Upgrade Trick Still Present In Vista SP1

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

Re:Not just Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Sophistication

[Zakabog]

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

Re:Not just Vista

[gEvil (beta)]

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

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

Re:Not just Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Even if the upgrade trick didn't work

[The MAZZTer]

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

Re:What does the EULA permit?

[mbge7psh]

From the EULA [microsoft.com]:

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

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

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[k3vlar]

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

Yes, that is what the internet is for.

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

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

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

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[vandit2k6]

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

It is easy to install Ubuntu. But dual booting is just a nuisance. I have spent many long nights trying to tell grub how to boot both Linux and Windows (not at the same time of course). Great times!! Can't think of anything else I could do POSSIBLY do with my time.

IP35

[Simian Road]

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

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

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

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

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

[geekoid]

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

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

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

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[teflaime]

Why do people constantly bash on Vista Super invasive DRM.

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[Technician]

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

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

Re:I'll accept it in your stead

[ZsoL]

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

Well I guess you should provide it with an IDE virtual disk using the options of VMware Fusion...

Re:IP35

[HooDee]

Off topic stuff, but...

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Its easy unless something goes wrong

[Curtman]

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

There's even an easy way [ubuntugeek.com].

Re:Upgrades from Vista RC1

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, no. You would use the full version ISO and DVD Key that they gave you at the conclusion of the beta program if you were entitled to it.

Anytime Upgrade

[RWarrior(fobw)]

Great to know this thing still works on SP1.

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

It works like this:

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

Here's the wrinkle:

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

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

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Enderandrew]

Like what ?

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

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

Sadly, this is why I didn't just give him an openSUSE box. Upfront I'd spend more time getting him comfortable with the Linux box, but in the long run I'll likely support his Windows box more.

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

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

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

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

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

And I'd say you're wrong. I don't hate on MS. XP is the best iteration of Windows ever put out. I preferred DOS to 3.1. I loathed 95. 98 SE wasn't bad. ME was terrible. NT was terrible. 2000 was decent. XP after SP1 was great. Vista is terrible. Even the biggest Microsoft supporters agree, and Microsoft agrees, which is why they are rushing the next version of Windows.