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!

Windows 7 Upgrade Can Take Nearly a Day

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the just-sleep-on-it dept.

Microsoft 706

Eugen writes "A Microsoft Software Engineer has posted the results of tests the company performed on the upgrade time of Windows 7. The metric used was total upgrade time across different user profiles (with different data set sizes and number of programs installed) and different hardware profiles. A clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls 'high-end hardware' should take only 30 minutes. In the worst case scenario, the process will take about 1220 minutes. That second extreme is not a typo: Microsoft really did time an upgrade that took 20 hours and 20 minutes. That's with 650GB of data and 40 applications, on mid-end hardware, and during a 32-bit upgrade. We don't even want to know how long it would take if Microsoft had bothered doing the same test with low-end hardware. The other interesting point worth noting is that the 32-bit upgrade is faster on a clean install than a 64-bit upgrade, regardless of the hardware configuration, and is faster on low-end hardware, regardless of the Data Profile. In the other six cases, the 64-bit upgrade is faster than the 32-bit upgrade."

cancel ×

706 comments

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

Almost competing (4, Funny)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413691)

Good going MS! Add a few hours to that and they might beat the time it took for a few people I know to upgrade Ubuntu!

Re:Almost competing (1)

BigGuy (8256) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413743)

Well at least they got it to install. I never could get win7 to install even on a clean partition or using the entire drive.

Re:Almost competing (4, Interesting)

sbsheetz (878289) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413781)

Agreed! Good job to MS for being honest in the results they witnessed. At this point I've done quite a few clean installs and upgrades to Win7 on what I would consider low-end systems (early Pentium 4's, 512MB RAM) with my slowest install thus far being around 3 hours.

And I have seen Ubuntu (one of my FAVORITE desktop OS'es) take no less than 8 hours to complete.

Re:Almost competing (1)

ais523 (1172701) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414051)

Of course, you can actually use Ubuntu during the upgrade (although some programs, such as Firefox, malfunction to some extent in that time, so it helps to have less complex alternatives), so it's not as bad. (My last Ubuntu upgrade took about 2 hours, by the way.)

Re:Almost competing (5, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414157)

Agreed! Good job to MS for being honest in the results they witnessed. At this point I've done quite a few clean installs and upgrades to Win7 on what I would consider low-end systems (early Pentium 4's, 512MB RAM) with my slowest install thus far being around 3 hours.

And I have seen Ubuntu (one of my FAVORITE desktop OS'es) take no less than 8 hours to complete.

Apples and oranges comparison.

The various distros throw in an office suite, image tools, tons of other apps, servers, several browsers, compilers, interpreters, etc., and a system to keep ALL of them up to date. What does Microsoft throw in? wordpad and paint. No perl, no python, no php, no apache, ONE browser, no compiler, no package management outside of its' own applications ...

And forget about trialing it off a bootable cd or usb key to see if it does what you want or breaks on your hardware ...

Re:Almost competing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413931)

Protip for your friends: Get broadband internet. The actual Ubuntu upgrade doesn't take very long. Trying to download the new release over 56k might not be fun. But then, they could have just gotten a cd an upgraded from that.

Re:Almost competing (4, Funny)

duguk (589689) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413983)

I could probably install Gentoo in that amount of time! By hand. Without my fingers.

Re:Almost competing (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414203)

By install you mean get bash to boot, if you're lucky?

Well I just updated Ubuntu (1)

emj (15659) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414131)

And Karmic Koala took me 3 hours to update to (including doing stupid stuff), then when I was done it told me my harddrive was broken.

Only Vista (5, Informative)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413695)

That's assuming you were running Vista before. If you were running XP then you have to install clean.

Re:Only Vista (0, Offtopic)

jessedorland (1320611) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413767)

Why not just wait until Windows 7 SP2 arrive? Windows XP is not as good Linux, or OSX, but it's better then any "beta operating system".

Re:Only Vista (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413859)

I remember before Win98 and W2K officially released, we'd scramble to the most populated Warez channels on IRC to get the latest build of whatever beta there was at the time and (maybe) install just so we could say "Why would I run a 'released' OS?". Now it's: "I'm not installing 'till they release something STABLE!".

What happened to the adventurous?

Re:Only Vista (4, Funny)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414015)

I quite agree. I'm running build 16387 and it is very sta

Re:Only Vista (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414067)

Did your machine crash before you completed?

Re:Only Vista (5, Funny)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414121)

Apparently so, but it did click "preview" and "submit" for him, so that's nice.

