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.

Comments

Re:So it's official now?

[Sancho]

I seem to recall upgrade versions of Windows being just fine to install fresh--though it would ask you to insert the previous version's disc to ensure that you possessed a copy.

Re:So it's official now?

[viking099]

Or you could install the upgrade on a clean disk by inserting your old media at the appropriate time.

I've been installing Windows ever since 95 and not once have I been forced to install an older version before "upgrading" to the newer one. I just wipe the drive, show the installer I have an older version of Windows, and get the exact same thing as a full OEM verson.

Re:What is the point in begging if they block thei

[im_thatoneguy]

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.

Re:And when will this version stop working?

[f()rK()_Bomb]

June 1st 2010 actually. http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/03/windows-7-rc-download-page-goes-up-early-coming-in-may.ars

Re:Red?

[onezan]

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.

Re:Same thing, different Tuesday.

[bonch]

I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.

Re:Won't Install Windows 7 Again

[Enderandrew]

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.

Re:Understandable

[Tawnos]

Upgrading from XP is not supported. Only Vista SP1 is supported for upgrade.

Re:Soft machines for testing

[colonelxc]

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).

Why not always clean install?

[danheretic]

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...

Re:Red?

[nine-times]

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.

1. Activation: Personally, I avoid using any software that uses activation unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then I try to see if (as a legal customer) there's a way to circumvent it. When the practice of "activation" first started, I didn't worry too much about it, and as a result I ended up in a couple situations where products decided to stop working during a time when I couldn't afford to have them stop working. Now I just won't do it, especially not for something as vital as an operating system. If Microsoft would drop activation, I'd be more likely to upgrade. (yes, I buy all my software legally)
2. Why upgrade?: Ok, so I just said I'd be much more likely to upgrade, and that's true-- in that I pretty much refuse to upgrade from XP to a version of Windows that requires activation. On the other hand, I'm not aware of any feature in Windows Vista or Windows 7 that seem like they're worth a couple hundred dollars. At least not worth it to me.

Re:Duh!

[rbanffy]

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.

Re:Soft machines for testing

[ChatHuant]

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.

Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install

[frith01]

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.

Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install

[Dekker3D]

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.