Vista - Confusion on upgrade vs. full versions - please help!

Greetings all,

I have a dual-boot system now. Have XP-Pro (upgrade version) installed on
one partition on one HD and Vista RC-2 on another partition on same drive.
I also have a 2nd HD that i use for storage and pagefile.

I was hoping that all i'd need to purchase tomorrow would be the upgrade
version of Vista Home Premium to dual-boot with XP (wipe out RC-2 and
install final version on that partition) But i seen Carey Frisch's post:

"You'll need a "Full Version" Windows Vista license if you
wish to dual boot with an existing Windows XP installation.
A Vista upgrade license is only valid if you actually upgrade
an existing Windows XP installation to Windows Vista."

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

On Microsoft's site, it says:


"If the edition of Windows Vista that you choose to install will result in a
loss of functionality over your current edition of Windows, you will need to
do a clean install, or install Windows Vista to A NEW PARTITION ON YOUR PC."

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...radepaths.mspx

I should note i also have a FULL version of 2000 (currently not installed
anywhere)

So....am i correct to assume, as Carey pointed out, that i will need to
purchase the FULL version of Vista Home Premium to keep my dual-boot with
XP?? Or am i just totally confused at all this new (at least for me)
information????

(Sorry for the long post...and thanks for any and all replies)



Ray

Yes, you'll need to purchase a "Full License" version of Windows Vista
Home Premium if you wish to dual-boot with Windows XP. An "Upgrade
License" for Vista cannot be installed unless you have either Windows XP
or Windows 2000 actually installed and wish to "upgrade" that installation
to Vista.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Athanasian Creed" wrote:

Greetings all,

I have a dual-boot system now. Have XP-Pro (upgrade version) installed on
one partition on one HD and Vista RC-2 on another partition on same drive.
I also have a 2nd HD that i use for storage and pagefile.

I was hoping that all i'd need to purchase tomorrow would be the upgrade
version of Vista Home Premium to dual-boot with XP (wipe out RC-2 and
install final version on that partition) But i seen Carey Frisch's post:

"You'll need a "Full Version" Windows Vista license if you
wish to dual boot with an existing Windows XP installation.
A Vista upgrade license is only valid if you actually upgrade
an existing Windows XP installation to Windows Vista."

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

On Microsoft's site, it says:


"If the edition of Windows Vista that you choose to install will result in a
loss of functionality over your current edition of Windows, you will need to
do a clean install, or install Windows Vista to A NEW PARTITION ON YOUR PC."

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...radepaths.mspx

I should note i also have a FULL version of 2000 (currently not installed
anywhere)

So....am i correct to assume, as Carey pointed out, that i will need to
purchase the FULL version of Vista Home Premium to keep my dual-boot with
XP?? Or am i just totally confused at all this new (at least for me)
information????

(Sorry for the long post...and thanks for any and all replies)



Ray

In addition to Carey's point, let me give you another compelling reason to
get a full DVD:

If you do not have a full DVD, or you have an upgrade DVD you are *NOT
going to have the major tools you'll need to fix Vista. You of course will
have System Restore via its new Volume Shadow Copy format adapted from the
Windows Server environment.

Anytime I ever spend $1000-$4000 for a new PC, (I order from an online site
because I like to choose my features and many stores don't have that choice)
I insist on them giving me the Windows OS DVD of the moment, and I have
heard that one is Vista. So either insist on it or buy the full DVD is my
advice.

You of course may have Backup depending on your edition. I applaud them for
doing this, but like a lot of users here, I prefer using an imaging system
like GHOST or ACRONIS or another type that works best for the user.

I am going to include some recent information and questions that are
additional posed on upgrade DVDs this morning and one of the guys who posed
the question writes one of the most comprehensive books on Vista that is
hitting stores this week (Ed Bott author of Windows Vista Inside Out MSFT
Press). I also point out below the major repair modalities in Vista that
you will not access unless you have a full Vista version DVD. You won't be
accessing them via that upgrade DVD.

The Upgrade scenario that MSFT has posed failed to take into consideration
what happens if the person has to format and cannot repair and also failed
to take into consideration that those customers should have full access to
the full panoply of Vista repair tools.

They do not: Read Below please and you'll become a more informed buyer:

MSFT has blocked your ability to repair Vista in two major ways it turns
out:

1) If you do not get a Vista DVD (Dell says you will from them) when you pay
$1000-2000 for your new Vista preloaded computer today, tonight or in the
future you cannot access the repair modalities I describe below from Win RE
on the Vista DVD or the Windows Repair Environment.

2) If you buy an Upgrade DVD.

