Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe 803
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the start-all-over dept.
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."
Why must I have Windows 7? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:OOh (Score:5, Interesting)
Just to add to this... I've upgraded 2 machines from Vista 64 Ultimate to Windows 7 RC (both of them FAR from clean installs - one was 2 years old with a few hundred gig of games and other crap on it, the other was a work machine with a year worth of junk on it) and they both went pretty well. The only thing i had to do was do a repair of VMware workstation, as Windows 7's installer clobbered the network devices.
I figured "why not, I may as well see how it goes" as I'd need to do a reinstall anyway (and all the shit i care about is on a separate disk) if i wanted to do a clean install... but i was pleasantly surprised at how painless the upgrade was. ESPECIALLY considering it was only the RC...
I agree, you'd be dumb to *rely* on an upgrade to work and not be prepared to reinstall, but so far I've been happy with not doing it, using the RC.
But without Internet Explorer... (Score:5, Interesting)
how do I go and download FireFox?
Re:OOh (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess I'm just dumb, then.
I've run the same windows system with just OS upgrades (95-2000-XP Pro), no fresh installs, for about 12 years now. That's around 6-7 MB/CPU/Ram/HD/Video hardware upgrade cycles, since I always build my own and tend to upgrade pieces most of the time. I still have the original Win 95 install files in a sub-directory on my hard drive.
I'm currently running a dual-core with 2 GB of ram and a RAID 1/0 hard drive config (4 drives), so maybe that's it (although hardly unusual in today's market), but my computer seems much faster to me than any other computer I've worked on in the last few years, even brand-new computers with "fresh" installs.
I have 200+ applications installed, many of which are old enough that I'd never find the install media again, if I ever did a fresh install (packed away in some box somewhere, I suppose, since I've moved 4 times in the last 12 years).
Of course, I've also never bought into the idea that the only way to clean up an infected windows box is to reinstall everything from scratch. It takes me about 30 minutes of work to clean up the worst infected windows computer I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot). That's 30 minutes of work for me and about a day or so of work for the computer. Saves the end user a ton of work reinstalling everything, though.
I mean, I know that windows can be stupidly convoluted sometimes compared to unix, but it seems like the "fresh install of windows solves everything" crowd tends to be people who just don't understand what's going on under the hood enough to actually solve the problem they've run into.
Re:OOh (Score:5, Interesting)
Heh. 2 months ago, I retired my main workstation, a Win2000 box that has been running since 2001 doing software development, CAD and whatnot. I never had needed to reinstall the software in all that time.
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's the reason [wikipedia.org] that no one else sees it your way. Your definition of monopoly isn't the same definition that the rest of the world is using. Apple has pulled plenty of dick moves over the years so I can see where you're coming from, but they don't even come close to the damage done by Microsoft. Microsoft used their monopoly to completely make a mess of web standards to the extent that for a long while they were standards in name only. They stifled innovation by announcing vaporware to drive sales away from existing competition even when they had no real intention of delivering a product. They've also outright stolen code from other companies to use in their own products which they've attempted to leverage through Windows to make them market standards.
Personally I don't care if they bundle Explorer with their Operating System, but I do believe that the hardware manufacturers should have the opportunity to install additional browsers alongside or instead of Explorer. Since Bing seems to have the makings of a decent search engine they could probably just cut Opera the same deal that Google does and offer to install Opera as a default Browser if the default search is set to use Bing. There were definitely many better solutions to the outcome that was chosen, but it doesn't change that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Re:OOh (Score:4, Interesting)
Regardless, you're the exception, not the rule. I've seen computers less than 2 years old take 5 minutes to get to the point where you can open a browser, and the users had never installed more than Office. Similarly, I've had people who've had their computer for years and years and it still runs great. These things are somewhat of a mystery... (though bad hardware or malware are probably to blame).
However, I have to mention the fact that the advantages to reformatting outnumber any inconveniences of reinstalling programs (unless you've been careless and lost a CD key, in which case you can either locate it within the program before you reformat or find a way to crack it).
Reformatting for me usually takes about 40 minutes, and then reinstalling everything might take an hour or so (depending on what I'm reinstalling). I have a working computer that's running faster without all of the crap that was on it previously, and it's so incredibly easier to do than manually finding all of the stuff left behind by uninstalled programs, malware, viruses, etc. Plus I have the piece of mind KNOWING about everything that's on my computer, not to mention tons of free space!
