The Windows 8 blog has a post about the improvements in Windows 8’s installation process. “For Windows 8, our goal was to continue to improve reliability while also improving the installation experience and raw performance. Not only did we want it to be rock solid, but also faster and easier to use.” Thankfully, the features us geeks like are still there.
I’ve asked them to stop overwriting the MBR without asking.
For me, THAT would be some improvement.
why? other operating systems don’t exist according to windows
Seriously, how would they do this reliably?
There are at least 4 different types of bootloader software I can pick off the top of my head, with different versions distributed with different Operating systems.
Microsoft and Linux Distros can check for Windows OSes because there are only a few to choose from in comparison to Linux’s, BSDs (and forks thereof).
Do you want us to rewrite your MBR?
[Rewrite] [No, GTFO]
Oh Comon …
Most people don’t know what an MBR is.
This is the scenario,
1) “Do you want me to touch the MBR?”
2) they say “MBR … WTF?”
3) Say no to be on the safe side
4) Windows doesn’t boot after the install went OK
5) They are left with a computer that doesn’t work, because some nerds got nerd raeg about running some alternative OS they neither care or know about.
Sorry, If you want to f–k about Dual Booting there is a minimum amount level of knowledge needed, and lets face it … most of us know more about partitioning, cylinders, slices etc. that it is probably hindering our sex life.
If you are on this website you already know how to setup a dual boot system, you already knows that you need to install Windows first.
Edited 2011-11-23 15:02 UTC
“Select Disc to install Windows on” -> “Advanced Options” -> “Install Windows boot loader on the Master Boot Record? [x]”
The first two options are already there (paraphrased). What’s so hard about adding a check box that’s checked by default? Most users wont ever care and leave it alone, those of us who do care can disable that particular bone-headed behaviour of the Windows installer and we can all go home happy.
Because somebody at Microsoft has the job of making sure Windows boots after install … he isn’t going to put his job on the line for some idealist who might want to install Linux first instead of Windows …
Most people don’t install an OS by themselves and to them pretty much anything in the installer is difficult to understand.
Seriously, this option can easily be implemented in a way that does not scare people, it’s just a matter of wanting to do it.
So it is a non issue … most people don’t install the OS from scratch and those that are likely to want to do that and dual boot already know the options … (clue train: install windows first like it has been since NT 4.0).
Why don’t you guys have a bit more of a whine about an OS you apparently don’t care about.
Seriously you bitch and whine about being the minority and have a little cry etc … and everything is done to appease you … If I was Microsoft I would do everything in my power to piss you off (more than now) … just to see the butthurt raeg.
If you are the minority choice, guess f–king what?! You are the edge case that is poorly supported, at least they document stuff, if you guys raeg as hard as you do at me … I would just make sure it was a surprise.
Edited 2011-11-24 00:30 UTC
Who’s whining?
I’m saying that your argument that that most people don’t know what the MBR is is not a good reason for excluding that option in the installation.
That’ll be like Ubuntu doing exactly the same thing then. OK not if you use the Alternative Install ISO. They said it was down to the Debian Installer. Funny Deb does not do the same thing
What “geek” uses Windows?
Geeks use Windows for gaming, *nix for everything else. Power users use Windows to get work done
Oh, if you’re wondering what the difference is:
Power user: ‘What are the shortcut keys for this app? How do I customize the toolbar?’
Geek: ‘What toolkit is this app written in? What software license does it use?’
Joe User: Where is the ‘any key’ ?
I use Windows, and Debian, and Ubuntu. Lots of geeks use Windows, and lots don’t.
Please don’t tell me what I should be using. I use what is best for the job at hand.
I love using Ubuntu. I also use Windows, but I do so with a sense of sadness.
The “best for the job at hand” argument is in certain senses appealing, but in the end not very dignified.
For instance, not that long ago in the United States a slave owner could offer a variety of reasons why buying people to work in cotton fields was perfectly legitimate. One of their arguments was that slaves were best for the job at hand, so to speak. Now most of us find those arguments morally repugnant.
I’m not suggesting that the moral arguments regarding Ubuntu versus Windows are black and white. But I am arguing that there is a moral dimension that is truly inescapable.
You pretty much Godwin’d the thread, well done!
Also if you really cared that much about the freedomz … you would be using gNewSense instead.
Edited 2011-11-23 08:04 UTC
Unfortunately you completely misunderstood my point, so I’ll say it more clearly. The advantage of using actual historical examples is that they show how quickly societal norms can change.
