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...
Just as soon as they release it on Pirate Bay.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Are you suggesting that MS should develop self-destructing betas to promote upgrading? What a radical idea!
UPGRADE OR LOOSE YOUR DATA!!!!
greed@All_Evils:~#
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
But I want my data to be tight not loose!
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 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...
haha... got excited and added an extra vowel
Please disregard, the word is LOSE.
greed@All_Evils:~#
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!
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.
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.
Actually, for many people, the threat of having your data loose would be more intimidating than having your data lost. That means you, yes you, dear reader. I know about those pictures...
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
I misunderstood... I thought you were saying that if you did not upgrade, Microsoft would loose your private data upon the world. "Pay us or a Russian hacker gets your bank details!"
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!
They can take my Mac when they pry my cold, dead fingers from the keyboard.
You can install Windows on your Mac and have the best of both worlds.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
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
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.
It seems to work fine for Ubuntu Jaunty.
I'm sure there's a joke in there bout having loose vowels when you get excited, but it would probably be pretty disgusting, so I won't pursue it, in order to protect the delicate sensibilities of /. reader...
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.
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...
That's when I started using OSX, too!
How many years has it been and Microsoft still cant do a simple file revision control system?
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...
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
Or if you want to use more than 3 GB of RAM.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
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...)
No, the Russian hacker gets your bank details in spite of (or perhaps because of?) you paying for Windows.
http://www.mhall119.com
last summer i saw the blue screen of "oh fuck where did my boot sector go" during a lightening storm.
i like how the power flickers, which causes a reboot, and then dies for real causing there to be no boot sector. yes, yes, i know. i need to get a UPS (still)
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.
"Your proposal is acceptable." CRUNCH!!
'We still don't have a decent package manager.'
OK, here's one to refresh your memory.
No, they haven't changed that much.
I see one once in a while, but I must admit that I mostly see Windows systems when they have trouble (stigma of the guy who knows computers). I have to agree that if you have good hardware (were not too greedy at buying or had at least a bit of clue what you were looking for) you encounter BSOD quite rarely.
Now only the following things have to happen before I migrate back to Windows:
1. It gets usable for users AND developers.
2. It gets secure (no, don't expect military level security, just the basics).
3. Microsoft adopts sane market policy.
4. Windows gets a sane market share to make homogeneous attack vectors ineffective <20% market share.
5. It gives me some kind of advantage over the competition.
As I can't see any of this happening any time soon, so I can summarize it as: when hell freezes over. But you are right with the BSOD matter.
There goes my karma..
Almost a decade isn't really pushing that much. Windows 2000 was released in February 2000, and if you upgraded to it on release day, that is more than nine years ago - almost a decade.
I've seen BSOD's in both 2000 and XP. Within the last two years (when I stopped using XP).
Install Driver, add hardware, power down, remove hardware, power up, BSOD.
My Babylon
I saw one on a fresh install of Vista last week. But it was before Windows Update had even gotten the latest drivers and it was pre-SP1 install.
Haven't had one since.
I have to say. My computer ran like COMPLETE SHIT while windows update was getting up to date. Windows Update was hogging tons of system resources even while I was working and constantly crashing.
Now that' windows update has finished doing its thing it's behaving like normal. I normally download the latest release of Vista with all the patches ready to go so I've never done a fresh install this late in the game before... I could see why people would think Vista was slow. It was for about a day until it finished downloading/installing patches.
If you turned of windows update everything ran smoothly it was just the act of downloading/patching that murdered system performance.
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?
i just updated my kubuntu 8.10 to 9.04 beta.
lots of wierdness. some settings preserved, others discarded. my custom theme reduced to just a color variation. firefox installation corrupted.
don't get me wrong, they said it would happen due to beta. and i did not complain.
i haven't used win 7, but if ms says that updating a beta os to rc will involve wierdness, maybe it shouldn't be such a big deal?
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Vista would crash for me pretty reliably for the first while after I got it. Then I installed a 64 bit version of Linux, and it crashed. So did FreeBSD/amd64 and NetBSD/amd64. Then I figured it was a bad stick of ram. It was, and now it hasn't crashed on my desktop since.
My MBP, on the other had..... I haven't seen a BSOD, but it has locked up on me.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
I just got one yesterday, in the middle of simply typing some text into a web form while the Add/Remove Programs list was populating. I can see how that *may* have been a *little* stressful on the system, but a BSOD? Come on, MS.
EasyBCD is free you know... 3 hours of "messing with the new BCD crap" is completely unnecessary, and adding your XP x64 boot entry would have taken a mere minute. And this "new" stuff isn't really new, unless you consider "since Vista" to be new.
But yes, I suppose it could be mildly upsetting that the bootloader didn't automatically pick up on your other Windows installations. You really made the troubleshooting hard on yourself though. :)
"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
I assume you must mean that you have switched to Linux or Mac, then.
I am an IT admin and someone brought me a blue screen just yesterday, on a Lenovo T61 running Windows XP SP3. Before that, the last one was two weeks ago on a Dell desktop (it blue screened about 5 times over the course of a month). I believe that one has been fixed by replacing the Nvidia graphics card.
Hardware faults, poorly written drivers, and cheap memory can all contribute to these blue screens. I don't blame microsoft, really, but blue screens are still around. If you haven't seen one you are just lucky, not typical.
My home computer (custom built Windows XP machine) has never had a blue screen in 3 years. I took great care in selecting components, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see one--it's just a fact of life with windows.
-Dan
I have. on XP and I ahve seen the Vista. They are rare, and I wasn't doing standard desktop work but they can happen. Windows just covers it up be restarting it's enviroment; which is an OK way to handle it. It means they are starting to sandbox parts of their code correctly.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Perhaps that's because Debian is known for being very stable and, sometimes, quite boring. That's why I went with testing - stable was too stable for me.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Were any of those running XP or vista?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You are definitely trolling, and trying to connect 7 and Vista....making them appear to be the same thing....is the most senseless mistake I've ever seen.
Get two modern, identical, single-core systems with 1GB of ram and a video card released in the last two years, and install 7 and Vista on both of them. Then tell me which one is more useable and fun.
I ran Vista SP1 and the early W7 beta on a 2.2ghz AMD with 1GB of ram and a 8600GTS, and the difference was night and day. Windows 7 is a sexy XP with nicer tray integration and overall speed. After I uninstalled IE8, it was very nice. I'd say its what Vista should have been.
Go lurk moar.
... and Linksys "rt2500usb.sys" driver for its WUSB54G network adapter.
You only activate it once, and it merely lets MS know that your copy is legit. If it were a monthly occurence then I might agree with you, but the sad fact is that most people would rather not pay for this OS.
But I do completely agree with you when it comes to upgrading. There really is no good reason to upgrade. It will be forced on the manufacturers for better or worse, and it might become one of those "why can't i open .docx files" situations when people were mad at Office 2007.
As of right now, I buy all of my personal-use OSs legitimately. For W7, I will be trying to upgrade from a student version of Vista Ultimate for 50$ to Windows 7 Ultimate. It was announced that this should work, and I think the new OS is worth the 50$ upgrade.
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.
The fact that you call Windows 7 "Vista SP2" shows you really aren't "in the know" about the new Windows 7 OS (and I would guess you have never used Vista on a regular basis as well). Funny that most people I know who rip Vista have never used it on a regular basis, and the few people I do know that use it daily complain about it very little. I was very apprehensive to install it myself, but after a few minor codec issues(which were mostly 64 bit issues and not Vista issues), it has been pretty stable for me. No driver, printer, or software issues so far. YMMV.
"But this one goes to 11!"
You only activate it once, and it merely lets MS know that your copy is legit. If it were a monthly occurence then I might agree with you, but the sad fact is that most people would rather not pay for this OS.
