Vista Upgrades All New, All Worse

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.tomcoyote.org/security/windows-vista-retail-upgrade-or-oem-version/72/#more-72' target='_blank'>http://www.tomcoyote.org/security/windows-vista-retail-upgrade-or-oem-version/72/#more-72</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If you’re not confused enough by all the versions of Vista, the upgrade choices might just do it. I predict Home Premium will prove to be far and away the best seller (for home users). Home Basic has too many features stripped out, it may become just as maligned as Windows ME. Ultimate is too expensive, unless you have the need to connect to a domain or are an enthusiast that just have to have every feature (like me). So, you’ve decide you’re going to purchase Windows Vista Home Premium. Wait! You’re not done. Do you want the full-retail version, the upgrade version, or the OEM version? The obvious difference is price. Most places are selling the full retail version for about $230, the upgrade for about $150 and OEM for $120. So, just what is the difference?"</i><br /><br />Raise you're hand if you've ever been in this scenario: you've bought a copy of Windows XP Home or Professional upgrade, and you want to wipe out the currently installed OS and install a fresh copy of XP. Or maybe it's brand new hardware and you want to put the upgrade of XP on it. During the install when XP asks for the disc of previous version of Windows, you put in your copy of Windows 98 or Windows 2000. That's certainly something I've done over the years, all using legitimate copies of Windows 98 or Windows 2000 to drive the upgrade. After all, I'm a legitimate owner of that software right? I could never quite figure out why someone would buy the full-priced version of Windows XP, because almost everyone has a previous version of Windows, right?<br /><br />Microsoft has implemented a radical change in how upgrade copies of Vista are going to function. It would be best to call them "in place upgrades" because you can't install the upgrade on bare metal (a blank drive) any more. Essentially, Vista has to see an installed, activated copy of Windows XP in order to proceed. That means that if you want to install Vista on a freshly wiped computer, you first would need to install and activate XP, then install Vista. That's typically the worst way possible to install a new OS - one over another - but I believe there will still be an option to do a clean install of Vista (one where the hard drive is wiped). Because I don't have a retail copy of Vista at my disposal, it's hard to know exactly how this is going to work. Any of you have experience with this so far?<br /><br />Thankfully, <a href="http://www.tomcoyote.org/tech/workaround-for-clean-install-with-vista-upgrade-dvds/76/">there's a workaround</a> that involves installing the trial version of Vista, then doing the upgrade over top that trial - and apparently it works. I'm going to be upgrading my father's computer to Vista sometime in the next few months, so it will be interesting to see this process first-hand.

[Mike Temporale]

From my experience, when you run the install from within windows, you are given the option to wipe the drive before installation. I would expect (and hope) that this hasn't changed with Vista.

[Felix Torres]

For what its worth: My position on Windows upgrades has always been not to.
I find it best to just track down a fair deal on the OEM version of choice instead of messing with upgrades. Often cheaper and always safer; leads to better, cleaner installs.

[Phronetix]

From my experience, when you run the install from within windows, you are given the option to wipe the drive before installation. I would expect (and hope) that this hasn't changed with Vista.

That should be how it is. Wouldn't the upgrade disc simply be a full version that requires a previous license to install?

[harrisj]

I am sorry to report that a clean install is not possible. If you choose a "clean" install using the Vista upgrade it does not perform a reformat. I had old files in my directory left over even after I deleted the windows.old file (28 GB by the way 8O ). The workaround does work though, but having to install twice is ridiculous.

[Jason Dunn]

Thanks for registering to share this info!

I am sorry to report that a clean install is not possible. If you choose a "clean" install using the Vista upgrade it does not perform a reformat.

Wow. UGLY. :evil: That completely sucks.

[Outlaw94]

For what its worth: My position on Windows upgrades has always been not to.
I find it best to just track down a fair deal on the OEM version of choice instead of messing with upgrades. Often cheaper and always safer; leads to better, cleaner installs.

I couldn't agree more. I received my OEM version of vista home premium late last week but thanks to samsung sittign on their hands waiting to release drivers for the q1, i'm stuck waiting. :evil:

Come on people get with it. You have had vista beta versions for awhile and there is no reason why you should still be testing vista drivers.

[aroma]

but thanks to samsung sittign on their hands waiting to release drivers for the q1, i'm stuck waiting.
That's probably to be expected, since the Q1 wasn't really designed to upgraded. I've got a memory "upgrade" on order for mine, and I'm hoping that after I eventally get my Q1 ripped open and new memory in, there will be more progress on the Vista front.


Come on people get with it. You have had vista beta versions for awhile and there is no reason why you should still be testing vista drivers.
The only one that's really ticking me off is Creative. I've been waiting and waiting on a Vista driver for my Audigy board. Finally, just a few days ago they updated their site to say "Driver Available", but the link still points to their beta 2 drivers. Hmph.

[Phronetix]

So, I have been mostly casually observing all the issues that microsoft has been having in the media with respect to the seven flavors of Vista, the cost of Vista, the difficulty that is found in upgrading, the issues surrounding family licenses and the flawed logic that seems to have gone into how to offer them in the marketplace.

