Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Microsoft IT

The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7 496

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft executives have been telling the tech industry that if hardware supports Windows Vista, it will support Windows 7, but it now looks like that may not entirely be the case. According to CRN: 'But after a series of tests on older and newer hardware, a number of noteworthy issues emerged: Microsoft's statement that if hardware works with Windows Vista it will work with Windows 7 appears to be, at best, misleading; hardware that is older, but not near the end of most business life cycles, could be impossible to upgrade; and the addition of an extra step in the upgrade process does add complexity and more time not needed in previous upgrade cycles.' And here is CRN's overview of the difficulties Microsoft faces in asking enterprise users to walk this upgrade path: 'Across the XP-Vista-Windows 7 landscape, Microsoft has fostered an ecosystem that now holds out the prospect of a mind-numbing number of incompatible drivers, unsupported devices, unsupported applications, unsupported data, patches, updates, upgrades, 'known issues' and unknown issues. Sound familiar? That's what people used to say about Linux.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7

Comments Filter:
  • by Todd Fisher ( 680265 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:31PM (#26975877) Homepage
    I still say Linux has unknown issues.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@yah o o .com> on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:33PM (#26975885) Journal

    Seriously, I'm as rabidly anti-windows as they come, but isn't this a little unfair? Windows 7 is still beta, it doesn't surprise me that there are still some driver issues.

    The idea that we will have to either buy Vista AND Windows 7, or do a clean install, just plain sucks.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 )

      With earlier versions of Windows, a clean install was clearly preferred. So why not do that again?

      Besides, I suspect that most corporate users will just update the whole PC and buy new ones with Windows 77 pre-installed. In the 10 years of my IT career I have seen one large company (Novartis) that actually did its own OS installations on a regular basis. The rest just used the computers with whatever OS was delivered at purchase, most of the time the unchanged vendor installation.

      • by Jumperalex ( 185007 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:10PM (#26976345)

        Well the US Military for one. Every computer is imaged from a tested image for that particular hardware baseline. We do not allow a vendor install, with all the crapware no less, on our networks. And for anyone out there who wants to chime in with an anecdote of when this did happen ... yeah no kidding, it CAN happen. Fortunatly if the network admins did their job right the machine won't be allowed to get an IP address and the person who did it got fired after it was discovered.

        Any sufficiently large IT infrastructure such as the military networks would not just buy their boxrn with W7 installed. And I'm not talking about our secure side (SIPR), I'm talking about the unclass side (NIPR).

      • by sortius_nod ( 1080919 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:32PM (#26976657) Homepage

        I call bullshit on that dude.

        I've worked for some large companies that supply services to large corporations, ALL of them had their own specific versions of windows, and yes, they did upgrade with the times if justified (2k to XP). These were corporations like banks, supermarket chains, telcos, universities, the list goes on. They REFUSED to go to Vista, all new machines were shipped with it, but got reimaged to their own corporate versions of XP.

        I don't know where you've worked, but it sounds like they are small companies, not corporations. Either that or you're blowing it out of your arse.

        Slipstreaming your own version is quite common practice, and to justify ANY change in your image as it will impact the company - whether positive or negative. I have yet to see a corporation move to Vista, the cost is too high and the risks too great to justify it. If they are going to sell 7 to corporations they are going to need to fix this mess they call an OS, and fix the upgrade path. Why buy a new machine and 2 OSs when you can buy 1 machine with 1 OS (Mac), or even just 1 OS (Linux).

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by erpbridge ( 64037 )

        Actually, most large hardware vendors will, on request, ship out a sample machine to the IT Dept at the target company. They ask the IT Dept to install the default image they want. The IT Dept would obviously wipe the drive, reinstall with a fresh copy of their own Volume License copy of Windows (XP/Vista/7) with all relevant initial software, testing, etc. I'm sure if you were a large enough company and wanted 20 different initial configurations, the vendor would accommodate you. Another option would be to

    • by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:47PM (#26976071)

      Seriously, I'm as rabidly anti-windows as they come, but isn't this a little unfair?

