Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Sep 2006 17:45 UTC
Windows Paul Thurrot (you know!) has published part 3 of his review of Vista RC1. This part focuses on upgrading to Vista from XP. "As with compatibility, the upgrade scenario appears to be another big win for Windows Vista. Granted, I've only upgraded one system. But it was a wonderfully real-world system, full of all kinds of crud. Yes, it's early yet: I will wait at least a few more days before declaring this a total victory; but so far so good."
Order by: Score:
v Wow
by Duffman on Mon 11th Sep 2006 18:40 UTC
RE: Wow
by PJBonoVox on Mon 11th Sep 2006 18:49 UTC in reply to "Wow"
PJBonoVox Member since:
2006-08-14

Why must flamebait like this be posted? Can't we just have an adult discussion about the article? Please don't 'lol' at your own childish comments.

I for one am quite pleased. The tragic upgrade procedure from 98 to 2000 was understandable (although unacceptable) because the codebase completely changed, but I have upgraded machines from 2K to XP and this means I'll be able to do the same with Vista without hosing users files.

A fresh install is always the preferred option though and with the advent of USB disks/flash and DVD-RW it's so easy to reformat.

That goes for other OS's too-- It's not the hurdle that it used to be.

Edited 2006-09-11 18:50

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wow
by sbenitezb on Mon 11th Sep 2006 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

"That goes for other OS's too-- It's not the hurdle that it used to be. "

If you only use Windows included programs it's ok. But when you have to install a multitude of other applications you end up in your seat for hours installing, configuring, adapting and then restoring files.

Don't compare Windows with other OS. I've upgraded 5 versions of Linux in a couple of years with just apt-get dist-upgrade and some tweaks. Windows could make it easier, but the problem is that registry thing. It's always the problem. I don't know why they haven't get rid of it yet.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Wow
by evad on Mon 11th Sep 2006 19:07 UTC in reply to "Wow"
evad Member since:
2005-09-10

The reason this is a big deal for Windows is because Windows is installed on millions and millions of computers. They all have different hardware and software configurations.

Microsoft has to prepare an upgrade installation system that has to cope with all of this. Frankly if you upgraded from a GNU/Linux system released in 2001 to one being released in 2007 I suspect it wouldn't work all that well.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Wow
by r_a_trip on Mon 11th Sep 2006 23:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Frankly if you upgraded from a GNU/Linux system released in 2001 to one being released in 2007 I suspect it wouldn't work all that well.

Too bad it includes the faulty assumption that the Windows software from 2001 never was updated after going gold.Windows XP maybe originally released in 2001, but with SP1 and SP2, this code base was moved forward.

Upgrading from Windows XP pre-SP1 may prove to be as bumpy a ride as updating a Debian-based system with mint-condition 2001 packages to something current.

Reply Score: 1

PDF?
by eantoranz on Mon 11th Sep 2006 19:06 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

[quote]
I printed the compatibility report, and saved a PDF copy, and got ready to run Setup.
[/quote]

Say what? PDF??? Better uncle Bill doesn't hear about this or little Paul will burn in DOC (or XLM Document for that matter) Hell for generations of Windows to come!

Well.. it's just PDF.. I guess this comment would be valid it he had saved it in odf. ;-)

Reply Score: 3

WTF? Its totally broken, but its ok?!
by IronWolve on Mon 11th Sep 2006 19:33 UTC
IronWolve
Member since:
2006-01-17

That article shows hes smoking some crack, just because it boots and 25% of the programs work, doesnt mean its a good OS.

RC1 doesnt work well at all, Unreal engine is one of the most popular game engines, and it doesnt work. Java doesnt work, hell, almost all non MS programs hang!

While the bootup is faster, and the install is faster, the stability and driver support is horrible.

The UI filebrowser is horrible, its so dumbed down doing any real work is a PITA! I can not repeat how horrible the RC1 is, Windows 2000/XP where at least stable, Vista RC1 is a sad state of affairs. And anyone who says its "READY TO GO" is a liar.

Reply Score: 4

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Typical MS apologist reaction to criticism.

.NET is a Java-clone with a broader feature set, yet we don't see the same criticisms raised.

Reply Score: 0

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Sure, blame the tool or language, it's just easier that way.

Reply Score: 1

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

Java doesnt work

How's that?

I am running Vista RC1 and Netbeans 5.5 (latest daily build) *right now*. Java 1.5.0_05 was installed without any problems and, FYI, Netbeans is Java-based IDE. TomCat 5.5.17, that is built into Netbeans, works fine, too.

What is this, for example: http://blogs.sun.com/roumen/entry/netbeans_on_vista_with_jdk6

(And that screenshot is from 2005: Vista beta 1, Java 1.6 beta 1).

Go troll somewhere else.

Reply Score: 2

gonzo Member since:
2005-11-10

And even though Java works just fine since forever on Vista, that message, where that guy said the opposite, is now at +4.

Wow. You trash Microsoft, and people mod you up. It really doesn't matter if what you say is true or not.

OS News is more and more like Slashdot ;)

Reply Score: 1

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Unreal engine is one of the most popular game engines, and it doesnt work.

Well, the article says UT 2004 does work, and at full speed. It's simply the installer that's broken.

Reply Score: 1

IronWolve Member since:
2006-01-17

Bullshit, I have Unreal installed on a game drive, I can run the program but it crashs. Its not the installed.

And Java is broke on mine freshly installed RC1...

Reply Score: 1

Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Is it still that funky 1.3 thing that frustrates most java developers by popping up in the users path?

Reply Score: 1

Lets get real about this...
by ameasures on Mon 11th Sep 2006 19:56 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

Any OS upgrade REQUIRES a full proper backup of ALL user data.

And once you have done that you might as well do a clean install which, lets face it, will have a more predictably reliable result.

As for the XP to VISTA transition ... new kernel, new configuration infrastructure and new file system: this is more than an upgrade.

Frankly, if the time comes and someone else is paying: I will buy a fresh hard drive ... or some such. That way, at least I can rollback and be productive.

Reply Score: 2

A small ugy detail
by Gryzor on Mon 11th Sep 2006 20:28 UTC
Gryzor
Member since:
2005-07-03

When you upgrade, you get 14 days to activate. With a clean install, it's only three days.

Three days? Bah!

Reply Score: 1

v Another detail
by foez on Mon 11th Sep 2006 21:43 UTC
Oops
by Sphinx on Mon 11th Sep 2006 22:14 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Not to be mistaken for Thoreau.

Edited 2006-09-11 22:18

Reply Score: 1

By why to upgrade
by vtolkov on Tue 12th Sep 2006 01:03 UTC
vtolkov
Member since:
2006-07-26

What I can't understand is why to upgrade. Everything already works fine in XP. Why breaking a half of my apps? What are the new killing features, which worth all that trouble?

Reply Score: 2

Vista Installation
by oxleyn on Tue 12th Sep 2006 11:25 UTC
oxleyn
Member since:
2005-10-04

Never mind upgrading, I'm still unable to carry out even a clean installation of Vista RC1 on my "Windows Vista Ready" Dell laptop!

I think my issue stems from this business of not being able to run it from a partition other than the active one. If that is in fact an issue at all or am I talking rubbish now?

Reply Score: 2