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.
Just as soon as they release it on Pirate Bay.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
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.
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.
Or you could install the upgrade on a clean disk by inserting your old media at the appropriate time.
I've been installing Windows ever since 95 and not once have I been forced to install an older version before "upgrading" to the newer one. I just wipe the drive, show the installer I have an older version of Windows, and get the exact same thing as a full OEM verson.
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.
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'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.
Except now Windows is as secure, easier to install, has more products, and behaves 'smother' then Linux.
Is as secure? Uhhhhh - you'll have to offer more than a "take my word" statement to that effect. Windows what, is as secure as what, exactly? You are hoping that Win7 is as secure as SEL?
Ahem. You'll excuse me if I wait for a LOT of people to start saying so? Experience teaches us that every time Microsoft enhances their security, first, people defeat that security on their own machines, then the crackers defeat that security from the outside.
As things stand right now, I'm simply not believing that a default installation of ANY Windows system is as secure as a default installation of ANY Linux. Or, Mac for that matter. Win2003 is the most secure MS operating system I have any experience with, and it doesn't even stack up to a default Ubuntu install, IMHO
Let's turn your little "challenge" around. You tell us why you think Win7 is so very secure, alright?
You should be aware that I actually like Win7 - it really is an improvement on everything I've seen before. But making claims that it is as secure as Linux seems pretty ridiculous.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Windows is as secure
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10156617-56.html/ Windows UAC flaw
http://www.istartedsomething.com/20090204/second-windows-7-uac-flaw-malware-self-elevate/ Windows UAC flaw
http://www.linux.com/feature/131059/ Only Ubuntu survived Pwn to Own contest.
has more products
http://stommel.tamu.edu/~baum/linuxlist/linuxlist/linuxlist.html/ Linux software encyclopedia
There are literally millions of unix scripts, programs, and utilities for Linux.
I will concede that there are several 3rd party tools that are windows-only, and limit the adaptability
of some business's switching, but you'll never win the "more products" argument in windows favor.
Easier to install
This will vary with the flavor of linux. Some are definitely more challenging to get functional. If
you compare the installation / setup time for 50 computers, with ease of installation being a priority in your
choice of distributions, then you can have them up & running quicker, and more consistently with Linux than
with windows.
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.