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.'"
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
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.
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'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?
If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.
Your statement assumes that you require an OS to be compatible with at least 9,999 out of every 10,000 components in your system. Between my keyboard, mouse, harddrive, monitor, usb slots, firewire, ethernet card, wireless card, motherboard, and power adapter (ten components)... I'd say the OS should be 100% compatible. Beyond that, I'd blame device manufactures and software development companies for not provided me with the right code to use their products. But 99.99% is simply a fun number you pulled from your ass, because even if you did have 9,999 completely functional components in your computer, if there was no compatibility for a mouse, you'd be pissed off.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Then there's the third class: those that bitch about Windows not being backwards compatible while simultaneously saying how much backwards compatibility hobbles the OS. Those are the really fun people to talk to.
Wait... you think that, and you use a MAC?!
Here's a challenge: try to run a MacOS 9 application on your beautiful, shiny Macintosh. Can't do it? Hm. Weird, I can run like 95% of apps that old on Windows. Heck, try to run a MacOS 6 application on MacOS 7 and odds are good it wouldn't even come close to running right. (Yes, I'm still bitter about System 7.)
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.
Comment of the year
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.
oh? 99.99% or you don't install it?
I keep XP in a sandbox on my Mac and there it will stay
On your mac you say?
I'm curious, what did you do in 2001 when OSX was released? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility? Hell no, not even close. Classic was decent, but people had to give up a LOT of stuff.
And what did you do in 2005 when Apple up and switched to intel? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility to all your PPC and 68k stuff? Sure there was rosetta, and like classic, it was decent, but its not 99.99%. Not even close.
Criticising Vista and saying you'll only upgrade if the upgrade is 99.99% backwards compatible and then saying you use a Mac undermines everything you've said. Vista is WAY more backwards compatible than Apple even tries for.
Hell just from OS X 10.5 from 10.4:
Absoft Pro Fortran compiler - needs up update v10, previous versions - not compatible
Adept Music Notation 5.2.5 - not compatible
Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional - 8 - needs compatibility update, previous versions not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro CS3 - needs compatibility update (previous versions not compatible
Adobe After effects CS3, compatible updates required (previous versions not compatible
AdobePhotoshop Elements 4 and under not compatible
Adobe CS2 - not supported, not compatible
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom - 1.2 and earlier are not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro - 3.1 and earlier are not compatible
Alien Skin Eye Candy 5, Xenofex 1, not compatible
Alsoft - Disk Warrior 4 - "Alsoft recommends DW4 not be run from OSX10.5"
AOL - Version 10.3.7 and under not compatible
Apple Backup 3.1 and earlier not compatible
Apple Final Cut Pro 4.5 and earlier are not compatible
Apple iDVD 1,2,3,4,5,7.0 not compatible
Apple iPhoto 2 not compatible
AppleJack 1.4.3 not compatible
I could go on...and on...I didn't make it out of the 'A's...
Yeah for a lot of software if you had the latest version, they released a free update to make it leopard compatible. But if you were a version behind... better be prepared to shell out. Leopard wasn't anywhere near 99.99% backwards compatible... even with 10.4, never mind 10.2 era software, and of course OS9 is RIGHT OUT.
Meanwhile Vista/Win7 will still run a lot of DOS6 apps? Not all of them. Probably not anywhere near 99% of them, but an awful LOT of them. I still have a few programs and command line utilities I wrote in C++ for DOS in the early 90s, and they all run on Vista x64, not to mention the ancient Motorola radio programming tool that programs old Motorola 2-way trunk unit; it still works too.
I agree Microsoft screwed up the Vista launch, and backwards compatibility was less than ideal. But it blows away what you get from Apple. The only difference is that with Apple, I think people -expect- no backwards compatibility, so they don't blink when they have to buy the latest version of all their software, buy a new printer, toss their old MP3 player*, etc.
(* My old Samsung Yepp only came with OS9 and Windows software. I can still use it with Vista. I haven't been able to sync it to a Mac in nearly a decade (it didn't work in classic). I handed it down to my kids years ago; and it finlly got retired when I bought my youngest a new Sansa this christmas.)
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.
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
Well that depends...
I mean if my sexbot is one of those 9,999 and my mouse is the 1 that isn't working, I don't think I'd give a damn about anything as long as my sexbot is working; I can buy another computer with a working mouse.
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.
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.
Here's a challenge. Coat yourself in motor oil, and while you are shiny, try building a rocket-propelled, monkey-navigated Tandy 286 and see if you can get it to play COD4 against God and Jesus in a LAN party. Wait, you did it? Hm... Weird.
I find the worst are the people who bitch about the other people who bitch about stuff.
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.
No the worst are the people who passive aggressively bitch at other people's opinions on bitching about bitching.
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.
No, I do understand. I've been using Macs my whole life. Apple moved from 68k to PPC without *nearly* the application breakage they've had moving from PPC to x86. The difference isn't the CPUs involved, the difference is that Apple simply does not care. Not even as much as they did a decade ago when they moved from 68k to PPC.
68k chips are a lot more different from PPC chips than PPC chips are from Intel chips. What technical reason is there that the Classic environment can't run in an PPC emulation layer? None. (Other than the fact that the Classic environment barely ever ran in the first place; it was a terrible hack that any other software vendor would have been too embarrassed to release.)
Of course you got modded up with your "correction" by pro-Apple moderators.
Comment of the year
My favorite bug in System 7.0.0 was that they did away with the Font/DA Mover utility application, now all you have to do to install a font is to drag it into the Fonts folder in the System folder. Of course, if you tried to get rid of a font by dragging it out of the Fonts folder into the Trash, the OS would permanently corrupt itself and never boot again. Seriously. And since Font/DA Mover no longer worked, you couldn't delete a font at all without permanently corrupting your OS install. To make things extra-special, since this was pre-Internet, I corrupted 3 copies of System 7 in this way before I figured out what was making it happen. (It didn't happen right away, not until you rebooted.)
System 7 also broke Carrier Command, one of my favorite games.
Anyway, this is totally off-topic, mod accordingly.
Comment of the year
Shuttle GNC engineer Phil Hattis stated that it cost NASA around $1 million in 198x dollars for each line of code they wanted changed by IBM in the Shuttle's AP-101 programs after the codebase was set (coding wasn't done in house, but done by IBM based on specifications). After a line of code was changed, the entire program had to be hand verified to make sure that no bugs were introduced.
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.