See below:

And with all the excellent upgrade posts here, including Colin Barnhorst's I
haven't seen this little issue raised. Suppose that you cannot use Win RE's
major components to repair Vista which would be Startup Repair, System
Restore *from Win RE which I find superior to SR using the Volume Shadow
system adapted from the Windows Server environment, restoring the boot
sector using the bootsect /nt52 SYS from the Windows Recovery Environment
discussed in the MSKB directly below

How to troubleshoot scenarios in which the rollback phase was unsuccessful
after you upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927523/en-us

and something that has not been mentioned that I can tell to date on this
group or much in the TBT groups:

How to use the Bootrec.exe tool in the Windows Recovery Environment to
troubleshoot and repair startup issues in Windows Vista
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/927392/en-us

Startup Repair can also be used when there is not a problem booting into
Windows Vista and when it works which is not all the time (you should repeat
2-3 times if it does not) fix major broken Vista components:

A Stop error occurs, or the computer stops responding when you try to start
Windows Vista
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925810/en-us

So suppose all these repair modalities used correctly and I emphasize there
are a minority of times when Startup Repair may need to be tried, i.e.
repeated 2-3 times until it works, and you have this scnario mentioned by
George Ou on his ZDNET blog this morning (January 29, 2007) in my time zone:

(I would think you could avoid a lot of "Geek Squad" money by the way by
simply searching this group, the setup group and the other MSFT Vista public
groups using View>Find):

From George Ou and a point that has not been raised that I can tell on this
group or the setup group and certainly has not been touched by Jill Zoeller
or Darrel Gorter who occasionally particpate here from MSFT:

From:
January 29th, 2007
Vista Upgrade Edition is lame by design

by George Ou

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


"These new Vista Upgrade DVDs which I'm assuming have already been stamped
out will lack the ability to install on a system unless Windows XP or 2000
was present. This means anyone looking to do a fresh install for any reason
will not be able to. Someone who is doing disaster recovery after a hard
drive failure or a virus infection won't be able to wipe their hard drive
and install Vista, they'll have to install XP first and then install Vista
on top of XP. That could easily mean nearly an hour wasted. If you're
paying someone to rebuild your computer, this will mean an extra hour of
labor that will be billed to you for the installation of Windows XP. Will
Microsoft pick up the extra hour tab from Geek Squad for everyone?"


MSFT's current MSKB covering Upgrades and leaving much out:

How to install Windows Vista (See upgrade section of this MSKB)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918884/en-us

MSFT's Current Upgrade to Vista Page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...radepaths.mspx

Extreme Tech's article on Vista Upgrades:

Upgrade From Windows XP to Vista

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2082979,00.asp

What's the real story with Vista upgrades?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=189

Vista Upgrade Edition is lame by design

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

__________________________________________

MSFT's curreng MSKB covering Upgrades and leaving much out:

How to install Windows Vista (See upgrade section of this MSKB)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/918884/en-us

MSFT's Current Upgrade to Vista Page:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...radepaths.mspx

Extreme Tech's article on Vista Upgrades:

Upgrade From Windows XP to Vista

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2082979,00.asp

What's the real story with Vista upgrades?

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=189

Vista Upgrade Edition is lame by design

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

What's the Real Story With Vista Upgrades?
Ed Bott
January 29th, 2007

"A story by Ken Fisher on Ars Technica this morning is raising alarm flags.
Fisher points to Microsoft Knowledge Base article 930985, which documents a
change in the setup process for upgrade versions of Windows Vista. The
article's title reads: "You cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean
installation of Windows Vista."

Fisher concludes, "[Once] again, Microsoft appears to have made licensing
decisions without considering how people actually use their products."

George Ou calls it "another one of those 'what were you thinking' moments
for Microsoft management."

I'm not certain what's actually going on here. The KB article itself is
ambiguous. In Microsoft's world, a clean install requires booting from
optical media (CD or DVD). Here's Microsoft's definition of a clean
installation, as contained in an earlier KB article:

A clean installation refers to removing all data from your hard disk by
repartitioning and reformatting your hard disk and reinstalling the
operating system and programs to an empty (clean) hard disk.

So how is the upgrade media going to work? It sounds like it won't be
bootable, which means that you won't be able to start your PC using the
upgrade DVD. Will it include the disk management tools included on a retail
Vista DVD? Will you be able to install Vista without a product key, as you
can with a retail DVD? Will you be able to install Vista to its own
directory or to an existing disk partition without migrating current
settings - what most people outside Redmond consider a "clean install"?

