Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Windows Microsoft Operating Systems Technology

Wait For Windows 7 SP1, Support Firm Warns Users 433

Posted by Soulskill from the sounds-familiar dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wait For Windows 7 SP1, Support Firm Warns Users More

Wait For Windows 7 SP1, Support Firm Warns Users

Comments Filter:

  • It will be different this time (Score:5, Funny)

    by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:10PM (#29929997) Journal
    Trust me. [youtube.com]

    • Re:It will be different this time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:51PM (#29930473)
      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 (Score:5, Funny)

        by angelwolf71885 ( 1181671 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @07:00PM (#29930553)
        so basically you dont vote

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by commodore64_love ( 1445365 )

          Yes. I do. I don't vote for president (why bother? Maryland always goes D so my vote matters not), and Libertarian for everything else. I would love to get a libertarian in Congress. Actually I'd be happy to get *any* third party in Congress, simply to break the back of the D-R duopoly.

          Mac Ad:

          "Hi I'm a Mac. I am easy to use and just work."

          "Hi I'm a PC."

          "That's it?"

          "I have nothing good to say about myself."

          (shrug). "I'm a Mac. I am easy to use and just work."

      • I make it a point never to vote for those kinds of politicians.

        I try, but voting is compulsory in Australia.

      • Re:It will be different this time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Saturday October 31, 2009 @02:10AM (#29932673) Journal

        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.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:14PM (#29930037)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Say what? (Score:4, Funny)

      by joaommp ( 685612 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:28PM (#29930179) Homepage Journal

      I tell you... I never had a problem with Vista (and then again, I was a late adopter). Never quite disappointed me and ran as smooth as it could for the hardware I allowed it to infect. I always followed all the discussions about Vista, and Vista vs XP and the like. Yesterday I bought a new laptop. It came preloaded with Windows 7. YUCK! It might seem strange, but I really do prefer Vista to 7. Vista seems so much smoother and organized. Seven, to me, seems to be more of a poorly done copy of Mac OS X's widgets and a computational mess. Thank me, that I only wanted the laptop to use something other than Windows.

      • From what I hear Vista cleaned up dramatically after its initial release (more frighteningly, the RCs seemed good), but the reputation damage was already done.

        Vista SP1 (aka win7) seeks to be following the same path. Aside from a picture of Hitler that just flashes his eyes, the RC seemed smooth to me, the release has its issues, and perhaps MS will clean it up.

        That said, I haven't really used windows or (os x for that matter) for anything but occasional gaming since high school.

        And I still can't make Vista

      • Funny that you say Win 7 is "ugly", since it's identical visually with Vista except for the taskbar and getting rid of the side bar. Also, I've yet to meet anyone who tries to claim that the new taskbar isn't cleaner and easier to use.

        But hey, thanks for trolling anyways!

        *throws the troll some moldy bread* Yup, I feed trolls! =D

    • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:29PM (#29930195) Homepage

      Fuck it, we're waiting for Windows 8.

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:35PM (#29930277)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jo42 ( 227475 )

      "The [polished] turd needs some more polish".

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by lena_10326 ( 1100441 )
        Your comment caused me to envision sending dried turds to the chrome shop. Nice and shiny chrome. Nice and shiny OS.

  • Ok well I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:14PM (#29930041)

    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:29PM (#29930201) Homepage
      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.

      • Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:34PM (#29930265)

        But then you should have that anyhow. If you data matters, it needs to be backed up. How much it matters depends on how well you back it up. Reinstalls aren't the time to make backups, every single day is the time to make backups.

    • So you disagree -- with Microsoft? (Score:5, Informative)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:40PM (#29930333) Journal

      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) [microsoft.com] about this problem?

    • Re:Ok well I disagree (Score:5, Informative)

      by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:43PM (#29930375) Journal

      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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Friday October 30, 2009 @07:28PM (#29930781) Homepage Journal

      Here's the thing, if you have only 1GB RAM and you have Vista then you're a fool not to get Windows 7 right now, because Vista is still a dog in "low" memory situations. If you're using XP, you could wait for Windows 7 SP1; if you're not compelled to move to Vista by the software you can't run on XP now, there's going to be little reason to move to Windows 7 before then. On the other hand, I've found game compatibility to be poor. Many home users care about such things. If you don't, then go to 7.

