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!

Wait For Windows 7 SP1, Support Firm Warns Users

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the sounds-familiar dept.

Windows 433

CWmike writes "Users should wait for Microsoft to work out the bugs in Windows 7 before jumping on the new OS, computer support company Rescuecom said on Friday. 'From the calls we're getting, as well as our own experience in the past with all Microsoft's operating systems, we're recommending that people stick with their time-tested OS and wait for the dust to settle,' said Josh Kaplan, president of Rescuecom. Citing a litany of reasons, ranging from the risk of losing data during an upgrade to tough economic times, Kaplan urged Windows users to put off upgrading to Windows 7 or buying a new PC with the operating system pre-installed. 'There are some compelling reasons for both businesses and home users to move to Windows 7,' Kaplan said, 'so we're saying "just wait for a bit."' Upgrading an existing machine — whether it's running the eight-year-old Windows XP or the much newer Vista — is particularly risky, he added, especially if users haven't taken time to make a full backup before they migrate their machines. Some users have found that out first hand. Among the top subjects on Microsoft's support forum is one that has put some PCs into an endless reboot loop when their owners tried to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Microsoft has not yet come up with a solution that works for all the users who have reported the problem, sparking frustration."

cancel ×

433 comments

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

It will be different this time (5, Funny)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#29929997)

Trust me. [youtube.com]

Re:It will be different this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930035)

Windows 2?

Re:It will be different this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930101)

Yes windows 2. It came before Windows 3. I didn't have any PC boxes until windows 3.11 so I can't say what "problems" it had.

Re:It will be different this time (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930325)

The first version of Windows (don't think it was called "Windows 1", but I could be wrong - it was a long time ago) could multitask two DOS programs. Either Windows 2 or Windows 3 broke that... for good reason, but still I remember that causing an issue or two.

FWIW my favorite part of that ad is Hodgeman's "Miami Vice" look at the end.

Re:It will be different this time (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930455)

"Windows 1" is kinda of like the big bang, no one is really sure how it happened.

Re:It will be different this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930573)

I think they skipped Windows 3/3.11 because those generally delivered what was promised.

Re:It will be different this time (-1, Offtopic)

alen (225700) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930237)

I read some mac forums because I have an iPhone and apple crap is just as buggy. The latest problem on the new iMacs is screen flickering and extreme chopiness when playing flash content. People who boot into windows via boot camp say the problem never comes up in windows

Re:It will be different this time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930319)

I read some mac forums because I have an iPhone and apple crap is just as buggy. The latest problem on the new iMacs is screen flickering and extreme chopiness when playing flash content. People who boot into windows via boot camp say the problem never comes up in windows

All OSes have bugs (read the Ubuntu forums for verification), that's what the forums is for, although I would still maintain that Apple (or Ubuntu, once set-up) needs less baby sitting - especially for the computer illiterate who are apt to fuck things up royally.

I've been running Windows 7 since July, and while I like it a lot compared to previous Windows, I just been running a registry cleaner with a ton of results. I don't get malware/spyware as much but the babysitting to get it back up to speed is quite annoying - I don't really have to do this on a *nix system. (I wish they just got rid of the registry, period).

Re:It will be different this time (3, Insightful)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930757)

Something to think about:
Registry cleaners have a huge incentive to be ridiculously oversensitive. They have almost exactly zero incentive to be competent and intelligent about what gets labeled as 'registry cruft'. Who's gonna pay for or download a reg cleaner that says 'nah, this is mostly clean, just a bit of stuff from an old trialware software to remove'?

Re:It will be different this time (0, Troll)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930493)

I read some mac forums because I have an iPhone and apple crap is just as buggy. The latest problem on the new iMacs is screen flickering and extreme chopiness when playing flash content.

I have that problem on Ubuntu 9.04.

Re:It will be different this time (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930691)

I have that problem on Slashdot 2.0

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930473)

These Mac ads remind me of a politician who has nothing good to say about his own policies and platform, so he spends his time badmouthing the other candidates. I make it a point never to vote for those kinds of politicians.

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

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930553)

so basically you dont vote

It's hard, isn't it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930595)

Those ads are so brutally witty that it's hard to criticize them well. Keep plugging though, you'll find a way eventually. You could try "ancient history," or deflect with a Snow Leopard data loss question. "A mac is a PC" is a popular choice, as is market share envy or mac user arrogance.

