How Much Does a Vista Upgrade Cost? 321
dptalia writes "Microsoft has rolled out its Vista upgrade program, where people can buy a qualifying PC with XP today and upgrade to Vista later for free. This article talks about what free really means. Some companies, such as Dell, charge $45 for converting to Vista Home from XP home. And then comes the question of actually trying to upgrade your computer... Is "free" really worth it?"
a recent "install" experience (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently built my own machine... 2G memory, .5TB (2 SATA
drives), 3.06Ghz dual core... all very cool.
I spent almost 2 weeks getting my XP Professional installed and
working properly (for what reason would an OS not come with PS/2
generic mouse drivers?). The sound was a nightmare to get
running, the video was a joke. Fortunately (I guess), a lot of
the drivers came with the motherboard (as one might expect), but
the installation and configuration was amazingly tedious, and
error prone.
I'm convinced one part of the horrible nature is that even today it seems that EVERY driver, EVERY re-configuration demanded a reboot though in my wildest imagination, I couldn't think of a rationale -- this continuity interruptus makes for a tedious, drawn out, error-sprinkled, bad-taste-in-the-mouth experience.
I finally shook out all of the bugs (oh, yeah, about 100+ XP updates -- the CD was pre-SP1, go figure), got a SCREAMING machine, absolutely delighted with the configuration and performance.
Now, to be on-topic, I can't begin to imagine these upgrades will be problem free, I can't even think they'd be problem-sparse. It's non-trivial work installing from scratch, much less considering layering something as big as Vista over an existing XP. I wouldn't want to do it. I've read enough reviews from people with bollixed machines (granted, they were working with release candidates) -- there will be a LOT of people out there who've committed too much data and personal work (blood, sweat and tears) on their new XP machines -- and they're going to lose data.
It's interesting to note the article recommends upgrading to Vista by doing a clean install. That's not really upgrading XP, that's installing Vista. How many people will not have had their data backed up properly ahead of this? How many will be left with applications that ran on XP that won't run on Vista?
The article is probably right, this is MS' olive branch to vendors who had hoped to roll out the new machines with brand spanking new Vista already installed. It's a PR debacle and nightmare in the making. Fortunately for MS, that would be mostly irrelevant.
(To contrast, on same machine described above, I took the new Mandriva, booted up, installed and got completely running, all sound and video working perfectly -- in less than 2 hours!
Funny, for my life I could not find a satisfactory solution (or even find a google solution) to get the XP dual boot file configured properly to reference the Mandriva... Finally gave up, and let lilo handle it, the configuration was painless and flawless. Go figure.)
What free really means (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's similar to some open source service providers charging for installation and support, even the software itself is free.
This deal is not meant for bargin-hunters, but for people who really need a new machine right now, and the only thing holding them off is the operating system.
Buy your PC now and get the upgrade cheap (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:a recent "install" experience (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:a recent "install" experience (Score:2, Interesting)
I build custom machines for a living and often I'll be installing 3-4 machines at a time. I own the business and I do this on my own. I prioritize well so things go fast.
On a Linux box I can spend more time than a XP box. It isn't because of the lack of things it is because things aren't readily available and I have to search far and wide to get what I want.
There absolutely is no compelling reason to buy Vista. No one needs to buy that program to solve any problem they have. The security features are no guarantee that in 6 months after Vista's release we won't be back to the same ole crap dealing with viruses and adware/spyware/malware. In fact, it has been made abundantly clear that the end user can just as easily install malware on their computer as they could under XP. Ridding the machine of it is going to be exactly the same series of steps and take just as long if not longer. Patch days from MS will remain and they will be just as large as XP.
What you get with Vista is a DRM infected nightmare and a pretty interface that you will pay dearly for in order to run it. You don't mind upgrading your computer video, memory, and hard drive just so you can use the translucent windows and reorganized structure to the programs?
Let's hope that most people understand that the Dell hype of Vista is just that--hype. I wish he'd stop disseminating inaccurate information. But hey, Dell is suffering pretty bad financially and needs to sell more hardware. They have been selling these el-cheapo boxes that won't take advantage of the only feature Vista has to offer (the translucent windows), so Dell gets to sell higher priced boxes again. Those price wars were eating up Dell and their market position. Hell, even some of the el-cheapo enthusiast built boxes were better performers, more standardized, and and more easily upgraded than some most of the mid-range Dells and even some of the high end Dells.
My customers see my custom computers see their long manufacturer warranties and know that Dell is just crap. I never dispute that Dell makes good solid notebooks. But their desktops are atrocious.
The bundled software in Dells are weak and usually trial versions that expire in 90 days. They use el-cheapo parts and their connectors, powersupplies, and mountings to the motherboards are very proprietary. Dell knows this. They planned it. But they also know they will sell many more costly machines now that Vista requires so much more power to operate.
But your experience with an XP Pro install is not common, in fact it is rare. With better prioritization you could get any box up and running in a matter of a couple of hours, including the complete assembly process.
Re:Cue standard slashdot responses: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:a recent "install" experience (Score:3, Interesting)
This is one of the reasons that I get a little skeptical about how so many people like to judge a linux distribution by its installer. A lot of reviews I've read over time of linux distributions have focussed almost entirely on the installer. It's true that most people who use Linux (unlike Windows) will need to install it at some point, and installation is quite important because of that. But surely the entire enduring experience after the installation, including things like system maintenance to keep it running nicely, is at least as important.
I am going to wait till vista comes installed (Score:2, Interesting)