    • RC and RTM and haven't played with the final release yet, but I have to say I've been very happy with the results. My experiences with Vista (both in beta/RC as well as final production release) was very different. My "favorite" vista experience was showing up to work one day and finding my system jacked so hard from the windows updates the night before that it could not longer boot + using the system restore points didn't help. I've had nothing but terrible experiences with any Vista system I've used for a

  • They always say this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:15PM (#29930051) Journal

    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?

  • But why? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MtViewGuy ( 197597 )

    Having played with Windows 7 Build 7000 (public beta), Build 7100 (RC1) and the final version, Windows 7 is stable enough as is to not need to wait for a Service Pack 1. The only thing we need are proper Windows 7 drivers, which will be coming over the next 4-5 months from hardware manufacturers that haven't gotten them available yet at the time of Windows 7's retail release.

    When SP1 comes out (which I expect will arrive probably Summer 2010), I expect to be a "roll up" of the monthly security fixes plus ad

    • Re:But why? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:28PM (#29930191)

      Especially since it seems most of the complaints are centered around people trying an upgrade install from Vista. Ok well:

      1) Don't. Seriously, upgrade installs on OSes are bad news over all. Can they work? Sure I know people who've done upgrades that have gone off without a hitch. I also know people who have hosed their system that way. Windows, Linux, all the same, a reinstall is the way to go.

      2) This doesn't matter for new systems. They are shipping with a fresh OS. As such saying to wait on a new system because of this is silly.

      3) Seriously, don't do a fucking upgrade install!

      While this bug should be fixed, that doesn't mean you shouldn't get the OS if you want it. Also, what makes them think it'll be fixed in SP1? If it is something real difficult and/or rare they may just recommend a clean install and be done with it. The more time that passes, the less people will care about the upgrade process.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by MichaelSmith ( 789609 )

        1) Don't. Seriously, upgrade installs on OSes are bad news over all. Can they work? Sure I know people who've done upgrades that have gone off without a hitch. I also know people who have hosed their system that way. Windows, Linux, all the same, a reinstall is the way to go.

        I haven't reinstalled the two main ubuntu laptops here in at least two years. I upgrade them twice a year from dpkg. I am sure it is the same with debian as well.

        • Reinstall? There are Debian boxes in my uni that haven't been *rebooted* for more than a year, with full upgrades (besides the kernel).

      • agreed!! I just tried an upgrade of Kubuntu 9.04 to Karmic and it crashed at 89% complete. This was a hole in the ground crash that now has me starting fresh. So I figure hey, lets try Fedora 11 or lets try something else.

        I was able to recover 99% of my data so I am not that pissed, but this reminded me to NEVER upgrade an OS. Reinstall after good backups and a list of all actively used programs.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Dun Malg ( 230075 )

          this reminded me to NEVER upgrade an OS. Reinstall after good backups and a list of all actively used programs.

          Hard drives are so cheap, I don't understand why people don't just fresh install to a new drive and keep the old to migrate the data from.

      • Usually, if I have to do a major OS upgrade, I just back up user data, then erase the drive and do a completely fresh install. That way, it is essentially a new installation without having to deal with the legacy code from a previous OS installation.

    • The only thing we need are proper Windows 7 drivers...

      Err, wasn't that the big Microsoft apologists' common excuse for Vista when it first came out?

      • But unlike Windows 7, at the time Windows Vista came it the OS was just TOO advanced for the commonly hardware available at the time. It wasn't until early 2008 with the wide-availability of dual-core CPU machines that the Windows Vista performance issues finally started to go away, spurred on further by the release of Service Pack 1, which corrected a lot of memory management issues.

        In contrast, Windows 7 comes at a time when the average "mainstream" desktop or laptop computer sported dual-core CPU's. As s

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )

      The only thing we need are proper Windows 7 drivers

      Is that all? Minor details like that, sigh, I mean who needs their peripherals to work properly. Now if Microsoft really cared about customer satisfaction, it would work with major peripheral manufacturers to ensure that drivers would be available on release. However I suspect that drivers have become so complex (even though a printer is still just a printer) and bloated that there just aren't enough resources at the OEM's to learn the

    • Re:But why? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @07:00PM (#29930549)

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well to be honest I can't even think of any bugs that Win 7 has, or at least the normal user will see. Now maybe after using the RC from week 1 of its release right up to the reinstall of the Win 7 the day it came out and never once running into a problem I just don't see these bugs, or maybe its for corporate users or people trying to use Windows 95 software or something but honestly I have yet to have a problem except some non support of the hotkeys on my keyboard in Win 7 RC but thats been fixed in the f

  • Smells like FUD... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:17PM (#29930077)

    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... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by masdog ( 794316 ) <masdog.gmail@com> on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:19PM (#29930097)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )

      and articles like this come off as anti-Microsoft FUD.