Here, this one's easier. Give it a go. [youtube.com]

Re:It will be different this time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930537)

Or stupid people could just not upgrade, save all of their data and do a fresh install. Which is what everyone should do anyway. Upgrading from a previous version of a Windows OS is asking for trouble.

Say what? (5, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930037)

Wait... Windows 7 is the vista service pack.

-jcr

Re:Say what? (3, Funny)

joaommp (685612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930179)

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

Re:Say what? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930269)

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

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

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

And I still can't make Vista work with several of my friends' shiny new /preloaded/ computers' wireless cards. Is there an inverse ndiswrapper?

Re:Say what? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930415)

Windows 7 is Vista SP2, SP1 was released awhile ago.

Re:Say what? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930475)

Ah sorry about that, I get confused sometimes.

Pichu evolves into pikachu evolves into richu, I think.

Re:Say what? (4, Informative)

Starayo (989319) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930569)

Pikachu evolves into Raichu. You Pokénoob.

And only with a thunderstone. :P

Re:Say what? (5, Funny)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930771)

ah, you kids and your damned music...

Re:Say what? (4, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930505)

Actually, Vista is on SP2 currently... so you should be calling Windows 7 "Vista SP3".

Re:Say what? (1)

joaommp (685612) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930555)

Well, I was unable to make 7 work with the Ericsson F3507g 3G card that came integrated with the laptop... for which the right drivers were also preloaded on the 7 instalation. XP and Vista actually worked better there. I hate hardware manufacturers... I really do. And I believe I'll still sue a few more. Compaq - check, Fujitsu - check.

Wireless Connections (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930409)

Maybe it's my Lenovo, but when it comes to wireless connections, If I try to connect via the "Access Connections" (the tray icon with the vertical bars) then go through the "Find Wan" push button, the "Connect" button stays grayed out even if the network is available. To connect with Vista, I have to go through the regular network program (the tray icon with the two monitors with the little world icons) to connect. I just think it's definitely a shortcoming in the UI design at least to have these two different approaches for connections and yet, only one works.

Excuse my old fashioned way of calling UI elements since I haven't designed or written a UI since my win98 and OS/2 days.

Re:Say what? (4, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930195)

Fuck it, we're waiting for Windows 8.

Re:Say what? (5, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930277)

Fuck it, we're waiting for Windows 8

Also known as "Windows for Godot".

-jcr

Re:Say what? (2, Funny)

jo42 (227475) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930199)

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

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930391)

Wait... Windows 7 is the vista service pack.

-jcr

Yes, it is the "real" Vista service pack. The driver model, the kernal, etc., are the same. It is just a cleaned up Vista and it is GREAT. I have had no problems since RC1. Don't believe the wait. It is not necessary.

Ok well I disagree (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930041)

I say get Windows 7 now, if you have a reason. If you have a new computer get it with 7 for sure. Get it for an old computer if there's a reason you want it (like DirectX 10/11 support or something) and your computer is reasonable (at least a dual core with 2GB RAM).

We have been deploying it here at work and it works great. It is a solid and fast OS. App compatibility is extremely good, even with our squirelly engineering apps.

But then seriously, how is this guy's story "news for nerds" any more than my anecdote? I would think nerds would be capable enough of doing testing to determine if 7 is right for their environment and then deploying it if appropriate.

Re:Ok well I disagree (5, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930201)

That's all well and good, but make sure you have a functional, repeat, functional and I'll repeat again, functional backup.

If you trust your backups, you can do anything. Install Windows ME if you like.

But for bog's sake CHECK YOUR BACKUPS.

This message will be repeated in 10 minutes.

Of course (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930265)

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

Re:Of course (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930449)

Besides, disks are cheap, just install to a brand new one. Or at least make a duplicate and install the upgrade onto that.

So you disagree -- with Microsoft? (4, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930333)

But then seriously, how is this guy's story "news for nerds" any more than my anecdote?

Because the is a Knowledge Base article (KB975253) [microsoft.com] about this problem?

Re:Ok well I disagree (5, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930375)

Yes and no.

While Windows 7 is less sucky than Vista (and is roughly comparable to XP SP3), simply plopping it in doesn't always make sense.

