Submitted by Microsoft will not close a loophole that offers consumers a cheaper way to upgrade to Windows Vista. Users can install the upgrade version of the new operating system as a fresh installation, even if they do not currently own a licensed copy of Windows XP. The procedure is time consuming, but allows users to save about 35 per cent of the purchase price for the regular Windows Vista.
Can you legally do this? If not, why not just pirate XP in the first place.
If it is legally questionable, then it’s not worth the risk.
Only if it’s totally legal to do this is this news.
I remember this being possible with Windows 2K and XP. I doubt it is legal, so if you’re going to be illegal why not just download some cracked version?
Pretty stupid thing to do, IMHO. People complain about Apple releasing a new version of OS X every year or so and forcing people to pay “full” price for an upgrade. Yet when Microsoft releases the first update to their in 5 years, people still do not want to pay the full price of an upgrade.
People complain about Apple releasing a new version of OS X every year or so and forcing people to pay “full” price for an upgrade.
They don’t force you to /buy/ it every year, though – only to pay full price if you do.
someone is pointing you a gun yelling “buy Vista!!11one”?
No, but if you need to run an app that only runs on Vista, you need Vista.
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but afaik there are no apps external to the OS that require specific versions of OS X – only either OS X or below.
You are wrong.
Firefox requires Mac OS X 10.2.x but windows version still runs on Windows 98, even Windows 95 though not officially supported http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/system-requirements.html
Same thing with Camino browser
http://www.caminobrowser.org/
Google Earth requires Mac OS X 10.3.9 minimum http://earth.google.com/download-earth.html
OK. Another point is that if you buy a PC, you will most likely have no option but to buy Vista with it. If you don’t want MacOS then it’s easy to avoid Macs.
But you DO have options to buy PCs w/o Windows. You can build one yourself even.
With mac systems, you do not have this option.
Your point is.. pointless.
But you DO have options to buy PCs w/o Windows. You can build one yourself even.
Well, I’ve never heard of anyone building a Mac, true, but I suppose it’s possible, even these days.
With mac systems, you do not have this option.
You DO have the option – buy one of the 95% of systems that are not Macs. These are much easier to find than both Macs, and PCs without Windows. (I know you can buy Apples online, but I live in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the nearest Mac centre to me is Manchester or Sheffield or something, which in relative terms is like living in DC and having to go to NYC or maybe even Georgia – except that people in this country do not generally put up with long car journeys that often).
Well, I’ve never heard of anyone building a Mac, true, but I suppose it’s possible, even these days.
You can’t buy [new] parts and build your own mac.
You DO have the option – buy one of the 95% of systems that are not Macs.
No, pay attention. You can’t buy a mac system w/o the OS. You can buy a PC without windows.
Wrong, you can buy a PC with an alternative OS, get the facts first.
Wrong, you can buy a PC with an alternative OS, get the facts first.
I did not say “you cannot buy a PC with an alternative OS”. I said “you will most likely” have to buy Vista with it.
Learn to read first.
But you don’t have to so your point is moot.
That’s my choice if i wan’t to, don’t make it sound like a tragedy.
Windows XP will still be available and there are some companies, like Dell, which will ship with Linux.
Windows XP will still be available and there are some companies, like Dell, which will ship with Linux.
Yes, Dell ship w/ Linux – for more than the price of an equivalent machine w/ XP; also, Dell only do so within the United Kingdom.
Firefox 1.5.x runs on Windows 95 OSR2 and later, but you either need to install it on 98 or later and move the installation, or you need to have a couple of fixes and libraries installed in order to run it:
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/windows_95/
Firefox 2.x might be more difficult to get to run on a Win95 variant…
“No, but if you need to run an app that only runs on Vista, you need Vista.
Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but afaik there are no apps external to the OS that require specific versions of OS X – only either OS X or below.”
—————–
Nope. It’s quite common that the latest versions of Mac programs require recent versions of the OS. Especially Apple products. For example:
iWork ’06 requires OSX 10.3.9 or v10.4.3.
iLife ’06 requires OS X v10.3.9 or v10.4.3 or later; v10.4.4 recommended.
