Recommended Posts

Fair enough, thx for the info :) seems rather strange way of doing it though, so an upgrade can't do a fresh install like the XP upgrade could (when you prove you own a copy of the previous OS your upgrading from) and the full install can't upgrade...seems rather odd considering that RC1 could do a clean install or upgrade...guess MS want to make it clear that the Upgrade version is only for upgrading and the Full is only for a clean install I guess.

Nope you're still lost lol

Ok let me re-explain this.

The DVD's are identical, so they both function EXACTLY the same way.

The only way to access the Upgrade option from any Vista edition (Retail, OEM, Upgrade, ect.) is while inside of a Windows Environment, however the Upgrade option is only available on Windows XP, since you cannot Upgrade a Windows 2000 install.

Now on Windows 2000 what you have to do is boot up Windows 2000 and when inside of Windows 2000 choose to run a New Install, instead of an upgrade since it does not support Upgrades.

So to sum up, you cannot use the upgrade option from boot on any version of Vista, be it full version or upgrade version. The only way to use the upgrade option is from within a Windows XP environment. The New Installation option on an Upgrade DVD can only be ran from inside a Windows 2000/XP environment due to the key restriction. However on a full version DVD you can run the New Install option from boot.

Make more sense now?

So what's the best way to get Vista, legally and cheaply?

Have Windows 2000 legally and install Vista cleanly from an Upgrade edition of Vista? Doesn't that install freshly?

I don't care about my files/settings. They're backed up anyway.

Edit

Yes I think I'm right. I'll just have to install 2000/XP and have it activate etc, then decide to do a "full install" from within XP for example and off you go.

Edited by Huy

Nope you're still lost lol

Ok let me re-explain this.

The DVD's are identical, so they both function EXACTLY the same way.

The only way to access the Upgrade option from any Vista edition (Retail, OEM, Upgrade, ect.) is while inside of a Windows Environment, however the Upgrade option is only available on Windows XP, since you cannot Upgrade a Windows 2000 install.

Now on Windows 2000 what you have to do is boot up Windows 2000 and when inside of Windows 2000 choose to run a New Install, instead of an upgrade since it does not support Upgrades.

So to sum up, you cannot use the upgrade option from boot on any version of Vista, be it full version or upgrade version. The only way to use the upgrade option is from within a Windows XP environment. The New Installation option on an Upgrade DVD can only be ran from inside a Windows 2000/XP environment due to the key restriction. However on a full version DVD you can run the New Install option from boot.

Make more sense now?

So you can only clean install from boot or from within Win2k/XP, or upgrade from within XP (2k doesn't support upgrading) have I got it right this time? :unsure:

So you can only clean install from boot or from within Win2k/XP, or upgrade from within XP (2k doesn't support upgrading) have I got it right this time? :unsure:

Yes and no.

A clean install from boot is only supported on full versions. Upgrade versions will only work from within a version of Windows itself. That way they can guarantee that the copy of Windows that you're using to upgrade from is a genuine copy. They really don't have a way of doing that at boot time that's why it's not allowed on upgrade discs. Does that make a little more sense or am I still explaining it wrong?

By the way, I am dictating this using the new vista speech recognition tools. Isn't that cool?

So basically, if you should need to wipe your HD in the future and need to reinstall Vista, and you only have the upgrade version; you have to install XP first THEN install Vista?

That majorly sucks! Surely a better way is to allow the install from boot, but require the old product key be input as well as the new one, before it can be activated? Seems a much better way to do it.

Anything is just a MAJOR inconvenience to well.. 1000's and 1000's of people really!

So what's the best way to get Vista, legally and cheaply?

Have Windows 2000 legally and install Vista cleanly from an Upgrade edition of Vista? Doesn't that install freshly?

I don't care about my files/settings. They're backed up anyway.

Edit

Yes I think I'm right. I'll just have to install 2000/XP and have it activate etc, then decide to do a "full install" from within XP for example and off you go.

the easiest and cheapest way is to just get an OEM copy of Vista, and do a clean install

Atm, you can get OEM copies of XP Home for around ?60, while upgrade versions are around ?86. (FYI, the full version of XP home is around ?160 - just so you can see the difference).

However, the problem you may have is that OEM versions are tied to the motherboard they are first install on, and so if you change motherboards, you should have to get a new licence. Although some people have been able to activate an OEM copy of XP on a second motherboard.

So basically, if you should need to wipe your HD in the future and need to reinstall Vista, and you only have the upgrade version; you have to install XP first THEN install Vista?

That majorly sucks! Surely a better way is to allow the install from boot, but require the old product key be input as well as the new one, before it can be activated? Seems a much better way to do it.

Anything is just a MAJOR inconvenience to well.. 1000's and 1000's of people really!

Yes, that way they could also check if XP is legal. Having to install XP first, just to install Vista, is indeed very ugly.

It may be not as bad now where any sane person will still keep XP around until there's full driver and program support for Vista, but in a few years, this will be a serious pain in the a$$ :crazy:

I guess that makes sense (only allowing an upgrade/clean install from within the operating system environment) BUT BUT BUT how would users handle it if their copy of Vista got corrupted? How would they "repair" from the DVD? How would they run the Startup Repair tool?

Something's just not right here.

Welcome to the world of OEM OS installs. My previous VAIO PC only came with a set of three discs that images a copy of XP, with some of their bundled crap (the rest of their programs came on two other discs). That was my only solution to a botched XP install at the time. No option to boot off a disc into Recovery Console whatsoever.

They figure it's not worth their time to integrate their bundled software into the XP install discs, so they take a less messy approach. Bet they won't change their act with Vista either.

Yes and no.

A clean install from boot is only supported on full versions. Upgrade versions will only work from within a version of Windows itself. That way they can guarantee that the copy of Windows that you're using to upgrade from is a genuine copy. They really don't have a way of doing that at boot time that's why it's not allowed on upgrade discs. Does that make a little more sense or am I still explaining it wrong?

By the way, I am dictating this using the new vista speech recognition tools. Isn't that cool?

I think it does now, thx :)

Yeah that is cool :cool:

I still don't get it.

Have they changed the license again? Buying an upgrade version never meant losing some functionality (in this case, losing the ability of a clean install when you have windows xp).

What I mean is, upgrade version "condition" was to have an earlier version of windows. And that's why it would check for a CD of a previous version. But this never meant that you would lose the ability of doing clean installs, etc.

Unless the license explicitly says that an upgrade version of vista can only be installed on top of a previous XP installation, then there's absolutely no reason to believe that help article. Because for all sakes, upgrade version or not, you're still buying the SAME product. The only difference is the license terms and the condition for you to be using the upgrade (== cheaper) version instead of the more expensive one.

Heres the deal,

You CAN boot from the vista DVD, the edition you install is decided by the key entered

However if you Boot from the DVD you can only do a CLEAN install, you can't upgrade you existing OS.

If you do not boot from the vista DVD and run the install from within your existing windows installation, you have 2 options, to do a clean install OR upgrade inplace your existing OS install

Heres the deal,

You CAN boot from the vista DVD, the edition you install is decided by the key entered

However if you Boot from the DVD you can only do a CLEAN install, you can't upgrade you existing OS.

If you do not boot from the vista DVD and run the install from within your existing windows installation, you have 2 options, to do a clean install OR upgrade inplace your existing OS install

So you're saying that you can boot from and do a clean install from an upgrade disk? That means that the original poster is completely incorrect (as is the MS help). Others have been saying that you can not do a clean install by booting from an upgrade disk; the only way is by running the install program from a valid windows installation.

However, if it is true that all disks are identical (OEM, upgrade, and retail) and the key is used to differentiate between them, then you have to be able to do a clean install from the upgrade disk, since you can do the install without entering a license key.

I still don't get it.

Have they changed the license again? Buying an upgrade version never meant losing some functionality (in this case, losing the ability of a clean install when you have windows xp).

What I mean is, upgrade version "condition" was to have an earlier version of windows. And that's why it would check for a CD of a previous version. But this never meant that you would lose the ability of doing clean installs, etc.

Unless the license explicitly says that an upgrade version of vista can only be installed on top of a previous XP installation, then there's absolutely no reason to believe that help article. Because for all sakes, upgrade version or not, you're still buying the SAME product. The only difference is the license terms and the condition for you to be using the upgrade (== cheaper) version instead of the more expensive one.

Well, why does the Help file say that, then? It's RTM - shouldn't the Help file be updated too?

Well, why does the Help file say that, then? It's RTM - shouldn't the Help file be updated too?

Shouldn't the LICENSE be updated too? If the upgrade version is crippling some functionality (and I consider a clean install a feature), then it should be stated somewhere, not just in the help.

I'm inclined to think that the help file means that you can only perform an upgrade from within the previous version of windows, and not by booting the disc.

Shouldn't the LICENSE be updated too? If the upgrade version is crippling some functionality (and I consider a clean install a feature), then it should be stated somewhere, not just in the help.

I'm inclined to think that the help file means that you can only perform an upgrade from within the previous version of windows, and not by booting the disc.

Yesthat would be better... not being able to install from boot with an upgrade dvd would be a serious crippling indeed.

So let me get this clear as I am unsure going through all this thread. I have a legitimate copy of xp pro and buy an upgrade copy of vista ultimate. I can only install it through the windows environment and I can do an upgrade or clean (which I plan on) install, but if my hd dies I have to install xp for it to work because of wga?

If that's the case its worth it to save me $200 and <sarcasm>thanks</sarcasm> microsoft for not just having vista starter and vista.

Yesthat would be better... not being able to install from boot with an upgrade dvd would be a serious crippling indeed.

How is it crippling to people who aren't pirates?

Here's how it works.

You have XP installed.

You put in the Vista Upgrade DVD.

It asks if you want to do a clean install or upgrade.

You choose which one you want and it does it's thing.

What's wrong with that?

Whats wrong is that when you have to start fresh (reformat or new HD), you have to install XP and THEN Vista. One of the main features of Vista is that it only takes ~20 minutes to install. The quick install time is worth nothing when you have to do a ~1 hour XP install first. :angry:

Bummer, but that's why you're paying for the cheaper "upgrade" version. Since you intend on upgrading an existing OS to Vista. Otherwise you'd be paying for the full version copy which can boot off the DVD and start fresh, without having to install a previous version.

Sucks, but that's the only way to validate (WGA) your copy of XP/upgrade to Vista.

Sucks, but that's the only way to validate (WGA) your copy of XP/upgrade to Vista.

They couldn't have offered an option to enter your key during installation? I disagree with that statement. It shouldn't be a problem as it could establish internet connectivity and validate once setup starts and has loaded the necessary files.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I don't understand the vision. Do people really want to buy a new computer from Dell with 6 browsers installed? We all keep asking for Microsoft to stop having so much junk on their OS, and adding a bunch of browsers seems to go against that. Ideally, we would just be asked what browser we want during OOBE but Google is just going to pay Dell a bunch of money to include Chrome. Additionally, would you want your phones to start including all the browsers too when you get them? The only thing I ever wanted was to be able to uninstall IE or edge and I believe you are now able to. I do agree that microsoft needs to chill with their "are you sure you don't want to try edge before you install chrome" ads when going to download chrome.
    • The funny thing here is that like 70% or so of the web browser users use 'Google Chrome' as web browser. What I don't understand is that why on earth would ANYONE choose 'Google Chrome' on Windows when 'Microsoft Edge' is not just better in most things, but it's already there right out of the box for the Windows users. Microsoft Edge has less data collection (yes, that's a fact), less RAM usage and is more optimized for Windows (as it's a Microsoft product) right out of the box. I'm sure you will come with the argument of bloat in Microsoft Edge. Sure, but most of that can be fixed with a simple tool (there are many good ones out there for this). Yes, that require a couple of clicks in the same way as it requires several clicks to install 'Google Chrome'. And I'm sure you really love the 4 GB of AI-slop data 'Google Chrome' is downloading for Chrome without you agreeing to it. Fun right? Sure, the way Microsoft is pushing 'Microsoft Edge' on users might not be the best way of doing it and might need to change. But I would never choose 'Google Chrome' over 'Microsoft Edge' today anyways. I'm sure there was a period back in the days when 'Google Chrome' actually was better in most things, but that period is not today.
    • JetBrains rolls out IntelliJ IDEA update with Markdown preview fixes and more by David Uzondu Image via JetBrains IntelliJ 2026.1.3 from JetBrains has landed, bringing several highly requested bug fixes that target common UI glitches and terminal rendering issues. If you run tmux inside the integrated terminal, the IDE no longer renders the cursor above the active line. The Markdown preview bug, which was fixed in this release, had annoyed developers for quite some time, as the preview pane failed to render images saved outside the project directory. Instead of displaying the actual image, the IDE simply showed a broken image icon, a problem that stuck around for two years before this update. Over on Windows, developers running WSL can now use wsl.exe to spin up their environments without losing terminal functionality. In previous builds, launching a terminal shell with something like wsl.exe -d ubuntu inside a Windows-based project broke both shell integration and active process detection. Other bug fixes in this release include: An issue where Gradle sync incorrectly reported success as a failure on WSL when using Gradle 9.5.0. A syntax highlighting bug that flagged valid Java for-loop initialization blocks with multiple statements as incorrect. A warning bug that triggered a false non-null local variable alert when using JSpecify annotations. A database generation bug that hid the option to use a DELETE statement instead of a TRUNCATE checkbox. A Kotlin highlighting failure where an assertion error in the Gradle redundant library inspection broke error highlighting. A UI bug where the ComboBox popup lacked a maximum height restriction. A Snowflake syntax error where DataGrip failed to support the "create temp" command. A Svelte syntax parsing failure that incorrectly flagged quotes inside inline expressions. A VCS repository manager deadlock that triggered thread pool exhaustion. A memory leak where the LazyTree component kept all previous versions of a tree in memory. IntelliJ 2026.1.3 is the third bug fix release for the IntelliJ 2026.1 series. The first one landed back in April with a fix for the WSL Python interpreter freeze, another fix for guest participants using Emmet abbreviations, and corrected WildFly server deployment errors.
    • That stupid annoying Sign in with Google on all these sites now... get the fk outta here
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      Asgardi earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Conversation Starter
      mobandz earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Apprentice
      fernan99 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • One Month Later
      nothanks earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      469
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      243
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      79
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      73
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      60
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!