. But then why does MS bother with an upgrade version? PR? MS is a necessary evil. Sigh.

Yes I'm sure it can detect a Vista install. But what if the hard drive that it was installed on fails.

That is one big reason people reinstall OS's.

It's an example of MS making life difficult for enthusiasts. Guess I'll just go for an OEM version.

Yes they do, but in order to do that XP must first be installed so it can generate a unique hardware hash tying it to that machine. So you see why simply checking whether an XP serial is valid or not isn't enough to keep people from using it over and over to do clean installs of Vista upgrades.

"Of course the solution is to buy the full version. But then why does MS bother with an upgrade version?"

Because if people already have XP they can get Vista for a reduced price. Most people will like that, while a few will throw hissy fits because they can't just stick an old CD-R copy of Windows in to get the upgrade anymore.

"But what if the hard drive that it was installed on fails."

You buy a new hard drive, install your copy of XP on it and then install Vista.

Most people dread having to reinstall one OS. Two is too much to ask for the great majority of people.

And what happens in 2-3 years when your XP no longer activates because of hardware changes?

OEM is the way to go.

That's just the point. It should not be more work.

You're getting a pretty big discount on Vista for having a copy of XP. How much extra work is it to install XP again first on the rare occasion that your hard drive dies? Like I said most people who buy the upgrade have had the same copy of XP on their machine since they bought it. Installing XP takes how long? You make it sound like it's some long tortuous task Microsoft is forcing people to go through. If you buy the upgrade you are supposed to have a previous version installed. If you're too lazy to deal with this then perhaps you don't deserve the discount. Microsoft doesn't have to make reduced price versions available but they do, and people were abusing it. I don't blame them one bit. This whole story is just MS bashing fodder.

So go ahead and buy Ultimate for $400.

It's overpriced. Few would disagree.

If they can install one OS they can install two. Besides as PC_Tool has already pointed out you do not have to reinstall XP every single time you reinstall Vista. The occasions you would such as a hard drive being replaced would be pretty rare.

"And what happens in 2-3 years when your XP no longer activates because of hardware changes?"

Why would you suddenly no longer be able to activate XP because of hardware changes?

Personally, I don't see adding in 30-60 minutes for every reinstall as a good thing. Maybe it's just me, but I've sat through Windows installations since at least Windows 3.0, and it doesn't get any more interesting the more flashy graphics they get. While the most annoying one I can remember so far was probably Win95 using floppy disks, if I now have to install twice the operating systems, is it really worth the bother to have to use public beta (MS products are never really release level until SP1 at least) software? Personally I say... nope. :) You may disagree. I have a stack of Win95 floppies a foot or so tall you can have and spend a happy afternoon installing. Personally, I'll be using my already installed software, but then again, I prefer to use my software, not go through the joys of installing it over and over.

"If they can install one OS they can install two."
How pompous.

Skyfrog, you must be a MS shill.

Let them eat cake...

Why not Home Premium or Home Basic?

Anyway no, I would buy the upgrade version since I have an XP license and I'm not a crybaby about the fact that I might have to reinstall XP someday in order to install Vista. Let's see, boot from XP disc. Go watch some TV or something while it installs for 20 minutes or so. Oh the horror!

What is pompous about it? Your previous statement was dumb. People can install one copy of Windows but somehow they can't manage to do it twice?

elftyrrell, you must be an anti-Microsoft troll.

See, calling people names makes you win.

You don't have to. One time, that's it. If you have to install Vista again just pop in the CD and install it. You don't have to wipe your hard drive and reinstall XP every single time.

lmao..

What if...

What if...

So the hard drive fails. An already bad situation become marginally worse.

OH NOES!!!

Enthusiasts? Yeah, We absolutely *dread* having to install operating systems...especially if it saves us money.

Are you really that clueless?

And if your HD dies?

The issue isn't that they CAN'T install two OSes, but why would you want to? :) MS never used to force the issue... if they want that, why not at least give the option of just putting in your legit XP product key, and skipping the rest of the install? The issue isn't that MS is raising their security, it's that they're doing it in an inefficient (to the end user) way.

Then you spend a little extra time installing XP on the new one. Do your hard drives die so often that it would be too inconvenient? I thought we already went over that? Any more "what if" scenarios you'd like to ask about? Maybe your computer is destroyed by a volcano or something?

PC_Tool, you are right. You are always right. Because how could YOU be wrong. Discussing an issue with you is a waste of time. There is no way anyone could change your closed mind.

What if...

What if...

What if... someone else had a differing opinion. Your flimsy brittle little shell would shatter. Cue the tears...

I'm the person who generally goes through 3 ac adapters on a laptop. Yes, they do die that often for me. It's a combination of using them enough to wear the facing off the wrist-rest area of the laptop, and always having the HDs 95% or more full.

And for the record, where I used to work, someone actually brought in a laptop under warranty because it fell off his pickup while he was moving and it got run over (repeatedly) on the freeway. IBM replaced it under warranty. I'm sure if it fell into a volcano, if he could have pulled enough of it out, IBM would have replaced that too. :) The issue isn't about whether I CAN install XP, it's whether there's any actual reason to do so. Why can't MS just check the product key instead of checking for prior installed software? It would be more efficient and definitely faster for the end user...

So anyone who disagrees with you is a crybaby?

It's not like you view the world as black and white, right pal?

Virtually every major reviewer has felt the software is overpriced. I'm not going out on a limb here.

You go watch TV while XP and Vista installs. I'll save my time and spend it with... gasp... a woman.

This just shows how stupid Microsoft is — it can't even read its own software! And yet tools continue to defend the company. You're so predictable it's a joke to read your posts.

Then submit something other than a rant. Back it up. How about some facts?

No?

Of course not.

And how the hell would you know whether or not my mind can be changed through discussion? You don't discuss issues. You fabricate rationale and FUD to support your baseless bias against MS.

Always nice to see another useless post from you. Ya know, it'd be nice someday to actually see you stick to the topic instead of this BS, but the second *anyone* calls you out, you start with your name calling and rhetoric.

And here we have yet another prime example...

No, people who whine on and on about not being able to install Windows the way or pirate it are. The license agreement IS black and white, pal. If you don't like it don't buy it, but coming on here and having a hissy fit isn't going to change anything.

"I'll save my time and spend it with... gasp... a woman."

Are you that insecure with yourself that you have to point that out?

f they want that, why not at least give the option of just putting in your legit XP product key, and skipping the rest of the install?

Because that's not an upgrade?

An upgrade implies there's an existing installation to be upgraded.

Makes sense, eh?

If you're not upgrading an existing install, buying an upgrade version is kind of pointless, wouldn't you agree?

So..an end user who is using the *wrong* installation disc to do a full clean install is inconvenienced?

Bummer...

You're buying an upgraded operating system, but using your legitimate product key isn't an upgrade? When you buy an upgrade for another piece of software, such as an antivirus, and the upgrade is an entirely new product, I don't know of any other manufacturers that force you to install your obsolete product to install your new, mostly-unrelated version.

I'd be interested in finding where your definition of upgrade comes, that says that you need to install the software before you can install the new, upgraded version. Neither my dictionary, the Wikipedia, nor Google's define function supports your definition. In fact, the closest to yours is the Wiki-definition, being that an upgrade is "the process of replacing an older system with more recent hardware or software" which, depending on your understanding of the term replacement, might be taken in your way. Maybe.

The point of MS selling an upgrade version is to have people use their new system, and reward those who are upgrading and who might not otherwise at standard new-user prices. The issue isn't whether or not you are using the software, but whether or not you have it and are replacing it.

I have legally purchased a wide variety of software that I don't use (unfortunately) anymore. If the software was brought back to the point where it would become useful by purchasing an new, upgrade version (3.0 instead of 2.0, just to throw out random version numbers) that works in Vista for example, why would the company make me try to kludge installing the version 2.0 software on Vista before I can install my new, legal upgrade?

No clue where your last comment came from. My point was just that if they want to validate your legitimacy, why not just validate your legitimate XP, 2K, or whatever else is accepted product key? Seems like it would reduce a lot of the complaints without reducing the security significantly...

You're buying an upgraded operating system

You're wrong on the first sentence. This explains a lot.

You're buying the latest operating system, yes. But you are buying that with a license to be used as an upgrade, not as a full install on a naked system.

When you buy an upgrade for another piece of software, such as an antivirus, and the upgrade is an entirely new product, I don't know of any other manufacturers that force you to install your obsolete product to install your new, mostly-unrelated version.

Because you bought it directly from them and they have record of, and verification of the purchase. Do you see Norton AV Upgrades sitting on store shelves? Nope. Just the full product.