      Well, has Microsoft ever released something with poor driver support before? NVIDIA and Vista come to mind.... But check this out from TFA:

      We've almost lost count of the number of blue screens we've seen in the CRN Test Center during the Windows 7 evaluation process. In some cases, PCs we've used just won't upgrade at all to Windows 7. In others, important functions have to be disabled or eliminated to get it to install as an upgrade. While Microsoft has assured the world that if the hardware works with Windows Vista it will work with Windows 7, the reality is that is misleading at best. We've seen with our own eyes in the Test Center lab that systems we could upgrade from XP to Vista refused to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7.

      That's a real problem, from that it sounds like Windows 7 is a pig. However, if Microsoft would be honest about the situation they might be able to save themselves. E.g., Apple has no qualms about dropping support of their newest software on older machines. However, what happens if they lie about it and say that older machines are supported and they aren't? (As they are apparently doing.) You can say that's unfair too, but again Microsoft when and lied about what computers Vista would run (well) on, so I'd say that experience teaches us that a little healthy skepticism is warranted.

      • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:51PM (#26976121) Journal

        It's still in beta, for goodness sakes. I'm sure, at the end of it, Windows 7 will be a massive hog that requires outrageous amounts of RAM and disk space, but I think knocking a beta for kernel panics is a little over the top. That's like taking a bleeding-edge Linux kernel, compiling it and then bitching that it doesn't seem to work reliably in a production environment.

        • by je ne sais quoi ( 987177 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:05PM (#26976297)
          I run beta software all the time, I'm typing this using Safari 4, and I used to run Debian unstable, so yeah okay I know beta software is well, beta quality. BUT... Microsoft is a company that has demonstrated repeatedly that it will release software that isn't ready, just as it did with Vista, WinME, & Windows95. How do you know that this time it will be any different? You don't know that. My point was that give their track record, and let's be honest, they must be under even more pressure to release Windows 7 than to release Vista, that we should be skeptical. Sure, we can all sit back and say "oh it's only beta, what's a few kernel panics between friends?" But when they release this thing and it doesn't run, I know I for one am not going to be happy at playing tech support guru for people who bought a Windows 7 ready laptop that crashes often.

          I'm pretty ticked about having to play tech support on family member and friend's computers to deal with wireless router incompatibilities and trying to get vista to run acceptably on "Vista ready" laptops that I really wish Microsoft would own up and give us realistic guidelines for what hardware their software WILL actually run on.
          • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:21PM (#26976479) Journal

            All of this may be true, but I still think that writing articles about this in regards to what still is a beta product is sensationalistic and unethical. When the ready-for-prime-time product comes out, and if some or all of the issues raised still exist, I'll be at the front of the line to spew venom on Microsoft. Until then, the basic understanding with beta software is that you'd best expect problems.

            • by MPolo ( 129811 ) on Wednesday February 25, 2009 @04:07AM (#26979603)
              I seem to recall that Microsoft was saying just recently that this Beta would be the only Beta and then (possibly) one release candidate, and then release, because this one was so rock solid. If they hold true to that, then comments about the stability and upgradability of the beta are in fact pretty relevant. If they've backed off of that position and I missed it, I apologize in advance.
        • by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @09:39PM (#26977671) Journal

          It's still in beta, for goodness sakes. I'm sure, at the end of it, Windows 7 will be a massive hog that requires outrageous amounts of RAM and disk space

          Fear not! Windows 9 will fix it!!!

