RSSWindows 7 Upgrades: Are they going to be too much trouble or just about right?
By Joe Wilcox | Published August 6, 2009, 5:40 PM
Is Microsoft asking too much of consumers and small businesses planning to upgrade existing Windows XP or Vista PCs to Windows 7? That's the question I asked several analysts after reviewing a chart Microsoft provided to veteran technology reviewer Walt Mossberg.
Out of 66 upgrade scenarios, only 14 allow for "in-place" upgrades. The majority of scenarios require "custom install," which means either installing Windows 7 to a new directory or onto a clean hard drive. While data can be backed up and recovered, applications would need to be reinstalled.
I see the number of "custom install" scenarios as being, at first glance, onerous. The analysts don't agree.
Michael Gartenberg, vice president of strategy and analysis for market-research firm Interpret, acknowledged that "there are a few too many SKUs of Windows 7" but the upgrade "matrix to install isn't really as complicated as folks are making it out to be. It can easily be summed up as like version of Vista to like version of Win 7. Ultimate can install over any version of Vista, and XP requires clean install. That's all there is to it really and, in fact, that's how Windows updgrades have worked in the past as well."
Michael Cherry, operating system research vice president for independent research firm, Directions on Microsoft, gives a very different reason for dismissing the large number of "custom install" scenarios. My preface: I see his reason flagging a larger problem.
"I would not personally perform an in-place upgrade from Windows Vista and Windows XP," Cherry said. "My main reason is that I feel that over time Microsoft's operating systems get bogged down with leftover pieces of uninstalled applications, temporary and other files that were created with a purpose but long since abandoned -- and in particular, registry entries that are no longer needed but bloat the registry so that it becomes more fragile and in my opinion slows down my computers."
Cherry views an "OS upgrade as an opportunity to conduct significant house cleaning." His is a professional's -- even product tester's -- approach: backing up data and restoring applications slowly. "I restore only my current working files. This way as I begin to work with the new OS if I encounter any strange behaviors I know they are coming from the OS rather than any flotsam and jetsam left over from the previous installation. I can tell what was really fixed without the nagging doubt that I am still fighting some artifact of the old OS. I slowly restore applications and data on an as-needed basis."
I have to ask: Should consumers or small businesses -- even enterprises -- be in the business of house cleaning Windows during upgrades? The windows to my apartment gunk up if not regularly cleaned. But I don't replace them to clean them. I don't see why the Windows running on my PC should need such deep cleaning -- replacement essentially -- and restoring the digital equivalents of shutters, screens and locks.
By the way, I asked both analysts the same question: Is Microsoft asking too much of customers, meaning are there too many scenarios where upgrading to Windows 7 is unnecessarily burdensome?
The second question: Will the many "custom install" scenarios affect how quickly enterprises migrate to Windows 7?
"No, most Enterprises have in the past used OS updates to push out clean installs to users and have procedures in place to back up user data, push out and image and restore data," Gartenberg said. "It's the time and cost of updates in general that will have a lot of organizations opt for a phased migration over time, as it has in the past."
Cherry generally agreed. "This may be a bigger consumer issue than enterprise issue. First, many enterprises already use folder redirection and roaming profiles to decouple user state data from the computer. Second, many enterprises will create a custom image with OS and applications, and deployment becomes more about deploying the image than relying on running the installation program over and over again."
Logistically, both men make valid points. Enterprises tend to widely deploy images rather than do individual in-place upgrades.
"Why are there less in-place installations?" Cherry asked. He speculated that "limited testing resources" is the primary reason. "The test matrix for releasing Windows has to be complex just with all the various hardware and application variations. Now consider adding in all the permutations to handle upgrading from this version with this service pack and all of Office versus the same OS with a different service pack and just Word."
Cherry makes a good observation. Most enterprises standardize discrete portions of the IT infrastructure on the same software and even hardware. Testing complexity also multiplies across these pockets of standardization, where software (and sometimes hardware) may all be the same in one part of the organization but different across various groups.
The final question derived from my concerns about compatibility. Many enterprises complained that Windows Vista broke existing applications, something largely remedied after release of Service Pack 1. So I asked the analysts: Microsoft promised that Windows 7 would be just as app compatible as Windows Vista. Does the number of "custom install" scenarios affect that promise?