Yeah, that's not so much the problem. The question is, at what point will it mysteriously think that I changed systems and ask me to activate again? When I change hardware? What hardware? How does the activation inhibit my ability to use imaging? If I use the volume-licensing edition, then I have to set up a server to handle activation/authentication on a regular basis? What happens if that server gets a wild hare and stop working properly?
Oh, I know, someone is going to respond saying, "Your stupid! This stuff works perfectly!" Yeah, and I've heard that before. I have yet to see a computer system that doesn't occasionally malfunction, and I put more trust in software that isn't specifically designed to malfunction under circumstances that I don't know.
Actually as a PC repairman I'd say the death of the BSOD was right around SP3 for Win2K and SP2 for XP. Before that both could be quite flaky at times. Which is why I never understood the push to "the latest thing" by anyone other than MSFT employees. This Win2K Pro box I'm typing on, with its measly 1.1GHz Celeron and 512MB of RAM is frankly solid as a rock and makes a damned good Netbox. Same thing with the old P4 running XP SP3.
Why anyone would want to go through the "fun" of having an unstable, buggy as hell OS when the one they got now works is frankly beyond me. And unless you are doing video editing or some serious hardcore gaming 2Gb or RAM is plenty. I just built my dad a 4GB of RAM dual core and frankly he never notices the 32 bit RAM limit in XP because I doubt he is even using 1GB in his daily routine. After the big flaming bag o' poo that was Vista I'm advising my customers to avoid the next MSFT OS like the plague until it hits SP2. By then we should know whether Win7 is actually going to be their next long term OS or if like Vista they will be talking up "their next big thing" while quietly trying to disown the current OS like they are doing now with Vista. Really, if it ain't broke why fix it?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Well, at least the vowel ended up in the right place.
I hate unexpected vowel movements...
My sig can beat up your sig.
my boss sees blue screens on a daily basis on his vista laptop. something to do with a network driver?
(we do asterisk consultancy so it's not like he's doing anything exotic)
Anyway, it and it alone is pushing him to let me install ubuntu on it for him...
We'll get there in the end.
BSOD's *do* still live on.
No. You need to unplug the computer during the lightning storm. If there is a close hit/direct hit on the line near you your UPS means squat. But then replacement PSUs/Motherboards/Modems/Data are cheap where you are?
If there was a reason you could not unplug your PC during a storm, then you would already have a UPS and some other fancy equipment...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
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."
Windows XP Pro, 64-bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_xp_tablet_pc_edition#Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition
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!
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.
That's because of the setting "Reboot automatically in case of error" which just resets your machine when Windows crashes. If you're sharp you can indeed see the blue screen for a fraction of a second before the reboot. And, it will crash, unless you don't do anything important on your machine. The instant you do anything important or meaningful on a Windows box is the instant that it goes unstable.
Quit fooling yourself and disable this option - then you will "see" BSODs again.
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
You have to remember that it isn't finished yet, and there is still time for MS to fix the problems that you mention.
My point being, obviously, that activation may seem a little annoying, but some of these complaints about it really are a little overblown.
They seem overblown as long as everything is working properly and you have time to fix it, and assuming you really get such good responses from Microsoft. But then, lots of things that cause serious problems are fine so long as they all work the way they're supposed to. It's when something goes wrong that it's a problem, and I'd much rather my software vendors spend their time figuring out how to make my computer work well rather than figuring out how to remotely disable it (in ways that theoretically should be fine so long as nothing goes wrong).
So, as a policy, I don't use software that requires any kind of activation. I'm vocal about it, and I encourage others to take the same policy in the hopes that it might get some of this stupidity to stop.
And by the way the last time I dealt with Windows activation was about 3 years ago, and it took me about 45 minutes to get someone from Microsoft on the line and get things sorted out. Once that happened, I bought a Volume licensing copy of Windows XP (which explains why I don't have to activate Windows XP). Because of all the OEM versions and retail versions and upgrade licenses and volume licenses, I've probably bought about 3 licenses of Windows XP for every computer that I currently have running, so it's not like I'm looking for a free lunch.
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!