Most enterprises (mine included) are still just barely testing the things, and the help desk is still trying to determine what the gotchas will be (not only with specific in-house apps, but in general). As a group (like so many others out there) who held out with XP, there's going to be a shitload of user re-training that you simply cannot avoid, unless you really hate your help desk (which is likely why you don't hear Microsoft claiming that training costs are gonna inflate one's TCO these days, eh?) From a cold-hearted BOFH standpoint, it's much easier to let the users get that training at home for awhile first, on their personal equipment, if for no other reason than to minimize the re-training costs you'll have to spend at work.

I will be the absolute last human being stupid enough to demand that all the relatively new (and even not-so-new) multi-million-dollar tools out on the production floor get bumped from XP to Windows 7. I doubt even the tool vendors would have the temerity to ask for the massive downtime required to do such a thing. Move away from manufacturing, and you still have a whole lot of hospitals, service orgs, and etc who will also refuse to bump their machines and tools up as well.

Sure - XP Mode is great for a lot of things, I cna admit that. OTOH, most home users aren't going to have that option, and most small businesses are going to require a whole lot of persuading to buy an XP mode streaming app server for distributed apps.

At home? Meh - I have exactly one Windows machine - the missus' XP laptop. I figure I'll worry about that when I get her a new one next year sometime... and I'm almost willing to bet that I'll still be installing XP on that one - less than a week after she gets it. I doubt she's going to be the only one who does that.

One final question that's going to be asked a LOT by typical users: "Unless/until app makers start making Windows 7 -only apps, why would anyone waste their time with the upgrade, instead of simply waiting until the next time they buy their Dell, HP, whatever? " Security? Meh - they'll claim their home router firewall and sundry for that.

Okay, one more: Too many folks out there have jacked/pirated/whatever copies of XP installed (courtesy of friends, relatives, TPB, whoever), and will likely wait for a jacked/pirated/whatever copy of Windows 7 to come out.

Sorry... I'm just not seeing the rush to convert just yet, save for those who have no real choice (that is, typical users buying new computers).

/P

Re:Ok well I disagree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930589)

Seriously, what organization does not run a test machine or virtualization software before deploying an OS to mission critical machines? I remembered before we jumped into Vista from my previous company, we made sure that it would support all our apps as well as machine configuration. This was very easy to do by having it installed on machine and we allowed everybody to make it crash under normal circumstances. Good to say, we never made it crash under normal operating constraints and upgraded some of our machines to Vista, we stayed with XP though for the people that needed to use specific legacy apps that were developed to run on only XP.

Re:Ok well I disagree (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930781)

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

They always say this (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930051)

What's new? This is always the recommendation. It has never not been the recommendation to jump on a Windows product as soon as it's been released by a support firm. Is it just posted here to give Slashdot readers a space to vent their Windows 7 thoughts on?

Re:They always say this (1)

maugle (1369813) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930307)

Yes.

But why? (2, Insightful)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930057)

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

When SP1 comes out (which I expect will arrive probably Summer 2010), I expect to be a "roll up" of the monthly security fixes plus additional driver support. This isn't like SP1 of Windows Vista, which had a LOT of bug fixes to correct a number of memory handling issues.

Re:But why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930103)

FUD, that's why. Windows 7 is more stable than Windows XP (and in my experience so far, OS X 10.6).

Re:But why? (4, Interesting)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930323)

While Windows 7 is stable, how you can say it's more stable than XP?

I haven't seen XP crash in years.

Re:But why? (0, Troll)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930401)

I haven't seen XP crash in years.

Let me trump your anecdote with my own anecdote.

A colleague of mine bought a new laptop with Vista on it about a month ago. It blue-screened when new and it continues to blue-screen now.

Re:But why? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930443)

It might have trumped it had he been talking about Vista. Re-read it dumbshit.

Re:But why? (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930191)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:But why? (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930369)

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

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

Re:But why? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930525)

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

Re:But why? (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930619)

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

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

Re:But why? (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930451)

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

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

Re:But why? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930503)

The only thing we need are proper Windows 7 drivers

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

      I've always asked myself why the hell a mouse driver has to be 50 MEGAbytes, a keyboard driver 80 MEGAbytes, and don't even get me started on sound and video drivers...

     

Re:But why? (5, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930549)

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

soulskill sucks (0, Troll)

Nimey (114278) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930059)

Come on, were you just waiting for someone to say this so you could post it?

