Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Hard Upgrade Path From XP To Vista To Win 7

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the twisty-little-passages-all-different dept.

Windows 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

God hates fags! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26975841)

Linux (pronounced "EYE-getno-ass") is a Unix-like computer operating system family which includes system utilities and libraries from the GNU Project is sometimes referred to as GNU/Linux.

Linux also does not actually work, and it never has. There is no kernel present. It is primarily a harmless outlet for repressed males that have never seen a vagina to convince themselves they're 1337 while banging away at toy software that doesn't actually do anything.

Go ahead Linux fags, waste your mod points on me.

Re:God hates fags! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26975859)

What kind of fag would post this nonsense......wait....we know this now.

Re:God hates fags! (-1, Troll)

DaGoatSpanka (839005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975893)

You and the poster have the same user name...maybe you're the fag?

crazy (0, Flamebait)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975855)

Honestly, I think that when an OS manufacturer forgets that current users don't run OS's, they run applications and they use hardware attached to the computer (scanners, cameras, drum machines, etc.).. they've fallen off the rails. I would *never* consider upgrading to Vista or Win7. I keep XP in a sandbox on my Mac and there it will stay, unable to talk to MS (no network connection provided in the sandbox), able to be restored from an image in seconds, and basically 100% functional with all my goodies.

I really can't imagine what they're thinking. If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine. Whatever machine that might be.

Re:crazy (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976107)

Am I the only one who finds it humorous how some people bitch about Windows not being backward compatible and others bitch about all the problems due its backward compatible heritage?

Re:crazy (4, Funny)

Tawnos (1030370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976269)

Then there's the third class: those that bitch about Windows not being backwards compatible while simultaneously saying how much backwards compatibility hobbles the OS. Those are the really fun people to talk to.

Re:crazy (4, Interesting)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976235)

If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine.

Your statement assumes that you require an OS to be compatible with at least 9,999 out of every 10,000 components in your system. Between my keyboard, mouse, harddrive, monitor, usb slots, firewire, ethernet card, wireless card, motherboard, and power adapter (ten components)... I'd say the OS should be 100% compatible. Beyond that, I'd blame device manufactures and software development companies for not provided me with the right code to use their products. But 99.99% is simply a fun number you pulled from your ass, because even if you did have 9,999 completely functional components in your computer, if there was no compatibility for a mouse, you'd be pissed off.

Re:crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976251)

Hah,..
Apple can't even turn out an OS that's bug free on their OWN hardware,..
So don't bitch about MS not being able to run on 99.99% of OEM hardware.

Re:crazy (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976557)

No company can turn out a bug-free ANYTHING because it is a logical impossibility. This is nothing to do with which corporations make what: It's called software development, and whatever the outcome, it will have bugs. Take it or leave it

Re:crazy (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976611)

The space shuttle seems to be doing it just fine.

Re:crazy (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976267)

Eventually you come to a point where an upgrade is inevitable. Hardware breaks and has to be replaced, and it's not always easy to get software that has drivers for antiquated OS's. There's no telling when it'll happen, but for sure it will.

We had some Windows 98 machines that we didn't upgrade for a while; then some critical pieces (like the wireless device) started to break, and without drivers for 98, they had to be upgraded. Of course, they were so old that they were just junk with XP. Long story short, sometimes you buy the OS for the drivers, not the software.

Besides, when you put everything in a sandbox, it's not that unsafe to test an upgrade to see if it still works. Might as well give it a try, you never know what good could come out of it.

Re:crazy (3, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976499)

The thing about sandboxes like vmware is the OS running inside doesn't know or care what the real hardware of the machine is. That means as long as vmware supports XP (IIRC vmware still supports dos and 9x so I would expect them to continue supporting XP for a very long time) you can continue to run XP in your VM.

Re:crazy (5, Interesting)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976409)

Wait... you think that, and you use a MAC?!

Here's a challenge: try to run a MacOS 9 application on your beautiful, shiny Macintosh. Can't do it? Hm. Weird, I can run like 95% of apps that old on Windows. Heck, try to run a MacOS 6 application on MacOS 7 and odds are good it wouldn't even come close to running right. (Yes, I'm still bitter about System 7.)

