More bad news about Vista

[charleski]

Thinking about buying an upgrade version of Vista to avoid all the OEM activation rubbish?
I was.
But now the prospect of me migrating to Vista is looking even further off. Ken Fisher reports that upgrade keys only work if there is a valid version of XP already installed. A bit of digging reveals this official confirmation from MS. You won't be able to pop in your old XP CD or give it your old XP key to confirm the upgrade validity.

Building a new machine?
Install XP first and then Vista on your new drive.
Drive crash and you need to install on a fresh one?
Install XP first and then Vista.
Fiddled with something and now it won't boot?
Install XP first and then Vista. (Yes - apparently the upgrade DVD will not allow you to boot from it to begin the installation.)
Want to wipe your old disc completely and install Vista on a reformatted drive?
Reformat the drive, install XP, then install Vista. (This is going on the experiences reported here by someone who has an upgrade disc.)

[Edit]Just realised another thing - It still needs to be confirmed whether the old version of XP needs to be activated or not. Given MS's stance on licensing these days, I wouldn't be surprised if that were so. If true, that means that buying an upgrade version will not give you a serially-transferable retail licence of Vista unless you are upgrading from a retail copy of XP. So, if you're thinking about upgrading a machine with an OEM XP Home licence (as I was), there's no point buying the more expensive upgrade version whatsoever.

[ikonia]

thats great news - thats just enfocing the license.

You can only upgrade if XP exists on the machine you want to upgrade - hence the term upgrade not "use an old key from another machine to install vista on a new machine"

Its like buying a car with an engine upgrade offer, then instead of taking the car along you take a new car along without any engine in and expect the garage to put a new one in.

Its just enforcment of the license agreement.

[directhex]

technically upgrade licenses depend on what you upgrade - upgraded oem follows oem licensing rules (non-transferrable), upgraded retail follows retail licensing rules

[this_is_gav]

Entirely agreed about the license. People taking shortcuts by using an OEM license (which should be seen as a privelege) shouldn't be able to upgrade to a retail license on the cheap. If I'd bought XP retail then Vista upgrade, I'd be mighty annoyed if the XP OEM purchasers got Vista upgrade for the same price.

As for installing XP first - if so many people didn't pirate XP (and 2000, and ME, and 98.....), then MS wouldn't have enforced this on us (if it's true). Piracy hits us all because some selfish individuals feel that because Linux is free, so should Windows.

[directhex]

funny thing is, upgrade licenses still cost a bomb

£150 for a home premium upgrade, £220 retail, £82 oem

[ibiris]

That is exactly how i would expect an upgrade license to work. You upgrade a previous OS, therefore, there should be a previous OS to upgrade, else you're getting what everyone else would get when they paid extra for the retail version.

[charleski]

The upgrade versions of XP merely required the disc from the old qualifying OS to allow the upgrade. With the key database in-place from XP, it would have been simple merely to require you to to enter your previous key, which would then have been checked and flagged as used in an upgrade - if you were using that key on another install, that install would now be flagged as counterfeit by WGA.

But no, instead of using their elaborate systems to provide a bit of convenience for the customer, they insist you go the long way round.

And please explain why the upgrade version costs twice as much as the OEM if you aren't getting anything extra.

[ikonia]

please explain why you bought the upgrade version if you're not getting anything else ?

[this_is_gav]

And please explain why the upgrade version costs twice as much as the OEM if you aren't getting anything extra.

Because when you do upgrade, you're getting a retail license, not an OEM one.

Have to say, when directhex posted those prices, it doesn't seem particularly good value for money, but I suppose it's still cheaper than a new license, and you already have an existing install, so there's no hurry (if any reason at all) for an upgrade.

[Agent]

Because when you do upgrade, you're getting a retail license, not an OEM one.

This depends on your XP licence.
If you upgrade a OEM copy of XP, you have an OEM version of Vista.
If you upgarde a retail copy of XP, you have a retail version of Vista.

Considering this is an enthusiast forum and most people here get licensing issues confused, god knows what the average bloke on the street makes of it all.
They really need to make licensing simpler for ‘the bloke off the street’ if they wish to combat piracy. If it’s harder to choose the install version of vista over grabbing a copy and crack of their mate, they aren’t going to be spending their money anytime soon.

