Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jul 2006 21:51 UTC
Windows With Windows Vista nearing its first release candidate in preparation for a final launch early next year, Microsoft is providing more details about possible upgrade paths. Of note: Windows 2000 cannot be upgraded to Vista. While Windows 2000 Professional customers may purchase a cheaper "upgrade" copy of Microsoft next-generation operating system, Windows Vista must be "clean installed", which means users will need to back up their files and data manually and then copy everything into place. Applications will also need to be re-installed.
Order by: Score:
Windows stability rule #1
by WorknMan on Mon 31st Jul 2006 21:57 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

Never install a newer version of Windows on top of an older one. Such magic might work in Linux land, but not here.

Edited 2006-07-31 21:58

Reply Score: 5

RE: Windows stability rule #1
by lord_rob on Mon 31st Jul 2006 22:49 UTC in reply to "Windows stability rule #1"
lord_rob Member since:
2005-08-06

Yep you're so right. Actually I thought it was also impossible to upgrade linux. But it really isn't. Debian GNU/Linux has been upgraded continuously without any (serious) flaw here, for five years !

Microsoft has something to learn from them : database managed installations. Whenever an external program (or, in the case of Windows, also an internal Windows component) is installed, a database tracks every file related to that package. Also library dependancies (in the case of windows, DLLs). It's such a pity that when you uninstall a program which has shared DLLs there is no way to know if you can remove those DLLs safely without compromising any other installed program.

So in the Windows world, if you're the kind of person that installs/uninstalls/upgrades continuously his/her softwares, you end with an unusable system so quickly ... I was used to that, until I found Debian package management system.

Sorry this is a bit too offtopic

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Windows stability rule #1
by yorch on Tue 1st Aug 2006 13:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows stability rule #1"
yorch Member since:
2006-01-28

"Microsoft has something to learn from them : database managed installations"

Sorry, but isn't Windows Installer (.msi files) supposed to be that?

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310598/

You shouldn't worry about ".dll hell" as long as your software vendor provides applications in .msi format (most of the application nowadays)

Reply Score: 2

MightyPenguin Member since:
2005-11-18

Actually in XP at least windows does keep track when multiple programs install/use multiple versions of shared DLLs windows will keeps a backup cache of them. So if the program asks for them again, even if another program has "uninstalled" them then it will still work. I'm not sure how they do this for dynamically/runtime opened DLLs, but at least this works most of the time. This is why you can almost always say "remove all" when XP asks if you want to uninstall the shared DLLs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Windows stability rule #1
by MollyC on Tue 1st Aug 2006 00:26 UTC in reply to "Windows stability rule #1"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Actually, I installed XP Home over Win98 SE on my mom's computer a few years ago with no problem.
But I generally agree that clean installs are better.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Windows stability rule #1
by Alleister on Tue 1st Aug 2006 15:59 UTC in reply to "Windows stability rule #1"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

So far i always upgraded my Windowsinstalls and i had never any trouble with that. The only annoying bit was that one App i used with Win 98 didn't run on 2000.

Actually, if it is impossible to Upgrade my XP installation then i'm not going to use Vista untill i build myself a completly new PC. I hate reinstalls and my installations usually get realy old.

Which Linux distributions can be upgraded without problems? I use Suse but i never dared to upgrade an install due to a *very* bad experience i had made with upgrading Mepis.
Is it safe to do something like an Suse 10 to 10.1 upgrade?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Windows stability rule #1
by vimh on Tue 1st Aug 2006 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows stability rule #1"
vimh Member since:
2006-02-04

"Which Linux distributions can be upgraded without problems?"

I have tried to do an upgrade with SUSE with 9.1 to 9.3 and it was a disaster. I breifly attempted to do an upgrade from 9.3 to 10.0 but backed out because I was concerned I was going to just destroy the whole thing. All data was mirrored on other machines though.

I don't know about 10 to 10.1. When I moved from 10 to 10.1 I did a clean install.

I have successfully upgraded Ubuntu on my laptop starting with 5.04 upgrading to the version 6 beta and then on to the final 6.06 release. No problems at all.

The last time I tried a Windows upgrade was 3.1 to 95. That was also a disaster. I have always done clean installs since.

One benefit of clean installs is it helps to keep me in the habbit of making incremental backups on CD/DVD of all my important data.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Windows stability rule #1
by joelito_pr on Tue 1st Aug 2006 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Windows stability rule #1"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

Never had any problems using Anaconda to upgrade my Red Had/Fedora installations back a few years ago. But I haven't used fedora in over a year so I'm not sure if it still works.

Debian is another distro famous for it's ease of upgrade(easier than Fedora)

Ubuntu can be upgraded but I prefer to install it clean(keep my /home folder in a diferent partition so my settings stay the same)

Reply Score: 1

Vista not for christmas
by sbenitezb on Mon 31st Jul 2006 22:07 UTC
sbenitezb
Member since:
2005-07-22

I wonder how many non technical people are going to buy Vista and upgrade. I think that Vista not being released for Christmas, when people buy PCs, is going to be a major problem for Microsoft in order to get Vista on newer computers. Even if they are still selling XP.

Reply Score: 5

W2K upgrade
by transputer_guy on Mon 31st Jul 2006 22:25 UTC
transputer_guy
Member since:
2005-07-08

Has any pricing been released anywhere for W2K upgrade?

Reply Score: 1

RE: W2K upgrade
by n4cer on Mon 31st Jul 2006 22:42 UTC in reply to "W2K upgrade"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Has any pricing been released anywhere for W2K upgrade?

It's too early for pricing details, however, upgrade pricing will depend on the Vista SKU you want to purchase.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: W2K upgrade
by butters on Tue 1st Aug 2006 00:04 UTC in reply to "RE: W2K upgrade"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

What's the SKU for the lightweight headless version that runs Windows applications and renders them to my local X11 environment? Can it run as a Xen domU?

I'm joking, but this is honestly the only version of Windows I'd have any interest in buying, and I'd still feel a little guilty about it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: W2K upgrade
by n4cer on Tue 1st Aug 2006 00:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: W2K upgrade"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

What's the SKU for the lightweight headless version that runs Windows applications and renders them to my local X11 environment? Can it run as a Xen domU?

That would be Windows "Longhorn" Server Core, though you'll need RDP instead of X. You can install an X Server, but I'm pretty sure it'll only remote *n*x apps. The Remote Applications feature of RDP "Longhorn" allows remote applications to run directly on the client desktop rather than in their own window as in previous versions.

Edited 2006-08-01 00:55

Reply Score: 1

Oh dear
by MikeGA on Mon 31st Jul 2006 22:57 UTC
MikeGA
Member since:
2005-07-22

From the article:

"If the edition of Windows Vista that you choose to install will result in a loss of functionality over your current edition of Windows, a clean install must be done or the installation must be completed to a new partition on your PC," Microsoft says.

um, so Microsoft is hoping people are going to go out and buy an "upgrade" that has less functionality that what it replaces!?!

Imagine what my bank manager would say if I went to him with a business plan like thatů

Reply Score: 5

RE: Oh dear
by n4cer on Mon 31st Jul 2006 23:10 UTC in reply to "Oh dear"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

um, so Microsoft is hoping people are going to go out and buy an "upgrade" that has less functionality that what it replaces!?!

It's just an available option. No different than someone going from Windows 2000 to XP Home. It's an end-user choice.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Oh dear
by butters on Mon 31st Jul 2006 23:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh dear"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Right, but Windows 2000 Pro and XP Home were released about one year apart. In the software industry, the high-end version of a product in year N usually remains superior to the low-end version in year N+1.

Windows Vista will be released more than 7 years after 2000 Pro. There is really no excuse for having a low-end version in year N+7 that lacks functionality that was offered in the high-end version in year N. Not in the software industry.

I could argue that the needs of your average home user are in many ways more advanced today than the needs of the power user were 7 years ago.

This is part of the reason why MS can maintain more than 75% profit margins on Windows clients.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Oh dear
by shiny on Tue 1st Aug 2006 00:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh dear"
shiny Member since:
2005-08-09

You're not right. If user didn't need high-end server or database capabilities 7 years ago, he doesn't need them now either. Different types of Windows aims at different kinds of consumers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Oh dear
by n4cer on Tue 1st Aug 2006 00:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh dear"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows Vista will be released more than 7 years after 2000 Pro. There is really no excuse for having a low-end version in year N+7 that lacks functionality that was offered in the high-end version in year N. Not in the software industry.

You can't be serious. The product lines are aligned in the same way they have always been.

Home Users:
Win9x -> XP Home -> Vista Home Basic/Home Premium/Ultimate

Business Users:
WinNT Workstation -> 2000 Pro -> XP Pro -> Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate

Media/Tablet PC:
XP MCE -> Vista Home Premium/Ultimate
XP TPCE -> Vista Business -> Vista Ultimate

In all cases you get more functionality than you had previously. It is your choice if you choose not to acquire a lesser SKU, as has always been the case. Microsoft is not recommending that you do so.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Oh dear
by n4cer on Tue 1st Aug 2006 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Oh dear"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

In all cases you get more functionality than you had previously. It is your choice if you choose not to acquire a lesser SKU, as has always been the case. Microsoft is not recommending that you do so.

