| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim McGregor
   |
Posted - 2009.04.08 17:56:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 08/04/2009 18:00:52
XP users will be unable to upgrade to Windows 7
This is funny. Microsoft forces (legal) users of XP to first buy Vista and then buy Windows 7 unless they wipe their system and reinstall Windows 7 from scratch.
If you get tired of being a sucker, you have two options if you want something else than XP or Vista.
Piracy or Linux.
 Quote:
We realized at the start of this project that the "upgrade" from XP would not be an experience we think would yield the best results
Isnt it nice of them to make the thinking for you?
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 18:46:00 -
[2]
Sounds like typical MS idocy that is going to be called out by the community which will be promptly back peddled.
If they dont, you simply grab your files, wipe your harddrive and do a from scratch install. Pain in the ass, 8 hour time eater yes but if it saves you from having to buy vista first...
--------------------------------
To borrow a phrase:
Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
|
Neyro7830
Gallente
The 5th Freedom
Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 18:48:00 -
[3]
You should do a clean install when upgrading from xp to vista anyhow... so whats the difference?
Oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer |
Last Wolf
Umbra Wing
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:00:00 -
[4]
people still pay for M$ products?
Besides, I'm never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down |
Bodrul
Caldari
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 20:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Last Wolf
people still pay for M$ products?
Buy Microsoft OS?
i download it for free, Herts University give free OS downloads from MS :P
also I prefer XP
WIN 100 Mill ISK, FREE ENTRY |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 20:18:00 -
[6]
Because XP and 7 is so vastly different, I don't think it's easy to ACTUALLY upgrade from XP to 7.
Even if it WAS technically possible, you have to remember that if they make something that almost works, they will have to support it as well, when it breaks.
|
Master Gotama
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 20:23:00 -
[7]
meh. you really should start from a clean slate anyway if you are upgrading to a new microsoft os.
|
Dong Ninja
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:26:00 -
[8]
My next OS will probably be Max OSX or a Linux distro. Gosh darnit why do Macs have to have great software, crap hardware and be so expensive. :|
Originally by: Xen Gin
Indeed, upgrading an MS OS is like taking a **** into a cake mixture, then complaining that it doesn't taste good when it's all done.
|
Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd.
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:27:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Master Gotama
meh. you really should start from a clean slate anyway if you are upgrading to a new microsoft os.
Indeed, upgrading an MS OS is like taking a **** into a cake mixture, then complaining that it doesn't taste good when it's all done.
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:31:00 -
[10]
Why would you want to upgrade in the first place? That's a great way to get all kinds of problems and a truckload of useless files on your pc.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:33:00 -
[11]
Microsoft preventing people from doing an inadvisable thing?
That is pretty funny.
-
DesuSigs |
Lazarann
Caldari
Darkstorm Command
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:41:00 -
[12]
You will however be able to downgrade from 7 to either Vista or XP
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Microsoft-Windows7-Vista-XP-Downgrades,7480.html
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:43:00 -
[13]
Why would you WANT to upgrade like that though? What could possibly possess you to use an upgrade disk rather than a clean install?
____________________
|
Blane Xero
Amarr
The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:53:00 -
[14]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Why would you WANT to upgrade like that though? What could possibly possess you to use an upgrade disk rather than a clean install?
______________________________________________
Haruhiist since December 2008
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:56:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Why would you WANT to upgrade like that though? What could possibly possess you to use an upgrade disk rather than a clean install?
Possibly the price difference?
|
ReaperOfSly
Gallente
Zetsubou Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 22:07:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Why would you WANT to upgrade like that though? What could possibly possess you to use an upgrade disk rather than a clean install?
Possibly the price difference?
That's like saying "you can buy a delicious pie for ú1 or a pile of dung for 50p". (Don't worry, that wasn't a sly jab at your delicious pie making skills)
If you use an upgrade disk, you can never do a clean install with it. You're stuck with the first installation, and whatever crap builds up over time. Not to mention the crap you have lying around from the previous OS. On the other hand, a clean install will make your computer faster and more responsive, like new. And you can refresh that installation over and over.
____________________
|
KingsGambit
Caldari Knights
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:30:00 -
[17]
It is an an interesting bit of news but honestly not particularly surprising. And from the reasons listed in the article, I kinda see from their point of view. While it's a pain in the arse not offering an upgrade path for so such a large majority of current day PC users, they're really gonna alienate Windows users. But I can understand that from a technical standpoint, so much is different in the OSs that it would be a huge challenge to account for.
While Vista/7/Server 2k8 share the same kernel, XP shares its code with Server 2k3. Both families are bound to have much in common but there have been massive changes to even fundamental hardware things that haven't changed in years, since XP was released. IDE has been around for decades and now SATA is taking over and it's being phased out. AGP has been around for about ~10 years (at a guess) and now PCI-Ex is the standard. Originally, XP Home and Pro were different only in that Pro allowed a) joining to a domain and b) multi-CPUs. They obviously changed the latter since the advent of multi-core CPUs.
