Finally, Some Answers to Windows 7 Upgrade Questions

Good. Very good to see more clear-cut answers.

I think the reason that there's not a large outcry about these types of situations is that a large number of folks are just buying new computers rather than upgrading. This will help Microsoft's OEM partners, as most will buy PCs.

RunTimeError "Guess you should have bought the full version then." It was interesting to see how many of the postbacks on Paul's previous article were from articles with titles like "Save $xx by buying the upgrade to do a full install"

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what all the fuss is about. Even if the consumer bought the "upgrade" version, Paul writes how to get around it for a new install. So, who's complaining and why?

"Can we apply the word "Debacle" like Paul and so many others quickly attached to Snow Leopard?" The relative percentage of Windows users having these problems is smaller than the relative percentage of Snow Leopard users with upgrade problems. You can blame the low marketshare of Apple users for that higher percentage of problems.

"Show the figures to prove that. Otherwise that is just baseless speculation." Pot, meet kettle.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by thurrott: Finally, Some Answers to Windows 7 Upgrade Questions: Ed Bott just uploaded a very timely post about the Window.. http://bit.ly/YQqvF

@yoshipod: Here's a real fact: ZFS is dead and Snow Leopard Server customers and partner developers that were planning on using it for deployment are being orphaned on dead technology out of the gate AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. I don't need any statistical proof to back that up either - it's common knowledge.

" If you can't locate or get the original install CDs (even through Waethorn's convoluted solution)" You mean going to http://www.restoredisks.com and ordering from there when the manufacturer discontinues the option to order them? How is that convoluted? Of course, you conveniently forget that I mentioned to order/create discs IMMEDIATELY if you didn't get them with the computer. Most included OEM recovery software on new PC's has some kind of popup telling you to create recovery discs on first boot, and the instructions are there for your own good. You only have yourself to blame if you don't follow the directions provided, kind of like the user that tried entering an upgrade key after doing a clean install with an upgrade disc while blowing away their original recovery partition. It certainly seems easier to run through a SUPPORTED scenario rather than trying Paul's hack, and modifying the System Registry (which no typical end-user should do).

"Here's a real fact: ZFS is dead and Snow Leopard Server customers and partner developers that were planning on using it for deployment are being orphaned on dead technology out of the gate AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. I don't need any statistical proof to back that up either - it's common knowledge." ZFS was not included in 10.6. Apple ended development of it for Mac OS X due to licensing issues. What partners were developing or planning on using it? Please link to one. This is just another straw man argument since you are not able to show any facts.

Yes please tell us what partners were going to use ZFS? Probably the same ones that were going to use WinFS. Sun/Oracle wanted $$$ for it and Apple did not want to pay. Wae does not have Mike G's talent for dodging questions and changing the subject.

"since Paul was so intent on making 10.6 look bad" Yeah Paul tried really hard here. Look at the Ant-Apple crap he posted the week of the SL launch. It worked so well too.

"Paul was so intent on making 10.6 look bad, that he, and many others, jumped on an installation issue and proclaimed it to be a debacle. I am only posting to show how silly he, and many others, are. They can dish it out, but can't seem to take it." As Dip already said: "Pot, meet kettle".

Nowhere in his post did Paul mention Apple or OS X...that may be unusual, but it is true. All of you simple minded idiots on both sides of this moronic argument need to put the mice and keyboards away and get out of your (or in some cases, your parents) basements and get a real life. --tayme

Microsoft, making things easier for their users. Keys? Registration? You mean you can't just install your OS and without this guff?

"Microsoft, making things easier for their users. Keys? Registration? You mean you can't just install your OS and without this guff?" You should be familiar to the phrase: "just buy a new computer with it preloaded for you", which I recommend for customers of Atom single-core netbooks. I'd recommend to customers looking at netbooks to wait for the good stuff to come.

To the naysayers who are too sheltered to realize that there WILL be a time when you will need to do a clean install, consider this: You've been running Vista, but you upgrade to 7, through a "supported" scenario. About a year or so later, as Windows installs typically do, it becomes bogged down and is just simply in need of a refresh. You insert your upgrade media to perform a clean install. Oh, wait... You've been going along just fine with Windows 7, then suddenly, your HDD fails. You salvage as much data as you can and buy a new hard disk. You insert your upgrade media to install 7 back onto your computer so you can get back up and running. Oh, wait... One day at work, you get a support call from someone who has a Windows 7 PC that has become laden with viruses and spyware of all sorts, and now the thing won't boot up. You have the customer bring their PC in for you to look at, and you deem it not worth "fixing." You salvage as much of the customer's personal data as possible, and then proceed to install Windows 7 back on their computer. They've got an upgrade disk. Great. In ALL of the above scenarios (and many others), to go through a "supported" re-installation path, Windows Vista would have to be installed, then you would have to use the Windows 7 upgrade media to perform a clean install. Regardless of how you look at it, it's a hassle. "It certainly seems easier to run through a SUPPORTED scenario rather than trying Paul's hack, and modifying the System Registry (which no typical end-user should do)." After having read what I just posted, do you seriously think it's easier to do a simple registry entry modification than to go through the hassle of installing 2 versions of Windows just to have a working OS? Anyone who thinks that Paul's suggested registry modification is difficult probably shouldn't be putting installation media in their computer in the first place.

Microsoft's Online Online operations going down, down and down over the years: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-microsofts-online-operat... Google have nothing to worry about. "Robertsjoe: Bringing you the important, relevant and interesting Microsoft related news. Making up for what SuperSite for Windows lacks." (tm)

My $399 ACER Vista laptop included two blank discs for backup, which it made me create immediately out of the box. But again, if I lose the recovery discs or backup discs that I made, I'd be screwed if I bought a legal upgrade Win 7 disc, unlike Snow Leopard, which allows you to full install without any OS, unless it's on a PPC ;)

"robertsjoe: soon to be named Ocean-wannabe perma-ban #2"

Wae why did MS pull the Family Guy episode? When are the bring back Jerry and Bill?

"After having read what I just posted, do you seriously think it's easier to do a simple registry entry modification than to go through the hassle of installing 2 versions of Windows just to have a working OS?" ....and one day Microsoft makes changes to the Windows Genuine Advantage which blocks the registry key that Paul documents a hack for, and you go to do a clean install from your upgrade media, and oh wait.... Yes, I would say that doing things the supported way is the right way to do it. It's not always the fastest method, but if you have a problem with it down the road, don't b*tch and moan about it. In times like these, I like to bring up the clause in the license agreement that states "this software is provided as-is....". And yes, that means that you have to deal with the restrictions put in place in the software.

"And you know all of this how?" http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/10/apple-delivers-zfs-readwrite-d... I use this syntax in my IE8 address bar: "? zfs developer preview" ....probably less than a second of research. "Microsoft never had a running version of WinFS?" Not a finished version, no. Besides that, WinFS was not a filesystem. ZFS is complete (and is a filesystem), according to Sun, as it's being used in production software now. "Apple was almost finished?" Well, let's see: Snow Leopard [Server] just launched, and they just issued a press release saying that the project was cancelled so, yes, I would say so. (It was actually Sun's FS, which was already complete, so the work involved was only in revising the code for implementation in OS X) And yes, tayme: that's another Mac person bringing up these topics again even though I sufficiently ended this line of questioning 3 hours ago.

"Anyone who thinks that Paul's suggested registry modification is difficult probably shouldn't be putting installation media in their computer in the first place." Ask any user what the system registry is (it's the "Mom test" that Leo likes to talk about). If they don't know, they shouldn't be touching it. I'm sure you're Mom knows how to put a disc in a drive and read the setup instructions on screen though.

Easy Wae. I made no personal attacks on you. I'm board certified in two specialties. My memory is fine. But if you buy a new upgrade discs and lose/misplace the old ones, and have a disc failure, as many do, then you're in trouble with any upgrade disc. This is quite common with plenty of folks that I have helped. They usually cannot find any of the old install discs, and only have the most recent ones. But I am sure that I have not even come close to the amount that you have helped, although you've probably seen the situation too. However, I bet a call to MS would help them out. They have always come through for me. Good night all.