Vista Upgrade Architecture Question

[Guest]

For the time being, I would like to run an x86 OS until all the
software/hardware I use catches up to x64, which brings me to my question:
If I purchase the Vista Upgrade Edition, will I be able to install the x64
version later, say a year or two (when everything finally catches up), or
will this break my license?

 

[Chad Harris]

All of the editions will allow you to choose, although they are making
things inconveninet by putting both DVDs in Ultimate, and asking you to
"send for" another DVD in the rest of the editions. If you wanted to
install X86 on a box on January 30, and then get a new box on January 31,
you would be able to format the X86 box and then install X64 on your new PC
but of course the license is for one Vista installation and since MSFT is
making it very inconvenient --if you don't buy Ultimate, then you'll have to
send for the DVD.

One mitigating factor in this though that I thought of is that MSFT is going
to be also selling the download of Vista, allowing you to burn your DVD just
like the Betas, so that may prevent some people who switch from having to
"send for" the DVD.

CH

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Since the product key for you edition of Vista does not expire and is the
same for that edition for both x86 and x64 you may remove the x86 edition
and replace it with the x64 edition at any time.

 

[Guest]

Interesting. I didn't realize only the ultimate edition contained both DVDs.
The download option sounds interesting as well as long as the price is
right. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Guest]

What about dual booting both x86 and x64? Is that recommended for
individuals like me who would like to move to x64 but can't right now due to
currently incompatible software/hardware? Do features like system restore
support this? The reason I am concerned about this is because it will be
difficult to know when I can finally make the switch without actually running
x64.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

I am currently dual booting Vista x86 and Vista x64 Ultimate editions. That
costs a bundle, though, since just having both dvd's is insufficient. Two
licesnses are required as well. I am assuming that you mean x86 and x64
Vista. I refuse to dual-boot XP and Vista in any combinations except on a
test box. However, I have enough computers that I am able to have an XP box
and a Vista box. I realize that your situation may not permit that and I am
not saying that you should or shouldn't keep separate boxes too.

You are not required to install x64 now just because you are considering
using it later. If you do not get an x64 dvd in your media kit, then by all
means order it now and set it aside. You may run x86 now and then replace
it with x64 at some time in the distant future without any concerns. A
product key is not time-limited and the same pk works for the same edition
for both x86 and x64. The only restriction is that you cannot use both x86
and x64 at the same time with the same pk without buying an additional
license.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the info, Colin. I appreciate your insight. I was afraid the
licensing might be as such. It's a bit disappointing, but hopefully this
problem will be moot in a couple years when 64-bit drivers/applications are
in abundance.

Perhaps I'm ranting now, but why we should ever need to relicense the
operating system in a multiboot set up on the same device? This seems like
an unnecessarily strict requirement to me. In a typical multi-boot scenario,
only one installation of the OS software would be running at a time. I just
don't see the logic behind this restriction.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Licensing has never been about "running." It is about installation. The
EULA defines a device as a partition or blade, not as a computer.

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Colin. That's a much clearer explanation than the actual Vista EULA!

I still disagree with the logic, though. It does nothing but frustrate
enthusiast users like myself who would like to use a simple multi-boot setup
like I described. Shouldn't any smart computer user have a backup OS on
every PC anyway in case of emergency?

Licensing of an operating system ought to be about whether the OS is
"operating" on a single "system". Period.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

We users disagree with the logic. Why should we agree with it? But it is
not logic, it is an MS business decision.

 

[Guest]

Excellent point, Colin. It is a business decision, one that ought to be
changed, IMHO. I doubt this business decision was postulated by any MS
software developer or any MS decision maker who seriously works with
computers. It is unfortunate that we have to make this concession when
accepting the EULA; the 'A' in EULA stands for agreement after all.

Thanks once again for your thoughts. I enjoy the discussion.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Licensing is determined by Marketing. If the dev teams had their way there
would only be one, full featured Vista at one price for all. After all, the
devs are proud of the features they work on and want everyone to enjoy them.