The problem is, when using the VISTA upgrade,you have to forfiete yor XP license.
You did not have to forfiete your 9X license when upgreding to XP. This is the difference.
MS never said that you couldn't do a clean install -- the comments stating otherwise were misinterpretations of what MS posted (which was understandably confusing). In fact, it's been stated for months that you may be required to do a clean install, depending on what OS version you're upgrading from. The only thing we learned is that a "clean" install still requires you to have a fully working installation of an old OS. So now, we always have to go through the installation procedure for an old OS, only to have the Vista installation immediately wipe it out and start over, just for the sake of verifying upgrade eligibility.
This is what most of the complaints are about -- why should I have to completely install XP or 2000, just to have Vista immediately delete it? Worse, since 2000 has no activation, installing the entire OS doesn't give Vista any more information than inserting the disk during the installation would have -- as far as I understand it, nothing is preventing someone from installing an illegal copy of 2000 and then upgrading to Vista, so I fail to see how this ridiculous upgrade procedure accomplishes anything other than wasting everyone's time.
Of course, if you have that copy of XP running on two machings, simply upgrading to Vista on one isn't going to make XP stop working on the other.
It used to be that you could use the upgrade version and thus, get a discounted version of the new OS, and it did not matter if the current OS was a valid copy or not. You could rip off someone else Win 98/NT/2000 and put a brand new legally purchased copy of XP in on top of it.
Obviously Microsoft wants to put a stop to that practice.
If you do not have a valid copy of an OS, then you SHOULD have to pay for the full install if you want it.
If you have a valid copy of 2000 or XP, then activate it, and upgrade. Whats the big deal?\
I am not a big M$ booster, but I do accept the fact that M$ is a business, and they are making and distribuing this product for the purpose of turning a profit. Bill Gates may have a charity, Microsoft is not its name.
I also accept that it is not profitable on for a software manufacture to make everything 100% backwards compatible.
Return to Computer Games & Software
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 562 guests