OEM Home Premium & retail Ultimate

Discussion in 'Windows Vista General Discussion' started by pc nerd, Jan 30, 2009.

  1. pc nerd

    pc nerd Guest

    I have a laptop with 64-bit Home Premium. The warranty expires this June. I
    want to upgrade to Ultimate. Does Microsoft sell OEM versions of Vista
    upgrades on its web site? I assume that I would not have a problem installing
    a retail upgrade of Ultimate onto a laptop with the OEM version of Home
    Premium. Am I correct in my assumption?

    Thank you.
    pc nerd, Jan 30, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. There is very little value in upgrading from Home Premium to Ultimate
    especially as Windows 7 is earmarked for possible release at the end of this
    Mike Hall - MVP, Jan 30, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. I agree. Unless you have a pressing need for a fax app or Bitlocker, I would
    definitely wait.
    Robert Neville, Jan 30, 2009
  4. pc nerd

    Rick Rogers Guest

    Hi David,

    The short answer is that yes you can upgrade with a retail version of
    Ultimate. Do you need to? Is there something in Ultimate that you need that
    makes the price of this upgrade worthwhile?
    Rick Rogers, Jan 30, 2009
  5. pc nerd

    pc nerd Guest

    I hadn't thought about that. What versions will be available? What about
    drivers? Will Windows 7 use Vista or XP drivers?
    pc nerd, Jan 30, 2009
  6. pc nerd

    pc nerd Guest

    Well, I want to be able to make policy changes to my laptop & Home Premium
    doesn't allow that.
    pc nerd, Jan 30, 2009
  7. pc nerd

    R. C. White Guest

    Hi, David.
    "OEM" and "upgrades" are mutually-exclusive terms. An OEM version is, by
    definition, to be installed on a factory-fresh machine, so it can't be used
    to upgrade from anything.

    And, from your later post:
    Windows 7 will need new drivers, which may or may not also work with Vista
    or WinXP. Remember that Microsoft writes Windows; hardware manufacturers
    write the drivers that make their products work with Windows. Microsoft
    works closely with major IHVs (Independent Hardware Vendors) and includes
    many available drivers in the Windows package, but the drivers are the
    hardware maker's responsibility.

    R. C. White, CPA
    San Marcos, TX

    Microsoft Windows MVP
    (Running Windows Live Mail 2009 in Win7 Ultimate x64 7000)
    R. C. White, Jan 30, 2009
  8. pc nerd

    Rick Rogers Guest

    Something you can't do with parental controls?
    Rick Rogers, Jan 30, 2009
  9. Noone knows except the marketing geniuses at MS and they aren't talking.
    Uninformed opinion says they'll be very similar to Vista, but that can be
    changed pretty much any time up until RTM.
    There's very little change to the kernal from Vista to 7, so the drivers ought
    to be the same. They definitely won't use XP drivers.
    Robert Neville, Jan 30, 2009
  10. pc nerd

    RalfG Guest

    FWIW the current Windows 7 betas are often able to use Vista drivers if no
    Win7 drivers exist for a device. Despite that, there might be some devices
    that will not work unless or until Win7 drivers are written for them. One
    way or the other all of my own hardware that works in Vista also works in
    Win7. Except for the keyboard and MP3 player most of the hardware is 1-4
    years old, with the PC itself designed for XP MCE 2005.
    RalfG, Jan 30, 2009
  11. Regrettably, not all drivers come from the competent hardware
    manufacturers. Many come from Microsoft.

    The great Gary Kildall invented operating systems. He was murdered in
    1994 by a blow to the head - a great loss.

    His concept was to write drivers, drivers and more drivers. Then you
    put together a "System" with "Gensys" ( Generate System - also a pun
    on "Genesis"), using only those drivers that are needed for the
    equipment available. This kept the system (CP/M) small, as was
    necessary in the days when memory was expensive.

    Today, Microsoft build a huge collection of drivers into their
    systems. Unlike CP/M, where every edition was different - a daisy-
    wheel driver or a Centronics driver but not both - the system is
    cluttered with many things that are not used. Every copy of a "Vista"
    with a particular development number, for example, is the same.

    But Vista is full of bugs. The 32-bit, the 64-bit and the "Upgrade"
    versions are buggy.

    So when you buy a Lexmark printer, you get an old Lexmark "Wizard". It
    "asks" Vista whether there is a COM1 driver. Vista "says" yes. The
    printer is installed for COM1 even on a machine that has only USB.
    Modern Lexmark printers also have only USB. So Lexmark and Vista are

    The wonderful DVD suite from Cyberlink either crashes or misbehaves.
    One one machine I bought, it crashed. I swapped it at the shop for
    another, and bought a more modern DVD suite, with "Power Director". If
    you cut the end of a film clip, it works. If you cut the beginning,
    the video vanishes leaving only the sound.

    Cyberlink, in their instructions, have concealed the words "If you
    want the program to work correctly, install out own drivers, and do
    not use those from Microsoft".

    On the Microsoft website, I found 42 different "updates". There are
    many, many "updates to make updates possible".

    As they are themselves updates, they don't work until AFTER the system
    is repaired, and you do not need them. Undeterred, Microsoft write
    more and more of these "updates", and publish them untested. That is
    why there are 42 of them now.

    The White House rejects Vista. They use XP. They know about the bugs.
    However, there seems to be some special relationship between Microsoft
    and the US government, because they reject Apple, which is stable.

    I have traced these intermittent faults through to system level. At
    Function 66, subfunction 2, it delivered a file size of MINUS a
    billion and a quarter bytes. It was commercial software that works on
    other systems.

    Vista is therefore fatally flawed.

    Avoid upgrading. Switch off the automatic "updates" - they only
    corrupt the system.

    Charles Douglas Wehner
    Charles Douglas Wehner, Feb 11, 2009
  12. Here is a long URL, showing the Microsoft "updates" for Vista. There
    are now 48 of them.


    I will divide that URL up, so that if it does not all arrive as a
    single "string", you can string it together, and rebuild it:



    Here is the reason:
    System Update Readiness Tool for Windows Vista for x64-based systems
    (KB947821) [August 2008]

    This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the
    Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation
    of future updates, service packs, and software.

    System Update Readiness Tool for Windows Vista (KB947821) [August

    This tool is being offered because an inconsistency was found in the
    Windows servicing store which may prevent the successful installation
    of future updates, service packs, and software.
    That's right. They have discovered that Vista computers have an
    "inconsistency" which prevents "Updates" being "configured". Here,
    however, they call it "installation".

    People download this "Readiness Tool", only to discover that their
    system will not install it because it is not "ready".

    Notice also, that this is quite a wide-reaching bug. It prevents the
    successful installation of service packs and software in addition to
    Update for Windows Vista for x64-based Systems (KB949939)

    Install this update to enable future updates to install successfully
    on all editions of Windows Vista.

    Update for Windows Vista (KB949939)

    Install this update to enable future updates to install successfully
    on all editions of Windows Vista.

    That was a separate attempt to enable "Updates" by means of "Updates"
    - like driving a car without fuel to fetch fuel.

    Notice also the sloppiness. It says "on all editions of Vista".
    However, closer scrutiny shows that these two tools ("Readiness Tool"
    and "Update") each comes in two versions. One is for the 32-bit
    edition, the other for 64-bit. NEITHER is for "ALL editions of Windows

    To get SOME performance out of Vista, you first have to confirm that
    the problems confessed to by Microsoft exist. You have to take the
    computer completely offline, and see if the "automatic update
    configuring" takes place. This takes the form of a CRASH. "Anoraks" -
    kiddies who like to play with broken computers - show off their
    "knowledge" by saying that the behaviour is normal. It is not. A
    deliberate updating system will not simply crash out of a program.

