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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
It seems to work fine for Ubuntu Jaunty.
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...
Now, that's an endorsement for an OS: "I've repaired it loads of times!"
This space intentionally left blank.
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
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.'
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
"I saw one a couple weeks ago with Windows 7 but the fix was simple. I just had to uninstall it."
There fixed it.
My apologize, but I want a quick +5 funny and this is an easy target.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
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.
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."
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.
And why not?
Let's examine some history.
In Unix (Linux), there is a rigid placement for code -- /bin and /sbin contain the OS utilities, /lib for neeed libraries, and /boot contains the OS itself (/kernel for Solaris, but the idea is the same). /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/lib et al contain OS utilities NOT NEED FOR BOOTING (/usr can be network mounted). /etc for OS configuration. /usr/local and-or /opt for site specific programs. (Applications not supported by the OS vendor directly, or, in the case of Solaris, by a different group)
Easy to upgrade the OS. Replace the OS parts, and leave /usr/local, /opt and the /home (/export/home) directories alone. No particular complications. Everyone administering a box knows the score, and we don't have any problems. Of course, /etc changes are then the worst, but apps can be encouraged to go with /usr/local/etc for global configuration (this is rarely done, it turns out to not be a practical necessity).
As to what is installed? Different OSs use different conventions (obviously, and Microsoft uses their own). yum list in Fedora (for example) will give the list of packages, libraries and utilities currently installed via the vendor installer/updater (2373 installed packages on my netbook I am using to type this). It does behoove Microsoft to keep track of all of their own packages, beta to beta and to release (it would be part of bug tracking).
Given the experience in this area gained from 40 years of use, I would imagine the Windows Update procedure to be as finely honed, especially given the new security concerns of Microsoft in relation to Windows.
So it doesn't make sense to me that a beta to beta update isn't supported. This must be strictly a "scope limiting" move; but I don't think it reflects well on Microsoft and its position as an OS vendor.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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!
``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.