Great Idea!

I got a free upgrade because I bought a laptop in November. The only thing I need to pay for is shipping.

Beats paying hundreds for a new OS.

Vista is such a mixed bag depending upon how it will be used. Business users will evaluate interest entirely different from home users and developers. There's something for everyone really. Some will find nothing appealing and stay the course, others will give OSX a try (or Linux), but most home users will get Vista simply by buying a new computer. Businesses will likely be slower to roll it out due to the IT logistical and UI impacts on their employees.

I see many problems with Windows Vista. Hardware with raid systems are not seen with Vista. Why has Microsoft not installed components for raid array systems? XP has them. Software that works on xp and is some what new [2005-2006] will not work on Vista. I have used Vista Ultimate for 3 weeks and can say I will not install it again for at least a year when all the bugs are out. If then........

That seems silly... I thought they "wanted" the gamer market??? If what you say is true, I know a whole lot of users who will never touch Vista.

???

I have an HP with 2 250GB SATA drives in RAID0. Vista installed and runs just fine. This PC was purchased almost a year ago.

Wha? Are you using RC1 or something older? It works fine with RAID(0-5) as far as I've seen. I'm running Vista Ultimate RTM on quite a few machines, some are 3 years old. May not get the pretty Aero features, but it works very well.

I was able to set up Raid 0, 1 and 5 on my Vista system, it is all done through Hardware and my motherboard (Abit) came with RAID software. It works without any problems.

ditto on the raid from what others are responding to...not yours on the raid problems :D

Raid is supported no sweat...of course we all will acknowledge myriad hardware/software settings.

But one of the things many sites applauded was the lack of worry when setting up raid with Vista

So, if you buy:
- Windows Vista Ultimate
you may _upgrade_ two Windows Vista Basic copies to
- Windows Vista _Home_ Premium?

In short, you end up paying for:
1x - Windows Vista Ultimate
2x - Windows Vista Basic
2x - upgrade from Basic to Windows Vista _Home_ Premium

Sigh. How stupid is the average consumer supposed to be?

Regards,
Ruemere

What I think they mean is if you do not plan to buy new computers with the vista premium, and you plan to upgrade your current pc's, you would buy one ultimate, and 2 upgrades to other pc's in your house.
maybe a main system - for the ultimate
one for the kids, and one for a laptop or another desktop...

all the DVD discs that go out the door will be the ultimate edition. the key you use to install it will determine the features available on the disc that will be installed... No more pro disc or home disc or whatever. just 1 disc for all...

I personally like that concept. but that's about the ONLY thing I like about how Microsoft is dealing with this OS release. I can not and will not believe this is going to be a success. and if it actually ends up being a success... well I fully expect the few people that held out with windows 2000 for the last 7-8 years will be moving to a Linux platform and but quick. Because there is no way I can afford to upgrade the 100s of machines to Vista business in our company. Windows 2000 with advanced server 2003 has been all we needed for a long time... every thing works as is and has no reason to upgrade.

But to do the full Vista Business update, and basically get all new machines would be tantamount to the bankruptcy of the company. And that does not cover the incompatibilities in all the Software company wide if we go to Vista all the sudden... Let alone the company wide performance drop if we used the same equipment we have windows 2000 pro on now.

I pity any company that actually does end up going this route. For I can see IT billings racking up exponentially if it is attempted on any really large scales as MS is insisting we need to.

Some of us planned ahead and already have Vista in the budget for 2008.

Others plan staggered upgrades as computers need to be replaced. (We'll actually be replacing all of our systems here as we've planned this for a while and all systems will have reached warranty EOL by that time.)

It amazes me you can have 100s of machines and no plan for upgrades. If your systems are 7-8 years old, you're not only way past warranty and the support costs are going to start racking up, but they're going to be needing replacement darn soon anyway. They just don't make them like they used to.

