Vista Upgrade Matrix 94
Tyler Too writes "With six different versions of Vista due once it ships, figuring out an upgrade path can be confusing. Microsoft has tried to clear things up with a 4x6 matrix laying out your options. 'In short, users of XP Home can do an upgrade install to any of the four Vista versions. However, XP Pro users can only perform upgrade installs to Business or Ultimate.' And if you're not running a 32-bit version Windows XP, there's no upgrade path for you at all."
Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA: "Note that the requirement for clean installs does not mean that the user is required to purchase a full version of the operating system. XP Pro, XP Pro x64 and Windows 2000 users will still be able to purchase the "upgrade edition" of any version of Vista. They just won't be able to upgrade with their existing files and settings in place."
Of course, personally I would reccomend doing a clean install no matter what version of Windows you currently have, so for me this is a moot point.
P.S. I thought timothy was assigned to Backslash articles! Why is he posting new news (twice today and we've had no backslashes!)? Hopefully he'll be able to summarize the interesting commentary that will no doubt ensue in an upcoming Backslash.
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2)
Well, they've got to make up some of their profit shortfall from the Euro fine...
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:3, Informative)
If your programs don't require anything outside of their program directory, they'll run just fine from windows.old. So even if you choose to do something strange like Pro -> Home, you could always copy things back and run
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2)
True, BUT how many 3rd-party Windows programs do this? And I thought it was 'poor form' for a program to write ANY data to the Program Files folder or subfolders once installed? That's what Documents and Settings is for. So, only programs who violate this 'rule' will function properly after a new clean OS install without some tinkering.
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2, Interesting)
it does seem backwards that someone who paid more for XP pro has to lose all their files while XP home users do not.
Perhaps because a Pro user would know what "backup" means? Home users are at the low end of the food chain, you don't expect anything of them. A Pro user knows that an upgrade is a bad thing and will upgrade and reinstall clean.
I've never seen an "Upgrade" of a Windows system go "cleanly". The only way to be sure is to install from scratch, or go Linux ;-)
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2)
Not so.
Keep in mind that the word "Professional" can have a certain connotation to it. XP "Professional" will be used by doctors, lawyers, secretaries, accountants, etc. These people are "Professionals", and will want a "Professional" OS. But if I saw any of them holding a Wind
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:1)
doctors, lawyers, secretaries, accountants, etc.
Now, let's just forget doctors and lawyers for a second. Secretaries and accountants live in worlds where IT is managed for them and live in a Windows Domain, which is why one uses WinXP Pro. It's the biggest difference between Pro & Home. They have no business upgrading their works PCs in the first place.
Doctors and lawyers, may or may not live on a Windows Domain. If they do, then IT is managed for them and they have nu business upgrading.
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2)
You are correct, the "Pro" part shouldn't be interpreted in that manner. The problem, though, is that it is, much as I hate it. A "Professional" buys a laptop for PERSONAL use, and what do they get? Pro. There are numerous small workgroup-style offices of accountants, doctors, lawyers, etc, all with secretaries, who don't use domains
Re:Some slight FUD in the summary... (Score:2)
Many people incorrectly assume that Pro is "better" than home. There are if I remember correctly three differences. Encrypted file system, the ability to host a remote desktop session, and the ability to join a windows domain controller.
I sell PCs to consumers, and I get people almost daily who want pro because it's "better". I ask them what they're using their PC for, explain what they get with Pro over Home, then tell them the pricing difference. Most people stick with Home unless a sch
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Matrix, eh? (Score:2)
No, when you're ready you won't hav...err...yes, you'll dodge BSODs.
Re:Matrix, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the truth?
There is no new file system.
déjà vu (Score:5, Funny)
[Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neo: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
Trinity: What did you see?
Cypher: What happened?
Neo: I had this operating system, and then another that looked just like it.
Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same OS?
Neo: It might have been. I'm not sure.
Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
Neo: What is it?
Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the Matrix. It happens when they change something.
Neo: What did they change?
Trinity: More OS versions.
Re:déjà vu (Score:5, Funny)
Re:déjà vu (Score:2)
Re:Matrix, eh? (Score:2)
Unless (Score:3)
Re:Unless (Score:1)
That will still leave you missing costly<<<<<<, er essential features in the OMB Ponies edition.
I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:4, Interesting)
I have since decided it was a mistake
I was sOOOOoo looking forward to escaping this bastardized ostracized (did I mention I also owned a ME laptop at onew point) dark stepchild OS of microsofts by upping it to vista...
now apparently, I can't even do that
Re:I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:2, Funny)
If they can't keep their files and settings, in what sense is it an upgrade? Price?
Re:I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:1)
Re:I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:2)
Re:I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:2)
Linux makes up for it, because while you have to wade through lines and lines of obscure config files and things, if you're Linus Torvalds you can possibly g
Re:I am accursed of god (or microsoft) (Score:1)
What??? (Score:2)
Tom
Re:What??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What??? (Score:3, Funny)
Sure. Try:
emerge PureEvil
Re:What??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What??? (Score:2)
And I'm posting from Gentoo
Re:What??? (Score:2)
Re:What??? (Score:2)
1) emerge --unmerge portage
2)
3) Man I cannot believe you fell for that.