Point #1: Slavery used to be widely accepted as morally correct. it was very widely practiced in many cultures and places. Buying and selling human beings and putting them to work was considered by many people to be rational, economically efficient and the only conceivable way of organizing large parts of economic life.
Point #2: Nowadays we don’t see it that way. There are many other issues one could mention: the rights of ordinary people to participate in political decision-making, rights of women, rights of children, freedom from domestic violence, etc. These issues all have a moral dimension, and society has changed it’s moral thinking a great deal in a relatively short space of time.
Point #3: Most people currently don’t consider digital rights to be a moral issue, like the person who made the comment I was replying to. They don’t care and they don’t understand why they should care.
Point #4: Every social issue has a moral dimension, including the use of what OS we use. It just takes a little moral reasoning to see it. Putting one’s head in the sand and pretending it doesn’t is not cool.
And as I said, if you really cared you would use gNewSense, with one of those Chinese MIPS based laptops.
I hate how people have bought into the RMS bullshit, that somehow proprietary software is some sort of social disease …
Comparing using software with a particular license to things like the civil rights movement et al. is actually pretty retarded and it makes you sound like you are some kind of nutjob.
Edited 2011-11-23 09:13 UTC
Judging by your comment, in your moral universe it’s perfectly good that using proprietary software produces these outcomes:
1. a handful of people become obscenely rich e.g. Gates, Ellison, Allen etc.
2. countries in which the poorest couple of billion people live spend precious resources funneling even more money to these characters, instead of having the chance to use software freely in all sense of the word free.
Maybe you don’t care about these issues. Maybe they’re totally foreign to you. Maybe you are incapable of seeing beyond your own limited situation in life.
There are always winners and losers in life. These people were in the right places, with the right skills to exploit the opportunies that presented themselves.
When IBM approached gates … he actually recommended CP/M and actually gave IBM the guys contact details, his wife blew the deal with IBM and they came back to gates and the rest is History.
Your problem is?
Lets work on the clean drinking water thing first 😉
Seriously, there are complex political problems … free software won’t fix this … Education will.
Maybe you are talking out of your arse?
Aha! Your first actual argument in this discussion. And lo and behold, you’re making a systems justification argument. No surprise there. Your moral reasoning is that the way things work is basically good, the system ought not to be changed, and you don’t want anyone telling you it should.
And here you’re reverting to juvenile insults, again. You don’t actually have a real argument extending much beyond “I don’t want to know about it”.
I am out of this, this is going nowhere.
EDIT: Btw congratulations, you have made it to the OSNews MegaFail thead
http://omgcheesecake.net/index.php?/topic/1247-osnews-fail-thread/p…
Edited 2011-11-23 10:22 UTC
Thanks! I wasn’t aware of that site. I’m honored.
Not really … I think you are a freetard. It is hardly an honour. It is really sad that you think that civil rights movement has anything to do with what is the end of the day computer code … However you have failed to actually acknowledge this time and time again …
You are either stupid or trolling …
BTW if that is the best response you can come up with after over 11 hours .. really?
Edited 2011-11-24 00:45 UTC
Actually for me it is an honor. There is no chance I’d ever participate in something of that nature. I prefer to put my time into building things.
As for the civil rights and anti-colonialism angle — are you familiar with the range of economic arguments people like Dr. King and Gandhi made? I mean the actual historic examples and the theory behind them. For instance are you aware of the cloth boycott Gandhi undertook? Do you understand why Gandhi and King made the arguments they did? Do you know the historical meaning of the term “self-reliance”?
If so, can you see the strong parallels between free software and these struggles? A lot of people can. It’s easy to find them if you take the time to look.
People draw connections between things where there isn’t really any all the time when doing so supports their interests. To suggest that there are strong parallels only shows how little you know about any or all of these subjects. You want it to be true, therefore you make it so in your mind — even when reality doesn’t agree.
And you are an expert on Gandhian thought? Or are you claiming expertise in the domain of software and its impact on society? Have you ever even spent any sustained period of time in a poor society in which you worked directly on problems relating to poverty, governance, etc.? What makes you so confident that your analysis is right and mine is wrong?
