Before you go snag a copy of Vista from the store shelf and install it, you might want to consider the performance differences between an upgraded version of Vista and a clean installation of Vista. ExtremeTech tests a couple of systems running the two different versions of Vista with media encoding benchmarks, gaming benchmarks, and synthetic benchmarks.
Not that I’m planning on using Vista anytime soon…
But I would advise people to stay away from upgrades though. I’ve tried that a few times in the past with older versions of Windows (including XP) and it’s always been catastrophic.
Assuming Vista is able to detect all the incompatible drivers and apps installed before the upgrade, it will still not remove them. You’ll have tons of useless files littering your disk.
You have to read more carefully – the upgrade method employed by Vista is different to those of older Windows operating systems. You can even perform a complete rollback – that’s what I had to do. At least it worked.
The new method is not described very detailed in the article, but I’m sure that I’ve read about it on OSnews sooner.
In that case, what can possibly affect performance between upgrade and clean install?
Seems like an upgrade finally is a real option to doing a “clean” install.
Altough the process of upgrading took 2 hrs on my pc and finally, crashed… I’ll try with a clean install sometime.
Due to Microsofts EULA, if you upgrade your XP you´re no longer allowed to use it. So if Vista doesn’t work well you can´t go back to XP without buying a new copy. Kind of weird.
Look at the “upgrade” part of the EULA:
http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vist…
I don’t think that’s true. I assume you’re referring to:
“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.”
That’s a fair requirement, though it doesn’t say that you are unable to use Windows XP should you decide to discontinue using the Vista license. The above I believe only applies to an active use of the Vista license.
It also says:
“15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. You may uninstall the software and install it on another device for your use. You may not do so to share this license between devices.”
I don’t see any issue with uninstalling Vista then continuing to use Windows XP.
“That’s a fair requirement,”
Really? Fair? How is it fair that I would no longer be able to use a copy of something I already own?
Really? Fair? How is it fair that I would no longer be able to use a copy of something I already own?
Because they’re giving you the new version at a discount in exchange for you giving up the old version. If you want to use both, you have to buy the full version instead of the upgrade edition. All software with upgrade pricing works like that.
“Because they’re giving you the new version at a discount in exchange for you giving up the old version. If you want to use both, you have to buy the full version instead of the upgrade edition. All software with upgrade pricing works like that.”
No it doesn’t. Its not a tiny piece of shareware its the OS. If Vista is a 100% compatible which its not, or XP offered no features that are critical that are not in in Vista then I would agree.
I can understand that Microsoft do not want the old copy XP sold. Its not like their interest is preserving customers; They are a monopoly.
Whats not reasonable is not allowing an older version around around to allow *slow* migration onto the new platform. Its especially relevant in todays world where software is not always bought in shops, but downloaded. In this instance I think the relevance of not loosing 30% in an online fps is critical. Or moving from a playable framerate to one thats not. In the example using a £300 graphics card £600 in a crossfire configuration it becomes worthless for playing *fear* under Vista after a 40% drop in performance.
“Because they’re giving you the new version at a discount in exchange for you giving up the old version.”
That would be a valid assertion if I had actually returned my XP copy to MS. The “problem”, so to speak, is that I still have an XP copy with a valid license (it doesnt say “you may not install this if you have Vista”) and there is nothing stopping me from installing it on the same machine again or another machine. Or I could give it to my mom.
And of course, just because it is in the EULA it’s not automatically make it legally enforceable or even legal. Recall Oracle’s infamous “you may not pubish negative reviews of this product” paragraph.
“All software with upgrade pricing works like that.”
No it doesn’t. Usually you’re allowed to still use the old version. The reduced upgrade price is an incentive to become a loyal customer or a reward for being one.
Edited 2007-02-06 12:43
No it doesn’t. Usually you’re allowed to still use the old version. The reduced upgrade price is an incentive to become a loyal customer or a reward for being one.
You’re allowed to use either the old version or the new one, but not both. The point is to prevent you from installing your old version on a seperate PC. It’s always been that way.
From the Windows XP license:
9. UPGRADES. To use Software identified as an upgrade, you must first be licensed for the software identified by Microsoft as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no longer use the software that formed the basis for your upgrade eligibility.
“You’re allowed to use either the old version or the new one, but not both. The point is to prevent you from installing your old version on a seperate PC. It’s always been that way.”
Or the same PC.
The word separate is a lie.
“The point is to prevent you from installing your old version on a seperate PC.”
Actually, according to the section you quote I would not be allowed to re-install it on the same PC.