Smells like FUD... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930077)

While no initial release is perfect (and nor is any currently deployed system), this seems like FUD to me. Win7 is small enough of a difference from Vista (and that's a good thing) that there's relatively few surprises switching to it. There's no major driver model change and real world app compatibility testing has been in progress for almost a year now.

They say this every time... (4, Insightful)

masdog (794316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930097)

I hear this every time a new version of Windows comes out. While it may be good policy for businesses to buy time to test the OS, develop training materials, and fix any application problems, it isn't as big of a deal for consumers, and articles like this come off as anti-Microsoft FUD.

There is always risk in upgrading to a new operating system, especially if you don't have much experience with it. That shouldn't stop you from waiting for the service pack.

Re:They say this every time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930403)

And who is to say that the service pack doesn't introduce other issues. Then they should wait for SP2 to upgrade to SP1......

Re:They say this every time... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930421)

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

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

There is always risk in upgrading to a new operating system

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

Re:They say this every time... (1)

Dartz-IRL (1640117) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930465)

Yeah, It's the common thing. Of course, if everybody waited until something had been proved to be safe/possible, before going ahead and doing it, why would anyone ever do anything? We'd still be living in caves, using MS-DOS.

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

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930119)

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

1.) SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 both have known compatibility issues. SQL 2005 will ALWAYS fail an upgrade to SP3 under Win 7 without a reg hack.
2.) We've had a ton of issues with other things like: Drive mappings, printer compatibility issues, memory leaks from Win 7 processes, just to name a few.

I agree with the FA to the point that if you have an intelligent IT dept who has the time and resources to debug and work these issues AND have a need or value added motivation to upgrade to Win 7 then you should do so, otherwise you should just let the "dust" settle and then migrate.

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

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930541)

1.) SQL 2005 and SQL 2008 both have known compatibility issues. SQL 2005 will ALWAYS fail an upgrade to SP3 under Win 7 without a reg hack.

I have been able to install SP3 for SQL 2005 on exactly one (of 5) Windows 2003/2003R2 servers. That one success was a clean, fresh install that had nothing else on it. Every other system STILL fails to install SP3, after the 3rd (or 4th?) release of SP3. I don't blame that on the OS, I blame it on the patch. Or maybe on SQL 2005 itself, I don't know. But it isn't specific to Win7, at any rate.

Re:I work for a software development company... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930793)

I installed SQL 2005 and then upgraded it to SP3 without any big problems on Windows 7.

The first attempt to install SP3 failed, but I just re-ran the patch and it worked the second time. Its definitely a twitchy patch.

It works fine for techies (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930153)

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

Waiting for SP1 isn't a bad idea if you are not a techie. For those of us who are techies, bring it. W7 works great !!!! Unless I have to print something, which I still can, but I can't get any advanced functionality like duplex printing.

C'mon (1)

mzeb (568373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930171)

There's always one. There are enough information providers on the net that you can always find one saying what you want to write an article about. Sorry, smells like FUD.

Don't buy 1.0 of anything (2, Insightful)

cryfreedomlove (929828) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930185)

Purchasing version 1.0 of anything is always an act of vanity rather than practicality.

Examples include:

Cars (Tesla?)
Phones, including Droid
Operating Systems
Girl friends
etc, etc.

Re:Don't buy 1.0 of anything (1)

rantingkitten (938138) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930297)

You purchase your girlfriends?

Re:Don't buy 1.0 of anything (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930373)

You purchase your girlfriends?

      I suspect it's more like renting by the quarter hour...

Time Tested OS? (1)

SierraPete94 (1641111) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930187)

They recommend "people stick with their time-tested OS and wait for the dust to settle". Would that be BSD or DOS 6?

Re:Time Tested OS? (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930343)

I see no reason to upgrade from VAX/VMS...

Re:Time Tested OS? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930463)

You are going to positively shocked when you take a look at the hardware that is available for $1,000 today.

Re:Time Tested OS? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930545)

LOL I heard some guy bragging that he bought a chip with 2 GB of memory on it. I laughed so hard. Obviously the guy is lying, I mean, we had to build a whole new wing when we added 128k to the system...

Re:Time Tested OS? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930599)

I see no reason to upgrade from VAX/VMS...

How about upgrading VMS?

