Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD £43.92 (Google) - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit
69Expired

Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD £43.92 (Google)

£43.92 @ Ebuyer
Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD £46.15 (Google) Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade Edition The preferred edition of Windows Vista for home desktop and mobile PCs Microsoft Windows Vista Home P…
deanos Avatar
9y, 8m agoFound 9 years, 8 months ago
Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD £46.15 (Google)


Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade Edition
The preferred edition of Windows Vista for home desktop and mobile PCs

Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade (Educational) - You may need to prove your academic status. (Although very unlikely !)

price drop now 43.92
- deanos
More From Ebuyer:
×
Get the Hottest Deals Daily
Stay informed. Once a day, we'll send you the deals our members voted as the best.
Failed
deanos Avatar
9y, 8m agoFound 9 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(29) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Is it worth getting Vista , at this price its tempting ??
#2
If your still on Win2K then go for it but otherwise there's just not enough in Vista to warrant the price and stress of upgrading from XP.
#3
not knocking the deal, but i would advise getting Vista when sp1 is released. charlie
#4
thats very cheap I paid 53 for the basic version last week
#5
Vista is really good. Some people have problems because of hardware incompatibility though. I've not had a single problem.
#6
If you have a relatively new PC Vista is a great upgrade. However make sure you have at least 1GB of memory (and 2BG is better)..

I'm running it on my new PC and I would not go back to Windows XP.

Enjoy.
#7
csf
not knocking the deal, but i would advise getting Vista when sp1 is released. charlie


Totally agree, If it aint broke don't fix it, especially as the majority of software (inc games, which use DirectX 9) still run nicely on XP (DX10 games out later this year, will only be able to run on DirectX 10 OS's, I believe (?))

If your not planning on playing games, then get Ubuntu (linux) Operating System, which is free incidently, they even send you the disk free.

Still, good price if you reeeeeaaaallly want it and you have a powerful enough PC.
#8
I've not had any issues with my laptop sicne I upgraded it (with a free upgrade) to Vista. Though once you turn off the built in annoyance system known as UAC, it doesn't really bring much new to the table. So yeah, if you have XP, I wouldn't really recommend upgrading to Vista as there isn't much to gain other than DX10.
#9
why is there no x64 upgrade version? :s
#10
some advice..stick to either 2000 or xp


vista is still buggy and is very hardware straining.

i have 4gb ram and it takes it...its daft

all you look at is a pretty interface..ive gone back to 2000..much easier and more professional not to mention STABLE
#11
SpencerUk
some advice..stick to either 2000 or xp


vista is still buggy and is very hardware straining.

i have 4gb ram and it takes it...its daft

all you look at is a pretty interface..ive gone back to 2000..much easier and more professional not to mention STABLE

what do you mean it takes the RAM?
#12
SpencerUk
some advice..stick to either 2000 or xp


vista is still buggy and is very hardware straining.

i have 4gb ram and it takes it...its daft

all you look at is a pretty interface..ive gone back to 2000..much easier and more professional not to mention STABLE


Not being funny, but the RAM is there to be taken! What is the point of having 4GB (or 2GB) of RAM if your system doesn't use it?

Whether the GUI is "easier and more professional" is a matter of opinion - can't see myself going back to XP let alone 2000 personally. And my installation is very STABLE although, granted, I may have been "lucky" as far as drivers go.

That said, waiting for SP-1 might be the wise move. It will give MS time to work some of the kinks out, and give some of the hardware manufacturers more time to write some decent drivers. Even though they've had five years to do so already, or to be charitable, at least six months since Vista was released to the business market.
#13
HenvY
what do you mean it takes the RAM?


it basically uses it all!

my specs are

core 2 duo 1.8ghz overclocked to 3.2ghz
4gb ram ddrII
200gb hdd sata
80gb ide
ati radeon 1950gt

i ran ultimate and it started up with too many processes (43 to be exact) and when youve done with all your stuff on its like 55 processes which hogs your ram.

its a hardware hungry app.

NOTE: this is from my personal experience

NOTE 2: dont run with a sempron..thrashes your chips cache alot and dont run on intergrated graphics.
#14
Vista is designed to use RAM - all of your RAM :) The idea is to cache things that you *may* want in the future thus making them quicker to load when you do want it.

Personally speaking, this is just one of those 'sounded good on paper' ideas that should have been canned after the prototype was done! Vista hasn't really got any idea on what you'd actually need so it's best guess isn't ever going to be totally accurate. Secondly, with the speed of todays CPUs and disks, do we really need to shave a couple of seconds of an application starting up?

Ultimately, you can turn this particular feature off if it bothers you!

There's also a stack of other services/scheduled tasks you can set to manual (or disabled if you prefer). There are many articles on the web such as this one ->http://www.speedyvista.com/services.html providing guidance.

If you've got a new machine (< 6-12 months) then go for Vista if you desire. Any older and I'd stick with XP and upgrade to Vista when you have the hardware to make it look as good as it can. It'll be some time before the majority of games 'require' DX10 (accepting Microsoft's ill conceived tie in with Halo 2 on Vista only as not the norm!).
#15
adamhearn
Vista is designed to use RAM - all of your RAM :) The idea is to cache things that you *may* want in the future thus making them quicker to load when you do want it.

Personally speaking, this is just one of those 'sounded good on paper' ideas that should have been canned after the prototype was done! Vista hasn't really got any idea on what you'd actually need so it's best guess isn't ever going to be totally accurate. Secondly, with the speed of todays CPUs and disks, do we really need to shave a couple of seconds of an application starting up?

Ultimately, you can turn this particular feature off if it bothers you!

There's also a stack of other services/scheduled tasks you can set to manual (or disabled if you prefer). There are many articles on the web such as this one ->http://www.speedyvista.com/services.html providing guidance.

If you've got a new machine (< 6-12 months) then go for Vista if you desire. Any older and I'd stick with XP and upgrade to Vista when you have the hardware to make it look as good as it can. It'll be some time before the majority of games 'require' DX10 (accepting Microsoft's ill conceived tie in with Halo 2 on Vista only as not the norm!).


sorry i disagree.

i do a bit of games texture level design and all fairness, how are you supposed to get it fluent if it faltering behind because your specs isnt there.

When i had xp was fine..coulple of .sys files went walk about but i fixed it

2000 is godly system IMO..fully patched, basic, stable, all i need.

Some people have different needs..all i reccommend is that if you consider vista make sure you have a decent system to try it on and make good backups of your files.

but then again..xp was buggy for best part of a year and a bit, so ill give vista time..july next year ill try again
#16
I have installed XP on 2 home PC's with reasonable spec and Vista just farts them out. It eats RAM like it's going out of fashion and has some really annoying restrictions on what it will and won't let you see on the hard drive.

I used a 'trial' version of Vista and am thinking of going back to XP.
#17
Neil_Coombes
If your still on Win2K then go for it but otherwise there's just not enough in Vista to warrant the price and stress of upgrading from XP.


If you are still on Win2k it's unlikely that your hardware is up to Vista; stick with it or XP.

Cheers, Dio :)
#18
sicknote
I have installed XP on 2 home PC's with reasonable spec and Vista just farts them out. It eats RAM like it's going out of fashion and has some really annoying restrictions on what it will and won't let you see on the hard drive.

I used a 'trial' version of Vista and am thinking of going back to XP.


I agree, been using the evaluation version on my PC and am not fused on it. Very resource intensive (seems to spike for some reason) and soundblaster driver doesnt work properly either, very jumpy. Vista is not for me, least not for awhile.
#19
My pc is a AMD 64 3500+, 1gb Ram , 300gb h/d,NVIDIA® GeForce® 6645 Targa HighSpeed Edition (NV43) with Silent Pipe, 128 MB, Direct X9, Double Monitoring, PCI Express


Full spec here>http://www.targa.co.uk/index.jsp?SID=0&NAV=236&DOC=&PAGE=1293&PCAT=2&PROD=233&PTUBE=10&PARAMS=undefined&PARAMS2=undefined&SPCAREA=undefined
#20
I bought Vista a few months back and VERY pleased with it - far slicker and just as good performance on my machine (if not slightly better) - but I do have a high-end dual-core machine.

Mark.
#21
SpencerUk
some advice..stick to either 2000 or xp


vista is still buggy and is very hardware straining.

i have 4gb ram and it takes it...its daft

all you look at is a pretty interface..ive gone back to 2000..much easier and more professional not to mention STABLE


Totally agree - my advice is to get a new PC with Vista installed rather than upgrade - spare yourself the grief for not much reward.
#22
Buckster
I bought Vista a few months back and VERY pleased with it - far slicker and just as good performance on my machine (if not slightly better) - but I do have a high-end dual-core machine.

Mark.


Exactly, you have a powerful PC and Vista requires that to run smoothly, not everyone has that.

davt99,
Totally agree - my advice is to get a new PC with Vista installed rather than upgrade - spare yourself the grief for not much reward

I totally understand where you're coming from, however, it irritates me that Micro$oft bring out an unneccesary "upgrade", as in Vista OS, where XP is more than adequate for majority of people and have to shell out for more powerful and expensivve PC's just so they can have Vista. +rant over+:thumbsup:
#23
there is a "pain curve" to go through upgrading to Vista and its taken me a long time to get Vista running as well as I need it to

For starters there are compatibility issues with drivers for hardware. XP hardware drivers won't work with Vista in every case so that needs searching the net to obtain updated Vista drivers. Secondly, a lot of software that worked in XP won't work with Vista. That means searching the net again for updated Vista versions. And even then its often the case that Vista versions are still in development (such as Zone Alarm) so you can't upgrade. its taken till now (from Feb) to get all my software (barring Zone Alarm) updated to Vista versions

My advice now would be to stick with XP if it works well for you and hang fire on Vista until the end of the year by which time Vista drivers, Vista software and maybe a Vista SP1 will all be available.

Do I think Vista is much better than XP? Nope, to be honest. In a lot of ways it is irritating and frustrating.
#24
kvee
there is a "pain curve" to go through upgrading to Vista and its taken me a long time to get Vista running as well as I need it to

For starters there are compatibility issues with drivers for hardware. XP hardware drivers won't work with Vista in every case so that needs searching the net to obtain updated Vista drivers. Secondly, a lot of software that worked in XP won't work with Vista. That means searching the net again for updated Vista versions. And even then its often the case that Vista versions are still in development (such as Zone Alarm) so you can't upgrade. its taken till now (from Feb) to get all my software (barring Zone Alarm) updated to Vista versions

My advice now would be to stick with XP if it works well for you and hang fire on Vista until the end of the year by which time Vista drivers, Vista software and maybe a Vista SP1 will all be available.

Do I think Vista is much better than XP? Nope, to be honest. In a lot of ways it is irritating and frustrating.


What a PITA! :-(

Still, its a good price! ^^ :giggle:
#25
Note: this is the "educational" upgrade - you have to work in education, be studying or have children studying to qualify.
I bought this version and there are no checks of your academic status - however I qualify so I have no worries.
I had no hardware issues driver support seems very good. There are a few bugs still - things crash occasionally but not that much more often than XP.
Leave user account control on - yes it is annoying but if you turn it off you lose some protection such a registry virtualisation - once everything is set up it does not pop up very often.
Seems to boot quicker than XP but then again I have striped raptors. Hibernation is much better than XP if you want to get going quickly - literally 2 seconds.
SP1 is imminent. Currently there is a loophole that lets you do a clean install from this upgrade - this might close after SP1. If you want the 64bit version microsoft will send you it for a couple of quid - big difference here from the OEM version - you can also transfer an upgrade licence to another computer - you can't with OEM (well microsoft make it difficult).
#26
I am currently running Windows XP Service Pack 2 (The OEM Version).
Would I be able to use this upgrade to get Windows Vista Premium even though I have the OEM version of XP installed?
Is there any more information on the loophole allowing me to do a clean install from the upgrade dajg??
Thanks
#27
dajg
big difference here from the OEM version - you can also transfer an upgrade licence to another computer - you can't with OEM (well microsoft make it difficult).

Are you 100% sure about this? I spoke with Microsoft about this issue with regard to XP when I eventually upgraded from 2000. They told me that the only versions that are officially eligible for transferring between PCs are the full retail versions and not the retail upgrade versions. If anything Vista is more restricted than XP, but MS did change the license terms so I'm not sure of the current state of play.
I though this was unacceptable so I blagged a cheap copy of XP Pro Retail from MS for £92. MS were selling cheap copies of XP Retail Full version to people that had pirate versions of XP. To do this I installed a pirate version of XP as a VM under VM Workstation and logged onto Windows Update, where I was told that my license was invalid and was invited to purchase a retail version. They emailed me the key and sent me the installation disc. I’ve transferred it across my various PC builds with no problems.
#28
dajg
SP1 is imminent. Currently there is a loophole that lets you do a clean install from this upgrade - this might close after SP1.

Sorry to dredge up an old thread with a slightly off-topic question, but does anyone know if there's such thing as Vista Premium Academic Full Install (as opposed to an Upgrade)? I want to dual-boot XP and Vista without using the above-mentioned loophole...
#29
Price drop now 43.92

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Looking for Twitter login?
Top of Page
Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!