Vista - The ethics of installing Windows Vista

It's not misleading at all.

XP RTM is no longer supported.

In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
version of that platform.

Read deeper into licensing terms and you shall find the answers you seek.


"Dweebs" <dweebken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8B7AC769-6F53-45F5-AF6E-F3BE5DF0F55F@microsoft.com...
>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
>get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
>that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
>concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>misleading for me.
>
> Regards,
> Dweebs
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:%23hJcv4bYHHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> http://windowssecrets.com/comp/070308/#reade1
>> Most of my readers thought it was highly interesting that Vista doesn't
>> perform even the simplest test for a qualifying operating system before
>> the upgrade version will install. Any running Windows OS, from NT 4.0 to
>> Vista itself, will do. Vista's complete lack of any version-testing code
>> makes it possible to clean-install the upgrade version of the new OS to a
>> blank hard drive - a capability that Microsoft claimed it had
>> deliberately eliminated from the product.
>

You can on a full retail copy, but not on an upgrade copy.

Upgrade keys do not support a "normal" scenario where you can just format
the drive and install minus a key and then activate.

You have to do that 2nd install first.


"Justin" <None@None.com> wrote in message
news:#wwasudYHHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> That doesn't make sense. Are you referring to installing Vista and not
> supplying a CD-Key? You can fix that within Windows. If that's what MS
> told you then you got a hold of someone giving out wrong information.
>
> In either case you can perform an anytime upgrade.
>
>
> "jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FE52F9BE-3FB1-4998-9E0B-B5DEE3367129@microsoft.com...
>> no, that's within the 30 days...
>> jf
>>
>>
>>
>> "Justin" wrote:
>>
>>> If you wait past the 30 days? That sucks. If you do it before the 30
>>> days
>>> you can activate from within Windows.
>>>
>>>
>>> "jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:AFB242CA-2BD9-4B34-BD20-BD9E555348C4@microsoft.com...
>>> > When I called microsoft about the issue of it wanting to activate a
>>> > month
>>> > after installing, there fix was to load Vista on top of itself and
>>> > then
>>> > put
>>> > in the key code on the box.
>>> > jf
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Gary" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> No there is nothing unique about the disk, it should ask for a
>>> >> qualifying
>>> >> key.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "jimmy fallon" <jimmyfallon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
>>> >> message
>>> >> news:8FEEE3E7-45D1-414D-B86F-3316046D27BC@microsoft.com...
>>> >> > Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows
>>> >> > a
>>> >> > second
>>> >> > time just to accomplish a clean install. I bought the goddamn xp,
>>> >> > so it
>>> >> > should prompt me for the GD disc. NOW, after reinstalling Vista
>>> >> > over
>>> >> > itself
>>> >> > the screen saver freezes on me. Other wise not so bad... a real
>>> >> > slap in
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > face for those of us who just want to get to work.
>>> >> > jf
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>

"Shane Nokes" <Morpheus_Phreak@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uEofpGGcHHA.4312@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> You can on a full retail copy, but not on an upgrade copy.
>
> Upgrade keys do not support a "normal" scenario where you can just format
> the drive and install minus a key and then activate.
>
> You have to do that 2nd install first.

I couldn't get any confirmation from him as to what he actually did. It
sounds like he attempted the "upgrade clean install" which breaks the EULA:

"Yeah but what a pain in the ass it is to have to reinstall windows a second
time just to accomplish a clean install."

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"

>XP RTM is no longer supported.
>
>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>version of that platform.

Not immediately, at not with MS. Usually the last supported SP level
is the SP before the current one, if not older.

Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".

Tax depreciates PCs on a straight-line basis over 3 years. That
implies an expected lifetime of 3 years at least. That in turn means
you will probably have to install at least one SP with MS OSs, and
upgrade the OS every year or so with Ubuntu.

>"Dweebs" <dweebken@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me to
>>get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install SP2
>>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade box
>>that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as I'm
>>concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>>misleading for me.

I agree with you. What if you have:
- XP Gold CD
- the Vista "upgrade" product
- costly/slow modem dial-up
?

It would be nice if Vista Upgrade (or fullpack that supports upgrade
use) came with XP SP2 and installed it first if that is really needed.

I can think of a few reasons why installing Vista over XP Gold could
be risky, given that XP Gold can't "see" over 137G. It may be using a
workaround that is invalidated by Vista when that installs?



>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
Saws are too hard to use.
Be easier to use!
>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 04:16:34 -0700, "Shane Nokes"
>
>>XP RTM is no longer supported.
>>
>>In fact anytime a service pack is released that becomes the "supported"
>>version of that platform.
>
> Not immediately, at not with MS. Usually the last supported SP level
> is the SP before the current one, if not older.
>
> Contrast this with Ubuntu practice, where what you download today is
> listed as "supported until 2008" or at best, "2009".
>
Quite yacking about something you're obviously so clueless about! Typical
MVP ignorance and FUD.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS is the version that has Long Time Support. 5 years in fact.
Ubuntu 6.10 is a bleeding edge release that will be replaced in April with
another LTS release. Ubuntu 6.10, ie. "Edgy" is for those who want the
latest and don't mind putting up with any instabilities in applications
that are in a constant state of development and innovating.

GNU/Linux and the Ubuntu distribution in particular presses ahead with new
innovations all the time. Those who want the real stable release with the
long time support use the LTS version. This would normally be businesses
and enterprises. Those who want to always stay on the bleeding edge of
developments in the Open Source community pick the other versions.

With Ubuntu users have a CHOICE. With Windoze, you get what MickeyMouse
feeds you and charges you based on their very slow release schedule.

All versions of Ubuntu cost the user nothing. The latest versions reflect
the most advanced features of any operating system out there, bar none.

Cheers.


> Tax depreciates PCs on a straight-line basis over 3 years. That
> implies an expected lifetime of 3 years at least. That in turn means
> you will probably have to install at least one SP with MS OSs, and
> upgrade the OS every year or so with Ubuntu.
>
>>"Dweebs" <dweebken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>>>I tried installing Vista over Win XP RTM (no SP1 or SP2). Vista told me
>>>to get lost, as it needed XP with SP2, so I had to download and install
>>>SP2
>>>just to load Vista on a clean install. There's nothing on the ungrade
>>>box that says it neexs SP2 - the upgrade box just says XP, so as far as
>>>I'm concerned this Vista upgrade information on the box was false and
>>>misleading for me.
>
> I agree with you. What if you have:
> - XP Gold CD
> - the Vista "upgrade" product
> - costly/slow modem dial-up
> ?
>
> It would be nice if Vista Upgrade (or fullpack that supports upgrade
> use) came with XP SP2 and installed it first if that is really needed.
>
> I can think of a few reasons why installing Vista over XP Gold could
> be risky, given that XP Gold can't "see" over 137G. It may be using a
> workaround that is invalidated by Vista when that installs?
>
>
>
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Saws are too hard to use.
> Be easier to use!
>>--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=

"No sane person wants Vista, so Microsoft is making sure they have no
choice."
http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html