April Fools! (1)

DoninIN (115418) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930217)

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

Too Late (1)

Jesterace (914041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930235)

Too late I'm already running 7 Ultimate x64 :/

ok (1)

silentace (992647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930255)

"risk of losing data during an upgrade to tough economic times" So wait for SP1 because you're technically unsavvy? or because you don't have enough money to live the way you want?

Sure! I bet SP1 will definitely fix both of those problems. Seriously though, WTF issues does SP1 need to fix? I have been using RC 7100 for over 4 months now with little to absolutely no problems... what needs fixing?

Wow captain obvious.... (2, Insightful)

Jetrel (514839) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930273)

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

Some things change... (4, Informative)

dark_requiem (806308) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930289)

I'll be the first to admit that, in the past, this is exactly the recommendation I follow. However, I've used the beta, the RC, and I'm typing this on RTM, with an official install disk and license sitting next to me waiting until I have time to reinstall everything. Win7 has been rock-solid stable for me (aside from Creative's shite XFi drivers) through every version I've tried. If you are aware of any incompatible software that you need to run, then by all means wait (or run a VM), but otherwise, I have yet to see any reason to wait for a service pack on this one. If someone could provide some concrete reasons to wait, I'd take this article seriously, but otherwise, FUD.

As to upgrading, when has it ever been a good idea to perform a Windows upgrade installation? If you've been running any old version of Windows for 6 months or more, a fresh install is probably indicated anyway (although, I have been running RC on my home system since the day it came out, and I haven't had any Windows Rot yet, still runs as well as when I installed it). Backup your data, wipe the drive, and start from scratch. Bit of a pain in the ass, but that's pretty much a fact of life with Windows.

Re:Some things change... (1)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930487)

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

I'm smarter than Microsoft (3, Insightful)

Turbo_Button (1648215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930347)

"has put some PCs into an endless reboot loop when their owners tried to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. Microsoft has not yet come up with a solution that works for all the users who have reported the problem,"

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

Really? (1)

solid_liq (720160) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930357)

Gee, THANKS Captain Obvious! I don't know what we'd do without you!

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930477)

Agreed, it has been this way since windows 2000, always wait till sp1 comes out to really use it or put your users on it. Or if you're enough of a geek, rock out with your rooster out and play with windows 7.

As far as it being news:

Gee, THANKS Captain Obvious! I don't know what we'd do without you!

Bad economy angle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930371)

Maybe I'm missing something subtle, but what does have to with bugs in Win7?

Windows 7 SP1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930393)

Windows 7 is already Vista SP1.5...they haven't really added all that much to Vista to get 7. Why wait? Why not wait for Windows XVI, then...or just switch to OS X or Linux, if you're going to be that cynical.

Works okay for me. (4, Informative)

RatBastard (949) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930395)

The only problems I've had, and I only use my Windows box for games and keep my data on a server anyway, are
1: Quake 2 and derivatives do not run
2: My Turtle Beach surround sound USB headphones make Windows 7 bluescreen.
Otherwise everything I've tried on it works as well as it did under XP. I'm not happy with the new interface, but I remember not liking Windows XP when it first came out.

Re:Works okay for me. (2, Informative)

black88 (559855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930509)

Any chance that bluescreen is an "IRQL Not less or equal" error?
Is your proc a hyperthreading proc?

I had that problem for YEARS with Tascam's horrifyingly shit-awful US122 external "Pro Audio" sound module. Tascam's solution was to advise users to turn off hyperthreading in the bios. Fuck Tascam.

Quake 2 won't run? Is this with RTM release? And what do you mean by derivatives? What games? I want to test this out myself.

Endure Vista longer (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930405)

... .. ..... ..

NOT!

Windows 7 is nice. I like. Upgrade time.

Ubuntu 9.10 (0, Offtopic)

cm613 (1493893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930423)

The new Ubuntu version just came out. I upgraded right away and things are fine.

What is Windows 7? (1)

lightrush (1471807) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930459)

What is Windows 7?

stability? (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930479)

Look, unless you have an actual piece of hardware that is just flat-out incompatible, I don't think 'stability' is a reason to refuse to upgrade from XP or Vista to Windows 7. I used the beta for months on a laptop, and the only problems I had were waking up from sleep mode and from the screensaver kicking in. Once I swapped the beta out for the RC, I've had no problems at all except the fingerprint reader occasionally doesn't work, forcing me to type in the password to login. No biggie. For me, even the RC of Win7 has been more stable than XP SP3. YMMV, of course.

