Thinking about this further, lets just suppose I tried using the Ultimate
Disk to try and upgrade from XP Home edition, I probably would not qualify.
Actually, Jon, there is no such thing as a "Vista Ultimate Edition
DVD", since ALL Vista DVDs contain ALL versions of the OS, including
Home, Home Premium, Business, and Ultimate.
Depending on the license you purchase, the correct version of Vista
will be installed from the same DVD. The way the installer will be
able to tell which version to install will be by the DVD key you
receive when you purchase your license. DONT LOSE THAT KEY!!!
I'm pretty sure that if you purchase an upgrade license to Vista
Ultimate, you will have no trouble upgrading XP Home to Vista
Ultimate, since that is a valid upgrade path for Vista Ultimate.
However, it's also possible that you will have to do a "clean"
install. Can't remember right this minute the link to the Vista
Upgrade paths.
Just found Paul Thurrott's site about the Vista Upgrade paths:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_upgrade.asp
However, keep in mind that if your XP Home disk was an Upgrade disk,
you will HAVE to have on-hand another full license of XP Home, or
purchase a cheap Generic Full OEM copy of XP (home or pro) and upgrade
THAT to Vista Ultimate, or purchase a Full Retail license of Vista
Ultimate. You can't, after all, use an upgrade license to upgrade an
upgrade license.
Either way, if you DON'T have a full license of XP (Home or Pro), you
will HAVE to buy a FULL License of Vista Ultimate, if Ultimate is the
version you have your heart set on.
It seems to me, though, that most home users aren't going to need
Vista Ultimate. I advise home users to purchase Vista Home Premium,
unless they really need advanced networking. Of course, if you're a
hobbyist or Windows enthusiast, you might want Vista Ultimate just for
the "bragging rights".
Check out the differences between the four versions before making a
purchasing decision. Microsoft has really done a fine job of
designing each edition for the right demographic this time around.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx
After perusing this, I am persuaded that most home users and families
will agree with me that the best value for their money will be Vista
Home Premium (Upgrade or Full). It has the best user features of
Ultimate Edition, including the advanced Aero GUI, as well as Media
Center , without the advanced networking and business features of
Business Edition or Ultimate.
And Vista Home Premium (Retail Upgrade) will have almost the same
price as the older Generic OEM copies of XP Pro w/SP2 (~$129-$159),
with the added advantage of owning a Retail version, which allows the
licensee to transfer his license to other machines, should he need to
(not possible according to the OEM license).
I really commend Microsoft for making the price of its XP Home Premium
Retail Upgrade so reasonable.
One thing I DON'T like is the lack of the ability to use Home Premium
in a Virtual setting.
Consider: I own an Intel iMac, as well as a license to Parallels
Desktop for Mac. This product is probably the most convenient way to
use both OS X and Windows on the same machine. With XP, I was able to
do this. But the Home Premium license does not allow this, even
though my copy of Vista would be on a SINGLE machine, not two. This
is in my opinion not fair to the user.
It is especially not fair to the owners of Apple Intels. If Microsoft
were trying to keep Windows users from running Windows on Apple
Intels, this would be the most logical way to go about it. I am not
accusing them of doing this, but it really seems suspicious to me,
especially in light of Microsoft's past statements that they would not
attempt to keep folks from running Windows on Apple Intels.
They are in effect, putting a TAX on running Windows on an Apple Intel
PC -- one must purchase the most EXPENSIVE edition of Vista to do this
using the Apple Intels' hardware virtualization abilities.
While they ARE keeping to the LETTTER of their statement that they
would not attempt to keep users from running Windows on their Apple
Intels PCs (since it IS still possible to dual-boot between OS X and
Vista using Apple's Boot Camp Assistant Beta software), I don't
believe they are keeping to the SPIRIT of their words. For many
people, using the dual-booting option makes it more difficult to do
cross-platform work, thus putting a chilling effect on the use of
Windows on Apple Intel PCs.
The fact is, hardware virtualization software such as Parallels
Desktop for Mac is the BEST solution for many Apple users. I know
that most Mac users I've spoken with agree on this, and prefer not to
dual-boot with Windows.
Why wouldn't Microsoft WANT to have their OS being shown on the same
display alongside OS X?
It seems to me, that if they have faith in their OS being the BEST,
they would WANT OS X users to SEE how much better Vista is than OS X,
by allowing them to easily run the two OSes alongside each other on
the same display (or dual-displays).
Just my opinion.
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread and newsgroup
---------------------------------------------------