      • by dave562 ( 969951 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:37PM (#26976695) Journal

        This is just a wild ass guess on my part, but I'm willing to bet that the problem is that they are trying to UPGRADE them. Anyone who has dealt with Microsoft OS's knows that the upgrades suck. To do a proper upgrade in the Microsoft world, you need to do what everyone else calls a "pave and rebuild". I don't know anyone in their right mind who tries to do an in place upgrade on Windows. That is just asking for headaches. They'd be better off doing a fresh install, creating a disk image from that and then pushing out the image. If Microsoft really cared about their userbase, they would just do away with "upgrades" all together and just admit that they don't work right. The same thing goes for their server software, Exchange, SQL, the whole nine yards.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Weedlekin ( 836313 )

        "Well, has Microsoft ever released something with poor driver support before?"

        All the NT series had dreadful driver support up to and including XP. People tend to forget how bad XP was at the beginning because it's been around for a long time, but the fact of the matter is that there was lots of hardware for Win9X that's never worked with it; large amounts of 9X and DOS software didn't run on it at all it at all, or was annoyingly problematic (especially games); getting XP Home in particular to integrate wi

    • by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:49PM (#26976099)

      I get the feeling this article was deliberately misleading on several fronts. Here's an example:

      Yes, this is an older, though not ancient, system we were trying to upgrade. Yet, it boggles the mind that the laptop upgraded fairly easy to Vista Service Pack 1 and then flat-lined with Windows 7. So much for the Microsoft mantra "If it works in Vista, it will work in Windows 7."

      They claim that the machine they're running this test on did not boot windows 7 correctly, but did boot Vista correctly. This is only half the truth. They first installed XP, then upgraded to Vista, then Upgraded to 7 - something Microsoft themselves does not recommend. Then, when it all doesn't work, they blame Windows 7. They do NOT test if a clean install of Windows 7 worked without issues and I strongly suspect that it would.

      No sysadmin in their right mind would ever perform a task like this, it's far too time consuming and ultimately pointless - why install an XP system, install all the software you need, then two two major OS upgrades just to create an image you can format other machines with? Why not just install a fresh copy of 7, then the appropriate software and image that?

      • by PitaBred ( 632671 ) <slashdot@@@pitabred...dyndns...org> on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:53PM (#26976849) Homepage
        Wait... so Microsoft provides an upgrade path from XP->Vista, and from Vista->Windows 7, but they suggest you don't use them together? How much can you trust your Vista install then? Or Windows 7 install? I mean, really... it's not really an "upgrade" if you aren't making XP into Vista in all cases, is it?

        I'm sure no Fortune 500 sysadmin would do it that way, but what about end users? Or even smaller businesses? Those are a large portion of Microsoft's business, and they aren't being provided with an upgrade path?
        • by adolf ( 21054 ) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 25, 2009 @01:05AM (#26978819) Journal

          I've had Linux installs fall flat on their face after a few years of not being kept current followed by an attempt to upgrade the system to current-spec code.

          Generally, I can revive these systems, given enough time. But lately I find it's easier to start them over with a fresh install.

          It's possible, though obviously insane, to do the following:

          Install Windows 3.1. Upgrade to Windows 95. Upgrade to Windows 98SE. Upgrade to Windows ME. Upgrade to Windows XP. Upgrade to Windows Vista. Upgrade to Windows 7.

          But that's just retarded, as anyone here (with their blinders off) should be able to recognize. Real men don't upgrade operating systems -- they just buy the upgrade kit (because it's cheaper), and Google a good method for doing a clean install with it.

          In my own experience: I bought a laptop with XP, almost four years ago. It's a good machine, and was pretty quick at the time. I kept XP around because most of the stuff I need for my daily work needs Windows, though I'd really be a lot more pleased to see Slackware, Gentoo, or FreeBSD on the machine. When Vista was released, I upgraded (er - I did a fresh install). Vista worked fine, though I also doubled the RAM to 2 gigs and gave it a bigger, faster hard drive at the same time. A year or two later, the hard drive crashed -- probably from being used too much outside in sub-zero Ohio winters. I had a choice: Reinstall the backup DVD of a fresh, clean, working Vista install in less than an hour, or download Windows 7.

