Don't throw away that Win98 disc!

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

Personally, I don't see why a person should be able to make up their own PC,
scrounge a Windows 2000/XP CD from somebody, and then use it to take
advantage of the cheaper upgrade price of Vista.. that is just plain
cheating..

People should consider themselves lucky that upgrades in the past have
allowed a user to do a clean install from an OS that they most likely never
used themselves.. so now, upgraders have to be in possession of a Win 2000
or XP CD and a working installation.. oh dear.. that's how it should be
anyway for somebody to qualify for an upgrade..

MS are finally getting around to doing what they should have done years
ago..

 

[Alias]

Personally, I don't see why a person should be able to make up their own
PC, scrounge a Windows 2000/XP CD from somebody, and then use it to take
advantage of the cheaper upgrade price of Vista.. that is just plain
cheating..

Aw poor widdle Microsoft didn't rip someone off as much as they usually
do. I think I'm going to cry.

People should consider themselves lucky that upgrades in the past have
allowed a user to do a clean install from an OS that they most likely
never used themselves..

There you go again, assuming everyone's a thief. MS would be proud of you.

so now, upgraders have to be in possession of a
Win 2000 or XP CD and a working installation.. oh dear.. that's how it
should be anyway for somebody to qualify for an upgrade..

MS are finally getting around to doing what they should have done years
ago..

It most certainly has convinced me not to buy Vista, that's for sure and
I should have done it years ago. The fact that there are people like you
who not only agree with SPP/WPA/WGA but think it should have been done
before is pathetic.

Alias

 

[David Wilkinson]

Personally, I don't see why a person should be able to make up their own
PC, scrounge a Windows 2000/XP CD from somebody, and then use it to take
advantage of the cheaper upgrade price of Vista.. that is just plain
cheating..

People should consider themselves lucky that upgrades in the past have
allowed a user to do a clean install from an OS that they most likely
never used themselves.. so now, upgraders have to be in possession of a
Win 2000 or XP CD and a working installation.. oh dear.. that's how it
should be anyway for somebody to qualify for an upgrade..

MS are finally getting around to doing what they should have done years
ago..

Mike:

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade (a common practice, I am sure). But requiring a
physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all it proves is
that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

Supplying the Product Key for the qualifying system would provide MS
with all the information they need, and would be much less hassle for
the user.

David Wilkinson

 

[xfile]

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to

qualify for an upgrade[...]

I second that.

But requiring a physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all
it proves is that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

I second that.

 

[xfile]

Plus, if something went wrong (who can guarantee 100%?) during the upgrade
process, who is going to be responsible?

 

[Tim]

As I understand it, even an "upgrade install" of Vista will be a clean
install. The process will wipe the old OS from the drive, install Vista,
and then (magically) reinstall your apps.

Taking the chance of being redundant...

This means that it won't be possible to do a "clean" upgrade? If you want
to wipe your drive and start fresh (or install on a new HD), one cannot
use Vista upgrade?

If so, glad you mentioned it before I wasted my money on Vista.

 

[Mike]

I would suggest not even considering Vista and using Linux

Of course you would. You're a Linux Loony. No one cares about Linux.

Why are you even here?

Mike

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Tim, you are correct, but he means a classic clean installation. Flatten
the system and just start fresh. As you would when replacing the drive
itself. I believe the answer is yes because he should be able to run a
Custom installation with Upgrade Edition Setup starting from the XP desktop.
I doubt that it will permit doing a Custom Installation to any partition
other than the current active partition, but it should work fine.

As I understand it, even an "upgrade install" of Vista will be a clean
install. The process will wipe the old OS from the drive, install Vista,
and then (magically) reinstall your apps.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

That's why I think it works this way. It would be the only way to permit
the use of an Upgrade Edition to install Vista on a 2K (or XP64) system and
also prevent the user from "casual copying" by the simple expedient of
choosing a new partition for Vista, thus creating a dual boot system. I
would love to be wrong on this one because there are delicious possiblities
if I am wrong.

The picture I have in my mind is that if you start the Upgrade Edition Setup
on C: you are upgrading C: and not E: or F: or your Singer sewing machine
and that is the end of it as far as UE Setup is concerned. No choices.

The oldest qualified OS is 2K. So far as I know, Vista Setup cannot run
from a Win98 desktop so there is no way to leverage Win98 in this at all.

The entire Win9x/ME branch of Windows is gone now that 98SE an ME have
reached End Of Support. Only the NT branch remains.

Hi,

Many thanks.

For the following part,

[...]if you select Custom Installation with the Upgrade Edition Setup you
will only have one volume that is not greyed out in the Target screen and
that will be the XP system volume.