If you haven't upgraded the IE6 on your older Windows machine, stability is definitely not something you're worried about, so go for it.

upgrade? (1)

ballyhoo (158910) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930499)

So, given that upgrades from windows 2.0 to windows 3.0 were never supported, windows 3.1 to windows 95 didn't work at all, windows 95 to windows 98 mostly didn't work; windows 98 to XP was a fail city and XP to vista was disasterous, why on earth does anyone expect windows vista to windows 7 to have any chance of working?

Seriously, what person in their right mind would even _attempt_ an upgrade?

Same old Vista, different name. (2, Insightful)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930511)

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

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

Buying a new computer and getting Windows 7 is something else but to get rid of a functioning XP install in return for a world of pain? Im not even sure Vista users will get that much out of installing Windows 7 unless the install is 100% flawless (wich it looks like it never is).

Re:Same old Vista, different name. (1)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930729)

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

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

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

I couldn't agree less. I'm extraordinarily happy with how Win7 is performing on my systems, both at home and at work. I think anyone who isn't seeing benefits is either not looking for them, actively avoiding them, or running an underpowered system anyway.

I will say this - if you're running it with less than 2gb of memory, you might have issues. But frankly, I wouldn't run XP on a machine with less than 1gb, and with the improvements seen with 7, I think an additional gig of memory is a small price to pay.

Backup your data (1)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930539)

I set up dual boot on my PC the other week on a separate partition on a separate HDD (i have Vista 64 installed already, installed Windows 9 Professional)... and the partition decided to corrupt itself after 4 days (probably would have happened with any other OS, bad luck is bad luck).

I formatted the partition and using True Image, i restored the partition to the way it was after the clean install (AV/Office/FF/handful of favourite progs installed). This took all of 30 or so minutes... and it's running fine... I'd suggest alot of people aren't backing up data, and crying foul when something fails during an install, upgrade, or the likes...

Remember, if its important, back it up... :)

Re:Backup your data (1)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930579)

I made a typo... meant to say Windows 7 Professional... damned customers interrupting me :)

Re:Backup your data (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930721)

Punch em in the wallet!

In related news... (1)

pridkett (2666) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930559)

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

Seriously, this passes for news? One support firm says to wait until Windows 7 SP1? The same firm will probably say wait for Windows 7 SP2 once SP1 comes out. In fact, they'll probably caution people against Windows 7 SP1 because of the upgrade process (remember XP SP2 and SP3?). Also, have folks actually looked at this support firm that most people have never heard of? Their web page (http://www.rescuecom.com/) doesn't inspire the greatest confidence. Love the stock photos and the fact they say they'll hook me up with anything.

The fact is Windows 7 is one of the best operating systems from Microsoft ever*. It's solid, it works, it's fast, it's pretty, it has the best multimedia support of any OS, and like it or not, it's going to be the new standard. However, a legacy of bad decisions by partner companies, manufacturers, and even Microsoft has left existing systems with problems -- drivers with memory leaks, crapware, and the occasional security hole. Moving your grandma to Linux because Windows 7 had problems installing on her crapware loaded PC isn't the solution, nor is moving her to a Mac, plan9, haiku, inferno, *bsd, OS/2 warp, xenix, dr-dos, vms, minix, or system z.

Although, if you migrate your grandma to System Z please provide a writeup of how you managed to do it. I've been trying to get my grandma to understand the z/vm hypervisor for years...

* If it helps out, feel free to insert the phrase "Imma let you finish, but..." prior to this sentence

Pleased with Windows 7 (1)

QX-Mat (460729) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930583)

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

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

I'd like to think I know what I talk about when I talk about the desktop: I've tried QNX ("things work"), BeOS (50Mb of "everything works all at once, weee"), and various Linux GDMs - fvwm95 being "good enough" for me. I'm a part-time KDE fanboy too. I'm a Vista-hater, although I do put up with it on my laptop because I have to (came pre-installed/don't want a Linux laptop)

Prior to Windows 7 I ran XP64. I didn't upgrade to XP32 until after Win 98 was largely depreciated and support began to stop (for the first time), as Win 98 was "perfect" for me (so was Communicator 4.72, but that's another story). SP2 was out shortly after I upgraded to XP, so I didn't feel any of the pain people consistently remind me XP had. I upgraded to x64 a few months after it came out, (again missing pre XP SP1 problems since XP64 is Win 2003 + SP1) even though I couldn't use any wireless adaptors, I praised the Win 2003 'core' stability.

