Forgot your password?

typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software

Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe 803

Posted by samzenpus
from the start-all-over dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe

Comments Filter:
  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by sympathy3k21 (1574255) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:14AM (#28712377) Journal
    EXACTLY. You'd have to be seriously dumb to "upgrade" a Windows box. I have never once seen this go well. Between Vista and 7 maybe it will be better because they're so alike, but I doubt it. I don't see the big deal with upgrading anyway. What's the point? So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff? (assuming that like much of the general buffoonery you don't have it already backed up) It takes about 10-15 minutes to install Vista from start to finish on a blank, modern machine. Judging from the totally inexplicable timetables involved in Microsoft's Windows Update, it probably takes ten times as long to perform an "upgrade." Even on a Linux system like Debian with a good package manager you will have some slight inconsistencies between releases that can foul things up if you perform a straight dist-upgrade. I can only imagine the things that go on behind the scenes in a Windows upgrade.
  • Same old crap (Score:4, Informative)

    by gruntled (107194) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:15AM (#28712379)

    They did exactly the same thing during the antitrust trial. In December 1997 (or thereabouts), Microsoft responded to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's order to provide a version of Windows 98 without a browser by offering up a version of the OS that wouldn't run.

  • Re:OOh (Score:4, Informative)

    by schnikies79 (788746) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:19AM (#28712401)

    You don't have to reinstall every year. My main rig has been running the same, non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years. It's fast and stable.

    As far as upgrading though? That's dumb.

  • Re:OOh (Score:5, Informative)

    by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:23AM (#28712431)

    I learned to image a long time ago, makes things much faster.

    I get the base XP install with ALL the security updates. *snapshot*

    Next time it's time to do it again, I start from there, install all the security updates. *snapshot*.

    Quite a bit faster.

  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:25AM (#28712439)

    I would agree that doing an OS upgrade by doing a backup, saving off data, low level formatting all drives (some SCSI drives allow a true low level erase of every sector and relocate any bad blocks they find, others just do a read across all sectors and call it done), then a complete OS rebuild is a good idea, regardless of OS, be it AIX, Solaris, Windows, BSD, or Linux.

    However, even though this is a good thing in principle, it is tough to do in practice. A lot of Windows machines have apps which the install media (or CD keys) are unable to be located, or have some licensing system which charges per reinstallation. Reinstallation from scratch also takes a lot of time. An upgrade may leave a lot of cruft behind, but when under strict deadlines, it might be worth the risk as opposed to the time it takes for a complete rebuild of a box from the OS on up.

    PS: Reinstall Windows yearly? Maybe back in the Windows 98 and ME days, but unless its some specific app that causes damage over time, Windows versions including and more recent than XP are stable enough to last a lot longer than that. I'd highly recommend taking a look at one's antivirus utility which may be eating excessive CPU cycles (some are said to be FAR worse than others), and perhaps running a utility like CCleaner periodically. If malware is a chronic problem, consider running your Web browsing as a limited user or inside a virtual machine that you can rollback when done. Of course, there is always the Firefox/Adblock/NoScript trio.

  • by smash (1351) <<jethro.rose> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:43AM (#28712535) Homepage Journal
    vs XP: GUI is actually nicer to use (yay for a toolbar i can turn into a proper Dock :D), previous versions, UAC (it works), 64 bit (yes, xp 64 bit exists, but its a dead end product), improved scheduler (with better support for SMP due to the dispatcher lock being removed - it certainly feels snappier for it), search that actually works well, etc.

    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.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:46AM (#28712547)

    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.

  • Re:Same old crap (Score:4, Informative)

    by RedK (112790) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:49AM (#28712567)
    It was a lie then, it's a lie now. The browser isn't required at all, only MSHTML.dll which is used to embed the HTML rendering component in applications and is used quite extensively elsewhere. Internet Explorer itself is just another browser than embeds it and adds functionality around it like navigation controls, bookmarks and tabs. You can delete iexplore.exe off any system without much repercussions.
  • by RedK (112790) on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:52AM (#28712589)
    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.
  • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Thursday July 16 2009, @12:53AM (#28712603) Homepage Journal

    What browsers don't auto-update in the default configuration these days?

