Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Install Vista Upgrade Without Preexisting XP

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the loophole dept.

Windows 196

Johannes K. writes "It has previously been claimed that to install Windows Vista from an upgrade DVD requires having Windows XP installed on your computer. DailyTech reports on a workaround: no previous version of Windows is required at all." Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?

cancel ×

196 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Real question? (0, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842720)

Who gives a fuck about Vista?

Re:Real question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842776)

Plenty of people, who will be using it at home and at work for several years. Just because you don't doesn't mean it is irrelevant.

Re:Real question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842856)

You're right. The fact that the industry and press response to Windows Vista has been underwhelming, and that many potential users have expressed disappointment with Windows Vista, and many potential users have expressed the opinion that they will not be upgrading to Windows Vista any time soon and the low initial uptake on Windows Vista, is what makes Windows Vista irrelevant.

Of course we'll all be on that 'ol upgrade treadmill anyway thanks to the OEM agreements that means we'll be getting Windows Vista Disappointment Edition on our new machines anyway, so it's not like Microsoft will loose out on the deal any time soon. That's the beauty of cash-cows and monopolies: there's no need to try too hard!

Re:Real question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843390)

You're right. The fact that the industry and press response to Windows Vista has been overwhelming, and that many potential users have been impressed with Windows Vista, and many potential users have expressed the opinion that they will be upgrading to Windows Vista soon and the high initial uptake on Windows Vista, is what makes Windows Vista relevant.

Re:Real question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843734)

Yeah?

Where, exactly? I mean, other than the fantasy world you've created in your head?

Re:Real question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844512)

In this thing I call "real life", something you may not be accustomed to.

Re:Real question? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843812)

Most reviewers don't see it as any great leap forward, and everyone is waiting for the damn thing to be hacked. Microsoft's reputation is so bad on OS security that nobody seems interested in anything else.

Re:Real question? (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843452)

...you actually buy computers with a name on the front and with stuff already on the hard drive?

Wow...I thought you folks didn't exist anymore...at least not on teh slash....

doesn't invalidate old XP key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842748)

in fact, XP not on drive or referenced in vista install in anyway, pretty big loophole.

What a solution. (1, Insightful)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842754)

So instead of installing XP, and then Vista, you install Vista twice?

This is only a benefit for people who don't have a legitimate claim to using a Vista upgrade license seeing as an XP->Vista install would take significantly less time.

Re:What a solution. (3, Insightful)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842884)

I don't know where you get the notion that

an XP->Vista install would take significantly less time
. I've installed both numerous times, and the Vista install is faster on the wall clock, but it's also less intrusive. It asks most of the questions up front, meaning I can go about other tasks until the install is complete.

Then, if XP keys are /really/ invalidated, there's the possibility of a user deciding to revert. They shouldn't be stuck with Vista if they decide that it sucks so much that they can't stand it. They should be able to reinstall XP with their previous key. That said, I've seen no evidence that XP keys are invalidated, just a bunch of people making that wild claim on blogs and then linking to a story which only talks about what the EULA says.

Re:What a solution. (2, Insightful)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843114)

I admittedly haven't installed Vista since the Beta 2, but at the time its installer was absurdly slow. I'm honestly impressed if the Vista install is now as quick or quicker than an XP install.

And everyone needs to shut up about XP keys being invalidated. Currently, it's a rumor, and a bunch of anti-MS idiots are running around spouting it like its gospel because they want to believe it.

Re:What a solution. (3, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843196)

I'm honestly impressed if the Vista install is now as quick or quicker than an XP install.

Choose your words carefully. It almost sounds like you're implying that an XP install is "quick".

Re:What a solution. (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843222)

I'll have to be honest--all of my installations (for both OSs) have been in VMWare. It's possible that the unusual environment is the cause for my observations.

Nonetheless, the up-front questions make it worth it, to me, even if it turned out to be a little slower in the real world. Multitasking an XP install is pretty hard because of the context switch ("Ok, now I have to type in the key, ok, now they're asking me for the time zone--oh, it's reading from the disc some more, I can go back to something more important before it asks if I want the firewall enabled.")

Re:What a solution. (4, Interesting)

robosmurf (33876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843262)

True, it is a rumour that the XP keys get invalidated.

However, the EULA does explicitly say:

13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible
for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software
you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

which does imply that you are not allowed to go back to XP.

And don't say that doesn't matter if the keys don't get invalidated. If you are going to
completely ignore the EULA, why are you not just pirating it in the first place?

Re:What a solution. (3, Insightful)

geobeck (924637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844634)

After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.

I've seen that on other software, and wouldn't be surprised if XP, 2000, and even Me (ugh) had that phrase. The message is that you cannot keep using your old software while simultaneously using the new package. For example, if you have ten licenses of AutoCAD 2006, and you buy ten upgrade licenses of AutoCAD 2007, you can't have twenty computers running AutoCAD--or even eleven because of the new hire who you didn't know about when you purchased your upgrade (but just try to tell that to your boss, who seemed like he was having teeth pulled when you convinced him to upgrade from R13 to 2002).

As for downgrade prevention, MS has had that built in at least since 2000. The CD will simply refuse to perform the downgrade, and you'll have to reinstall from scratch.

So everyone be quiet about the serial invalidation rumor. You're giving MS ideas for their next software release!

Re:What a solution. (4, Informative)

delinear (991444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844690)

And don't say that doesn't matter if the keys don't get invalidated. If you are going to completely ignore the EULA, why are you not just pirating it in the first place?

Because ignoring a EULA which hasn't been proven to have any force in law and probably isn't worth the bits it occupies on the disk is a lot different to downloading the entire software without paying for it and installing it without any kind of license? Most licenses have to stand up to a test of reasonableness at the very least before they can have any kind of binding effect - if I have a legitimate copy of XP and install a Vista upgrade, don't like it and go back to XP I'd not have a hard time arguing in court that it was unreasonable for the EULA to prevent me doing this. To say that I have to either accept a blatantly unreasonable EULA or download pirated software and these are my only options is just wrong, the third option is to contest the EULA (and the fourth is to use *nix of course... or is that the first?)

Re:What a solution. (2, Informative)

Ruprecht the Monkeyb (680597) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843568)

Much faster. Surprisingly so. I don't know what team has been writing the installers for MS lately, but they've been doing a damn good job. The Office 2007, SQL 2005 and now the Vista installs have been much improved.

I did a re-install on Vista the other night (not because I had to, but because I wanted to test differences between 64 and 32 bit). I slicked the partition, and started the re-install. I looked over at the screen a few minutes later, and it had progressed so far I wondered for a second if I'd forgotten to wipe the partition and it wasn't really re-copying all the files. So far, it's been under a half-hour from first boot to working system.

Note, however, that this is installing from DVD. I don't know if the performance/process is different installing off of CD.

People unclear on the concept (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844008)

Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?
It seems someone objects to MS creating a technological solution to a licensing problem. If you "upgrade"... that means you aren't going to use that XP license anymore. It has been "upgraded" to a Vista license.

If you want the full version, buy the full version. It's not even more expensive: get the "System Builder Edition", which is essentially the OEM version. It's the SAME price as the upgrade.

Which is really a moot point, since the majority of Slashdot's zealots are going to pirate Vista, if they can. They may love Lunix, but they use hypocritically use Windows. Not that I blame them: Lunix has always been chasing Microsoft's tail lights, and that won't be changing anytime soon.

Re:What a solution. (5, Insightful)

B'Trey (111263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843028)

This is only a benefit for people who don't have a legitimate claim to using a Vista upgrade license seeing as an XP->Vista install would take significantly less time.

Not necessarily. If an XP->Vista install does invalidate your XP key (an as yet unproven supposition), then what happens if your hard drive crashes and you need to reinstall Vista? Will it allow you to use the old XP key as an upgrade? Or what if you your install of XP is old and crufty and you can no longer find your install CD? This allows you to do a pristine install. It also means that once you upgrade, you don't need to keep the XP CD and key handy in case you have to reinstall.

Can you imagine if all of MS's OS's had this requirement?

"What are you doing?"

"Reinstalling. My hard drive crashed. I have to install Windows 3.1 from floppy, then upgrade to Windows 95, then upgrade that to Windows 2000, then upgrade that to XP and finally upgrade to Vista. I'll be finished in a couple of days."

Re:What a solution. (0, Troll)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843172)

You're arguing on whatifs using a rumor as your basis for argument. Until it's proven, it sounds like a bunch of bull to me.

WHAT IF MICROSOFT REQUIRES US TO SIGN OVER OUR FIRST BORN IN THE EULA? WHAT IF WE IMPLICITLY AGREE TO ALLOW BALMER TO DINNER AT HIS CHOOSING BY CLICKING THROUGH?

There are all sorts of horrible hypotheticals out there, but until any are proven, you can't really make a case against Microsoft using one.

Re:What a solution. (2, Funny)

SnowZero (92219) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843288)

I wouldn't mind having Balmer over for dinner, as long as I first got a chance to firmly attach all my chairs to the floor. I could show him my collection of Linux machines.

Re:What a solution. (3, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843876)

I wouldn't mind having Balmer over for dinner, as long as I first got a chance to firmly attach all my chairs to the floor. I could show him my collection of Linux machines.

"I'm going to fucking kill your roast beef!!!"

Re:What a solution. (1)

B'Trey (111263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843798)

No, you made a blanket statement that said this was only of use to people trying to cheat and do an upgrade without a legitimate XP license. I pointed out several situations where it would be useful for legitimate upgraders. Only one of them - the XP key being invalidated - was a "what if" that's rumor based and I specifically pointed that out in my post.

Re:What a solution. (1)

BarkLouder (916884) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843614)

"Reinstalling. My hard drive crashed. I have to install Windows 3.1 from floppy, then upgrade to Windows 95, then upgrade that to Windows 2000, then upgrade that to XP and finally upgrade to Vista. I'll be finished in a couple of days."

It's called recapitulation ;)

Re:What a solution. (1)

bronzey214 (997574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844332)

And after all that, it wouldn't work. Oh, the irony.

Re:What a solution. (3, Funny)

LiquidFiend (1050386) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844510)

"Reinstalling. My hard drive crashed. I have to install Windows 3.1 from floppy, then upgrade to Windows 95, then upgrade that to Windows 2000, then upgrade that to XP and finally upgrade to Vista. I'll be finished in a couple of days."
Still be quicker than Gentoo :P

Re:What a solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843276)

It also benefits people who would like to save $100+.

It's also a benefit (2, Interesting)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843294)

for people with those damned OEM restore partitions who've had a harddrive crash. Or if you just never got install media.

Re:What a solution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843816)

I wonder if anyone has tried to install Vista on a ReactOS installation, just for kicks and giggles. :p

Much worse (5, Funny)

Mr. Samuel (950418) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842762)

Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?

It's actually much worse. I tried this trick and went out grocery shopping. When I returned, all the locks on my house had been changed.

Re:Much worse (4, Funny)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843270)

Are^H^H^HWere you married?

Re:Much worse (0, Offtopic)

poticlin (1034042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843370)

What the... How was this post mod Informative?
Does people here really thinks the locks were changed??

Use a dodgy XP key (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842790)

You bought Vista right, so does it matter that you used to be a pirate?

If you do this, your already illicit key will be invalidated, but there is no consequence.

Re:Use a dodgy XP key (4, Interesting)

Turn-X Alphonse (789240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842842)

Unless MS note your fake XP CD-key is linked with Vista and cut you both off.

Re:Use a dodgy XP key (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843300)

Does the XP install have to be activated before installing Vista? If it doesn't, MVF4D-W774K-MC4VM-QY6XY-R38TB should work. That's the System Locked Preinstallation [wikipedia.org] key used by many OEMs, so they can't exactly disable it.

Re:Use a dodgy XP key (4, Insightful)

robosmurf (33876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843348)

You bought Vista right, so does it matter that you used to be a pirate?

Yes, it does. The upgrade version is significantly cheaper that the full retail version solely because it is an upgrade. Thus, you still don't legally have a valid agreement for the use of Vista.

Re:Use a dodgy XP key (3, Informative)

RxScram (948658) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844542)

If you RTFA, you would see that this loophole actually lets you install the upgrade version with no previous version at all. Essentially, it's a mistake on Microsoft's part that allows the upgrade version to consider the "30 day trial" version of Vista as the previously installed version.