Definition of upgrade?

As it applies to software,
Simple: To be used to upgrade an existing installation to the latest version.

This is where most of you guys are hung up.

The point of MS selling an upgrade version is to have people use their new system, and reward those who are upgrading and who might not otherwise at standard new-user prices.

Wrong again.

The point is to offer a discount to those currently using another recent MS product of the same category. It has nothing to do with offering lower prices to people who don't want to buy the proper version for their needs.

My point was just that if they want to validate your legitimacy, why not just validate your legitimate XP, 2K, or whatever else is accepted product key? Seems like it would reduce a lot of the complaints without reducing the security significantly...

Because there's this nifty keygen floating around the net that creates authentic (until activated) product keys. The *only* way to check against those is through activation/WGA.

I never do this, but I just have to this time:

*ahem*

Here, here!

Gah!

What am I, a dog?

It's "Hear, Hear".

(Taken from the heralds back in the day, "Hear Ye, Hear Ye!")

I'm not a dog. I will not obey. :p

I spend a while trying to figure out how to write the first bit, and obviously I didn't manage to clarify enough. Basically, I was trying to say that you're buying an upgrade to your current operating system, much as other companies sell upgrades to their software. The purpose of their sales is (well, honestly, it's to get more of your money, but otherwise) to have you use the new software rather than the old one.

Regarding their upgrade system... at varying times, their most recent prior OS wouldn't match and function as the upgrade piece, and Windows 3 kept working as a valid upgrade source for most of the Win9x upgrade series. Bottom line, I object to the 'recent MS product of the same category' piece. Though depending on what they consider a legitimate upgrade source (apparently Vista, XP, and 2K according to http://support.microsoft...lt.aspx/kb/930985/en-us) that might finally be accurate.

Regarding the legality of the product key... where did I say that it doesn't get verified? If I have the choice of using a universal network driver to connect to MS and validate my product id, I'd rather do that (or even call them) than go through another install process.

And what I said goes double if you can use Vista to upgrade itself, as people were saying above, and their knowledge base article appears to suggest. :)

Because the keygen's product key validates on their activation servers. It's not until WGA kicks in that they are determined to be invalid.

Still, I suppose they could have initiated a WGA check during install, but really... How many hoops should they jump through to allow users to use a specific product version (upgrade) in a way that it was not intended to be used?

Don't like the upgrade process? Go OEM, it's cheaper and you can install it on a naked system.

I'm simply missing the part where this should be an issue to anyone who uses the product as intended. Replacing a hard drive? Use Vista System Imaging to back it up and restore. Replacing a MBD? Call MS to reactivate. Want a naked install? Upgrade is *not* for you.

*shrug*

I know, I'm just thinking in terms of when other people have me work on their useless PoS systems. :) Personally I'm fine, I'm not going to get an upgrade version when OEM is cheaper and lets me install cleanly, especially when I legally have Vista basically for free through work, but... When you can use unactivated Vista as your upgrade validation, where's the benefit for them in security?

theres so many vista ultimate downloads + cracks out there right now. i just searched on usenet and it seems vista is totally cracked. theyre all rtm though. and i a agree, the author needs to do better. when i first read this article i thought m$ was being real asses but when i read the comments down i saw u can atleast get clean installs

Microsoft Windows Vista will be the Biggest Software Release Failure in The History of The Computer Technolgy World.

Another "ha ha, made you look" article...

Actually, though nobody has mentioned it yet, the most amusing 'issue' tied into using media for upgrade disks is that you can use the media you're installing from AS the upgrade source. When it asks you where your old media is, just point to the i386 folder and watch the setup continue.

This MS issue doesn't affect me too much, as I just used an image to setup my business (legit) version of Vista rather than actually caring about the setup process, but forcing two OS installs when you buy a new HD just seems stupid... Not that you (hopefully) can't just slave your old HD, use the slave location as your upgrade source, and install that way... but when the old HD is dead, I don't want to spend an extra 30-60 mins just doing prep-work for the actual OS install. I want to start my install and finish it as soon as I can. Blah.

Interestingly, Ed Oswald, the author of this BetaNews article left out an important paragraph from the Windows-Now article he cut 'n pasted from -- out of 3 paragraphs, he got the one above and below it (he must be one of the 'everyone' trying to make this a 'big deal'):

"So Microsoft is now requiring that Windows XP is already completely installed on the system before upgrading to Vista. As this MS Knowledge Base article states, "Upgrade keys cannot be used for a clean installation." But every Vista installation is a clean install, even if it's an upgrade. So it's not quite as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. "

deleted

While this information isn't exactly incorrect, it's not complete.

Yes, you have to have the (validated) previous OS installed to perform an upgrade >but< you do have the option of repartitioning and doing a clean install once the previous OS has been detected. What's gone now is the option to insert an upgrade-qualifying CD when the OS isn't detected on the hard drive.

The way this information is being presented, one would assume they can only update an existing OS install.

Okay, that makes much more sense. Because of the reasons in my argument below, the information you point out is greatly significant because it does still allow for a clean install thank God. I was beginning to wonder what the #$%^ Microsoft was thinking...

Phew... that's a relief.

Thanks for the clarification.

This might be a good move to prevent further piracy. It will hurt the customers who want Vista for less money but it was a great move. Maybe Microsoft will change its mind later on.

Yes it definately was to prevent piracy. How many pirated Windows 98 CDs were used to allow one to buy Windows XP upgrades, hmm? Pirating XP was sometimes difficult for the average joe to do, but copying a Windows 98 CD was easy as pie...

I'll also bet it has to check the internet to see if the XP install is a geniune version too. So long cheapo pirates--it's all or nothing for Vista, either steal the whole thing or buy the full version. This may still hurt MS for that reason because after much thinking, despite potential problems, I WAS PLANNING TO BUY VISTA TOMORROW, but I can't afford the full version. Worse yet, even though I have changed my ways since, my XP Pro is not a valid copy. I can only upgrade my mother's Dimension 4700 PC to Vista with the upgrade, but that is completely unecessary and may be more trouble than it's worth.

This does nothing of the type.

Format the drive, install a minimal, clean XP. Install the Vista upgrade. The "upgrade" installs Vista. Once in Vista, delete the "Windows.old" folder.

Done. Clean install of Vista.

This is to enforce Bill Gates and Microsoft monopoly even further, to oblige people to spend a lot of bucks on Vista licenses. And the fact that no one in the world is suing Microsoft for this and no political institutions is using antitrust laws to stop Microsoft doing this is what's really wrong here.

..."to oblige people to spend a lot of bucks on Vista licenses" instead of stealing them.

There fixed that for you. I'm just curious as to what you think they could be sued for. Enforcing their upgrade licenses? I am no big fan of Microsoft but I don't think you have a clue as to what you're talking about. You seem to be saying they are forcing people to buy Vista or some such nonsense. Better go back and read the article again. This is nothing but a bunch of FUD. If you want the upgrade you need to have XP installed on the computer you are upgrading. If you don't have XP buy the full version of Vista. There's nothing sinister going on here, relax.

Are you a Microsoft employee or you just enjoy to get fooled by them ?
What they are doing with the whole activation/upgrade stuff is just illegal. I wonder what would happen if Ford or GM or Toyota started doing something similar to what Microsoft does when selling a car "as an upgrade" and such... They would get sued the day after but no one dares to touch Microsoft whatever they do against customers !

"What they are doing with the whole activation/upgrade stuff is just illegal."

No it's not. Find me the law that says it is.

"I wonder what would happen if Ford or GM or Toyota started doing something similar to what Microsoft does when selling a car "as an upgrade" and such..."

Ok that is just stupid. When you buy a car you own it. You don't own Windows when you buy a copy. Second if a car manfacturer wanted to give you a discount because you already owned one of their cars they most certainly could, there's not law against that. Sorry but your arguments are completely retarded. If you hate Microsoft so much, guess what? You DO NOT have to buy their products.

Second if a car manfacturer wanted to give you a discount because you already owned one of their cars they most certainly could,

And they do. Most of them do, actually.

Stupid idiot journos not doing the basic research again.

The Vista install moves everything in \windows, \program files and \documents and settings to a \windows.old folder. What you end up with is a clean install of Windows Vista with no carry over from XP.

You are correct. But obviosuly, you already knew that. Sigh... If only Ed did.

I would say MS didn't "close" a hole as much as they "filled" a hole. Our holes, that is.

i thought it was the name of the website......pretty darn long!

OOPS forgot to close url href tag :D

Dangit, this is very inconvenient--although even I will admit this is the easiest way to have a "sort of" illegal copy of Windows. How many XP users used an old hacked invalid Windows 98 disc and just purchased the Upgrade version of XP? I must admit I was considering doing the same thing for Vista...cept using the XP disc.