What did you say about loose bowels sonny? Yeah, they're a pain, I've had to have my diaper changed six times in the last hour. Oh, let me put my hearing aid in. VOWELS! Oh, gotcha now.
well, yeah, in the worse case scenario you could lose everything plugged into the wall. but it is not a guaranteed thing that a nearby lightening strike will cause a surge to your house. i have lived through a lot of lightening storms and never had a power surge. lots of flickering, brown outs, or several minute blackouts.
if i am around then i usually unplug the PC/stereo power strips. but i have had a lot of problems with 2 momentary losses of power.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. No matter what OS you use, you are bound to run into driver problems if you don't do your homework before hand. I know it is tedious, but it will save you from hassles like those. If you have existing hardware and you want to change your OS, you need to do your homework again before you even bother installing the new OS. If you can't find information about drivers for that OS, you are taking a risk installing it anyways and your results will never be guaranteed. If someone were to ask me to build them a new (windows based) computer, I would still build them to spec for Windows XP x64 edition. It is still the best performing windows platform for an average gamer.
It is very likely that any hardware supported by XP x64 will be supported under Windows 7 in the future. I let them know this before-hand, but also include the standard "no guarantees" caveat. I am not a fortune teller, but there is a bit of logic in thinking that any vendor providing 64-bit drivers for Windows XP will be on the bandwagon for Windows 7--unless the hardware is particularly old. At that point, you need to ask yourself why you are buying old hardware for a new system.
XP x64 is very stable and very fast if you keep this in mind, and I have more than a few friends who will vouch for that. As always, your experience may vary, but yeah, drivers can really, really, suck and I feel your pain there.
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.
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
You must not work in IT
He may have meant he hasn't seen a BSOD that was explicitly the fault of Windows or a MS application, in which case his claim is not at all surprising. I've seen exactly one in the last four years that I could positively identify as an OS issue; the vast majority of all the others stemmed from bad hardware (usually memory) or drivers, some were from malware and a scattered few were traced to poorly-written/misbehaving applications or ancient programs for Win9x that weren't meant for the NT kernel.
Of course you haven't. The default now is to reboot instead of showing a blue text screen filled with the contents of memory around where the error happened. It doesn't mean that it didn't fail , just that the fact it failed at all, or where it failed, is being hidden from you.
I've seen BSODs in the last five years, and I don't even use Windows very often.
In the last five years, how many ATM transactions, ticket sales, etc., do you suppose have been completed without a problem?
The default on XP and later is to reboot automatically, sometimes the BSOD seems to pop up briefly but either it doesn't always or I often miss it, not sure which (whether you see it briefly may may also depend on how quick your monitor can switch to text mode)
Afaict there are a few common causes of BSODs/autoreboots.
Shitty software (while userland software is not supposed to be able to cause BSODs a lot of software ships with drivers of some sort)
Shitty hardware drivers
Shitty hardware (particularlly dodgy ram, I'd reccomend running a memory test as one of the first diagnostics on a machine giving a lot of BSODs)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
XP doesn't show bluescreens by default. It reboots.
Go check somewhere under "System/Start Up and Recovery".
I've seen quite a lot of BSOD in the last years, mostly AV software, drivers, hardware problems and messed up installs.
Btw, got a bsod while trying to install my emu10k1 on win7...
If you got it in your computer already, would you uninstall it? Heck no!!!! heheheheehe
Loose data:
What happens when a zero bit has had one too many one bits fly through its hole.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Yes, I do work in IT. I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
"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.
My point being, obviously, that activation may seem a little annoying, but some of these complaints about it really are a little overblown.
DRM is not a "little" annoying. It is a lot annoying and the complaints are not overblown. In a changing environment it makes the software fragile as hell, stops even the simplest operations like cloning or virtualization and makes you entirely dependent on what their definition of "legal" is, not yours.
The only people who think DRM is okay are marketing parasites and people who haven't been burned yet. I've been burned many times on everything from hot spares to dead software in the field to broken customer installations.
I was actually indifferent to DRM when I was young and foolish but I've learned my lesson now. DRM sucks, big time, and is one of the major causes of software failure.