Is is painful, since you have to install vista twice (once for the trial, then once for the upgrade from the trial), but it does give you a steep discount from the "full" version, without requiring any old version at all.

How long it is until MS fixes this loophole is anybodies guess, but as of right now, it works.

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842830)

if it never touches your copy of xp. how could it invalidate anything.

use some logic already, damm.

Re:duh (1)

orangeyoda (958347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843236)

but it could send your xp key to microsoft, who add it to a database and the next time you use XP it phones home and volia your key is no longer valid. I refused to upgrade from win2k to xp. there's still nothing new in Vista that can't be done in win2k.

Re:duh (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843548)

there's still nothing new in Vista that can't be done in win2k.
Show me a UAC and DirectX 10 alternative for Win2k please.

Re:duh (1)

orangeyoda (958347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844630)

This is the XP version of UAC , win2k is much the same but is slightly different to activate
Create a shortcut for an exe file
right click and select properties
click advanced
check the run with different credentials
close all the windows
run the shortcut
I run as base user at home, when I need to install I just create a shortcut and activate RunAs.
DirectX 10 is a marketing gimic to force people to upgrade, Directx 9.0c works fine for World of Warcraft, from what friends have told me, DirectX 10 is unstable while playing WoW so that's a good number of people that won't be upgrading.

Re:duh (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843564)

what part of "it never touches your copy of xp" did you fail to understand?

"Vista upgade cupon $60" (4, Interesting)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842844)

Intentional or not? I wonder if this will end up increasing the value of Vista upgrade coupons on eBay, or if this will be patched before more are mailed out.

Ryan Fenton

Wow (2, Interesting)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842852)

Isn't this kind of thing one of the most basic ways to try to cheat the system? How could something this obvious slip through?

Re:Wow (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843970)

You've been assimilated by the Borg. You're assuming that all customers are thieves and must be prevented from cheating by the vendor's software.

For many software vendors, everyone get the same installation media, regardless of whether it's a full version, upgrade, or special license.

Oh great so now I need a DVD player? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17842902)

This thing only comes on DVD and not CD? Argh

Re:Oh great so now I need a DVD player? (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843308)

Shouldn't a DVD-ROM be the least of your Vista required upgrade worries?

Re:Oh great so now I need a DVD player? (3, Informative)

IHawkMike (564552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843318)

Try this [newegg.com] . Lite-on makes great drives and this DVD burner is only $28.99. You can save a whopping $5 if you don't need to burn.

Re:Oh great so now I need a DVD player? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843684)

The tray on my Liteon DVD burner does not come out as normal, and usually scratches the disks deep. This is very odd since my other Liteon drive works perfectly.

No evidence for XP key invalidation (4, Informative)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842972)

I've seen many blogs that proclaim that XP keys are invalidated after upgrading with Vista. They always link to a discussion of the EULA, which claims that the license is invalidated.

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Microsoft will invalidate XP keys for their WGA check (because they'll certainly still work to install the media) if you upgrade that installation of XP to Vista? Has anyone actually tried it?

Certainly, Microsoft could probably link the two installations, if you do an actual upgrade. If they can do that, what do you think they'll do to 'upgrade' copies that were installed using the Vista->Vista trick? Maybe they'll wait awhile, then decide that these copies are 'pirate' installations, and lock you out of upgrades (possibly drop you down to degraded mode) until you pay a fee to convert your installation to a Full install.

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (3, Insightful)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843126)

Is there any evidence whatsoever that Microsoft will invalidate XP keys for their WGA check (because they'll certainly still work to install the media) if you upgrade that installation of XP to Vista? Has anyone actually tried it?
Nope. And the clause itself is nothing new, as said even on the link provided in the summary - XP had the exact same one. But hey, it sounds shocking and just the thing Evil(tm) Micro$oft would do, so it must be true.

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (4, Insightful)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843368)

XP had the exact same one

The only problem is that when you upgraded to XP, MS had no way of "deactivating" your old copy of Win98, since you weren't required to register 98 to use it. Now they have the ability to flat out deny your registration of XP the next time you install. It's probably still FUD, but who knows.

