Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS

kapaopango writes "Ars Technica is reporting that upgrade versions of Windows Vista Home Basic, Premium, and Starter Edition cannot be installed on a PC unless Windows XP or Windows 2000 is already installed. This is a change from previous versions of Windows, which only required a valid license key. This change has the potential to make disaster recovery very tedious. The article says: 'For its part, Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS, since otherwise the only option for disaster recovery in the absence of backups would be to wipe a machine, install XP, and then upgrade to Vista. This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.'"

And the problem is?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever! Surely there will be no need for disaster recovery!?

Re:And the problem is?

[by Anonymous Coward]

I wish: - I didn't waste today's mod points - There was a +1 sarcasm tag

Re:And the problem is?

[Andrew Kismet (955764)]

I'm sure that the band will play on as Microsoft's Titanic sinks, too.

Re:And the problem is?

[Basehart (633304)]

Iceberg, Penguin, it's all the same.

Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista rep

[skelator2821 (958729)]

Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista repair process should be sufficient to solve any problems with the OS Hahaahahaha I didnt know Format was a Repair Process?

Re:Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista

[Sark666 (756464)]

On the other side of the fence, the only way to reinstall ubuntu from a live cd (post dapper) is to format the partition. Yes even if you uncheck don't format the partition, it insists on doing so. And it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Re:Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista

[by Anonymous Coward]

maybe you should check "don't format the partition" instead then?

Re:Microsoft seems to be confident that the Vista

[jambarama (784670)]

Actually that isn't quite correct. As with any apt system you can do the following:

1. Add the CD to your /etc/apt/sources.list file (I know synaptic has a gui way of doing this)
2. If you don't want to use internet sources, comment them out with a # (synaptic can also do this with a gui)
3. Now apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

I had to walk a friend on dial-up through this once over the phone. He had a liveCD but his internet was too slow to even think about doing a dist-upgrade. He's still up and hasn't had problems. It isn't the easiest thing to do, but it works, and I dare say updating Windows isn't that easy either.

Re:And the problem is?

[Jessta (666101)]

I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever! Surely there will be no need for disaster recovery!?

It is. It's better than all other versions of Windows. But that doesn't make is stable or secure.

Re:And the problem is?

[Mad Merlin (837387)]

You mean a disaster like having Windows installed on a computer? A good way to solve that disaster starts here [goodbye-microsoft.com].

Dum-bee badum-bee

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

You think so? Let me tell you a little story:

I was writing a paper, on Vista. Then suddenly the computer was like "beepbeepbeepbeepbeep" and I was like: "...huh?" And then like, half of my paper was gone. It was a really good paper. And I had to write it again and I had to do it fast so it wasn't as good, which is kind of... a bummer.
My name is Jesus_666 and I'm a student.

Are you surprised?

[alshithead (981606)]

Respectfully...So? This isn't really surprising. MS has always tried to have UPGRADE versions require a previous MS OS already installed. Their allowing you to use a CD key from a previous OS version to do a fresh install of the new was somewhat of a kindness on their part. It is an UPGRADE version. If this is a pain in the ass, then buy a full version. Better yet...go Ubuntu.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Mistlefoot (636417)]

And what about EVERYONE who bought a computer since last November or so who purchased their PC because they got Vista with it, even though they had to wait for it? Is this really an upgrade for them? They are already dealing with the inconvenience of having to find tune XP before upgrading to Vista and fine tuning again. Only to find out that this is the process for every subsequent format.

I am sure a good many of them do not consider this an upgrade, but rather final delivery of the OS they were promised when they purchased their hardware.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Mistlefoot (636417)]

To quote from the article that you forgot to read "If things worked according to the old scheme, people with upgrade coupons would essentially get a "free" OS because they could install the Vista upgrade anywhere, and continue to use the version of Windows XP that came with their computer."

If you want to think I am "way the hell out there" then the author of the article is way the hell out there too. You expect that Microsoft will personally visit each persons home and ensure they return their XP disk as well as format the drive?

Fuck that!

[Robber Baron (112304)]

There are multiple options.
1) Buy an upgrade version that requires a previous OS version to already be installed.
2) Buy the full version to install however the hell you want.
3) Use an alternate OS other than MS.

Fuck that! I'll be using option 4:

4) Download a cracked version and install it instead.

Bill Gates can go attempt asexual reproduction if he thinks I'm going to run through two installs just to get one O/S working.

Re:Fuck that!

[cpt kangarooski (3773)]

Bill Gates can go attempt asexual reproduction if he thinks I'm going to run through two installs just to get one O/S working.