          I decided to see what Windows 7 was all about.

          Spent a day or so shoving my usual software back into the machine, and it all works fine. The box suspends, hibernates, and resumes faster than it ever did with XP or Vista, both of which had occasional issues. Performance once it is running is good. I haven't been tempted -- yet -- to disable the Readyboost service, as I often do on Vista machines to improve speed. It bluescreened exactly one time, while copying files from the old (crashed, littered with bad sectors) hard drive over a cheap IDE-USB adapter, and I don't think it's been rebooted since (aside from updates).

          It just works. So far. I hate Windows, but 7 seems to be OK.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Kaboom13 ( 235759 )

        Have to agree. Every Windows upgrade has been a mess. Attempting a major OS upgrade without a good backup would be retarded, even in the Linux world. And once you have backed up your important data, a fresh install is the same amount of effort for considerably better results. In my mind, MS needs to forget about the idea of selling upgrades to consumers. Consumers don't buy Windows, they use what their pc came with. If they have the technical skill to both desire the upgrade and know how to do it, the

    • by d3ac0n ( 715594 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:55PM (#26976165)

      Seriously, I'm as rabidly anti-windows as they come, but isn't this a little unfair? Windows 7 is still beta, it doesn't surprise me that there are still some driver issues.

      The idea that we will have to either buy Vista AND Windows 7, or do a clean install, just plain sucks.

      While I agree with you to a to a certain point in that Win 7 is still beta, it's LATE beta, and a beta that has already been released for public testing. What we have here is essentially a release candidate version. If not RC 1, maybe RC 0.9 or 0.8 At this point there aren't likely to be many major changes in the OS. Of course, doing an upgrade from one version of Windows to another has always been a dicey affair, so some failure is unsurprising.

      However, even taken with those two rather large grains of salt, the fact that Win 7 can't recognize a T43 synaptics trackpad (same one as in all the T4x series) is rather unnerving. And the lack of an upgrade path from XP to Win 7 [crn.com], when Microsoft KNOWS that people have been picking XP over Vista since Vista's launch, just smacks of petty sour grapes.

      I swear, it's as though Microsoft is just DARING people and businesses to find reasons to use other OSes.

    • by yakumo.unr ( 833476 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:12PM (#26976373) Homepage

      2 seconds on Google found others installed win7 just fine on Thinkpad T43's (same as TFA), they only had the old vista biometric coprocessors drivers crash, it works fine without them. the fact that most old vista drivers work fine in win7 (with no additional win7 features of course) is a plus point for most, but the fact that this one fails, so what, it's not designed for win7, and as security hardware designed to tightly integrate into the OS, I really wouldn't expect it too.

      http://forum.thinkpads.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=73121 [thinkpads.com]

      Upek do have win7 beta drivers that work just fine on the thinkpad x61 range, other biometric vendors will catch up eventually if they have not already.

  • by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:34PM (#26975889) Homepage

    It may make more sense for many businesses to just forklift-upgrade their desktops.

    EG, a Intel Atom dual-core, dual-thread-per-core motherboard should be just fine for most business desktops. Yeah, the graphics aren't great, but at 2GB, an 80 GB disk, and a price of a hair over $300 for a complete system, the hardware costs are so dwarfed by software and support costs that just throwing all the old systems out may be cheaper.