Also, software upgrades != MS upgrades. Not all companies employ the same pointlessly restrictive licensing as MS.
Uhhh.. because you’re using a new version instead. Yes, you paid but a lower price. You pay a reduced price to upgrade to a newer version.
You are correct when you say:
it doesn’t say that you are unable to use Windows XP should you decide to discontinue using the Vista license.
However, it doesn’t say that you are able to either. All is actually says is that once you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from.
If you only abide by the text of the agreement (and I am confident that Microsoft will do just that) you may not go back to your old XP license irrespective of whether you are still using Vista.
If you think about it, there is only one reason MS would include a clause like this, and that is to stop people going back to XP.
//If you think about it, there is only one reason MS would include a clause like this, and that is to stop people going back to XP.//
It seems to me there is no reason at all for anyone to “upgrade” to Vista. It just seems like a pointless way to get rid of some money to me … and risk that your system will no longer work, and lose some functionality, and speed, and rights in the process.
I just cannot for the life of me see why anyone would want to run Vista.
Paying for an upgrade to Vista seems to me to be a bit like paying for this software:
http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/
Edited 2007-02-06 06:45
That is a very funny site, the source code is a good laugh too…
calling home 14 times an hour over 24 hours.
I am going to get a test machine later and stick this on for some fun
//That is a very funny site, the source code is a good laugh too…
calling home 14 times an hour over 24 hours.
I am going to get a test machine later and stick this on for some fun//
You don’t need to test it, it has been cracked already!
http://www.alienos.com/articles/2007/02/02/linux-genuine-advantage-…
“This crack was needed. I have heard that phase II of the Genuine Advantage program is going to create more consumer enhancements for all audio and video streams. Depending on your status, random hiss and frame sync errors are to be inserted into the stream in an effort to emulate mainstream DRM offered in proprietary operating system. As an exciting bonus, a tilt-a-wheel feature is also planned to randomly disable various components to even more accurately emulate the genuine advantage regular customers enjoy.”
Another evil plot foiled!
😀
“if one person reads this and the LGA page and realises the absurdity before buying Vista then this won’t have been a waste of time:-)”
Edited 2007-02-06 11:53
The exclusion of a specific clause stating a restriction doesn’t necessarily imply such a restriction. There’s nothing implied in the text of that document that I can see that says you are not free to reject later on the Vista license, otherwise we’d never be allowed to upgrade again.
Putting that to one side, I’d suspect it’d be rather difficult to prove a breach of agreement whilst maintaining a fair marketplace and competition, even if it’s between products from the same vendor.
The notion that you can purchase an upgrade after which realising that it’s not for you or even doesn’t work, then be restricted from utilising the full license of a previous version is pretty absurd. Clearly you’d be required to not use the new product to continue using the previous.
The license also permits you to transfer it once to another individual. Does that mean you cannot use Windows XP after the transfer of that license? No, that’s equally absurd.
Absurdity has nothing to do with it. Common sense has never been allowed to interfere with MS licenses.
All that matters is what the license says, and the license says you can’t use the software you upgraded from once you upgrade FULL STOP.
It allows no provision for a situation where this becomes void. Anything you upgrade to in the future is irrelevant because it is not mentioned in the EULA, but your previous license for XP is rendered dead.
MS would probably never sue for this, and they would have a pretty hard time proving their case. But that is what it says.
Yeah but it doesn’t restrict use upon releasing the Vista upgrade license. In fact it says nothing about it. It doesn’t imply it either. It clearly says that upon accepting the Vista license you cannot use the previous version, which is fair enough. You are free to later release yourself from the license but with that you loose the Vista upgrade.
The Windows XP license remains IF you don’t use the Vista upgrade license.
No, to the text the emphasise is that you cannot run the two at the same time; if you install Windows Vista, you can’t then run off to install Windows XP on another machine, thus, having the two licences going at the same time; it is to avoid people using an upgrade as a full version.
Regarding “oh, thats not fair” – ok then, when I trade in my car, I want not only the discount, but to take back my car but still receive a discount on the new car; yeah, like thats ever going to happen.
Don’t like it, then purchase an OEM copy or a full version, or better yet, wait a few more years, and get it pre-installed with a new computer!
There… I hate articles that don’t provide any summary conclusion on the first page. Isn’t this technical writing 101?
It seems to me that with an upgrade, it either works, or it doesn’t. It shouldn’t be a question of performance. Possibly disk usage, but they don’t give any data on that in this article.