Re:Only Vista (0, Troll)

tomknight (190939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413873)

Why not just wait until Windows 7 SP2 arrive? Windows XP is not as good Linux, or OSX, but it's better then any "beta operating system".

As it happens Win7's looking pretty good to me. It's now what I use for my desktop OS (partly because I know I'll have to support it soon enough), and I'd now consider it as an alternative to XP. I understand that Dell will be asked to supply PCs (to my org) with either XP or Win7, (as opposed to XP or Vista) pretty soon...

Oh, yadda yadda yadda my OS is better than yours etc. Do you know how much I care about that sort of argument? Do you know how much the (real) world cares about that sort of artgument?

Re:Only Vista (1)

ElSupreme (1217088) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413903)

Win 7 is already SP2. Vista SP2 to be exact.


Win7 Verison 6.5....

Re:Only Vista (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414207)

Or to be exact and factually correct: Vista SP2 [microsoft.com]

Re:Only Vista (2, Insightful)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413799)

Maybe they are trying to convince people to clean install when you have Vista by making it unreasonable to upgrade.

Re:Only Vista (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413829)

It turns out that those guesses that Windows makes ("Five hours remaining" actually means "Five seconds remaining") are actually going to become useful! Way to go, Microsoft! The Vista users were probably used to it, so a long upgrade time will be okay.

Re:Only Vista (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414119)

Yep. http://xkcd.com/612/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Only Vista (5, Insightful)

bigmaddog (184845) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413941)

After 14 years of living with Windows (holy pants, has it been that long?), I'm resigned to installing clean every few years whether there is a new OS or not - it's like a mini-upgrade I give myself, and best of all it's free (for very low values of own time and soul). Basically, in my experience, Windows is sort of like a giant ball of playdough rolling down a city street - it gets dirtier and heavier over time, less appealing and not so colourful, not to mention the used condoms and syringes it occasionally picks up, and so you need to break out a new batch of playdough once in a while. I'm not saying that this is right and that it's a reason to not get angry about these results, but can you imagine the tubs of crap that are being sloshed around in the bowels of your computer when your two-year-old Vista install is being digested for 20h? Are you going to get a pretty result, all clean and good with everything working? Will you be able to uninstall something that didn't quite make it when all is said and done?

Just start clean, it's easier on the conscience...

Re:Only Vista (2, Funny)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414177)

I built a 64-bit Vista box last year for gaming and it hasn't picked up lint. The reason? Everything other than gaming goes in an XP virtual machine. I've rolled back to the snapshot, applied patches, retaken the snapshot, and then reinstalled apps 3 times in the VM, but the main box has stayed minty fresh.

Re:Only Vista (1)

mrdoogee (1179081) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414209)

That may be the best windows metaphor I've ever heard.

And it accurately describes why I always do clean installs instead of updates. Its become such a part of my standard procedure that when I upgraded my Mac to 10.6, I did a clean install even though I've never had a bit of trouble with upgrading OS X.

But you bet your bippy I'll do a clean install with Vista -> Win7. My only regret is Steam will have to re-download my games, which will probably take a day or so.

Re:Only Vista (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413945)

clean install is going to scare a lot of the old softies. Just wait for the uproar when "xp compatibility mode" doesn't run half of their crap, too.

Oh well, at least MS is doing to vista what they should have done what, 5 years ago?

"this process may take a long time" (1)

mrhide (137659) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413697)

gives a whole new meaning to a microsoft minute!

and of course... why would y

Its deliberate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413703)

They deliberately make it slow so the OS seems faster afterwards.

What's a day (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413707)

when you consider the lifetime of misery that follows?

Re:What's a day (4, Funny)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413849)

What's a day when you consider the lifetime of misery that follows?

It's like the complete opposite of Linux: you spend a lifetime of misery trying to figure out what the fuck is going on, and then get to use it for 20 hours before you realise you need to use something that only runs in Windows.

Mid-end?! Really?! (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413709)

This reminds me of a funny bit from "The Three Stooges" that goes something like this:

Moe: I'll take this end
Larry: I'll take that end
Curly: ...and I'll take the end in the middle!

Just so you know, there isn't an "end" in the middle. There is "low-end" and "high-end" but there is no "mid-end." That would be medium level, mid-grade or average or something else.

Mid-end is almost as jarring to the grammar nodes of my brain as "incentivize."

Re:Mid-end?! Really?! (4, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413817)

I bet you're the kind of person who goes to Burger King and orders 2 Whoppers Junior, aren't you?

Re:Mid-end?! Really?! (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413895)

No, I order from the dollar menu to get the same food mass for half the price of the regular menu items. I like the double cheese burgers and their flame broiled goodness...

Re:Mid-end?! Really?! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414225)

Huh... a reverse whoosh.

Re:Mid-end?! Really?! (1)

J4 (449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414189)

I'll bet that really tics you off when yer at work :P

Re:Mid-end?! Really?! (1)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413981)

Mid-range I believe is the common one. Of course if you only want one end you can have entry level instead of low end.

How many times do I have to tell you, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413735)

*never* upgrade Windows! Always start from a clean disk!

Re:How many times do I have to tell you, (5, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414033)

It's not funny, it's true. I've worked at MS, and while I personally tested a whole bunch of install scenarios (for a specific bundled app), upgrade always got short shrift and had the most problems. Yes, the most egregious errors were addressed, but most of the intensive testing happens on clean installs. Back up your files and install clean, unless you're really interested in finding all the corner cases.

Re:How many times do I have to tell you, (4, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414057)

Funny? Sorry, but I am an AVID windows user and I would never ever recommend "upgrading" to a newer version. To be honest, the upgrade procedure DOES work and it works quite well, but if you're going to change your OS, you may as well start fresh and avoid the potential errors that sometimes (although rarely) do crop up.
This also applies to service packs, I learned that lesson the hard way when XP SP2 was released. I don't know if anyone remembers but a fresh, clean install of XP with SP2 slipstreamed onto the installation disk worked perfectly well, but those who installed SP2 on top of Vanilla XP or XP SP1 ran into some very strange problems with program compatibility and such.

Re:How many times do I have to tell you, (3, Insightful)

Karellen (104380) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414185)

Until Microsoft can get Windows to upgrade cleanly from one release to another, it'll never be ready for the desktop.

No that's not true. (1)

tbgreve (857544) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413739)

You can upgrade from XP.

Re:No that's not true. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413857)

But, i won't.

Re:No that's not true. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414127)

You can upgrade from XP.

I upgraded from XP years ago when I installed Linux.

FUD (2, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413747)

Installing win7 from a usb stick on a medium computer took me 20mins or so maybe a little less. What is the point of bringing this up. Its like.
'Well the ferrari enzo is pretty shitty. It's 0~60 really drops when it has bare tires and is driving up a 70 degree slope in the rain.' (Car analogy just for you guys.)

If it will likely never happen that way, who gives a flying fuck?

Re:FUD (3, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413847)

Installing win7 from a usb stick on a medium computer took me 20mins or so maybe a little less. What is the point of bringing this up. Its like. 'Well the ferrari enzo is pretty shitty. It's 0~60 really drops when it has bare tires and is driving up a 70 degree slope in the rain.' (Car analogy just for you guys.) If it will likely never happen that way, who gives a flying fuck?

Since when do they distribute Windows 7 Retail on a USB stick? This article is not FUD, it is the recorded time from installing from a DVD-ROM drive.

Re:FUD (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413973)

Modern DVD drives read at ~32MB/s, which is pretty hard to get on your average USB flash drive. Theoretical top end would be ~50MB/s (due to usb overhead), and most flash drives do NOT hit that-- check newegg reviews for some of the faster drives to see what is considered fast.

I dont think it will take much longer from DVD, and will possibly be faster.

Re:FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414235)

Ahem, drive speed is not all about sequential read speed.

access time for random access read speed is important also, and this is where flash based storage will slaughter CD/DVD. They are at least an order of magnitude (possibly two) faster in this aspect.

Re:FUD (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414071)

On decidedly antiquated hardware.

Re:FUD (0, Redundant)

flintmecha (1134937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413897)

I agree, but this is Slashdot, and the subject is Winbl0w$$$$ (or however the cool kids are typing it these days). You should know that logic flies out the window if it means there's an opportunity to bash anything Microsoft related and circle-jerk about how horrible Windows supposedly is.

Re:FUD (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413997)

Winbl0w$$$$ (or however the cool kids are typing it these days)

You know, I haven't seen a lot of derogatory spellings of Microsoft or Windows on Slashdot in a long while. Except in posts that declaim the practice. Maybe it's time to follow your own advice, eh?

Re:FUD (4, Informative)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414135)

Offtopic: As a professional Canadian I would like to point out that 'eh' does not need to get separated from the other words by a comma. It plays nicely with the rest of the sentence. In fact it works more like punctuation than a word.
It can of course replace commas:
"See that guy eh he's a hoser."

Or question marks:
"Hes crazy eh"

And of course bewilderment:
"EH?!"

Re:FUD (1)

moogsynth (1264404) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413913)

So now Microsoft spread FUD about their own products? Colour me impressed.

20 hours? Is it a floppy disk set? (1)

axl917 (1542205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413753)

Reminds me, some dusty shelf around here still has the 13-disk win95 set, I'm sure. From the dark days of CD-ROM being an option and not a standard.

Re:20 hours? Is it a floppy disk set? (1)

fataugie (89032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413925)

HA! 13 disks....is that all? Pansie!

I have the 21 disk install of OS 2.1 in the closet

Weep for me

Patience (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413765)

I'm still waiting for the "WOW" to start!

What is the cost to a business ... (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413775)

of having the CEO's PC out of use for a day ... or any one else's for that matter ?

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413881)

The question you should be asking is, 'What is the cost to you, as the IT guy, to spend all evening upgrading the CEO's PC so he won't have any down time during the day?' At least, that's been my experience over the past decade

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413885)

Depends on how much the CEO makes, and on whether the business is crazy enough to take the CEO's only working PC and perform an upgrade on it, rather than having someone build him a duplicate PC with the updated software on it.

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413917)

Hey, maybe they can do it over the weekend!

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413927)

You don't "upgrade" your CEO's PC. You buy a new one, you build it, you rip an image of his/her old PC, load it on a VM and copy what you need. You stop by his/her office the next morning and show them the new PC, introduce them to any new OS functionality they'll need to become familiar with, and ensure that all of their applications and data exist and work.

If anything goes wrong, you still have the VM of the old machine you can fire up on any box to keep them working till you fix the issue.

If you are running off with the CEO's PC for 20 hours (especially over business hours), you should fear for your job's security.

-Rick

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (1)

flintmecha (1134937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413991)

What CEO has 650 GB of data on his machine?

Re:What is the cost to a business ... (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414009)

Why on earth would you consider doing an upgrade install for a CEO, especially during business hours? Turn on roaming profiles, order new computer, done.

What? (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413785)

"Microsoft wanted to make sure that an upgrade from Vista SP1 to Windows 7 was within a five percent threshold faster than an upgrade from Vista SP1 to Vista SP1."

What does that mean?

Re:What? (1)

tomknight (190939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413811)

Please ignore that. I've just read the bottom of the article:

"There's been a lot of commotion about the mention of the upgrade from "Vista SP1 to Vista SP1." This is not a typo: while it is obviously not something that is typically done, but it can be used as a repair method: the upgrade process reinstalls the operating system by replacing any corrupt and modified system files. In this case, the method was used so as to have something to compare against in the benchmarking process. The reason "Vista SP2 to Vista SP2" was not used instead is simple: Vista SP2 wasn't out yet when Windows 7 was in development."

Live and learn...

This is why ... (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413793)

.. the Windows 7 Drinking Game [today.com] exists. Let's add:

* One shot every thirty minutes the install or upgrade process takes.
* One shot if you have to start over.
* Drain the bottle if it ATE YOUR GODDAMN DATA.

Any others to add?

Re:This is why ... (2, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413935)

Just to remind you of Windows XP SP2:

* A tiny sip for each time you have to confirm that yes, that file should also be upgraded, even if the upgrade routine itself just blocked it.

It took me a full working day just to install a service pack.

Note: Even though it states a "tiny sip", this one is guaranteed to ruin your liver if this "feature" is still there.

Is it me? (1)

fataugie (89032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413809)

Why would documents, music, video...etc add anything to an upgrade process? Shouldn't be system files and drivers that are affected? What exactly is done with a document or a music file that would require touching during an OS upgrade?

Re:Is it me? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414115)

Most likely its because of Windows 7's new "libraries" feature, that restructures all of your documents and stuff.

I may have to switch... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413815)

My gentoo upgrade took 2 weeks...Windows 7 may be faster...

Not a typo? (1)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413825)

the process will take a bit 1220 minutes. That second extreme is not a typo:

Actually, I think that is a typo. Either the phrase a bit shouldn't be there, or it should read something like a bit longer --.

Re:Not a typo? (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414137)

I think they meant "about", typed it as "a bot" or something and a spellchecker corrected it to "a bit".

Or maybe they're just plain fucking stupid...

Archlinux (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413839)

Hmm, I've never lost more than an evening upgrading Archlinux (if there was some hard problem after the update), and that happened only a few times, usually you lose ZERO time upgrading because it happens in the background and requires no reboot.

understanding worst-case-scenarios (2, Funny)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413841)

You could never get laid ever again in your entire lifetime!

Actually this one was quite a realistic scenario ... let's try another one:
You could be eaten by a grue within the next minute!

Upgrade FTL (3, Interesting)

Zantac69 (1331461) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413843)

I have never been a fan of "upgrades" as they tend to be a bit buggy. I did a clean install of Windows 7 x64 the other day just to try it out over XP and I have to say that I am impressed (well over XP that is). It did not take too long, but then again, I would click something...go back downstairs to watch football with my tasty beverage...go upstairs at the break...rinse and repeat.

I know "upgrades" are usually cheaper - but maybe they should just give you a rebate (or immediate discount) when you send in your previous licence number - and force you to do a clean install. To help those who are not so knowlegeable - maybe you include an idiots guide to backing up files using an external HD/DVD or something like that. That should be enough for even the moderately technical person. For the idiot - maybe you include a token voucher ($20 or so) that can be used at a big box partner to help cover the cost of the upgrade for you and recover your data.

Just a thought...

Re:Upgrade FTL (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414161)

You can perform a clean install, even with an "upgrade" copy. I think it takes some fiddling, though.

Have you seen that ad with the girl's powerpoint? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413855)

Funnier and better than a whole year of useless Slashdot troll posts.

I think Slashdot will be able to look back on the Windows 7 launch proud in the knowledge that you've done absolutely nothing to stop the adoption of Windows 7.

Re:Have you seen that ad with the girl's powerpoin (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414123)

No we haven't seen it. Care to find it on YouTube and post a link here?

you FAIL 1t! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413887)

any doubt:E FreeBSD my effoRts were

This transparency is a good thing (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413893)

So many companies bury the results of bad-for-marketing tests.

Remebering NT4 (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413919)

Awww memories. Seems like an eternity ago it took me near 20 hours to do an NT4 install because the installer didn't like the motherboard's cache so I had to turn it off to do the install....on each and every PC in the department. Of course several failed numerous times and had to be reinstalled. No, I think I'll be doing only fresh installs of Win7...if any.

Re:Remebering NT4 (1)

fataugie (89032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414031)

Ah yes....I also have fond memories of doing an MS Small Business Server 4.5 install (based on NT 4) on a Compaq Proliant 6500 and getting 3/4 of the way into it only to find out there's a bug in the install.

For those not familiar...the install was a stringing together of each product's setup program passing install parameters along to try and automate the process.

Wow. What a pain in the ass.

Of course, by this time I've forgetten the exact error.
I just remember burning DAYS trying to get that F&CKING install to work.

Clean install (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413933)

This is why you always do a clean install, and organize your system such that this is not a difficult thing to do.

Of course, assembling a list of programs to install in addition to dealing with your data is a lot more difficult than the apt-get command I have to streamline the process, but a big advantage of reinstalling is all the random cruft programs that disappear.

"the process will take a bit 1220 minutes" (5, Funny)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413943)

"the process will take a bit 1220 minutes"
OMG, if the clean install is something like 4.8GB [overclock.net] then that would be 4.13175854 * 10^10 bits, times 1220 minutes/bit equals 95 840 997.1 years!

Time for business to go mac on the desktop. (-1, Offtopic)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 4 years ago | (#29413977)

There is no reason why any business user cannot get their work done on a mac desktop or laptop these days and modern iMacs have a larger screen with higher resolution than most typical PC desktops. Snow Leopard now includes Exchange 2007 support for email, contacts and appointments. Any legacy apps that you cannot find an equivalent on OS X right now could be run through citrix desktop client for OS X. Not only will they avoid the headaches of having to keep up to date on their virus definitions but they also will not have to worry about their laptop working with projector for their presentation. Execs get the added bonus of being able to create presentations with more polish with Keynote than you can accomplish out of the box with Powerpoint.

Re:Time for business to go mac on the desktop. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414231)

There is no reason why any business user cannot get their work done on a mac desktop or laptop these days and modern iMacs have a larger screen with higher resolution than most typical PC desktops. Snow Leopard now includes Exchange 2007 support for email, contacts and appointments. Any legacy apps that you cannot find an equivalent on OS X right now could be run through citrix desktop client for OS X.

Okey dokey, I'll tell my boss that when we try to install our accounting software on our shiny news Macs and find we can't get technical support.

User Profile? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29413987)

Who stores 650 GB of data in their user profile?
But yeah on a HD with only 42000RPM, yeah it might take awhile.

The upgrading process of win7 is completely new and it is done in this steps:
1) gathers settings and users files and moves them to a temp folder
2) completely delete all previous OS files (it saves them to be able to roll back if something goes wrong)
3) Clean install of windows 7
4) imports all the files from step 1

Mine installed in about 13 minutes upgrading from Vista with about 53GB of data in the user file, I don't think I will do an upgrade but rather a fresh install when Win7 comes out.

How many copies of the OS did they install.... (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414013)

... because the install process didn't tell you to remove the disk on the final reboot?

So does MacOSX, so what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414027)

My MacOS X Snow Leopard upgrade process took 22 HOURS because it decided to back up the whole FileVault container before proceeding. This despite the fact that according to TimeMachine, backups were at an OK status before. Not that big of a deal really. Why so serious?

"mid" is not "end" (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414037)

Microsoft calls 'high-end hardware'.... on mid-end hardware ....the same test with low-end hardware

Now; you can have the "high end", and the "low end". And in the middle, you have -- "mid-range". The middle is not an "end". If you mean "speed" or "quality" or "power" when you write "end", use those words.

Only a day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414073)

Isn't that amazing, considering that the Haiku project took 8 years of development to release an official R1 alpha?

Oh, you mean one day to INSTALL?

Shame on you, Microsoft!

Why does more data mean a longer install? (3, Insightful)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414085)

What the hell is the upgrade doing to all that data... identifying all the non-DRM'd illegal media and sending a list of it to Microsoft?

I don't get it.

It took me a day to go to to Snow Leopard! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414091)

It took me a day to go to Snow Leopard

1. Back up system
2. Install Snow Leopard
3. Do a "migrate" of my old data to the new OS
4. Discover that all my apps crashed!
5. Restore the system to the backup I made in step 1
6. Repeat process when the .1 release came out

undetermined (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414101)

poorly written and planned article about an extreme software upgrade scenario, which any intelligent admin in their right mind would only be preforming because they were getting paid to do so, and who previously lost the argument of talking sense into the Luddite who ordered this nonsense situation
 
...I am glad that the article pointed out the obvious: DON'T UPGRADE! I'm not saying don't use Win7, (cause, for a Windows OS, I like it) I'm saying don't upgrade to an OS that, architecturally, is so different.
 
Make it a new install!!

More data would have been nice (1)

Zen-Mind (699854) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414105)

It would have been nice to also include the time it takes to do a clean install of Vista on the low/med/high end machine and also a clean install of Win7. The benefit of those extra numbers would be to know if one should go Retail/OEM vs Upgrade for Win7.

KDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414109)

Upgrading from KDE3 to KDE4 took me a few days. "what about this colour.... where the heck is that setting gone? and how does it look when I put this widget there, and that one over there.... now let's use a different wallpaper... oh, now what if I move that widget again?"

Why does user data make a difference? (3, Interesting)

Karellen (104380) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414149)

WTF? According to the referenced MS blog post, the 650Gb is user data. Why in the world would upgrading your OS and installed apps depend on the amount of per-user data you had? Why is the system updater even bothering to look in the per-user directories?

Upgrade... (1)

Volda (1113105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414165)

Honestly Ive never had a upgrade from any os work correctly. If you know what you are doing then always do a clean install after backing up your data. If you dont know how to do it, pay someone who can or sit down and shut up.

The WOW(tm) starts in 1220 minutes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29414181)

See you then. Maybe.

Not impressed (1)

bja3569 (1466789) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414193)

I upgraded my dual core laptop 2GB of memory from Vista to Windows 7 last night, and I can say it was a very slow install! It took my computer a couple of hours to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Microsoft should be ashamed to release something that slow given their resources and money. I'm also a Ubuntu user and I have been very impressed with upgrade and install process there. Microsoft has to do better if they expect people to pay for their software and OS.

This is a suprise why? (1)

Drummergeek0 (1513771) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414201)

The data size was 650GB, that takes a few hours on its own to copy on most systems, and you are copying it twice. It is no suprise that it took that long, plus you have to take into account the time it takes to install each program that was on the previous install. Running XP on my development machine takes a good 8-10 hours to get everything fully installed and setup. Not to mention running Windows Update.

30 minutes for clean setup for x64 version (1)

JoeSchmoe007 (1036128) | more than 4 years ago | (#29414237)

It took me 30 minutes for clean setup for x64 version on Core 2 Duo 2.1 Ghz, new SATA hard drive (relatively fast).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>