To take but one example of the kind of thing I’m talking about:
“Government ofï¬cials and other Free Software supporters in the state of Kerala believe that Free Software meshes particularly well with Kerala’s long tradition of democracy, equity and public action. Just as Kerala is often held up as a model of equitable social and human development in the region, Free Software supporters there believe they can leverage the inherent freedoms of Free Software to evolve an equitable Knowledge Society based on software independence and self- reliance.” —
V. Sasi Kumar, http://swatantryam.blogspot.com/2007/08/story-of-free-software-in-k…
The truth is simpler and more mundane.
Microsoft promised to deliver a cheap, serviceable, 16 bit CP/M clone that would be ready in time for the scheduled launch of the new IBM PC.
$50 retail list vs $250 for CP/M 86.
Which shipped about six months or so later. It might as well have been five years.
The non-exclusive license would make the MS-DOS PC a viable commercial product before the cloning of the IBM PC-BIOS.
All the Windows eco-system gave these countries were de-facto hardware and software standards for the PC
For an emergent middle class entering a global market place that was a prescription for rapid growth.
The PC is – almost by definition – middle class. You work with words and numbers. You have decent housing, light and power and communications.
In contrast, OLPC has distributed a bare 2 million laptops to grade school kids globally. 1.5 million to Latin America. Not the poorest of the poor.
And the problem with that is…? Or are you one of those people who just blindly opposes all wealth or commerce out of some sense of vague, poorly-defined principle?
“Won’t someone PLEASE think of The Children?!?! I mean… think of The Impoverished?!?!?!?”
…or maybe you’re just a self-righteous d-bag, indulging in some “subtle” morally-superior posturing.
Nah, that couldn’t possibly be it. Let us bask in the light of your obvious moral superiority, oh Enlightened One!
Are you really comparing Operating Systems to Slavery? My God, has everyone lost their perspective? Please just stop.
Edited 2011-11-23 13:19 UTC
No, I’m focusing on the socioeconomic aspects of proprietary software. Maybe you simply don’t care economic inequality? Maybe you don’t care about other people just as long as you’re ok? Keep your head in the sand if you like.
I make money when I write software. It doesn’t make me rich. Why don’t u just go straight to hell. I do not ascribe to your twisted view of software, either Open or Closed. Is Red Hat immoral for making billions off of Free Software? Grow up.
I care about people deeply actually, I don’t think Free software is even close to an answer for the worlds problems, there are many, many more issues that need to be dealt with, global warming, Women’s rights, Cancer, AIDS, world hunger, oppression of minorities.
Like I said in my previous post. Your priorities are messed up, and your perspective is skewed, perhaps it’s because you have it to good yourself?
Why are you ultra-defensive? Do you actually write a commercial OS for a living? Probably not. In that case try to broaden your perspective and understand the needs of others.
Let’s go with the Red Hat vs. Microsoft example. Supposing a relatively impoverished state government in let’s say India wants to run a bunch of servers. With Red Hat / Linux they can poke under the hood. They can modify the code. They can go with a Red Hat solution and pay for it, or they can go with another Linux solution and roll their own. They can educate their university students in how to run it and pull it apart and innovate. That’s the value of freedom. It means they can spend money on stuff that matters instead of lining the pockets of Gates, Allen and other obscenely rich folks.
Do you honestly have a problem with that? Do you understand how far $100,000 can go in a place like India, or most of the rest of the world for that matter? Have you seen the budget constraints facing small businesses and state and national governments that serve the vast majority of the world’s population?
As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if there was no free software, no GPL, and the only way anyone could legally use any software is to license it at terms grossly advantageous to some of the wealthiest people in the entire history of humanity.
That’s what we’re talking about.
So basically ngaio, you don’t believe in paying for an OS. You view it as only lining someones pockets. Ironic that you suggest people be open-minded when your view is very close-minded.
Do you have any clue what type of deal governments get from Microsoft? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how many copies of their software is given away at no charge to places and people in need? Seemingly not. Do you have any clue how important Microsoft is to the American economy, and thus the world economy as well? Seemingly not. Did you know that Bill Gates and Paul Allen both have committed vast amounts of their wealth to help others via The Giving Pledge?
You really come off as one of those ‘Microsoft is the Empire and Bill Gates is the Emporer from Star Wars’ types. It’s really unfortunate when a person is so horny for -fill in OS name here- that it blocks their view of reality for -fill in other OS name, or company here-.