---
DRM breaks ownership, the basis of capitalism and the free market.
You only activate it once,
Nonsense, they "activate" (what an Orwellian piece of newspeak that is) any time you do any sort of significant system change. And usually cause your software to die at the most inconvenient moment.
Make no mistake, DRM deliberately makes software fragile, which is a rather stupid thing to do.
---
DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.
Im going to have to call bull on that claim youve had bought 3 licences for each system. If so, then that is entirely YOUR fault for being an idiot. Like the guy said, its not difficult to reactivate. Sure you only get a few online automated activations, but even calling it in is fast. Ive had to do it a few times since I've done so many reformats and installing without an internet connection. I think the longest it ever took was 5 minutes. Even with all the upgrades i have never had to reactive because of hardware changes, every time it was on a clean install.
Geeze, no, you're missing the point entirely. I didn't buy extra copies because it was too hard to reactivate. I'm saying that over the years of getting new systems with OEM copies, buying updating licenses for old machines, decommissioning old machines, needing fewer machines because of layoffs, etc. I have many more Windows XP licenses than I have Windows XP machines. And so my point was just to say that I'm definitely not a pirate. My aversion to activation is not from a desire to violate licensing terms. It's just to avoid running into stupid restrictions at inopportune times.
And yes, as I described I've had annoyances with windows activation. I've had worse problems with other programs that require activation. And because of all that, as a rule, I avoid products that require activation.
``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.
They are, it's in the full article, they want people to either to a fresh install or upgrade from Vista, the two real world situations that will apply to the retail release.
Yes, yes. Ubuntu fixes any possible hardware bugs in your boss' system. I'm sure he appreciates kernel panics more than BSODs.
You don't know what you don't know.
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.
So you were lucky enough to do this during business hours? When I did a BIOS upgrade on my brothers machine (okay, it was because I upgraded his Single Core CPU to Dual Core), I got the activation too. Except I did this in the evening and couldn't call them. So I had to come back to his place during business hours. How fun....
(Do note that the first activation is call-free, but I busted that one on day one we had the computer because.... we installed a WiFi card. Yay!)
Also condsider the following: I am an avid dumpster diver. You get plenty of P-IV 1GHz to 2GHz machines (or AMD XP in the same speed range) in dumpsters. Some of them have the license sticker on them. I have been known to put Ubuntu on them, but technically I could reuse the license, no? Well, usually I can't because I don't have the disks (Oooh, an HP/Dell/Fujitsu XP restore CD is required? Where the fuck am I going to get that?) Also, I cannot honestly reply to the question "On how many computers has this copy of Windows been installed?". How would I know, I found the damned thing in a dumpster!
Usually, I just put Ubuntu on these kind of computers before I give them away to people who are happy with a giveaway computer. It's just a hard sell, because so many people insist on Windows. (But i did have some "converts"....)
Lucky you. Windows is a lot more stable than it used to be, which, depending on your previous experience, may not be saying much. But, a decade without a crash? How often are you changing machines? XP SP3 actually made things less stable for us at work. When we rolled out a new build of our corporate template, everything seemed to be fine - until someone plugged a USB flash drive into one of our HP Pentium 4s. Can you say rollback, boys and girls?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
So you were lucky enough to do this during business hours? When I did a BIOS upgrade on my brothers machine (okay, it was because I upgraded his Single Core CPU to Dual Core), I got the activation too. Except I did this in the evening and couldn't call them. So I had to come back to his place during business hours. How fun....
Didn't you read the part about my mom putting dinner on the table? It was probably around 7pm Arizona time. I guess it's always business hours in Bangalore.
Breakfast served all day!
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."
Well, don't get me wrong. Not everyone lives in the US, and the number I got on the screen to call explicitly stated local business hours? Why? Don't know.... I didn't ask the guy exactly where he was.
Hmm. Reminds me of traditional Windows security.
I don't think that tool was available until after some legal stink. It also may have been a "beta feature". Sorry, Office 2007, not 2008.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!