Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS

Posted by kdawson on Sun Jan 28, 2007 09:43 PM
from the recovery?-disaster dept.
Upgrades Operating Systems Software Windows
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Install Vista Upgrade Without Preexisting XP 196 comments
Johannes K. writes "It has previously been claimed that to install Windows Vista from an upgrade DVD requires having Windows XP installed on your computer. DailyTech reports on a workaround: no previous version of Windows is required at all." Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Vista Upgrades Require Presence of Old OS 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • And the problem is? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:47PM (#17794130)
    I thought Windows Vista was the most stable and secure version of Windows ever! Surely there will be no need for disaster recovery!?

  • Are you surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alshithead (981606) * on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:47PM (#17794132)
    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? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mistlefoot (636417) on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:55PM (#17794220)
      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? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mistlefoot (636417) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:15PM (#17794412)
          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! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Robber Baron (112304) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:38PM (#17794650) Homepage

          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! (Score:5, Funny)

            by cpt kangarooski (3773) on Sunday January 28 2007, @11:03PM (#17794846) Homepage
            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.

  • How long? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by _merlin (160982) on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:47PM (#17794134) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Another reason to keep backups current. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jhon (241832) * on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:47PM (#17794150) Homepage Journal

    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. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by EvilSS (557649) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:11PM (#17794364)
      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.

  • Screw Upgrading (Score:5, Funny)

    by Frogbert (589961) <frogbert@NospAM.gmail.com> on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:56PM (#17794226)
    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kraegar (565221) on Sunday January 28 2007, @09:59PM (#17794250)
    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.

  • Are you kidding me? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ancil (622971) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:00PM (#17794266)

    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.

  • Practical joke? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Raven42rac (448205) * on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:17PM (#17794442)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by flyingfsck (986395) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:25PM (#17794508)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Sunday January 28 2007, @10:42PM (#17794684)
    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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.