I’ve said this before, … I’m a daily user of both Windows and Linux. Each is great at certain things and not-great at others. Each caters to a different set of needs. The idea that a user _shouldn’t_ select an OS based on their own personal needs, as you’ve suggested, is absurd at best. Windows isn’t flawless and neither is Linux. Linux has it’s own mess of problems like most other OS’es. The sooner you can come to terms with that fact, the sooner you’ll realize you’re trying to have an argument that can’t be won by either side. And what’s left? Just each users individual needs, …exactly where it started and should have stayed in the first place.
I’ve never said that to anyone. And I don’t actually know anyone who has said that.
Actually I do. I’ve had conversations with Microsoft managers before FOSS software became the the force that it is today, and I can tell you they could easily come up with reasons why all governments should pay the same price. Times have changed.
You seem so confident that the competitive threat of FOSS has nothing at all to do with that. It seems we’ll have to disagree there.
Now you’re getting into economics. That’s fine. If you want to construct an economic proof that concentrating vast wealth in the hands of a few mega-companies makes all people on Earth better off, go for it. I look forward to reading it.
Have you seen kind of lifestyle that Allen leads, e.g. the astronomically big boats? Gates seems much more like a normal person. I have a lot of respect for Gates. He’s done some excellent work.
However I will never support an economic system in which men like of any character — good or bad — have the opportunity to amass vast sums of incredibly concentrated wealth (it seems you do). It flies in the face of democracy and equality. I’d much rather have a country’s development directed by governments and civil society through democratic means. I believe in democracy. Do you?
That’s just silly, and frankly disappointing. I started out by saying I have Windows on my computer. I never said anything about Microsoft being evil at any time in this discussion.
Is it is it possible to engage in a reasoned discussion without resorting to sexual metaphors?
Are you reading what I’m saying? I never said that. I said that choices around operating systems inevitably and inescapably have moral consequences. Do you understand that? Does that need to be spelled out any clearer? How many different ways of saying it out there? People can deny it all they want, but their choice of operating system is never purely technical. It is part technical, part moral, but habitual, part emotional, part convenience, etc. etc. etc.
Finally, something we agree on!
No! It is never about solely individual needs. People are social beings. We depend on each other for our survival. We always take each other’s needs into account. Our software choices are meant to meet both individual and social needs. That’s the point. Why is it so hard for you (and others) to agree to something this elementary and basic? None of this is rocket science.
Directly said, no. Implied, yes within the context of your comments.
There’s a difference between a persons opinion and a companies practice. In practice, Microsoft doesn’t adhere to that.
The reason something is done doesn’t automatically outweigh the affect the act has. The only thing that matters is that they do, the why is completely irrelevant in this case.
My statement neither said that, nor implied it. I was simply pointing out that were Microsoft to crumble tomorrow, it would have a very negative global economic impact. That’s just fact. It’s also the reason people look like idiots when they say things like ‘I hope Microsoft burns in hell’, ‘I hope they crumble’, and all the other ridiculous nonsense.
Yes I have, as a matter of fact I have seen it first-hand. I don’t condemn people for living extravagant lifestyles. I don’t believe it’s good for society and the evolution of humanity when vast power & influence (wealth is merely a tool to express power & influence) is concentrated. Allen is one of such individuals who has committed to using his power & influence for the betterment of the population, particularly those who are in real need — just as Bill Gates has. These two are more alike than different.
That depends.. Are you talking about the utopian idea of democracy, which isn’t present in todays world? Or the masquerade of democracy we experience on a daily basis? There’s a great quote I’m compelled to share, ….”None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
Saying you use Windows doesn’t mean or prove anything beyond simply that you use Windows. What’s implied is the sum of a persons texts, not a single cherry-picked sentence.
Yeah, ….and then there are those who simply make their choice based solely on their needs & wants. While you seem to be very passionate and emotional about an OS, you can’t deny the fact that others aren’t. As I said earlier, you want something to be true so you decide in your mind that it is regardless of whether reality agrees or not.
It’s not that we don’t understand what you’re implying, it’s that we simply don’t agree. You seem unaware of the fact that you’re opinion is merely that. I think you expand some aspects and minimize in others to suit your beliefs. Certain types of people have a tendency to reshape reality to accommodate their views, rather than reconsider & rethink so their views work with reality untouched and as it is.
Remember, you’re the one trying to convince people choosing an OS is a moral, emotional, and social decision — and that choosing an OS based on your needs is “in the end not very dignified”. You then try to support this claim by suggesting those who choose an OS based on their needs are like slave owners. Did you honestly think people would take you seriously after making such nonsensical remarks?