Based on your assumption, it will be similar for other qualified OSes (2K,
98) as well, right?

I probably will buy just one copy (if they don't change WGA N) and intend
to use the oldest qualified OS instead of using XP.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Personally I have no interest in the Upgrade Editions either. I just feel
more independent, less boxed in, with full editions.

I am just saying that licensing is not the act of entering the product key
but the act of activating Windows because the license is tied by a
combination of the pk with a machine hash (ten hardware characteristics) and
not the pk alone and all this has to be processed by MS. Before activation
all that mattered was that the pk you entered parsed correctly on the local
system.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

At least a potential misuse of a 2K disc to save a few bucks on Vista is not
getting Vista for free by any means. Maybe it is better to get as many
regular 2K users as possible to move up to Vista by offering the upgrade
pricing than make them buy full editions just because there is a hole in the
upgrade scheme that a few may exploit (even they still have to buy an
upgrade sku). At least it is not casual copying of Vista that is going on.

 

[David Wilkinson]

Personally I have no interest in the Upgrade Editions either. I just feel
more independent, less boxed in, with full editions.

I am just saying that licensing is not the act of entering the product key
but the act of activating Windows because the license is tied by a
combination of the pk with a machine hash (ten hardware characteristics) and
not the pk alone and all this has to be processed by MS. Before activation
all that mattered was that the pk you entered parsed correctly on the local
system.

Colin:

Yes, but this activation of XP could be replaced by a validation done
from the new Vista installation, when the time came to validate Vista.
The same information is available; the hardware characteristics and the
XP product key. Just needs a bit more smarts on the activation server.

Note that this "virtual XP activation" cannot be done during Vista
installation, because the machine has no internet connection. So the key
is delaying the upgrade qualification until Vista needs to be activated.
Passing or failing this "virtual activation" would be entirely
equivalent to passing or failing activation by physically installing XP.

David Wilkinson

 

[xfile]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

Glad to know that works and got all the old OSes somewhere in the house.
Might not be the first one, and watching how others are doing first, but
probably will get an upgrade version just for fun.

Who knows, maybe it will outperform my original expectation, but again, WGA
N is a big NO.

I really wish they can quietly recognize it and change the policy - a
wishful thinking though.

But thanks!

That's why I think it works this way. It would be the only way to permit
the use of an Upgrade Edition to install Vista on a 2K (or XP64) system
and also prevent the user from "casual copying" by the simple expedient of
choosing a new partition for Vista, thus creating a dual boot system. I
would love to be wrong on this one because there are delicious
possiblities if I am wrong.

The picture I have in my mind is that if you start the Upgrade Edition
Setup on C: you are upgrading C: and not E: or F: or your Singer sewing
machine and that is the end of it as far as UE Setup is concerned. No
choices.

The oldest qualified OS is 2K. So far as I know, Vista Setup cannot run
from a Win98 desktop so there is no way to leverage Win98 in this at all.

The entire Win9x/ME branch of Windows is gone now that 98SE an ME have
reached End Of Support. Only the NT branch remains.

Hi,

Many thanks.

For the following part,

[...]if you select Custom Installation with the Upgrade Edition Setup
you will only have one volume that is not greyed out in the Target
screen and that will be the XP system volume.

Based on your assumption, it will be similar for other qualified OSes
(2K, 98) as well, right?

I probably will buy just one copy (if they don't change WGA N) and intend
to use the oldest qualified OS instead of using XP.

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

With all respect, you second anything that is anti-MS..

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade[...]

I second that.

But requiring a physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway
all it proves is that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

I second that.

Mike:

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade (a common practice, I am sure). But requiring a
physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all it proves is
that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

Supplying the Product Key for the qualifying system would provide MS with
all the information they need, and would be much less hassle for the
user.

David Wilkinson

 

[Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User]

If Ubuntu was my 'dream' OS, I would be crying with you..

 

[Travis King]

I second both of these as well. It is not just silly, but downright stupid
and a hassle (no offense to anyone) that you have to install an OS over an
OS which never is as stable as installing completely from fresh on a blank
hard drive. Even when I've done a "clean install" of XP on a computer
running Windows ME for example, I still see some left-overs such as old
screensavers and desktop themes.

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade[...]

I second that.

But requiring a physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway
all it proves is that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

I second that.

Mike:

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade (a common practice, I am sure). But requiring a
physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all it proves is
that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

Supplying the Product Key for the qualifying system would provide MS with
all the information they need, and would be much less hassle for the
user.

