Vista - So much for the "Signature Edition"

I'd mentioned here previously that I'd pre-ordered it (on Jan 7th to be
precise). But a few days ago I got to thinking.......

And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I
install Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install
XP first was just insane.

AND I also (only recent) learned that I couldn't upgrade to the 64-bit
version since XP (in my case) is only 32-bit. Seeing how I *really*
wanted the 64-bit version, I had no choice....

I refused acceptance of the package containing Vista Ultimate Signature
yesterday from Amazon.com, so I'll get a refund when they get it back.

Meanwhile I ordered the 64-bit OEM version of Vista Ultimate from
ZipZoomFly. It's $50.00 less and I don't have to mess with any kind of
upgrade (including the newly revealed workaround for avoiding an XP
install, but then having to "upgrade" Vista after install. It's quicker
- but still a PITA as far as I'm concerned).

Considering I've had 3 PCs that came with OEM versions of Windows (95,
98 and XP Pro) I'm cool with OEM versions. And I understand I'll get no
tech support in my case, but could care less. I've NEVER needed tech
support for Windows, it's always been hardware support that I needed
(albeit very very rarely).

The only OS "tech support" I've needed was for minor things like tweaks
and frankly I hate dealing with tech support people anyway. So when
needed, I've always resorted to newsgroups (such as this one) or mailing
lists.

I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista RC2 for some time now and
all of my hardware is supported. Heck, the drivers for both of my
printers (an HP InkJet and a Brother Laser MFC) are included with RC2.

Therefore, I can't wait for Vista Ultimate 64-bit to arrive on Monday!


--
Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

ps... you dont have to install xp first to run the vista upgrade. but
ssshhhh.... you didnt hear it from me



"Scott" <geekboy@angrykeyboarder.comatose> wrote in message
news%rwh.109122$ek2.94040@fe08.news.easynews.com...
> I'd mentioned here previously that I'd pre-ordered it (on Jan 7th to be
> precise). But a few days ago I got to thinking.......
>
> And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I install
> Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install XP first
> was just insane.
>
> AND I also (only recent) learned that I couldn't upgrade to the 64-bit
> version since XP (in my case) is only 32-bit. Seeing how I *really*
> wanted the 64-bit version, I had no choice....
>
> I refused acceptance of the package containing Vista Ultimate Signature
> yesterday from Amazon.com, so I'll get a refund when they get it back.
>
> Meanwhile I ordered the 64-bit OEM version of Vista Ultimate from
> ZipZoomFly. It's $50.00 less and I don't have to mess with any kind of
> upgrade (including the newly revealed workaround for avoiding an XP
> install, but then having to "upgrade" Vista after install. It's quicker -
> but still a PITA as far as I'm concerned).
>
> Considering I've had 3 PCs that came with OEM versions of Windows (95, 98
> and XP Pro) I'm cool with OEM versions. And I understand I'll get no tech
> support in my case, but could care less. I've NEVER needed tech support
> for Windows, it's always been hardware support that I needed (albeit very
> very rarely).
>
> The only OS "tech support" I've needed was for minor things like tweaks
> and frankly I hate dealing with tech support people anyway. So when
> needed, I've always resorted to newsgroups (such as this one) or mailing
> lists.
>
> I've been running the 64-bit version of Vista RC2 for some time now and
> all of my hardware is supported. Heck, the drivers for both of my
> printers (an HP InkJet and a Brother Laser MFC) are included with RC2.
>
> Therefore, I can't wait for Vista Ultimate 64-bit to arrive on Monday!
>
>
> --
> Scott http://angrykeyboarder.com
>
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

"Scott" <geekboy@angrykeyboarder.comatose> wrote in message
news%rwh.109122$ek2.94040@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
> And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I install
> Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install XP first
> was just insane.

I got the upgrade version and it didn't even ask me for the previous OS when
I installed it from scratch, surprise surprise. I thought it would at least
ask me to put the XP disk in the drive to verify but it didn't even do that!
I'm happy!

"Scott" <geekboy@angrykeyboarder.comatose> wrote

> I'd mentioned here previously that I'd pre-ordered it (on Jan 7th to be
> precise). But a few days ago I got to thinking.......
>
> And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I install
> Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install XP first
> was just insane.

Installing once a year is insane, unless you have a lot of free time. What
about using imaging to keep archive images of stable installations?
Properly maintained and using imaging, you shouldn't have to reinstall at
all, but that's just IMHO.

<snip>

--
Rock [MVP - User/Shell]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 13:30:26 -0800, "Spaz" <yeah@right.com> wrote:

>"Scott" <geekboy@angrykeyboarder.comatose> wrote in message
>news%rwh.109122$ek2.94040@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I install
>> Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install XP first
>> was just insane.
>
>I got the upgrade version and it didn't even ask me for the previous OS when
>I installed it from scratch, surprise surprise. I thought it would at least
>ask me to put the XP disk in the drive to verify but it didn't even do that!
>I'm happy!

Well to make a long story short, I've wound up with both (temporarily)
and the upgrade version (Ultimate, 64-bit) did indeed complain when it
didn't find a previous installation of Windows.

However, that was only a "test" anyway. I went with the since
documented workaround to accomplish the install on a clean hard drive.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 15:37:05 -0500, "Troy McClure" <k@k.com> wrote:

>ps... you dont have to install xp first to run the vista upgrade. but
>ssshhhh.... you didnt hear it from me

Provided you're aware of the recently revealed workaround. Since my
original post, I'm one of them.

Now I've bought Ultimate Upgrade at a local Costco and I'm hoping
ZipZoomFly will agree to a refund of Ultimate OEM 64-bit (otherwise
I'll just return the other to Costco for a refund (they'll refund
anything anytime. even opened software).

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:27:53 -0800, "Rock" <rock@nospam.net> wrote:

>"Scott" <geekboy@angrykeyboarder.comatose> wrote
>
>> I'd mentioned here previously that I'd pre-ordered it (on Jan 7th to be
>> precise). But a few days ago I got to thinking.......
>>
>> And I decided that the upgrade process was too much of a PITA. I install
>> Windows *at least* once a year and the idea of having t0 install XP first
>> was just insane.
>
>Installing once a year is insane, unless you have a lot of free time.

I agree. Often times I'd stretch that to 18-24 months. This was all
due to (what I considered good) advice from Fred Langa years ago
(http://www.langa.com/).

> What about using imaging to keep archive images of stable installations?
>Properly maintained and using imaging, you shouldn't have to reinstall at
>all, but that's just IMHO.

Actually that's something I started doing about 9 moths ago, w/Acronis
True Image. So far I've done it twice. I can't speak for the first
time, but the second time the image backup failed. However, this is
my future plan rather than doing full installs.

On the other hand, it's still nice to have the clean install as an
option and I've since (like most anyone else reading this) learned of
the clean install workaround with the upgrade version.