I mean, the funny thing is that I basically agree with you, but you holding that position and then using a Mac as your main computer is pretty mind-bendingly oxymoronic.

Re:crazy (5, Informative)

vux984 (928602) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976521)

I really can't imagine what they're thinking. If it isn't 99.99% compatible, it isn't getting on my machine. Whatever machine that might be.

oh? 99.99% or you don't install it?

I keep XP in a sandbox on my Mac and there it will stay

On your mac you say?

I'm curious, what did you do in 2001 when OSX was released? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility? Hell no, not even close. Classic was decent, but people had to give up a LOT of stuff.

And what did you do in 2005 when Apple up and switched to intel? Did Apple give you 99.99% backwards compatibility to all your PPC and 68k stuff? Sure there was rosetta, and like classic, it was decent, but its not 99.99%. Not even close.

Criticising Vista and saying you'll only upgrade if the upgrade is 99.99% backwards compatible and then saying you use a Mac undermines everything you've said. Vista is WAY more backwards compatible than Apple even tries for.

Hell just from OS X 10.5 from 10.4:
Absoft Pro Fortran compiler - needs up update v10, previous versions - not compatible
Adept Music Notation 5.2.5 - not compatible
Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional - 8 - needs compatibility update, previous versions not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro CS3 - needs compatibility update (previous versions not compatible
Adobe After effects CS3, compatible updates required (previous versions not compatible
AdobePhotoshop Elements 4 and under not compatible
Adobe CS2 - not supported, not compatible
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom - 1.2 and earlier are not compatible
Adobe Premier Pro - 3.1 and earlier are not compatible
Alien Skin Eye Candy 5, Xenofex 1, not compatible
Alsoft - Disk Warrior 4 - "Alsoft recommends DW4 not be run from OSX10.5"
AOL - Version 10.3.7 and under not compatible
Apple Backup 3.1 and earlier not compatible
Apple Final Cut Pro 4.5 and earlier are not compatible
Apple iDVD 1,2,3,4,5,7.0 not compatible
Apple iPhoto 2 not compatible
AppleJack 1.4.3 not compatible

I could go on...and on...I didn't make it out of the 'A's...

Yeah for a lot of software if you had the latest version, they released a free update to make it leopard compatible. But if you were a version behind... better be prepared to shell out. Leopard wasn't anywhere near 99.99% backwards compatible... even with 10.4, never mind 10.2 era software, and of course OS9 is RIGHT OUT.

Meanwhile Vista/Win7 will still run a lot of DOS6 apps? Not all of them. Probably not anywhere near 99% of them, but an awful LOT of them. I still have a few programs and command line utilities I wrote in C++ for DOS in the early 90s, and they all run on Vista x64, not to mention the ancient Motorola radio programming tool that programs old Motorola 2-way trunk unit; it still works too.

I agree Microsoft screwed up the Vista launch, and backwards compatibility was less than ideal. But it blows away what you get from Apple. The only difference is that with Apple, I think people -expect- no backwards compatibility, so they don't blink when they have to buy the latest version of all their software, buy a new printer, toss their old MP3 player*, etc.

(* My old Samsung Yepp only came with OS9 and Windows software. I can still use it with Vista. I haven't been able to sync it to a Mac in nearly a decade (it didn't work in classic). I handed it down to my kids years ago; and it finlly got retired when I bought my youngest a new Sansa this christmas.)

Just for the Record (5, Funny)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975877)

I still say Linux has unknown issues.

Re:Just for the Record (5, Insightful)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976031)

I still say Linux has unknown issues.

But at least I can actually run a computer while trying to figure them out ...

Re:Just for the Record (2, Insightful)

JustOK (667959) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976037)

[citation needed]

Re:Just for the Record (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976087)

How do you cite something unknown....

Re:Just for the Record (5, Funny)

MissionAccomplished (951344) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976177)

Ask Donald Rumsfeld...

Re:Just for the Record (0)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976591)

There are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns. He can cite the known unknowns fairly easily. He could cite the issue with the system and the problem with churning out a solution after sitting in front of a monitor for a few days (or however long it takes) and actually writing the program to fix it.

For the known unknowns, there will be known issues for which solutions cannot currently be formed, for lack of enough information to fix the problem.