And, being a Mac guy, I really have tried to stay away because the circular argument that posts like this one seem to bring up is pointless.

But here I am, and here I am posting.

First, let me say that Vista looks great, aesthetically, and it does a few things that I hope Apple borrows from MS, for example: the excellent use of contextual menus has always been a windows achievement. The implementation (well, we will see how it goes) of Windows Live messenger and ecosystem looked very impressive on the CES keynote. Most important for Windows is the fact that it doesn't have the issues that the Apple Finder has, and that needs a new look. And the live desktops look really sweet. Very distracting mind you and potentially annoying, but cool. :D

But that has to do with the mechanics of the operating system, and by and large all Mac users have had access for several years to features that Windows user are only now 'discovering'. I don't want to criticize the mechanics of the OS, particularly in this thread.

Which leads at long last to my main issue: the fact that Microsoft, while lifting all sorts of great OS X features, has failed to do the same in the implementation of its product. They appear to be doing such a piss poor job of it that it is almost too self evident to even post about.

Let's start with the choice to go with seven versions. Then they follow up this obviously hyperconfused offering by giving them names that magically and simultaneously help the end user, AND confuse them further. Great job guys. Let us compare to OS X. Did you want the Server or not-Server version? Heck, I don't recall the official names of the OS X flavors, but does it matter? No.

Next up is the attempt to offer discounts to people who have more than one computer at home. Correct me if I am wrong on this, but the way that I understand this is that only if you buy the most expensive version of the OS will you gain the right to buy up to two more licenses at 49 a pop. But that most expensive version will run me over $500, or $300 for an upgrade that must be installed over top of my current OS? What is the thought process here? And these other licenses are for a dumbed down version of the OS. Okay, I am hereby pissed off on behalf of my friends who own PC's. Let's compare to Mac: $150 Canadian for the full version you can install cleanly on one machine. Or $250 for the full version and five licenses. Their confusing names? The Single User and Family Pack versions. Those are current Canadian retail prices.

My next issue is the cost. Wow. I'm speechless. I really don't want to hurl insults or demean the folks who put their lives into the product. It is almost like they really don't want the general public to go buy the most useful versions.

Now onto the absolutely mind-numbingly illogical part of all of this that I really hope for my colleagues running Vista turns out to be not true: that a clean install is not possible with the upgrade. Talk about setting yourself up for problems, bad press, buggy machines that no one can figure out, an overworked support staff... etc. People in the general public don't get that you should do a clean install. If you really want the product to work well for them, and MS should really really really want that, then you should make it super easy for people to get the best possible product.

How should that be? You sell two versions of Vista: Vista and Vista Enterprise. Offered in single user and family packs. "Vista" is the Ultimate edition,or the Home Premium/Supreme version out now. You only sell full versions, no upgrades. And you have a simple menu-led process by which people can save their entire home directory(files, apps, settings) and user preferences on their hard drives during installation, but you clean out everything else. And for the adventurous you can offer your custom install button and let em go nuts. Then when everything works well, the users can delete the 'archive'.

I have never seen a product launch meant for so many be understood by so few. And I do not consider myself one of those few. This is a colossal screw-up.

In closing, please be kind to me if I misunderstood a few details. I wrote this according to my current understanding of the facts. I plan to install Vista on my Macs once it becomes possible via parallels or boot camp, and I look forward to real life experience in the process. Maybe they can fix it... a little anyway.

cheers,
Dennis

[Outlaw94]

but thanks to samsung sittign on their hands waiting to release drivers for the q1, i'm stuck waiting.
That's probably to be expected, since the Q1 wasn't really designed to upgraded. I've got a memory "upgrade" on order for mine, and I'm hoping that after I eventally get my Q1 ripped open and new memory in, there will be more progress on the Vista front.

Aroma, I do agree with you that the Q1 was probably not meant to be upgraded. However, the problems I am having are with the drivers for items that should have been updated. One example would be the touch screen. Once Vista was installed, it was no longer recognized as a screen I could calibrate which made it hard to use since after the upgrade the calibration was about 1/4" off. Why isn't this driver included in vista? It's a touch screen like many other on the market. Am I missing something? The other is the display which from what I read on various posts has the ability to run Aero, all be not at an enjoyable experience. Updated drivers would be nice to just switch the screen resolution. While vista was installed I had no problem running media center, internet explorer, etc. In fact it was as faster faster than with XP. Also have noticed on some online retailers that a new Q1 running vista is going to be released in about a month. Again from what I read around the web, doesn't mean its true, the insides of these are going to be virtually the same. So now I'm stuck waiting. Mr. Gates pushes these things as the future of computing. Well maybe he should have a talk to his employees and vendors because I don't think they get it or know whats going on. I really like the UMPC form factor but if MS doesn't get it's vendors to make the most of the form factor then it will fail and lets not even talk about MS's marketing team. Those people are just worthless.