Attempt? Bill Gates can undergo mitosis at will. Didn't you know that? It's one of the creepier things about him.

Re:Are you surprised?

[Eravnrekaree (467752)]

I am planning on staying with XP too. The only thing I am concerned about is the possibility that software released for Vista will not run on XP. This is often how users are forced to upgrade.

Ubuntu has gotten a bit ... fat.

[Kadin2048 (468275)]

Ubuntu is, despite what some of its proponents will say, not really a solution for low-end hardware that you want to keep running. It's designed for systems that are only one or two upgrade cycles out, not elderly sub-600MHz systems. I had a devil of a time getting it running on an older Celeron system (a crappy Compaq that was a "$500 special" at Staples when it was brand new) even after tossing in a ton of ram (ironically the LiveCD would run, but the install disk just blackscreened, even in recovery modes).

There are other distros, even other Ubuntu variants like Xubuntu, that are better choices for the hardware you're discussing. In my case, I grabbed an Xubuntu install CD and it ran perfectly, and the old 600MHz is now a nice light-office workstation.

Ubuntu has diverged from some other distros in that it's no longer what I would consider "lightweight." In some ways, it's even topheavy; for most people, this is an OK tradeoff, because it makes it feature-comparable with a modern XP system in most cases. But it also means that it doesn't do well, or sometimes run at all, on less-than-modern hardware (with some exceptions -- sometimes it works great). As a general rule, I'm hesitant to install mainline Ubuntu or Kubuntu on a machine that wasn't designed or previously running Windows XP; Xubuntu is a better match for Win98-era systems, and DSL, Vector, or Puppy are best if you want a snappy, responsive GUI on "Designed for Windows 95" gear.

Re:Are you surprised? ppc ubuntu

[kurt555gs (309278)]

This may be vista off topic, but I installed ubuntu on a slower than molasses in January original Mac Mini. It works so will, I am going to put it on a 1 ghz iLamp I have hanging around.

Now for the Vista Part. I am really thinking M$ is headed in the wrong direction. Anyone that uses Google docs, calendar, etc, can see that the OS is becoming less and less important. If internet connections will be getting faster and faster, then the Google world approach should mean that computer OS's would be getting lighter and faster.

To bad BeOS isnt around any more. Firefox, Thunderbird, Gaim, on BeOS would really be the bomb.

People will continue to whine about the DRM laded pig Vista, but maybe the time is getting near for a quick, light, new OS.

How bout a nice little ARM based lappy with a zillion hours of battery life, and ..... Symbian?

Cheers
   

How long?

[_merlin (160982)]

I honestly can't see them holding out for long with this policy (like the one about only being able to transfer the license to a new machine once that they dropped). Besides disaster recovery, there are times when you just want to re-install because it's the simplest way to get rid of all the crap you've put on your system, or that has been left behind by badly behaved apps that don't uninstall cleanly. No-one is going to put up with having to install an old OS first and then upgrade.

Re:How long?

[theurge14 (820596)]

I believe you underestimate what Windows users are willing to put up with.

Re:How long?

[cheater512 (783349)]

Oh they dont put up with it. They just dont know there is a alternative.

From what they hear, Linux is a OS for hippies which only geeks who live in their parent's basements can use.

Re:How long?

[obeythefist (719316)]

With the marketshare Microsoft has they can require people to sacrifice their first born (which I'll do before Vista gets on MY systems)

Man, you must want Vista *real* bad. Or you just hate your firstborn?

Another reason to keep backups current.

[Jhon (241832)]

since otherwise the only option for disaster recovery in the absence of backups would be to wipe a machine, install XP, and then upgrade to Vista.

I just don't see this as a huge deal. It's just one more of many many countless reasons to keep backups -- and in the case of VISTA -- it sounds like keeping an HD image of the OS partition is of particular interest.

I don't think we'll find a very large corporate install base of "upgrade" versions of Vista. This will affect home users the most.

I'm more concerned with the "'per device' obsession" TFA mentions. I'm in no hurry to swap out XP/2k workstations at my shop for Vista -- and this just re-enforces that. I doubt I'm the only IT professional who feels that way.

Re:Another reason to keep backups current.

[EvilSS (557649)]

Vista will even do the image for you. In the new backup utility included with the OS there is an option for a full system backup. Vista creates a VHD (Microsoft's Virtual Hard Disk format from their virtualization products) file of the entire disk and saves it where you tell it to. It's easy enough to boot up to restore mode and drop that image back on.

Re:Another reason to keep backups current.

[LazyBoy (128384)]

Vista will even do the image for you. In the new backup utility included with the OS there is an option for a full system backup. Vista creates a VHD (Microsoft's Virtual Hard Disk format from their virtualization products) file of the entire disk and saves it where you tell it to. It's easy enough to boot up to restore mode and drop that image back on.

And if your problem is a dead hard disk?

LB

The best Microsoft present to virus writers

[DrYak (748999)]

Of course, the backup-utility is only available in Vista Ultimate (which is th emost expensive version of Vista).

And which will also be the most pirated version of Vista, and therefore the most widely available version on home computers*.

And suddenly there's a huge rush of virus with the ability to both infect the OS running on computer and the VHD file containing the backup.
Every time the user try to reverts to the VHD backup, in fact he re-installs the virus.

Thank you, Microsoft ! By leveraging your monopoly to push your own backup solution to every user, you've made it an easier task for virus writers to circumvent backups.

* : specially the clueless "My nephew installed my computer, he's a computer genius, you know !" -kind of users.

Good.

[babbling (952366)]

Microsoft is crippling Windows and making life harder for their customers? Good. I welcome this change and hope to see more changes like this one!

I'd really like it if Microsoft could deny OS updates to anyone running an unlicensed Windows, too. Does anyone know if Vista does that?

huh?

[macadamia_harold (947445)]

Microsoft is crippling Windows and making life harder for their customers? Good. I welcome this change

what do you mean "change"?

Just Plugging Holes

[JavaPunk (757983)]

This is just to keep people from buying the upgrade for new equipment. Everyone I know has been doing that (unless they buy the OEM). It's always fun to go searching around from my Windows 3.1 disks everytime I need to reinstall. (Actually that was windows 98, but you get my point.)

Well...

[Creepy Crawler (680178)]

Who is going to use Vista?

Media companies: Heh heh, if you like 520p.
Regular companies: 2000 is good enough for them.
Small businesses: Whatever looks good to pirate (not vista).
Gamers: PS3 and Wii, and XP (no game co's will make for one OS only)
Media users: 2000 or Linux. Both play things good enough.

"I just bought a Dell": Vista.

Well... I think that sums it up.

Ghost

[adambha (1048538)]

This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.

Not if you ghost the drive after doing the upgrade.

Screw Upgrading

[Frogbert (589961)]

Screw Upgrading, I finally have the hardware to allow my Windows XP install to boot as fast as my Amiga used to.

Fresh Install Woes

[Kraegar (565221)]

I decided to take the plunge and give Vista a go at work. We have a volume license deal with MS, so I grabbed a brand new, unformatted hard drive, and tried to install Vista. Nada. I couldn't even boot from the CD. Tried this in 3 machines.

Out of morbid curiosity I decided to install XP, worked like a charm. I then put in the Vista CD, and it booted and installed a fresh copy of Vista without problem. (Complete overwrite, not upgrade).

So, from my experience, Vista won't even install on a totally fresh hard drive.

A co-worker had a very similar experience, but had to go with installing XP, then upgrading - which leaves you with some decidedly annoying problems with the admin controls.

Overall Vista isn't as bad to work with as some stories would lead me to believe, but there are definitely days where it's easy to see it is not fit for prime-time.

You must request bootable Vol License media

[zerofoo (262795)]

It's available, but you don't get it unless you ask for it, when you place your volume license order.

-ted

Are you kidding me?

[Ancil (622971)]

This will certainly make disaster recovery a more irritating experience.

If your idea of disaster recovery is to install the OS from scratch, I hope to hell you don't work in my company's IT department.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[by Anonymous Coward]

If your idea of disaster recovery is to install the OS from scratch, I hope to hell you don't work in my company's IT department.

Your company must not use Windows as its OS. I have learned a lot about how Microsoft's gift to the world works by troubleshooting the various fatal errors it can throw. I am glad my company pays me for my time and not results. I can say after 5 years in the business that in many cases more time is saved by doing a fresh install than attempting to figure out and neutralize the cause. It is fun to do the latter, but generally wildly inefficient when it comes to Windows. Other operating systems behave better in this regard.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Guspaz (556486)]

Did you ever consider that many companies centralize the important data into shared user directories? A redundant centralized server with proper backups are much simpler than setting up dedicated backup solutions on EVERY workstation.

So, reinstalling the OS from scratch on a workstation certainly is a good way to perform disaster recovery; the workstation is borked, and all the user settings are server-side, so why NOT nuke the workstation?