    Consider a typist. He/she is in the middle of typing a long and
    difficult piece. Suddenly, the computer stops working. The text
    editor/ desktop publishing program crashes, and the system reboots -
    or even switches itself completely off. All typing is lost. This is
    not normal.

    So if your system does this, TURN OFF THE UPDATES. It may take time to
    "wake up" to what you have done. With me, it took five days. But
    afterwards the system will be more stable.

    When planning to put some program into the computer, do NOT let the
    "Installation Wizard" do it. Instead, create a directory. Then go to
    the CD with the program, and simply copy the pieces across one by one
    until every one of them is in the new directory. Now look for the
    piece that is described as an "application". Click on it, and it
    should run.

    If it does not run, the best thing is to empty that directory again,
    and delete it.

    However, old, stable programs that I used on Windows 95 did work for
    much of the time on Vista after I had manually put them in.

    The difference between installation and "putting in" is that various
    system registries are altered by the "Installation Wizard". Putting a
    program in will not dig deep into the system in this way.

    You may be puzzled by the numbers #629 #135 #2123 and #407. These are
    the "popularity" of each "Update". People download one. It doesn't
    work. They try another. Again it doesn't work. They keep going. On and
    on. Yes - "Updates" are very popular.

    On the page I showed, the default setting is in order of "popularity".
    I have changed it to "by date", so that the most recent, and therefore
    perhaps least "popular", but maybe most successful "Updates" are
    listed first. There are three screens of these "Updates".

    This is the code that does it:

    Do they mean "CRITERION"?

    Charles Douglas Wehner
    Charles Douglas Wehner, Feb 13, 2009
  13. The expected arrival of Windows 7 (perhaps called NT 7 in the Internet
    "Environment Variables") is greeted with great foreboding.

    "Eye of newt and wing of toad, finger of birth-strangled babe, ditch-
    delivered by a drab, in the cauldron boil and bubble.

    All hail, Windows 7. All hail, Windows 7."

    It will be the usual hocus-pocus, with "Upgrades to enable Upgrades".
    Science it will not be.

    In the early Eighties, I wrote printer drivers, an RS232 driver and a
    Centronics driver for a small home computer. Memory was scarce, so I
    used each byte to do many things at once. I even worked-in a timeout,
    so that it would announce "NOT CONNECTED" after a minute, and return
    control to the user. Microsoft had sold their operating system to IBM
    under the name PC-DOS. If a typist tried to type before saving to
    disk, the machine would hang is no printer was connected. There was no
    timeout. That sloppiness continues to this day.

    It seems that on XP they used a different system of interrupts. The
    usual (I thing also with Cambridge University's "Tripos") is to count
    out subroutines, until the "priority" has expired. Then it switches
    tasks. On XP it counted out microseconds.

    So when time was up, XP would crash out of some printer or scanner
    driver. The result was stripes on the scanned image, and alphabet
    salad on the printer.

    So they introduced special "certificated drivers" whose subroutines
    fitted into the allocated time-slot.

    After this fiasco, they reverted to subroutine counting on Vista. It
    is hard to know what fiasco will arrive with Windows 7.

    Charles Douglas Wehner
    Charles Douglas Wehner, Feb 14, 2009
  14. pc nerd

    Earle Horton Guest

    Do you remember "beep of death" in LAN Manager network software? That was
    in early nineties, programming for MSFT in Redmond. If a network server
    failed to respond, the computer would periodically beep, to let you know it
    was still working on it. There was of course no way for the user to regain
    control short of Ctrl-Alt-Del.



    "Charles Douglas Wehner" <> escribió en el mensaje
    de noticias
    Earle Horton, Feb 14, 2009
  15. I (fortunately) had no dealings with that LAN.

    However, "Certified" is a better name for "Certificated Drivers". It
    is the programmers who should be certified.

    Charles Douglas Wehner
    Charles Douglas Wehner, Feb 18, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.