Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install 420
Barence writes "Microsoft is imploring millions of Windows 7 beta testers to perform a clean install of the forthcoming Release Candidate, rather than upgrade from the beta. 'The reality is that upgrading from one pre-release build to another is not a scenario we want to focus on because it is not something real-world customers will experience,' the company claims on the Engineering Windows 7 blog. Those who attempt to install the Release Candidate over the beta will find their path blocked." I've read complaints that reviews of new Linux distros often focus too much on the installation process; Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.
installation process still counts (Score:5, Insightful)
Soft machines for testing (Score:5, Insightful)
We test a lot - we produce software. And all testing platforms are defined as soft, meaning that the platform is to be completely scrubbed before new systems tests or that they are literally soft, as in virtual machines.
Whether testing an OS or a complex app suite, this is the way to go. When the item under test is the operating system, only upgrade when it is the upgrade process itself that is being tested.
We got this from the hardware community - always KNOW your testbed.
So-called beta testers that have had no real exposure to the known disciplines of testing are - in my opinion - not testers at all.
That Microsoft is trying to specify test parameters is very good thing.
Not evil, business (Score:4, Insightful)
Since they announced this tidbit, people have been complaining about it... But it's just simple business. They -know- a clean install is the best way to go and it's still a pre-release product. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to require a free, pre-release product to be installed from scratch.
On the other hand, I'm sure glad I didn't try it on my PC, as I really don't need the hassle of a wipe and reinstall.
I have to think that future pre-release versions will have the same caveat, and the release version may as well. In that case, I'm content to just wait.
Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
I can understand this. The RC is coded to handle upgrading from a Windows XP or Vista installation, it's not coded to handle upgrading from itself. A Win 7 beta installation's not going to match, it's going to have things already upgraded and other things upgraded to different versions from what the RC has. It's one of those situations that nobody who gets Windows 7 once it's released will ever have to deal with, and it doesn't make sense most of the time to have code in the release to handle a situation that can't happen. Except that it can happen if you happen to be part of the beta program, so you're warned loud and clear that the software isn't designed to do that so don't try it.
Now, if I were getting the RC, I would be testing upgrades from WinXP and Vista installs in varying states of disrepair. A clean install is easy. Upgrading from a fresh, untouched XP or Vista install should be easy. Upgrading from a Vista install that's an upgrade of an XP install, after having a couple of dozen games (with all their DRM), audio and video codecs (with their DRM), media players (with their DRM), browser toolbars, Firefox, Opera, Thunderbird, a double handful of applications that've gone through multiple upgrades, all after multiple malware-removal tools have been run multiple times to try and clean things up, all the while trying to preserve the D: (second partition on the main drive) E: and F: (the two partitions on the second (old) drive that got repurposed for holding your archives) drives... that may be a bit more interesting.
Seems pretty reasonable? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Soft machines for testing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's with the word 'begs'? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not good enough for a company like Microsoft. They need to block your ability to upgrade from one beta to another, because if they don't you're going to run into all sorts of weird problems because you followed an unsupported upgrade path and upgraded from one piece of test software to another. After you find these glitches, maybe you decide to blog about how much the new Windows 7 beta blows. Before you know it, some tech rag picks up on your blog, publishes a story about it, and it gets spread all over the Internet.
Then, since everyone is eager to believe any sort of bad press about MS, everyone believes that Windows 7 is garbage, even though your glitches only happened because you decided to install one buggy piece of test software on top of a differently buggy piece of test software rather than wipe the machine like you're supposed to in any kind of test environment. Before you know it, MS is looking at a PR nightmare because someone decided to disregard standard testing procedure. I'm sure they would like to avoid that as much as possible.
Re:installation process still counts (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, same happens with my ubuntu install if I forget to burn a new copy of the distro. Updates take a loooong time.
Slipstream SP3 into that install disc you've got. That should cut down the update time.
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same thing, different Tuesday. (Score:5, Insightful)
I must agree, but a decade is pushing it. Any blue screens I have seen have been from nVidia or Creative drivers, or overclocking just a little too far. Not Microsoft's fault.
Re:Same thing, different Tuesday. (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen a BSOD in almost a decade.
You must not work in IT
My answer to everything (Score:1, Insightful)
Because they're idiots.
It's amazing what questions that answers.
Re:Duh! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Same thing, different Tuesday. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen BSODs in the last five years, and I don't even use Windows very often.