"I don't think it does," Cherry responded. "Supporting upgrade in-place is really different from supporting the application following a clean install. I would say the application was compatible if it ran without problems or significant workarounds following a clean installation. If it doesn't it may be the fault of the upgrade program missing key files and registry entries that needed to be preserved rather than an incompatibility with the application and the new OS."
But Cherry assumes that a clean installation is necessary. I don't think that it should be. Do you?
Gartenberg's answer started nearly the same as Cherry's: "I don't think so. In fact, the fact that Win 7 offers a compatibility mode via virtualization for XP means that Win 7 will actually have better backwards compatibility story than Vista did. As a rule though, without that virtual XP, apps that work on Vista will work on 7 but apps that did not run on Vista are not going to work on 7 either."
He makes an excellent point. Windows XP Mode promises big backward compatibility for enterprises moving to Windows 7. Yesterday, Microsoft issued the XP Mode Release Candidate. Windows 7 gold code is available today to MSDN and TechNet subscribers. I'm downloading the software as I write this, slowly. Nearly three hours afters after starting, the download has only reached 16 percent.
The two analysts largely dismiss the number of "custom install" scenarios as insignificant. I agree for enterprises but resoundingly disagree for consumers and small businesses. Cherry and Gartenberg aren't typical buyers. They're sophisticated users, as are many Betanews readers. Cherry cleans house when upgrading, which makes sense as a practice to me, but one I contend should be unnecessary.
So, please, let's have some debate in comments about this topic. Do you agree or disagree with the analysts? Perhaps you think there is no problem, but for different reasons. Or like me, you believe Microsoft asks too much of consumers and small businesses. Whatever your position, please enter the comment debate.
Joe, I think you're making too big a deal over this. Like one of your interviewees said, it's not that complicated. "Like versions of Vista upgrades to like versions of Seven, every version of Vista (except Starter) can be upgraded to Ultimate, and Ultimate is overkill for everybody." Complaining that you can't upgrade from Vista Ultimate to Seven Home Basic is like complaining that you can't fit everything from your 2000 sq. ft. loft in your new 500 sq. ft. studio apt. That said, given that Seven's editions are now actually supersets of the underlying version, I would say Microsoft should have tested for and allowed upgrades from lesser versions of Vista to greater versions of Seven (example: Vista Home Basic to Seven Home Premium, or Vista Home Premium to Seven Professional).
Score: 0
|"Microsoft should have tested for and allowed upgrades from lesser versions of Vista to greater versions of Seven (example: Vista Home Basic to Seven Home Premium, or Vista Home Premium to Seven Professional)."
Chart clearly shows Win 7 Home Premium in-place upgrades from either Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium are possible. In-place upgrades to Win 7 Professional from either Vista Home Basic, Vista Home Premium, and Vista Ultimate are the ones which can't be performed. Custom installs are the only upgrade paths allowed from either of those three Vista versions to Win 7 Professional. Only one Win 7 Professional in-place upgrade is possible, and that's Vista Business, which sort of makes sense.
What may not be entirely clear to the "average" home (or home/office) PC user is *why* one could not just perform a simple in-place upgrade from any version of Vista to any version of Windows 7 (including Professional) - aside from the obvious downgrade (e.g. Vista Business or Ultimate to Win 7 Home Premium). Custom installs may intimidate many "average" home PC users, especially those who are still on XP for whom custom installs are required. It's much simpler just to buy a new PC and install apps as needed. Maybe that's the whole point.
Score: 0
|Just to clarify an apparent labeling blunder on Microsoft's "Official" Windows 7 Upgrade Chart:
It appears that below the "Upgrade FROM" column heading, the first box should be labelled Windows Vista Starter (not Windows XP).
The second box should be labelled Windows XP (not Windows Vista Starter).
Windows XP (not Windows Vista Starter) comes in 32-bit and 64-bit versions.
http://www.joewilcox.com...e-windows-upgrade-chart/
http://www.joewilcox.com...rrible-windows-7-moment/
Score: 0
|Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor (Beta)
http://www.microsoft.com...et/upgrade-advisor.aspx
"In general, if you are running a PC with Windows Vista and the Windows Upgrade Advisor says you can upgrade it, the transition to Windows 7 should be pretty smooth, although you may first need to update your Windows Vista system to the latest service pack..."
"On the other hand, if you're running Windows XP, or any other operating system for that matter, we *recommend* that you experience Windows 7 on a new PC..."
"And while we *don't recommend* it, should you choose to upgrade your current PC from Windows XP or another operating system to Windows 7, we recommend that you get help with this process from your local computer service provider. You'll need to back up your current files and settings, perform a custom (clean) installation, and then reinstall your files, settings, and programs."
Windows 7 System Requirements
http://www.microsoft.com...ystem-requirements.aspx
Windows 7 Upgrade Option FAQ (program expires Jan 31, 2010)
http://www.microsoft.com...offers/upgrade-faq.aspx
Which Windows 7 Version?
http://www.microsoftstore.com/s/windows7
"You qualify for Windows 7 *upgrade versions* if you are running genuine Windows Vista, Windows XP, or Windows 2000 on your PC."
"If you have Windows Vista, you can purchase Windows 7 Upgrade versions. You can do a clean install (back up your files, clean install, and reinstall your applications) or an in-place upgrade (Windows 7 installs over Windows Vista)"
"If you have Windows XP or Windows 2000, you can purchase Windows 7 Upgrade versions. But you must back up your files, clean install, and reinstall your applications."
Windows XP to Windows 7 Migration Videos:
http://video.google.com/...+to+windows+7+migration
http://www.bing.com/vide...+to+windows+7+migration
Score: 0
|Where's the option to :
Mod Article - (-1) troll.
Score: 1
|i feel like a troll lately :S but just tryin to break up the FUD which i knew is exactly what this article was when i saw the dreaded chart
anyone else out to help the majority would of written how much easier it is than it appears, but alas... that was not the case :)
Score: 1
|I haven't seen answers to several of my question about how the upgrade is supposed to work. I've purchased 3 copies of the $49 promotional upgrade version of Windows 7 Home Premium. I'm using 2 boxed retail copies of XP Home that I bought some time back and one OEM XP Home that came with a notebook as the basis for the upgrade.
I see a conflict: Windows 7 upgrade will only install itself if an existing installed activated copy of XP or Vista is sitting on the drive, but Windows 7 can't upgrade an XP installation. How's that supposed to work then? Is it going to insist on leaving the old XP on the drive and just make a new Windows directory and also somehow move the old registry out of the way? If it works this way, am I going to have to go behind it and clean up all of the old XP crap that shoved under the rug? Is any of that crap going to gunk up my new fresh Win 7 installation? With 3 systems, am I going to have to install and activate XP first every time I wipe the system and reinstall, only to have to do this cleanup after it? That would be a pain in the ass.
To save myself a lot of trouble, what if I installed XP on a clean drive, activated it, imaged it, and then every time I have to reinstall Windows 7, I just restore that image? What if I use that same image on all 3 systems so that I don't have to keep 3 very large images around?
What if someone never went to XP and is still on 2000 or 98 or ME? Does THAT qualify for upgrade? That's hypothetical because I don't find myself in that situation and could imagine Microsoft defining XP as the oldest Windows that qualifies. If they do qualify though, same requirement for installing it first?
In all, a ton of questions that haven't been addressed anywhere that I know, and because of this nonsense of having to already have an installed and activated XP or Vista on the system, it doesn't look like there is going to be a good clean easy way of installing an upgrade copy without a lot of extra work and/or a gunked up system with some old OSes remnants mingling with the new. Once again, the DRM screws the honest guy a lot more than the one who gets a copy from bittorrent.
Score: -1
|have XP? an 'in-place' upgrade is not possible, must custom/clean with upgrade media, you'll have to migrate files/settings manually or use a tool
http://technet.microsoft...s/windows/dd671583.aspx
how do users NOT understand this? Windows Vista is a rewrite of the OS, Windows 7 more so... either way, method is simple, clean and simple & by far the best method anyhow
Windows 2000? you're kidding i hope, clean...
want 'in-place' upgrades? need Vista, and you can upgrade to 7 Premium, Business/Pro, Ultimate depending on which version of Vista you have
you cannot upgrade 'in place' 32bit to 64bit, must be clean
anymore questions?
Score: 0
|want to be able to install 7 on any system? in any situation, buy full retail copy
Score: 1
|http://www.anandtech.com...log/showpost.aspx?i=630
Score: -1
|Could they make a large more confusing chart? ROFL. Only Microsoft could make something so dumb...well, GM, Ford, and Chrysler can too so scratch that.
