| #5. Posted at 10:16 AM on Feb 6th 2007 | Edit Reply |
|
droopy1592 |
an extra hour of install time vs 80-140 bucks more expensive.... I think I'll take the extra hour of install time and save my money.
 |
| Edit Reply |
|
echo_seven |
I have a semi-related question.
I personally wouldn't mind too much if, to save 100 bucks I just bought an upgrade disc instead of a full disc, and installed XP first then upgraded to Vista afterwards. However, I was told that once you upgraded, your original XP key would be de-authorized. If I take that literally it sounds like, if I were to need to re-install Vista again, I would get stuck by being unable to install XP because my key has been de-authorized. Obviously this can't possibly be the case, but I haven't heard anything about Microsoft's provisions for this. Does anyone know anything about this? |
| Edit Reply |
|
Usacomp2k3 |
Techreport, I'm disappointed that you are encouraging people to go against the TOS. I expect better.
|
#8, Because IP nazis say it is :)
:
Ardrid
(#11)
«
#27, Fibonacci disappointment.
:
wierdo
(#31)
«
#31, Factorial disappointment.
:
bthylafh
(#45)
«
#45, Exponential disappointment.
:
wierdo
(#54)
«
| Edit Reply |
|
kvndoom |
I have a feeling that if MS patched in a "kill-switch" for those improperly upgraded copies, they'd wind up identifying a bunch of false positives and nuking systems that were upgraded legitimately. I'd put money on that. Down the road, when they have worked the bugs out of a system that will choke people who used this method, it'll get rolled out silently.
If they just sold the software for what it's really worth, people wouldn't be so crazy about finding ways to pay less / nothing at all. Sure some would, as it's their nature, but more people would buy something they found to be reasonably priced. |
| Edit Reply |
|
Fighterpilot |
37# Obviously better than you have......you'd probably do better with the anti Vista bleating on You Tube,there's lots of 15 year olds their who will listen to it...
|
| Edit Reply |
|
Fighterpilot |
17# With Vista the only difference I'll see is a fancy new GUI. Along with the annoying pop ups I get for each program I activate
Sorry Duke,but the Superfetch feature Vista uses is a cool and noticeable improvement over XP and its application/memory management system. Search is also greatly enhanced as is OS stability and overall system security. The whole"its just a fancy GUI upgrade" is FUD. |
| Edit Reply |
|
Illissius |
I don't see why you'd want to use this loophole rather than just pirate the OS outright, given that you're breaking the law in either case, but paying money in the latter. Or is that not possible yet?
|
| Edit Reply |
|
Fighterpilot |
37# Like many others here I enabled the "superfetch" routine in XP in 2005(USAComp even wrote a registry script for it which was passed around at TR.)
It is in no way comparable to the Vista superfetcher system. I don't think that anyone's been able to benchmark anything on Vista to be faster then XP You sure didnt look far for Vista V XP benchmarks..... Given the close scores in many of the benchmarks its obvious that improvements to application drivers that will come now Vista has been released and the benchmarks will begin to reflect that. http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/page5.html From a user point of view,Vista feels faster on the desktop in all areas. |
| Edit Reply |
|
R2P2 |
By the time they're shipping installation disks with SP1 built in, I bet the loophole won't exist. They're going to fix it, but not quickly, so for now they're saying it's not significant.
|
| Edit Reply |
|
Vrock |
I'm can't believe MS is stating that they think only a small number of people will violate the EULA. If they really think this, why product activation? Why WGA? Why impose the silly upgrade restriction at all?
|
| Edit Reply |
|
nstuff |
Seriously though, who doesn't have a copy of 2000/XP laying around or a store-bought computer with 2000 or XP pre-installed?
|
| Edit Reply |
|
SpotTheCat |
Is it against their license agreement to do the workaround to avoid installing XP first on a clean install? Is there a menu to authenticate your XP key?
Why not just require you authenticate your XP CD key along with your vista one? |
| Edit Reply |
|
alex666 |
I agree with a number of posters here, specifically, that I wouldn't put it past MS to somehow hose a system installed this way, or somehow complicate an installation and authentication. I think I'll just spend the extra $70 and get the full retail version (I'll wait a few months for all the early adopters to complete the final round of beta testing) and not worry about MS thwarting an install down the road. Because I know I will clean install Vista many times.
|
| Edit Reply |
|
anand |
Alot of people using this upgrade method could very well be legitimately entitled to the upgrade version. If you already own a copy of XP and are building a new computer, for example. If you go with Microsoft's way, you have to install XP first, then upgrade it to Vista. You then end up with all sorts of XP-only cruft on your computer taking up space.
Or you can ignore the XP part and do a Vista over Vista upgrade installation. It may not be exactly the way Microsoft envisioned but I think it's as legitimate of an installation as doing the XP -> Vista way. In both cases, I have an XP license that I am upgrading. |
| Edit Reply |
|
just brew it! |
Even if they don't "fix" it anytime soon, this is something which could easily be checked for by an updated WGA tool. Surely there are telltale bits of wreckage from the upgraded OS left lying around on the hard drive and/or in the registry that WGA could scan for...
|
| Edit Reply |
|
toxent |
If this loophole still exists when i (eventually) decide to get vista I may well use it.
|