(iLife, though bundled with iMac hardware, is external to the OS, so if one were running OSX 10.2 and decided to upgrade his iLife installation to iLife 06, he would need to upgrade the OS separately.)
Apple “pro” multimedia editing apps all require OSX 10.4:
Final Cut Studio 5.1 requires Mac OS X 10.4.4 or later
Aperture 1.5 requires Mac OS X v10.4.7
Logic Pro 7 requires Mac OS X v10.4.3 or later
Shake 4.1 requires Mac OS X v10.4.6 or later
Third party apps also have specific requirements wrt the version of OSX:
Mac Office 2004 requires OS X version 10.2.8 or later.
Photoshop requires OSX 10.3.
etc.
And it only makes sense. Later versions of the OS provide more features, so software the makes use of those features require the later versions of the OS. Sure, companies could “gracefully downgrade” the user experience by deactivating functionality if said functionality isn’t supported by the user’s version of the OS, but sometimes it’s not possible or simply isn’t worth the effort to do that.
Edited 2007-02-07 19:08
Twenex, you must remember that each new release of OS X (or any OS) has new features, and if that application takes advantage of those new features, then that particular application won’t run on versions prior, since those features aren’t there. Therefore it is quite common for applications on OS X to require a specific version or later. MollyC has provided plenty of examples.
However, having said that, there are plenty of applications that run on all versions of MacOS X. Don’t ask me what, though, I don’t use my Mac all to often.
/ *People complain about Apple releasing a new version of OS X every year or so and forcing people to pay “full” price for an upgrade */
If apple would let their customers install mac os x on
any pc other their own, i would not have a problem paying about $130 a year for mac os upgrades, I like BSD based OS, but i don’t like their systems.
More correctly, does Microsoft actually give a toss? I mean, considering most of the sales are via OEM channels, and most of those who will do the upgrade work around will be technically knowledgable people, will Microsoft care?
Its the care factor as to whether anyone is bought up on licence violation; at the end of the day, if it means more sales, then its all good for Microsoft; its like OEM copies; strictly speaking, you have to sell it with a piece of hardware, but so many don’t, I don’t think Microsoft cares; a customer who bought the version with the lower margin is better than the person who doesn’t by a copy at all.
Thats ultimately how Microsoft will rationalise it, just like Oracle says they don’t care if people pirate Oracle DB, because ultimately, those who pirate Oracle DB aren’t people who were going to purchase a ‘legit’ copy anyway, so no sales have actually be lost – infact, a new customer maybe gained if they find it useful, their business grows and actually do require the support structures that Oracle has in place for those who purchase genuine copies.
Precisely. I imagine the high prices for the retail version is to induce more PC sales rather than to increase revenue. If people look at the retail prices of Windows Vista, they would probably go, “Oy, I may as well get a new PC” – chances are, many would.
Precisely. I imagine the high prices for the retail version is to induce more PC sales rather than to increase revenue. If people look at the retail prices of Windows Vista, they would probably go, “Oy, I may as well get a new PC” – chances are, many would.
True, and it wouldn’t suprise me if we start seeing OEM’s offer “free upgrades to Ultimate” as part of a special as Dell offers extra memory, hard disk space etc. as enticements for customers.
I was thinking (yes, I know, that could be dangerous) and with the growth in webservices, the fact that the necessary infrastructure for delivery of webservices is setup in Windows Vista, one would assume that Microsoft would yield the most from an upgrade to Winodows Vista by way of customers being easily able to access their online services since all the required software on the desktop is there.
A Windows upgrade, generally speaking, is a one off profit where as with services like OneCare and the likes, Windows provides just the vehicle which Microsoft need to start pushing their services out there.
Which brings up the question whether there is an incentive for Microsoft to actually bring another version of Windows so soon (within 2 years) of Windows Vista being released, or would it be better for them to let it sit in the marketplace as to allow more vendors to embrace Vista technologies.
“Thats ultimately how Microsoft will rationalise it, just like Oracle says they don’t care if people pirate Oracle DB, because ultimately, those who pirate Oracle DB aren’t people who were going to purchase a ‘legit’ copy anyway, so no sales have actually be lost – infact, a new customer maybe gained if they find it useful, their business grows and actually do require the support structures that Oracle has in place for those who purchase genuine copies.”
And don’t forget market-share. A lot of Microsoft power comes from the fact that 95%+ of the machines out there have their OS on them. If Windows could not be stolen a large percentage of the users of pirated would start looking at the ‘free’ alternatives. Remember while a large number of pirates can afford to buy Windows if they had to, a percentage can not. And even of the ones with the money, ‘free’ is attractive.
Microsoft can not afford in the long term for ‘free’ OSes to represent more than 10% of the market.
And don’t forget market-share. A lot of Microsoft power comes from the fact that 95%+ of the machines out there have their OS on them. If Windows could not be stolen a large percentage of the users of pirated would start looking at the ‘free’ alternatives. Remember while a large number of pirates can afford to buy Windows if they had to, a percentage can not. And even of the ones with the money, ‘free’ is attractive.
Microsoft can not afford in the long term for ‘free’ OSes to represent more than 10% of the market.
Definately true; which brings into question why are there still a large number of people running legacy operating systems; requirement for backwards support or the fact that due to the implementation of copy protection measures, it makes it harder for those users to ‘upgrade for free’ using the ‘neighbours cd’.
Will it spark off people using free operating systems like Linux and FreeBSD? as good as those operating systems are; and PC-BSD is a very good operating system for example, the problem still remains, immature hardware support and lack of third party software developers.
Ultimately, the day when end users can purchase their favourite software titles from their local computer superstore, just like they do with their Windows games and applications, you’ll start to see people migrate.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the fault of the free operating systems community but rather distributions who aren’t willing to approach the companies and invest money into projects to bring software to the platform.
Sure, Adobe isn’t going to port their suite of applications to a free operating system off the back of being a nice corporate citizen because ultimately when they spend a few million on porting it, shareholders will want to know where and how they will recoup the costs to justify the investment of money.
If a company like Red Hat approach Adobe and offer them the money which in return Red Hat receives royalties on sales as payment back, but at a lower rate (say $1 per box shipped for example), it would provide a sufficient enough incentive for companies to port to a free desktop.
Ultimately, the day when end users can purchase their favourite software titles from their local computer superstore, just like they do with their Windows games and applications, you’ll start to see people migrate.
Actually I think the days when people go to the store to buy software are numbered. FOSS Unix software has always been available online, and an increasing number of even closed-source software packages are available over the ‘Net, too. (PartitionMagic, VMware and WordPerfect, to name three.)
I realize I’m in the tech-savvy bracket, but neither I nor the rest of my family (who aren’t) has bought software from a store in years.
That being said, it does not necessarily follow that this will help Linux/BSD adoption.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the fault of the free operating systems community but rather distributions who aren’t willing to approach the companies and invest money into projects to bring software to the platform.
You keep making this allegation, and as far as I can see it is totally unfounded. Sure it would be nice for users of some of the proprietary software you put up with on Windows to be ported to Linux, but just because you haven’t seen RH or Novell attempting to bribe Adobe et al. into porting it, doesn’t mean they haven’t. Equally, just because they get an offer of a bribe, it does not necessarily follow that Adobe et al. are going to take and start developing software for what they must see as a niche desktop OS.
Actually I think the days when people go to the store to buy software are numbered. FOSS Unix software has always been available online, and an increasing number of even closed-source software packages are available over the ‘Net, too. (PartitionMagic, VMware and WordPerfect, to name three.)
I realize I’m in the tech-savvy bracket, but neither I nor the rest of my family (who aren’t) has bought software from a store in years.
That being said, it does not necessarily follow that this will help Linux/BSD adoption.
