Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:19 UTC
Windows Now that Windows 7 has been out and about for a while, the first balance sheets regarding its success start popping up. Consumer helpdesk firm iYogi surveyed 100000 of their customers, and the results of that test paint a relatively positive picture for Microsoft's latest operating system release - but one problem point sticks out like a big eye sore.
Order by: Score:
v haha
by stealth on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:36 UTC
RE: haha
by rockwell on Wed 16th Dec 2009 03:00 UTC in reply to "haha"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Your friend is simian, at best.

Ubuntu as an alternative? We like to actually DO things with computers. Like Windows and OS X users.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: haha
by asdf on Wed 16th Dec 2009 08:38 UTC in reply to "RE: haha"
asdf Member since:
2009-09-23

Well, the original comment was anecdotal at best and most likely doesn't really represent the situation properly. That said, your comment seems quite a bit more offensive to users who are using Linux for their computing needs. This applies to all parties but can't we just stop calling each other zealots, idiots or whatever?

Reply Score: 2

RE: haha
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 16th Dec 2009 22:18 UTC in reply to "haha"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

talk about a liar.

Reply Score: 2

Near 100% of problems are from installing.
by theTSF on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:41 UTC
theTSF
Member since:
2005-09-27

If you don't install it you don't get the problems... Granted you don't get the benefits either. Unless a lot of people get paper/plastic cuts from opening the box.

Reply Score: 5

Comment by GiantTalkingCow
by GiantTalkingCow on Tue 15th Dec 2009 20:44 UTC
GiantTalkingCow
Member since:
2009-01-27

I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked. Having installed Windows 7 on quite a few machines for friends and family, and typing this on a spare machine set up just this morning, I assumed that the installation was as trouble-free for everyone. It must be a real hit-and-miss thing, depending on one's hardware configuration, because I've run into no problems at all.

Edited 2009-12-15 20:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by GiantTalkingCow
by StephenBeDoper on Tue 15th Dec 2009 21:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by GiantTalkingCow"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to admit, I'm pretty shocked. Having installed Windows 7 on quite a few machines for friends and family, and typing this on a spare machine set up just this morning, I assumed that the installation was as trouble-free for everyone. It must be a real hit-and-miss thing, depending on one's hardware configuration, because I've run into no problems at all.


The writeup mentioned upgrade installs, I'm guessing that's where the majority of problems have happened. E.g., some notes I made back in back in June when I tested out the Win7 RC and attempted to upgrade from XP (for the heck of it):

- selecting the upgrade option while booted from the install disc doesn't work
- you just get a message telling you to reboot and run the installer from Windows
- did that, but get an error stating that you can't upgrade from XP to Windows 7
- result: a waste of 15-20 minutes

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by GiantTalkingCow
by bluedodo on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by GiantTalkingCow"
bluedodo Member since:
2006-03-26

You can't upgrade from XP you need to upgrade to Vista, then you can upgrade to 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by GiantTalkingCow
by Rugxulo on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by GiantTalkingCow"
Rugxulo Member since:
2007-10-09

You can't upgrade from XP you need to upgrade to Vista, then you can upgrade to 7.


Why would you use Vista (requiring a separate license) just to upgrade to 7?

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

You can't upgrade from XP you need to upgrade to Vista, then you can upgrade to 7.


Yes, I was aware of that (even before the attempt) - but only because I specifically looked up the upgrade requirements.

Initially, the Win7 installer itself (at least in the RC) gives every indication that you can upgrade from XP (I'm guessing it simply checked for *any* previous versions of Windows, regardless of version). It doesn't actually tell you that the upgrade won't work until you're 2 reboots and 15-20 minutes into the process.

Reply Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

My Mother-in-laws computer had a defective Burner so I could not burn the iso of windows 7 student upgrade I downloaded from MS.

I went and got virtual clone drive, mounted the image, and ran the upgrade from that. It worked like a charm.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Shkaba
by Shkaba on Tue 15th Dec 2009 21:01 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

I have upgraded Vista 64 bits, to Windows 7 64 bits on an HP touchsmart with no issues (soundcard needed a downloaded driver). I have "upgraded" Windows XP 32 to Windows 7 32 on an older Dell, that couldn't run Vista properly, again with no issues. I am playing songs from my win7 box on my ps3, no issues. Trying to do the same on my fedora box ... couldn't do it ... yet

Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn't resist testing these scenarios. I am wandering though if the upgrade bug is the one between the screen and the chair

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Shkaba
by Laurence on Wed 16th Dec 2009 12:26 UTC in reply to "Comment by Shkaba"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


I have upgraded Vista 64 bits, to Windows 7 64 bits on an HP touchsmart with no issues (soundcard needed a downloaded driver). I have "upgraded" Windows XP 32 to Windows 7 32 on an older Dell, that couldn't run Vista properly, again with no issues. I am playing songs from my win7 box on my ps3, no issues. Trying to do the same on my fedora box ... couldn't do it ... yet

Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn't resist testing these scenarios. I am wandering though if the upgrade bug is the one between the screen and the chair


Sorry to be a pain, but your post has totally confused me.
Are you saying you upgraded XP and Fedora (despite the fact that neither of them will upgrade to Win7)?

...or do you mean you did a clean install of Win7 on only the 1st system and then accidently used plural instead of singular when stating "Generally speaking it is always better to do a clean install then an upgrade, but I just couldn't resist testing these scenarios"?

...or did you do a clean install of Vista and then upgraded that to Win7?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Shkaba
by Shkaba on Wed 16th Dec 2009 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Shkaba"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Vista box was a proper upgrade, XP box was not a true upgrade it was one of those installation of the new instance of an OS and the dumping of the old files in the windows.old folder.

Why would i want to "upgrade" a fedora box to windows??? I was just stating that i couldn't access my songs on the win7 box from my fedora box.

Testing scenarios is referring to two different upgrade scenarios (Vista - Win7 a true upgrade, and XP - Win7 not a real upgrade)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Shkaba
by Laurence on Wed 16th Dec 2009 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Shkaba"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Ahh I see.

thank you for clearing that up ;)

Reply Score: 2

number 10 got me
by Yamin on Tue 15th Dec 2009 21:15 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

"Taskbar problems (In Windows 7, it's difficult to tell at a glance whether an icon is a running application or a pinned shortcut): 1 percent"

This one got me. I like the new taskbar, but the difference between a pinned shortcut and a running application is just too small to nice. Not to mention, I haven't quite for the dynamics down of how to launch 2 instances of an application from a pinned shortcut.

For example, by default, explorer (file manager) is a pinned short cut. This works great for one window. Now I click it again and it doesn't launch a second window, but just restores the old one. I get what i want by right clicking and using the menu.

But I'm giving it some time. But for sure, the difference between running and pinned shortcuts is just too small.

Reply Score: 3

RE: number 10 got me
by dpJudas on Tue 15th Dec 2009 23:39 UTC in reply to "number 10 got me"
dpJudas Member since:
2009-12-10

Right click on the explorer icon, select Windows Explorer and you launched a second window.

Reply Score: 1

RE: number 10 got me
by Slambert666 on Wed 16th Dec 2009 04:28 UTC in reply to "number 10 got me"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

But I'm giving it some time. But for sure, the difference between running and pinned shortcuts is just too small.


I so agree on this one. In the UI of 7 it is the only thing that really bugs me.
But after a month of use i can feel I'm beginning to get conditioned into the new taskbar, so maybe another 6 months or so I wont notice it any more.

Reply Score: 1

RE: number 10 got me
by izomiac on Wed 16th Dec 2009 05:10 UTC in reply to "number 10 got me"
izomiac Member since:
2006-07-26

I'm still surprised at how many people suffer from that problem, to me, it's not subtle at all... In any case, if you'd like to revert to the functionality of the old style, here's how to get it:

1) Unpin all applications
2) Right click then click Toolbars -> New Toolbar
3) "%APPDATA%\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch"
4) Hit Enter then click Select Folder
5) Adjust the quick launch toolbar to suit your preferences.

Reply Score: 1

RE: number 10 got me
by anduril on Wed 16th Dec 2009 13:01 UTC in reply to "number 10 got me"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

If I remember correctly, hold down Control and then left click on the icon that should launch a new window/process.

Reply Score: 1

RE: number 10 got me
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 16th Dec 2009 22:23 UTC in reply to "number 10 got me"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

A lighter background and dark lines surrounding said background is too subtle?

Try that on OS X... they only give you a little dot below the app.

Edited 2009-12-16 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Mac's & upgrades
by BigDaddy on Tue 15th Dec 2009 21:46 UTC
BigDaddy
Member since:
2006-08-10

I think we can all agree that when it comes to seamless upgrades to new releases, Apple is the undisputed king.


Not to knock Mac's, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions. Even if you count every model of Mac since OSX was released, it wouldn't come close to the number of hardware configurations of any of the Windows & Linux Distributions releases of the past 10 years.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mac's & upgrades
by ameasures on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:54 UTC in reply to "Mac's & upgrades"
ameasures Member since:
2006-01-09

"I think we can all agree that when it comes to seamless upgrades to new releases, Apple is the undisputed king.