However, as almost all professionals strongley advise against upgrading any Windows versions, this means the end of Vista Upgrade sales. MS screwed this up and they expect this to force people to by the full versions when people's wallets (in general) at least in the states are running much thinner than they have been in the past.

Vista adoption rates will now be much much lower than Microsoft's expectations I predict. That is unless MS at least has half a brain and allows multi-licensing upgrade copies to work as before--otherwise large coorporations will be slower to adopt Vista.

Close the anchor tag.

Yes! Please! Before the whole site sinks to the bottom of the ocean!

So in other words once Vista has established that a Genuine XP is installed, then a clean install can be applied, including reformating etc? Excuse my ignorance but this sounds too simple, but very easy.

Yeah, but why would you want to waste the time if you don't have to? All this will mean is that rather than having pirates share old CDs, they'll share generic HD images with Product ID changers. And what about for those who don't have internet connections... Vista may just accept that your XP is activated, and ignore that the code is not legal anymore. Depends on how intrusive their install-check is. Bottom line, even for those who still have every OS disk they've ever bought sitting somewhere on their shelves (including some of those random Betas they were a part of), it's still annoying to waste the time and wonder what's going to happen when your only current internet connection is a flaky wireless connection working through WPA2 and the vendor's connection software.

Do you really think pirates are going to be sharing XP hard disk images or some other overly elaborate way to fool the Vista upgrade? That's ridiculous, they are going to share the full version of Vista. This is simply to stop regular users from abusing upgrade pricing, of course it's not going to stop piracy of Vista itself.

Several people who are dismissing this issue as nothing are missing a valid issue--there are literally millions of people who have PCs with pre-installed OS's and no disks, but instead, a hidden partition.

Since the VISTA install routine is very different from previous installations (it uses imaging, rather than file copies), I would be concerned about damaging the hidden partition during an upgrade.

Even if it does not, the VISTA UPGRADE process should be VERY clearly stated before one buys it--and that has not been the case.

So, If Windows VISTA needs to be installed again, people without a means to reinstall the original XP will be SOL.

I'm OK with MS protecting their intellectural property, but only when they provide for the honest people who have a legitimate claim to an upgrade.

Most people who are getting ready to run out and buy Vista will be caught by surprise on this, and that is a disservice to the customer.

People who have mentioned go OEM are ignoring that is not an option for some. And the retail price is obscene.

When people are already sharing virtual pc images of Vista installs so they can register their business copies? You think that sharing an XP image is that ridiculous...? SOMEbody doesn't pay much attention to what's available in the app world... Some people like the ability to know they installed the software themselves and nobody else bundled malware into it, though with the various setup programs you can find here (at Betanews), there's really no guarantee that the copy you find will be untouched.

And when OEM version costs less than the upgrade, and the main difference is that the upgrade version has (lousy) support and is more annoying to install, which one do you think a regular user is going to buy?

From what people have said (as I said before, my Vista was from an image here at work someone made because I'm lazy), the upgrade doesn't wipe your files, it just moves them to a "Windows.old" folder. Even if it doesn't, and it (for some stupid reason) needs to wipe the partition... it'd just be the partition, not the drive. Unless the user decides to select the hidden partition and delete it. In which case they are SOL.

Someone else postulated that you might be able to use your original Vista installation to reinstall/reupgrade, but that would give the same issues as every other MS product (where you give its own sourcefiles as the valid prior version).

And which vendor actually has clear information on what is needed and what the process is before you purchase it? I can't think of a single one... the prior MS products have been among the best at warning you what's probably going to break that I've seen, and that depresses me.

I have a suggestion, do not upgrade to Vista period. There is nothing in Vista that is in the Users benefit and XP runs faster than the new Bloat Ware.

Vista is all about DRM and violating your privacy rights by calling home every week just like the Sony Root Kit.

Just say no to spyware.

"You think that sharing an XP image is that ridiculous...?"

Yes I do, considering pirates aren't going to be sharing upgrade copies. The upgrade check has absolutely NOTHING to do with passing Vista's product activation or WGA. All it does is ensure you have a valid previous version. There's no reason at all Windows pirates would choose to go through all that extra work. As I said, that is ridiculous.

"and the main difference is that the upgrade version has (lousy) support"

Nonsense. Upgrade versions have the same support as a regular "full" install version.