You obviously have very technically savvy people in your family, because from my experience in New Zealand and Australia, the vast majority of software bought is via their local store, along with computers and everything else; Dell for example is big in the US, but we tend to be ‘old school’ down here, where people like going into a store, asking for advice and seeing that there is actually a presence in their city rather than conversing with some faceless overseas company.
You keep making this allegation, and as far as I can see it is totally unfounded. Sure it would be nice for users of some of the proprietary software you put up with on Windows to be ported to Linux, but just because you haven’t seen RH or Novell attempting to bribe Adobe et al. into porting it, doesn’t mean they haven’t. Equally, just because they get an offer of a bribe, it does not necessarily follow that Adobe et al. are going to take and start developing software for what they must see as a niche desktop OS.
They haven’t done it, simple as that; don’t defend Red Hat, Novell for their laziness; they’ve done NOTHING to entice these businesses to port their software – Sun hoping that free love and free code will save the day, Red Hat still smoking the bong that is GNU software, claiming that it’ll all be sweet one day when all is free, and Novell sitting in the corner thinking that if cosies up the industry parana (Microsoft) they might actually get a bit of the action, whilst forgetting that Windows is like a cancer, it starts small in a company, and as ‘integration’ and ‘features’ are wanted; Linux can’t step up to the challenge so the company is forced to scrap the Linux servers in favour of Windows and Microsoft’s middleware.
Edited 2007-02-08 03:24
You obviously have very technically savvy people in your family, because from my experience in New Zealand and Australia, the vast majority of software bought is via their local store, along with computers and everything else; Dell for example is big in the US, but we tend to be ‘old school’ down here, where people like going into a store, asking for advice and seeing that there is actually a presence in their city rather than conversing with some faceless overseas company.
I don’t see how you have to be “tech-savvy” to download software and click on pay.
They haven’t done it, simple as that; don’t defend Red Hat, Novell for their laziness;
I’m not ‘defending’ them for anything; I’m pointing out that you have not yet provided any evidence for your allegations.
they’ve done NOTHING to entice these businesses to port their software – Sun hoping that free love and free code will save the day, Red Hat still smoking the bong that is GNU software, claiming that it’ll all be sweet one day when all is free, and Novell sitting in the corner thinking that if cosies up the industry parana (Microsoft) they might actually get a bit of the action, whilst forgetting that Windows is like a cancer, it starts small in a company, and as ‘integration’ and ‘features’ are wanted; Linux can’t step up to the challenge so the company is forced to scrap the Linux servers in favour of Windows and Microsoft’s middleware.
And yet in all that in all that pointless, hating, misdirected, interminable shill’s rant, you STILL don’t provide any evidence that anything of what you say is true.
Besides, even if you buy the software from local stores, the companies who write it (and who are the only ones who can do anything about bugs in closed-source code) are still “faceless overseas companies”.
This is against the EULA, so if people do this, why don’t they just download a pirated copy of the full version with the crack? In both cases they’re illegal, but with the full version, it’s easier to set up. So, I don’t see why Microsoft should “fix” it.
This is against the EULA, so if people do this, why don’t they just download a pirated copy of the full version with the crack?
Because this way the end result is a full version that works with Windows update without dicking around with cracks?
It’s legal if the company producing the product (Microsoft) allows it. Most that pirate software are usually doing their best to avoid paying. In this case, with Vista being what it is in terms of advancement in OS technology, more will be tempted to purchase and use Vista. Mo’money.
In Australia you just buy a HD or motherboard and you can buy an OEM copy of Vista. Considering how cheap this hardware is it is a no-brainer.
The OEM version is cheap and if you are a “System Builder”, i.e. someone who knows how to build a PC yourself then you are legally entitled to purchase the OEM version.
However, according to the OEM EULA the OEM version is tied to the motherboard of that PC, so, you can upgrade you PC but not the motherboard. If you do so you’ll need to purchase another OEM license. Nice eh?
The bottom line is that the OEM license isn’t transferable between PC’s and thus is somewhat a false economy.
It’s even better! I believe Newegg sells OEM copies of Windows with a screw, which is technically a piece of hardware.