Bottom line is that people SHOULD be reformatting if they're upgrading their computer. A fresh install runs MUCH more smoothly than an OS laid on top of another OS. Whether or not upgrading works for some people is moot... reformatting will ALWAYS be faster.
While we're at the subject (Score:4, Interesting)
why is the windows 7 price in europe going to be 150% of the dollar-price in euro's (100 dollar -> 150 euro). That's twice what americans pay.
Re:OOh (Score:4, Interesting)
It won't work the same way. For win7 Upgrade versions (from what I've gathered) you'll have to install and activate your Old OS and then put 7 on over the top.
MS are basically doing us in Europe a huge favour - the preorder pricing for Win7 Home Premium E is VERY heavily discounted. Like, it's about £50.
We couldn't Upgrade if we wanted to (meh), don't have IE installed as default (yay!), and get the Full Version for the price they would've been charging for the inferior Upgrade Edition.
Re:OOh (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows has generally lowered people's standards, to the point that constant crashing, malware and reinstalls are considered normal, acceptable and unavoidable.
Petulance (Score:3, Interesting)
When my child gets punished for bad behavior, she will sometimes get cross and in a fit of spite she will do things that she thinks will hurt us, her parents. Often she ends up hurting herself more through her actions.
Microsoft makes some fine software. They are a bunch of bright, creative people. But apparently they have the corporate personality of a 4 year old bully. They were caught being bad, again, and their response to being punished is petulance. Not to worry; they are harming themselves. The middle of a recession is not a good time to make your product more expensive and with a higher barrier to entry.
----------
I've seen a few people saying that it would be hard for them to give a choice of browsers, and that, in fact, just deciding which browsers would be too hard for some of the brightest people on the planet. I wouldn't compare my intellectual powers with those of Mr Ballmer, but I can imagine that they could:
1. Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsers
2. Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API
3. Bundle Mozilla, Opera and Safari
4. Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation process
5. Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browser
None of these are exclusive of the others - they should be doing all five.
What I see is a case of corporate petulance and bad grace from a management team who think that they are above the law.
--------------
Now some balance.
If I were in the position where I was genuinely surprised by the EU's decision (though I can't see how MS could possibly be surprised), and I was completely unprepared, rather than hold back the launch of the OS globally, I might choose to issue it in stages in the EU to give myself time to comply with the ruling. However, I would also be incredibly careful to communicate about this strategy so as not to upset my customers. But as far as I can make out, this is not what is happening here because I've seen no explanation as to how insisting on a clean install fits in with a two stage strategy or how it complies with the EU ruling.
Re:OOh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Removing IE (Score:3, Interesting)
It's actually quite ingenious.
Re:OOh (Score:3, Interesting)
But I have XP in "classic mode", MenuShowDelay set to 1 (you can download TweakUI from Microsoft which allows you to change this and many other things with a more friendly interface than using the registry editor) and I also have
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem]
"NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001
Which might help a bit in making things more snappy.
The other thing is the latest version of Kubuntu somehow annoyed me enough so that I wiped it and installed Ubuntu (gnome) instead. I had always preferred KDE to gnome, till now. It felt like the KDE bunch were trying to make their latest KDE as annoying as Vista. I suppose it's just not to my taste.
Re:OOh (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that preserving all settings is very likely to preserve a lot of settings that are either inappropriate or just useless under the new OS. You spend more time weeding out those, and never gettting them all, than if you just reinstalled all your applications.
What would be really nice would be a way to inspect each application's setings and have the choice of whether to use them. Those primitive OSes that use text ini files allow that... but not the marvellously monolithic Windows registry.
Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
If I ran the shots at Microsoft (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd include an ungodly amount of the most obscure browsers there are. Anything I could get my hands on. Alphabetically, with a catagory on top "Microsoft Certified and Tested" which would include IE, IE and maybe even IE. Mozilla would be in the other category "Untested and possibly harmful to your system". (perhaps with warning pictures, like skulls, communist signs and other things).
Before flaming commences, I've used Firefox since version 0.9 or something, and this was posted in a Gentoo box.
Come on people (Score:4, Interesting)
I am an avid Linux and FreeBSD user, have been for a long time. However, I do use Windows on one of my home machine, mainly cause I like to play games...
Now, I think that Windows 7 is by far the best OS to have come out of Redmond for a long time. Yes XP was good (after SP2), but it did suffer from limitations. The 64-bit version is a dead end so my new hardware can not be leveraged with Windows XP. I used Vista for a year and, while bloated and heavy, was an OK OS. I have a miniMac for work at home, I don't like it...The user interface is klunky IMHO. I do like the console though.