Tested on a beta... (5, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975885)

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:Tested on a beta... (1, Insightful)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976063)

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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (4, Interesting)

Jumperalex (185007) | more than 4 years ago | (#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).

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

patch0 (1339585) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976473)

Every windows upgrade I've ever done on my own hardware has involved a clean install, initially this was beacause by the time windows was due to be upgraded so was my hardware but not so much nowdays, windows 7 may be the first time I've upgraded an MS OS without at the very least a hard drive upgrade. None of the above is true for any flavour of linux I've ever had. Not sure what that tells you....

Re:Tested on a beta... (3, Interesting)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976121)

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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (4, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976479)

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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (5, Insightful)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#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?

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976239)

Time consuming and very unnecessarily messy... almost any software I've ever used will typically recommend a clean install for any major jump (e.g., RedHat 4 to RedHat 5, SuSE 9 to SuSE 10, Firefox 2 to Firefox 3 even), not some upgrade process.

Re:Tested on a beta... (-1, Troll)

pavera (320634) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976253)

WRONG...
The *MICROSOFT RECOMMENDED* upgrade path from XP to Win 7 is to upgrade XP to Vista SP1
then upgrade Vista SP1 to Win 7. That is how you're *SUPPOSED* to do it.

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976375)

Link?

It's a possible and supported upgrade path.

It's also supported to run Exchange on a DC, but that does not mean that it's a best practice scenario.

IMO, best practice for XP->Win7 would be to use USMT to migrate the profile and deploy a new Windows 7 Image to the hardware.

That's how i upgraded our machines from XP to Vista, and it worked without any major issues.

Re:Tested on a beta... (5, Informative)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976379)

WRONG...
The *MICROSOFT RECOMMENDED* Upgrade path from XP to Win 7 is to do a COMPLETELY FRESH INSTALL[1]

[1] http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-xp-7-upgrade-vista,6965.html [tomshardware.com]

âoeI can confirm that customers will be able to purchase upgrade media and an upgrade license to move from Windows XP to Windows 7 - however, they will need to do a clean installation of Windows 7,â a Microsoft spokesperson confirmed

Re:Tested on a beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976393)

Really? There's no upgrade path from XP directly to Win7? That doesn't seem right.

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

sciszewski (824359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976273)

You get that feeling because the article is misleading. I've installed windows 7 on an old laptop with 1 GB of memory and it runs fine. I've also installed it on several desktops, which also work well. All-in-all a pretty god OS.

Re:Tested on a beta... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976129)

but isn't this a little unfair?

So you're NOT as rabidly anti-Windows as they come.

Re:Tested on a beta... (4, Insightful)

d3ac0n (715594) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (3, Informative)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976373)

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.

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976425)

It is somewhat unfair, but MS has a lot to gain by making Win7 run on older hardware. First of all, it's quite worthwhile if they're gutting features/making the system more efficient for underpowered hardware. Second, there's a potential goldmine in getting companies to upgrade from their old IT solutions. It's horrible how some places are still running NT/2000/XP (software over 10 years old). If they can show that it's really an easy and smooth transition to Win7, hungry companies will be eager to upgrade their systems without having to replace hardware. You'd think they'd give this a little more priority then, wouldn't you?

In any case, there's a good chance that it's not cause of their own issues. Hardware companies often suck at writing drivers, it's not MS's fault to make up for that. Especially while they're still in beta.

Re:Tested on a beta... (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976537)

With Microsoft products, not much actually changes for the better between the beta and the final product. They certainly don't change things like their driver model at that point.

It may make sense just to get new systems.... (4, Interesting)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975889)

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.

But should it be that way? (5, Insightful)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:But should it be that way? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976195)

You do realize that the specs he listed aren't the minimum requirements, right? He was listing a machine that can be bought today for reasonably cheap that will be able to handle nearly anything someone in a common office setting can throw at it.

Re:But should it be that way? (4, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:But should it be that way? (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976245)

Its not "all that to get the OS to run" its "damn, thats an amazing amount of hardware for practically free ".

Using a Windows 7 rollout as an excute to S@#)*can all the old hardware can actually save money, because you can set up a new install like this to be very clean to manage, eg, use network booting and TRK to roll out images, etc.

Re:But should it be that way? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976291)

I really don't want this to appear like a personal attack, but why the hell are people willing to accept something like this?