"which one do you think a regular user is going to buy?"

The one that is sitting in the pretty box on store shelves. Any more questions?

"Someone else postulated that you might be able to use your original Vista installation to reinstall/reupgrade, but that would give the same issues as every other MS product (where you give its own sourcefiles as the valid prior version)."

No no, there is a difference. What they suggested is that you can use your "installed" copy of Vista, not that you could put in your Vista DVD to pass the check. If it has been installed once naturally it has already passed the check.

Certain people are paranoid and would prefer to avoid using someone else's image. As such, an image which will be wiped away might be acceptable, and if it takes 10 minutes to load the image instead of 45 minutes to wait through the install, someone will be sharing it out there.

The comment about support is a comment about MS support in general, not comparing the upgrade v full as much as update/full v OEM, which MS seems to say won't have any of their support.

As a sample non-tech type, I give... my grandfather, who still thinks that he can trust his friends to give him good advice about buying new computers; his most recent use of the internet was trying to find replacement dishwasher parts. He discovered that they stopped making the dishwasher years ago, the only company in the US that serviced them just sold the last replacement circuit board he needs last week. His solution? He solders and fixes the circuit himself using stuff he has in his basement. He's the kind of guy who removed his Windows folder a few years ago because it was using a lot of space. The kind of guy who, after having Windows fixed again, removed the Program Files folder because his HD was full. Guess what... he shops online now. If HE shops online, and he's looking at 2 products which seem basically the same except one of them costs less and doesn't upgrade stuff, guess which one he's going to pick...? If you said the one in the pretty box, you're wrong... He'd probably buy the box made out of duct tape if it was cheaper... :)

Not necessarily, as you can use someone else's Vista image, put it on your computer, and use that to install, if that's really true... Having the software installed is no guarantee of legitimacy.

you are a troll...

Vista runs a hell of a lot faster then XP even with all the pretty eye candy.

IE is locked down to prevent damage to the OS

UAC is an improvement in adding extra security and making people think before they do something stupid.

Speedboost is a nice feature to supplement ram with usb jump drives.

DirectX 10

There is no DRM built into vista nor does it drm every single file at install (can we stop with this nonsense already) Do you see black helicopters too?

For the sake of clarity (and not because I think this makes what MS is doing okay), it should be mentioned that if you buy the Vista Ultimate upgrade, it appears as if you can do a clean install without having XP or another approved OS pre-installed. Look at this link:

http://support.microsoft...lt.aspx/kb/930985/en-us

There's no mention of Vista Ultimate in the "Applies to" section at the bottom of the page.

...by purchasing another key. That is because each VISTA DVD comes with ALL versions of the operating system on them--it is the key that determines the installation type.

If MS insists on doing it this way, they should have a) included lots of big warnings, and b) a disk imaging system that would allow users to create a bootable restore DVD or CDs so users can go back to their pre-VISTA installation should something go wrong.

Let's face it, 95 percent of users are not going to think to make a disk image before hand and if the VISTA install goes bad now or in the future, upgrade editions will be worthless for people who cannot get a working/activated XP install up and running

"Vista runs a hell of a lot faster then XP even with all the pretty eye candy."

I've used them both and it sure as hell isn't. Activewin reviewed it and on the same hardware Vista takes twice as long to boot as XP and three times as long to log in.

http://activewin.com/rev...ting-sys/vista/wa.shtml

"IE is locked down to prevent damage to the OS"

Funny how Opera and Firefox don't have to be "locked down".

"UAC is an improvement in adding extra security and making people think before they do something stupid."

UAC is a constant annoyance that will make people get used to blindly clicking OK at every popup they get, which could actually end up making the OS less secure. Interesting how Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc don't have to resort to constantly bombarding you with popup notices to make them secure.

"There is no DRM built into Vista"

The sky is green. The Sun is a marshmallow.

Interesting how Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, etc don't have to resort to constantly bombarding you with popup notices to make them secure.

lmao..

Yeah, they just rely on the fact that no-one uses them.

Right, UNIX is only secure because no one uses it. We'll just ignore the fact that the majority of web servers run on it, something like over 80% I believe. Are you really going to trot out the tired old "security through obscurity" argument? Only the most idiotic Windows fanboy would try to claim that Vista is more secure than Linux and UNIX. Is that you?

