Slashdot Mirror
The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft executives have been telling the tech industry that if hardware supports Windows Vista, it will support Windows 7, but it now looks like that may not entirely be the case. According to CRN: 'But after a series of tests on older and newer hardware, a number of noteworthy issues emerged: Microsoft's statement that if hardware works with Windows Vista it will work with Windows 7 appears to be, at best, misleading; hardware that is older, but not near the end of most business life cycles, could be impossible to upgrade; and the addition of an extra step in the upgrade process does add complexity and more time not needed in previous upgrade cycles.' And here is CRN's overview of the difficulties Microsoft faces in asking enterprise users to walk this upgrade path: 'Across the XP-Vista-Windows 7 landscape, Microsoft has fostered an ecosystem that now holds out the prospect of a mind-numbing number of incompatible drivers, unsupported devices, unsupported applications, unsupported data, patches, updates, upgrades, 'known issues' and unknown issues. Sound familiar? That's what people used to say about Linux.'"
Honestly, I think that when an OS manufacturer forgets that current users don't run OS's, they run applications and they use hardware attached to the computer (scanners, cameras, drum machines, etc.).. they've fallen off the rails. I would *never* consider upgrading to Vista or Win7. I keep XP in a sandbox on my Mac and there it will stay, unable to talk to MS (no network connection provided in the sandbox), able to be restored from an image in seconds, and basically 100% functional with all my goodies.
I really can't imagine what they're thinking. If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine. Whatever machine that might be.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I still say Linux has unknown issues.
--I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
Seriously, I'm as rabidly anti-windows as they come, but isn't this a little unfair? Windows 7 is still beta, it doesn't surprise me that there are still some driver issues.
The idea that we will have to either buy Vista AND Windows 7, or do a clean install, just plain sucks.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It may make more sense for many businesses to just forklift-upgrade their desktops.
EG, a Intel Atom dual-core, dual-thread-per-core motherboard should be just fine for most business desktops. Yeah, the graphics aren't great, but at 2GB, an 80 GB disk, and a price of a hair over $300 for a complete system, the hardware costs are so dwarfed by software and support costs that just throwing all the old systems out may be cheaper.
Test your net with Netalyzr
seriously, the UI and the taskbar usability is awful, if i open 3 apps i dont know if the app is open or its just a quicklaunch icon ? there is no visual difference between the two
then the amount of clicks to perform basic tasks has increased, eg
set display or desktop properties on XP is a simple r-click on the desktop>properties and you are there.
now try it on 7 and it opens a window which you have to click another link then another link then you are there
the whole thing screams "rushed" and poorly thought out
i shall be recommending to my customers that they stick with XP until it expires.
meh
So who wants to buy two $2100 email machines in 3 years? Sounds fun to me!
Linux was a steady progression of stability and driver support (with the exception of a few evil kernel updates). MS upgrades are just ... reinventing the wheel. New GUI widgets, maybe some new hw support that wasn't there, but generally increased bloat, or swapping 1 user level idiosycracy for another. With Linux kernel updates you were generally sure of getting a better experience.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
So how many companies out there have the extra cash to fund anything even remotely resembling a complex upgrade path?
Yea, that's what I thought.
The article tried installing Windows 7 on a single hardware setup (a thinkpad) that failed, and that's where the "oh my goodness, how can Microsoft expect all these businesses to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, it's not going to work on pretty much ANY hardware" came from. (Yes, exaggerated).
If they tried, oh, I don't know, 10 other computers, I would be interested. But writing an article after trying a single computer? Especially annoying is the fact that they said they came to this conclusion after an "attempt at a sim " ... nevermind, just read it for yourself.
The Test Center came to this conclusion after an attempt at a simulated enterprise upgrade and other evaluations of the process on different pieces of PC hardware.
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta. Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.
Their plan: Let's do a mult-hardware test by deploying an imaged upgrade on same-hardware machines?
And, of course, after it failed, they tried another hardware configuration.
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
Yipee. So we have a total of two hardware configurations tested...
The writer most likely ran into problems with the software that was installed on the laptop rather than the fact that the laptop was "older" than the custom desktop. This article proves nothing and is a waste of time. Move along, nothing to see here.
Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7? You would have to be a complete idiot. I can see new systems arriving with W7 though.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Can't wait for the Win7 Upgrade Class Action Lawsuit (SP2)
The enterprises will do clean installs rather than in place upgrades. The entire system will be deployed through system center or suchlike. Silly article.
The problem with windows, that they missed, is that after all was said and done all they're doing is adding on a ton of overhead rather than redesigning windows from the ground up. It shouldn't be Windows 7, it should be Windows 1, or Windows star over, get the features they want by coding them in from the beginning rather than trying to tack everything on top of everything else.
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Same with the vista-ready label/lawsuits. And no, i'm not talking about microsoft. What kind of stupid company running older machines would bother upgrading OSes? What would be the point? To make the machine run slower and cause compatibility issues? Let home users work out all the bugs over a year or so and then upgrade AS you upgrade machines. I never upgraded my old dos machine to windows when it came out because even if it could run it would run slow as shit. Same reason i wouldn't install KDE on a netbook. New OSes shouldn't HAVE to explicitly support old hardware. People on old hardware should use the OS that they had when they bought it, maybe the next gen.