If you want the full set of glitz and glamour, you are going to need more machine to get the same performance out of KDE or GNOME that you do out of Windows XP or Mac OS X. Vista, maybe not so much - except at this point Vista actually accelerates more video than Linux does. Xgl went away and the replacements aren't really here yet while Xorg's architecture changes around. On the other hand, at least on Linux that stuff is actually useful. With compiz+emerald you can get a super-pretty, super-customizable, super-useful desktop. Too bad about compositing :(

Why are we willing to accept something like this? It keeps getting cheaper and faster, that's why. You could argue that Windows 95 was a heck of a lot faster than Windows XP; I'd argue that Windows 95 is fundamentally incapable of operating today's hardware and it doesn't do what the software does either (Just start by thinking about Unicode support.) Then we would have had the whole argument. The operating system of today does dramatically more than the operating system of yesterday. Is there inefficiency which could be eliminated? Yes! Are we putting enough effort into this? Nope. But it's not like we haven't gotten anything out of it.

Re:But should it be that way? (1)

diamondsw (685967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976337)

Once you load the OS, *and* Office, *and* Lotus Notes or Outlook, *and* corporate anti-virus/firewall, *and* four JRE's because each Java app doesn't *quite* work with the latest JRE... Well, you get the picture. A standard business desktop isn't just the OS - they layer all kinds of dreck on it. By the time you support all of that, your hardware requirements have moved considerably upstream.

And please stop with the "my 386 could". Times move on, features improve, deal with it. Or go feel free to dig up said 386, install DOS or Win 3.1, and let us know just how much you love it.

why the hell are people willing to accept? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976349)

For many, they don't have any practical choices.

Re:But should it be that way? (2, Informative)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976361)

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:But should it be that way? (2, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976543)

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 instantaneous like it is now.

2 GBs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976561)

I had that much hard drive space 10 years ago. At least the move from Windows 9x to XP brought stability.

I don't know of any improvements that justify the huge performance hit Vista brings. DWM and indexing were in OS X 10.4 and you could run the computer comfortably with 512 MB of RAM. What other feature does Vistas have that makes the computer feel so slow with 512 MB? 10.4 ran pretty well with it.

Re:It may make sense just to get new systems.... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976173)

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

Not all at once, though. A lot of shops do rolling upgrades - then you're stuck with putting XP on the new machines (that are 7 capable) and then waiting until you've upgraded the vast majority of machines, then roll out 7 (or 8 or 9 or whatever).

Or dealing with a multi-OS ecosystem. I think that's where most places are going to go.... At the small hospital that I work at, we're predominantly XP with a few Vista boxes - they just sit there and behave more or less like everybody (which is to say, less). A couple of us have Macs and after dealing with some bizarre Exchange / AD issues, they're running fine.

The little stuff we have to hook to (mostly lab equipment) is either XP or, of late, manufacturers are seemingly devolving towards WinCE Embedded (May God burn their souls forever). The big iron in invariably some sort of Unix which talks to everything else through a DICOM interface so it really doesn't make any difference what it's really running under. Our primary financial package runs under XP but sortof runs on Vista and the vendor says they're going to fix it "real soon now".

All of that pointless rant is really just an anecdote for the argument that it's not going to make any real difference. IT is going to have to plug everything together to get things to work these days. 7 is just one more "thing". So you fiddle around with extant systems - if they run 7 / Vista, fine. If not, wait until the magic smoke leaks out and replace the thing.

Re:It may make sense just to get new systems.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976335)

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

Why not just buy the $300 complete hardware system and put Debian 5.0 on it? Or better yet, re-purpose your existing hardware and just put Debian 5.0 on it. Software costs will go back down to near-zero.

The MEPIS 8.0 Live CD is a pretty good way to test if Debian 5.0 will run on a given machine, and then install it in about 10 minutes if it will run.

7 is in some aspects WORSE than Vista (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26975921)

seriously, the UI and the taskbar usability is awful, if i open 3 apps i dont know if the app is open or its just a quicklaunch icon ? there is no visual difference between the two
then the amount of clicks to perform basic tasks has increased, eg
set display or desktop properties on XP is a simple r-click on the desktop>properties and you are there.
now try it on 7 and it opens a window which you have to click another link then another link then you are there

the whole thing screams "rushed" and poorly thought out
i shall be recommending to my customers that they stick with XP until it expires.
meh

Re:7 is in some aspects WORSE than Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976021)

there is no visual difference between the two if you are totally blind and/or retarded

There, fixed that for you.

There are in fact 2 major differences. Number one is the shading of the icon, number two is that if you have mutliple windows open the icon appears as a stack of icons rather than a single flat entity.

Re:7 is in some aspects WORSE than Vista (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976079)

seriously, the UI and the taskbar usability is awful, if i open 3 apps i dont know if the app is open or its just a quicklaunch icon ? there is no visual difference between the two

You must not have spent much time with it, because it definitely does indicate whether an app is running or if it's just sitting in the taskbar. Running apps have an embossed "buttonish" look to them. The app with the focus has whitish tint to it. But if you were going out of your way to find a reason to dislike it rather than use it, I can see how you'd come to your conclusion. Also, how often do you change your screen resolution? Once I set my displays, I just about never go back in and change them. And this is doubly true of my work computers.

Re:7 is in some aspects WORSE than Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976249)

I'd wager he didn't spend any time running it. He looked at some screenshots, and started bitching right away.

Re:7 is in some aspects WORSE than Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976365)

Vista troll reapplied to 7? It's more likely than you think.

Quicklaunch is deprecated/dead, and screen resolution (previously properties) is back in 7, it was removed from Vista for some reason unknown to me.

More than that, on XP, screen resolution was 3 clicks away. Right click on desktop, properties, then the right tab. It comes up immediately on 7, and even then it's rare that you'll need it, as Win+P provides a lot of the functionality that would have previously been set in the desk.cpl

Add in the removal of TMM and associated increase in battery life (no more polling every second), a unified persistence database, etc, and display settings have, IMO, gotten much better. Of course, I admit to being heavily biased, as I'm on the team that works on the new display connectivity stuff.

$2100 email machine? (4, Funny)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975925)

So who wants to buy two $2100 email machines in 3 years? Sounds fun to me!

Re:$2100 email machine? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26975987)

$2100? I have no clue where you pulled that number from. You can get quad core systems for under $500...

Re:$2100 email machine? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976105)

I'm fairly sure that grandparent is referring to Microsoft executive Mike Nash's displeased email about "Vista capable":

"I know that I chose my laptop (a SONY TX770P) because it had the Vista logo and was pretty disappointed that it not only wouldn't run Glass, but more importantly wouldn't run Movie Maker," Nash wrote. "I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine."

Re:$2100 email machine? (0, Redundant)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976163)

Oh. Whoosh :)

Re:$2100 email machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976451)

If that machine was a $$executive wants a cute little thing to take with him$$ for $2,100 then it was underpowered to begin with. Back a few years (maybe 4-5?) A 15 inch laptop was around $1000, how come something that was only a 12 inch cost 2-3x as much? Might make a big difference in the price analysis?

Linux updates were at least upgrades (4, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Linux updates were at least upgrades (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976341)

Watch out - your fanboyism is showing...

Re:Linux updates were at least upgrades (3, Informative)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976497)

...and don't forget making absolutely, positively sure that the user does NOT have ultimate control of his/her system. MS definitely keeps trying true upgrades on that front.

Not in this economy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26975931)

So how many companies out there have the extra cash to fund anything even remotely resembling a complex upgrade path?

Yea, that's what I thought.

Am I missing something? (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#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...

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Aranykai (1053846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976059)

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.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976119)

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.

Sounds to me like they're saying the imaging process was at fault for the first test, since the second test was fine. At least, if I were troubleshooting this, that's where I'd look. Not at the operating system on the original machine.

Wouldn't be surprising to me, as well, if the Acronis tool didn't support a BETA OPERATING SYSTEM.

This is a slightly problematic article.

Re:Am I missing something? (1)

huckamania (533052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976125)

My dad installed Windows 7 on an old Dell laptop that I gave him a year ago. I was actually shocked that he got it to install, but he says it runs better then XP. Of course, he probably turned off all of the eye candy and other cruft.

He's forgotten more about computers then most people will ever know.

