Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Don't upgrade to Windows 7 ... clean install instead!

By Adrian Kingsley-Hughes | November 4, 2008, 10:50am PST

Summary: I’ve just been having a flick through Microsoft’s Windows 7 Application Quality Cookbook (via All About Microsoft) and I’m already certain that those deciding to upgrade to the OS from XP or Vista are going to be in for a world of hurt unless everything that’s installed is bang up to date come release day - and even then there’s room for problems.

I’ve just been having a flick through Microsoft’s Windows 7 Application Quality Cookbook (via All About Microsoft) and I’m already certain that those deciding to upgrade to the OS from XP or Vista are going to be in for a world of hurt unless everything that’s installed is bang up to date come release day - and even then there’s room for problems.

The cookbook is basically a big list of things that are likely to cause people problems when they shift to Windows 7. Here’s the top 11 listed in order of most likely to cause problems:

Internet Explorer 8 — User Agent String
Internet Explorer 8 — Data Execution Protection/NX
Removal of Windows Mail
Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) — Removal of Windows 2000 Client Support Service
Compatibility — Operating System Versioning
Server Core — WoW64 Is Now an Optional Feature
User Interface — Enhanced Taskbar
Microsoft Message Queuing (MSMQ) — Improved Queue Handling
Windows Server — Terminal Services
User Interface — High DPI Awareness
Removal of WPDUSB.SYS Driver for Windows Portable Devices

I can see three of these issues being particularly painful to those who choose to upgrade from XP or Vista to Windows 7:

Internet Explorer 8 — Data Execution Protection/NX
Basically, any add-on that’s not DEP/NX aware is likely to crash the browser. Any and every toolbar or add-on could cause problems, and there’s no guarantee that DEP/NX compatible versions will be available at Windows 7 launch. Anything obsolete or outdated that’s installed it likely to cause users problems.
While for tech-heads that’s unlikely to be a total show-stopper, for your average Joe Sixpack user who relies on IE, this could cut them off from all sources of assistance and make them have to fall back on Microsoft support.
Compatibility — Operating System Versioning
OS versioning is always a bug-bear. An app that’s otherwise 100% happy with the new OS can be crippled when it comes across an OS version that it’s not expecting.
Again, not disastrous for a tech-savvy user, but could be a real show-stopper for Average Joe.
Removal of WPDUSB.SYS Driver for Windows Portable Devices
This change to Windows 7 is another gotcha waiting for upgraders. Microsoft has replaced the Windows Vista USB driver stack (WPDUSB.SYS) for Windows Portable Devices with a generic WINUSB.SYS driver. This means that there could be issues surrounding hooking up to Windows Portable Devices using legacy drivers and applications.
Depending on your device and vendor support, a shift to Windows 7 could mean having to replace the device.

Bottom line, these issues mean that doing an in-place upgrade of an OS could be traumatic no matter whether you are starting with XP or Vista. This means that the old rules apply - for the best experience possible, you will need to nuke your existing install and start fresh. You’ll also need to take care installing legacy drivers to make sure that you won’t be introducing problems.

It also seems that if you’ve given Vista a miss in the hope that Windows 7 will offer fewer compatibility issues … well, you might be outta luck.

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

More from “Hardware 2.0”

What's the take-away from Apple slashing iPhone production?

First look at "Porn Mode" for Firefox 3.1

Topics

Microsoft Windows 7, Clean Install, Microsoft Windows, Operating Systems, Microsoft Windows Vista (Longhorn), Microsoft Windows XP, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, Operating System, Microsoft Windows Vista, Portable Device

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

132

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

..because "finding out about Linux" won't cost you time?

*Gman* 27th Oct 2009

BTW, you may want to llok into WIndows XP Pro x64. Came out a long time ago.

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

Everyone Should Know This

itanalyst2@... 4th Nov 2008

ANY Microsoft OS you are gambling with your life to do an upgrade....

98, ME, XP, Vista...all of them ground the system to a halt...

Fresh install no problems!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Prudent procedures

rag@... 4th Nov 2008

It's always prudent to do a fresh install when going from one version of an operating system to another.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Everyone Should Know This

fmhiggins 4th Nov 2008

Not true! 98 & XP were great upgrades cleaning up the MS mess from previous bad versions...

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Amateurs...

rag@... 5th Nov 2008

Computer professionals would never put a new operating system on top of an old one. Although the system may appear to be working OK, there may be problems "under the hood" which will be inherited and possibly magnified by an upgrade. Clean is always best...well, unless it's Windows ME.

0 Votes

+ -

Then why sell an upgrade version?

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 6th Nov 2008

And when you buy new hardware, why have a sh*%^y bloatware OS already preloaded on there?

You can talk clean installs all you want to, but Joe Sixpack typically isn't a computer professional

0 Votes

+ -

And Joe Sixpack does not ...

mwagner@... 6th Nov 2008

... upgrade his OS. (Most of the time, he doesn't even run Windows Update!) Instead, he uses his old computer until he can't stand the sluggishness anymore and he goes out and buys a new computer with a pre-loaded OS.

The "Upgrade Version" is marketed by Microsoft to address the concerns of more knowledgeable users who CAN AND WILL upgrade their OWN OS.

You can do a clean install with upgrade versions and it is even easier with Vista media than it was with XP media.

0 Votes

+ -

You sure?

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 6th Nov 2008

... upgrade his OS. (Most of the time, he doesn't even run Windows Update!)

I'm sure that's true, although most of the Joe Sixback machines I've run into at least have Windows Update left on by default.

Instead, he uses his old computer until he can't stand the sluggishness anymore and he goes out and buys a new computer with a pre-loaded OS.

Yup... Agree.

The "Upgrade Version" is marketed by Microsoft to address the concerns of more knowledgeable users who CAN AND WILL upgrade their OWN OS.

You mean popping a CD in the tray, answering a few questions and watching the bars grow?

You can do a clean install with upgrade versions and it is even easier with Vista media than it was with XP media.

Uh-huh. Sure... wink

0 Votes

+ -

Bottom Line

mrjoctave@... 7th Nov 2008

Joe sixpack has no business upgrading a computer, if u dont know what ur doing then leave it alone..... or buy a Mac

0 Votes

+ -

And Microshaft...

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 7th Nov 2008

...has no business sticking Vista-capable stickers or selling Vista on underpowered hardware.

0 Votes

+ -

@ B83...

Wolfie2K3 8th Nov 2008

Microsoft didn't stick those Vista capable stickers on anyone's hardware. The hardware vendors did it themselves. DOH!

All Microsoft did was write up the specs for what Vista will need in order to run properly.

Of course, ANYONE with any semblance of a clue would take the bare minimums Microsoft specifies for hardware requirements and, at the very least, increases that by a factor of 2. So if they specify 512 MB of RAM, a GB would do it better.

Secondly, NOT having good, solid, working drivers for a lot of stuff tended to cause problems. It took hardware makers a while to catch up with the driver thing and make it so things didn't suck.

Blame Microsoft.. Ok.. They deserve a share of the blame. They didn't maybe communicate well enough with hardware vendors on getting their act together. But blame the hardware people who figured they'd be able to offload older, less capable hardware by slapping a Vista capable sticker on hardware that may not have been quite up to speed.

0 Votes

+ -

Wolfie

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 10th Nov 2008

All Microsoft did was write up the specs for what Vista will need in order to run properly.

Yup, that?s all, all right... wink

Of course, ANYONE with any semblance of a clue would take the bare minimums Microsoft specifies for hardware requirements and, at the very least, increases that by a factor of 2. So if they specify 512 MB of RAM, a GB would do it better.

Which allowed the manufacturers to install them on underpowered machines as an easy (and legal) way out. Thanks to Microshaft and their false advertising, they let them off the hook.

Secondly, NOT having good, solid, working drivers for a lot of stuff tended to cause problems. It took hardware makers a while to catch up with the driver thing and make it so things didn't suck.

Giving people enough time to skip Vista altogether and wait for Windows 7

Blame Microsoft.. Ok.. They deserve a share of the blame. They didn't maybe communicate well enough with hardware vendors on getting their act together.

Glad to hear they?re starting to accept responsibility for their actions.

But blame the hardware people who figured they'd be able to offload older, less capable hardware by slapping a Vista capable sticker on hardware that may not have been quite up to speed.

They could have also just left XP on those older, less capable hardware until those supplies ran out, instead of suddenly finding Vista-only machines on everything, the week after it was introduced.

If Microshaft said they could do it, then they did it. Maybe Microshaft should be more truthful what they put on the outside of their packages, don?t-cha think?? There are truth in packaging laws out there ya know, so it?s no surprise Joe Sixpack is suing them.

And now the manufacturers can always then come back and say ?See? Look at the specs Microshaft put on the outside of their boxes. We only followed their guidelines?. Brilliant.