    Browsers being run by non-administrators.

    Seriously, this is a big deal. One of the nicest things about IE is that it gets updated as part of Windows/Microsoft Update which means even if you don't have an admin log in to the machine for a year, that browser will be up-to-date. Of all the other browser authors, Google is the only one that I think might also do this (via the Google Updater service that is installed with their stuff). For Firefox and Opera, unless you log in just to update them it never happens.

    It might be nice if there was a way for applications to hook into a global OS framework that allows them to check for and apply updates, but I suppose that itself would be a security nightmare. If you aren't careful it would be really easy for slightly knowledgeable users to use the update mechanism to run any program they want with admin rights. Probably need some kind of private/public signing of the executables like MS does for Windows Update.

    For apps with such a significant Internet surface area, all browsers should be able to update themselves without requiring the user to be an administrator.

  • by Kufat (563166) <.kufat. .at. .kufat.net.> on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:11AM (#28712763) Homepage

    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.

  • by Meumeu (848638) on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:13AM (#28712775)

    I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all. Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7? Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.

    Because you don't need to activate XP? Besides, you don't have to activate Windows 7 if you want to try it out...

  • by RedK (112790) on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:31AM (#28712887)
    This might be news to you, but back in the Netscape days, pre-Windows 98, Microsoft had a very small market share in the Browser market. The original browser wars, in which Microsoft "coupled" Internet Explorer with the GUI before shipping Windows 98, is what resulted in Microsoft gaining such a high share of the browser market. Essentially, they used their monopoly on desktop OSes in order to gain that monopoly on browsers. The original anti-trust charges in the US were followed shortly.
  • Re:OOh (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:31AM (#28712891)

    There's a solution. It's called Mac OS X.

  • by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:33AM (#28712905)

    You really haven't been paying attention, have you?

    Vista doesn't use IE for updates. It has a stand-alone application. Windows 7 is the same way.

  • by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:39AM (#28712935) Homepage Journal

    If I install Firefox as a non-administrator I can't update it if I'm running Windows?

    If you do not have administrative rights, you cannot install Firefox on the machine in the first place. You can, however, extract the files to a location you have rights to and run it (just like on *nix). My point was that if a computer has Firefox installed in the traditional way (via the installer program), a non-administrator cannot update the application since they do not have write-access to the Program Files directory. Updating manually or automatically requires administrator access.

    This has actually been a problem for us in our computer labs in the past. Firefox will check for updates and download the updater, then prompt the user (who is not an administrator) to restart Firefox to install the update. Since they aren't an admin the update will fail, and then every time they launch Firefox from them on they will be prompted to install it, over and over again. Very poor programming, I think, and very much falling into the faulty and dangerous "everyone runs Windows as an admin" mindset.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:47AM (#28712971)
    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!
  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lennie (16154) on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:57AM (#28713055) Homepage

    I can imagine something else, if your profile is on D: (like all the other data) you don't loose the HKEY_CURRENT_USER so a lot of settings should be preserved.

  • Re:OOh (Score:4, Informative)

    by MojoStan (776183) on Thursday July 16 2009, @01:57AM (#28713057)

    It is shitware (aka a lot of "shareware") installers, viruses, spyware, internet toolbars and other associated crap that messes them up.

    For those who haven't heard, CCleaner [ccleaner.com] ("Crap Cleaner") is a very good utility that removes that crap left behind.

    I think reasonably careful Windows users (don't run as Administrator all the time or install mysteryware without Googling it first) should be able to keep their system snappy with CCleaner.

  • by Daengbo (523424) <daengboNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday July 16 2009, @02:02AM (#28713101) Homepage Journal

    The MS Office 2010 videos put out by MS a couple of days ago include Firefox accessing Sharepoint and the narrator emphasizing the "full experience." Your need for IE may be short-lived,

    If you find the Sharepoint video, look at the 10 or 11 minute mark.

  • Re:OOh (Score:4, Informative)

    by syousef (465911) on Thursday July 16 2009, @02:29AM (#28713265) Journal

    People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year.