It is an undeniable reality that the use of proprietary software is inescapably connected to wealth inequality. And it’s also an undeniable reality that our world is currently full of profound inequalities that are far from inevitable.
Essentially our disagreement comes down to this: you by and large support actively existing arrangements, and I don’t. That is the crux of the argument.
In social psychology there is a large body of work that has delved into the kinds of processes and conditions that are associated with those who justify existing systems of inequality. It’s highly likely you and I score very differently with respect to indices like social dominance orientation, and possibly right wing authoritarianism.
I am not ultra defensive, I am offended by your statements, you don’t know me, but you feel free to judge me by the fact that I buy some of the software I use?
I am offended by the fact that you somehow believe that proprietary software can be compared to owning slaves.
I don’t care what India uses to run it’s servers, either way, it’s their choice. I don’t have a say, and don’t pretend to.
I don’t have a problem with OSS, I use OSS software. I also don’t have a problem with Closed Software, people have the right to choose how they distribute their products.
As a thought experiment, try to think what the world would be like if everyone could eat 3 squares a day, and had a roof over their head, and everyone could read.
Perspective. Get some.
Edited 2011-11-24 13:57 UTC
See that’s the thing, there is a choice. As an Indian and a computer user, I have the choice to purchase an OS from MS or Redhat, or of using the numerous freely available choices. I can purchase an iPhone, or an Android device, or I can get a cheap low-end device. I have that choice!
If someone tries to prevent you have having that choice, then that is wrong. In the same way, you saying that I should only use a free OS is also wrong. We both have the choice and based on the choices we make, companies will thrive or fail.
I Agree with both of you. Since Windows currently is the best tool for the job at hand when playing games (which is the only reason I use it currently).
I got into an debate today with the Windows Administrator and my manager about the Linux vs. Windows bit, and my manager whipped out driver support. I had to tell him right off that Windows 7 supports less hardware than Linux does. He didn’t believe me and also somehow blames Linux for dropping signal on a USB 3G adapter. I think I’ve determined the only reason it ‘seems’ that it’s dropping the connection and it doesn’t in Windows is because Linux has much more responsive network management. You unplug a cable in Linux for a second, and it says “Hey, no connection, plug me back in!!” Windows sits there for about a minute then decides “hey, wait a moment, I think you’ve unplugged the network… yup pretty sure… Hey, did you? Well.. I think you did. Don’t lie to me, I haven’t crashed yet… uhm. Yup you DID!!!”
I know this is the case, and it’s especially bad in Windows 7. I sit there and watch for a good 2 minutes most times when I first log into Windows 7 and it acts like it’s trying to connect to something that should be more or less instant.
Now are they improving the setup experience because they figure like Windows 98, you’ll have to reinstall ever 6 months? I always say who cares about the setup, hopefully you’ll only ever see it once per computer (if even that for pre-installed systems). What they need to improve is Explorer crashing if you are copying from one internal hard drive to another a large amount of files!
Yes, I’ve had Explorer hit the ‘not responding’ and crash when copying from two internal hard drives. I ended up booting into my Arch Linux install and using the ntfs-3g driver to copy the files over. Sad that the Linux coders can make a better ntfs driver than Microsoft who created it.
Yeah – funny about that with ntfs and Linux. Also sad that even this day and age, Windows 7 installs can become fubar’d over time if you do a lot of work on them and software updating/install-removal.
I just went back to putting a varient of linux on my laptop and found it interesting that of the distros I looked at, Ubuntu (to straight jacketed), kubuntu (nice but fail with partition tools), OpenSuse (similar as kubuntu and also didn’t like Yast), and finally Xubuntu (which everone raves about here and now I know why). Xubuntu gave me a very easy install process not wating to destroy my existing Windows install and being friendly to user changes and snappy as hell. A nice alternative to Windows when I grow tired of using it during the day.
Now if Windows people could look at emulating the ease of setup and install of Xubuntu – I would be happier. As it is, I am now keeping an ISO backup of Windows in a fresh install state with important work related software, just incase.
With Ubuntu, I sort of like what they are trying but they need to make is a little easier to customise it. I like having the layout on the side of my screens though instead of at the bottom, works well with 16:9 aspect displays.
I have no doubt Linux has more drivers for more hardware than Windows does.
Then again a lot of hardware is obsolete or exotic. For common hardware there are most likely drivers and this is what Windows users need and thus have.
Also to what extend does a driver support the hardware? Here at work Windows users can ask the printer to print on both sides, but my Linux PC doesn’t offer this option.