Bad science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26975955)

The writer most likely ran into problems with the software that was installed on the laptop rather than the fact that the laptop was "older" than the custom desktop. This article proves nothing and is a waste of time. Move along, nothing to see here.

Who would upgrade a perfectly working OS? (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976003)

Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7? You would have to be a complete idiot. I can see new systems arriving with W7 though.

Re:Who would upgrade a perfectly working OS? (1)

weirdcrashingnoises (1151951) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976075)

gamers will do it for the games + DX10.

smart gamers will dual boot tho, or triple boot (ubuntu+xp+win7 ftw)

Re:Who would upgrade a perfectly working OS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976187)

"Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7? You would have to be a complete idiot. I can see new systems arriving with W7 though." - by InsaneProcessor (869563) on Tuesday February 24, @05:41PM (#26976003)

TOTALLY agreed... I've been running Windows Server 2003 since it came out & haven't looked back - why?

NO NEED!

In fact, recently @ a forums I was attending? The "relative noobs" there began 'busting on me', saying I was "afraid to change" etc. et al... fine. I just realize that they're still in the "techie" phase, & they HAVE to experiment more w/ the new stuff (only problem is, NOT MANY FOLKS or corporate bodies opted for VISTA vs. XP, unless they received brand-new rigs), hoping it "takes", so they can profit by its very nature of being NEW & DIFFERENT (where many folks WILL need help on it, because VISTA is very different interface-wise, in many ways vs. older models of Windows).

(That's speaking from a typical desktop home user's viewpoint @ least - "IF I HAVE A WATCH THAT RUNS, WHY BOTHER GET A NEW ONE" type of thinking!)

Same on the business front really - that is, unless some MAJORLY compelling reason makes corporate folks want to take down perfectly running servers on Windows Server 2003 for example (& those are the kinds that have done well, for instance, @ NASDAQ - where Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 have been shown to get that fabled "99.999% 5-9's uptime" rating, 24x7 for years)...

APK

P.S.=> IF Windows 7 turns out as NICE as the hype makes it out to be? I just MAY finally upgrade... but, afaik? It's NOT showing any truly "massive" performance gains for most folks like end-users (however, iirc? There have been some shown in file transfers in Windows Server 2008 & thus, also Windows 7, vs. older models of Windows for INTRANET environs (don't quote me on that, it may also be over the public internet too on this note)) or even security ones (because you CAN secure Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, very well, per this -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=5216895b40746a34aeedf294f336a8fe&showtopic=2662 [tcmagazine.com] )... apk

Re:Who would upgrade a perfectly working OS? (1)

Burnhard (1031106) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976299)

Why would anyone even remotely consider the expense and hassle to move from XP to Vista or XP to W7?

Because Windows 7 is a much better OS in so many different ways. I've been using the beta for about a month now and I'm loving it. I'm not looking forward to plugging my XP drive back in when the beta expires.

Oh jeez, here we go again (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976005)

Can't wait for the Win7 Upgrade Class Action Lawsuit (SP2)

Enterprise upgrade? (4, Insightful)

heffrey (229704) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:Enterprise upgrade? (2, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976213)

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.

Re:Enterprise upgrade? (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976595)

Depends on the enterprise, to better support users (Especially in a smaller Enterprise), you are better off running the same version of OS across the board, rather then half Version X, Half Version Y.

Re:Enterprise upgrade? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976403)

...but if the hardware troubles they reported are still, you know - troubles? Then what?

/P

Bloatware (2)

mc1138 (718275) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976041)

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.

That's what people USED to say about Linux? (1)

Zazi (601795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976043)

... I could've sworn people STILL say that about Linux.

Look, I'm not a die hard Windows fanboy by any means, but I just can't help but balk at the notion that Linux is perfect. What drivers do exist, are usually developed by third parties and are shoddy at best. Then there are companies who flat out refuse to write drivers for Linux, and this is just one example.

My point is, is that while there is an "ecosystem" of patching and driver incompatibilities with XP, Vista, or Win 7, it is no different in that regard to Linux, and anyone who disagrees with that and states, "Linux just works" is one naive little child.

Stupid (2, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#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.

Re:Stupid (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976145)

This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I can hear your axe grinding from all the way over here. PS3 games mostly suck because they're on the PS3 :)

Re:Stupid (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976323)

This is one of the reasons ps3 games suck, because they are supporting xbox, pandering to the lowest common denominator.