I know Linux is pro and can support like every part made but is there a requirement to do this? No, its the same as putting linux on a toaster. Windows should be keeping minimal winXP support for a few more years and have win7 be for only new machines, fuck supporting outdated hardware. This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I salute both the pro and anti MS crowds who shall soon mod me troll.
I'm not saying that this might not be the reality, but really, think about to the specs you mentioned: 2 gigabytes of RAM. A dual core processor. 80 GB hard drive.
And all of that just to get the operating system to run! I mean, what are office computers used for? I'd wager that 90% of "office use" consist of text processing, internet browsing, emailing and instant messaging. I used to do word processing on a 386! And it was fast!
I really don't want this to appear like a personal attack, but why the hell are people willing to accept something like this? It bugs the hell out of me that perfectly good computers - computers that have a hundred times more power than actually needed for the tasks they're used to - are thrown away because the underlying operating system is so greedy that it can't run smoothly with fewer resources than those you mentioned.
-- Language is a virus from outer space.
What kind of barking moron upgrades an existing Windows installation? Back up data, wipe, reinstall.
I wonder how KDE 4.2 stacks up against Windows 7's interface. There is what appears to be an impressive review of KDE 4.2 over here at Techradar.com.
The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta
Headline and most of the article say it's Windows 7, with a lame disclaimer at the very end that it's a beta.
Yet, it boggles the mind that the laptop upgraded fairly easy to Vista Service Pack 1 and then flat-lined with Windows 7. So much for the Microsoft mantra "If it works in Vista, it will work in Windows 7."
MS didn't say Windows 7 Beta, you numbnut. And then this:
A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.
I'm getting tired of this anti-MS drivel on here. And technology sites are noticing. Read the first line of this article http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars
The popular technology website Slashdot plumbed new depths on Tuesday with a post about the terrible DRM situation in Windows 7. Proving that some sites will publish just about anything as long as it's anti-Microsoft, the post enumerated the DRM restrictions that Windows 7 apparently inflicts on the honest and upstanding computer user.
Before long, Slashdot will lose whatever reputation it has if drivel like this is posted. There's lots of stuff to bash MS on, please don't post nonsense.
This space for rent.
Gotta get rid of all that old 'un-trusted' hardware somehow.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I was thinking of Buying a new dell laptop and someone told me that I should wait for windows 7 to come out. I said that I probably would just put Linux on it as soon as I got it, but then it occurred to me, I would still have to boot into windows to update my Iphone, and use Itunes. I have gone completely legit in the music, movie and software areas and I like being able to download DRM free music whenever I feel like it. Bottom line, you can't do that with Linux. So I said fuck it and I'm buying a MAC. Don't get me wrong, I still have my desktop and that hasn't booted into windows in at least 9 months.
Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
For many, they don't have any practical choices.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Are you kidding me?! People STILL say this about Linux!!!!!!!!
The article is a scam. Most enterprises would not create a master image by upgrading from XP -> Vista -> Windows 7.
They would create a new windows 7 image and do a fresh install. The challenges they lay out about driver compatibilities etc are no different than moving from Win 2000 to XP.
Having had to test a lot of 6-60-months-old hardware in recent years, it has become hard not to find at least one flavor of Linux that fully supports any given system among as small a selection as just the live boot CDs for Ubuntu, Knoppix and SuSE gleaned from a month's magazine covers.
What kind of stupid company running older machines would bother upgrading OSes?
One forced to respond to Microsoft's forced obsolescence. Duh. It happened with Win2k, and it's happening right now with XP, as fast as Microsoft can make it happen. Unfortunately for Redmond, many businesses are going to stick with older hardware and software in a downed economy, with or without Microsoft's shenanigans..
Whenever you install a new operating system theres a chance you will have some compatability issues with it. It isnt as if microsoft could go out and made sure that every application and every driver on the planet didnt use X process or X outdated utility to connect, but that isnt the fault of the OS. In order for them to make any changes to the OS, they have to remove some things.
I tried to crack Media Player Classic on my Windows 7 build 7990, and then Windows 7 got me laid off from my job, gave my dog a urinary tract infection, and made my wife leave me for a younger, more attractive man. Curse you Windows 7! Does your evil know no bounds?!
I had that much hard drive space 10 years ago. At least the move from Windows 9x to XP brought stability.
I don't know of any improvements that justify the huge performance hit Vista brings. DWM and indexing were in OS X 10.4 and you could run the computer comfortably with 512 MB of RAM. What other feature does Vistas have that makes the computer feel so slow with 512 MB? 10.4 ran pretty well with it.
No way is Vista or 7 going on any of our machines, unless MS does a huge about face on built in DRM. XP is likely the last windows our family will ever use.
DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS!
