Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe
jbeale53 writes "It seems that to install Windows 7 in Europe, you'll have to wipe the system and start over. There will be no ability to upgrade. From the article, 'The unfortunate side effect has been caused by Microsoft's decision to avoid any further EU censure on Windows 7 by removing Internet Explorer 8 from the OS. Because Internet Explorer is so deeply integrated within Vista, it's not currently possible to perform an upgrade that removes IE.' Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup."
As much as I would like to find fault with Microsoft here...
Anybody that "upgrades" a Windows operating system in place from one version to another is an idiot.
People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year. Any less frequent than that and the successive patches to patches to patches become too much for the system to bear. The successive software installs and uninstalls leave hanging dependencies that slow the system to even worse of a crawl than it was at first install. An "upgraded" system drags with it the legacy rootkits previously installed, and those cause issues even in the best case. In the worst case the malware and crudware bog down the system so much you're lucky to get any work done at all.
A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux. After a year you're powering up and going for coffee while it "wakes up". After an "OS Upgrade" you don't dare power the thing off unless you're going on vacation for a week. Patch Tuesday has spawned "Team Building Wednesday".
Help stamp out iliturcy.
How many upgrades does it take to get from Windows 3.11 to 7?
(shows BSOD during the upgrade from 95 to 98)
... The world may never know.
Knowledge Brings Fear
If you have >1gb ram, i highly recommend giving the RC a go and see for yourself. Of course a heap of people on /. will bitch about it because of the DRM, activation, cost, etc - but as a usable product its actually quite neat.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
Actually the EU has not ordered MS to take any specific action. They do seem to favor multiple browsers installed by default as a remedy, but haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime and are looking into it. MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy, but the EU basically told them they weren't dropping the case and were going to investigate and determine the most effective remedy regardless of what MS does at this point.
Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE.
Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS, they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market. When Apple does it, it's business as usual. Different rules apply to Monopolies. Thems the breaks kiddo.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
how do I go and download FireFox?
A monopoly is defined by the amount of control over a market as a whole, not the amount of control over the products offered up in that market. For example, IIS could never be an example of a product with a monopolistic hold on a market as long as Apache maintained significant market share, no matter how tightly IIS was locked down.
The problem was, you could still access the internet via explorer, just by typing a URL in any windows explorer window. Further, deleting iexplore.exe means you couldn't get updates. I'd call that a big repercussion.
The point was not that Microsoft couldn't create a version of Windows without a browser, obviously they could. They couldn't simply remove it instantly without basically creating a system that was non-functional.
The judge gave them 30 days to remove IE. Not enough time to re-engineer the OS without the browser in a way that wouldn't break things.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
My what an ignorant jerk you are. The EU and the European market represent a huge share of Microsoft's profits, how likely do you think they are to screw with that? How stupid can you get?! If Microsoft wants to play here they have to follow our rules.
I'm so tired of hearing fools like you talk about how Microsoft should just "pull out" of Europe. When are you going to get it? They don't want to! They can't unless they want to lose markets all around the world! European international corporations would move to European Linux distributions (in all the countries they operate in around the world).
The EU asked them to include more options for browsers, do you even know how to read? They did not ask them to remove IE, but that's fine too. After all it's not a problem since manufacturers can add whatever they like OEM-style.
The EU is a massively powerful entity and Microsoft has no power to "lobby" their way out of this or any other issues unlike in the US. So you better get used to having your "American" corporations "screwed" over by us Europeans! Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!
Comparing the original XP release without Service Packs (circa 2001) to a much newer Linux install (2009) is a cheap argument. Next you'll tell us that nVidia's GeForce 256 is trash next to an ATI Radeon HD 4000.
An XP CD with SP3 slipstreamed is slightly faster than earlier versions, if reports are to be believed. If you manage to make an XP system as slow as Vista on the same hardware you're doing something wrong.
Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
Saying "only" doesn't make that statement any less absurd. How is the selection for these browsers to be made? Because you know the moment Microsoft announces they're to put "select few" browsers in Windows 7, everyone will want theirs in.
;)
Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony. Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share. If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit. Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users? Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox. Opera's nowhere in that list. Should they sue YouTube?
What the EU commission wants from Microsoft is a solution that can't be carried out in any sensible manner. But maybe that's exactly what they want, have you seen what EU charges Microsoft for failing to abide? To paraphrase another euphemism, let's call it "surprise tax"
Alright, here's where I'm confused:
In Windows Vista, you cannot remove IE. You can upgrade from 7 to 8, of course, but there's no way to remove it, and things will break if you try, because it was never designed to operate without IE present, although it's certainly better than XP was in that respect.
In Windows 7, you can remove IE. Control Panel, Programs and Features, click the link in the sidebar to "Turn Windows features on or off", uncheck Internet Explorer 8, click Yes to the warning that this might break stuff, let it reboot, wait a few extra seconds while it "configures" things, and it's gone. The rendering engine is still there, of course, but the application is gone.
Presumably, after you have upgraded from Vista to 7, this is still true; you can still remove IE by following the above steps.
So how hard is it to just automatically add the uninstall to the upgrade process? Make it optional: after completing an upgrade, ask the user whether they'd like to remove IE or keep it.
And hey, if I recall correctly, they were planning to offer two versions anyway: you could either have IE preinstalled, or not. So, they could make the no-IE version clean-install-only, and the with-IE version could be clean-install or upgrade.
This is definitely not a technical problem.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
So that's great news for all you folks running Windows 3.11 on at least a 1 GHz CPU and 1 GB RAM ;-)
Seriously, Microsoft has generous upgrade paths. Upgrade editions of Windows 7 will even work on Windows 2000.
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment... Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?
I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest. Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice. Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems. However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:
- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade).
- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc. that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them).
- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.
- I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using.
- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.
I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms? Slightly updated hardware support? Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet. Slightly better performance? Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone. Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have? Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).
I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions). I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work). There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?
When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc. I fail to see the attraction. Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support). Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade". I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.
Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?
Yes, although my approach is usually to do a clean install and then use the OS X migration feature to bring the applications and files over. And, I have to say, in my experience so far this works perfectly - every file, every setting, desktop background, application settings, everything. I can walk up to a new Mac, set my MacBook into Firewire target disk mode, and have that Mac as a perfect clone of my MacBook within a couple of hours, no user intervention needed. The advantage of this approach is that it's stepwise - if there is an issue with the new OS, I can go back to the older install on the other disk or partition. If I desperately need to use the machine in the meantime I can abort the transfer and reboot, then set it going again when I'm ready. It totally avoids that panic that things just might go wrong .