David Wilkinson

 

[Travis King]

Hold it, hold it... I don't want to start a fight... First of all, I'll
start with something trivial, then I'll get to the real information. I
strongly feel that MS is doing this to get more money. I personally and as
well as most people aren't going to spend an extra $100 to get the full
version of an OS. That's rediculous to charge this much more just for the
full version. $20 more at most. Come on, besides a few usage rights,
what's the difference between the full and upgrade versions of Windows?
Hardly anything... Second, I'm now going to get to the meat. I feel that
doing this upgrade scheme is going to actually create *more* piracy than
less. It's going to make people who want Vista upset, so they aren't going
to buy it and instead turn over to piracy or not do anything from their
current OS because they don't want to spend an extra hard-earned $100 just
so they have a few more usage rights.

With all respect, you second anything that is anti-MS..

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade[...]

I second that.

But requiring a physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway
all it proves is that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

I second that.

Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User wrote:

Personally, I don't see why a person should be able to make up their
own PC, scrounge a Windows 2000/XP CD from somebody, and then use it to
take advantage of the cheaper upgrade price of Vista.. that is just
plain cheating..

People should consider themselves lucky that upgrades in the past have
allowed a user to do a clean install from an OS that they most likely
never used themselves.. so now, upgraders have to be in possession of a
Win 2000 or XP CD and a working installation.. oh dear.. that's how it
should be anyway for somebody to qualify for an upgrade..

MS are finally getting around to doing what they should have done years
ago..

Mike:

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade (a common practice, I am sure). But requiring a
physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all it proves is
that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

Supplying the Product Key for the qualifying system would provide MS
with all the information they need, and would be much less hassle for
the user.

David Wilkinson

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I believe that you can do what you call a clean installation of Vista, even
using an Upgrade Edition. You just can't boot the dvd to do it when you use
the Upgrade Edition instead of the Full. You can do a Custom install with
the Upgrade Edition running from an XP desktop. You are concerned that you
might be forced to do an upgrade-in-place but that is not true. You still
have the flexibility to do either an upgrade-in-place or a custom (wipe the
drive and start over) install.

Even if you choose to do an upgrade-in-place it is not done as it was with
XP. Even an upgrade-in-place of Vista is a clean installation of the OS.
There are no XP bits and pieces. The whole installation thing has radically
changed with Vista. Try to forget how XP did it. It just doesn't apply any
more.

I second both of these as well. It is not just silly, but downright stupid
and a hassle (no offense to anyone) that you have to install an OS over an
OS which never is as stable as installing completely from fresh on a blank
hard drive. Even when I've done a "clean install" of XP on a computer
running Windows ME for example, I still see some left-overs such as old
screensavers and desktop themes.

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade[...]

I second that.

But requiring a physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway
all it proves is that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

I second that.

Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User wrote:

Personally, I don't see why a person should be able to make up their
own PC, scrounge a Windows 2000/XP CD from somebody, and then use it to
take advantage of the cheaper upgrade price of Vista.. that is just
plain cheating..

People should consider themselves lucky that upgrades in the past have
allowed a user to do a clean install from an OS that they most likely
never used themselves.. so now, upgraders have to be in possession of a
Win 2000 or XP CD and a working installation.. oh dear.. that's how it
should be anyway for somebody to qualify for an upgrade..

MS are finally getting around to doing what they should have done years
ago..

Mike:

Nobody denies that MS should try to prevent the use of borrowed disks to
qualify for an upgrade (a common practice, I am sure). But requiring a
physical installation is just not necessary (and anyway all it proves is
that the user knows how to install 2000 or XP).

Supplying the Product Key for the qualifying system would provide MS
with all the information they need, and would be much less hassle for
the user.

David Wilkinson

 

[Brian W]

Hold it, hold it... I don't want to start a fight... First of all, I'll
start with something trivial, then I'll get to the real information. I
strongly feel that MS is doing this to get more money. I personally and
as well as most people aren't going to spend an extra $100 to get the full
version of an OS. That's rediculous to charge this much more just for the
full version. $20 more at most.

I won't buy the full version, the upgrade will do as I have an XP disc (well
two actually). If I need to re-install XP it doesn't really bother me. I'll
just install it, upgrade to Vista and then put all my apps back on.

 

[Mike]

I feel that doing this upgrade scheme is going to actually create *more*
piracy than less. It's going to make people who want Vista upset, so they
aren't going to buy it and instead turn over to piracy or not do anything
from their current OS because they don't want to spend an extra
hard-earned $100 just so they have a few more usage rights.

There will only be a few million at most who actually buy the OS and perform
the upgrade themselves. The vast majority of users will get Vista with
their next PC purchase. All of the above is a non-issue for 95% of Windows
users.

Mike