Suse Linux is my fav linux, purely because the issues I have had have been easily resolved, package management is good and it just works. CentOS my fav for a server (with no gui).
Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard about how they can still get what they want and fit into the requirements of the EU. You think they just thought that that was the easiest? No. They did it because 1) They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know. 2) They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU. 3) It's a two-finger salute to the EU. It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way. 4) If users had a choice on install they may indeed pick something else...it's like free advertising for other browsers, not something M$ would want to do.
Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).
Re:OOh (Score:3, Interesting)
Xp was good in that you could use drivers from previous windows OS.
This is not strictly true: some drivers worked ok, but many did not. I haven't read anything about this, but can't believe that Win7 is so different from Vista that the situation will be worse; I would hope it will be better. Of course I would not expect many XP drivers to work on Win7, but that was the version of Windows before last.
This whole topic is of interest to me as I would like to upgrade my Vista laptop to Win7 but really don't have the time to do a full install of all my apps.
Re:Slightly Wrong Summary (Score:4, Interesting)
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,
What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?
.. because they want a fucking browser! The tragedy here is that the company is being fucked with precisely because it is giving the customers what they want, as if that is some sort of crime.
Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?
There is NOTHING more effective than that. I'm sorry but the whole "include other browsers" thing is pretty laughable. It isnt a remedy for anything.. it is instead a bunch of bullshit pretending to be a remedy.
Sure.. the end users in the E.U. are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS
In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.
install v upgrade (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't blame them. (Score:3, Interesting)
If the EU can punish Microsoft because they made it difficult for Windows purchasers by (technically) following the EU's legal orders, then they are even more sideways over there than I thought.
Not at all. This is a very well-known response even in the US. It's called "contempt of court" if it happens within the legal branch, and I'm quite certain there's an equivalent in the executive branch as well.
The purpose of these orders, like court sentences, is not to provide the defendant with a maze of semantics and see how gracefully he can wiggle his way around it. Since there'll always be some that try anyways, there've been long-standing traditions on how to deal with those who think they're king of the world and need a lesson in humility.
Re:it is probably for the best (Score:1, Interesting)
You know, that's probably the most interesting problem with this upgrade. If you start out with a 2GB limit on a partition with 3.11, can you fit windows 7 on a 2gb partition? I'd guess that the easiest way would be to start out with a large hard drive, then partition only the first 2gb and format the rest ntfs when you get to xp, but that's sort of cheating.
Re:OOh (Score:3, Interesting)
The reinstall each year was good advice in the 95/98 days - since MS went to the NT kernal (2000, XP, etc) - not so much.
I had one machine that served as my primary machine (gaming, light development, etc) for 3+ years running XP with no reinstalls - the only reason it's not still running is that I upgraded.
I have a machine that acts as a print server, file server, ripping/burning station, etc that's been running the same Win2k install for 7+ years now.
Neither machine suffered appreciably - not like my old Win98se box that within 9-10 months (of the same kind of use my old WinXP box suffered for 3 years) would slow to a complete crawl.
Re:OOh (Score:1, Interesting)
It's no secret that Creative Suite is the choice of around 100% of graphic design professionals. The web is full of tutorials that rely on a relatively small number of features in, say, Photoshop, to get the effects they use. And yet none of the other commercial graphics products even comes close, and nothing in the Open Source world is even on the same scale. (Please don't anyone post about how wonderful their favourite OSS product is; advocacy is not going to turn GIMP into Photoshop or Scribus into InDesign, no matter how forcefully you proclaim them to be just as good.)
This kinda argument comes up time and again here on /. .
Can you give an example of what can be done in PS that cannot be in GIMP? Is there a function in PS that really cannot be recreated in GIMP, even maybe with many steps? What advanced tool is there in PS that cannot be done manually in GIMP?
Unfortunately when people make these arguments they often sound like they know PS inside out, but don't know GIMP. I find it hard to believe that with maybe many Free software packages there is something that PS can do that is not doable otherwise.... and I have to go for the "belief" route because I am in no way a computer graphic artist.
In my experience though anything I have wanted to do with proprietary software I have been able to do in GIMP, eventually. I'll agree that GIMP may be rather more technical or less user friendly than proprietary tools, but that isn't the argument I want to talk about.
And the fact that you have said that guides on line talk about PS really says that if you need to regularly follow guides then you don't understand what you are doing. If you truly understand what the tools in PS do to an image then PS tips should be applicable to GIMP as well (even if it takes many manual steps to recreate).