[this_is_gav]

Ah right... I was under the impression you couldn't upgrade an OEM license to Vista at all... that's extremely poor value to do so then - it's much cheaper to actually buy a whole new OEM copy (just of Vista instead of XP).

Retail upgrade sounds about right - maybe a little on the steep side, but then again, MS OS's haven't increased with inflation much since '95 at least.

Agreed with you about Joe Bloggs... us tech-heads, many of us dealing with licensing in corporations and the public sector are stumped half the time... :|

[charleski]

Because when you do upgrade, you're getting a retail license, not an OEM one.

But you aren't, as I pointed out in my original post.

A retail upgrade of Vista Home Premium sells for 67% of the price of a full copy, that's the discount you get for having owned a previous copy of the OS. So, if you were only buying an OEM licence to upgrade your previous OEM copy, you would expect a similar discount off the OEM price of the OS. Fair enough, there are too many versions of Vista already, so it would make sense to sell only a retail upgrade - you're paying quite a bit more, but you're getting a full retail version with a discount to reflect the money you've spent on an MS OS previously. But nooooo.

please explain why you bought the upgrade version if you're not getting anything else ?

Where did I say I bought it?

TBH, the OEM/Retail issue is really a minor affair here. The real point is that if you were hoping to get the upgrade version to provide an OS that would allow convenient and legal re-activation as you upgrade, you're facing an extra hour for the installation process each time.

[ikonia]

I have to admit,

This whole vista license thing is getting stupid, not because its "unfair" but because you just can't please people

People complain that there should be cut down versions of windows as they don't use all the features and shouldn't pay as much,

so you get multiple versions of vista at different pricing plans.

You get the treat of an OEM option and upgrade options.......

and now its "there are too many versions."

Here are the simple facts in the hope that we can cut down on the "vista sucks but I must own it and complain about it threads"

1.) Read the terms and usage of the licenses - if you don't like them and don't agree with them, don't buy them.
2.) There are multiple versions of vista at various prices - pick the one you can afford or require - and buy it, if the price/value does not meet your requirments - don't buy it. Look for an alternate OS, and / or hardware platform.
3.) If you can't abide by the terms of the upgrades or find them too expensive - don't do it.

I apologise to charleski as this is not aimed at him or his thread but this thread is just another "Vista sucks, its a rip off, I hate it, I hate microsoft, etc........yet I must own"

Microsoft lay the terms/prices/products out in front of you, you like - you buy - you don't - you don't buy.


Now back on track, a geuine question to charleski - you've made two posts in this thread saying what bad value the upgrade is, and how its usage terms are a pain (having to have XP installed) - if you believe this why did you purchase it (geuine question)

[this_is_gav]

But you aren't, as I pointed out in my original post.

As I was also corrected by Agent above you

Got that one wrong - I've been studying and discussing Vista licenses so much recently I'm getting lost and confused! My apologies.

[charleski]

Now back on track, a geuine question to charleski - you've made two posts in this thread saying what bad value the upgrade is, and how its usage terms are a pain (having to have XP installed) - if you believe this why did you purchase it (geuine question)

You might think it looks clever not to read what was written, but it really isn't, it just makes you look silly.

Very slowly now... I was planning to buy it, but haven't bought it because I was waiting to check how the upgrade mechanism would actually work.

And really, I see no point in 'take it or leave it' posts like yours. This is another instance in which MS have changed the licensing system from XP. There was an outcry over the changes to the retail licence back in November, and guess what, MS went back and changed their terms.

[ibiris]

Considering this is an enthusiast forum and most people here get licensing issues confused, god knows what the average bloke on the street makes of it all.
They really need to make licensing simpler for ‘the bloke off the street’ if they wish to combat piracy. If it’s harder to choose the install version of vista over grabbing a copy and crack of their mate, they aren’t going to be spending their money anytime soon.

This is one reason I feel sorry for a lot of people when i see them buying certain pc related stuff. It is a bad feeling to see someone getting ripped of by e.g. pc world staff, when you know that with a little bit of know how, they could get a much better deal!