It seems like your success in upgrading Windows is heavily dependent on how you administered the preexisting system. If you’re a semi-professional tech reviewer, you probably keep programs and documents in their appropriate places. If you’re a moron, which is way more common, all bets are off. There’s no rhyme or reason to anything on these people’s systems, and it should be very easy to break the assumptions made by the upgrade utility.
Now, if I was the Windows type (which I’m not), then I would refuse to buy the upgrade edition. The terms of the EULA stipulate that once the upgrade is performed, you are no longer entitled to use your license for the previous version. I’m not convinced that this is fully legal, since to me it seems like the Windows XP EULA would have had to mention that future upgrades may terminate this license. I’m not sure if this was part of those terms. If not, then this amounts to MS reneging on their previous agreement.
“There… I hate articles that don’t provide any summary conclusion on the first page. Isn’t this technical writing 101?”
An article that has useful content on the first, second and third pages? That’s against “writing for ad-soup websites 101”. (You know, the course with 100 useless tips, then the last one has some value? 😉 )
The big news here is nothing to do with the upgrade, which shows *minimal* difference between Vista clean vs upgrade.
But that XP is faster.
There was a problem reported that *some* games worked with the upgrade up not on a clean install. Or not at all on Vista.
Which, to many people at least, provides approximately zero reasons to buy outright or to upgrage an existing XP install! Bizarre really, unless said user is a complete eye-candy freak or something….dunno really…Vista has me totally confused. Why is it here? What is it doing here?
Why is it here?
To disappoint the children who thought it was clever to spend two years making “more like long-WAIT!” jokes? To save the sanity of everyone else?
> But that XP is faster
I was thinking exactly the same thing…
Biggest WTF right now is that you can’t go into a big name chain store and buy a machine with XP on it. Bloody h*ll. We don’t want Vista on our machines – we want XP! And we don’t want to pay the extra $$$$ for ‘corporate’ machines – which you can get with XP. Damn you Microsoft.
“Biggest WTF right now is that you can’t go into a big name chain store and buy a machine with XP on it. Bloody h*ll. We don’t want Vista on our machines – we want XP!”
Not exactly sure where you are, though I do know that in Los Angeles you can and will be able to for awhile walk into either CompUSA, Best Buy or Circuit City and find machines with XP on them, either Media Center, Home, or Professional. At least they had all kinds of them 2 days ago in all 3 stores.
“Biggest WTF right now is that you can’t go into a big name chain store and buy a machine with XP on it. Bloody h*ll. We don’t want Vista on our machines – we want XP! And we don’t want to pay the extra $$$$ for ‘corporate’ machines – which you can get with XP. Damn you Microsoft.”
Off Topic
=========
Suck-it up. This is not some gaming site. Your not an Average Joe(sic). You know of alternatives. *You* have chosen the Microsoft route. Learn to love you DRM; Trusted computing; WGA.
Get ready to make comments like.
“The hardware is so much faster its not a noticeable impact”
or
“At least I have the choice play Blue-ray”
or
“Microsoft/RIAA/MIAA is only protecting *their* product. If you don’t steal whats the problem”
etc etc.
Buy a machine with Vista now. If you choose to go down that route. Vista is simply too expensive to buy retail, when hardware has got so cheap
I’ve just upgraded from XP to Vista and from a users perspective (mine) is runs at the same speed.
I have to say as well.. the new interface is more intuitive to me.. it’s not about the eye candy.
I see these benchmarks coming out from the wood work, it dont factor many things. I mean there is more to life then friggin benchmarking games, just like the Aero gives no performance loss when in games.
People forget to factor other things like memory, degrade over time which Windows always has.
I dont really understand your Post
your talking about games…one of the main *selling* points of Vista
Nvidia Cards have been reported as being 30% Slower now we are seeing Ati cards being 40% slower.
When a company is selling a card with that kind performance difference its serious money. Graphics cards are expensive.
This has made the overclocking market a joke.
I’m waiting for the inevitable “Linux the Gaming OS!? Article” with Doom3 benchmarks.
//People forget to factor other things like memory, degrade over time which Windows always has.//
Say what?
How exactly does memory degrade over time?
I’ve heard of “registry bitrot”, which I can understand for a flawed design as the Windows registry, but “memory degrade”? What exactly is that?
I mean memory as in what Aero takes and windows degrades over time(should have been separate) . Game benchmarks and 3dmark is not a valid benchmark for this kind of testing.
3dmark is a pretty useless benchmark, how can you get any numbers from it(CPU benchmark) if it shows 1fps all the time on my A64 3700+?
Edited 2007-02-06 11:13