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (1)

phayes (202222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843408)

+1 insightful!

well, *i* know. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844478)

installed vista upgrade over valid XP. attempted to install XP using same key on another computer - denied activation (the expected behavior, else activation would just be more useless than it already is). deinstalled vista, then attempted to install XP using the same key again - activation successful.

ta-da.

Re:well, *i* know. (2, Interesting)

toleraen (831634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844910)

When you say "deinstall"...do you mean you formatted and just installed XP, or is there a roll-back feature built into Vista that lets you drop back? More specifically, would there be data sent to MS saying you're no longer going to use Vista? If you just formated, I assume that your ability to restinall XP was due to the way MS registers your computer. They denied your install on another box because the hardware you had registered to that key differed from what you were installing on.

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (2, Interesting)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844618)

The only problem is that when you upgraded to XP, MS had no way of "deactivating" your old copy of Win98, since you weren't required to register 98 to use it. Now they have the ability to flat out deny your registration of XP the next time you install. It's probably still FUD, but who knows.
See, my fears with this are what I'm usually skeptical about with 'upgrade' installs of Windows operating systems.

They sell you the upgrade to go from the old and busted to the new hotness. You can only upgrade the old and busted, but you can't install the new hotness from scratch.

So, assume they invalidate your key, and your OS needs to be reinstalled (work with me here, I've heard that people occasionally need to do a reinstall of their OS). Can you still install your XP, and then upgrade back to Vista?? These upgrade versions seem to always ignore the possibility of needing to do a from-scratch OS install.

As much as these upgrade-only versions seem to appeal to people who want to save a little money, you end up without the ability to restore your own damned machine. If they're invalidating the license from the original install, when it breaks, you get to keep all the parts, but you're SOL.

Cheers

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (1)

semifamous (231316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843152)

It's not likely that they'll lock these out since this workaround actually came from Microsoft in the first place.

Though I imagine it's also not impossible for them to do something to discourage people from this...

Re:No evidence for XP key invalidation (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843296)

Most of their 'lockouts' are temporary, anyway. Call them, explain the problem, and it goes away. I guess they might not force the issue of the money, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't make it slightly harder on people who use this trick. After all, it effectively cuts the price of Vista for people who are willing to install it twice in a row.

Easier way (4, Interesting)

Agelmar (205181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17842982)

If you bought Vista Ultimate, and have a 64-bit CPU, there's an even easier way... install Vista Ultimate 64-bit version.

The 64-bit DVD booted fine and let me do a clean install from the upgrade CD. I typed in my ugprade CD key, hit next, and it prompted me to accept the license. (The 32-bit CD would not let me do a clean install, I did try that out. It said I had to start the process from within windows.)

Re:Easier way (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844480)

I once had an Office 2000 upgrade CD. When it asked me to point to a previous installation I could just select the CD drive with the install CD in. Worked every time!

Upgrade Process (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843030)

Wouldn't the simpler way of ensuring a legitimate upgrade be to take your old XP key alongside the Vista upgrade key, then check them both with WGA? Considering that there's still no real Vista activation crack, it's probably even secure.

Balmer (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843046)

Chairs are gana be flying when Balmer finds out how easy this is.

Instructions from the article... (5, Informative)

james_bray (188143) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843074)

God I hate when submitters force you to read an entire article, so heres the important bit:

1. Boot with the Windows Vista Upgrade DVD.
2. Click "Install Now."
3. Do not enter a Product Key When prompted.
4. When prompted, select the Vista product edition that you do have.
6. Install Vista normally.
7. Once the install is complete, restart the DVD-based Setup from within Windows Vista. Perform an in-place upgrade. 8. Enter your Product Key when prompted.

Please Explain. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843158)

God I hate when submitters force you to read an entire article....

Explain this "reading an article" to us here on Slashdot.

Or... just install GNU/Linux (-1, Offtopic)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843164)

Or, you could skip the whole Windows XP/Vista issue, and install your favorite GNU/Linux distro. Seriously. I'm using CentOS [centos.org] , and it work very well.

That's the plan (2, Informative)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843282)

After years of bouncing back and forth, I've finally decided to move everything over to Linux and ext2 or reiserfs partitions, even though I do Windows development professionally. With a Core 2 Duo processor, I can run XP in a VM fast enough for all my needs. KDE4 should be superior to Vista in every way once it's released this year. I'll probably even throw the KDE team some money.