Should be:
In all cases you get more functionality than you had previously. It is your choice if you choose not to upgrade, and instead, acquire a lesser SKU, as has always been the case. Microsoft is not recommending that you do so.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Oh dear
by cmost on Tue 1st Aug 2006 15:11 UTC in reply to "Oh dear"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

That's what happened with XP Home Edition. Even Windows 95 could join an NT Domain! XP Home can't. I can't understand why there can't just be one, low-cost; basic version of Windows, with add-on packs to provide any other functionality. For example, the tablet features, Media Center features, beefed up business features, and even Aero Glass, could all be added later if the user wished. This would make much more sense than creating numerous different versions. This will confuse end-users to no end.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh dear
by mabhatter on Tue 1st Aug 2006 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh dear"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

What you described is basically what MS is doing. My sneaking suspicion is that OEMS will only pre-install the lowest version they can get away with. Now that MS has activation in place and working, they will allow OEMS to supply the CD (with upgrades to all versions!) again and Microsoft will collect the "upgrade" funds directly. This is good and bad. Good because small businesses likely to buy a PC off the shelf at Office Max will be able to put the PC to whatever level they need with a quick transaction... Don't know how many SMBs buy the cheap Dells with XP home only to need Pro later without a cheap way of getting it. The downside is that Dell will most likely ship all but the "official" business/gaming PC with the lowest version they can get away with. Lots of people will be getting "crippled" PCs and paying $$$$ to MS directly... interesting situation for MS to be competing with OEMS to sell Upgrades now.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Oh dear
by DrillSgt on Tue 1st Aug 2006 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Oh dear"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"That's what happened with XP Home Edition. Even Windows 95 could join an NT Domain! XP Home can't."

No, Windows 95, 98, or ME could not join a domain. You put the machine in the workgroup with the same name as the domain, but they did not join a domain. To join a domain you needed Windows NT Workstation. You could with 95/98/ME, and can with XP Home still utilize resources, such as printers and file shares from a domain by providing proper credentials in the right format.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Oh dear
by cmost on Wed 2nd Aug 2006 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Oh dear"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"No, Windows 95, 98, or ME could not join a domain. You put the machine in the workgroup with the same name as the domain, but they did not join a domain. To join a domain you needed Windows NT Workstation. You could with 95/98/ME, and can with XP Home still utilize resources, such as printers and file shares from a domain by providing proper credentials in the right format."

Yes, I concede, I worded my comment incorrectly and I apologize for my haste. Technically, Win9x couldn't "join" the domain in the way WinNT/2K/XP Pro can, however, they could utilize domain resources seamlessly, with a single signon. With XP Home, one has to enter the domain username and password each time a resource is accessed. Yes, I know there are a myriad of tricks to get around this, but why should one resort to that kind of nonesense? Microsoft shouldn't have stripped the corporate networking features out of Home in the first place. For that matter, there shouldn't have been an XP Home to begin with. Create one version of XP and charge everyone the average cost of XP Home + XP pro / 2.

Reply Score: 1

v excellent
by postmodern on Tue 1st Aug 2006 04:31 UTC
v RE: excellent
by netpython on Tue 1st Aug 2006 07:24 UTC in reply to "excellent"
Who cares?
by justinbest on Tue 1st Aug 2006 04:33 UTC
justinbest
Member since:
2006-06-29

I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only Microsoft customer who couldn't care less about which versions of Windows are upgradeable. As has already been pointed out, an in-place upgrade of an older Windows version is generally A Really Bad Idea.

So long as there's a pricing structure that takes into account my existing investment, and upgrade path for my Active Directory Domain structure, I'm a happy camper. I'd much rather see Microsoft put all that effort into something worthwhile (like easier server-based installation methods; RIS is awful quirky at times)

Edited 2006-08-01 04:34

Reply Score: 1

Hardware Problem Mainly
by hraq on Tue 1st Aug 2006 06:10 UTC
hraq
Member since:
2005-07-06

People who own windows 2000 licenses will face even tougher problem than Microsoft no upgrade policy, namely their hardware. Most of hardware will fail to install windows vista due the nature of vista's core which is built upon windows server 2003 that has a different compatability than 2000/XP line; only very good motherboards and hardware components will be possible to accept window server 2003/Windows Vista line of OSs.

Only 1/2 of my systems supported vista (2 computers out of 4) and the one that accepted vista accepted windows server 2003 installation as well.

So hardware uninstallability is the issue rather than Microsoft Decsion not to support upgrade.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hardware Problem Mainly
by PlatformAgnostic on Tue 1st Aug 2006 07:20 UTC in reply to "Hardware Problem Mainly"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I don't get it... the 2k3 kernel is essentially the same one as 2000 and XP... They fixed some bugs, but the driver model is exactly the same. The only major thing that changed with Vista was the display driver system.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Hardware Problem Mainly
by kaiwai on Tue 1st Aug 2006 07:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardware Problem Mainly"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows NT is alot pickier about hardware faults; systems that may have had Windows 9x installed without a hitch, but BSOD'ed all the time will find that Windows Vista won't install.