      Yes because there was NOTHING WRONG with Vista or Windows Me, for that matter.

      There is always risk in upgrading to a new operating system

      Only because you have been indoctrinated to believe that. There doesn't have to be. But because you "sign" all your rights away when you break the seal on the package, Microsoft doesn't give a shit. In fact, it helps create work for their support department.

  • I work for a software development company... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    and we have seen a plethora of issues with people who have upgraded to Win 7. For example:

    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.
    2.) We've had a ton of issues with other things like: Drive mappings, printer compatibility issues, memory leaks from Win 7 processes, just to name a few.

    I agree with the FA to the point that if you have an intelligent IT dept who has the time and resources to debug and work these i

    • Re:I work for a software development company... (Score:5, Informative)

      by GuruBuckaroo ( 833982 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:59PM (#29930541) Homepage

      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.

  • It works fine for techies (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Hey, I upgraded Vista SP2 Business to W7 Ultimate and it worked great. There are two things that I would caution on though. My printer driver doesn't work well anymore because HP hasn't upgraded their printer drivers and my Motherboard drivers had to be refreshed as I was having some problems with the chips that drive the ethernet ports. Printer and motherboard drivers are not a Windows 7 flaw though, but are dependencies. By the way, HP isn't planing to upgrade their printer drivers until Jan '10. Wha

  • Don't buy 1.0 of anything (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cryfreedomlove ( 929828 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:28PM (#29930185)
    Purchasing version 1.0 of anything is always an act of vanity rather than practicality.

    Examples include:

    Cars (Tesla?)
    Phones, including Droid
    Operating Systems
    Girl friends
    etc, etc.
  • Right? I mean this isn't a real story is it? Surely the latest most bloated version of windows isn't buggy and unreliable? Surely even if it was the cats ass it wouldn't be the case that a bunch of morons tossed the disk in and clicked install without backing anything up, and their box was either inadequate oddly configured has defective hardware, three tons of viruses and trojans, nevermind the terminal stupidity of the people who are trying to do the upgrade. This is unbelievable.

  • I wonder how much they get paid to release that? Everyone knows to wait for SP1 in businesses.

  • Some things change... (Score:5, Informative)

    by dark_requiem ( 806308 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:37PM (#29930289)
    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.

    • ^ This + I've even gotten Win7 running on several older machines and it runs better than XP. I'm loving it cranked on my newer main machine. As a die hard XP holdout, I am making the switch on all my machines and recommending clean installs to my family and friends. The wife gets Win7 this weekend as a clean install on a new drive.

  • I'm smarter than Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Turbo_Button ( 1648215 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:41PM (#29930347)
    "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,"

    Download and boot a linux live cd, mount your NTFS partitions, copy all your data, install linux or reinstall windows

  • Works okay for me. (Score:5, Informative)

    by RatBastard ( 949 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @06:45PM (#29930395) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRealMindChild ( 743925 )
      Your post seems most appropriate to add the few "differences" I have come across:

      1) Windows 7 seems to play "old" games that no hacking in the world could get to work on anything but windows of its era on hardware of its era (Phantasmagoria2, TLC). Phantasmagoria 2 would just GPF if it wasn't on Windows 9x and hardware of the time (VMs would GPF too). TLC was an interactive movie that REQUIRED a dedicated hardware MPEG decoder card. I don't know what it does, but every Windows OS previous, it would flat ou

  • ... .. ..... ..

    NOT!

    Windows 7 is nice. I like. Upgrade time.

  • Look, unless you have an actual piece of hardware that is just flat-out incompatible, I don't think 'stability' is a reason to refuse to upgrade from XP or Vista to Windows 7. I used the beta for months on a laptop, and the only problems I had were waking up from sleep mode and from the screensaver kicking in. Once I swapped the beta out for the RC, I've had no problems at all except the fingerprint reader occasionally doesn't work, forcing me to type in the password to login. No biggie. For me, even the RC

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Barny ( 103770 )

      I agree to a point, for the home user, on a new (or 6mth old) pc, go for it.

