Wait For Windows 7 SP1, Support Firm Warns Users

CWmike writes "Users should wait for Microsoft to work out the bugs in Windows 7 before jumping on the new OS, computer support company Rescuecom said on Friday. 'From the calls we're getting, as well as our own experience in the past with all Microsoft's operating systems, we're recommending that people stick with their time-tested OS and wait for the dust to settle,' said Josh Kaplan, president of Rescuecom. Citing a litany of reasons, ranging from the risk of losing data during an upgrade to tough economic times, Kaplan urged Windows users to put off upgrading to Windows 7 or buying a new PC with the operating system pre-installed. 'There are some compelling reasons for both businesses and home users to move to Windows 7,' Kaplan said, 'so we're saying "just wait for a bit."' Upgrading an existing machine — whether it's running the eight-year-old Windows XP or the much newer Vista — is particularly risky, he added, especially if users haven't taken time to make a full backup before they migrate their machines. Some users have found that out first hand. Among the top subjects on Microsoft's support forum is one that has put some PCs into an endless reboot loop when their owners tried to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Microsoft has not yet come up with a solution that works for all the users who have reported the problem, sparking frustration."

Comments

It will be different this time

[symbolset]

Trust me.

Re:It will be different this time

[Anonymous Coward]

These Mac ads remind me of a politician who has nothing good to say about his own policies and platform, so he spends his time badmouthing the other candidates. I make it a point never to vote for those kinds of politicians.

Re:It will be different this time

[angelwolf71885]

so basically you dont vote

Re:It will be different this time

[King_TJ]

To be fair, Apple did a *lot* of these commercials, and I remember quite a few that point out benefits of OS X. They're not ALL about bashing the other platform and saying nothing about themselves. Sometimes, it's indirect but just as valid - like the "Wheel of Vista" commercial they did, to emphasize that OS X only has one version for everyone, unlike Microsoft, where they have all these different "flavors" at different price-points.

On the same note, if OS X was deployed as widely in big, corporate settings as Windows is, you'd have the exact same thing going on as this story talks about. People would say "Don't upgrade to Snow Leopard until they release 10.6.2!" I've *never* seen a new OS released that didn't have patches released for it soon afterward. History shows that the patches for the more severe issues tend to get done first, and then the little nit-picky stuff slowly gets ironed out after that. So it's always wise to wait a little while before deploying a brand new OS release.

Say what?

[jcr]

Wait... Windows 7 is the vista service pack.

-jcr

Re:Say what?

[Junior J. Junior III]

Fuck it, we're waiting for Windows 8.

Re:Say what?

[jcr]

Fuck it, we're waiting for Windows 8

Also known as "Windows for Godot".

-jcr

Re:Say what?

[mister_playboy]

Actually, Vista is on SP2 currently... so you should be calling Windows 7 "Vista SP3".

Re:Say what?

[Starayo]

Pikachu evolves into Raichu. You Pokénoob.

And only with a thunderstone. :P

Re:Say what?

[bsDaemon]

ah, you kids and your damned music...

Ok well I disagree

[Sycraft-fu]

I say get Windows 7 now, if you have a reason. If you have a new computer get it with 7 for sure. Get it for an old computer if there's a reason you want it (like DirectX 10/11 support or something) and your computer is reasonable (at least a dual core with 2GB RAM).

We have been deploying it here at work and it works great. It is a solid and fast OS. App compatibility is extremely good, even with our squirelly engineering apps.

But then seriously, how is this guy's story "news for nerds" any more than my anecdote? I would think nerds would be capable enough of doing testing to determine if 7 is right for their environment and then deploying it if appropriate.

Re:Ok well I disagree

[ColdWetDog]

That's all well and good, but make sure you have a functional, repeat, functional and I'll repeat again, functional backup.

If you trust your backups, you can do anything. Install Windows ME if you like.

But for bog's sake CHECK YOUR BACKUPS.

This message will be repeated in 10 minutes.

Re:Ok well I disagree

[Penguinisto]

Yes and no.

While Windows 7 is less sucky than Vista (and is roughly comparable to XP SP3), simply plopping it in doesn't always make sense.

Most enterprises (mine included) are still just barely testing the things, and the help desk is still trying to determine what the gotchas will be (not only with specific in-house apps, but in general). As a group (like so many others out there) who held out with XP, there's going to be a shitload of user re-training that you simply cannot avoid, unless you really hate your help desk (which is likely why you don't hear Microsoft claiming that training costs are gonna inflate one's TCO these days, eh?) From a cold-hearted BOFH standpoint, it's much easier to let the users get that training at home for awhile first, on their personal equipment, if for no other reason than to minimize the re-training costs you'll have to spend at work.

I will be the absolute last human being stupid enough to demand that all the relatively new (and even not-so-new) multi-million-dollar tools out on the production floor get bumped from XP to Windows 7. I doubt even the tool vendors would have the temerity to ask for the massive downtime required to do such a thing. Move away from manufacturing, and you still have a whole lot of hospitals, service orgs, and etc who will also refuse to bump their machines and tools up as well.

Sure - XP Mode is great for a lot of things, I cna admit that. OTOH, most home users aren't going to have that option, and most small businesses are going to require a whole lot of persuading to buy an XP mode streaming app server for distributed apps.

At home? Meh - I have exactly one Windows machine - the missus' XP laptop. I figure I'll worry about that when I get her a new one next year sometime... and I'm almost willing to bet that I'll still be installing XP on that one - less than a week after she gets it. I doubt she's going to be the only one who does that.

One final question that's going to be asked a LOT by typical users: "Unless/until app makers start making Windows 7 -only apps, why would anyone waste their time with the upgrade, instead of simply waiting until the next time they buy their Dell, HP, whatever? " Security? Meh - they'll claim their home router firewall and sundry for that.

Okay, one more: Too many folks out there have jacked/pirated/whatever copies of XP installed (courtesy of friends, relatives, TPB, whoever), and will likely wait for a jacked/pirated/whatever copy of Windows 7 to come out.

Sorry... I'm just not seeing the rush to convert just yet, save for those who have no real choice (that is, typical users buying new computers).

/P

Re:Ok well I disagree

[fluffy99]

One step ahead of you - I have two separate volumes running RAID1 and RAID5 so I am set for backups. ;-)

Repeat after me - "RAID does not protect against anything but hardware failure". It does not protect against users accidentally deleting files, files getting corrupted, or the OS having issues. To actually recover from any of those things, you need a usable BACKUP. It needs to be a cold-metal type of backup that you can easily restore from ground-zero. Something like Acronis TrueImage or Ghost of the system drive and whatever backup you prefer for the data volumes. Keep the back files for a long time, otherwise I guarantee you'll have a file that got deleted last year and no-one noticed.

They always say this

[Jugalator]

What's new? This is always the recommendation. It has never not been the recommendation to jump on a Windows product as soon as it's been released by a support firm. Is it just posted here to give Slashdot readers a space to vent their Windows 7 thoughts on?

Smells like FUD...

[Anonymous Coward]

While no initial release is perfect (and nor is any currently deployed system), this seems like FUD to me. Win7 is small enough of a difference from Vista (and that's a good thing) that there's relatively few surprises switching to it. There's no major driver model change and real world app compatibility testing has been in progress for almost a year now.

They say this every time...

[masdog]

I hear this every time a new version of Windows comes out. While it may be good policy for businesses to buy time to test the OS, develop training materials, and fix any application problems, it isn't as big of a deal for consumers, and articles like this come off as anti-Microsoft FUD.

There is always risk in upgrading to a new operating system, especially if you don't have much experience with it. That shouldn't stop you from waiting for the service pack.

Some things change...

[dark_requiem]

I'll be the first to admit that, in the past, this is exactly the recommendation I follow. However, I've used the beta, the RC, and I'm typing this on RTM, with an official install disk and license sitting next to me waiting until I have time to reinstall everything. Win7 has been rock-solid stable for me (aside from Creative's shite XFi drivers) through every version I've tried. If you are aware of any incompatible software that you need to run, then by all means wait (or run a VM), but otherwise, I have yet to see any reason to wait for a service pack on this one. If someone could provide some concrete reasons to wait, I'd take this article seriously, but otherwise, FUD.

As to upgrading, when has it ever been a good idea to perform a Windows upgrade installation? If you've been running any old version of Windows for 6 months or more, a fresh install is probably indicated anyway (although, I have been running RC on my home system since the day it came out, and I haven't had any Windows Rot yet, still runs as well as when I installed it). Backup your data, wipe the drive, and start from scratch. Bit of a pain in the ass, but that's pretty much a fact of life with Windows.

Re:But why?

[schnikies79]

While Windows 7 is stable, how you can say it's more stable than XP?

I haven't seen XP crash in years.

So you disagree -- with Microsoft?

[whoever57]

But then seriously, how is this guy's story "news for nerds" any more than my anecdote?

Because the is a Knowledge Base article (KB975253) about this problem?

Works okay for me.

[RatBastard]

The only problems I've had, and I only use my Windows box for games and keep my data on a server anyway, are
1: Quake 2 and derivatives do not run
2: My Turtle Beach surround sound USB headphones make Windows 7 bluescreen.
Otherwise everything I've tried on it works as well as it did under XP. I'm not happy with the new interface, but I remember not liking Windows XP when it first came out.

Re:I work for a software development company...

[GuruBuckaroo]

1.) SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 both have known compatibility issues. SQL 2005 will ALWAYS fail an upgrade to SP3 under Win 7 without a reg hack.

I have been able to install SP3 for SQL 2005 on exactly one (of 5) Windows 2003/2003R2 servers. That one success was a clean, fresh install that had nothing else on it. Every other system STILL fails to install SP3, after the 3rd (or 4th?) release of SP3. I don't blame that on the OS, I blame it on the patch. Or maybe on SQL 2005 itself, I don't know. But it isn't specific to Win7, at any rate.

Re:But why?

[mister_playboy]

WIndows 7 uses the same drivers that Vista does... there isn't anything to wait for.

Don't wait.

[GuruBuckaroo]

While I hate "Me too" posts as much as the next guy, I have to agree that this article is FUD for the management types. I installed 7 RTM as soon as it was available from TechNet, and haven't had problem one yet.

Well, I have one problem - it doesn't seem to connect to Windows 2000 Server shares, and it doesn't like my (very outdated) Samba network. Apparently it requires Samba 3.3 or higher. However, that aside, I have to say my existing PCs (original P4 3ghz, 3gb or 4gb memory) are noticeably snappier than they were with XP - granted, some of that may have been the accumulation of crud that happens with any windows installation. Clean installs are always speed-boosters.

Speaking of which - yeah, don't bother with an upgrade. With as cheap as USB drives (even USB HDs, not just flash) are these days, you have no real excuse for not doing a clean install. I'll be deploying Windows 7 starting in April to the 500+ workstations at my company, and every install will be a wipe & reinstall using Acronis TrueImage with a nice sysprep'ed image. All of the testing I've done so far has made me a happy camper and Win7 evangelist.

Prior releases... yeah, waiting for SP1 was always a good idea. Hell, we waited for XP SP2 before deploying it. I really think they've finally gotten this thing right.

But of course, I could be wrong.

To Clean or Not to Clean?

[CrashNBrn]

AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner?
[excerpt]
Mark Russinovich wrote:
No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
searches (ed. of the registry itself).

On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large
profile hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on
simultaneously.

I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since
it's of little practical use on anything other than Win2K
terminal servers and developing one that's both safe and
effective requires a huge amount of application-specific
knowledge.
[/excerpt]

It's a very interesting read, that's just one of the many security
and computer experts that chimed in on the issue.Overall, the
consensus is No, you should not use a registry cleaner. Period.
A few end-users howl contrary.

I'll go with the expert's advice that aren't trying to sell or promote crapware.