Not to knock Mac's, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions. Even if you count every model of Mac since OSX was released, it wouldn't come close to the number of hardware configurations of any of the Windows & Linux Distributions releases of the past 10 years.
"

Frankly this is a significant part of the value proposition of the Apple OSX combination.

I don't see this as a disadvantage, but rather as an alternative choice which I am glad to have available.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Mac's & upgrades
by BigDaddy on Wed 16th Dec 2009 02:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac's & upgrades"
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

I don't see this as a disadvantage, but rather as an alternative choice which I am glad to have available.


I never said it was a disadvantage, I was merely stating fact. For some people that is appealing. For me, it is appalling. I much prefer piecing together my computers. In an professional environment, I might feel differently, but at home I enjoy playing and tinkering.

I would compare it to the people who like RC cars. Some just want to buy one and start racing. Others want the whole experience. I would be of the latter. There is nothing wrong in either of them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mac's & upgrades
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:27 UTC in reply to "Mac's & upgrades"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I was thinking more along the lines of Mac OS X's "upgrades" being minuscule compared to Windows (some refinement, a couple new features, etc., over something like Windows 98 to XP or XP to Vista). But that's probably a pretty big reason you mentioned right there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mac's & upgrades
by BigDaddy on Wed 16th Dec 2009 02:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac's & upgrades"
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

You raise a good point too. Not to take anything away from OSX, but the upgrades are incremental and those can be much easier to handle for all involved.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Mac's & upgrades
by rockwell on Wed 16th Dec 2009 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Mac's & upgrades"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Er, i wouldn't call upgrading from Panther to Leopard "incremental." Tons of new features/apps/under-the-hood stuff in almost every upgrade.

I did it by:

1. Inserting the Leopard DVD
2. Clicking a few icons
3. Watching a movie
4. Restarting my iMac.
5. Getting to work.

Light years ahead of Windows upgrades.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Mac's & upgrades
by grat on Wed 16th Dec 2009 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac's & upgrades"
grat Member since:
2006-02-02

But you're still not really changing anything architecturally in the OS.

98SE to XP was a completely different OS architecture, and XP to Vista / 7 is such a radical change that you might as well be installing a completely different operating system.

Sure, if you compare OSX 10.0 to OSX 10.6, it's a pretty large change, but really it's just been one service pack to another on the OSX side.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mac's & upgrades
by BluenoseJake on Wed 16th Dec 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac's & upgrades"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

Er, i wouldn't call upgrading from Panther to Leopard "incremental." Tons of new features/apps/under-the-hood stuff in almost every upgrade.

I did it by:

1. Inserting the Leopard DVD
2. Clicking a few icons
3. Watching a movie
4. Restarting my iMac.
5. Getting to work.

Light years ahead of Windows upgrades.



This is how My Windows 7 Upgrade went:

1. Insert the Windows CD
2. Click a few buttons
3. Watch a movie
4. PC restarted itself(I guess Windows must be more advanced than OS X)
5. Do some work

In most cases, it's this simple. It's the potential problems from the immense amount of choice in peripherals and software that cause upgrade problems. MS (or anyone else) does not have the resources to test every hardware and software combination that exists.

If MS only had to deal with the limited hardware that OS X supports, upgrades would be that simple for Windows in all cases too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Mac's & upgrades
by Shkaba on Wed 16th Dec 2009 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Mac's & upgrades"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

Do tell me that this was the case with the upgrade from Classic to OS X. OS X upgrades can be compared to service packs in windows

Reply Score: 0

RE: Mac's & upgrades
by StephenBeDoper on Wed 16th Dec 2009 23:37 UTC in reply to "Mac's & upgrades"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

Not to knock Mac's, I have no experience nor interest in them, but I would say that they have an easier time upgrading for a simple reason. They are not supporting an infinite number of possible configurations like Windows and the Linux distributions.


And even with Macs, the conventional wisdom (at least judging by what I've read online) states that you should choose the archive-and-install option - rather than the upgrade option - when installing a new version of OS X.

A brief aside/pet peeve: whenever someone mentions problems with OS upgrades, the fans of that OS (and this goes for both Windows and MacOS) tend to dismiss those problems with comments like "You should always do a clean install instead of upgrading, everyone knows that - what are you, an idiot?!?" If that's the case, what the hell is the point of including an upgrade option in the first place? It reminds me of Douglas Adams' description of the insurance business: "An industry that advertises a service, without actually providing it."

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mac's & upgrades
by kvarbanov on Thu 17th Dec 2009 10:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Mac's & upgrades"
kvarbanov Member since:
2008-06-16

I totally agree with you, the upgrade has always been a pain for all OS vendors. Less with MACs maybe, as they have to support really small number of hardware configs, whereas Linix and Windows much more. As a matter of fact, I've had more success in upgrading Linux than Windows, but that's on a work machines. At home, unfortunately, I have to be a backup-paranoid and I can't trust MS as a vendor, although my hardware config is pretty straightforward and has nothing funky in it. Nevertheless, I switched from old PC with XP to a brand new box with 7 Ultimate on it. Even though I'm not the biggest MS fan, I have to admit that I was surprised with : the speed of the installation - around 15 minutes, and I was booted into my new 7 desktop. The installation itself is just a few simple clicks, nothing complicated - I don't think that the users are left with room for making errors - there's just no such place. However, I believe, the customizations from Vista and something from the hardware hits those 31%. Then, with totally no experience or habits from Vista, I just started playing and working with the new 7. To me, it's intuitive, fast and very user friendly. The ergonomic look and feel also has to be mentioned. I was able to find what I was looking for in seconds with no additional hassles. Nice job MS, people claim that Vista was bad, which I can't comment, but 7 is really good for me. 4 weeks operating with one single reboot due to software installations, RAM stays under 1G no matter what I do. I also have to say that I'm not deploying funky gadgets or themes, the default one works for me - I spent most of the time in the browser anyway. Last but not the least, I didn't have to install any drivers - everything is done by 7 - this is a big plus.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by simon17
by simon17 on Tue 15th Dec 2009 22:43 UTC
simon17
Member since:
2009-08-21

Thom, I think you mean "anecdotal", not circumstantial.

And bluedodo, that simply isn't true.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by simon17
by Shkaba on Tue 15th Dec 2009 23:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by simon17"
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

... And bluedodo, that simply isn't true.

According to Microsoft it is!

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd772579%28WS.10~*~@...

From the above page:

"Upgrades to Windows 7 from the following operating systems are not supported:

* Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows XP, Windows Vista® RTM, Windows Vista Starter, Windows 7 M3, Windows 7 Beta, Windows 7 RC, or Windows 7 IDS

* Windows NT® Server 4.0, Windows 2000 Server, Windows Server® 2003, Windows Server 2008, or Windows Server 2008 R2 "

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by simon17
by rmeyers on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by simon17"
rmeyers Member since:
2009-12-16

Went to the link above and it does not mention Windows 2000. Think that this is an oversight on Microsoft's part or does anyone think that it may be possible to upgrade directly from Windows 2000 to Windows 7?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by simon17
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 16th Dec 2009 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by simon17"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

* Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows XP, Windows Vista® RTM, Windows Vista Starter, Windows 7 M3, Windows 7 Beta, Windows 7 RC, or Windows 7 IDS"

Heh, did they forget Windows pre-95 even existed? Or are they embarrassed to even mention them? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by simon17
by modmans2ndcoming on Wed 16th Dec 2009 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by simon17"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

the "upgrade" is where they copy your date, wipe the drive, install the OS copy the data to a recovery folder and let you install the apps.

Reply Score: 2

No surprise
by Moochman on Tue 15th Dec 2009 23:31 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

The biggest problem with the past couple of Windows releases has been the millions of variants, which in turn result in upgrade nightmares:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart...

To review: If you want to upgrade from Vista to 7, you need to make sure that:

-Chip architecture is identical (32-bit or 64-bit)
-Class of product is identical (Home Premium, Business/Professional, Ultimate)
-Language is identical

If any of these things are not identical, a clean install is required. It's no wonder there are so many issues!!

Compare this to Mac OS, where one disc covers every single machine regardless of architecture or language (and thankfully, there is no tiered pricing scheme that prevents you from, for instance, switching the language of your OS unless you have "Ultimate").

It's really time MS took a hint...

EDIT: Looking at the chart, Ultimate does appear to be installable over Home Premium and Professional. But chip architecture and language still linger to trip up even the most indulgent of buyers.

Edited 2009-12-15 23:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7 upgrade
by r.j.l on Wed 16th Dec 2009 10:32 UTC
r.j.l
Member since:
2009-08-15

Having upgraded one machine from Vista to 7 I must admit there have been no showstopper bugs but it did take quite some time and countless restarts. My experience with 7 is not one that is comparable to the hype that pervaded the net following its release. I have found it to use more ram at idle desktop than Vista and it also takes longer to get to desktop than Vista. When it eventually loads it is a pleasant to look at OS but I find it to be more counter-intuitive. Simple things generally seem to take longer to do than with say XP.