The answer to all those questions, at this point, is "Nobody knows." At
least, nobody outside of Redmond. So far, the only copies of Windows Vista
that have been distributed to the public and the press have been full retail
copies. I have yet to hear from a single source that has actually seen one
of these upgrade disks and documented the experience. Everything written so
far is just speculation until those disks are in customers' hands tomorrow.
This may turn out to be a headache, as predicted. Or it may turn out to be
much ado about nothing.

Stay tuned."


Vista Upgrade Edition is lame by design
George Ou
January 29, 2007

Arstechnica is reporting that Windows Vista Upgrade edition will not permit
"clean" installs like all previous versions of Windows Upgrade editions.
Will Microsoft pick up the extra hour tab from Geek Squad?This is another
one of those "what were you thinking" moments for Microsoft management
similar to their bone headed decision to lock the retail version of Vista to
one hardware migration. Microsoft backed out of their ridiculous license
change after Ed Bott sounded the alarm and others picked up on the story.
So Vista Upgrade Edition should really be called Vista "Not Clean" "time
waster" Edition. [Update 4:10AM - A reader clarifies that you can
technically do a clean install by telling Vista to wipe the hard drive
before installing after it confirms a full copy of Windows XP is installed.
This however is still lame because you can't just install Vista on a freshly
formatted hard drive and it will still be a huge time waster.]

In the past, Microsoft has always respected their customer's time and
allowed upgrade versions of Windows to install on a fresh machine so long as
the customer could provide proof of possession of the old software. These
new Vista Upgrade DVDs which I'm assuming have already been stamped out will
lack the ability to install on a system unless Windows XP or 2000 was
present. This means anyone looking to do a fresh install for any reason
will not be able to. Someone who is doing disaster recovery after a hard
drive failure or a virus infection won't be able to wipe their hard drive
and install Vista, they'll have to install XP first and then install Vista
on top of XP. That could easily mean nearly an hour wasted. If you're
paying someone to rebuild your computer, this will mean an extra hour of
labor that will be billed to you for the installation of Windows XP. Will
Microsoft pick up the extra hour tab from Geek Squad for everyone?

Some might just say tough; you don't have to buy Windows Vista Upgrade
Edition if you don't like the terms of the agreement. But the problem is
that there are probably already millions of people who bought in to the
promise of Vista upgrade coupons during this last holiday shopping season
with their new computers or their copy of Windows XP and they weren't told
that the upgrade terms have been changed. The Vista Upgrade coupons were
used to lure people in to buying brand new computers for the holiday 2006
shopping season when many people would have probably opted to wait until
after Vista launches at the end of January had they known about these new
restrictions. Now these people are going to be in for a big shock after
they wipe their computers and find out that their copy of Vista won't
install without XP on the computer.

So why is Microsoft making a bone headed decision like this? One
possibility is that Microsoft is afraid that people might try to keep
running XP or Media Center on their existing machines and use Vista on a new
computer. This would mean that Microsoft would be giving away two copies of
Windows for the price of one. While I realize that a company has to make
money off of a commercial Operating System, surely Microsoft could have
worked out a better arrangement. Why not ask people to turn in their old
Windows XP serial number when they get their Full Vista DVD and then
blacklist that serial number from Windows Genuine Advantage. This would be
a fair free trade-up from Windows XP to Windows Vista and no one should
expect to get two versions of Windows for the price of one.

But it could be too late for Microsoft to avoid a backlash because Vista is
launching at the end of today and all those copies of Vista Upgrade with no
way to do clean installs have probably already been manufactured. If
Microsoft wants to set things right for people who want to do clean installs
of Windows Vista especially those who bought in to the promise of Vista
coupons during this last holiday season, Microsoft should allow these people
to opt for a trade-up to the full version of Vista where the old XP serial
number is blacklisted on WGA 30 days after the Vista is shipped to them.
That would seem to be the least they can do.



Sould Microsoft allow a full trade-up to Vista?"

January 29th, 2007

Good luck,

CH




"Athanasian Creed <><" <athanasian_creed(NOSPAM)@(NOSPAM)hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:u5RsMQ%23QHHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Greetings all,
>
> I have a dual-boot system now. Have XP-Pro (upgrade version) installed on
> one partition on one HD and Vista RC-2 on another partition on same drive.
> I also have a 2nd HD that i use for storage and pagefile.
>
> I was hoping that all i'd need to purchase tomorrow would be the upgrade
> version of Vista Home Premium to dual-boot with XP (wipe out RC-2 and
> install final version on that partition) But i seen Carey Frisch's post:
>
> "You'll need a "Full Version" Windows Vista license if you
> wish to dual boot with an existing Windows XP installation.
> A Vista upgrade license is only valid if you actually upgrade
> an existing Windows XP installation to Windows Vista."
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> On Microsoft's site, it says:
>
>
> "If the edition of Windows Vista that you choose to install will result in
> a loss of functionality over your current edition of Windows, you will
> need to do a clean install, or install Windows Vista to A NEW PARTITION ON
> YOUR PC."
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...radepaths.mspx
>
> I should note i also have a FULL version of 2000 (currently not installed
> anywhere)
>
> So....am i correct to assume, as Carey pointed out, that i will need to
> purchase the FULL version of Vista Home Premium to keep my dual-boot with
> XP?? Or am i just totally confused at all this new (at least for me)
> information????
>
> (Sorry for the long post...and thanks for any and all replies)
>
>
>
> Ray
>
>

