is fair to asked pay upgade in year

Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)

Yes its fair.. nobody is forcing you to help them. Out of all the many products I've helped beta from various companies rarely, if ever, did one give testers the production version free of charge.
"Dazza" wrote:

Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)

And how many bugs or other feedback have you submitted since downloading the public beta? My guess is none, so why should they essentially pay you for this when all you did was take up their bandwidth? ---------- Mark Dietz PROnetworks <http://www.pro-networks.org>
Dazza wrote:

Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)

I think people missed the point of my post.
My comment was that people who are beta testing Vista "may" have to pay MORE for the final version, as they may have to buy the full version rather than the upgrade. Here in the UK the full version usually sells for £50+ more than the upgrade.
I have beta tested lots of software and always given full feedback, reported bugs and suggested solutions. In return I have always got either the final version free, or a at discount by way of thank you. May be thats because, in the main, I test out education software.
Again thats not really my point, it is the possibility of paying more and actually being penalised for being a beta tester.
ps - Sorry for posting in 3 posts, it kept telling me the submission had failed.
"Mark Dietz" wrote:

And how many bugs or other feedback have you submitted since downloading the public beta? My guess is none, so why should they essentially pay you for this when all you did was take up their bandwidth? ---------- Mark Dietz PROnetworks <http://www.pro-networks.org
Dazza wrote: Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)

I don't think they have to give it away for free (though most games/apps I beta tested did), but it'd be nice if we could have an incentive at the end, like to be able to buy the retail copy for the price of an OEM or something along the lines. Even if MS doesn't do that, I'm happy since it's been a good experience so far (and one which can only get better as time goes on). -- Dell Inspiron E1505/6400 Intel Core Duo T2300 @ 1.66ghz 1GB 533mhz DDR2 ATi Mobility Radeon X1400 128MB (256MB HyperMemory)

"Dazza" wrote:

I think people missed the point of my post.
My comment was that people who are beta testing Vista "may" have to pay MORE for the final version, as they may have to buy the full version rather than the upgrade. Here in the UK the full version usually sells for £50+ more than the upgrade.
I have beta tested lots of software and always given full feedback, reported bugs and suggested solutions. In return I have always got either the final version free, or a at discount by way of thank you. May be thats because, in the main, I test out education software.
Again thats not really my point, it is the possibility of paying more and actually being penalised for being a beta tester.
ps - Sorry for posting in 3 posts, it kept telling me the submission had failed.
"Mark Dietz" wrote:
And how many bugs or other feedback have you submitted since downloading the public beta? My guess is none, so why should they essentially pay you for this when all you did was take up their bandwidth? ---------- Mark Dietz PROnetworks <http://www.pro-networks.org
Dazza wrote: Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:35:02 -0700, Dazza wrote:

I think people missed the point of my post.
My comment was that people who are beta testing Vista "may" have to pay MORE for the final version, as they may have to buy the full version rather than the upgrade. Here in the UK the full version usually sells for £50+ more than the upgrade.

There really is no need to do this, UNLESS you have never owned a copy of XP, in which case you WILL need to purchase the Full Retail (or a generic OEM) of Vista.

I have beta tested lots of software and always given full feedback, reported bugs and suggested solutions. In return I have always got either the final version free, or a at discount by way of thank you. May be thats because, in the main, I test out education software.
Again thats not really my point, it is the possibility of paying more and actually being penalised for being a beta tester.
ps - Sorry for posting in 3 posts, it kept telling me the submission had failed.

1) Those of us who are using the Community Public Preview of Vista are NOT "beta testers', in the strictest sense of the word. 2) Microsoft does use "real" beta testers, both in-house (who are paid), and through it's Private Beta program (who are not paid), available to anyone who is accepted into the program by Microsoft. All one has to do is apply. If you do have true Beta testing experience, it will be a plus. 3) Microsoft also uses "beta testers" who are part of Microsoft's MSDN (with an OS membership) and Microsoft's Technet. These people are all developers, who PAY for their Betas, as well as the RTM.
Microsoft's philosophy is that the general public are getting the use of one or more "Community Public Previews", plus the Release Candidates, for a full year, for FREE. Why should they then GIVE the OS away to hundreds of thousands of home users who are (mostly) amateurs and hobbyists (most of whom did not engage in the Beta program in any meaningful way, other than by installing the OS and using it.)
As far as the RTM is concerned, it has always been possible to purchase and install the newest Microsoft OS through an UPGRADE version, which you will be able to purchase, if you so choose, rather than the RETAIL edition.
As far as Microsoft UPGRADE editions are concerned, they ALWAYS include EVERY "BIT" the FULL RETAIL editions contains, but can ONLY be installed by proving ownership of a qualifying previous MS OS. This is accomplished by simply inserting the previous version's media in the drive if Setup fails to find a previous OS on the HD (or if you have a "blank" HD, for that matter).
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)

"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 03:35:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
I think people missed the point of my post.
My comment was that people who are beta testing Vista "may" have to pay MORE for the final version, as they may have to buy the full version rather than the upgrade. Here in the UK the full version usually sells for £50+ more than the upgrade.
There really is no need to do this, UNLESS you have never owned a copy of XP, in which case you WILL need to purchase the Full Retail (or a generic OEM) of Vista.
I have beta tested lots of software and always given full feedback, reported bugs and suggested solutions. In return I have always got either the final version free, or a at discount by way of thank you. May be thats because, in the main, I test out education software.
Again thats not really my point, it is the possibility of paying more and actually being penalised for being a beta tester.
ps - Sorry for posting in 3 posts, it kept telling me the submission had failed.
1) Those of us who are using the Community Public Preview of Vista are NOT "beta testers', in the strictest sense of the word. 2) Microsoft does use "real" beta testers, both in-house (who are paid), and through it's Private Beta program (who are not paid), available to anyone who is accepted into the program by Microsoft. All one has to do is apply. If you do have true Beta testing experience, it will be a plus. 3) Microsoft also uses "beta testers" who are part of Microsoft's MSDN (with an OS membership) and Microsoft's Technet. These people are all developers, who PAY for their Betas, as well as the RTM.
Microsoft's philosophy is that the general public are getting the use of one or more "Community Public Previews", plus the Release Candidates, for a full year, for FREE. Why should they then GIVE the OS away to hundreds of thousands of home users who are (mostly) amateurs and hobbyists (most of whom did not engage in the Beta program in any meaningful way, other than by installing the OS and using it.)
As far as the RTM is concerned, it has always been possible to purchase and install the newest Microsoft OS through an UPGRADE version, which you will be able to purchase, if you so choose, rather than the RETAIL edition.
As far as Microsoft UPGRADE editions are concerned, they ALWAYS include EVERY "BIT" the FULL RETAIL editions contains, but can ONLY be installed by proving ownership of a qualifying previous MS OS. This is accomplished by simply inserting the previous version's media in the drive if Setup fails to find a previous OS on the HD (or if you have a "blank" HD, for that matter).
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza wrote:

Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)

Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

I think the Op has a very valid point. I have been testing MS Betas since the early kernals, and I don't believe that MS necessarily has the customer's best interests at heart, but are in business to make as much money as they can in as short a period as they can, like most other corporations.
Why flame him for stating his concerns? Bill doesn't care what you think. Sir.
"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)
Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

My query was around this clause
"Upgrade limitations You may not be able to upgrade your installation of Windows Vista Beta 2 (or RC1) to the final, commercially available edition of Windows Vista. To upgrade you will need to acquire the final full edition of Windows Vista and you may have to do a clean installation."
Does this mean I cant still purchase the cheaper upgrade version in a year?
I do indeed have a licensed version of XP at the moment a comment which I felt was uncalled for.
Why is it that due to the annonimity of forums such as these, people feel they can be as rude as they like, rather than discussing points in an adult and civilised way.

"Custerboy" wrote:

I think the Op has a very valid point. I have been testing MS Betas since the early kernals, and I don't believe that MS necessarily has the customer's best interests at heart, but are in business to make as much money as they can in as short a period as they can, like most other corporations.
Why flame him for stating his concerns? Bill doesn't care what you think. Sir.
"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)
Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

There are a lot worse places than this, my friend...
"Dazza" wrote:

My query was around this clause
"Upgrade limitations You may not be able to upgrade your installation of Windows Vista Beta 2 (or RC1) to the final, commercially available edition of Windows Vista. To upgrade you will need to acquire the final full edition of Windows Vista and you may have to do a clean installation."
Does this mean I cant still purchase the cheaper upgrade version in a year?
I do indeed have a licensed version of XP at the moment a comment which I felt was uncalled for.
Why is it that due to the annonimity of forums such as these, people feel they can be as rude as they like, rather than discussing points in an adult and civilised way.

"Custerboy" wrote:
I think the Op has a very valid point. I have been testing MS Betas since the early kernals, and I don't believe that MS necessarily has the customer's best interests at heart, but are in business to make as much money as they can in as short a period as they can, like most other corporations.
Why flame him for stating his concerns? Bill doesn't care what you think. Sir.
"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)
Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

On 2006-06-26 09:40, Dazza wrote:

My query was around this clause
"Upgrade limitations You may not be able to upgrade your installation of Windows Vista Beta 2 (or RC1) to the final, commercially available edition of Windows Vista. To upgrade you will need to acquire the final full edition of Windows Vista and you may have to do a clean installation."
Does this mean I cant still purchase the cheaper upgrade version in a year?

The key is the words "upgrade your installation of Windows Vista Beta 2 (or RC1) to the final", meaning that you might not be able to install the final Vista over an Beta 2/RC1 installation. However you will still be able to perform an XP->Vista upgrade. The reason for this is that MS does not want to burden themselves with ensuring that this upgrade-path works since it will not be a common one, and they do not give any guarantees whatsoever for beta software.
-- Erik Wikström

It means that the beta/RC1 version you install may not be upgradable, for technical reasons. Microsoft does not wish to develop the code necessary to upgrade a number of Vista versions (B1, B2, RC1, RC2, etc) to the final version. You'll need to do one of the following:
1. Reformat your hard drive and install a full retail copy of Vista. 2. Upgrade your existing copy of XP.
Microsoft is providing a service to users here, by allowing them to test and learn a new OS before it is released. If the users like, they can supply feedback. Most of us have Vista installed on spare machines or hard drives and continue to use our previous version of Windows when we're not "playing" with Vista. We intend to install the final version of Vista using either of the two steps above.

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 00:40:02 -0700, Dazza wrote:

My query was around this clause
"Upgrade limitations You may not be able to upgrade your installation of Windows Vista Beta 2 (or RC1) to the final, commercially available edition of Windows Vista. To upgrade you will need to acquire the final full edition of Windows Vista and you may have to do a clean installation."
Does this mean I cant still purchase the cheaper upgrade version in a year?
I do indeed have a licensed version of XP at the moment a comment which I felt was uncalled for.
Why is it that due to the annonimity of forums such as these, people feel they can be as rude as they like, rather than discussing points in an adult and civilised way.

"Custerboy" wrote:
I think the Op has a very valid point. I have been testing MS Betas since the early kernals, and I don't believe that MS necessarily has the customer's best interests at heart, but are in business to make as much money as they can in as short a period as they can, like most other corporations.
Why flame him for stating his concerns? Bill doesn't care what you think. Sir.
"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)
Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. =====================================================

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 20:24:01 -0700, Custerboy wrote:

"Donald L McDaniel" wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jun 2006 15:51:02 -0700, Dazza Dazza@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Yeah but if you read the terms and conditions it quite clearly says that you may not be able to install the upgrade version in a years time, but have to buy the full installation. Which will cost more than the upgrade version - which is my point - perhaps I am not making it clearly enough ;o)
Your "point" is truly meaningless, sir. You need more experience with purchasing and using Wintel OSes like Windows. Those of us who have been purchasing and using Windows for years won't have to worry about purchasing a FULL RETAIL edition of Vista when it is released to manufacturing.
I advise you to learn all the ins and outs of Windows Upgrade Editions, rather than complaining about not being able to get a RTM copy of Vista for free.
Obviously, you won't be able to use an Upgrade edition if you do not have a previous license to XP. If you do, you will be able to.
Personaly, I think you are just looking for something to find fault with Microsoft about.

I think the Op has a very valid point. I have been testing MS Betas since the early kernals, and I don't believe that MS necessarily has the customer's best interests at heart, but are in business to make as much money as they can in as short a period as they can, like most other corporations.
Why flame him for stating his concerns? Bill doesn't care what you think. Sir.

1) Is it valid that Microsoft should give away their software, which they are spending billions of dollars to develop, just because one or more stupid users were remiss in backing up their data? 2) Is it valid that it may not be possible to upgrade the Betas and Release Candidates of Vista themselves? Of course it's valid. Especially when it will STILL be possible to install Vista "clean" using the Vista Upgrade Edition with an installation or CD of Windows XP (either by installing it OVER XP on a HD or by inserting his EXISTING FULL OEM or Full Retail CD when asked?) 3) Why should Microsoft make it possible for us to keep our data and programs intact when one should NEVER install them in a test environment in the first place without BACKING it up FIRST? Microsoft tells us EXPLICITLY NOT to install Vista (or any of its pre-release products) on our everyday working machines. So the OP was NOT without warning from Microsoft, SIR. 4) I have in NO WAY "flamed" the OP. I simply tried to inform him that he was mistaken in his opinion of Microsoft, and tried to give him information ANY past "Beta tester" already should have. The fact is, HE (and you) have bad attitudes, not me. 5) I have flamed YOU, SIR, since YOU should know better.
==
Donald L McDaniel Please reply to the original thread. ==========================================================

I'm sorry to see that you were slammed for your question, but I think you recognized that the 'point of your question' was not particularly well delivered.
The answer to your question has been addressed but in case there is any confusion: you will be able to buy the upgrade if you fit the upgrade criteria (almost surely from XP). Your note about the inability to upgrade from the Beta is as pointed out, a legal disclaimer and forwarning that you may not be able to perform the upgrade from the beta installation (i.e., you must revert to XP, or do a clean install using the upgrade with the original XP OS disk; the specific way will vary depending on how MS plans to deal with the security issues of proper upgrading licenses).
Why you got flamed? I think you might want to know why you got flamed. We're a community and well, perhaps a protective one. MS get's slammed for everything. In this case, you were, wether you intended to, setting MS up for a negative critique that was unfounded. How you phrased your question may not have delivered your point well as it seemed encumbered with some emotion. I and I think none of the others here want to see MS shy away from such a public Beta program because of responses like yours, albeit a misunderstanding. Such misunderstandings could lead MS to not offer a public Beta in the future and this would hurt everyone! You see, with a public Beta, MS gets to test the waters outside of the "controlled environment" where variations in hardware and software is unlimited. As testers, we have a little chance to see in advance the system, learn in advance, and of course, help identify any problems that might be present which really should be addressed but for some reason was overlooked (not likely?). In the end, all consumers will benefit. Yes, so will Microsoft ... but in my opinion, rightfully so ... they made an investment, have extended the public outreach and consultation (which they really don't have to given the lack of competitive alternatives).
It all comes down to writing clearly ... which I forgive I have not done here. I'm a little rushed, but I think that my points should come across properly.
Cheers
"Dazza" wrote:

Does anyone else it is bit mean of Microsoft to ask people to test out Vista for them in the real world through this Beta, then expect them to pay for not just the upgrade, but perhaps the more costly full version?
Surely we should get it for free for helping them out?
:o)