By comparison my upgrades to Ubuntu Karmic have been trouble free. I don't get the negativity about Karmic because all my encounters and my friends have been just fine. So here we have five machines running Karmic wonderfully. As to Windows well 2 XP installs and 2 Win 7 installs and Windows mostly only ever gets powered up to do updates.

I am happy to see the mod comment on non-constructive bloggers comments regarding fanboys etc. We all use the OS that works for us, why be anti this or that. Simply post your experiences for all to benefit.

Keep up the good work!

Reply Score: 1

chaslinux
Member since:
2008-07-17

I've found Windows 7 mostly hit and miss. Ironically it seemed to work best on a whitebox system I built (P4P800 mobo, ATI video card). Manufacturer boxes seemed to have the most trouble (a Lenovo notebook and an IBM Thinkcentre desktop system). Problems ranged from freezing (not a problem with old OS) to the complete OS crashing over a weekend where nobody was around (not once but three times), requiring repairing from disc.

Ubuntu 9.10 is mostly a miss for us and I consider it the worst release yet (with 9.04 being one of the best). 9.10 seems to have power management issues, causing a number of notebooks we tried it on to overheat and shut down. We absolutely hate the dumbing down of GDM2 (gone are timed login, and the ability to just have a slit asking for username and password). And we've found it's more fussy with hardware than 9.04.

I've been an Ubuntu user since 6.06 (I used 4.10 but wasn't impressed by all the hype) so dissing this latest release says a lot about how much I hate it!

I'm glad to see that Microsoft has added more functionality to some of the apps in Vista/Windows 7. Paint for example was gawd aweful, you couldn't even save to jpeg in releases before Vista. I'd still like to see the system requirements dropped. A couple of decades ago I wrote some code in assembler to draw a sprite on the screen and move it around using a joystick (on the Commodore 64). It moved so fast that I couldn't figure out enough of a delay loop to slow the blur down. That was a 1MHz machine. Now we have dual core systems bogging down because they don't have enough memory or video RAM.... it's a bit nuts.

Reply Score: 2

debian better than ubuntu
by spiderman on Wed 16th Dec 2009 11:44 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

Debian is the king of upgrades, whereas Ubuntu is trying to copy the king. If you want seamless upgrades with linux, try Red Hat, Debian. DO NOT TRY TESTING SOFTWARE IF ALL YOU WANT IS A STABLE SYSTEM.

Reply Score: 1

Upgrade? Haven't they learned?
by dalekleader on Wed 16th Dec 2009 15:27 UTC
dalekleader
Member since:
2009-12-16

Well the Giant is still giving the users a false sense of savings because the retail "upgrade" version is cheaper. So as a consumer (non-geek) why wouldn't you if given the option? So in a lot of ways the Giant still can't climb down the bean stalk without falling on it's head. Wake-up MS, give consumers a break. Lower the price of Full version and drop the upgrade version altogether. It sickens me how much different the consumer actually pays for Windows when comparing a new OEM machine versus a retail box. But that is for another time.

Reply Score: 1

cptnapalm
Member since:
2006-08-09

While a bit late to the party, I thought I'd throw out a new install of Windows 7 (EU Rome!) and Ubuntu on a brand new Lenovo laptop. The partitioning scheme got a bit wonky (user error) so I decided to do fresh install of each.

Ubuntu went on smoothly. The only thing not autodetected properly was the Nvidia card. The resolution was pretty good, but just not native. Did an update once the system installed, the new driver was installed and now there is full resolution 3d goodness.

Nothing worked on Windows 7 except the DVD drive. Video card not working properly, wireless not working at all, ethernet not working at all. I did save the driver folder from one of the Lenovo partitions and they installed without problems, but it took forever and I had to reboot after everything.

I can say that Windows 7 is better than Vista. Granted I only dealt with Vista for 5 minutes once, but those 5 minutes made me want to throw the laptop it came on across the room. Windows 7 is just sort of blah.

Reply Score: 0

...and you're a "pro"?
by PaulT on Sat 19th Dec 2009 01:22 UTC
PaulT
Member since:
2009-12-19

To the author:

If you can't even upgrade an Ubuntu distro, why would anyone take your Windows advice or opinion seriously?

Any techie worth her/his salt would be laughed out of the room for saying they never been able to successfully complete an Ubuntu upgrade.

You give computing and Journalism a bad name.

Reply Score: 1