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.
....linux
The above comments are not guaranteed to make sense to anyone other than the author...
Why is this news in red on the frontpage? And, I understand what they are saying BUT shouldn't they be asking vista users to upgrade from it?
And when will this version cease working? Aug 29th?
MS should give people more incentive to "test" their product unless the new version vastly improves upon the current release candidate.
Just as soon as they release it on Pirate Bay.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Who's the dumb ass that expects a beta os to a upgrade a beta os to work? ROFLMAO
It all starts at 0
...perform a clean install of the forthcoming Release Candidate, rather than upgrade from the beta.
Ah, doesn't it seem like we're "upgrading from the beta" almost every Tuesday anyway?
I know I cross my fingers and pray to the BSOD Gods every time...
path?
That's like a toll booth worker saying, "I won't move the barricade unless you pay" so, please, please, please pay the $5.95 toll, even though you find it too burdensome..."
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Wow,while I can take my profiles and settings with me in linux from one distro beta or not to the next, when it comes to windows 7 we can't allow you to do that. Perhaps they should deploy the Jedi-Mind-Trick 2.0 - These are not the sectors you were looking for ------
The only way they are going to get me to install windows 7 is the same way they will get me to install Vista, after they pry my linux machine from my cold dead hands.
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.
For good measure.
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.
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
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.
I might be missing something to troll about here, but it seems to me like they're asking us (the testers) to do what the actual, real-world scenario would entail, which is to install from a fresh computer or otherwise non-upgrade scenario. It makes sense from both a standard product testing perspective (do what the customer would do to determine what the customer would experience) as well as a technical perspective (bug fixes and functional changes galore from beta to RC, some involving files that might not change during the "upgrade" process). I think this is perfectly reasonable. I'll be happy to do a fresh install with the RC, it'll take a few more minutes but will better reflect the real experience of an initial install.
They can take my Mac when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the keyboard.
They just simply need to say, "Do a clean install, or we can't/won't help you if you have problems"
If the submitter had bothered to RTFA, they'd realize that Microsoft actually recommends that the user nuke the Beta install from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...
I've read complaints that reviews of new Linux distros often focus too much on the installation process
The complaints are generic that, imho, revolve around "Why are you focusing in <thing I can do easily> instead of <my strange special case scenario feature>?"
Sadly, while I can not hardly fathom difficulties in installing Ubuntu Linux, or many other distros, The incentive and ease for a non-techie person to TAKE THE INITIATIVE to install their own operating system MUST be very high. This means FLAWLESS in every respect with EVERYTHING. The fact that OEM's often must tweak Windows to get it to work in ways that are very difficult to repeat by regular users is not an issue for those with Windows preinstalled, or a special disk for their computer. I see OEM disks all the time that say "Only use with your machine". This is because it is customized to work. In my personal experience, I have never encountered a computer where retail windows just worked with everything; there are always several third party drivers that must be installed.
In this way, while it may not seem fair, until there are many time more machines in stores coming with preinstalled Linux, the expectation of the ease of use for the installer will be far beyond anything that has ever been expected of Windows.
And the same goes for updates / upgrades. Windows Update only updates core system components but can be setup to update Microsoft products, and works reasonably well in most situations. Apt-get, to simply say that it supports third party software, is grossly understating what it manages.
Blessing and curse for Microsoft is that Windows users will tolerate pretty much anything. No QA == no progress.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.
That's how we make Linux take over the desktop! Erase all partitions, and always use the whole hard disk! None of this "Mount / on target partition" business! Just wipe out Windows when Linux installs! Clearly, that's the remedy suggested here.
Except for the part where, y'know, not being able to dual-boot would actually kind of suck. I still need to play Touhou Project outside of school.
But that's really the only reason I keep Windows around (Touhou does not run perfectly in Wine, in my experience). If I didn't need the games, I would destroy that partition.
I'm sure there are other good reasons to dual-boot, too. Like, maybe you want a DEB-based system and a RPM-based system or something, right? Debian and Fedora, side-by-side? That doesn't sound useful? What if a binary is only available in one format and not the other? More reason to dual-boot than just "I need Windows for this one specific task."
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
I don't think I'll install the RC or the retail product. My Windows 7 partition appears corrupted, and it won't boot. In XP I could do a repair install. With Vista and 7, the option for a repair install was removed. Is there any good reason for this?
I won't run an OS that I can't repair if I need to.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
Why does it seem that so many people are keeping important data and programs on a beta?
Being in a bind and needing to setup a machine with Ubuntu at one point, all I had with me was an Xubuntu 6.06 alternate CD. Installed and updated to 9.04 alpha 5 quickly and fairly easily. There was one small issue that required me to use dpkg to force the installation of a package apt-get would not let me upgrade (mutual dependency conflict) and with almost no prior knowledge was resolved in
If someone was trying to install XP, but didn't have a disk and asked "Well, I got a Windows 95 CD, shouldn't I be able to use that and just update?", they would probably get a lot of weird looks... but the appropriate response would be "No, it isn't like Linux".
Hell, I once had a broken Gentoo machine I could not fix, I gave up and with no external media or even downloading an iso just switched it over to Ubuntu in a couple of hours... though in all honesty, I hope never to do that again.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
It seems that my computer keeps catching the Linux virus. Can anyone tell me how I can prevent getting it
Because they're idiots.
It's amazing what questions that answers.
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...
How many years has it been and Microsoft still cant do a simple file revision control system?
Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.
Really? Then why when I installed win7 beta my xp64 dissapeared? Oh it doesnt even recognize another version of windows? After 3 hours of messing with the new BCD crap and creating a new boot.ini I finally got dual boot in the win7 boot loader. Sour, yes I am.
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 saw one a couple weeks ago with Windows 7 but the fix was simple. I just had to uninstall the anti-virus software. Apparently it happens with all AV software. They're working on that little bug. ~chuckles~
Aside from that though, I too am very impressed with 7. But still prefer Ubuntu for many things.
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
Thank you Linus, you may step down now.
Oh, and just to clarify, I was referring to the Black Screen of Death, you know, the one made most popular by early retail versions of two-year old Vista...
The upgrade path might be blocked by default in the installer, but the article shows a way to bypass it with a simple ini file change.
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.
'We still don't have a decent package manager.'
But no! Microsoft! Evil! Bill Gates Kills Kittens! Don't you see? This is yet more evidence that M$ (I replaced the S with a $, lol) doesn't care about its own users! How dare they not release a perfect product in Beta. Why can't they be like Google?
It's a beta. There are no promises. This is true for ANY software, not just Microsoft. Just because someone takes the time to allow folks to upgrade software from beta doesn't mean it should be expected. I'm far from an MS fan, but this seems redundant. Why should MS waste cycles on troubleshooting beta upgrade bugs when Joe User will never experience them? It's a waste of time, money, and resources.
Can't we just tag this as "theyreright" and "movealong" (or maybe just "theyrerightmovealong"). Anyone who would make a big deal out of this needs to turn in their geek card.
I can't remember ever testing a beta product that said it was fine to upgrade one beta to another. I'm sure they exist, but they're far less common the more complicated a piece of software gets. And I can't really think of much more complicated than a full-fledged operating system (as opposed to something like a really lightweight embedded system, microkernel or something).
Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
This is weird. If MS wants users to clean install so badly, why not just have the RC refuse to install unless it's clean? This is harder to do than beg users to not do it because they're worried about the damage it might cause?
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
I don't know how it is like on Windows Vista or Windows 7, but on MacOS X there is a 'backup and install' option. Basically this renames the existing system folder and then install the new one.
From my experience with Windows XP, is that any time you wanted to reinstall the OS you would have to reinstall tons of other software, simply because the registry gets recreated from scratch. These programs can't deal with recreating the missing data, so you are force to reinstall the application. This is a major pain in the butt. Of course, things with Microsoft's latest systems may have improved. Can anyone tell me whether it has?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Why can't they just code the Win7 installer to wipe out old betas ? They built the damn OS, they should know which files it owns be able to tell the difference between OS code and user-created content :P
-Billco, Fnarg.com
that folks installing Windows 7 have a jar of KY on standby.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
If the upgrade was possible, would you need to reboot after that?
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)
If you are worried about loss of data because you are using BETA and RC software, then you should not have changed from you original OS. BETA testing is about testing and there is always a risk that things will go wrong and your dat will be gone! Stupid people.
One of the guys use VMWare Fusion to run it under Windows on his Mac ;-P
(captcha : "retreat", how does it know that I am French?!)
If you got it in your computer already, would you uninstall it? Heck no!!!! heheheheehe
"Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly."
So naturally they ask that the beta testers please NOT test that part.
``I've read complaints that reviews of new Linux distros often focus too much on the installation process;''
It's not that they focus too much on the installation process, it is that they pay too little attention to the rest. Many of these reviews can be characterized as "the installation process such and such, this and this were my experiences with support for my hardware, and the GUI looks good".
What I want to know is what the everyday user experience is like. How the installation goes is important, but you're performing the installation because you want the installed system. So how well are the various packages integrated with the system? Which applications are available? What is the quality of the packaging? Are dependencies automatically resolved? What about uninstalling software? How responsive is the security team? Do you get timely security updates and do they break things? When you get non-security updates, how likely are they to break your existing configuration? Can you upgrade the whole system to the next release, and how well does this work? All things considered, how much time do you need to spend on maintenance to keep the system secure and working smoothly?
All these points are very important in determining choice of operating system. Alas, you only find them out after running the same system for an extended period of time and learning the ins and outs of it. Reviewers almost never take the time to do this, so the review pretty much stops after the installation is complete.
``Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.''
I completely understand Microsoft's point that "upgrading from beta to release candidate" is not a scenario they have decided to support, and issuing a warning to the world that this might well break things horribly.
However, you seem to be suggesting that Microsoft understands the finer points of upgrading one OS to another and/or running multiple OSes alongside one another and are doing the right thing. I can't really agree with that. I've seen multi-boot the Microsoft way, and it's usually "do you want to boot this Microsoft OS or that Microsoft OS?". Other operating systems are completely ignored. And don't try mucking with the boot loader, or you may well get the "NTLDR is missing" error and be unable to boot Windows anymore. Maybe all this is intentional, but all I know for sure is that things are worlds better in the open source universe.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Seems like no-one read the article, as usual :)
The article does NOT say upgrade from beta is blocked! In fact, it says HOW TO DO IT.
It also says they prefer people to do it from a clean install.
I took a look at that, & Windows Vista was compromised not through errors in itself, but rather errors in Adobe Flash. That's not a fault of Microsoft's, but rather, Adobe products. The important quote. regarding Windows especially, was this: "for those who implement security, the operating system victory is less important than the fact that phishing and third-party applications were the keys to success, rather than general system vulnerabilities."
Hmm. Reminds me of traditional Windows security.