We’ve installed Vista on 5 customer facing machines here. We got upgrade licenses from our TechNet subscription and managed to complete a fresh installation without issues.
When we decided to type in the key and activate them, it wasn’t accepted since it told us it was an upgrade key but we used a fresh install.
We had to buy some more VLKs to solve this issue.
read the article first, kthxbye
Precisely. I imagine the high prices for the retail version is to induce more PC sales rather than to increase revenue. If people look at the retail prices of Windows Vista, they would probably go, “Oy, I may as well get a new PC” – chances are, many would.
Do you really believe people will buy a new PC just to try Vista ?
people are sheep
Do you really believe people will buy a new PC just to try Vista ?
I know a few customers that would against my advice.
“Do you really believe people will buy a new PC just to try Vista ?”
Doubtful, but when they do they won’t have much of a choice. They’ll buy a new PC because they need a new PC, Vista won’t have much to do with it.
When XP came out, MS had a “downgraded license” program whereby you could revert back to Windows 2000 Pro if you wanted to. I have not been able to find if they are offering a similar program for Vista, does anyone know if they are?
Edited 2007-02-07 18:41
When XP came out, MS had a “downgraded license” program whereby you could revert back to Windows 2000 Pro if you wanted to. I have not been able to find if they are offering a similar program for Vista, does anyone know if they are?
If you have licenses through one of their volume programs, this is generally standard. Here’s a link to documentation:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=4f4b3cfd-7…
A summary of OEM License Downgrade Rights states:
Rights to OEM versions of systems software are granted in the OEM License Terms. The OEM License Terms for most OEM versions of systems software do not grant downgrade rights. The exception is the OEM License Terms for the Windows(R) XP Professional operating system and the Windows VistaTM Business and Windows Vista Ultimate operating systems, which grant downgrade rights. See the full text of the OEM License Terms for the specific downgrade rights.
Read the doc for more details.
Sweet, that’s the doc I was looking for. It would appear (in a nutshell) that if you get an OEM license for Vista Ultimate, Business, or Enterprise you can downgrade to Windows XP at no cost. Which works out as a win/win for the customer.
Why is this news? Microsoft doesn’t care that much about home users per se. Their primary involvement in the home user base stops with the OEM’s. It’s common knowledge that most home users will encounter Vista only when they buy a new PC on which it is installed. For this vast user base, this loophole is irrelevant. If anything, Microsoft’s “turning the other cheek” to this loophole demonstrates its laziness and flippant attitude towards such flaws in its OS. Their attitude? Well, if someone is willing to go through the trouble necessary to circumvent the EULA, then we’ll let them have that bone. What rubbish.
If I am legally allowed to do the upgrade because I have XP on the machine. I know that a clean install will be better because it will not carry over all of the baggage (drivers, spyware, viruses) from my previous install. Is it against the contract to use this to get a nice, clean install?
Of course it is.In nearly any country you can buy a cheap piece of hardware and a system builders Vista DVD.
In my country Vista Home Premium would cost EUR119,50
Vista Ultimate would cost EUR199,50
(single licence,however who needs 5 as home user)
EUR0,50 for the sound card cable by the way
These are in my opinion fair prices.
If you own XP, and you retire your copy when you do a clean install of your upgrade to Vista, then it is legal.
It may violate the EULA, but lets not confuse this with illegality.
I am sure that Microsoft makes their money. I am sure they have a set price that resellers pay to buy Windows from them so no matter if you buy full version, upgrade or OEM, they are making theirs and that is all that matters to them.
Like others have said only technical people will know how to do this and so normal people will pay full price or maybe even double (If they buy one of the low end versions and find it doesn’t do what they want)
1. MOST computers sold at retail already come with a Windows License. People who “roll their own” is a really small part of the market.
Even though I mostly “Roll my own”, I have several computers that came with Windows Licenses and at least 10 – 20 licenses for Win2k, 98, ME, and 95 that I’m not using anymore. Licenses I bought at retail.