    • by PontifexPrimus ( 576159 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:47PM (#26976065)
      I'm not saying that this might not be the reality, but really, think about to the specs you mentioned: 2 gigabytes of RAM. A dual core processor. 80 GB hard drive.
      And all of that just to get the operating system to run! I mean, what are office computers used for? I'd wager that 90% of "office use" consist of text processing, internet browsing, emailing and instant messaging. I used to do word processing on a 386! And it was fast!
      I really don't want this to appear like a personal attack, but why the hell are people willing to accept something like this? It bugs the hell out of me that perfectly good computers - computers that have a hundred times more power than actually needed for the tasks they're used to - are thrown away because the underlying operating system is so greedy that it can't run smoothly with fewer resources than those you mentioned.
      • by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:59PM (#26976199)

        That's the consequence of hardware costs often being lower than the cost of wages (and licenses) to upgrade the old systems. I suspect the $300 GP cited are not unrealistic, especially for a company that buys dozens of computers at once. Now calculate the cost of having your support guys reinstall the old machines, possibly do a few hardware upgrades along he way, and buying your licenses separately from hardware (hint: there is plenty of evidence OEM licenses are MUCH cheaper).

        Of course the license part is Microsoft's fault, but the rest just follows out of an unemotional cost calculation. The best the company can do with the old computers is donate them to nonprofit organizations who can use them and have volunteers who reinstall them as needed for free.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MrMista_B ( 891430 )

        Seriously. Hell, even 1Ghz, 512MB of RAM and a 40GB HD would be OVERKILL for just about any average office task I could think of.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Blakey Rat ( 99501 )

        I used to do word processing on a 386! And it was fast!

        No it wasn't. Nostalgia kills rationality.

        Tell you what, get our your 386 and try typing up a few pages-worth of document. Time yourself. Then time yourself doing the same on whatever modern desktop you use. If you seriously find the 386 is faster, I'll eat my hat.

        I'm not a huge word processing guy, but I can guarantee that a typical spreadsheet app on a 386 is TONS slower than a modern one. You used to have to wait for values to refresh, it wasn't inst

      • by bertok ( 226922 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:31PM (#26976615)

        My father asked me the same question once too.. why are PCs so slow and why is software so bloated?

        I used a simple example of a text input field. You know, a text box, like the one you used to enter your Slashdot comment. Back in the 386 days, this was implemented using fixed point ASCII text, usually in text mode, and ran fast with a memory usage of a few kilobytes. These days, the total code & libraries required to implement a 'simple' text box might be over several dozen megabytes and would have taken many man-years of effort to develop. The code won't even LOAD on a 386 because it wouldn't fit into memory, let alone run at an acceptable pace.

        But I hear you ask... why so complicated? It's just a text box! It doesn't need to do anything other than poll for keyboard input and display some characters.

        Well... not quite. In a modern OS or application, even really trivial things like text input fields are fantastically complicated, and hence big and slow.

        For example, a modern application would use a text box widget that can do most, or all, of the following:

        - Undo and redo.
        - Cut & paste, with automatic conversion of multiple formats.
        - Mouse and keyboard based selection, highlighting, with automatic entire word selection.
        - Alternate keyboard input (such as multiple keystrokes for a single asian character).
        - Right-to-left and left-to-right text, including MIXING of the two, with proper handling of caret movement and selection highlights.
        - Scrolling, horizontally, vertically, or both.
        - text alignment, updated on the fly while typing
        - support for all 40,000+ characters in the unicode character set, including various automatic conversions, font substitutions, and related processing. The lookup tables for Unicode and a basic font is several megabytes by itself.
        - Combined characters. You know, like in tamil or arabic, where characters look different depending on adjacent characters or position in a word.

        Newer controls ( as in WPF, for example ) can even do things like use your GPU to accelerate sub-pixel precision font rendering, kerning computations, and do full justification in real time as you type.

        Take a look at "Typography in WPF" for an idea: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742190.aspx [microsoft.com]

        In the good old 386 days, almost none of that worked. You couldn't mix languages. You couldn't mix left-to-right and right-to-left. You couldn't use a mouse. You couldn't mix fonts on the screen, let alone within a control. Cut and paste was often unavailable, or limited in capability. Editing typographically complex languages was either impossible, or not WYSIWYG.

        Examples like that abound. The inter-process memory protection that makes modern PCs relatively stable has a price. Virtual memory comes with its own overhead. Abstract driver models that let you "plug and play" aren't free either (remember IRQs? DIP switches?).

