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.'"
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
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.
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 enterprises will do clean installs rather than in place upgrades. The entire system will be deployed through system center or suchlike. Silly article.
I still say Linux has unknown issues.
But at least I can actually run a computer while trying to figure them out ...
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.
Am I the only one who finds it humorous how some people bitch about Windows not being backward compatible and others bitch about all the problems due its backward compatible heritage?
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.
I'm glad to see someone else commented on this. I'm not sure how someone in that position ends up with +5 but such are the whims of the mods.
I'd also like to point out that the vast majority of hardware incompatibilities are the result of lazy / exploitative vendors. Sure, they could get their driver writing team to write some drivers for their older hardware and keep their customers happy... OR they could just say, "it's microsoft's fault," and then make you buy a new product.
Vista is tougher to peg because you saw all kinds of problems. You saw Microsoft making big changes up until the last second that completely screwed even their own software groups (WHS 64bit Connector anyone?). At the same time you've got nVidia cranking out drivers that are blue-screening machines left and right. Then, just for fun, you've got the aforementioned vendors that are refusing to roll drivers for products they just released a year before Vista came out. What a mess.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
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=
You could say the same thing about old Windows applications, but imagine the Slashdot outcry you'd get in response: "Microsoft is so bad you need two machines to run old applications! Man Microsoft sucks! I'm going to start spelling it with a dollar sign, I'm so upset about this!"
Face it, it's silly to complain about OSes that don't focus on application compatibility while using the one OS *most* famous for breaking old applications.
Comment of the year
Speaking of numbers pulled out of one's ass:
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.
And if that isn't good enough for you a year after that, 99.9% of recent name-brand components will work flawlessly. I waited a year before installing Vista and the only thing that I didn't get to work was my ancient PC game controller since vista dropped gameport support, and its awfully hard to be mad at them for that since the gameport was essentially obsolete 10 years ago.
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
What the fuck does that mean? If it's compatible with your hardware, then you should run it; if it's not, then you shouldn't. Where did that number come from? It implies that your decision to run software on your own hardware is dependent on its compatibility with the rest of the world's hardware.
You know, Microsoft bashing hysteria used to be funny, and largely warranted, but Windows is so much better now than it used to be. If the trade-off for more stability and a finally shifting security paradigm is some hardware incompatibility, then I'm happy to accept. Maybe a corporate customer running legacy PCs won't, but that's not me so I really don't care. Let Microsoft lose customers - maybe the resulting increase in competition will make their software better.
Amnesty International
Maybe it's just me, but I didn't take his post as meaning 99.99% backwards compatible. I just took it to mean he wants it to work will all his hardware or he won't install it. Mac did break backward compatibility, but with good reason. They made their OS run better and the upgraded applications allowed the same functions but with new technology. Why would you stay and cling to an old OS for years and years and years. It kills productivity and the time spent fussing with it and waiting for it to churn out data outweighs the cost of upgrading to a better OS/system. At least, from a business point of view.
I just took it to mean he wants it to work will all his hardware or he won't install it.
Hardware, software... Apple leaves both behind at a whim.
Mac did break backward compatibility, but with good reason.
Apple breaks backward compatibility with each iteration. Some iterations much more drastically than others. It wasn't just a one time thing.
And saying 'but with good reason' doesn't make peoples stuff work again.
And if its a good enough excuse for Apple than Vista can use it too. Vista is better than previous versions (assuming suitable hardware). The security improvements are real, not just theatre, and represent a huge 'break' from previous Windows iterations. It is responsible for most of the compatibility issues -- and in my opinion it is just as 'forgivable' as apple's architecture switches. Microsoft HAD to make these changes to make the OS more secure; this pain was a long time coming and I'm glad it finally happened.
They made their OS run better and the upgraded applications allowed the same functions but with new technology.
And they required you to pay for those upgraded applications. iLife to iLife08 isn't a free upgrade. Apple Remote desktop 2 to 3 isn't a free upgrade. Final Cut Pro 5 to 6 isn't a free upgrade... and if you had the old version they didn't work with leopard.
But hey, if I'm ok with paying to run upgraded applications that allow the same functionality but with new technology, then why are people pissing and moaning that Office 2k/XP isn't 100% vista compatible... they can just just upgrade.
At least, from a business point of view.
These are the same businesses running Windows 2000 servers? Who screamed blue murder when XP came out? And managed to scream even louder when Vista came out? The only reason you don't hear businesses screaming when Apple releases an update is that not many businesses rely on them. If Apple gets significant marketshare, the volume of businesses screaming when they release new OS updates will rise accordingly.
Both viewpoints are valid and not necessarily mutually exclusive. Backwards compatibility can both not work, AND hobble the OS at the same time.
And the backwards compatibility may be in different areas of an OS, and be a good thing in some areas and bad in others.
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.... Why can't MS work this way?
Short answer: it would break their business model.
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?
Then there's the fourth group: those who think MS should create an all-new Windows without the legacy crap with an emulator inside for backwards compatibility. It should be based on un*x (not DOS), should have a well-planned, polished GUI for regular people with command-line and options for power users.
Then there's the fifth group: those who realize that describes OSX and have already switched.