Upgrade Matrix Is Flawed (Score:5, Funny)
More Money for us! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More Money for us! (Score:2)
Re:More Money for us! (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA after the chart. You can still pay the upgrade price for a "downgraded" version of Vista. You just won't get the option to upgrade in-place, and will be forced to make a clean install.
No great loss, if you ask me. (Which you didn't, but this is Slashdot.) In my experience, clean installs just work better, and the time you spend post-install is a sunk cost. You're either re-installing and transferring things to the clean install, or fixing what got broke by the in-place upgrade. Just choose the option that's better for your blood pressure.
Re:More Money for us! (Score:2)
Then my several years old debian unstable installation should be unusable by now: a desktop moderately loaded with packages downloads 100 mb upgrades weekly (and packages are decompressed so i must have surely replaced more than 10Gb of stuff). Sure i got problems of configuration, sometimes. But no stability issues. If I reinstalled from scratch today, all I'd gain is a couple less warnings on boot, maybe.
However, in principle and especially on MS stuff parent is 100% rig
Re:More Money for us! (Score:2)
Re:More Money for us! (Score:2)
Usually, though, it's the latter.
Can't find my version (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Can't find my version (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can't find my version (Score:2)
Thank you for contacting Microsoft. (Score:2)
Re:Can't find my version (Score:1)
Re:Can't find my version (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can't find my version (Score:1)
Huh (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Huh (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:2)
Smash my Vista? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Smash my Vista? (Score:2, Funny)
Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
I see that they I can buy any upgrade copy and do a clean install (and if I upgraded I would go this route regardless), but has MS published anywhere what the differences between the different 'products' (and I use the term loosely), are?
With XP Home/Pro there were obvious descriptions of what parts were missing/added (depending on your point of view).
I haven't seen that (or don't remember seeing that), for the various flavours of Vista yet.
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/ed
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_edi
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:2)
Thanks for the link, its very informative and exactly what I've been looking for.
... but, will the average consumer know to search on Paul Thurott's website?
Your right I suppose, I must not have looked too hard
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:1)
I think the "average consumer" will only have two versions to choose from: (1) Vista Home Basic (like XP Home) and (2) Vista Home Premium (like XP Media Center Edition).
"Average" home office users will choose Vista Business, or it will be preinstalled on "business" PCs. Vista Enterprise is only available by volume licensing, so average users won't see it. Vista Ultimate isn't for "average" users and I don't expect to see it prei
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:2)
Re:Okay ... but what's the difference? (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Too bad stupid M$ can't upgrade like LINUX!!! (Score:2)
Most accessible upgrade (Score:1)
Re:Most accessible upgrade (Score:1)
The other Vista versions are all missing one or the other, and so you can only do an 'in-place' upgrade where this doesn't strip features that you might be using.
Why upgrades? (Score:2)
Re:Why upgrades? (Score:2)
I don't even *try* to keep my settings. (Score:2)
Of course the only things I keep on Windows are games... all the important stuff is on UNIX and Mac OS X, both of which maintain preferences in regular files.
Only 32-bit, eh? (Score:1)
Heh... (Score:3, Funny)
No problem! (Score:2)
Re:No problem! (Score:1)
Re:No problem! (Score:2)
Re:No problem! (Score:1)
Thanks (Score:5, Funny)
not a technical reason (Score:4, Informative)
XP MC is XP Pro, with some features such as domain join turned off, and with a a pre-loader for the large screen and some visual changes, and then the MSC sofware added on. If you go and install MSE the first that that is installed is a regular version of XP Pro. If you have software that installs on pro but not home it will install on MCE, if the turned off features are not needed.
So for all purposes MCE is XP pro with marketing for the home.
However in the table MCE is in-place upgradable to home premium and ultimate and XP Pro is upgradeable to business and ultimate.
So based on all above there is no reason XP Pro could not be in-place upgraded in Home Premium and MCE to business, the only reason would be that users would loose capabilties that thier previous versions had if they went that route.
HD space. (Score:5, Interesting)
I ran the check tool from microsoft, and the machine passed all test except for the HD test.
It seems it requires all required space to be already _free_ on the machine (so that increases the requirement with the size of your current installation), and on the primary partition.
I don't feel too confused (Score:1)
It just doesn't seem that confusing (sorry if that makes the article less exciting). Here:
Vista w/out Media Center w/ Media Center
Home Versions: Home Basic Home Premium w/out Tablet PC
Pro Versions: Business Ultimate
Re:I don't feel too confused (Score:1)
DRM prevents 64 bit upgrade (Score:2)
Vista 64 requires all drivers to be signed in order to load, no matter how much privilege you have or even if you own the computer. Microsoft says that this is to prevent rootkits, but that is total BS: a rootkit can get around this stuff in many ways. The real reason is DRM, the "Secure Audio Path".
By preventing anonymous people from writing stable kernel drivers, they're attempting to lock out DRM cracks. The easiest way to break Windows Me
Side notes for details (Score:2)
I implied that rootkit developers would still be able to make rootkits, but fake audio drivers couldn't be made. This sounds contradictory, since fake audio drivers can be made the same way as a rootkit. However, it's not technically infeasible, it's socially infeasible.
A rootkit is typically very secretive. It is rather uncommon for the run-of-the-mill trojan to have a kernel rootkit. Almost all trojans remain in user mode. Rootkits are a tool of experts, not scr
Sorry, missing word (Score:2)
should be:
"Since that's not going to happen any time soon"
Sorry...
Melissa