Re:Or... just install GNU/Linux (1, Offtopic)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843376)

Sometimes linux just isn't an option. Seriously. As much as people here would like it to be the ultimate solution to everything, it isn't there yet, and likely never will be.

Sure, it'll do 90% of what I need to do. But it won't connect with the office due to propriatary software at the office, so its 100% useless for me.

Dual-booting is an extra headache I don't need and don't want to put up with, since outside of work I rarely do much besides some websurfing, and firefox and opera handle that task just fine regardless of OS.

Re:Or... just install GNU/Linux (1)

greviant (1038530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843840)

If you have a modern machine, and aren't doing remote graphic design, a VM would probably handle all of your needs for work. When 2.6.20 goes live you'll even be able to play with KVM in the mainline kernel.

Re:Or... just install GNU/Linux (2, Interesting)

fotbr (855184) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844312)

And what advantage does that give me? I'd still have to set up XP or (soon) Vista in a VM.

Its extra overhead so I can say I run linux. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about being able to say I run linux, or have a mac, or whatever the trendy OS of the week is. The computer is a tool, nothing more. Sometimes, as much as it pains the linux crowd to hear it, Windows IS the better solution.

Re:Or... just install GNU/Linux (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844514)

I've been using win2k with Qemu for a while now on my FC5 system. It works very well, at almost native speed with the Qemu kernel module. Running most Windows apps, including MS Office and Developer Studio, is not a problem -- only those that require odd hardware will require serious configuration. Just don't try running Vista, which is slow even at native speed.

Re:Instructions from the article... (update) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843360)

You might want to create a drive image; so you can do an easy restore. Don't forget to delete windows.old; it contains pieces of the old install (XP cough).

Imposible to invalidate you xp key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843108)

Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?
Well if you use this workaround it is a clean install so it's impossible for it to invalidate your xp key since xp is not installed.

I love Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843128)

Reminds me of the Widows 95/98 universal key: 11111111111111111111

That was nice.

a step (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843140)

Well, it sounds like this is (half) a step in the right direction. I wonder how long it will be before someone finds a way to convert the "trial" install to a full version without needing to rerun the entire install process. It seems like there must be a way to run oobe.exe or something to validate/convert your trial version.

Re:a step (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844384)

Exactly, a bit compare of two installs on the same machine should result in a Registry Hack to enable the OS. However, with WGA such an exploit would quickly be discovered and the offending OS disabled by Microsoft Remotely.

EULA is still unclear (3, Informative)

robosmurf (33876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843178)

I've still not managed to get a clear answer to whether the EULA for Vista means you can never re-install it.

The problem is that the upgrade version invalidates the agreement for XP, which means you are not allowed to re-install XP, which is needed to re-install Vista...

I suppose this work-around does allow you to re-install Vista, but they may well remove this in the future.

I submitted a support request to Microsoft about this a few days ago, but they haven't responded.

Re:EULA is still unclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843444)

you can reinstall winxp. you will have to contact microsoft for the numbers. The reason for the deactivation is to make sure you do not install an operating system that is being used to validate an upgrade version on another computer.

Re:EULA is still unclear (1)

robosmurf (33876) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844006)

But that isn't what the EULA says. The EULA states that the Vista agreement invalidates the previous agreement. Thus, you don't have a legal right to install the previous version.

Re:EULA is still unclear (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844990)

the Vista agreement invalidates the previous agreement. Thus, you don't have a legal right to install the previous version.


      Or you could look at it another way - if the original agreement is invalid, then there are no limitations anymore. So you're free to do what you want with it. You could always draw up a new agreement, send it to microsoft, and include the words "not replying to this new licensing agreement constitutes your acceptance of these new terms and conditions...". But then again, they never gave YOU a chance to modify the EULA to fit your needs...

Obligatory fanboy remark (3, Funny)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843184)

Oh, my... Will the spyware require me to have a valid Fedora Core 5 license to install my new FC6? Or will I have to go out a buy a whole new laptop that can handle all of that awesome power?

Heh heh - Just kiddin'.

Re:Obligatory fanboy remark (1)

sjwaste (780063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843528)

No, you'll just have to go buy all new hardware that's actually supported.