        Get used to it, or go buy a 386 and try browsing the web with it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          These days, the total code & libraries required to implement a 'simple' text box might be over several dozen megabytes and would have taken many man-years of effort to develop.

          Holy crap! My Emacs uses less memory than your textbox!

          (I browse the web with w3m, which delegates the task of filling text boxes to an editor of my choice)

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Editing typographically complex languages was either impossible, or not WYSIWYG.

          You make excellent points, but the above makes me thing back to how wonderfully simple and intuitive entering foreign characters was in Wordperfect for DOS.

          "e" with a grave accent (and it may not have been the alt key) alt-e-/
          An "a" with two dots over it: alt-a-:
          A "c" with cedilla: alt-c-,

          I really wish openoffice could do that.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by glitch23 ( 557124 )
        Don't forget the 100MB of RAM it takes to run a anti-virus *suite*. I'm still wondering why people accept *that*.
      • by Kneo24 ( 688412 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @08:05PM (#26976977)
        Time is money. You can either wait five to ten minutes for everything to load once you've hit the power button, or you could wait a couple of minutes. Imagine 50 people having to wait an extra five minutes. That's a total of 250 minutes per day, or a little over 4 man hours each day being lost.
  • by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:36PM (#26975925)
    So who wants to buy two $2100 email machines in 3 years? Sounds fun to me!
  • by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:36PM (#26975927)

    Linux was a steady progression of stability and driver support (with the exception of a few evil kernel updates). MS upgrades are just ... reinventing the wheel. New GUI widgets, maybe some new hw support that wasn't there, but generally increased bloat, or swapping 1 user level idiosycracy for another. With Linux kernel updates you were generally sure of getting a better experience.

  • by CannonballHead ( 842625 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:37PM (#26975941)

    The article tried installing Windows 7 on a single hardware setup (a thinkpad) that failed, and that's where the "oh my goodness, how can Microsoft expect all these businesses to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, it's not going to work on pretty much ANY hardware" came from. (Yes, exaggerated).

    If they tried, oh, I don't know, 10 other computers, I would be interested. But writing an article after trying a single computer? Especially annoying is the fact that they said they came to this conclusion after an "attempt at a sim " ... nevermind, just read it for yourself.

    The Test Center came to this conclusion after an attempt at a simulated enterprise upgrade and other evaluations of the process on different pieces of PC hardware.

    The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta. Then use an imaging utility like Acronis' Snap Deploy to push the image out to other XP clients (all on the same hardware as the imaged machine) and overwrite the XP operating system on them with the Windows 7 image.

    Their plan: Let's do a mult-hardware test by deploying an imaged upgrade on same-hardware machines?

    And, of course, after it failed, they tried another hardware configuration.

    A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.

    Yipee. So we have a total of two hardware configurations tested...

    • What I want to know is this: WTF is a quad-core Athlon and where can I get one?

      Here I've been stupid enough to over pay for these Phenom processors when an Athlon alternative existed.

    • #1: Acer Aspire 6930 bought on post-xmas sale from Staples. Core 2 Duo T5800, 4GB DDR2 667, 250GB SATA HD, Integrated Intel 4500MHD, Intel 5100 wireless.

      Problems: Sometimes audio driver doesn't automatically detect headphones plugged in and switch speaker output to headphone jack. Oh and HDMI audio may have the same issue if turned on while hooked to a TV that's off.

      #2: Piece of Junk (literally) desktop. Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 3.63GHz on Asus P5B, 2GB DDR2 1066, ATI HD4850, 400GB SATA HD.

      Problems: None.

