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."

Even if the upgrade trick didn't work

[anss123]

Can't you just install a pirated version of Windows XP? Seems simpler than going through the rather long Vista install prosses twice over.

What does the EULA permit?

[PPH]

Perhaps Microsoft is "letting" people get away with this and counting on the BSA dropping by later to collect.

MS always fucks you at the drivethru

[elrous0]

I actually considered upgrading recently, just because I wanted to set up a remote connection server on my home PC. Then I found out that, as with XP, this doesn't come with the Home edition (even Home Premium) of Vista. So I'm going to get stuck buying the $200+ "Vista Ultimate" edition for one lousy crippled feature. Thanks, MS!

Re:Still Illegal

[Sancho]

Never upgraded Windows before, eh?

Since at least Windows 2000, you've been able to just pop out the disc, put in the older version to prove that you own it, then switch back and continue with the install. This gets you a clean install of the new OS while still verifying access to the older media. It takes less time, too (don't have to install the new OS twice in order to get a valid activation.)

Re:Sophistication?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use plan9, you insensitive clod!

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[Shakrai]

Why do people constantly bash on Vista. It runs great on my computer and I have no problems with it

I have to say that I've gotten it here at the office and I haven't noticed any major problems with it. Take that with a grain of salt though because my environment doesn't involve any legacy software.

It's actually remarkably usable once you disable the Vista UI and return it to a Windows 2000 look (I never used the XP UI either), though it is a resource pig. I'm using over a gig of ram right now just for Outlook, a few putty sessions, Pidgin and Firefox. On XP I'd still be under 512.

All that said, after having used it for two months I really don't see any compelling new feature or reason to upgrade from XP -- particularly when Vista will require much more powerful iron to run as fast. Factor that in with all of the anti-consumer "features" (*cough* protected media path *cough*) added in by Microsoft and I'd still have a hard time recommending it to anybody and I doubt I'll be upgrading at home for the foreseeable future.

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

You must be new here ;) (sorry, couldn't resist)

Re:MS always fucks you at the drivethru

[Ark42]

Have you ever tried comparing RealVNC to Microsoft's RDP over a low-bandwidth connection? RDP blows it away, easily. Not to mention that RDP supports changing resolution on the fly and serial/floppy/printer/sound redirection.

TightVNC, at least, supports screen resolution changes, and with the Mirror Driver option, is much faster than regular VNCs. I couldn't really care about serial/floppy/printer/sound at all though.

The big reason to use VNC is it is cross-platform. I have 1 Linux, 1 Vista, 2 OS X, and 3 XP computers in my house, and regularly VNC from one OS to another.

Re:Sophisticated Buyers

[pmbasehore]

Actually, I have used Vista--I have Home Premium running on one of my desktops. Before I say I don't like it, allow me to explain how I am educated enough to give an opinion on the subject.

If you bash vista it's because you haven't used it,

I believe I have shown that I do, indeed, use an OEM Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium on my Acer Aspire T180.

you're a slow slow learner

What does this have to do with anything? If I was a slow learner, I would complain about many pieces of software, not just Vista/Microsoft products.

or you've used it but hate microsoft so much that you didn't actually give it a chance.

This is really the only bit of your argument that could theoretically apply to me--so allow me to refute that. I see many improvements in Vista over XP and 2000. I will never deny that Vista is an improvement in some areas. My problem lies in two places:
1) The OS has been out for a year now and there are still major driver and software compatibility issues. An example: My ATI HD2600 video card driver was technically "supported" by Vista, but I had so many problems with the driver (including BSODs, screen lockups, and framerates in the single-digits) that I had to get an nVidia card. And before you say the problem was with my hardware, the card worked perfectly on my Linux installation on the same box.
2) It took Microsoft engineers 5 years to develop Vista? That is around twice their normal average development time of 2-3 years! What major improvements have we seen? The start menu was redesigned, UAC (need I say more), the GUI takes up a lot more memory and hard drive space for not much return in looks, and the "Explorer" file manager has copied so much from Apple's "Finder" that I expect to have a mouse with only one button!

Vista has improved, yes...but the improvements are not complex enough or adequate enough to warrant twice the development cycle on the same product. I am a Linux user. I am a Windows user. I am also a Mac user. Just because I use a certain operating system or software doesn't mean I love it and hate all others. If you don't like what people say about Vista, get over it. Use what software you want to use and let us do the same.

In the meantime, how about we get back to some decent conversation about the upgrade trick!

Re:Or - a way around upgrade nightmares

[zoward]

Another possibility: the only time I tried to use an (admittedly beta) version of Vista to upgrade an XP box, it trashed my hard drive. Since this was just test hardware, I wasn't concerned, and just did a clean install. I'd be pretty ticked off if it happened on my main machine, but I'd be even madder if I couldn't install it on my now-hosed drive without having to reinstall XP first. Hell, I might just stay with XP (definitely not something MS wants to see happen), especially if my copy of XP was actually a restore disc (which probably won't allow you to verify an OS upgrade), or even a restore partition, either of which I may or may not still have ... turning my $149 upgrade disc into a very expensive coaster while simultaneously wiping my hard drive.

Microsoft may just be trying to save themselves some support headaches by making each upgrade disc able to authenticate itself.