Of course, such a company would probably also install the workstations from a ghost image. However I work for a company that does go the centralized route and yet doesn't use ghost images (we have an instruction list of what to install and how to set the machine up).

What is an "upgrade" about?

[AaronLawrence (600990)]

I always assumed that getting an "upgrade" version for cheaper was to reward you for loyalty: since you bought their previous OS versions, the new version is only an incremental extra amount of features, so you shouldn't have to pay as much.

In my opinion, an "upgrade" version, says NOTHING about how you actually install it. It's just the same thing but cheaper because you bought the old one.

I see a bunch of people suggesting that it only applies if you're "upgrading" your machine. That seems like a complete non-sequitur, given the usual rationale (as above). Are we seriously to believe that an upgrade edition is only an "install once and that's it" version? Completely ridiculous.

Practical joke?

[Raven42rac (448205)]

This OS must be some sort of practical joke just to get all of us talking about it. No company that respects its customers... oh wait, nevermind.

Disasters vs Pirates

[flyingfsck (986395)]

All that requirement will do is force everybody doing a disaster recovery to use a pirate copy of Vista, since it will be much less trouble.

They Had To Discuss This At Microsoft

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

Somebody made a conscious decision to do it this way. You have to wonder what they were thinking.

"We're Microsoft and we can do as we damn well please because few of our customers know they have options?"

I do wish that more people would move to Linux and/or that Apple would port their OSX to PCs. (which I believe Apple has expressed no or little interest) If Microsoft had more real competition, they wouldn't be so smug and willing to hang their own customers by the short and curlies.

Doesn't this mean you can't ever reinstall?

[robosmurf (33876)]

Taking a strict reading of the licence agreement, doesn't this mean that if you have the upgrade version, you can't EVER reinstall it?

To use the upgrade, you need the previous version installed. However, the licence agreement for Vista says:

13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible
for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software
you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

The last part seems to indicate that you are not allowed to reinstall the previous version. Thus, if your hard disk gets trashed, you can't install the previous version in order to do the upgrade.

Re:Disaster recovery

[Ekhymosis (949557)]

Indeed, or if you have a comp from large retailers that don't give out os disks, only the 'recovery cds' or have a recovery partition on the hard drive, you are in trouble. However, as mentioned above, this has been done for ages since 3.1 (I bought the windows for workgroups upgrade) and dos 5 (6.22 upgrade. god i loved 6.22) days.

Trouble is, as windows gets more 'advanced' it gets more 'stuff' that makes an upgrade go 100% smoothly. Hell, even upgrading between version updates from any linux distro you see many people have problems, just look on the forums (especially the ubuntu 5 to 6 update, gentoo during the major portage change,etc.)

Like the forums always say, it is better to install a clean version of the newest OS instead of upgrading from old, if you can that is =)

Re:Disaster recovery

[Tony Hoyle (11698)]

Damn typing whilst tired. Better start again.

I remember the version check on an early version of Word (6.0? Maybe earlier). It came on floppies, and the 'full' version cost 3 times the cost of the upgrade version.

Trouble was it would accept its own installation floppy as 'proof' you owned the earlier product! So it was a no brainer that nobody got the full version..

"Backup" Utility

[Philip K Dickhead (906971)]

The newly supplied "backup" utility is incompatible with the .bkf file format, which goes back to 1993, and worse yet - it cannot operate in Safe Mode. Many times when trying to restore an inoperable system, Safe Mode is the only available way to access the system!

Vista - a glossy step backwards.

Re:"Backup" Utility

[Jeremiah Cornelius (137)]

Who'd want to back that up? :-)

Re:"Backup" Utility

[by Anonymous Coward]

The newly supplied "backup" utility is incompatible with the .bkf file format, which goes back to 1993, and worse yet - it cannot operate in Safe Mode. Many times when trying to restore an inoperable system, Safe Mode is the only available way to access the system!


MS has made the old backup utility available for download just for people like you.

Did you ever think the BKF format might be limited and based on, oh 1993 technology??

Vista - a glossy step backwards.
Jealousy is a horrible thing, now go upgrade that 1993 system.

Re:thank u bill

[Overly Critical Guy (663429)]

Is Microsoft just running down a list of crappy things to do that make me dislike Vista even less? I mean, aside from having 20 different versions with separate 32-bit and 64-bit editions (apparently Apple's engineers are much smarter than Microsoft's since they've packaged it all in one version)?

Re:thank u bill

[Nataku564 (668188)]

It wont, which is why Microsoft cuts off support after so many years. Businesses dont care about the shinies, but they do care about support.