Snicker snort. The Xbox actually has more raw horsepower than the PS3, and furthermore it's relatively easy to keep the three symmetric CPU cores busy. A lot of PS3 games barely use the cell because it's such a PITA. You would have thought Sony would have learned after developers told them programming the PS2 was a bitch. Furthermore, one would have thought gamers would have learned after so many of them owned an Xbox and a PS2 at the same time. Guess not.

To be fair, Sony vs. Microsoft is kind of like choosing between death by stabbing, or death by bludgeoning. So I can understand your confusion. But the technical issues are actually quite simple to understand.

yes, you are stupid (0, Troll)

Uberbah (647458) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976399)

What kind of stupid company running older machines would bother upgrading OSes?

One forced to respond to Microsoft's forced obsolescence. Duh. It happened with Win2k, and it's happening right now with XP, as fast as Microsoft can make it happen. Unfortunately for Redmond, many businesses are going to stick with older hardware and software in a downed economy, with or without Microsoft's shenanigans..

Upgrade?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26976113)

What kind of barking moron upgrades an existing Windows installation? Back up data, wipe, reinstall.

Re:Upgrade?! (1)

MykeBNY (303290) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976555)

Totally. I even do this with service packs, rather than risking problems, since lately MS has been adding new functionality to service packs instead of just bugfixing.

How does KDE 4.2 stack up (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976205)

I wonder how KDE 4.2 stacks up against Windows 7's interface. There is what appears to be an impressive review of KDE 4.2 over here at Techradar.com. [techradar.com]

WTF? (3, Insightful)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 5 years ago | (#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:WTF? (2, Insightful)

malevolentjelly (1057140) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976515)

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 claiming that a future product will be limited based on the results from the preliminary beta. Not only is it a "dick move" but it's actually a violation of the EULA and slander.

Seriously, if this was a serious tech news site they could get in trouble for doing this. Like it or not, Windows 7 had a EULA with which you specifically agreed not to do this upon downloading and installing it.

TPM/DRM (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976331)

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

windoze 7 (1)

delvsional (745684) | more than 5 years ago | (#26976333)

I was thinking of Buying a new dell laptop and someone told me that I should wait for windows 7 to come out. I said that I probably would just put Linux on it as soon as I got it, but then it occurred to me, I would still have to boot into windows to update my Iphone, and use Itunes. I have gone completely legit in the music, movie and software areas and I like being able to download DRM free music whenever I feel like it. Bottom line, you can't do that with Linux. So I said fuck it and I'm buying a MAC. Don't get me wrong, I still have my desktop and that hasn't booted into windows in at least 9 months.

come on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976363)

Are you kidding me?! People STILL say this about Linux!!!!!!!!

Bad Article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26976367)

The article is a scam. Most enterprises would not create a master image by upgrading from XP -> Vista -> Windows 7.

They would create a new windows 7 image and do a fresh install. The challenges they lay out about driver compatibilities etc are no different than moving from Win 2000 to XP.

What people USED2SAY about Linux ONCE UPON A TIME! (1)

D4C5CE (578304) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976391)

Having had to test a lot of 6-60-months-old hardware in recent years, it has become hard not to find at least one flavor of Linux that fully supports any given system among as small a selection as just the live boot CDs for Ubuntu, Knoppix and SuSE gleaned from a month's magazine covers.

So what (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976437)

Whenever you install a new operating system theres a chance you will have some compatability issues with it. It isnt as if microsoft could go out and made sure that every application and every driver on the planet didnt use X process or X outdated utility to connect, but that isnt the fault of the OS. In order for them to make any changes to the OS, they have to remove some things.

xyz (0, Offtopic)

cyberdrop (939759) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976457)

I tried to crack Media Player Classic on my Windows 7 build 7990, and then Windows 7 got me laid off from my job, gave my dog a urinary tract infection, and made my wife leave me for a younger, more attractive man. Curse you Windows 7! Does your evil know no bounds?!

Upgrade? (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 4 years ago | (#26976563)

No way is Vista or 7 going on any of our machines, unless MS does a huge about face on built in DRM. XP is likely the last windows our family will ever use.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?