You can't use someone else's Vista image. Product Activation is tied to the hardware. As soon as you try to run that image on a different machine it will be deactivated.

Hook. Line. Sinker.

You see, Windows is most vulnerable to *existing* exploits.

See where I'm going with this yet?

Of course, the existing exploits exist for the most part, due to it's market exposure of the product which they are attacking.

Still with me?

You see, they focus on Windows, because that's where the exposure is. Can the same exploits be applied to other OSes? Of course not. Are there plenty of vulnerabilities in these other OSes that no-one cares about? You know it.

Here's the clincher...ready?

Do you honestly think that if the *nixes and Macs were anywhere near the popularity of windows that the hackers would continue to ignore them?

Nope.

So you are only partially correct. In terms of existing exploits, Windows, being the more exposed OS, has the lion's share. Of course, one must remember that the number of exploits has more to do with market share than the inherent security of the OS.

So yes, Unix is more secure because very few use it. The figure you give (80%) is for web-servers only. When one takes into account *all* connected computers, that number drops exponentially, relegating Unix to negligibility.

But go ahead and go on and on about how much better the *nixes are than windows. We thinking folks do so enjoy such entertaining fantasies.

"Do you honestly think that if the *nixes and Macs were anywhere near the popularity of windows that the hackers would continue to ignore them?

The *nixes are what for the most part run the internet. You don't think hackers concentrate on exploiting web sites? Also do you really believe that out of all the hackers out there none of them have bothered making a virus for a non-Windows OS because less people use them? Sorry but you lose.

"But go ahead and go on and on about how much better the *nixes are than windows. We thinking folks do so enjoy such entertaining fantasies."

I said they are more secure, and that is a fact. You can come up with all the fanboy excuses you want but you can't change it. Windows security is horrible and always has been. You are obviously a Microsoft fanboy though so there's really no point in me even replying to you, so from this point on I'm not going to. Flame away, if you can get your nose out of Bill Gates' rear end long enough to type some more.

Right, because anyone disagreeing with you is a fanboy.

*sigh*

really no point in me even replying to you, so from this point on I'm not going to. Flame away, if you can get your nose out of Bill Gates' rear end long enough to type some more.

Not that I'm disappointed not to be hearing from you anymore, but for the record, I rarely flame. The majority of my posts are civil, logical, and make specific points relating to the topic at hand.

...which is a *lot* more than can be said of many here.

I didn't read any of your post but I'm going to disagree with it because I'm a moron.

nix has its fair amount of security fixes as well but as pc-tool pointed out no one cares about nix its a niche market major corporations (the ones that make money) use windows not nix hell open up a wanted section for jobs how often do you see people looking for people who can run nix? Better yet how many internet/software/hardware companies give a s*** about nix? moving on...

Here's another one for you Apple Ipods are cheaply made, break constantly, sound quality is less then impressive when commpared to other and cheaper players yet everyone wants one. It holds the market and they consistently have more problems and require fixes

Unfortunately, their KB article is incorrect. I purchased the Vista Business Upgrade (not listed on the KB you linked to) and was unable to do an install because I had to repartition my drive because the Vista install wouldn't let me upgrade because my original OS partition wasn't large enough. I now have a nice brick until I have a good couple of hours to install XP, install the updates to get it up to SP2, and then finally (and hopefully) have a successful "upgrade" of Vista. Stupid Microsoft!

why would opera and firefox need to be locked down they aren't built into windows like IE is.

As someone else pointed out different machines, configurations, hardware etcetc are going to change the way things operate. On MY pc Vista boots considerably faster then XP and its also a 4 yr old machine so you figure that one out

The average Linux user also is computer literate hence the need for a popup to advise and it can be turned off if its that much an annoyance but for the average person they will at least think twice before clicking everything in sight.

Since I have used Vista and none of my files were embedded with drm and it would make no sense to do something like this. Will there be some drm in vista, yes but not built in same with mac and linux if they want to be able to use new technologies and media that require it.

wouldn't let me upgrade because my original OS partition wasn't large enough

So increase the partition size. This error is completely different than the issue we are discussing here.

Check out the system requirements of Vista, and try again.

So you're saying that when I used the image for a desktop on my laptop, I should have reactivated it? Oops, must have missed that step.

For the record, if your downloaded Vista image is Business/Enterprise (maybe Ultimate, but I doubt it), there is no standard product activation, just their 25 system activation, which will run just fine for trial (or upgrade) purposes...