This isn't just a problem with Windows. I've had scanners that run fine under Mac OS 10.3 that 10.4 wouldn't recognize. Bad on them for promising that everything that worked under Vista would be good in 7, but anyone who's been in the industry should have known that was just marketing speak.
Note to Microsoft: You can fix problems or maintain compatibility, quit pretending you can do both.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Next is Release Candidate - ONE - then Release To Manufacturing.
Which means just as I feared, Windows 7 is going to be rushed to market by Christmas with INADEQUATE TESTING - a known Microsoft problem - just like Vista and XP were.
No, folks, your pain has not yet ended.
When I read the initial reviews of Windows 7, I thought MAYBE Microsoft wasn't going to fuck this one up beyond all recognition like they did Vista.
Now I see I was completely too optimistic.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
123
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I cannot imagine a situation where I would recommend to a company that they use money and resources to upgrade a Windows XP box to a newer OS. What a waste of time.
When the XP box reaches end of life you replace it with new hardware and put your ready to go Windows 7 image on it. Duh.
The Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 path seems even more unlikely. Chalk this article up as an academic exercise, not a real world scenario.
Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=
Say you ship widgets. Or work with small parts that make widgets.
MS in the past was an easy/cheap way to get all the 'just in time' connections done without big expensive solutions.
What has changed? You are small and old MS will do, or you need a real OS.
More units, numbers, different parts of the world?
Can your hardware cope, inhouse old MS software added to?
If you need something better, you upgrade to -Mac, Unix like or obscure operating systems - expensive, very productive and all very MS free. Your now rich and can do it right.
So what can MS offer?
You will need to rip out all your hardware, buy expensive new multi core hardware and Win 7 software to:
Run Win 7 Run AV and malware together without slowing down
Run MS DRM
and test all your new buggy inhouse software in real time
End result, downtime.
Your customers dont want to hear about Win 7 problems, they just want their widgets on time, if you cannot do it, others can.
For the geek/nerd gamer? Your Win7, malware/AV, MS DRM and that 3 yo game can all co exist over so many cores and lots of memory you feel like your living in the future for a few months.
More thanks to faster hardware heating up your room than anything new from MS.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Now the issue is the Windows OS and kernel are pretty light weight. But Windows Vista is a distribution of the Vista kernel, and a buch of services and applications that use this kernel to interact with the users and data on the disks, Desktop search, IE, DNS Client, SMB Client and server, Print Spooler etc. Now out of these, i found desktop search to be one of the biggest CPU and memory hogs. I diabled this on my tablet and Vista performs much better over all.
However, with Linux, there is one other difference, you can pick a distribution that has a current kernel, and a wide variety of different applications and services that run on this kernel.
On my fastest desktop (Actally my HP tablet) I use openSuSE 11.1 with KDE4.1 as the desktop GUI. To run this well, the hardware requirements are actually similar to XP SP3 and I get about an extra half hour on battery over Vista on the same box, however I also run openSuSE 11.1 on an old 1.2 GHz single core celeron, But no GUI shell, only a bash command line environment. It is my home server and has just enough stuff loaded to support VMWare Server. So in both cases the devices can take advantage of the latest OS, can keep patched with current patches for services and applications, but I can scale it by just choosing what services to install. I don't share stuff on my tablet, so no need for SAMBA server, no websites on it, so no need for Apache, no viruses for Linux, so I don't need AV (actually I do still use an AV product as I live in a Windows world at work)
On my netbook, I use ubuntu, because this little sucker runs very well as a desktop when memory, disk and CPU are constrained, but does not quite have all the fruit I would normally install on my main desktop by default. However, if I wanted to, all these other apps and services are just an "apt-get install" away.
Yup, new intel Macs don't run OS 9 aps.
But an old iMac that will sit happily on you network and take care of those needs is like fifty bucks so it's a no brainer.
Then there are those that complain about Windows being a bitch.
I mean, the funny thing is that I basically agree with you, but you holding that position and then using a Mac as your main computer is pretty mind-bendingly oxymoronic.
Speaking as someone who owns four generations of Mac hardware including a fully functional Mac Plus... I mean, the funny thing is that I basically agree with you, but you holding the position that new Mac owners switching from PCs give even half a shit about old Mac applications is pretty mind-bendingly oxy^H^H^Hmoronic.
> Microsoft has stated that the best option to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 is by not skipping the upgrade to Vista.
Taken on it's own, this statement means little. Microsoft would say this in any case -- not from any evil conspiracy, but simply because it's in their best interest. If a credible M$ source said the migration path of XP directly to Windows 7 worked just dandy, they'd never work in Redmond again. Note to ChannelWeb: Analysis is incomplete without trying this.
I'm looking at upgrading my media center from XP Media Edition to Windows 7, but that'll be a complete reinstall, so it doesn't count. I was flirting with Windows 7 for my other machines, but lacking official support of an upgrade from XP to Windows 7, they'll have to stay on XP. There's no way in Hell I'm going to pay a couple hundred to upgrade to Vista just so I can pay another couple hundred to upgrade to Windows 7. Nice idea to back-door some additional Vista purchases, but would it really work? What person in their right mind would do this?
For that matter, what company in it's right mind would do this? Especially in this economy?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
"Because Windows 7 is a much better OS in so many different ways" - by Burnhard (1031106) on Tuesday February 24, @06:06PM (#26976299)
Well... 2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter):
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... semseless & bloat creation is the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section (this is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... port filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
Ordinarily, I wouldn't post anything that "puts down Windows" here, ESPECIALLY THIS SITE (since it's KNOWN to widely be a more-or-less largely "Anti-Microsoft" type of news website, lol, & facts like these give the 'antimicrosoft' faction here ammo to use), but...
Facts, are facts.
APK
P.S.=> MAN, all that said & aside? I had to post those 2 objections I have to newer MS OS' - I mean, hey:
Doing both of those alterations (crippling ones imo) on MS' part? Dumb...
So, unless someone can show me a GOOD solid technical reason (because I have YET to find any reasons WHY both of those things were done) on why these cripplings were implemented in VISTA/Server2008, vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003??
I will stick by that statement! apk
You're an idiot. Its the beta, its in the testing phase, it was not packaged with all drivers because its not even a release candidate. The final will have better universal driver support. Don't bitch about it until they're done, you were warned dozens of times that it was a test copy... what were you expecting. As for the apple lovers, at least I dont have to shell out 2000 dallors and a lung to be able to customize and update the hardware of my machine.
Isn't this somewhat of an expected behavior with new OSes? In order to facilitate new content (think new file types (.docx)) they have to inevitably kill the old stuff!!
My take on that is a properly designed and planned out OS shouldn't have to break half the planet on each upgrade cycle to make progress.
Considering how hard it is to predict the future, I expect OSs to occasionally have to make a major change. DOS to windows 3, 3 to 95, somewhat 95 to xp, but I don't see a distinct major change since then, so why do things have to break in vista and then again in 7? At least give us some sincere major improvements for the headache, and space them out a bit will ya?
Ideally, OS upgrades should be a major pain once a deckade, and smooth in between, without sacrificing added functionality and progress.
Linux and Mac OS both seem to have a much better track record here. Heck, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X happened in what, 2001? OK that was a major breaker for software and hardware alike, but we haven't had to suffer it in 8 years and there's no threat looming in the future. Why can't MS work this way?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Seriously what is kdawson's beef with Microsoft? Did Bill Gates hit your dog or something?
... maybe with Windows 8 Microsoft should provide 2 versions: one entirely backward compatible and one based on a new 64/128 bit architecture with no compatibility and see how that sells. Then Windows 9 might be a better/more solid upgrade.
As always, it's you.
#1: Acer Aspire 6930 bought on post-xmas sale from Staples. Core 2 Duo T5800, 4GB DDR2 667, 250GB SATA HD, Integrated Intel 4500MHD, Intel 5100 wireless.
Problems: Sometimes audio driver doesn't automatically detect headphones plugged in and switch speaker output to headphone jack. Oh and HDMI audio may have the same issue if turned on while hooked to a TV that's off.
#2: Piece of Junk (literally) desktop. Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.63GHz on Asus P5B, 2GB DDR2 1066, ATI HD4850, 400GB SATA HD.
Problems: None.
#3: Toshiba Portige 4010 (So old it came with Windows 2000 installed because XP wasn't even out yet): Intel Pentium III mobile 933MHz Low Voltage, 512MB RAM, 30GB IDE HD, Intel 2200BG wireless, Ali integrated video and MB chipset from hell.
Problems: Newest Video driver for integrated Trident Blade3D (DX7 class) video is circa 2002. Windows 7 build 7000 automatically detects the install issues and retries with compatibility settings and succeeds . The driver works, except when it tries to create an overlay surface it locks up. This is not a bluescreen, the chipset actually freaks out because it's crap and the driver is badly written. Same issue under XP (which the driver was written for) on this machine. Using the video in SVGA mode solves the crash problem but is too slow for video playback. Fine for browsing and word processing though.
Performance is slow, but usable on a 9 year old laptop. Checking memory usage with the default install of "Ultimate" edition using Win7's Resource Monitor shows it defaults to only using about 300MB of RAM, leaving about 200+ free for apps and cache. This is with all the bloated defaults running like Homegroup services etc. Despite the fact that it's still beta, it fares much better than Vista and I say even on par with XP in terms of running within limited resources, while delivering more features than XP.
So yeah, color me impressed. No it's not going to render Toy Story in realtime on a 386 with EGA while making toast and finding Sarah Conner, but still that's a decade old laptop (which means it's a steaming turd of proprietary crap) and Win7 is still usable on it, without a week of fiddling with settings first. Considering MS is talking about "Netbook versions" of Win7 I'd say there's definitely a chance of them producing a contender for the lower-spec hardware out there that fares much much better than Vista did.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
plan 9 had most of these things in 1990
(unicode, 2d scrolling, cut & paste) on
a machine with 1mb of memory. what it didn't
have was bidi or subpixel rendering, as it
was 1bpp.
so what's the excuse for such bloat?
FTA: A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop ... went smoothly.
This is a bit of a lie. They are keeping 32 bit versions the whole way through. There is NO upgrade migration path across major architecture boundaries as there was with Windows Old (tm) to Windows 386/3.1 to Windows 95 to Windows XP. To go from 32 bit to 64 bit is just not possible, and with a lot of oems STIL selling 32 bit Vista.. WTF.
I guess 32 bit makes sense with the whole netbook/reduced footprint PCs but for those of us with a "serious" workstation budget, that are spending money on IT, Windows is looking more like a toy/pretend OS than ever. We need a serious OS that does complicated things fast and without a lot of headache in a business enviornment. Businesses like us are probably driving the upper end of the market because We Have Things To Do that need the horsepower, but Microsoft I guess is focused on the low end now?
In retrospect it makes a bit of sense if you think of it like this: If you have a 75 year old grandma computer illiterate type (that has never used XP), with The Ultimate Rig, Windows Vista probably is great. It probably does everything they want, and this description certainly fits the description of those "Mohave" folks in the MS ads..
Unfortunately for those of us that depend on our PCs for our livelihood, and enjoy heavy lifting with our Rigs.. Vista is not the best choice for a variety of reasons I'm sure everyone already knows. Those of us in need of more than 4gb of ram-- hell! a reliable OS that can be up for more than a few days!-- are feeling a bit left in the cold with Vista. I don't think it is possible some theme tweaks and bundled programs would please both me and grandma (vista home vis a vis vista business)
We did (attempted) some test migrations from 64 bit vista to 64 bit seven and.. well.. the installer made no attempt to do anything upgrade-like. In fact it moved all profiles, windows folder and program files folders into windows.old and that is about it. It is likely they expect mass deployments in this type of enviornment... but it would be nice if they were up front about that sort of thing.
Incompatible drivers are just the tip of the iceberg. I don't think these people did anything with 64 bit windows. Maybe 64 bit is not meant for any home user?
Smart people should be working at Microsoft. This whole situation is astonishingly dumb. They are one of the few companies on earth with the resources and expertise to make driver problems like this a non-issue. How many hundred man-years of compatibility work for dos apps/older apps went into windows 95? This is no different now.
Who, that knew what they were doing, retired? (lol)
People complain about this sort of stuff whenever a new OS or new big SP comes out but the reality is this: if you have relatively recent components made by prominent manufacturers, your stuff is going to work 90% of the time.
90% really isn't very good (especially when you're in the 10%) and isn't this the same sort of criticism aimed at Linux?
Provided I don't need 3D Video support and native hardware drivers, I'll just run:
Windows XP Pro
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows 7.0
In Virtual Machines under whatever OS I choose to use that works best with my laptop or desktop.
Aero special effects are stupid and I am better off without them and other geegaws that slow down the system.
Just put in a huge amount of RAM on my laptop or desktop so the virtual machine has enough RAM to run the OSes in emulation.
Microsoft is trying to push Microsoft Virtual Server as a solution to IT shops who need different versions of Windows to run legacy applications and serve virtual machines from a server. The PC becomes another "Dumb Terminal" using the Virtual Server clients which can even be run from a web page using ActiveX or Java controls to run the client.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I think Microsoft approached the issue of new OSes in a bad way. The idea of a new incompatible OS is that you drop the baggage of backwards compatibility with your older OSes. The way they approached it, the new OS (Vista) brought tons of new bloat, and if it dropped old bloat, the new bloat outweighs it. They should have taken a totally different approach. They bought a virtualization company a while back. All they had to do was provide XP as part of Vista. You could decide, in the control panel, what level of compatibility you wanted. No compatibility means you run Vista. Full hardware compatibility means you're actually running the XP kernel (so your drivers work) but everything looks like Vista because it's being virtualized. Partial compatibility means you're running the Vista kernel and all your Vista-incompatible XP programs are being virtualized. Two combinations that run the Vista kernel, one combination that runs the XP kernel but gives you what appears to be a Vista system anyway. Maybe they'll do this with 7. Two different Win9x compatibility modes, two different XP compatibility modes, two different Vista compatibility modes, and a full Windows 7 mode. That adds up to 7 compatibility modes. How appropriate.
>> Adobe CS2 - not supported, not compatible
I'm happily using Photoshop CS2 on Leopard still. I bet at least a half of other programs on your list work just fine, too.
Ain't God and Jesus the same guy? Long hair, sandles, robe? I get confoozed on that point.
Thats it. The subject says it all.
I figure I would post a little mini review of my windows 7 install.
I installed on a Toshiba laptop with 3GB of memory, 1.8ghz duo etc.
The install went by really quick, I didnt time it but it seemed to take about 10 to 20 mins. The install was pretty straight forward something like the windows vista install.
Once windows 7 finished the install I checked to see what drivers didnt get installed, just a few my video driver and my media card driver and bluetooth driver, my wifi driver installed so I was connected to the net with a few clicks...
After I was connected a little flag popped up down on the system tray and it said click here to solve pc issues so I clicked on it and it had listed all the drivers I needed and provided the direct links to the exe files! I was pretty impressed with this after clicking on all the driver links and then rebooting I was ready to go. IE8 is kinda bugy but I just use firefox anyway
Is anyone else still on Windows 2000? I never saw a reason to upgrade from 2000 to XP, and definitely no reason to "upgrade" to Vista. Windows 2000 does everything I want in a Windows OS. Does no one else feel this way?
023AD01("Child", "Evil");
Are you joking? How much slower is 0.0.0.0 to load over 0?
Thanks. You've made my day. This post makes me laugh.
The articles make a mistake. Microsoft deliberately releases software that it knows to be faulty, in my opinion. They've been doing that since the days of DOS; for example DOS 3.0 and DOS 4.0. Google for an article about Vista; evidence in court cases shows that Microsoft executives knew Vista was not ready to be released. The reason: When a company has a virtual monopoly, releasing bad software makes more money.
The mistake is to think of the first released version of Microsoft software as a product. It isn't, in my opinion; it's just a potential product. Until Service Pack 3, Windows XP was so buggy it caused a lot of problems. Windows XP Professional SP3 is a product. Judging from past experience, Windows Vista and Windows 7 won't be products until the third service pack. Of course, judging from past experience, if Microsoft executives realize that people know this, there will be service pack inflation. In the future, it may be necessary to wait for service pack 6 before a Microsoft product is out of what should be considered beta testing.
Microsoft is NOT a friendly company. Microsoft is never a partner. Microsoft is always adversarial if executives believe that being adversarial will make more money, in my experience. An important reason to consider Linux is that, if you adopt Linux, no supplier is your enemy.
if hardware supports Windows Vista, it will support Windows 7
Damn... I used to think that it was software that should support hardware, not the other way around, but it now looks like that may not entirely be the case.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
"That's what people used to say about Linux.' That's what people STILL say about Linux. Linux is even worse, every distro does things differently, and there is rarely any commonality..
It probably is because M$ used some old Linux kernel and modified it... making a more stable release but inherits the incompatibilities...
I do pretty much the same by running Windows in a virtual machine in Linux. I keep it cut off from the internet, and use the host for all that dangerous stuff like web browsing and email. Windows remains safely sandboxed.
Oh, and wherever possible, I still use Windows 2000, because I *still* think that XP is unnecessarily bloated. Given *that* opinion, I don't suppose I'll be running Vista or Windows 7 anytime soon. But if I do, it'll be in another sandbox.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
"How much slower is 0.0.0.0 to load over 0?" - by Burnhard (1031106) on Wednesday February 25, @03:31AM (#26979703)
Slower... &, it gets worse the more entries your HOSTS file has!
HOWEVER, more importantly?
0.0.0.0 is MUCH LARGER on disk, and in RAM once loaded into your local DNS cache, vs. using 0 (for every line in a HOSTS file, the diff. between using 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 is 6 bytes more for the latter (& worse using 127.0.0.1 = 8 bytes more per line, than using 0).
Do the math: The larger the HOSTS file gets, entries-wise, the more this starts to compound itself.
APK
P.S.=> DUMB move on MS' part, removing the ability to use 0 vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file... AND, another one right along with it in removing the PORT FILTERING GUI controls in your local network connection's ADVANCED properties! apk
Windows 7 will finally be out of Beta when it has the letters "SP1" at the end of the name, not before.
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)
First let me state that my job is a consultant specializing in OS deployment for large fortune 500 companies.
The article describing the steps of upgrading XP to Vista to Windows 7 is completely worthless. No company runs in place upgrades. If they did they would never then take an image of that state to push out to all other computers. This would not follow MS best standards and likely would be unsupported.
So could someone do this? Yes, but don't expect to keep your job long if you did.
Instead of trying to find "flaws" with Windows 7, try using it for a while and reporting on the real flaws (there are some, but it is better than Vista)
http://www.crn.com/software/214502662
How many IT departments are insane enough to actually attempt to brute force a Windows XP->Windows 7 upgrade with Vista as an intermediary? Any Windows user who knows what they're doing knows that the best way to "upgrade" your Windows install is do a format with clean install. The fact that the article then goes on to suggest that in the "real world" you would then image the final result and push that out to clients.
You have got to be kidding me.
Insert Sig Here
Why cant we come up with a universal driver system. Write a single device info file. The os reads that file and gets all the information it needs to work with that device. Then OS version, or OS type is unimportant. Just my 2/100
Oh, wait, yes I do. Doesn't anbody else notice that almost all the MS bashing articles on /. are posted by kdawson?
Seriously, when I upgraded to 95 from 3.11, it was slow, I needed a new PC.
95->98se wasn't bad.
I skipped ME, but when XP came out, it was slow as balls on that system. Upgraded to a new PC with XP... In the beginning it was sorta slow, but much faster than the last PC, patches and speed upgrades got me to the point where XP was flying.
Vista took it back a notch, but then I upgraded the PC and it's flying and with SP1, it's faster than my XP box was.
Now Windows 7 is coming out. I'll probably skip it as it seems like it's just a unwanted rehash of Vista. But if I did go for it, it'd be considered standard operating procedure to upgrade the PC. at least drop in a faster chip or more RAM.
When you do more things, you take up more cpu/ram. You can't say that win 7 is going to do less than vista or xp because if it did do less it a.) wouldn't be an MS product and b.) no one would want it. People buy things because of what they do, rarely do they buy them based on what it doesn't do, unless that is "suck".
Sure there are some of us here, myself included, that'd love it if MS cut a bunch of crap out of the next version of windows. Cut memory usage by dropping back a lot of the unwanted features, or made all the features opt-in instead of installed by default. But that's not going to happen because "Joe 6-pack" will think that it's not part of his purchase and try to take it back when he really just needs to run the add/remove programs dialog. Besides, if they did that they'd be one step away from charging for those extra features.
I still think at this point MS just needs to focus on fixing the issues they think are in vista with SP's. XP was out for 5 years, Vista's been around for like 2.5. Everyone just started getting used to Vista, let's just let it slide. Everyone complained for the first few years of XP. I know I did. but now we're used to it. The same will happen with Vista, I've got it and now that I've seriously used it for a year+ I prefer it over XP. We don't need another OS.
-=JML=-
who's even using Windows on slashdot? only people that are affected by this are pc techs who need to "upgrade" user machines. when i was in user support, i don't remember ever upgrading an OS on them unless we were completely reimaging them. so this shouldn't matter to anyone.
I've been running the Windows 7 64 Bit Beta since they released it and i've had absolutely no problems with it asides from a few quirky taskbar issues (Such as a maximized Zoom Player Pro making the autohide stop working). However, after doing a clean install, I HAVE NEVER seen a BSOD. I use to get them all the time on Vista, but not once have I got one on Windows 7. In fact, I'm using Windows 7 the exact same way I did Vista and it works better. Zoom player loads files faster, Games run better, Office appears to not be fucked up anymore and best of all, all the software I use to use (except for Daemon Tools which is a known case of compatibility errors and even stops you from installing it - I'll note that SPTD installs but seemingly all ISO mounting programs don't work and i've tried a few. That's okay though, just extract the images with 7-zip or burn them to a disc - I have enough blank Dvds to make a house.) So really, can we please accept the fact that sometimes it will work and sometimes it won't? To begin with, upgrading 3 times is just stupid. Why, who, would want to install XP, then upgrade to Vista, then upgrade to Windows 7. I didn't even do an upgrade when I went to Vista. You have to realize that upgrades are ALWAYS bad for Windows (and let's be honest with ourselves here, a few other operating systems). So really, if you're getting the BSOD on upgrading, why don't you try a clean install and if that doesn't work, then come back and bitch about it. On another note, I haven't had any hardware compatibility issues. My ATI Radeon HD 3650 worked right out thanks to a 1.1 Pre Release driver, My Audigy MB Advanced worked fine, all of my external devices (logitech Mx3500 desktop set, game controllers, external harddrives and USB devices) ran right out. So I'd like to know what hardware isn't working? I hate when people make claims and don't supply facts or even what didn't work. How can microsoft fix "My hardware doesn't work" without knowing /what/ hardware doesn't work?
Well i tested vista when i didn't have enough hardware to run it smoothly i thought it sucked ,then after upgrading to a dual core it ran smoothly.In my opinion vista is still a resource hog,but if you have enough resources to run it it runs smoothly and stable.
About windows 7 i hope it doesn't come out as an initial disaster like vista,but either microsoft has half world of programmers working for them or as usual they're in a rush to ship 7,well you know what happens...
All I can say is that Win7 happily took the Windows 2000 driver for the 10 year old PCI SCSI card I have in the machine I'm testing it on. I was pretty impressed.
They've already ripped off the look of KDE4, the idea of centralised software repositories so it's only logical that they adopt the random hardware problems that Linux suffers from time to time.
Unless they copy the price and the licence, I'm still sticking with Ubuntu.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
According to some beta testers, applications that worked fine under Vista became unlicensable (their licensing mechanism deactivated and wouldn't reactivate due to Win7 changes).
In one case it involved a file that was missing or renamed under Vista because it had caused some compatibility problems -- but the product (and Adobe product) ran 'fine', but on Win7, the renaming of the file was detected as a license violation.
It's like Windows "System File Protection" mechanism that attempts to replace system files that are deleted or modified with backup copies (first trying its backup cache, then asking for the source disk/DVDs), then putting up a threatening message about system instability if you continue without replacing or fixing the file (this is under XP).
Under Win7, any licensed product can be similarly monitored and will disable itself if tampering is detected.
