Print 126 comment(s) - last by labgeek.. on Feb 1 at 12:59 PM

Microsoft adjusts its policy for user with Vista upgrade CDs

Microsoft is changing a long-standing tradition when it comes to upgrading from a previous version of Windows to Windows Vista. When using an upgrade CD, popping in a previous version disc during setup will no longer satisfy the people in Redmond.

For example, when performing a clean install of Windows XP Professional using an upgrade CD, users would run through the normal setup routine until prompted to insert a previous version of Windows. A user could pop in a Windows 98 or Windows 2000 CD for upgrade compliance and then the setup routine would move along as usual.

Microsoft has cut out this process for Windows Vista and forces users who buy an upgrade CD to actually have a valid install of Windows XP Home or Professional on their machines before upgrading.

For most users, this wouldn't be a problem. They more than likely have an existing copy of Windows XP installed and would have no problems upgrading to Windows Vista with an upgrade CD.

But for do-it-yourselfers who buy a Vista upgrade CD and think that they can easily perform a clean install whenever they feel free are going to run into the road block. In this case, the road block means that users wanting to perform a clean install with a Vista upgrade CD will have to:

1) Install a genuine copy of Windows XP Home/Professional
2) Activate Windows XP through Microsoft
3) Upgrade to Windows Vista from within Windows XP

So if you plan on saving money by using a Vista upgrade CD instead of purchasing a full copy, be aware that you’re have a few extra steps involved before booting to the Vista desktop for the first time. If you don’t want to deal with the hassle, you’re going to have to pony up for a full copy of Vista.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Last Straw
By Bull Dog on 1/28/2007 5:08:24 AM , Rating: 3
I was seriously thinking about getting Vista Ultimate (Upgrade) but this does it. I'm sticking with my 32bit XP for now maybe I'll check out 64bit XP sometime when I want to go for 4GB of ram.

RE: Last Straw
By xphile on 1/28/2007 5:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
Im not sure you have all of your facts straight there. 32bit Win XP already supports 4GB of system ram, that's its maximim. So you wouldnt need to upgrade to 64bit to have 4GB.

RE: Last Straw
By JazzMang on 1/28/2007 6:07:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, in a default config, XP can only address up to 3.25GB of RAM.

RE: Last Straw
By TheBeagle on 1/28/2007 11:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Question? How does one get the full benefit of 4GB of RAM in WinXP? You used the phrase "default config." Does that imply that there are alternative configs that allow for the full 4GB to be utilized? If so, how do you accomplish that feat?

RE: Last Straw
By jak3676 on 1/29/2007 11:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not 100% here, but I'll take a stab at it.

You're working with 2 different limitations. XP 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory. This includes more than just your physical RAM - virtual memory counts against that too. There's some tweaks out there to eliminate your virtual memory (do a search you'll find it), but by default virtual memory is installed, thus reducing the amount of physical RAM that is addressable.

RE: Last Straw
By oTAL on 1/30/2007 1:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Tweaks?? You just go to the control panel and deactivate it... no fuss whatsoever...
Press Win+Break; Advanced; Performance Settings; Advanced. Then choose how much you want...

RE: Last Straw
By Bull Dog on 1/28/2007 4:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
It does in theory. But, even if you can get windows to recognize all 4GB of ram, a single program in Windows XP 32bit will only be able to address a maximum of 2GB of ram. Now granted if you where to open another memory intensive program, it would be able to address the other 2GB of ram.

What I'm trying to say here is that WinXP 32bit doesn't flawless support 4GB of ram. However a 64bit OS will.

RE: Last Straw
By xphile on 1/30/2007 1:43:06 AM , Rating: 2
Hey that's really interesting and absolutely makes your point. I do get a full 4GB showing on my XP system but a bit of playing pounding Photoshop and TMPeg Encoder at once proves you are spot on. I cant get either one to show its using more than around 1.82ish GB of ram when I look at them in Process Explorer. Damn interesting fact and thanks for pointing it out. I guess I dont run an intensive enough workload to ever truely use more than 2gb on one app but Im sure some would. Thanks for your response!

RE: Last Straw
By thebrown13 on 1/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Last Straw
By cgrecu77 on 1/28/2007 1:46:31 PM , Rating: 3
this makes no sense, a more appropriate comparison would be one upgrading his honda civic every 2-3 years when a new version is available ... even though his "old" civic is working perfectly and the new civic only has two or three extra buttons ... :)

RE: Last Straw
By SunAngel on 1/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Last Straw
By mino on 1/29/2007 4:14:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, a friend o mine just recently sold his 18yrs old car (after >1.5mil km) and I can tell, the wheels were not falling off.
You know, some people realize that any machine needs continous care.

Some do not, obviously.

RE: Last Straw
By mezman on 1/29/2007 5:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Way to be progressive. Do you drive a hybrid and live in a tiny apartment?

RE: Last Straw
By bob661 on 1/28/2007 1:47:57 PM , Rating: 3
I'll be getting Vista Ultimate but only after the first service pack. So I have another year before I upgrade.

RE: Last Straw
By Griswold on 1/29/2007 11:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
Good plan, but some MS people have recently been quoted about the first SP to be released this year.

RE: Last Straw
By SunAngel on 1/28/07, Rating: 0
"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki