[rgreen4]

Au Contraire - machines are swapped out all the time. If you come in one morning and your assigned machine is acting up in a corporate environment, they do not have the luxury or having you sit on your hands while an IT tech works on your machine. If they can't solve it in a short period of time, they will go in the back, grab a machine off the shelf and hook it up to your peripherals. They then leave with the previous machine that was on your desk, return to the back, diagnose the problem and then re-image the machine. It then becomes one of the spares on the shelf awaiting reassignment to another worker when their machine acts up.

In some cases, the IT department is not even at the same location as the user. In this situation, they simply send a replacement machine overnight express and the box is used to return the previous machine. In the situation where the old machine is determined to be not repairable for a cost effective basis, the machine is scrapped and a new one is ordered which then awaits it's turn in the replacement pool.

[JimH443]

WinTard:


Steps 1-4 are exactly how I do clean installs on existing machines, whether or not I'm changing OS's. I also add a couple steps in preparation, and often one following:



0) Verify that I have installable versions of all the programs I plan on using.

0.5) Download the latest hardware drivers. (Not a bad idea to do this once or twice a year. MS Auto Update doesn't always send them out.)

1-4) Yours

5) Instead of copying the data, I simply point the newly installed programs to the data on the second drive.

Yes, it's nice to have a backup of all data. For those who have irreplacable data this is a very good method. However, nothing I have is all that important. I'd hate to lose it, but it'd be no biggie if I did. My method allows me to easily boot up on the second hard drive (most machines allow this). I've had to do this once to verify that it was one of those MS Updates that was causing me to be unable to connect to the internet. (To be fair, it was ZoneAlarm's fault... but being able to boot up on the second hard drive made it a simple matter to determine where the problem was)

[WinTard]

JimH443 said:

WinTard:
Steps 1-4 are exactly how I do clean installs on existing machines, whether or not I'm changing OS's. I also add a couple steps in preparation, and often one following:
0) Verify that I have installable versions of all the programs I plan on using.

>

Quote

0.5) Download the latest hardware drivers. (Not a bad idea to do this once or twice a year. MS Auto Update doesn't always send them out.)

>

Quote

1-4) Yours

5) Instead of copying the data, I simply point the newly installed programs to the data on the second drive.

Yes, it's nice to have a backup of all data. For those who have irreplacable data this is a very good method. However, nothing I have is all that important. I'd hate to lose it, but it'd be no biggie if I did. My method allows me to easily boot up on the second hard drive (most machines allow this). I've had to do this once to verify that it was one of those MS Updates that was causing me to be unable to connect to the internet. (To be fair, it was ZoneAlarm's fault... but being able to boot up on the second hard drive made it a simple matter to determine where the problem was)

That's the whole point. I never upgrade a system. Only cold-metal 'pristine' install. I failed to mention I would snapshoot an image of a pristine installation, prior to installing any third party apps, because that's where most of the troubles come from. But I wanted to keep the steps to a minimum for most common users.

Once the new OS is installed, and I have access to my old-data, it's a new adventure from here on. I don't really care about old apps, there probably are either updated versions or even better competing ones by now, so I'll find out by travelling the Internet with an open-mind and discover something new today.

The backup is critically important. Rule #1 of IT: Never make a move you can't back out of... And most people think it optional. Whereas, without a way to step back, there is no way I would make a move forward. So what is the most efficient route to accomplish that? I think I've shared that possibility already.

Bottom line:

1) Completely pristine installation, no bloatware, no crapware, only the pure essence of what should be. Time: 30 minutes

2) Prior OS and data completely intact, with all existing data as-is. No need to verify backup... Time: 0 minute

I usually do this at least once a year. Even going from XP to XP or Linux to Linux. I call it a refresh. It will take care of any rootkits or whatever I don't know about (just in case), and also seems to purge the system, in that after a refresh, any system 'seems' to perform better. All the temp and crap files are gone. I know what is in the system. Data, program and all. I rediscover data that I needed but though lost. And I purge 80% of stuff I really don't need. Call it a spring-cleaning if you will.

PS: I've got enough spare drives, I don't need to purchase anything. Call it elbow-room... And when I need a new drive, buy four at a time. Just in case.

;)

[RNR19952]

Nobody is going to build a 7 image for old PC's. And maybe in large corporations with lots of money they have spare, ready to go PC's for someone, and I truly understand what you are talking about. But those companies are rare. Ask most people in IT, they barely have time to put out the fires let alone get some hot spares ready. My point has been that currently you cannot upgrade from XP to 7 and that will hurt M$, and I think they are just doing that to be a prick and sell some more Vista licenses. Remember Balmer trying to scare all the XP users? XP will be around for another 5 years easy. If M$ really wants to kill it, they need to make an OS that actually does something great, not just looks pretty and costs a fortune. What did Vista Ultimate cost retail $399.00?

[JimH443]

WinTard said:

>That's the whole point. I never upgrade a system. Only cold-metal 'pristine' install. I failed to mention I would snapshoot an image of a pristine installation, prior to installing any third party apps, because that's where most of the troubles come from. But I wanted to keep the steps to a minimum for most common users.


That makes us diametrically opposed. I almost never buy an entire system all at once. It's rare that more than one component is not meeting my current need / desire. I buy only the component that doesn't.

[WinTard]

The reason I never upgrade an old system, is I constantly buy new latest-and-greatest hardware.

For instance, to upgrade any of my older systems to 8GB RAM would cost me more than this:

Just for the price equivalent to 'upgrading' my existing RAM from an older existing system, which means scrapping the existing RAM, and replacing with new DIMM's, I can get a FREE complete new system, new mobo, new PSU, new CPU, Quad-core no less, fully 64-bit also... The only obsolete thing would be XP. But as a bonus, I get to keep my existing trustworthy XP 32-bit system intact and operational to boot! Best of both worlds. Win-Win all the way. And I get to benefit from all the 64-bit hardware and software has to offer. Basically, keeping up with the times...

And it would be impossible for me to achieve that (48GB RAM) without starting from scratch:
>

So upgrading an OS is irrelevant to me. But staying up with the times, that isn't.

And both these systems would be useless with XP Pro SP3 x86. But would be done justice with Windows 7 x64.

As far as the cost of Windows Vista Ultimate retail box, the cost currently appears to be: $165 OEM could be cheaper...
http://www.pcworld.c...y.html?id=10230
>

Bottom line: It makes no sense to upgrade to Windows 7, unless you are not upgrading but upsizing your hardware in the first place. Think of it as moving into a bigger house, while keeping your old house, as a second house, for whatever purposes... And for those stuck on XP, you can boot that within the new system with ease. It will be transparent! Concurrently! While running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 at full-speed, have a virtualized XP running in the background, also at full-speed. Simultaneously. And definitely faster than XP is running in your existing old system, even virtualized. Where's the beef?

[JimH443]

We're again diametrically opposed. I can never afford the "latest and greatest" hardware. I currently have my system maxxed out on RAM (2GB), so the possibility of needing more has crossed my mind. When the time comes where I want my system to have more, I'd buy a replacement motherboard. This would probably necessitate a new CPU and all new RAM (my RAM is so old it's hard to find anymore). I haven't done any pricing, and I suppose it's possible that this might be more than $400... but I'm fairly sure I could find something I find quite acceptable to me for less than that.

[WinTard]

Hey, I understand. Please understand that I am a freak of technology... ;)

Hopefully, when the time is right for you to upgrade, our little discussions might come in handy in helping you choosing the most cost-efficient highest performance solution for your requirements?

I wish you the best, and please enjoy!

[JimH443]

WinTard said:

As far as the cost of Windows Vista Ultimate retail box, the cost currently appears to be: $165 OEM could be cheaper...

I will never again buy an OEM version of any MS OS. Do you know how much Microsoft support you get for it? None! They won't even begin to talk to you until you pull out your credit card.
Now... they're supposed to do the same thing after (I think) 90 days when you buy the retail version, but personal experience has been that they're always very pleasant and offer any help they can - indefinitely. (I hope no one at MS is reading this! :D )

[WinTard]

Hey, if you have ANY technical problems, I am sure the good members here at PCWorld, can outperform first-level or second-level (and perhaps even third-level) technical support at Microsoft, in a fraction of a second. No offenses to anyone... Even if Microsoft is reading (I am sure they are) this.

At any price! Our community is PRICELESS!

:^0

~~~~~~~~~~
Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right.
~ Henry Ford

They can conquer who believe they can.
~ Virgil

So much is a man worth as he esteems himself.
~ Francois Rabelais

Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work.
~ Thomas A. Edison

The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat.
~ Lily Tomlin

Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.
~ Henry Ford, 1863-1947
------
Hey, I'm on a palindromic post # 999 ! ;) It only happens once. The next is 1001...

[rgreen4]

Be careful with those listed prices. The PCW search apparently does not differentiate between OEM/Upgrade/Retail packages, and some of those prices were OEM and some Upgrade. When I clicked on the link to take me to the search and it showed it for $89, but then when I went to the detail there was no $89 listing.

[JimH443]

WinTard said:

Hey, I understand. Please understand that I am a freak of technology... ;)

Hopefully, when the time is right for you to upgrade, our little discussions might come in handy in helping you choosing the most cost-efficient highest performance solution for your requirements?

I wish you the best, and please enjoy!

I hope the time comes when I don't have to pinch pennies every minute of the day. I'd love to have a system that wasn't obsolete years ago. But with the economy being what it is, I suspect I'm among a rapidly growing minority (possibly to the point where I'm again among the majority - a sad thought).

Which is a nice segue to the original topic: Will Win 7 kill XP? When people can afford to buy systems that are capable of more than XP and can afford to buy a new operating system along with it, XP will die. Until that day comes, XP will still be around.

[JimH443]

WinTard said:

Hey, if you have ANY technical problems, I am sure the good members here at PCWorld, can outperform first-level or second-level (and perhaps even third-level) technical support at Microsoft, in a fraction of a second. No offenses to anyone... Even if Microsoft is reading (I am sure they are) this.

At any price! Our community is PRICELESS!

You're half right. The members here at PCWorld probably can outperform any level of tech support at MS. The "wrong" half is "... in a fraction of a second." While MS has nothing to brag about when it comes to Tech Support hold times.... there's always someone on the other end to talk with in under a couple hours. It's rare that this speed can be matched in even the best forum.

And... you kinda need a working computer in order to even access the forum in the first place. :)

[asiafish]

What will really kill XP is when the rest of the industry no longer supports it.

I am predominantly a Mac user and the same issue was hot in the Mac community when OS X hit the scene. Mac users wondered whether Puma (10.1) would kill OS 9, then asked the same about Jaguar, Panther, Tiger and even Leopard. There are still people using OS 9 (or even System 6) on Macs today, just as there are people still using Windows 95. Nothing a company does can actually "kill" an older OS, but what does take one out of relevance is when the rest of the world has moved on.

Yes, it is easy to use OS 9 today, but good luck finding a modern browser or email client. Now this isn't a big deal if the only websites you visit support Internet Explorer 5.1 or Netscape 4.11, but if you need to view modern content, you cannot do it on OS 9. Many Mac users complain about this because they like feature X or feature Y of OS 9 and Apple did it differently in OS X.

Sound familiar? Vista is very different than XP and many WIndows users complained when they found things weren't the same. OS X users had a lot of driver issues early on as well, being forced to boot into OS 9 to use a scanner or printer, for instance. Those things have settled in the years since (Jaguar of 2002 pretty much made things easy). Vista has also settled in, with just about everything working as advertised. The difference is that Apple pushed out OS X first as a beta and then clearly stating (Puma 10.1) that it wasn't ready for prime time and was a "preview of the future" rather than a mission-critical OS. Jaguar was the first version of OS X released as the primary OS that booted on a new Mac though OS 9 remained preinstalled for those who wanted or needed it. Only after Panther (10.3) did Apple declare that OS 9 was dead.

Microsoft has probably learned this lesson well and actually set the playbook that Apple successfully followed with OS X back in 1994 with the introduction of NT. NT wasn't initially marketed as a consumer OS at all, and Microsoft made no secret that most of the things home users did on their PCs wouldn't work on early versions of NT. Even as late as 1998 Microsoft wasn't marketing NT 4 to home users and was very clear that many things woudln't work as well or as easily as they did on Windows 95 and Windows 98.

Windows 2000 was introduced in 1999 as the first really "finished" version of NT, and it was and remains a great operating system. Like Jaguar, it was the version of NT that a non power-user could actually use as their primary OS without really giving anything up to the home version (98SE/ME). Many games wouldn't work on 2000 when it was released, but remember that back then games written for Windows 95 were really still DOS games. Many games written for XP in the early 2000s work great on Win2K systems as well.

Vista, like NT and OS X, represents a larger shift in the system architecture than XP did over 2000 or say Leopard from Tiger. Vista changed the system of drivers, but also changed user accounts and many other security systems a great deal, breaking many older programs as a result. Windows 2000 broke many older programs written for Windows 98 and 95 just as those versions broke a lot of programs written for Windows 3.x. It is inevitable, and while those older programs can be updated to work with the new OS, that is not Microsoft's job.

The mistake with Vista was that it was brought to market too soon, and that the serious initial compatibility issues weren't put out front by Microsoft. Had Vista been released with XP remaining an actively sold product much as Apple did with OS X or MS did with early versions of NT and Win2K, the bad press about Vista could have been avoided.

Windows 7 is not a mere service pack to Vista (that is coming too, called Vista SP2), but is also not a major architecture change. I think of Windows 7 compared to Vista the same way that I think of Leopard (10.5) compared to Tiger (10.4). Tiger was a rather significant change in the architecture and Leopard was where Apple really started to take advantage of those changes. Another analogy close to home is Windows 7 from Vista is like Windows 98 from Windows 95. Improved, but still basically the same thing. This differs from a service pack, even a major one, which doesn't change look or feel, but does improve stability or security. XP SP2 was a major upgrade to security, but was still XP. Vista SP 1 and the upcoming SP2 are major enhancements to stability, compatibility and performance, but it is still Windows Vista. Windows 7 is a new, though evolutionary OS.

It is only for branding that MS changed the number from 6 to 7, as this is more of a Windows 2000 (Win 5) to Windows XP (Win 5.1) type of progression. Windows 7 builds on Vista and improves it, and in my opinion absent the marketing and press disaster (undeserved) of Vista would have been released as Windows 6.1. Of course Vista does have a bad reputation, and so Microsoft is wise to increase a full digit if just to encourage adoption.

Personally, I am quite happy with Vista. I run it on my MacBook Pro for games and am delighted with both performance and stability. My only issues relate to mediocre video card drivers, but that is the fault of Apple, nVidia or both, nothing to do with Microsoft. The next OS X release should address the Boot Camp drivers.

I was very anti-Vista back in January 07 on account of a driver issue on a Toshiba tablet PC I owned at the time. That driver was for the SATA controller and would BSOD the system whenever I played a QuickTime video. Toshiba updated the driver four-months-later, but I had no idea what caused the BSOD and had already angrily downgraded back to XP. Others had similar issues with other drivers, and that is the source of Vista's bad rap. An Apple program on a Toshiba system (with Toshiba drivers) running a Microsoft OS. It stabilized after a while, but that was little consolation at the time, and was something that more testing could have averted.

[BAMT]

The workstations that I run couldn't even run Vista, and they are slow with 7. Putting XP or GNU/Linux on them, however, lets them operate very quickly. Corporations with old systems like these won't use 7, and if a corp's computers could run 7, they'd probably still choose XP over it because of its small footprint and lack of distracting features (spider.exe doesn't count). I even know of a company that still uses Pentium 4 computers that ran 2k and now run XP, however wouldn't be able to run 7 without any number of upgrades. And if XP runs fine and doesn't have any virus problems (corps nearly always use AV), why replace it?

[asiafish]

BAMT said:

The workstations that I run couldn't even run Vista, and they are slow with 7. Putting XP or GNU/Linux on them, however, lets them operate very quickly. Corporations with old systems like these won't use 7, and if a corp's computers could run 7, they'd probably still choose XP over it because of its small footprint and lack of distracting features (spider.exe doesn't count). I even know of a company that still uses Pentium 4 computers that ran 2k and now run XP, however wouldn't be able to run 7 without any number of upgrades. And if XP runs fine and doesn't have any virus problems (corps nearly always use AV), why replace it?

Linux is rarely a drop-in replacement for Windows and is by far the most expensive OS to deploy in most corporate environments on account of training requirements and software incompatibilities.

Pentium 4 computers run Windows 7 and even Windows Vista just fine. I have Vista running nicely on a Pentium IIIm laptop with 1GB of RAM and it performs rather well. Of course Aero isn't supported on the primitive 16MB graphics card, but so what? Office 2007 runs just fine as does IE7. Distracting features can be disabled on slower systems, such as sidebar, which I won't use on single core systems running Vista and even disable on my fast MacBook Pro.

[WinTard]

BAMT wrote:
The workstations that I run couldn't even run Vista, and they are slow with 7. Putting XP or GNU/Linux on them, however, lets them operate very quickly. Corporations with old systems like these won't use 7, and if a corp's computers could run 7, they'd probably still choose XP over it because of its small footprint and lack of distracting features (spider.exe doesn't count). I even know of a company that still uses Pentium 4 computers that ran 2k and now run XP, however wouldn't be able to run 7 without any number of upgrades. And if XP runs fine and doesn't have any virus problems (corps nearly always use AV), why replace it?

While I respect your opinion, I disagree with you BAMT and your statement that whatever hardware you are using is slow with Windows 7 yet putting XP or GNU/Linux makes them fast. That tells me you have NOT tried Windows 7 x64. And my result with the Windows 7 beta contradicts your statements. In addition you stating they will run XP, but not Vista is mere FUD and BS to me.

As far as corporations, any new recent hardware acquisitions will be of the 64-bit type nowadays, with far superior computing power, multi-core, multi-threaded, and vast amounts of RAM incomparable to what was available a mere year ago.

Our corporate standard is Core2 Duo, with 4GB RAM entry level... It would be ridiculous for anyone to start below, only to have to scrap the existing RAM, in order to potentially upgrade in the near future. Yes, when you buy a 2GB system, it usually comes with (2) 1GB DIMM. When upgrading to 4GB, then you would have to scrap the existing (2) 1GB DIMM modules, and replace with (2) 2GB DIMM modules... At least in laptops. And yes 32-bit OS are useless with 4GB or more.

If only for the fact that memory accesses done in 64-bit chunks per clock cycle, versus the same action takes at least two clock cycles on a 32-bit system, right there you have more than the rationale to go to 64-bit, if your CPU supports it.

Bottom line is Windows 7 is vastly more efficient than Vista, yet superior in functionality and performance. And also confirmed by reported independent experiences from many other members of PCWorld Community suggests Windows 7 may be very well even be more efficient than XP as well.

As for Linux, it certainly isn't any faster than Windows 7. And I am a Linux aficionado! Whereas you obviously are biased against Vista and Windows 7 and do not base your assumptions on real day-to-day working experience with Windows 7 x64 over an extended period of time IMHO.

Granted we're a software development company. So?

So let's agree to disagree.

PS: I think your avatar has a touch of class, including the red hat fedora. A little bit of windows, ubuntu, and all?

Peace!