[aroma]

Why isn't this driver included in vista? It's a touch screen like many other on the market.
Part of the problem could be that the Q1 touchscreen is actually different than most of the tablet-pc touch screens out there. So even if Vista would recognize most table-pc's touchscreens, it's not suprising that it doesn't have a driver for this particular one. The actuall touch controller is probably fairly specific to the Q1. (I'm running into a similar issue with a PC I have with an integrated touch screen... it shows up as an unkown USB device. Luckily the XP driver seems to be working fine.)

I not reall up to date on touch screen technology, but the Q1 useses a completely different touch technology than most other tablets. Most tablets require a special pen, and can pick up movement with any actuall screen contact, while the Q1 requires actuall physical contact and can be "touched" by about any object.

[Macguy59]

It appears that Microsoft has been handing out bogus keys for family Vista plans. Keys are not working and MS doesn't seem to have a timeline for fixing this.

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&amp;id=37734

[Kacey Green]

It appears that Microsoft has been handing out bogus keys for family Vista plans. Keys are not working and MS doesn't seem to have a timeline for fixing this.

http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&amp;id=37734
Yeah, I got burned by that too.

[Jason Dunn]

Let's start with the choice to go with seven versions. Then they follow up this obviously hyperconfused offering by giving them names that magically and simultaneously help the end user, AND confuse them further. Great job guys.

Honestly? It's not as big of a deal as people are trying to make it into. Microsoft has so many versions available because of how they're going to be sold. When a consumer goes into a Best Buy, he's going to see two or possibly three versions on the shelf: Vista Basic, Vista Home Premium, and Vista Ultimate. If they're upgrading a PC, they're going to look at the upgrade versions only. 95% of people are going to chose between Vista Basic or Premium - the price tag on Ultimate will quickly rule it out for almost everyone.

Let's compare to Mac: $150 Canadian for the full version you can install cleanly on one machine. Or $250 for the full version and five licenses. Their confusing names? The Single User and Family Pack versions. Those are current Canadian retail prices.

No arguments from me there - the Mac approach is simply awesome. Even if Microsoft were to offer three full Home Premium licenses for $250 CAD, that would be a huge improvement.

My next issue is the cost. Wow. I'm speechless. I really don't want to hurl insults or demean the folks who put their lives into the product. It is almost like they really don't want the general public to go buy the most useful versions.

I have to disagree with you there a bit. The prices didn't change much from XP.

XP Home Upgrade: $129 CAD
XP Professional Upgrade: $249 CAD
XP 2005 Media Centre OEM: $134.95 CAD

Vista Home Basic Upgrade: $118 CAD
Vista Home Premium Upgrade: $169 CAD
Vista Home Premium OEM: $139 CAD
Vista Ultimate Upgrade: $249 CAD

Home Basic is XP Home - so we're talking about a cost savings of $11. Home Premium is like Media Center, but it's a bit of an unfair comparison because Media Center was only ever sold as an OEM version...but if you compare the two OEM versions, Home Premium OEM is only $5 more.

Vista Ultimate is a whole different beast - there's never been a version of Windows like it before, an it's not something I'd recommend to anyone except the hardcore geeks. When my family &amp; friends upgrade to Vista, I'll probably recommend Home Premium OEM since they'd never call Microsoft for tech support anyway, they just call me. ;-) If they have a PC that lacks the DirectX 9 power for Aero Glass, Vista Home Basic will do just fine.

The comparisons:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

[brianchris]

Regarding Vista's lack of a true clean install process, I couldn't agree with Phronetix more........For YEARS, Microsoft themselves has been drilling it into our heads that clean installs are FAR better than "dirty upgrades." Now, they remove clean installs all together? That is completely schizophrenic, and I honestly can't imagine what the decision making process was regarding this.

Its true, the workaround, well, it works (I've used it twice already) But that's still an in place upgrade. Vista on top of Vista, while not perfect, is far better than Vista on top of XP.

A couple of issues regarding this that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread:

1) The reason why Microsoft arm twists you to perform a dirty upgrade from XP is so you can "forfeit your XP license during the Vista upgrade" (straight from Microsoft FAQ's). That's fine for the first install, but what happens a year or so down the road , when your system is due to be reinstalled, you don't have an XP license to forfeit during the (re)install....you already forfeited it during the first install!! If it wasn't for the workaround, you'd be totally screwed!

2) There is no need for anyone to EVER purchase a full version, because the upgrade version can be installed upon itself (the "workaround"), except to be an honest customer and obey the EULA.....While I'm not suggesting people break the EULA, this is evidence of Microsoft not thinking this through......they shot themselves in the foot.

3) Anytime upgrade = 3 installs.....IF you purchased a lower flavor of Vista, partake of Anytime upgrade to jump to a higher flavor of Vista, AND desire as close to a clean install as possible, you perform the workaround (two installs) and then run the anytime upgrade (third install).

I, for one, can't imagine what they were thinking with all this.......some explanation of the thought process would go along way to ease my confusion and concern.

I wonder if Office 2007 upgrades have the same issues???? I haven't tried an Office upgrade yet, but am scheduled to this Thursday, so I'll know more then.

For the record, and to keep this from being a completely negative post, Vista (once installed) is a GREAT operating system, and User Account Control (UAC) is an elegant and effective solution to the severe security threats around....I'd go so far to say its genius.