Score: -5
|How is this any more difficult than a normal chart? Find the version of vista you have and look to the right and find out which version you can do an IN PLACE upgrade to and which you have to do a full install from. Not too insanely difficult. I even had my wife do it and she figured it out so it can't be that hard considering she knows just enough to play her games on the computer.
Score: 2
|You're that easily confused? we're shocked.
Let's try and make it simpler for ya:
Starter is non-upgradeable.
Any version can upgrade to Ultimate (other than Starter)
Basic and HP ->HP
Business ->Pro
Ultimate->Ultimate.
Yeah...that's a tough one....if you're brain-dead.
Score: 1
|Are you against everything American or only things you don't understand? Stupidity is no excuse for ignorance.
Score: 0
|""I would not personally perform an in-place upgrade from Windows Vista and Windows XP," Cherry said. "My main reason is that I feel that over time Microsoft's operating systems get bogged down with leftover pieces of uninstalled applications, temporary and other files that were created with a purpose but long since abandoned -- and in particular, registry entries that are no longer needed but bloat the registry so that it becomes more fragile and in my opinion slows down my computers.""
Someone doesn't understand how the modern Windows registry works. But hey, he's an analyst!
The problem with in-place upgrades is not the registry or "bloat," but legacy applications, drivers, and programs that depend on settings for the old OS and get mighty confused with the new OS. Going from XP to Vista is pain. going from Vista to 7 should not be pain, they are essentially the same OS on the driver and NTFS permission level.
Having old registry information for programs does not slow modern computers down. Microsoft does not recommend screwing with the registry to remove said objects, and "registry cleaners" can just as easily screw up a machine as attempt to remove an outdated entry.
Score: 0
|The registry is the most Hideous piece of S**t invented in an Operating system ever. it is time to put it out of it's misery. Redundant entries can slow your computer, fragmentation can slow your computer, orphan entries can BSOD your computer...
Score: 0
|At the end of the day it's merely an annoyance and not a show-stopper by any means, but first impressions do count.
Windows 7 (RC1) for instance does a marvellous job when you first start up, the welcome wizard is friendly quick and the OS is out of your way in no time. This to me is a massive improvement in first impressions - and upgrading should be the same. In the past this is how I personally experienced new computers:
OSX - Plays me a nice little welcome movie, enter my details, asks me for wifi password, desktop, ready to go.
Windows xp (SP2) - Plays me a groovy tune while i enter my details, loads up the desktop at 640x480, welcome to xp intro shockwave window appears that doesn't fit the screen res so i can't close, error pop-up bubble telling me the screen resolution is wrong, flick flick - wanna keep the new res? - yes, error pop-up telling me there are security risks! no antivirus installed!
Windows Vista - Smooth welcome setup wizard, enter my details all very nice, computer hangs for 3 minutes doing a performance test, as if that's the first thing an excited buyer who just pulled the pc out of the box wants to see. (the performance scale works on base 5.9 naturally - (????) ), security warning about 15 minutes later telling me i have no antivirus
So to me that part of the 'first impressions' took Microsoft ages to get right, but they got it right now. It's just a shame that's not the experience for upgraders.
PS am i anal and finickity in that regard? absolutely...
Score: 0
|There are really three options in-place upgrade, migrate files\settings to a fresh install or fresh install and reinstall everything again.
Migration tools have always been rubbish and essentially you have to train them what to migrate which inevitebly takes as long to do as it does to install a clean system.
In my experience migration tools (Microsoft & 3rd party) make a real mess of the job and so realistically you are left with the one option of a clean install, if an upgrade isn't permitted which according to the diagram in the article sadly seems to be the vast majority of scenarios.
Personally because a migration is such a mine field limiting the options to steer you in the direction of a clean install isn't such a bad thing as it is the best method of removing all the crap that builds up on your system from day to day use.
One thing though is that not enough systems are configured with, and not enough users are educated about partitioning data storage (e.g. c: for apps & OS, d: etc. for data and so on).
I mention that as I've either used a multi-disk or multi-partition based method of moving to a new OS for years and it works well in keeping the bulk of your data safe without having to resort to migration tools and\or backup utilities (not that a system backup before you do anything too major is a bad thing!).
Score: -1
|Question is, is it even possible to do a true "fresh install" of an upgrade version of Windows 7? That whole business of needing to have an already installed and activated XP or Vista seems to make that impossible. That is, unless one of the following two things happen:
1) EVERYTHING from the Vista/XP installation is totally segregated and moved to another folder, and none of it mingles whatsoever with the 7 stuff. this isn't a completely fresh install in my view, but at least you'd only have one folder to delete and presume that everything from XP or Vista is in this folder.
2) Once it sees the activated copy on the drive, it then says, "OK, I see it, so you're now free to go ahead and format the drive and install Windows 7". That would be suitable for me, even though I'd still prefer not to have needed to install XP first.
Does anyone know which of these scenarios are going to be available to the upgrader who still wants a truly fresh install?
Score: -1
|custom, install in whole different partition that you created... done! kind of fresh? not newly bought and formatted hdd fresh but ... whatever
Score: 0
|I don't think anyone upgrades an operating system anymore. Just the possible problems with unsupported older devices is bad enough. The real market for Windows 7 is on new computers. Hopefully this one will be good enough, unlike Vista which you had to immediately upgrade to XP.
Score: 0
|have to agree, there are some that would, those that migrated to Vista and the newly sold PCs, and a portion of XP users, guess thats still a decent number of folks
Score: 0
|I upgraded to OSX Leopard with no issues. I also plan on upgrading to Snow Leopard. Guess it is a Microsoft thing....
Score: -1
|That's because Microsoft forced us on that track. Not that I like to upgrade an OS but I understand why people want to and wouldn't deny it's usefulness for some.
Score: 0
|"I upgraded to OSX Leopard with no issues. I also plan on upgrading to Snow Leopard. Guess it is a Microsoft thing...."
Really?
Really, really?
Um, no.
Score: 2
|Wow. PC_Tool forgot to take his meds again. Did you even look at what you are posting links to? ROFL! Your trolls used to be at least somewhat sensible, but now you are just posting total nonsense. I like the one link where someone asks: "What is the hospital and why are you posting here?" LOL
Score: -5
|LOL I like how when fatty is proven wrong, he just starts trying to throw around insults. It's ok fatty, we know if's the way of the apple fanboy.
Oh here's another (linked from PC's first link):
http://support.apple.com...TS1545?viewlocale=en_US
Score: 0
|Typical fatty. Anything that threatens his religion, he claims is false/fake/nonsense, and starts throwing insults.
You're in the wrong industry, kiddo. You should be a politician.
Score: 0
|OSX is a new OS, Microsoft has to carry 30 years of operating systems with people demanding upgrade paths even from windows 95. Apple and Microsoft do NOT operate on the same scale when it comes to OS.
Score: 1
|OS X is not in any way newer than Windows NT. OS X comes from NextStep's OS which got its birth in 1989. Windows NT was born in 1993, after being spun-off from the OS/2 project by Microsoft in 1989.
Score: 0
|I agree that you shouldn't have to do a clean install to get a good working PC on an upgrade, it shouldn't be installing or leaving all that crap there in the first place. A new PC should not get slower over time or at least not significantly slower that you are upset by it.
Windows should recognize what is causing a slowdown and suggest ways to fix that.
Interestingly enough I have usually done an in-place install when upgrading an OS, but plan on doing a clean install this time. It will take me longer since I have to backup, re-install all the applications and do settings for those who I can't save them. My Win7 RC though has working terrifically though I do not have every program installed on it I currently use with Vista.
Score: 0
|oh yeah, make a huge deal out of a chart just because MS threw it together wrong, surprising that Joe got this non-story. here is a chart easier to understand from ZDNets Ed bott
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs...rt-eb-remake-final2.png
btw, in the original there is Vista Starter, tell me, who has a copy of that in the US?
Score: 1
|i offer up the updated chart because apparently Joe and 'Walt Mossberg' need it, i have an idea, replace the chart you posted with the one i posted, why not? unless you're all about the flamebait, easy enough to update your story, or maybe you just want to confuse the masses *shrugs
one last thing, to anyone considering installing any OS if clean install is an option, which it is in most cases, do it and save yourself some hassle
Score: 1
|The chart in the article makes matters look terrible as in all cases you aren't going to upgrade x86 to x64 so in all those scenarios a custom 'clean' install is the only option.