~~~~~~~~~~
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.
~ Mahatma Gandhi

[WinTard]

Nice post asiafish, and very informative. Thank you, I really enjoyed reading it, and am following your posts with great interest. I had no idea an Apple fan, could be so 'multi-cultural' that I am amazed, and pleasantly surprised!

[asiafish]

WinTard said:

Nice post asiafish, and very informative. Thank you, I really enjoyed reading it, and am following your posts with great interest. I had no idea an Apple fan, could be so 'multi-cultural' that I am amazed, and pleasantly surprised!

Nothing to do with liking or disliking Apple. Apple is one of many vendors of computer hardware, and one of three major desktop OS vendors. For laptop hardware, I actually like Lenovo ThinkPads best. If OS wasn't an issue, I would probably be using a ThinkPad X301 as my primary system right now, or possible a T400, going with the absolute smallest and lightest system that is still capable of gaming-level graphics (256 MB discreet).

I prefer OS X over Windows Vista as my work OS, and prefer Vista over OS X as my game OS. In each case, I take advantage of the strengths of the system and minimize access to the weaknesses. At work I am online all the time and don't want to deal with maintenance, patches, reboots or running intrusive protection software, which favors OS X (for now). For games, I really don't care about malware as I only go online to download game patches, usually through a games own interface. Even so, I still have security software installed and updated because I use Windows for military work as well.

I've moved through every version of Mac OS since System 7.1 and every version of Windows since Windows 386. There were times when things were much better on the MS side of the fence, such as Win2K vs. OS 8 and OS 9. There were times when Mac OS was vastly superior, such as System 7 and OS 8 vs. Win 3.1 and Win9x. Today I give OS X the nod, but if Windows 9 is better than OS XII I will just as quickly move my work machine back.

I consider myself to be platform agnostic, rather than a platform zealot. I just use whatever is better at the time of my upgrade cycle.

[WinTard]

[quote name='asiafish']
>

WinTard said:

>> Nice post asiafish, and very informative. Thank you, I really enjoyed reading it, and am following your posts with great interest. I had no idea an Apple fan, could be so 'multi-cultural' that I am amazed, and pleasantly surprised!

Quote

{Snipped}
I consider myself to be platform agnostic, rather than a platform zealot. I just use whatever is better at the time of my upgrade cycle.

Please allow me to add your quote to my repertoire of pearls of wisdom, credits going to you! I entirely agree with your philosophy, and only regret not being as open-minded as you, since I've never had the occasion to experience either Apple PC's, Mercedes or BMW either. So it is unfair from me to claim to be agnostic, both in life and spiritually, yet pass judgments on things I have not actually experienced.

My entire respects sir!