Even saying all that, I wouldn't upgrade. I'd back up and install clean. But sadly until games developers make games for something other than DirectX, Windows will rule the gaming world. It's losing tonnes of ground in other areas (like office, servers, databases, etc) but DirectX still rules PC gaming. Maybe one day games will be developed for OpenGL, who knows 
-------------
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:29:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
[...]unless they wipe their system and reinstall Windows 7 from scratch.
Isn't that what you should do anyway ? 
_
The problem with EVE || Fit a ship || Get some ISK |
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 04:57:00 -
[19]
The big question that comes to my mind when reading the comments here is...
Why do you feel its OK that Windows is so crappy that you need to make a clean install every time a new version comes out? The fact that you run into all sorts of problems when upgrading, or that Windows collects so much crap in the system so it gets slower and more unstable for every day you use it doesnt bother you?
I think you have gotten so used to the way Windows is that you dont even challenge the idea of having to reinstall the system now and then. You have accepted that that is the way it must be.
If you check out the Linux side of things, you have people running the same distribution for 5 years, just updating it every day with new updates so its constantly fresh. The system doesnt get slower with time, the system updates all your software automatically, the system can be configured in million ways to meet your needs etc. The grass is actually greener on the other side.
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 05:14:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Linux
And why do you think Linux is a lot less threatened by virusses and spyware? It is its anonymity only that grants it protection because if it's not then please enlighten us, Mr. Troll, why there are antivirus programmes for Linux. However, the moment game developers adopt OpenGL and Linux becomes more simplified is the moment I will stop using Windows. Until then save us your ignorance.
|
Victor Valka
Caldari
Kissaki Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 06:59:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
If you check out the Linux side of things, you have people running the same distribution for 5 years, just updating it every day with new updates so its constantly fresh. The system doesn't get slower with time, the system updates all your software automatically, the system can be configured in million ways to meet your needs etc. The grass is actually greener on the other side.
Lies, damned lies and Linux preachers.
Originally by: Spaztick
You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 08:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: ReaperOfSly
Why would you WANT to upgrade like that though? What could possibly possess you to use an upgrade disk rather than a clean install?
Possibly the price difference?
That's like saying "you can buy a delicious pie for ú1 or a pile of dung for 50p". (Don't worry, that wasn't a sly jab at your delicious pie making skills)
If you use an upgrade disk, you can never do a clean install with it. You're stuck with the first installation, and whatever crap builds up over time. Not to mention the crap you have lying around from the previous OS. On the other hand, a clean install will make your computer faster and more responsive, like new. And you can refresh that installation over and over.
Or.... you can do a clean install of your old OS and then immediately upgrade. Which is merely a roundabout way of doing a clean install of the second OS.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 10:21:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Jim McGregor on 09/04/2009 10:23:04
Originally by: Victor Valka
Originally by: Jim McGregor
If you check out the Linux side of things, you have people running the same distribution for 5 years, just updating it every day with new updates so its constantly fresh. The system doesn't get slower with time, the system updates all your software automatically, the system can be configured in million ways to meet your needs etc. The grass is actually greener on the other side.
Lies, damned lies and Linux preachers.
Nope.
And since you didnt back up your statement with facts, I guess you are not interested in hearing anything else than what you already think you know.
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:08:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Linux is less threatened by virus and spyware because its much more secure. There is a few antivirus programs around for it, but its not really a great need for it since the system security model by default prevents most threats. You dont run your programs as administrator so any trojan, virus, spyware or whatever cant install itself in the system like it constantly does on Windows. Windows Vista and Win7 is better at this, however the sloppy, bloated, closed code for Windows still means there will be lots of holes to use. And its very simple for a script to just disable UAC in a second without the user knowing anything about it. Windows will never be secure. Just face it.
It is more secure, but the fact still remains that the only reason there are not many virus's around for Linux is becuase it isn't used much by average joe who gets an email saying "ZOMG HILARY DUFF XXXXXXX OPEN ATTACHMENT!1" and opens an executable file attached to it :P
__________________
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:12:00 -
[25]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 09/04/2009 11:14:06
Originally by: Jim McGregor
2. Linux is less threatened by virus and spyware because its much more secure. There is a few antivirus programs around for it, but its not really a great need for it since the system security model by default prevents most threats. You dont run your programs as administrator so any trojan, virus, spyware or whatever cant install itself in the system like it constantly does on Windows. Windows Vista and Win7 is better at this, however the sloppy, bloated, closed code for Windows still means there will be lots of holes to use. And its very simple for a script to just disable UAC in a second without the user knowing anything about it. Windows will never be secure. Just face it.