Sorry, my frustration is running high with the awful component out support for my Nvidia 6200 under Linux (MythDora). The output looks very blue and I can't figure out how to configure it properly, it looks fine on a monitor :)

Torrent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843206)

Anyone got a link to the torrent?

Is there a live CD yet? I don't want to uninstall Debian just to try this.

Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggestions (5, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843208)

Five years, a couple of hundred million dollars and they still do installs like it's 1989?

Dear Redmond;

A few tips on how modern install media should work:

1) Ask no questions except to put in the install key upfront. Run everything else with basic assumptions. Run the config AFTER installation.

2) Allow for the easy and well documented input of a param file to create an install script on the fly.

3) Do a hardware seek FIRST instead of preloading every old SCSI driver and whatnot. Look, you guys do a bad job of supporting that stuff anyway, so why bother?

4) Provide a tool to EASILY and automatically move the install CD to a thumb drive and install from there. We are building machines that have neither floppy drives nor CD drives either.

5) For god's sake provide some kind of reasonably good toolset to recover a drive from an alternate boot medium. Enough is enough already that your OS 'can't run' from Boot Floppies and whatnot to run critical tools like fixboot and fixmbr. Just write some damn tools that DO work. Or write a console that runs in toto from some source other than the install CD which many of us NEVER GET.

6) Learn to work with LILO already. Would it actually kill you?

7) Look at a calendar. This is 2007, start acting like there's been some improvement in installation tools in the last 20 years.

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (1)

webrunner (108849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843352)

1) Ask no questions except to put in the install key upfront. Run everything else with basic assumptions. Run the config AFTER installation.
Actually, I'd find this to be far more archaic and worse. A 2007 install should work the way you want it right out of the box. Everything should be changeable afterwards, but an install shouldn't bother installing internet components on a non-internet connected machine (for example).

It's not the 90s any more, only installing with 'basic assumptions' is no longer acceptable.

By the way, does Vista dump if you change your motherboard like XP does because of the IDE drivers only being changeable during an install?

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (2, Interesting)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843536)

does Vista dump if you change your motherboard like XP does because of the IDE drivers only being changeable during an install?
That has never been the case, you can simply disable your current drivers, swap mobo and it will work just fine. It will install the correct drivers on first boot. I've done it a few times in a row and it never fails. Well I suppose it would fail if you put in an unsupported chipset, in which case just install the drivers before the swap.

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (1)

mashade (912744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844864)

Ok, but the problem usually comes up when a motherboard fails, instead of just upgrading to better hardware. I know the solution in this case is to do an in-place install, but it's a shame that even safe mode doesn't fall back to generic IDE drivers should the situation come back.

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (3, Informative)

markild (862998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843778)

By the way, does Vista dump if you change your motherboard like XP does because of the IDE drivers only being changeable during an install?
Earlier today I read on a Norwegian tech site that vista is counting points for different hardware changes, and then, when it reaches 25, you will be booted and need to reactivate. This will be possible on the full retail version, but not the OEM version. (Dunno about upgrade)

Translation may be a bit off, didn't understand a few of the details

  • CD-ROM/CD-RW/DVD-ROM (1 point)
  • IDE adapter (3 point)
  • Physical operating system-hard disk - new hard disk S/N (11 points)
  • Graphics card (1 point)
  • SCSI adapter (2 points)
  • Sound card (2 points)
  • NIC - new MAC address (2 points)
  • Processor - CPU (3 points)
  • RAM (0->512MB, 512MB->1GB, 2GB->4GB, etc) (1 point)
  • BIOS (bios ID) (not bios upgrade) (9 points)
For those of you interested (or Norwegian), the blog article is here [msdn.com]

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (1)

markild (862998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843896)

And I now see that I misread your question..

The point is still valid though

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843856)

Yeah but it's irrelevant. I don't want to babysit the installation so I don't forget to specify the timezone on installation step 132-b and all of the other silly interruptions randomly disbursed through the process. On the other hand the sometimes LONG LONG CHORE of specifying every nit like some Linux distros want is just insipid. don't ask me to choose the order of the disk paritions. I don't really care about a great deal of it. And to be fair, we should be able to run any number of complex post-install config scripts easily in order to tweak everything the way we need. In fact, all of that post install material should run from a second storage medium, a thumb drive during the first post installation boot, unattended.

So in terms of installation, it really needs to be as direct as possible. Then, when it's done and it's completed all of its Microsoftish things; products key, main drivers, disk format (if required, don't make me wait around to respond), wiping out the old gorp and such, then popup config stuff to your heart's content.

Re:Still asking questions? Ok here are MY suggesti (2, Insightful)

Nebu (566313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843844)

Five years, a couple of hundred million dollars and they still do installs like it's 1989?

Dear Redmond;

A few tips on how modern install media should work:

1) Ask no questions except to put in the install key upfront. Run everything else with basic assumptions. Run the config AFTER installation.

So you advocate the install media making its own decisions about how to repartition and reformat my harddrive? Sounds like a bad idea to me...

The real question is... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844582)

Do you still have to hit F6 to install drivers, or can you load drivers from the screen that tells you it didn't find any storage devices?

Alternative way to install from upgrade disc (5, Informative)

HxBro (98275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843384)

What you need is a copy of legitcontrolcheck.dll from any validated and activated copy of XP on a partition anywhere on your machine, then:

1.) create \windows\system32\ on any partition you want (even extended partitions)
2.) copy a validated 'legitcontrolcheck.dll file into the directory.
3.) you might need ntdetect.com and ntldr in the root, (try without)

(I've not tested this)

WV_SP1 (2, Funny)

Sfing_ter (99478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843518)

This WILL be fixed with an install of Windows Vista - Service Pack 1 - Warm and Crunchy Edition. Freedom is irrelevant. Self-determination is irrelevant. You must comply. ~Collective
Why do you resist? We only wish to raise quality of life for all species. ~Locutus :)

On a good note, this means that you will be able to re-install a year later when the system gets bogged down, or have they moved the "Detect and Repair" to the operating system...hmmmmm

Will this cause Bill to run away from more interviews...

Slashdot FUD (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17843744)

Anyone know whether this workaround moots the finding by LXer that during upgrade Microsoft invalidates your original XP CD-key?

How about, "invalid question since Vista doesn't do that?". Please stop trying to be the new digg and spreading misinformation.

Pointless to do this to save money. (1, Insightful)

brywalker (738506) | more than 7 years ago | (#17843940)

It's great from an "I don't want to install XP to install Vista on a reinstall" standpoint. However, to do it just to save money doesn't work. The cost for Vista Ultimate Upgrade, for example, is $249. The cost for Vista Ultimate OEM is $199. The OEM works the same as retail, no installing twice and $50 cheaper. Am I missing something here? Using either on a system to get out of buying retail breaks the ULA anyway. Might as well save $50 while you are at it.

Re:Pointless to do this to save money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844902)

OEM does not work the same as retail in one important area: licensing. OEM licenses are tied to the original motherboard in Vista, while the retail copies can be transfered to other machines (aka motherboards).

I'll only upgrade if it's slower or uglier (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844086)

With all this hype about Windows Vista, let me tell you what Windows 2000 can still do for you.

* It can copy files very slowly from one partition to another
* It can play all non-existent multi-head games, such as Blizzard's "Stop Pestering Us" and Id Software's "We Tried Once And Nobody Noticed"
* It has single monitor DVD playback
* It is optimized for 1024x768 desktops or lower.

In conclusion, unless Vista has extremely slow file copy or can't play video, I don't see why I should upgrade. For example, I'm planning on getting a WD Raptor, what is Microsoft doing to make sure my I/O is still bottlenecked?

Microsoft confirms this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17844178)

...in a special press conference they held today. The whole conference video can be seen online here [microsoft.com] . (Note to Windows Vista users: turn off your microphone and speakers at the time 2:35 into the video where the spokesperson says "...this vulnerability can be used to execute dangerous commands, such as: "DELETE C:\*.* /S /Q /F" by playing special wave file...").

I wonder what the source looks like... (3, Funny)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17844594)

I can just see it now: ... (somewhere in the vista source)

# upgrade check module

if 1=1 then #only for testing! remove in production! -boss
                        #heh heh, can you imagine if this made it into the gold master? -dilbert
                        #we don't have to imagine...*merged to gold master* - catbert ... (do upgrade)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>