In Vista, it was mostly multimedia content that was to be protected -- and checks were put in over the entire hardware layer to detect hardware tampering or OS tampering so that output streams of Hi Fidelity video could be disabled or downgraded. Initially, most content providers have disabled the checks because they want people to adopt Vista and the process has been hard enough with all the driver problems. Still, NBC blocked one of their prime-time evening serials a few months back to test the DRM-recording block feature. Tons of viewers called into complain when their Vista-backed Media Center's didn't properly record the show as they had expected. NBC later issued a statement saying that somehow the "block-recording"/"block-timeshifting" flag had been set on that program by accident.
Only Vista-Media edition recorders were affected. Apparently Tivo and other digital recording products were not affected.
Win7 is moving up the DRM ladder to extend full protection to software programs. If you rename or move or delete any files that you don't think you need or that cause you problems, or don't allow run-time licensing managers to be constantly running in background, you may easily find your products no longer work.
It's being rolled out as a feature to software vendors to automatically have their software "self-check" it's health and can allow an attempt at repair, revalidation of authorization over the internet, or disabling the software.
People complained about "Mass Effects" DRM requiring activation and reactivation upon hardware changes -- and the fact that it would periodically check back in to be sure its activation code had not been listed as compromised (revoked). With Vista 7, those features will be built into the OS so people won't have to complain about this game or that game's DRM -- it will just be the OS enforcing the DRM issues.
I recently triggered revalidation on my Word2002 installation when I changed the path to the office installation -- I renamed all the links and registry entries, but the path had been encrypted into the license state. Worse -- it would require validation -- but not STAY validated -- it said it needed to be revalidated each time you ran it (had "N" number of runs before it would only operate in reduced mode -- or I could revalidate it on each use. I eventually figured out that it really wanted the original path to exist again. A "NTFS hard-link" from the old-directory-name to the new-directory name solved the problem -- I could then have it in the new location, but it was happy in finding the old-path functioning correctly as well.
I shiver to think of what I may have to go through in Win7.
I think there should be a concerted effort to have WinXP released as open source -- for the public good. If MS doesn't want to maintain it, then have it open-sourced, so it can be used on lower-powered machines or people who don't want the 10-15% slowdown in applications due to DRM checks, or have another Gig of memory swallowed up by OS-DRM code.
Sounds like a good Monopoly-OS remedy -- split off the old OS as it's own user-supportable product.
Of course the original user is right in saying that there is "a mind-numbing number of incompatible drivers, unsupported devices, unsupported applications, unsupported data, patches, updates, upgrades, 'known issues' and unknown issues"... but it is only mind numbing if you try and do it manually and by researching everything for yourself. At ChangeBASE we have spent years building the rulesets to test for all these things automatically. It is impossible to do this without automation unless you are prepared to employ an army of people for months to try testing the apps for you. Lets look at a simple analogy. Software deployment. Back in the days before people used the likes of SMS to distribute their software they used armies of people to go round, install new apps, and reinstall apps that got broken by other apps installing :). Nowadays that is generally handled by software distribution systems. Unfortunately the mindset has not yet changed on a wide enough scale for people to look at the area of application compatibility testing in the same way. they still see it as a big manual headache whereas they need to be employing tools to simply and effectively identify all those incompatibility issues. Simple numbers? if it takes a tester 1/2 a day to test an app and he has 1000 apps that is 2.5 man years of work. You can get the same or BETTER answers in a few days with automated testing software!
I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ ) ... here tis:
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service
(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).
AND
Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES (which because they work @ an unrelated level (drivers-wise), in the IP stack, makes it an actual advantage because it cannot be 'taken out' from a single point of attack (though, perhaps MS is saying a single point of control is the advantage in their method, it still lends itself to being taken down from a single place too by the same token - imo? A "catch-22" situation, quite possibly & MOST likely)?
You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).
APK
P.S.=> Mr. Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ ) & I are currently in progress searching for the reasoning behind the removal of 0 as a valid IP blocking address in a HOSTS file, but even HE was unaware of WHY this was done... but, with any luck? We're going to find out - &, I'll let you all know, here, if the thread isn't dead by then... apk
See my subject-line, because here are 2 security features Microsoft has PULLED (port filtering) &/or crippled (for efficiency in HOSTS files) which shouldn't be (& yet, are.) as examples thereof:
----
1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file
(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)
In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!
E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...
This is SENSELESS bloat creation as the result!
&
2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section
(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!
Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.
----
QUESTION: Do ANY of you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL answer as to WHY these cripplings have been implemented in VISTA, Server 2008, & most likely their descendant, in Windows 7?
See - I posted on Microsoft/Mr. Sinofsky's (?) blog -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx
AND, I have YET to get a SOLID TECHNICAL ANSWER on those things going on in VISTA, Server 2008, & probably Windows 7 as well, that justify doing so...
(They're things I'd really LIKE to get an answer to, as to WHY Microsoft has done the 2 things in my list above, to the above noted versions of Windows)
APK
P.S.=> I found the rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch ( http://www.windowsnetworking.com/Mitch_Tulloch/ )
From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:
----
"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero
interaction with each other:
Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2
TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced
TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection
IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security
Policy Management MMC snap-in
On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"
----
Lame reasoning imo!
I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall ge