    Glad you have the time to waste reinstalling from scratch once a year. Some of us have other things to do with our lives. You go around calling people who don't do this an "idiot" but I'd call anyone who spends several hours once a year on each machine they own an idiot. This is NOT the only way to get decent performance out of windows, even if it is the only way YOU know how to do it.

  • Re:OOh (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cassius Corodes (1084513) on Thursday July 16 2009, @03:04AM (#28713431)
    As a software engineer who tried out ubuntu I can very much relate to the above. It is not a system that works out of the box. It took me several days of working shit out until I was able to use it as a download box. Although if you take the time to learn how to use it you also learn a lot more about how computers work.
  • Re:OOh (Score:5, Informative)

    by techno-vampire (666512) on Thursday July 16 2009, @03:09AM (#28713459) Homepage
    It's not as great as you think it is

    I don't just think there aren't any viruses out there that can infect Linux, I know it. I don't think there aren't any trojans out there that can damage my Linux box, I know it. I don't think that any site that tries to run a drive-by download on my box will fail, I know it. As long as the above statements are true for Linux out-of-the-box and aren't for a clean install of any version of Windows, I'll continue to consider Linux better than Windows. YMMV, and obviously does. If you're happy with Windows, stick to what you like, and I'll do the same.

  • Re:OOh (Score:5, Informative)

    by gr8dude (832945) on Thursday July 16 2009, @03:13AM (#28713493) Homepage

    That is a good question, and in my case things usually go this way:

    • I choose programs that store their data inside .ini or .conf files in their own directory
    • I backup the program's registry keys (after finding out which ones they are, using a tool like RegMon)
    • Other times the program will just re-create its own data in the registry if it can't find it. If those data are nothing critical - I just let it be. The cost of clicking a few checkboxes in a GUI is less than that of installing one OS on top of the other and letting the cruft pile up

    One more detail - ever since I moved to Windows 2000, I rarely had to reinstall my OS. From my last two Windows machines, one worked for about 4 years (until I sold it), and the other one continues to work to this day (an XP laptop, at least 3 years old).

    My trick is to disable the Windows update feature and not click anything stupid; I don't [lazybit.com] even use an antivirus. Today the system is as snappy as it was on day one.

  • by MojoStan (776183) on Thursday July 16 2009, @03:17AM (#28713517)
    I know you're joking, but you can get from Windows 3.11 to Windows 7 in just three upgrades:
    1. Windows 98 Upgrade [amazon.com] will upgrade Windows 3.11.
    2. Windows XP Upgrade [amazon.com] will upgrade Windows 98.
    3. Any upgrade version of Windows 7 will upgrade any version of Windows XP.

    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 [microsoft.com].

  • Re:OOh (Score:2, Informative)

    by lukas84 (912874) on Thursday July 16 2009, @03:43AM (#28713673) Homepage

    Yeah, you don't "need" to reboot after glibc updates. It's just that you should in order for all programs to get the fixes.

  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by digitig (1056110) on Thursday July 16 2009, @04:14AM (#28713829)

    That's the smart way to do it.

    Right-click on "my documents" to move it to a folder on D:

    Unfortunately, quite a few applications don't bother checking for the location of "My Documents" and go ahead and recreate it on the C: drive if it's not there, leading to user data being split between drives.

  • side effects (Score:3, Informative)

    by z_gringo (452163) <z_gringo.hotmail@com> on Thursday July 16 2009, @04:27AM (#28713875)
    And it what must be completely unrelated, Linux seems to be much more widely used here. In Spain, we have about half of our technical users using Linux ONLY, the other half run both. The non-technical users are still mostly on windows, but some run linux at home. I see a lot more linux on the desktop in Europe than in the US, and also, with the exception of Microsoft Exchange and the odd MS SQL server here and there, ALL the other servers are Linux. I haven't touched a server running microsoft in years now. Not because I really have anything against them, we just don't need Windows servers for anything.
  • Re:side effects (Score:4, Informative)

    by cheros (223479) on Thursday July 16 2009, @05:53AM (#28714289)
    Probably the best example if what they got up to in what is apparently the poorest region of the country, Extremadure. I think the Debian conference link [linux-magazine.com] will give you enough to find out more.