      For a business, hold off till SP1 or SP2.

      One pc with interesting problems with a new OS can be sorted, if you have a few thousand PCs and you start getting interesting problems, your manager asks why you are spending money to make problems ;)

  • Windows 7 is just a servicepack and some graphical changes to Windows Vista. Its still horribly incompatible with older applications, has very bad support for older hardware like printers and scanners and are a real resource pig. Frankly, Vista/Windows 7 still sucks just as bad despite the name change.

    If you have a working computer at home with XP there arent any reason whatsoever to install Windows 7. The benefits just doesnt exist.

    Buying a new computer and getting Windows 7 is something else but to get ri

    • Windows 7 is just a servicepack and some graphical changes to Windows Vista. Its still horribly incompatible with older applications, has very bad support for older hardware like printers and scanners and are a real resource pig. Frankly, Vista/Windows 7 still sucks just as bad despite the name change.

      I call bullshit on this post. Maybe it's a service pack, maybe not - but the incompatibility scare is complete baloney. I've tested Win7 extensively with some of our oldest apps, and have yet to encounter a single issue (one exception: some webpages need "compatibility mode" in IE8, but that's not the OS). Win7 finally makes ReadyBoost and the new caching algorithm (Hypercache? I forget the name) really shine, and work as they were intended.

      If you have a working computer at home with XP there arent any reason whatsoever to install Windows 7. The benefits just doesnt exist.

      I couldn't agree less. I'm extraordinarily happy with how Win7 is

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Barny ( 103770 )

        Older versions of quicken software, older versions of MYOB, anything that interfaces with a gameport and I can't ignore the $15,000 laser cutter software I was trying to install on it the other month that couldn't see its parallel dongle (because there were no vista drivers for the dongle) and wouldn't run.

        In short, if your current business PC is doing its job, don't fuck with it, just leave it.

        If you need to upgrade to 7, the PC and the OS cost may be the cheapest part of your upgrade ;)

  • Apparently upgrading your computer can cause all sorts of strange problems that the OS developer couldn't have anticipated. Why just last night my Ubuntu box ate itself when I upgraded to Karmic. Oh wait, this is supposed to be an attempt at a Windows bashing story circa 1998. Okay, move along with the reality distortion field...

    Seriously, this passes for news? One support firm says to wait until Windows 7 SP1? The same firm will probably say wait for Windows 7 SP2 once SP1 comes out. In fact, they'll

  • I'm pleased with Windows 7... So in order the counter the FUD i'll explain. Also, don't read this to merely complain I'm spewing crap: I know I am.

    I'm an 'old school' zipslack 3.4 user. I not-so-recently installed ubuntu on an away-from-home PC that sits at my parents, and admin a decrepit centos-4 virtual machine. I've come a long way on RH machines.

    I'd like to think I know what I talk about when I talk about the desktop: I've tried QNX ("things work"), BeOS (50Mb of "everything works all at once, weee"),

  • Don't wait. (Score:5, Informative)

    by GuruBuckaroo ( 833982 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @07:11PM (#29930639) Homepage

    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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Corporate Troll ( 537873 )

      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.

      A correctly installed and administrated XP machine doesn't accumulate crap. Sure, it implies Admin/User separation and careful application selection.... But, with correct care an XP installation does not deteriorate. You just need a good Admin...

  • If Windows 7 doesn't get a huge initial fanbase, who would do quality testing?

  • I'm a middling "security" company writing about a product
    i haven't tested but somehow, somehow, I've made the front page of Slashdot. If it wasn't open source I'd be wondering who to make the Check out to.

    Seriously.

  • If everybody followed this advice, there would be nobody using Windows 7, and therefore nobody would be uncovering issues, and therefore no service pack would be released. The quickest way to find and fix problems is for everybody to use the thing and report what's broken.

  • time-tested OS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @08:12PM (#29931097)
    that would be Slackware. and i am sticking to it.

  • olds ? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Friday October 30, 2009 @09:32PM (#29931541) Homepage Journal

    I thought that info was olds, not news? For at least the past 10 years, anyone who upgrades to a new windos version before the first big patchset is done is roughly on the same risk level as someone going to vacation in Afghanistan. As a woman. In a bikini. Together with your lesbian girlfriend. Who has an "I love USA" tattoo.

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close