So, in my case.. this “Loophole” will only make it easier to clean install a machine.
2. The OEM copies you can buy through NewEgg.com are significantly cheaper for the Vista Home Premium than the retail upgrade for the same version. By about $30.00
Windows Home Basic OEM is the same price.
3. Nobody is stealing anything. You are handing Microsoft Money, and they are handing you a license and the media to use the product you just bought. They can no more control how you install it, or what you install it on legally, than the local baker can control what you put on your bread when you toast it.
Microsoft can make it difficult for you to install it on more than one computer, or can make it difficult to move it from one computer to another. But, they can’t legally stop you.
I’ve moved my Legally purchased Retail Copy of Windows XP Pro at least 5 times. As long as I’m only running it on ONE computer at a time, the worst penalty I pay is having to make a phone call to activate it.
4. The point that many people WILL consider buying a new machine rather than upgrading their current one IS valid.
Buying a new machine saves money in the long run, because you get:
– A computer with Vista Compatible Hardware
– A license to Vista
– A newer, and faster computer
– A new warranty
– Often lots of pre-loaded software (and software guaranteed to work with Vista).
The price delta between buying the upgrade to Home Premium, adding RAM, a New video card, and buying upgrades to your CD-ROM Burning Software and other packages can often be VERY, VERY small.
Also, you have the advantage of having your old system as a backup, or donating it to a charity for a tax deduction, selling it on eBay to partially fund the new system, etc…
Just my opinion…
“But, they can’t legally stop you.”
I am not a laywer…. however I think I have a good understanding of this.
Q: Is it illegal to install Vista on a machine that violates the EULA?
A: NO
Q: Can they legally stop you?
A: HELL YES! Say it with me… L-A-W-S-U-I-T! I am not sure about your income but I cannot afford to fight Microsoft lawyers over a EULA Click-Through license.
@prOc:
> Q: Can they legally stop you?
> A: HELL YES! Say it with me… L-A-W-S-U-I-T! I am not sure about your income but I cannot afford to fight Microsoft lawyers over a EULA Click-Through license.
And neither can Microsoft afford to sue millions of individual users.
Your post is more FUD.
In reality, Microsoft can’t enforce the EULA. It would cost too much. It’s cheaper to just let it go.
I know how they can save even more than 35%, don’t migrate to Vista at all.
… and did not read the article yourselves. I doubt this will work on a system with no validated XP install already on disk.
I don’t think Mac OS has anything to do with this article, even though I like the OS. I’m not upgrading to Vista on my newer pc, because I keep hearing it’s a little slower than XP. XP runs very fast, so why bother with Vista?
I’ve noticed that you can use a Windows 95 install disc with an XP Pro upgrade CD … wonder if this works with Vista as well?
Also, it looks like you can buy an OEM copy of Vista directly from Newegg.com.
Windows 95 does not qualify for an upgrade to Vista. You need Windows 2000 or XP and install the Upgrade Edition from the desktop of the qualifying OS.
People without a licensed copy of XP that use this workaround are violating the terms of use agreed to when they purchased the upgrade version of Windows Vista
If Microsoft sold screwdrivers, no doubt they would license them to be used to only turn screws. So anybody who used a Microsoft screwdriver as a pry bar or goop scraper or drift punch would be breaking the law by violating the terms of the license they agreed to by buying the screwdriver.
If Microsoft sold screwdriver, we’d all be screwed. Oh wait, ….
I didn’t read the article…
But isn’t this the SAME thing you can do with XP? I have an XP Pro “Upgrade” CD that I would stick in a tower with a blank hdd, start the set up. it would ask for genuine windows CD, stick in my OEM copy of windows 2k pro, then put the xp cd back in and do a full install…
Is that what this is?
Guess I could read the article…
This is a sensible move on Microsoft’s part.
Those that make the effort to use this workaround were probably going to pirate Vista anyway. This gives them an incentive to buy the upgrade version, with the benefit being that it’s a “genuine” version, works with Windows Update, etc.
I guess the only goal MS has is more Vista installations.