Thank you both Carey and Chad for the speedy, concise and indepth (Chad)
insight.

I guess it's the full version then...even though it's $120.00 more Canadian
than the upgrade!

These newsgroups are FULL of very intelligent people (myself EXCLUDED) I'm
grateful for all the help given me over the years.


Thanks again,


Ray

Ray--

Given that a full edition can fix you in minutes, using those tools I've
outlined and linked, I really believe it will be $120 well spent, and all of
us understand that money can be tight and that there are imaging programs.
When Startup Repair works for example, it fixes you fast. Your purchase of
a full Vista Ultimate entitles you to the Family Offer as well should you
need it under five licenses:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...nts-today.aspx


CH


"Athanasian Creed <><" <athanasian_creed(NOSPAM)@(NOSPAM)hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:uYdUxq%23QHHA.1908@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both Carey and Chad for the speedy, concise and indepth (Chad)
> insight.
>
> I guess it's the full version then...even though it's $120.00 more
> Canadian than the upgrade!
>
> These newsgroups are FULL of very intelligent people (myself EXCLUDED)
> I'm grateful for all the help given me over the years.
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
>
> Ray
>

Thanks Chad.

Ultimate would be an extra $220.00 Cdn so i'll be sticking with the full
version of Premium - that should do me fine. The others can 'suffer' with
XP


Ray




"Chad Harris" <fixvista-itneedsit.net> wrote in message
news:u$oo8L$QHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Ray--
>
> Given that a full edition can fix you in minutes, using those tools I've
> outlined and linked, I really believe it will be $120 well spent, and all
> of us understand that money can be tight and that there are imaging
> programs. When Startup Repair works for example, it fixes you fast. Your
> purchase of a full Vista Ultimate entitles you to the Family Offer as well
> should you need it under five licenses:
>
> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...nts-today.aspx

There is a bit of confusion here.

If you want to preserve the files, settings, and apps from RC1, you must
purchase a full retail Ultimate. It must be full because RC1 does not
qualify you for upgrade pricing. It must be Ultimate because that is what
RC1 is. Any other edition of Vista will have the upgrade option disabled.

Otherwise, buy any full retail edition you want and do a custom install.
Save your files and settings with the WET wizard first. You will have to
reinstall your apps.

Chad's analysis of upgrade editions conflicts with mine because there is no
upgrade dvd and there is no full dvd. There are only Vista retail dvd's.
It is the product key makes a Vista dvd behave like either a full or upgrade
edition.

"Athanasian Creed <><" <athanasian_creed(NOSPAM)@(NOSPAM)hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:uYdUxq%23QHHA.1908@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both Carey and Chad for the speedy, concise and indepth (Chad)
> insight.
>
> I guess it's the full version then...even though it's $120.00 more
> Canadian than the upgrade!
>
> These newsgroups are FULL of very intelligent people (myself EXCLUDED)
> I'm grateful for all the help given me over the years.
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
>
> Ray
>

You might as well. You could only use an upgrade edition to replace the XP
anyway.

"Athanasian Creed <><" <athanasian_creed(NOSPAM)@(NOSPAM)hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:%23qVajdARHHA.4844@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Chad.
>
> Ultimate would be an extra $220.00 Cdn so i'll be sticking with the full
> version of Premium - that should do me fine. The others can 'suffer' with
> XP
>
>
> Ray
>
>
>
>
> "Chad Harris" <fixvista-itneedsit.net> wrote in message
> news:u$oo8L$QHHA.4276@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Ray--
>>
>> Given that a full edition can fix you in minutes, using those tools I've
>> outlined and linked, I really believe it will be $120 well spent, and all
>> of us understand that money can be tight and that there are imaging
>> programs. When Startup Repair works for example, it fixes you fast. Your
>> purchase of a full Vista Ultimate entitles you to the Family Offer as
>> well should you need it under five licenses:
>>
>> http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...nts-today.aspx
>
>