    Basically (as far as I remember), they created their own distro for schools, and subsequently it went into gov use as well, with a small group of techs doing the support for the whole region. Running a business? Get your own CD and have a direct interface with the local government, I think for taxation etc.

    It looked like a sterling effort of the type that must have left MS grinding its teeth. Simple, functional, focused, effective. Sterling effort IMHO.
  • by Quantumstate (1295210) on Thursday July 16 2009, @06:49AM (#28714545)

    The summary is misleading. The EU hasn't told Microsoft to do anything. They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that. But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.

  • Re:OOh (Score:2, Informative)

    by Nitage (1010087) on Thursday July 16 2009, @07:06AM (#28714621)
    I'd love not to run as an admin. But the Microsoft software I need for work requires it. Running as a restricted user, then running the one program as an admin works for about 90% of the functionality I use, but that's still not good enough. I've taken to running as admin using a VM (which is much easier to 'reinstall' seeing as I can just revert to a snapshot).
  • Re:Macintosh (Score:5, Informative)

    by uglyduckling (103926) <uglyduckling@@@flashmail...com> on Thursday July 16 2009, @07:14AM (#28714647) Homepage
    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 .
  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by PitaBred (632671) <slashdotNO@SPAMpitabred.dyndns.org> on Thursday July 16 2009, @10:08AM (#28716225) Homepage

    And once you have got windows and all its various drivers installed, you still have a pretty useless system that can't do very much until you install some applications (which you have to do manually).

    Don't be hatin'! There's all kinds of great stuff in the default Windows install. Notepad, minesweeper, Solitaire, Wordpad. Ummm... Calculator. Did I say Notepad? That's really great.

  • Re:OOh (Score:3, Informative)

    by C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) on Thursday July 16 2009, @10:43AM (#28716707) Journal
    While I agree that upgrading a windows install is not a good idea, this notion that XP needs to be reinstalled every year is a myth. the notebook I use at work (company owned) is running with the very same XP install it had when I got it. 3 solid years. no reinstalls.

    I give you that it's running a little slower today than when I got it, but this has nothing to do with microsoft, patches or anything. it was because of a brain dead decision from upper management a year ago of deploying mcafee antivirus to everyonee. while the corporative version of mcafee is far better than the consumer version, it still hoses the system. BUT, wipping windows and doing a fresh install in this case would solve NOTHING. after reinstalling I'd still have mcafee running and hosing the system.

    here's the tips to avoid this fabled windows "aging" proccess:

    - don't install crap all the time. stick to the basics. office suite, browser, e-mail app. everything else, run in a virtual machine. hardware today is powerfull enough so you wont notice it's not running nativelly. - don't install and unistall stuff frequently. only install nativelly stuff you want to keep that you tested on a VM - don't install games. full stop. buy a PS3 or Xbox360. if you want casual games, there's lots of them on the web, run them on your browser. - keep your files separate from your software. a 20-30GB partition for windows and apps, everything else on a secondary partition. configure the system so "Documents and settings" reside on the second partition (usually D:\ ) - disable every crappy service you don't need from control pannel.

    this worked for me for the last 3 years. i'm the only guy in my work group who didn't have to completely rebuild my machine in all this time.
  • MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2009, @10:49AM (#28716811)

    Question: Modifying a Linux hosts file requires SUDO, right? After all, you don't want anyone/anyprogram redirecting certain names to some fake site in China.

    Same thing in Vista. You just need to learn which things are administrator-based, or need admin rights to edit. You ARE running your account as a non-admin, right?

    And if you need to take 5 minutes for EACH changed line, EACH time you touch the hosts file... well, you're doing something wrong. Or you're an idiot. And that's an OR, not an XOR.

  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday July 16 2009, @11:25AM (#28717371) Journal
    Or 'ftp ftp.mozilla.org'. As I recall, Windows Explorer includes an FTP client, so you should just be able to put ftp://ftp.mozilla.org [mozilla.org] into the address bar and grab it (you can do this with the finder in OS X too).

Go on, EMOTE! I was RAISED on thought balloons!!

Working...