Microsoft blunders with a confusing Windows 7 upgrade chart

Summary: Someone at Microsoft is secretly working for Apple. That’s the only possible explanation I can come up with for why they distributed an “Official Windows 7 Upgrade chart” that is riddled with errors and implies that upgrading to Windows 7 will be hideously complex. You might as well just throw up your hands now. Or you can see my remake of the chart, which fixes the mistakes and makes your choices much clearer.

Special Report: Windows 7

Someone at Microsoft is secretly working for Apple.

That’s the only possible explanation I can come up with for why they sent this “Official Windows 7 Upgrade chart” to Walt Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal, who published it in full with surprisingly little commentary.

Even in a thumbnail version, the chart tells a horrifying story: Upgrading to Windows 7 will be hideously complex. You might as well just throw up your hands now. Here, see for yourself. The blue boxes are for custom (clean) installs; the green boxes mean you can do an in-place upgrade:

So what’s wrong with this chart? In a word, everything.

First, it includes one entire row dedicated to a product that doesn’t exist: Windows Vista Starter 64-bit edition (Vista Starter is available in 32-bit only). In fact, the entire row for Vista Starter shouldn’t be there, given that it is only offered for sale on very low cost PCs in developing nations and is not sold in the U.S., Western Europe, Australia, Japan, and the rest of the developed world. (In a Twitter exchange, Mossberg confused Vista Starter with Windows 7 Starter and assumed that the former is sold on netbooks. It isn’t.)

Second, of the 66 separate options listed, many are completely ludicrous. Is anyone going to “upgrade” from 64-bit Vista Business to 32-bit Windows 7 Home Premium? Half of those blue boxes are there to simply make the point that you can’t do an in-place upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit Windows or vice versa.

Look, most customers considering an upgrade will be running one of a handful of Windows products. If they are using Windows XP, they’ll need to do a custom install to move up to Windows 7. That was announced ages ago; would-be upgraders have another two or three months to get their program disks together so they can do the upgrade when the time comes. Most Vista users will have clear and logical upgrade paths from their current edition to the same edition of Windows 7.

It took me about an hour to redo this horrible chart into something that is both accurate and useful. It faithfully includes every option listed in the Microsoft chart, with the errors corrected. Click the thumbnail below to see it in its full-size glory:

Which one do you find more readable?

One option I list in this chart is worth calling out specifically, because I haven’t seen anyone else mention it. Officially, you can’t do an in-place upgrade from Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium to Windows 7 Professional. However, there’s a fairly simple workaround: Do an in-place upgrade from your Vista Home edition to Windows 7 Home Premium, then use Windows Anytime Upgrade to move up to Professional edition. Based on published prices, the extra cost is a mere $10. The Professional upgrade is $200; the Home Premium upgrade followed by a Professional upgrade is $120+$90, or $210. Using this strategy, you can keep all your installed programs and not have to worry about reinstalling and transferring data.

Topics: Operating Systems, Microsoft, Software, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

195 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Well I definitely agree...

    ...your chart is INFINITELY better!

    That said, I'm the type of guy who would rather spend 4 hours doing a clean install than spend 4 minutes coping with the bloated remnants of a previous OS release and any unknown instabilities it may hold onto.
    GoodThings2Life
    • Going fro Untimate to Win 7 Pro

      I have Win Vista Ulitmate...and I'm going to upgrade to Win 7 Pro. Ultimate wasn't too Ultimate and hopefully Win7Pro will be a good as when I was Using XP Pro.
      Now it looks like I have to do a custom install,but what I'm having a problem with is putting a new OS on the same partition and leaving the old OS in a folder "windows.old" what is the purpose of doing this? I mean even with the old windows system I still have to re-install all of my programs right?
      ramblnmn
      • Move off of Windows and these problems will be solved for the future.

        It's not very hard. Well, unless you really don't know anything at all ...
        fr0thy2
      • Right

        The windows.old folder is there so you don't lose your data (assuming you don't have a separate data partition or second hard drive). You'll still have to reinstall all your programs.
        boony
      • Yes...

        You will have to reinstall all your programs because a "custom" install really is a "clean" install.

        Here's the easy way:

        Use Windows 7's version of Windows Easy Transfer to back up your data and settings.

        Install Windows 7 using the "custom" install option, use Windows 7's Windows Easy Transfer to restore the data and settings, and then note the list of applications it tells you that you need to reinstall. Takes most of the guess work out of it, just leaving tedious "reinstall" work to do.
        PollyProteus
      • Your real problem...

        After seeing your spelling, I don't think that Windows is your biggest problem. Please move over to Apple, they could use your talents there.
        fitfix
        • but

          not everyone is dumb as you
          Azathothh
        • OMG....One little typo

          I hope your kidding.....I don't think a typo justifies a problem.
          If your knowledge about computers are limited and choose not offer help like all people do on here, maybe it's best to keep your negative comments to yourself.
          ramblnmn
    • Wrong question

      "Which is more readable?" is the wrong question to ask. Your smaller chart is
      clearly more readable, Ed, but it hides the upgrade path many users will be
      (or should be) interested in: 32-bit to 64-bit migration. People who are
      running 32-bit now on their 64-bit hardware will tend to continue to run 32-
      bit, because you're not helping them at all with migrating to 64-bit. As far as
      your chart is concerned, 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista and 7 don't even
      exist. Yes, some people won't care enough to perform a clean install, but you
      know darned well X64 (EM64T/AMD64) software runs significantly faster than
      X86 code, and the future is with X64. For those people who do care (or
      should care), you're doing them a disservice by omitting the 32-bit and 64-
      bit distinctions from your chart.

      "Which chart best describes the situation?" is a much better question.
      Microsoft's chart covers their corporate butt *and* tells the story of what will
      be required to migrate to 64-bits from 32.

      Sorry, Ed, your chart loses.
      dogbreath1
      • Hello?

        "it hides the upgrade path many users will be <br>(or should be) interested in: 32-bit to 64-bit migration"?

        The second row. Biggest thing in the chart. If that's "hiding" something, I sure am not good at it...

        The thing you might have missed is that most desktop and notebook computers sold in the past year that are capable of 64-bit operation actually shipped with Vista x64!
        Ed Bott
      • To agree with Ed...

        Walk into your local computer store (best buy, frys - NOT WAL MART) and you
        will clearly see that pretty much every computer ~$500 and up is 64-bit (about
        80%) of new computers sold are already 64-bit.

        And I didn't realize that dedicating a column to something in a table could ever
        be taken as hiding/missing it.
        CTRLurself
    • agreed 100%

      I much prefer clean installs, upgrades seem to leave a mess behind, and keep problems around for sentimental reasons I think.

      Ken.
      merc2dogs`
  • RE: Microsoft blunders with a confusing Windows 7 upgrade chart

    Seems pretty straight forward to me. No different than any other matrix that has been posted on the web. The important thing here is that Microsoft Windows 7 is going to take the computing world by storm, this chart is assisting with that.
    Loverock Davidson
    • The problem with storms

      is they leave one hell of a mess behind. It would be nice to avoid that this time.
      Michael Kelly
      • Only if your not prepared

        Luckily for us Microsoft provides a readiness kit using items such as this grid.
        Loverock Davidson
        • And even more luckily for us

          Ed fixed it for them so that people wanting to upgrade from Home to Pro don't do an unnecessary HD wipe.
          Michael Kelly
          • Even more luckily for me ..

            .. none of this nonsense affects whatsoever.

            Just keep the latest and greatest Alpha Ubuntu on my development machine and it works great. Even the Alpha.
            fr0thy2
          • It "works great" because it is essentially ...

            ... the same code that Kerigan & Ritchie designed into UNIX forty years ago - only "cloned" by Linus and downloaded for free.

            Windows has changed dramatically since the introduction of NT in 1993.

            Aside from a little eye candy, Linux has changed very little from its UNIX roots four decades ago!
            M Wagner
          • Agreed!

            Perhaps Microsoft's motto should be :

            "If it ain't broke, we can't rebrand it and sell it all over again in a couple of years."
            fr0thy2
          • RE: It "works great"......

            mwagner said: [i]....Windows has changed dramatically since the introduction of NT in 1993. ....[/i]

            I am not sure those changes in Windoze are for the better; but IMHO, [b]for the worse!!![/b]

            When does the fact that *nix code is relatively unchanged over such a long period in time; [b]become a liability?????[/b] I have always thought that sys admins wanted a [b]stable system;[/b] not one prone to BSODs and crashes???

            I have known *nix boxes that have been up 24/7 for more than a year [b]without a reboot;[/b] yet, to install a patch onto a Windoze box, often you must reboot it. Not my idea of reliable, [b]now is it???[/b]
            fatman65535