This is the exact reason companies go for the enterprise agreement / Software Assurance. The upgrades are 'free' (Note, you do pay a yearly cost to keep the software assurance active)

Let's take a case that I know personally. You have a company. They have over 200,000 computers. These computers vary in capability from Pentium 3 processors up to dual-processor Xeon workstations. Now, how long would you think it would take that company to totally upgrade every system to Vista, replacing systems that don't meet the requirements?

Now, this company just recently completed upgrading their systems to Windows XP. Yes, that's right. Five years after Windows XP was released, the company pushed upgrades to systems everywhere. It was only after every software package that was in use within the company (some of which were designed in-house) did the OK be given to push XP out the door and into production.

It will likely be at least 4 or 5 years from now before the company mandates that Vista will be on the company systems... but not after extensive testing just like XP was tested. Given the cost of upgrading, you don't throw something out there and then have to go and support it after the fact. You instead make sure you've got everything covered beforehand, and then deal with the one's and two's instead of the thousands.

These computers vary in capability from Pentium 3 processors up to dual-processor Xeon workstations.

You have my deepest sympathies.

how long would you think it would take that company to totally upgrade every system to Vista, replacing systems that don't meet the requirements?

Anywhere from 1 to 3 years. I can't imagine your warranties extend beyond that, and if you stagger the upgrades, you can still be dealing with ones and twos instead of thousands.

It was only after every software package that was in use within the company (some of which were designed in-house) did the OK be given to push XP out the door and into production.

And the same should apply here. We're lucky, we use certified software with excellent support. We use absolutely *no* in-house software.

If it takes you 5 years to test against your software, I'd strongly recommend replacing it and going with a standard hardware configuration int he future. Makes life a *lot* easier.

Does this mean there will be ONE ISO for all Windows Vista versions? (and depending on code you enter/procedure you follow you get access to increased features?)

How will this work in practice? Say I have Vista Home and paid for an upgrade to Ultimate? I won't need to reformat and will magically have more services/components installed to make it into Ultimate with NO RELIABILITY ISSUES? (we all know those issues of upgrading 2000 to XP, instead of clean installing XP for example)

2000 and XP are two different sets of base code. I think the correct comparison would be of upgrading XPSP2-HOME to XPSP2-PRO or even XPSP2-MCE.

And unlike an XP to XP version upgrade where XP replaces ALL the files with the newer files (slow), Vista upgrades only the needed code to get the additional features working (quick).

Hopefully the online purchase will actually be *cheaper* since we won't be wasting their money on packaging.

It's about time these companies realize not everyone keeps the boxes, and they go right to the landfills...

Considering the profit they allow retailers, yes they should. maybe a 5-12% drop in price, but if they did that, there wouldn't be any reason to buy them from meat-space stores. That would trigger them sueing MS. Unfortunately it is unlikely because of this. so, next thing we know..."Best Buy and Circuit City purchased by Microsoft". seeing how the FCC has relaxed and let the bells merge back, why wouldn't they allow this?

For many of us, a download is the best option. I also think that many people will prefer to get the DVD instead of the download, for various reasons. Also, not everyone has access to the internet... yet. Furthermore, a large part of internet users are broadband challenged. For these reasons (to name a few) I believe that a reduced download price will make sense for all involved. Many companies are smart to jump on the "green" bandwagon.

from what i have read on other sites. it is going to work something like this. you buy windows vista and install it.(any version.) once you have it installed. you have to be running it. it will connect to M$ web site. and there you will be able to pick what upgrade you would like for XX$$. you will then download a package and install it. and have the option for them to send you out the package on disk for XX$$. there will still be different disks for each version. in retail box's.

So, let me get this right. If I buy Home Premium or Ultimate (debating), I can't install it on all of my systems (3)? I have to buy 1 copy for each computer I have?

yes its always been this way most software (paid) works this way not just microsoft

Yuppers.

I'd go with Premium for the main system, and Basic for the secondary.

You should be able to buy the "upgrade" copies for quite a bit less if you're currently runnign windows.

And yeah, the guy below's got it right, damn near every commercial software product comes with the same licensing restrictions. This is not something exclusive to the Big Evil™.