Aw, come on.
Linux is less threatened because of the simple fact that less people use it. Exact same can be said for Mac, for now.
The only difference being that Mac is actually even a remotely a threat to the windows marketshare. God knows that Linux isn't, not in the near future.
EDIT: Just to qualify my argument a bit further: Malware and viruses created due to monetary incentives now, unlike in the past. That means that the threat of a virus is equally proportional to the amount of users it has.
|
Forando
Interstellar Cowards
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:22:00 -
[26]
I don't really care about their upgrade policy, I've usually been bigger fan of backing up files I want to keep and then do fresh installs. I believe this is a minor issue, and most people will probably just use it as a poor excuse to bash Microsoft, since it's trendy to beat the big guys like that.
But Microsoft will probably have a hard time convincing me to upgrade from Windows XP anyway. I'm still using it, and will do so until I run into larger security risks. In the spirit of tin-foil; Microsoft might actually just make those security holes the moment they officially won't support Windows XP anymore, that would be clever play, eh?
Enjoy, and fly safe..
|
Victor Valka
Caldari
Kissaki Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:35:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Jim McGregor
Originally by: Victor Valka
Originally by: Jim McGregor
If you check out the Linux side of things, you have people running the same distribution for 5 years, just updating it every day with new updates so its constantly fresh. The system doesn't get slower with time, the system updates all your software automatically, the system can be configured in million ways to meet your needs etc. The grass is actually greener on the other side.
Lies, damned lies and Linux preachers.
Nope.
And since you didn't back up your statement with facts, I guess you are not interested in hearing anything else than what you already think you know.
I thought this was a "LOL Windowz!" thread, since you didn't back up any of your statements with facts from credible sources, either. 
I support the development of open source application and OS, and I believe it's a wonderful thing that OSS does.
However! I've been around for long enough to know that the sea of sweet milk upon shores of golden honey you Linux preachers promise to potential coverts is a lie.
Originally by: Spaztick
You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
|
Jim McGregor
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:48:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Victor Valka
I thought this was a "LOL Windowz!" thread, since you didn't back up any of your statements with facts from credible sources, either.
I support the development of open source application and OS, and I believe it's a wonderful thing that OSS does.
However! I've been around for long enough to know that the sea of sweet milk upon shores of golden honey you Linux preachers promise to potential coverts is a lie.
Everything I said is true. If you dont believe it, you should have a better reason than "it sounds too good to be true". There is nothing strange about a operating system that simply does the job it is supposed to do in a good manner. The automatic updates are reason enough to switch over. Its great to not have to put up with Windows Update and all that crap. You get updates to all your software in Linux. Everything you have installed from the package manager anyway. Sometimes they are behind a bit on the updates, but its still much better than me having to hunt for new versions of everything I have installed manually.
Just a week ago I got new nvidia drivers and a new wine version installed. Its things like that that makes me a huge fan. Im not a fanatic, Im just saying that for a lot of people, Linux would actually be something they would enjoy now. It has come a long way.
---
Originally by: Roguehalo
Can you nano Titans?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:48:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Victor Valka
However! I've been around for long enough to know that the sea of sweet milk upon shores of golden honey you Linux preachers promise to potential coverts is a lie.
Potential lie?
A quick search of google does uncover a heap of flaws in the linux kernel. Mind you that's it's uncommon for even windows to have flaws on a kernel level.
A lot of exploits that hit people, are actually due to third-party application, which manages a piece of code to get enough rights to install itself into the system.
Anyone who claims that any piece of software is secure is a damn liar. If it can be run, it can be turned into something malicious somehow.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 11:53:00 -
[30]
Edited by: LaVista Vista on 09/04/2009 11:55:18
Quote:
If you check out the Linux side of things, you have people running the same distribution for 5 years,
I have a 5 year old XP box. Hurray?
Quote:
just updating it every day with new updates so its constantly fresh.
Why update it every day when that's hardly needed?
Quote:
The system doesnt get slower with time,
Proof?
Quote:
the system updates all your software automatically,
The extra bloat software on top of the system does. Linux doesn't. I'd hit my server with something really big and heavy if it did.
EDIT: Leave alone the fact that my windows updates itself too. So does my mac, however it DOES ask me if I want it to install the updates first, as I need to elevate to admin privileges.
The reason why there's such a big difference between Linux and Windows when it comes to update, is because it's EASY to break compatibility. Hell, when I run my system update on my server, chances ARE that something breaks and needs to be fixed.
Because XP -> 7 is such a huge step, it makes no sense having to support a such disaster. With Linux, you hardly see such major changes. And if you do, much less software actually surrounds it. Lets face it, the availability of software for windows is much greater than that for Linux. Thus, the chance of software which breaks if higher.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |