http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/28/2240200
It seems like a really bad move IMO and is asking for trouble. The idea of installing an OS over an OS is a very bad one and especially if the old OS was installed some time ago.
The bottom line it pays to get he Full version, which is only different in that it doesn't have this check.
No doubt this was deliberate to force users to pay extra for the Full version. I've Upgraded before and it always leads to problems and even if it doesn't the idea you still have old parts of an OS lurking around really isn't a good idea.
It's completely unnecessary as you've already proven you have an old version by it's licence key or putting the old CD during Setup.
Vista Upgrades require presence of Win2000/WinXP
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
-
bradavon
- Bruce Lee's Fist
- Posts: 24430
- Joined: 27 Oct 2004, 20:30
Someone has found a work-around to get around this: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5932
Which means no XP install when you upgrade and you can buy Upgrade but get the more expensive Full version. Obviously Upgrade is Full minus the extra check, it's not an Upgrade at all in the strictest sense.
Which means no XP install when you upgrade and you can buy Upgrade but get the more expensive Full version. Obviously Upgrade is Full minus the extra check, it's not an Upgrade at all in the strictest sense.