ZDNet's take today:



http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=414&tag=nl.e589

"Bill Condie" <billcondie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23s6mO58QHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> ZDNet's take today:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=414&tag=nl.e589

Did you send a wrong link?
That is not about the EULA its about the upgrade version.

Sorry . . . I thought it was all part of the ghastly EULA, isn't it?

"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:OL8olG9QHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> "Bill Condie" <billcondie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23s6mO58QHHA.4384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> ZDNet's take today:
>>
>> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=414&tag=nl.e589
>
> Did you send a wrong link?
> That is not about the EULA its about the upgrade version.

"Bill Condie" <billcondie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:exS6EL9QHHA.2252@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Sorry . . . I thought it was all part of the ghastly EULA, isn't it?
>

Maybe. I was just expecting something else thats all, and thought maybe you
put the wrong link?
Wahatever, its an interesting article anyway :-)

Interesting article. I see his point about not being able to clean install
using Upgrade version but at the same time MSFT has to differentiate Full and
Upgrade somehow; after all there is a huge price difference between them.

Personally, I do feel sorry for those people who fell for the Vista Express
Upgrade hype. Whether it was MSFT's or OEMs' fault, they made it seem as
though people will get the Full OEM Vista so there was no point in waiting
for PCs with Vista pre-installed when in fact there was a point in doing just
that, as we now found out.

Can you imagine every time someone has to reinstall Vista they have to
reinstall XP first and then install Vista? I think a lot of people will be
quite upset when they find out that their Express Upgrade to Vista is nothing
more than an upgrade version rather than full OEM.

"Bill Condie" wrote:

> ZDNet's take today:
>
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=414&tag=nl.e589
>
>
>