- On ATMs
- On gigantic billboards
- On the ticket machine at a railway station
- On an interactive display in a museum
Oh, and on a PC I was using.
upgrade/clean (Score:1, Insightful)
It's Good Advice for Any OS Install (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why not always clean install? (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't use your computer for much, or have much better habits and a lot more knowledge than most normal users. An upgrade install is pretty much essential.
Re:Windows does what without a clean install? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was one small issue that required me to use dpkg
I realize that we are talking about an alpha release, but having to use dpkg even once would be a deal breaker for a lot of would be users.
Re:It's Good Advice for Any OS Install (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait... What?!?
Your backup data integrity check is to wipe your drive and hope that everything works? What happens if it doesn't work?
Re:Why not always clean install? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason in-place upgrades are important to most non-technical people is:
they don't have the storage to offload say 120 GB of data
do not know which data they need to save
they don't have original software discs for many of their apps (think a dell pc pre-installed with crap).
They can't for various practical reasons wipe their PC and do a fresh install. We (you and I) are not in a position to quantify a good majority of people's priorities with their computers. Slashdot is a minority in the big picture of the PC consumer marketplace and we make a very poor scientific sample of priorities. We often are akin to car people telling the average person: "What do you mean you don't replace your own brakes, shocks, and struts? You should know how to do that or you are too stupid to own a car..."
We need to be careful a recognize that most of us here on /. are not the average users out there.
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why does it seem that so many people are keeping important data and programs on a beta?"....
Because it's free? You can keep your data on one parition and your OS stuff on another (what I see most often) so you can run beta crap all the time to get to your normal data (pictures, music, etc.) Common with dual booters. I dread when a crappy OS butchers the other partition...
Re:Confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Red? (Score:3, Insightful)
You only activate it once, and it merely lets MS know that your copy is legit. If it were a monthly occurence then I might agree with you, but the sad fact is that most people would rather not pay for this OS.
But I do completely agree with you when it comes to upgrading. There really is no good reason to upgrade. It will be forced on the manufacturers for better or worse, and it might become one of those "why can't i open .docx files" situations when people were mad at Office 2007.
As of right now, I buy all of my personal-use OSs legitimately. For W7, I will be trying to upgrade from a student version of Vista Ultimate for 50$ to Windows 7 Ultimate. It was announced that this should work, and I think the new OS is worth the 50$ upgrade.
Re:Red? (Score:3, Insightful)
You only activate it once, and it merely lets MS know that your copy is legit. If it were a monthly occurence then I might agree with you, but the sad fact is that most people would rather not pay for this OS.
Yeah, that's not so much the problem. The question is, at what point will it mysteriously think that I changed systems and ask me to activate again? When I change hardware? What hardware? How does the activation inhibit my ability to use imaging? If I use the volume-licensing edition, then I have to set up a server to handle activation/authentication on a regular basis? What happens if that server gets a wild hare and stop working properly?
Oh, I know, someone is going to respond saying, "Your stupid! This stuff works perfectly!" Yeah, and I've heard that before. I have yet to see a computer system that doesn't occasionally malfunction, and I put more trust in software that isn't specifically designed to malfunction under circumstances that I don't know.
Why beg? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is weird. If MS wants users to clean install so badly, why not just have the RC refuse to install unless it's clean? This is harder to do than beg users to not do it because they're worried about the damage it might cause?
Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install (Score:4, Insightful)
Except now Windows is as secure, easier to install, has more products, and behaves 'smother' then Linux.
Strange, I think the opposite, having shifted to Ubuntu a month ago for those very reasons. Reason one: Confiker & Co. Reason 2: click install, select all the software you want, after 10 minutes it's done with extra software, on Windows you spend 3 days hunting down software on google, downloading, installing, setting options and configurations, etc... 'Smother' I don't know, but smoother, certainly not. Go FUD somewhere else, troll.
And one final thing: I never want to install an OS again. I just want to see an upgrade option in Adept or whatever, click it and be done with it. As often as necessary so that the process is as smooth as possible. So MS is saying I shouldn't do an upgrade but instead waste 3 fucking days just to reinstall everything ?!? Excuse me, but fuck you.
Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install (Score:5, Insightful)
If by secure you mean has a proper security model in place, defence-in-depth (DEP/ASLR/etc...), automatic enablement of operating system updates, firewall, malware protection and reasonable defaults; then yes, I'd say Windows 7 is secure.
If you mean secure against your 13 year old daughter with Admin rights downloading a random program, running it, ignoring the UAC prompts, and installing some malware deep into your system, then no, probably not secure. But, the most secure operating system in the world can't protect against abject stupidity.
If you talk to a Windows user who knows what they are doing, much like a Linux user who knows what they're doing, you'll find they almost certainly have no security problems. I certainly haven't.
Re:What's with the word 'begs'? (Score:3, Insightful)
And why not?
Let's examine some history.
In Unix (Linux), there is a rigid placement for code -- /bin and /sbin contain the OS utilities, /lib for neeed libraries, and /boot contains the OS itself (/kernel for Solaris, but the idea is the same). /usr/bin, /usr/sbin, /usr/lib et al contain OS utilities NOT NEED FOR BOOTING (/usr can be network mounted). /etc for OS configuration. /usr/local and-or /opt for site specific programs. (Applications not supported by the OS vendor directly, or, in the case of Solaris, by a different group)
Easy to upgrade the OS. Replace the OS parts, and leave /usr/local, /opt and the /home (/export/home) directories alone. No particular complications. Everyone administering a box knows the score, and we don't have any problems. Of course, /etc changes are then the worst, but apps can be encouraged to go with /usr/local/etc for global configuration (this is rarely done, it turns out to not be a practical necessity).
As to what is installed? Different OSs use different conventions (obviously, and Microsoft uses their own). yum list in Fedora (for example) will give the list of packages, libraries and utilities currently installed via the vendor installer/updater (2373 installed packages on my netbook I am using to type this). It does behoove Microsoft to keep track of all of their own packages, beta to beta and to release (it would be part of bug tracking).
Given the experience in this area gained from 40 years of use, I would imagine the Windows Update procedure to be as finely honed, especially given the new security concerns of Microsoft in relation to Windows.
So it doesn't make sense to me that a beta to beta update isn't supported. This must be strictly a "scope limiting" move; but I don't think it reflects well on Microsoft and its position as an OS vendor.
Re:Windows does what without a clean install? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not even dare to try to use such a system.
It's called TESTING (Score:1, Insightful)
If you are worried about loss of data because you are using BETA and RC software, then you should not have changed from you original OS. BETA testing is about testing and there is always a risk that things will go wrong and your dat will be gone! Stupid people.
Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont' think anything's been confirmed.
Are you suggesting that the lack of exploits (in the wild or otherwise) on Linux/Non-Windows-OS-of-your-choice indicates a lack of security holes?
Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
``I've read complaints that reviews of new Linux distros often focus too much on the installation process;''
It's not that they focus too much on the installation process, it is that they pay too little attention to the rest. Many of these reviews can be characterized as "the installation process such and such, this and this were my experiences with support for my hardware, and the GUI looks good".
What I want to know is what the everyday user experience is like. How the installation goes is important, but you're performing the installation because you want the installed system. So how well are the various packages integrated with the system? Which applications are available? What is the quality of the packaging? Are dependencies automatically resolved? What about uninstalling software? How responsive is the security team? Do you get timely security updates and do they break things? When you get non-security updates, how likely are they to break your existing configuration? Can you upgrade the whole system to the next release, and how well does this work? All things considered, how much time do you need to spend on maintenance to keep the system secure and working smoothly?
All these points are very important in determining choice of operating system. Alas, you only find them out after running the same system for an extended period of time and learning the ins and outs of it. Reviewers almost never take the time to do this, so the review pretty much stops after the installation is complete.
``Microsoft seems to understand that complications at installation time (dual booting? preserving an existing data partition?) can sour one's experience pretty thoroughly.''
I completely understand Microsoft's point that "upgrading from beta to release candidate" is not a scenario they have decided to support, and issuing a warning to the world that this might well break things horribly.
However, you seem to be suggesting that Microsoft understands the finer points of upgrading one OS to another and/or running multiple OSes alongside one another and are doing the right thing. I can't really agree with that. I've seen multi-boot the Microsoft way, and it's usually "do you want to boot this Microsoft OS or that Microsoft OS?". Other operating systems are completely ignored. And don't try mucking with the boot loader, or you may well get the "NTLDR is missing" error and be unable to boot Windows anymore. Maybe all this is intentional, but all I know for sure is that things are worlds better in the open source universe.
Re:Microsoft Begs Win 7 Testers To Clean Install (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worth the upgrade.