If XP 64 was also included there would be another row of 'Custom Install'!
Score: 1
|yeah, whomever made the original chart wasn't thinking too clearly
Score: 0
|I responded to Ed's post on the chart: http://www.joewilcox.com...e-windows-upgrade-chart/. His logic is faulty.
In summary, it looks like somebody transposed Windows XP for Windows Starter. The chart otherwise goes from least-featured to most-featured Windows version. If Starter is first, then XP is in the right place for 32-bit and 64-bit editions. The missing 64-bit for XP is another sign somebody transposed Starter and XP.
Just because Starter Edition was sold in the U.S. doesn't mean there is no upgrade option. That's a non-sequitur.
Score: -1
|Ed's chart isn't official from Microsoft. It's not updated anything. It's Ed's chart. Any revision must come from Microsoft.
Score: -2
|The chart is extremely clear. There are OEMs selling consumer laptops with Vista Business. It's realistic that some consumer would want Windows 7 Home Premium instead of Vista Business and possibly try to install 32-bit Premium over 64-bit Business. The chart shows it's "custom install."
Score: -3
|and without even looking at the chart going from 64bit to 32bit one knows/assumes even its custom, it ain't that complicated
eds chart is much more effective for avg/below avg consumer dispite whatever you might think
Score: 1
|his chart is flawed? seems fine to me
Score: 1
|agreed with dkratter and add that preferably corp 'puters have no data on the whatsoever - just apps
also agree with joe that the fresh install for the bulk of users is not good enough
Score: -1
|not good enough? it just happens to be what any rational person recommends... right
Score: 0
|What rational person recommends this? I don't know any Mac users who expect to wipe the hard drive. They just upgrade to newer Mac OS X. Any Linux user want to pipe in?
The trained behavior: You get a new Windows application and upgrade over the old one, in place. That's how most apps work, and the behavior creates same expectation for Windows. Consumers are trained to expect they can upgrade from this to that.
Score: -1
|OS X, single version with revisions... chance of problems? little, although there are many problems, their last upgrade was f*cked up for a majority, and they have control of all drivers
Linux, many different flavors of Linux, all single versions with revisions... Linux users can't say an over the top install hasn't messed up on them, it has for me! ended with a clean install
Windows? You have XP (totally different OS) Vista Starter? Premium, Business, Ultimate... now, what do you think is the best method to go about this with the least amount of hassle? in-place, high chance of issues for an avg consumer who doesn't take care of their system properly, up to date, etc... or 'clean install' yeah i thought so
clean install it is, wow man, your mind amazes me for reasons that aren't to be proud of
Score: 0
|A few things there to note:
1.) Yes i used to recommend fresh installs and still do for Windows, but the point is one shouldn't have to. In a day and age where OSes deliver precious little value, their first priority should be to get the f*** out of the way.
2.) OS X upgrades like a champ, and not just up but even back down (SL to L for instance). I guess there's something to be said for not sticking 100+ applications settings into a few big clumps... (along with system settings, shared component registrations, hardware configurations, security info, current status info, user preferences, bill gates' diary, and other such nuggets one might find in the registry)
3.) With the Leopard upgrade i can only guess you're talking about Unsanity's APE causing a blue screen?
4.) You appear to be the victim of marketing - version numbers mean absolutely nothing. Are you saying you would recommend upgrading Windows 2000 (5.0) to Windows xp (5.1) because of the version number?
Score: -1
|You're comparing an OSX upgrade with a Windows upgrade? Are you serious? OSX, written by ONE Vendor, Apple for SPECIFIC hardware.....Apple laptops and computers which have SPECIFIC components between them - same boards, same webcams, same video cards, etc etc. with Windows, which has to have thousands of older, current and new drivers and software for said hardware plug in to it and work?
And Linux, that's another joke....since I havent known a single non-hardcore Linux user who hasn't pretty much either abandoned it or just hasn't been able to use it mainstream, on the sole issue of not being able to resolve hardware issues easily (can't get their video accelerated, can't get their webcam running, can't get their wireless to work properly, etc.)....not to mention the last time *I* went from one version of Linux to another, something messed up along the way and I had to pretty much just scratch it and use the new version.