Same situation occured with Windows XP; machines that were dodgy, Windows XP simply refused to install of them.

Better to have a picky operating system that'll refuse to install on crap rather than an operating system that installs but crashes all the time.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hardware Problem Mainly
by hraq on Tue 1st Aug 2006 07:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Hardware Problem Mainly"
hraq Member since:
2005-07-06

"the 2k3 kernel is essentially the same one as 2000 and XP"

No, It is not the same; One example, the networking stack was moved to the kernel and alot of other tweaks are also there to refuse alot of poorly designed and written hardware/software. Attention to processing is greater to services (daemons) than to applications.

ATI chipsets (RS300 and the like) do not function at all with W00/XP drivers, and if you force it, will make your system constantly rebooting. And many more hardware are not installing with windows server 2003 while could be installed with W00/XP, all discovered by system administrators and me on my own hardware.

I have tested all alpha and beta versions of vista ( around 10) and vista started to change from M5/M6 Milestone, where the kernel/drivers structure changed from XP to WS2003 and thus failed to install on 2 of the testing machines I have.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Hardware Problem Mainly
by n4cer on Tue 1st Aug 2006 10:08 UTC in reply to "Hardware Problem Mainly"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

People who own windows 2000 licenses will face even tougher problem than Microsoft no upgrade policy, namely their hardware. Most of hardware will fail to install windows vista due the nature of vista's core which is built upon windows server 2003 that has a different compatability than 2000/XP line; only very good motherboards and hardware components will be possible to accept window server 2003/Windows Vista line of OSs.

Vista will run as long as your motherboard supports ACPI. Supported minimum requirements are:
800 Mhz CPU
512 MB RAM
SVGA video card

In many cases, the Windows 2k/XP driver model is still supported (Display, Audio, Networking, etc.), however, some of these drivers may no longer be available via Windows Update for various reasons, and you won't always get the best experience with legacy drivers (e.g., no Aero Glass/less hardware acceleration, limited support of new APIs).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Hardware Problem Mainly
by brewmastre on Tue 1st Aug 2006 13:47 UTC in reply to "Hardware Problem Mainly"
brewmastre Member since:
2006-08-01

I dont know about that. Windows is completely unreliable and differs greatly from one version to the next. I have a crappy old Dell Dim XPS T650 with a PIII 650 that will run Win98, Vista, Linux, and BeOS, but wont run Windows Me, NT, W2k, XP, or Server 2k3. You just never know what you will get with each new release when it come to MS.

Reply Score: 0

Ummm
by KeithL.Dick on Tue 1st Aug 2006 09:09 UTC
KeithL.Dick
Member since:
2006-04-23

It's a path I wish not to follow...

Reply Score: 1

Missing Upgrade Path
by shadow_x99 on Tue 1st Aug 2006 14:09 UTC
shadow_x99
Member since:
2006-05-12

There is a missing upgrade (Possibly 2 of them!) to the Microsoft Vista Upgrade Matrix...

Linux Path
MacOS X Path

My 2 cents

Reply Score: 2

RE: Missing Upgrade Path
by letsrock on Tue 1st Aug 2006 15:33 UTC in reply to "Missing Upgrade Path"
letsrock Member since:
2005-09-08

Hear! Hear!

Reply Score: 1

RE: Missing Upgrade Path
by Alleister on Tue 1st Aug 2006 21:53 UTC in reply to "Missing Upgrade Path"
Alleister Member since:
2006-05-29

Wow, i can install OS X on my standard PC? No? Then how is this an upgrade Path.

Does my Windows software run natively on Linux (wine doesn't work for any of them, i tryed)? No? Then how is that an upgrade Path.

I don't get my car winter-ready by buying a car which has winter tires. I put winter tires on the car i own.

Reply Score: 1

The fact of the matter...
by tomcat on Tue 1st Aug 2006 15:12 UTC
tomcat
Member since:
2006-01-06

... is that upgrades on the same hardware comprise less than 1% of Microsoft's total sales. The vast majority of installs will be OEM clean installs.

Reply Score: 2

bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

How does this matter? IT shops will simply make a new image they install on all corporate PCs using plain vanilla hardware that has been tested to work. Home users will only upgrade when they buy a new PC. OSNews readers will use something else anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE:
by Miichael on Wed 2nd Aug 2006 11:34 UTC
Miichael
Member since:
2005-10-14

no surprise on this
since they stated a week or so back its an image install that extracts from dvd right on to hardrive.
not big deal for me
windows is on differnt partition then most my stuff..

somthing like that

Reply Score: 1