Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install
Barence writes "Microsoft is imploring millions of Windows 7 beta testers to perform a clean install of the forthcoming Release Candidate, rather than upgrade from the beta. 'The reality is that upgrading from one pre-release build to another is not a scenario we want to focus on because it is not something real-world customers will experience,' the company claims on the Engineering Windows 7 blog. Those who attempt to install the Release Candidate over the beta will find their path blocked." I've read complaints that reviews of new Linux distros often focus too much on the installation process; Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.
Back when I still bought microsoft software, if you wanted to upgrade you'd buy the upgrade version, format your HD and install the full version you borrowed from a friend. It was the only way to get a working product. Win 3.1 to win 95(b or c because a was the suck), 95 to 98(SE because 98 plain also sucked), and from 98 to XP(pro because, well, you know).
OK, it wasn't the only way to get a working product:
1) you could buy the full version every time, but you already had the prerequisite license, so why buy full when an upgrade SHOULD have given you a working product.
2) it wasn't the year of Linux on the desktop yet, and it was before OS X 10.2 was released.
More music, fewer hits
They block it BUT also provide a work around in TFA if you feel the need to take the 'unsupported route'.
The block is much like a toll booth with a paper gate. It lets you know where to stop but you could just drive through it.
June 1st 2010 actually. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/windows-7-rc-download-page-goes-up-early-coming-in-may.ars
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
I know, don't feed the troll. however, it should be noted that 7 is really quite good. i've been a windows user, a mac user and i have tried every flavour of linux for 10 years and i stand by my opinion that Win7 is an excellent OS. Each has their strengths (and i have each installed on various machines for various jobs), but everyone shouldn't be assaulting every MS news item just because it's MS.
That Microsoft is trying to specify test parameters is very good thing.
Wouldn't they be interesting in finding out what might happen to paying customers when they buy the product and try to upgrade?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
No, I've booted to the disc, and there is no repair install. Microsoft's support confirmed this option is completely removed and won't be returning. I was also talking to a Microsoft Evangelist yesterday at an Exchange 2007 demo yesterday, and while he said it is an issue he gets a lot of feedback and complaints on, it doesn't look like Microsoft will ever add it back.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Upgrading from XP is not supported. Only Vista SP1 is supported for upgrade.
That Microsoft is trying to specify test parameters is very good thing.
Wouldn't they be interesting in finding out what might happen to paying customers when they buy the product and try to upgrade?
They are interested in upgrades from Vista to 7. What they aren't interested is in upgrades from Win7beta to Win7RC (or 7full).
Seriously, I don't understand the fascination with in-place upgrades. Why not clean install?
I use Windows (have to for work) and support it, and it's so much better to do a clean install. In fact, I recommend wiping Windows* every year or two and starting with a fresh clean install anyway.
*Anticipating the obligatory "fixed it for you" response: "In fact, I recommend wiping Windows and starting with a fresh clean install of Linux." If only everyone thought the same way...
There is a Mac version of Daz, no need to use Windows if you do not want to.
It's much nicer working on a real UNIX system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I also use a few different Linux distributions, Mac OSX, and Windows on an almost daily basis, and I would agree that Windows 7 looks pretty good, all things considered. Vista was a real problem for, I don't know, a year or so, but they seem to have shaken most of the bugs out.
However, I have two bad things to say about them, and I think they're valid.
Any Debian user, for instance.
I spent a couple years using the Debian testing version and had little to no problem when the system decided it should update itself.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Wouldn't they be interesting in finding out what might happen to paying customers when they buy the product and try to upgrade?
You misunderstood the article. MS is asking existing beta testers who already have installed a previous Win 7 build, not to upgrade from the old build to the new version. This is not the scenario paying customers will face: they'll upgrade from Vista or maybe XP, not from a beta Win7 build.
I don't think so; even if you do convert all the files to the new format, there's a free conversion tool that you can install that works with Office 2k, XP, and 2k3 that converts files on the fly from the new docx, xlsx, etc. so they can be opened within the older versions. (I'm assuming you meant Office 2007... if you mean Office 2008 for the Mac, then everythign I just said may not apply...)
DAZ studio works in Wine according to the winehq.org app database
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=1998
Not without the original files from the install CD. I can't count the number of times I've installed a Gentoo or a Debian system from within another distribution (and that includes pre-releases, unstable branches and even releases for other architectures).
Of all major operating systems, UNIX is the only one originally meant for gaming.
How is this related to what the post is about? Your comparing a release install to moving from one pre-release build to another. BTW, upgrading from win95 to XP works fine and has for a very very long time.
Way to miss the point entirely. Y'know, sometimes I wonder if this is deliberate confusion or if people really are this stupid. It's like they want to hang onto a pre-determined conclusion so badly that they'll ignore anything and everything that doesn't coincide with it, even the knowledge that this conclusion is totally unrelated to the situation.
What the GP said, which I will break down for you, is like having a computer with a BLANK HARD DRIVE and inserting a Win95 CD and then being able to use that Win95 installation to end up with WinXP installed on that same computer, with no additional installation CDs. You cannot do this with Windows.
However, you CAN take a computer with a BLANK HARD DRIVE and insert a very old, outdated, Xubuntu/Ubuntu CD, install that CD, and end up with the very latest Xubuntu/Ubuntu distribution. The upgrade from the old version to the new one is free and is done over the Internet. It's also easy and automated. That's what GP meant when he said the correct answer is "No, it isn't like Linux."
What you CAN do with Windows is take a computer that has Win95 installed and upgrade it to WinXP. That's what you pointed out. The only flaw in that, is that it had nothing whatsoever to do with what the GP was talking about. Either you need to work on that valuable thing known as "reading comprehension" or you need to refrain from deliberately confusing an issue by pretending to be dense. You are in a better position than I am to know which is the case.
Windows is as secure
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10156617-56.html/ Windows UAC flaw
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090204/second-windows-7-uac-flaw-malware-self-elevate/ Windows UAC flaw
http://www.linux.com/feature/131059/ Only Ubuntu survived Pwn to Own contest.
has more products
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/linuxlist/linuxlist/linuxlist.html/ Linux software encyclopedia
There are literally millions of unix scripts, programs, and utilities for Linux.
I will concede that there are several 3rd party tools that are windows-only, and limit the adaptability
of some business's switching, but you'll never win the "more products" argument in windows favor.
Easier to install
This will vary with the flavor of linux. Some are definitely more challenging to get functional. If
you compare the installation / setup time for 50 computers, with ease of installation being a priority in your
choice of distributions, then you can have them up & running quicker, and more consistently with Linux than
with windows.
The first time I had to call Microsoft to re-activate a legitimate copy of Windows that had stopped working after extensive repairs, I was connected to a call center in India. The nice man asked me a couple of questions ("How many PCs is this copy of Windows installed on?"), gave me a code, said "please to be having a nice day" and we were done in about five minutes. I actually did it while my mom was putting dinner on the table.
The second time I had to call Microsoft, it wasn't even a call center. This time it was a computer that used voice recognition to get the same information from me. This time the call length was down to about two minutes.
The third time I had to call Microsoft, it wasn't even really a legit copy of Windows, but activation worked anyway and the process went just as quickly.
My point being, obviously, that activation may seem a little annoying, but some of these complaints about it really are a little overblown.
I don't understand your comment about not wanting to upgrade past XP because of activation, either. At least one of those calls to Microsoft was to re-activate a copy of XP Home.
Breakfast served all day!
Just a few that pop into my head, could go on all day though.
Technical arguments why linux is better:
1) I can modify the kernel.
2) Updates/upgrades are comprehensive, both OS and apps.
3) Fewer spyware/virus's
4) supports more CPU platforms - embedded devices for example.
5) Better clustering
6) Linux doesn't have to be installed and booted from a primary partition
7) Linux requires far fewer reboots when installing software
Upgrading from older versions of distros isn't always straightforward, either. In Fedora, the recommended practice has long been to back up the data, install clean, and restore the data. The upgrade process has gotten considerably easier in the last few releases, but there are still some potentially nasty problems. My upgrade via installation DVD from Fedora 9 to Fedora 10 went badly when it wouldn't boot all the way through the kernel and to the encryption password. I was able to get my data off of it, but it took a couple of hours to get a usable Live CD with the right versions of the disk encryption software and then get it mounted and my data off of it before rebuilding it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The last beta had a funny "install-time complication" I hope will be fixed before launch: It can only be installed on the first HDD; attempting to install it on any other drive will lead to a message about not being able to locate any "system partitions" (a "system partition" appears to be a primary partition with the boot flag set, of which all HDDs contained one). I only found out that the HDD has to be the first one through trial and error - and trial and error involving the physical hardware configuration is one hell of a disincentive to continue the installation.
Of course I later changed the Windows HDD to be the second hard drive and Win 7 boots happily. So if anyone tries to install a beta or RC and is denied due to "system partition" problems: Mess around with the SATA plugs so that the intended target drive is the first one. After installation, return everything to the original state if you want to.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
XP 64 bit has terrible driver support. I can use every piece of hardware I own with Vista x64, but XP x64 still has trouble with my network adapter and printer. It's a capable OS, but it has even more issues than Vista did at launch.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
just to confirm his point: i use linux and windows evenly. slightly skewed towards windows. i don't run into any trouble on either one unless i do something stupid. i know the exact definition of "stupid" in this case too. with firefox instead of internet explorer and avast antivirus guarding my files, the only way for viruses to gain entry is either by mom's outlook express mail-checking (which she handles somewhat responsibly) or from dangerous programs i downloaded by torrent somehow. avast even warns me of both, so.. yeah.
on the other hand, i run windows xp on one pc and vista on another, and no windows 7. can't say much about that, but it seems fairly obvious to me: windows' flakiness is because it's users are dumb, not it's programmers. the smart ones can choose between windows, linux and mac os, and the dumb ones are more or less forced to use windows. or mac os, sometimes.
There is a backup and install option as of Vista.
If you upgrade, some software will still work, some has to be reinstalled, that depends how they work. If you backup and install, you have to reinstall all your software though.