      #3: Tosh

  • Can't wait for the Win7 Upgrade Class Action Lawsuit (SP2)
  • by heffrey ( 229704 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:43PM (#26976023)

    The enterprises will do clean installs rather than in place upgrades. The entire system will be deployed through system center or suchlike. Silly article.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 0racle ( 667029 )
      Actually I would expect most enterprises to never upgrade and instead replace hardware. Windows 7 will be deployed when they buy new desktops to replace the existing XP/Vista ones.
  • The problem with windows, that they missed, is that after all was said and done all they're doing is adding on a ton of overhead rather than redesigning windows from the ground up. It shouldn't be Windows 7, it should be Windows 1, or Windows star over, get the features they want by coding them in from the beginning rather than trying to tack everything on top of everything else.
  • Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Idiomatick ( 976696 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @06:46PM (#26976051)
    Same with the vista-ready label/lawsuits. And no, i'm not talking about microsoft. What kind of stupid company running older machines would bother upgrading OSes? What would be the point? To make the machine run slower and cause compatibility issues? Let home users work out all the bugs over a year or so and then upgrade AS you upgrade machines. I never upgraded my old dos machine to windows when it came out because even if it could run it would run slow as shit. Same reason i wouldn't install KDE on a netbook. New OSes shouldn't HAVE to explicitly support old hardware. People on old hardware should use the OS that they had when they bought it, maybe the next gen.

    I know Linux is pro and can support like every part made but is there a requirement to do this? No, its the same as putting linux on a toaster. Windows should be keeping minimal winXP support for a few more years and have win7 be for only new machines, fuck supporting outdated hardware. This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    I salute both the pro and anti MS crowds who shall soon mod me troll.
  • WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by recoiledsnake ( 879048 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:03PM (#26976259)

    The initial plan: Create a master image on a PC running Windows XP, then upgrade that PC from XP to Vista Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 beta

    Headline and most of the article say it's Windows 7, with a lame disclaimer at the very end that it's a beta.

    Yet, it boggles the mind that the laptop upgraded fairly easy to Vista Service Pack 1 and then flat-lined with Windows 7. So much for the Microsoft mantra "If it works in Vista, it will work in Windows 7."

    MS didn't say Windows 7 Beta, you numbnut. And then this:

    A testing of XP to Vista to Windows 7 on a custom-built desktop, with newer components including an AMD (NYSE:AMD) quad-core Athlon and motherboard, went smoothly.

    I'm getting tired of this anti-MS drivel on here. And technology sites are noticing. Read the first line of this article http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars [arstechnica.com]

    The popular technology website Slashdot plumbed new depths on Tuesday with a post about the terrible DRM situation in Windows 7. Proving that some sites will publish just about anything as long as it's anti-Microsoft, the post enumerated the DRM restrictions that Windows 7 apparently inflicts on the honest and upstanding computer user.

    Before long, Slashdot will lose whatever reputation it has if drivel like this is posted. There's lots of stuff to bash MS on, please don't post nonsense.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Headline and most of the article say it's Windows 7, with a lame disclaimer at the very end that it's a beta.

      Agreed. It seems as though everyone has forgotten that we're running Windows 7 BETA 1. One of the Windows 7's design goals is complete driver compatibility with Vista- I imagine they will have that by the RTM. They damn near have it now. Add that to the fact that Windows 7 uses generally less resources and this article is basically total BS.

      Who told them they could run that beta in a production environment anyway?

      You're not really allowed to use the beta for benchmarking or publishing articles like this cla

  • TPM/DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:09PM (#26976331) Homepage Journal

    Gotta get rid of all that old 'un-trusted' hardware somehow.

  • by Punchinello ( 303093 ) on Tuesday February 24, 2009 @07:42PM (#26976745)

    I cannot imagine a situation where I would recommend to a company that they use money and resources to upgrade a Windows XP box to a newer OS. What a waste of time.

    When the XP box reaches end of life you replace it with new hardware and put your ready to go Windows 7 image on it. Duh.

    The Windows XP to Vista to Windows 7 path seems even more unlikely. Chalk this article up as an academic exercise, not a real world scenario.

When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the money is. -- Robespierre