So... with all that: I like Windows 7... *BUT* I have a brand new 4-core, 6Gb, dual ATI beast to enjoy it with. My initial reason for buying it outright on preorder (£140!), and not going the student edition upgrade route (£38) was that I wanted the "Pro" edition for gaming, and another licence not an upgrade in situ copy (I've plenty of working license via my MSDNAA membership, but this year I don't have access to Windows because I've switched away from the Computing dept).

I also wanted to experience a newer OS that had multiple cores in mind. As an LWN reader and Con Kolivas fanboy, I knew I wasn't ready to move to a full Linux desktop: I don't want to configure my graphics card to work, and the new open source ATI drivers won't power my games like they do under Windows (I spent money on my graphics card, and I want to make use of it!).

I usually theme to Windows classic without exception, and did the same with Windows 7 until I decided I wanted a transparent taskbar - so although I've small icons, quick launch and zoomed out on my desktop for smaller icons (CTRL-mouse wheel everyone), I'm happy with the Windows 7 UK theme. The new Win-key short-cuts are pretty useful!

It's the little things I'm pleased with. The console defrag has a parallel option, and works great out of the box - I can defrag a HD and watch videos without *any* stuttering. The native h.264 codecs work well (although I haven't tested them much they were the 3rd thing I upgraded b/c of a TV Versity transcoding limitation - ie: upgraded to recent codecs/and TVV needs to be a "user" service etc).

I'm pleasantly surprised with the instantly available/stripped down Media Player: under Windows 7 it's x2 as fast to start as Media Player Classic - the only annoyance I have with it is how small the track bar is, and that I can't use space to pause or my mouse wheel for volume.

oooh time to go to the pub!

Don't wait. (5, Informative)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930639)

While I hate "Me too" posts as much as the next guy, I have to agree that this article is FUD for the management types. I installed 7 RTM as soon as it was available from TechNet, and haven't had problem one yet.

Well, I have one problem - it doesn't seem to connect to Windows 2000 Server shares, and it doesn't like my (very outdated) Samba network. Apparently it requires Samba 3.3 or higher. However, that aside, I have to say my existing PCs (original P4 3ghz, 3gb or 4gb memory) are noticeably snappier than they were with XP - granted, some of that may have been the accumulation of crud that happens with any windows installation. Clean installs are always speed-boosters.

Speaking of which - yeah, don't bother with an upgrade. With as cheap as USB drives (even USB HDs, not just flash) are these days, you have no real excuse for not doing a clean install. I'll be deploying Windows 7 starting in April to the 500+ workstations at my company, and every install will be a wipe & reinstall using Acronis TrueImage with a nice sysprep'ed image. All of the testing I've done so far has made me a happy camper and Win7 evangelist.

Prior releases... yeah, waiting for SP1 was always a good idea. Hell, we waited for XP SP2 before deploying it. I really think they've finally gotten this thing right.

But of course, I could be wrong.

why SP1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930661)

I'm waiting for Duke Nukem Forever before I install any Microsoft product on a system I own.

No no, we can't do that (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930681)

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

FUD FUD FUD FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29930699)

Total and utter bollocks. This A-tard clearly hasn't even bothered to install the OS, let alone test its stability. I've been running Windows 7 RC1 on both work and home systems since it came out and have not had any problems whatsoever. As soon as MSDN RTM came out it went on my workstation at work and I've yet to have a single problem. I pre-ordered Win7 Professional for home on the strength of the RC and I'm sitting here typing on my Win7 Pro RTM install and I'm still yet to have any problem.

This guy is an idiot and clearly wants to do nothing more than get some publicity. Tosser.

Help me out here... (0)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 4 years ago | (#29930783)

Windows iterations:

1.x
2.x
3.x (and WFW, still 3.x)
95 (I believe this is where they merged the NT kernel)
98
ME
XP
2K3
Vista
Win "7" (10th iteration)?

OK, leaving out 1.x and 2.x (3.x was where most people started after DOS...were 1 & 2 ever even released to consumers?) and NT = v4 as not generally available to home users, Windows "7" should still be #8. Did MS disown ME? I would.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?