Windows 7 - upgrade chart

puduhead

New member
upgradechart.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Honestly, it has always amused me the way Microsoft attempts to sell Windows directly to end users. An OS upgrade is a process that's beyond the technical capabilities of the vast majority of the people they are marketing them to. Most of these users wouldn't even be able to figure out that upgrade matrix let alone how to set their boot order, obtain and install drivers or backup and restore their files. And in the event they purchase the upgrade and do have any difficulty, Microsoft is sure to be of absolutely zero help. They really need to re-think the way they approach this.
 
I'm failing to see what's so difficult to figure out about that chart. You pick the OS you're currently running on the left side and you pick the OS you're going to upgrade to on the top and then you see where they intersect. Isn't that a skill that's taught in third grade or so?

A friend of mine upgraded a computer from XP to Windows 7 with no problem at all and he's not terribly technically literate. He knew enough to realize that the new (used) computer didn't have an AGP slot because the video card from his other computer wouldn't fit in any of them but he had no idea what kind of slot he did have. (PCI Express)

Granted, most of the people I know who buy Windows retail don't generally do it with the intention of upgrading, they do it with the intention of reinstalling. (Which reminds me, I need to go see what the process is for purchasing Windows 7 for a system on which the demo is already installed. I'm hoping it's just a matter of putting the disk in the drive to activate it, but I imagine a lot of morons are going to start crying in March when their computers shut off every 2 hours.)
 
For a technically inclined user, the chart isn't difficult - but for it's target audience it is far too complex. For the average user, how do they know what version of Windows they are running, or what architecture or even what the difference between the two types of installs are? Microsoft has also done a disservice since Vista by creating so many versions of Windows unnecessarily. Do we really need a division between Professional and Ultimate, with only a mere $20 price difference separating them?

Look at Apple for comparison. They don't have an "Upgrade Matrix" because they don't need one. They sell one consumer version of OS X, both architectures are supported on the same media so the user doesn't even need to think about that aspect and the user can easily perform an upgrade install or a clean install. It's Apple's attention to the user experience that is causing them to gain ground at Microsoft's expense. For as many versions of Windows that we've been through, Microsoft is still thinking with the same mentality as they have since the beginning.
 
Well no, I guess I get it, but it's not really a very descriptive chart though is it? (in-place upgrade? Does this mean it's designed to migrate smoothly from one to the next, or some such thing? Hard to say since it doesn't say on it anywhere.) Also, I am computer literate...this computer I'm on right now I built myself and installed all software myself. Wouldn't let anyone else do it because it probably wouldn't be done to my satisfaction.
 
Regarding in-place upgrades, it's kind of humorous - several years ago I went through Microsoft's MCTS certification program for Windows Vista and in the training materials, they themselves explicitly recommend against in-place upgrades.

This is a stark departure from their previous position in the Windows XP era where they recommended in-place upgrades and even recommended doing it twice if your original OS wasn't compatible with XP. For example, if you were running Windows 95 and wanted to upgrade to XP, they recommended upgrading 95 to 98, then upgrading 98 to XP. :scared:
 
This is a stark departure from their previous position in the Windows XP era where they recommended in-place upgrades and even recommended doing it twice if your original OS wasn't compatible with XP. For example, if you were running Windows 95 and wanted to upgrade to XP, they recommended upgrading 95 to 98, then upgrading 98 to XP. :scared:

Heh. Would that even make any difference? At least when I'm installing/reinstalling something, I'm usually doing it from booting off of the disk anyway. :p
 
Well no, I guess I get it, but it's not really a very descriptive chart though is it?

Well, we're looking at the chart completely out of context. I doubt very much that Microsoft simply posted this chart with no other information. With all the talk about how the average end user wouldn't be able to understand it, I haven't seen any indication that this chart was ever intended for the average end user.
 
Well, we're looking at the chart completely out of context. I doubt very much that Microsoft simply posted this chart with no other information. With all the talk about how the average end user wouldn't be able to understand it, I haven't seen any indication that this chart was ever intended for the average end user.

I think you are probably right. And for the record, i don't really have an opinion. just saw that the chart was making controversy on the net and figured i'd throw it on here.
devil.gif


From what i have read, there's some unfair characterizations of this, particularly by the Mac community, who don't support the same markets as Microsoft platforms, and so would never run into these kind of challenges in upgrade support.

Anyway, 2 points (as already made) seem to be of most significance:

1) Your average end user will never do this because they lack the skill to migrate to a new OS and will probably just end up with 7 when they buy a new PC.

2) Your advanced user knows it's best, in most cases, to do clean install.
 
So the chart was quickly thrown together by Microsoft at the request of Walt Mossberg who apparently writes for the Wall Street Journal. It wasn't some well planned PR move nor was it intended to be used for non-technically inclined users.

The comments make no sense, though. I upgraded a machine from XP to 7 with absolutely no problems. Nor were there any driver issues. In fact, it looks to me like all of the "controversy" is being stirred up by Mac users, which makes sense. The chart obviously isn't intended for non-technical users and Mac users certainly fit that bill.
 
The OS divide certainly seems more bitter than in years past. Could it have something to do with the relatively recent Mac marketing agenda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLgBx3W9Ss&feature=related

I would definately agree that Apple's recent commercials have caused the flame war to flare up recently. The most irritating thing though is listening to some of the talking points from both camps. For example, during one of their keynotes Apple had mentioned "DLL hell" is a major problem for Windows users - did they mean Windows 95 users? When is the last time ANYONE has encountered a DLL issue? Microsoft was almost as bad in one of their commercials - "Duh... I want a laptop for internet, pictures and gaming" - the choice, an HP with integrated Intel graphics and likely the lowest Core 2 Duo (or worse, Pentium Dual Core) available. That's the single area a MacBook would have actually held the advantage.

I think it's actually a good thing that both companies are going at it, it helps promote competition and causes both of them to look at their products in a more critical light and hopefully improve them. I just wish they would keep the debate within the realm of common sense and wouldn't divert off into Kool-Aid land.

Just as a disclaimer - I actually use Windows primarily and prefer it as my platform of choice (I actually have 3 copies of Windows 7 pre-ordered at the moment) but I also keep a Mac on hand and work as a technician in a school district that's 90% Mac.
 
The comments make no sense, though. I upgraded a machine from XP to 7 with absolutely no problems. Nor were there any driver issues. In fact, it looks to me like all of the "controversy" is being stirred up by Mac users, which makes sense. The chart obviously isn't intended for non-technical users and Mac users certainly fit that bill.

Hm, actually...you said you tried the beta, correct? How is Windows 7 anyway? I'm kind of thinking about it, if it gets rid of/fixes what made Vista annoying. Mostly because there is an app or two I have that would benefit from DirectX10 (such as PCSX2).
 
Hm, actually...you said you tried the beta, correct? How is Windows 7 anyway? I'm kind of thinking about it, if it gets rid of/fixes what made Vista annoying. Mostly because there is an app or two I have that would benefit from DirectX10 (such as PCSX2).

It was a friend's computer I installed it on, but I've used it a bit. It's certainly faster than Vista. From what I've seen, the interface isn't really any different, but I've only used Vista while fixing other people's computers, so I can't really say much about the differences between them.

The impression I've gotten from 7 during the times that I've used it is that it will take some getting used to but has enough nice features to be worth the effort. And this is coming from somebody who hates having to learn new interfaces. Hell, I finally installed Firefox 3.5 today and my immediate reaction was "What the fuck is that New Tab Button doing on the tab bar and how do I turn it off?" (Got that fixed easily enough, though, just a simple CSS tweak.)
 
It was a friend's computer I installed it on, but I've used it a bit. It's certainly faster than Vista. From what I've seen, the interface isn't really any different, but I've only used Vista while fixing other people's computers, so I can't really say much about the differences between them.

The impression I've gotten from 7 during the times that I've used it is that it will take some getting used to but has enough nice features to be worth the effort. And this is coming from somebody who hates having to learn new interfaces. Hell, I finally installed Firefox 3.5 today and my immediate reaction was "What the fuck is that New Tab Button doing on the tab bar and how do I turn it off?" (Got that fixed easily enough, though, just a simple CSS tweak.)


Not sure what site ,"might have been Toms Hardware or HardOCP" ,it was but they ran XP, Vista, and 7 against each other on identical computers with games, apps, rendering, conversion, copying files, ect. and from the charts at the end Windows 7 was much faster followed by Vista "patched with the latest updates at the time" and XP SP3.

I was actually shocked how fast Vista was compared to XP from the horror stories I've heard but they could have had all the visual goodies turned off though it wasn't mentioned.
 
Hell, I finally installed Firefox 3.5 today and my immediate reaction was "What the fuck is that New Tab Button doing on the tab bar and how do I turn it off?" (Got that fixed easily enough, though, just a simple CSS tweak.)
I never had that problem because I use Tab Mix Plus, which gives me greater control over the tab bar, so it was already off when I upgraded to Firefox 3.5.
 
I was actually shocked how fast Vista was compared to XP from the horror stories I've heard but they could have had all the visual goodies turned off though it wasn't mentioned.

The thing that shocks me about Vista is that it appears to eat RAM for breakfast. I wonder what Windows 7's RAM usage is?
 
Back
Top Bottom