I personally believe in formatting and installing a new OS vs. upgrading in-place. And though I have had flawless in-place upgrades with friends and family who do want to exercise that option, I would recommend a fresh install every time, I don't care if you're going from Home Premium to Ultimate much more, Vista to 7.
Score: 2
|I'm confused - how does the hardware gamut fit in with the viability of making the upgrade process smoothly? Either the new OS you're whacking on can support the hardware your loading it onto or not, regardless of whether you're upgrading or wiping...
I agree with you, formatting and installing Windows from scratch is the way to go no matter what any chart says - but from a non-techie home user's point of view it just shouldn't have to be this way.
Just to contrast with OSX - you of course have the in-place upgrade but also the middle ground option of doing an archive-and-install that in simplified form does this:
1.) Move everything into folder /Previous\ System
2.) Install OS from scratch
3.) Move local user database back
4.) Move /Applications, /Library and /Users back
Done. All third-party drivers/KEXTs, input managers, daemons, launchd configurations, etc are gone so must be reinstalled but all the user's apps are there (/Applications), all app settings are there (/Library) and all user data is there (/Users).
Now i realise this would be a problem in Windows because the app ecosystem is so badly behaved that apps have libraries, settings and reg entries potentially everywhere - but from a user's point of view it just. simply. should. not. be. this. hard.
Score: -1
|Actually, I think most Mac users recommend that you do the Archive and Install (their version of "Custom Install"). That's always the recommendation I got whenever a new retail version comes out.
Score: 0
|Archive and Install retains all apps, documents and settings - so no, that's not equiv to "Custom Install". At least not in my book.
Score: 0
|Never in a million years would an enterprise do in-place upgrades. It just does not happen.
First of all, the amount of time it takes to perform an in-place upgrade is entirely unacceptable to corporate end-users. You cannot have a minimum of a one hour downtime just to upgrade the OS. Then, the IT resource would have to test that all the applications work and that the user data is available. Since few enterprises installed Vista, the in-place upgrade would be from XP to 7, which is a big jump. There's no guarantee that the upgrade will go smoothly.
OS deployments in an enterprise are done by an IT team taking a new PC and using either imaging software (such as Ghost) or an unattended install process (such as RIS) to do a clean install, and completing and testing the entire process even before the PC is dropped on the end-user's desk. That way, the downtime for the end-user would be only the amount of time it would take to get all the user data back, which should be only a few minutes if proper folder redirection has been configured via GPOs.
The only time you would find an in-place upgrade would be in a consumer environment, and as any computer person will tell you, that is usually a bad idea anyway.
Score: 3
|My Question to you is. Can you switch back and forth 32 or 64 bit under one license on Home Upgrade? Lets stay you upgrade from 1.5gigs of ram to 4gigs of ram and you have win 7 home 32bit installed can you upgrade to 64bit later on? Since it comes two disc? Why I'm asking I been using XP Home Edtion forever. I just preorder win 7 home upgrade edtion for my computer when it was preorder sales. This be my first upgrade for OS. This why I'm asking this question thanks.
Score: 0
|can't upgrade from 32 to 64 'in-place' you'll need to do a custom clean/install
look at my Ed Botts chart instead :) easy to understand
Score: 1
|ok whatn't sure :) thanks for info. Can't wait for win 7 release I just love on my p 4 2.66 it has my Visiontek HD 2600 512meg card and it love windows 7 :P Thats why I got win 7 preorder :) my graphics card bit slower on xp hehe.
Score: 0
|don't let Joe Wilcox and others scare you, its easier than they make it appear, Microsoft sent Walt Mossberg that detailed chart with the idea he could simplify it in his mind, he couldn't apparently, which is sad
Score: 0
|Besides that proper Microsofy enterprise licenced firms should legally be using 'Enterprise' editions which don't allow in-place upgrades.
Score: 0
|Walt Mossberg is a highly respected technology reviewer. How do you know they sent the chart "with the idea he could simplify it in his mind?" He did better: Posted the chart with little commentary and let people decide for themselves.
Microsoft product managers are quite capable of simplifying a chart. They had big incentive, because of Walt's influence, to give him something as clear and simple as possible. The chart isn't complex. It's absolutely clear. There are only 14 "in-place" upgrade scenarios.
Score: -1
|