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.
After a recent update to an XP box (an MS automatic update) DAZ Studio, a piece of software I enjoy, stopped working. It is really the only reason I still have a windows box. The XP clean reinstall process went through without a hitch, but it took me a day and a half. I shit you not. Endless downloading of files and updates, far too many reboots. I hope this is remedied in Windows 7, because when it comes out I will probably get a new beefier windows box for DAZ Studio.
We test a lot - we produce software. And all testing platforms are defined as soft, meaning that the platform is to be completely scrubbed before new systems tests or that they are literally soft, as in virtual machines.
Whether testing an OS or a complex app suite, this is the way to go. When the item under test is the operating system, only upgrade when it is the upgrade process itself that is being tested.
We got this from the hardware community - always KNOW your testbed.
So-called beta testers that have had no real exposure to the known disciplines of testing are - in my opinion - not testers at all.
That Microsoft is trying to specify test parameters is very good thing.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Since they announced this tidbit, people have been complaining about it... But it's just simple business. They -know- a clean install is the best way to go and it's still a pre-release product. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to require a free, pre-release product to be installed from scratch.
On the other hand, I'm sure glad I didn't try it on my PC, as I really don't need the hassle of a wipe and reinstall.
I have to think that future pre-release versions will have the same caveat, and the release version may as well. In that case, I'm content to just wait.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
I can understand this. The RC is coded to handle upgrading from a Windows XP or Vista installation, it's not coded to handle upgrading from itself. A Win 7 beta installation's not going to match, it's going to have things already upgraded and other things upgraded to different versions from what the RC has. It's one of those situations that nobody who gets Windows 7 once it's released will ever have to deal with, and it doesn't make sense most of the time to have code in the release to handle a situation that can't happen. Except that it can happen if you happen to be part of the beta program, so you're warned loud and clear that the software isn't designed to do that so don't try it.
Now, if I were getting the RC, I would be testing upgrades from WinXP and Vista installs in varying states of disrepair. A clean install is easy. Upgrading from a fresh, untouched XP or Vista install should be easy. Upgrading from a Vista install that's an upgrade of an XP install, after having a couple of dozen games (with all their DRM), audio and video codecs (with their DRM), media players (with their DRM), browser toolbars, Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, a double handful of applications that've gone through multiple upgrades, all after multiple malware-removal tools have been run multiple times to try and clean things up, all the while trying to preserve the D: (second partition on the main drive) E: and F: (the two partitions on the second (old) drive that got repurposed for holding your archives) drives... that may be a bit more interesting.
That's not good enough for a company like Microsoft. They need to block your ability to upgrade from one beta to another, because if they don't you're going to run into all sorts of weird problems because you followed an unsupported upgrade path and upgraded from one piece of test software to another. After you find these glitches, maybe you decide to blog about how much the new Windows 7 beta blows. Before you know it, some tech rag picks up on your blog, publishes a story about it, and it gets spread all over the Internet.
Then, since everyone is eager to believe any sort of bad press about MS, everyone believes that Windows 7 is garbage, even though your glitches only happened because you decided to install one buggy piece of test software on top of a differently buggy piece of test software rather than wipe the machine like you're supposed to in any kind of test environment. Before you know it, MS is looking at a PR nightmare because someone decided to disregard standard testing procedure. I'm sure they would like to avoid that as much as possible.
Why does it seem that so many people are keeping important data and programs on a beta?
I must agree, but a decade is pushing it. Any blue screens I have seen have been from nVidia or Creative drivers, or overclocking just a little too far. Not Microsoft's fault.
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
You must not work in IT
I've seen BSODs in the last five years, and I don't even use Windows very often.
- On ATMs
- On gigantic billboards
- On the ticket machine at a railway station
- On an interactive display in a museum
Oh, and on a PC I was using.
It's good advice for any OS install. I run Ubuntu, and I wipe my drive clean with every new release. Even my home directory dot files. I keep my data backed up, of course, and restore from that. This way, I also verify that my backups work.
There was one small issue that required me to use dpkg
I realize that we are talking about an alpha release, but having to use dpkg even once would be a deal breaker for a lot of would be users.
The reason in-place upgrades are important to most non-technical people is:
they don't have the storage to offload say 120 GB of data
do not know which data they need to save
they don't have original software discs for many of their apps (think a dell pc pre-installed with crap).
They can't for various practical reasons wipe their PC and do a fresh install. We (you and I) are not in a position to quantify a good majority of people's priorities with their computers. Slashdot is a minority in the big picture of the PC consumer marketplace and we make a very poor scientific sample of priorities. We often are akin to car people telling the average person: "What do you mean you don't replace your own brakes, shocks, and struts? You should know how to do that or you are too stupid to own a car..."
We need to be careful a recognize that most of us here on /. are not the average users out there.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Except now Windows is as secure, easier to install, has more products, and behaves 'smother' then Linux.
Strange, I think the opposite, having shifted to Ubuntu a month ago for those very reasons. Reason one: Confiker & Co. Reason 2: click install, select all the software you want, after 10 minutes it's done with extra software, on Windows you spend 3 days hunting down software on google, downloading, installing, setting options and configurations, etc... 'Smother' I don't know, but smoother, certainly not. Go FUD somewhere else, troll.
And one final thing: I never want to install an OS again. I just want to see an upgrade option in Adept or whatever, click it and be done with it. As often as necessary so that the process is as smooth as possible. So MS is saying I shouldn't do an upgrade but instead waste 3 fucking days just to reinstall everything ?!? Excuse me, but fuck you.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Well, it depends what you mean by secure?
If by secure you mean has a proper security model in place, defence-in-depth (DEP/ASLR/etc...), automatic enablement of operating system updates, firewall, malware protection and reasonable defaults; then yes, I'd say Windows 7 is secure.
If you mean secure against your 13 year old daughter with Admin rights downloading a random program, running it, ignoring the UAC prompts, and installing some malware deep into your system, then no, probably not secure. But, the most secure operating system in the world can't protect against abject stupidity.
If you talk to a Windows user who knows what they are doing, much like a Linux user who knows what they're doing, you'll find they almost certainly have no security problems. I certainly haven't.