So that’s a bit misleading. When you use Windows and have printer A you could replace Windows with Linux that supports printer A, only to find out your full-featured multi functional can suddenly only be used as a simple desktjet.
For me what’s more important than a raw number of drivers available/hardware supported is to have drivers for common hardware and have these drivers fully support all features of this hardware.
Overall Linux supports more hardware, but that’s mainly because it retains support for older devices that are no longer supported in Windows 7. Linux can’t match the compatibility of Windows when it’s paired up with hardware that’s designed for it. That may be an unfair comparison, but it’s also a practical one when looking for an OS.
My main PC needs XP or later, and I’d be out of luck if I had a desperate need to install NT4, but I can install Windows 7 with confidence that it’ll run perfectly on my modern hardware. If I dug out my 10 year old laptop the lack of driver updates would rule out Windows 7, but of course XP would still install without an issue. In contrast Linux, despite its support for a significantly greater range of hardware, doesn’t work properly on either system (or any other PC/laptop I own).
My point is that just having support for a large selection of components doesn’t equate to problem free installation on a wide range of computers.
There’s also the question of what constitutes “hardware support” in Linux. It often seems to me that people declare something “Linux compatible” as soon as the most basic features more-or-less work. My soundcard is meant to be supported, but even basic stereo sound is glitchy, and I can forget about inputs and special features working.
If 100% of features working as well as they do in Windows was the requirement then Linux’s hardware compatibility list would be a lot shorter.
Exactly. In other words, the only time Linux hardware support is better than Windows is if you have some perverse need to use an ISA SoundBlaster card that hasn’t been manufactured in 15 years, or a SCSI scanner from a company that went out of business a decade ago, or an ancient serial mouse.
IF this installer is capable enough to download “the latest” installation files from Microsoft this might mean that after an installation no more updates have to be installed.
I can only dream of an option where this installer would ask “Choose your installation point: RTM, SP1, SP2, Today”
and of course an enterprise option (also useful for us geeks) to use a local installation source that we can patch and change all we want
lol @ ngaio insisting that your choice of OS is an inescapable moral decision rather than simply satisfying your computing needs. And using Windows is apparently undignified.
I feel like I’ve been reading posts from one of those religious fruitcake preachers.
All this looks very nice. But if they really want to do consumers a favor, how about this:
-Get rid of the six editions and make it one or two
-Make upgrading from x86 to x64 editions possible
-Make all editions support all languages and make it possible to upgrade from any language version of Windows 7 to Windows 8
With Vista and 7 you couldn’t just go out and buy an upgrade disc. Oh no, there were over a thousand permutations of Windows installation media/licenses, and if you chose the wrong one, it would force you to do a clean install, thereby losing all your applications and settings. In order to perform an actual upgrade, you had to make sure it was in the right language, the right architecture and the right edition for it to work. This is just BS. And it’s a huge reason why, by comparison, Apple gets a lot more upgraders on board with new versions of OS X–because by and large, the upgrade process “just works”.
Edited 2011-11-24 15:44 UTC
I find it best to start out from scratch when I install an operating system (whether it’d be Windows or Linux). I keep important files backed up and I make lists as to what programs I want (although anymore I have those in my head and I remember them as I go along). Having to upgrade from an older OS is a pain and has cost me a lot of important files in the past (Windows Vista to Windows 7 upgrade). Luckily this was just a free upgrade from college and not something I bought.
Windows 7 never was a pain to me in terms of installation except when upgrading, but I had the right version and architecture when I did try it. The second time I tried to upgrade to Windows 7, it succeeded.
Working on Mac installs and upgrades was easily the best experience I’ve had in terms of installs. There was little to worry about other than the usual requirements (time, user name, Wi-Fi access, etc.) I’ve yet to have a Linux distro upgrade work as well as it would when installed on a clean disk. Some of the Linux custom options would trip me up in how many options that they had, but I went through the installs with little hassle.
As long as these install on clean disks okay, that’s fine by me, and I think that users should know of the option to do a full install (even though it costs more to buy a Windows full install disc, it is worth the extra money compared to upgrading). Besides, there are many applications that may not work with the last version of your operating system that you had (or a package that is either non-existent in the repository or too new may break your application.)
As for Windows 8. I think I’ll skip this one this time round. I don’t have a touch screen and I don’t think there will be any reason to install it unless they don’t allow new Directx versions on Windows 7.