0 Votes

+ -

One More!

aussieblnd@... 5th Nov 2008

Just one more reason to consider a switch to another OS.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Totally agree....

devlin_X 5th Nov 2008

This applies to not just Windows but from my experience all OS's.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Why is there still a 32 bit version?

Norcross 4th Nov 2008

If I am off-base, please correct me. However, why is there still a 32 bit version being made? Some of the faults with Vista (and there were many) was that the initial intent was to be a purely 64 bit OS, and then had to be reverted to 32 bit after the fact. Considering where we are, and how many people are still clinging to XP, wouldn't now be the time to switch to 100% 64 bit?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

And yet going to 64bit only would result in more compat claims. (NT)

logicearth@... 4th Nov 2008

Just can't win NT

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Quite. No problems with Vista64 here...

HypnoToad 4th Nov 2008

Though Microsoft (and Apple) should be spanked for using RAM so frivolously; until Vista I took great glee in calling Apple's product "OX" given how bloaty it was. Then comes Vista -- yo, this isn't a contest to see who can use the most RAM for the least amount of reason... :eek:

0 Votes

+ -

They don't have a monopoly on RAM hogging...

Mike (not Cox) 5th Nov 2008

Every time I want to spend some time on optimizing (or just take a little longer to optimize on first write) at work, I'm told not to bother. "All our users have at least 2Gb of RAM, so it doesn't matter." Depressing. I can only assume that a lot of organizations think the same way.

0 Votes

+ -

They don't have a monopoly on RAM hogging...

pauldoyle98@... 5th Nov 2008

Y'know, it's funny...just as 4 MEGABYTES of RAM wasn't enough for Windows95 back in 1995, 4 GIGABYTES of RAM won't be enough for Windows7 (it's just adequate for Vista; I'm running it on a P4 3.4 GHz 32 bit with 4 GB RAM, but the OS & apps can use only 3.3 GB). Over that 13 year span of time, we now need literally A THOUSAND (that's 1,000!) times the RAM, but nobody would seriously claim that we're getting a thousand times the performance or quality over Windows95. Just my 2 cent's worth...

0 Votes

+ -

You're welcome to come visit...

wright_is 27th Oct 2009

A lot of our machines are still on 256MB! I'm getting complaints because, when I started here, I updated them all to SP2 or SP3 and applied the security updates...

Since then the machines have ground to a halt :-D

0 Votes

+ -

Do you have any references for this?

ye 4th Nov 2008

Some of the faults with Vista (and there were many) was that the initial intent was to be a purely 64 bit OS

I've not heard this before.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Around the time of the WinFS speak, I seem to recall.

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

They must have forgotten to give you all of the briefs, Ye.

0 Votes

+ -

So, the longhorn betas, not Vista.

rtk 4th Nov 2008

And please, stop talking about Ye's briefs.

0 Votes

+ -

That's your job...

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 6th Nov 2008

And please, stop talking about Ye's briefs.

wink

0 Votes

+ -

oh, good one

rtk 6th Nov 2008

you sure got me there.

pfft.

0 Votes

+ -

Hey shill,

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 6th Nov 2008

You're the one who's into underpants...

grin

0 Votes

+ -

yo, troll

rtk 6th Nov 2008

good to see you've found my leg again. It's missed you.

0 Votes

+ -

Hey shill

hasta la Vista, bah-bie 7th Nov 2008

What leg? I heard you didn't have one...

LOL.... grin

0 Votes

+ -

Who needs references for THAT? It is a DooDoo statement!

XweAponX Updated - 9th Nov 2008

"Do you have any references for this?-

Some of the faults with Vista (and there XXXX ARE many) was that the initial intent was to be a purely 64 bit OS"

At the time Vist-Poop was developed, there were NO Core Duo CPUS with the IA64 instruction set. Wasn't it over 6 months before the first Core Duos came out with the IA64 Instruction Set?

As a matter of fact, if Intel had NOT developed the NON-x64 Core Duos, then Microsoft probably WOULD have gone x64- Because AMD had started developing the first Under 130 Dollar x64 CPUs.

But it was not Vista to be x64's - At the time Intel F'd us with the first Core Duos, they were pushing XP x64 edition... HARD:

They even started offering x64 XP as a FREE 120 Day Trial.

If VistPooP was to be x64, then WHY were they pushing x64 XP that hard?

MS did not think at all when they developed Vistpoopoo, they just reacted to what Intel had done.

0 Votes

+ -

Revisionist History.

ShadeTree 4th Nov 2008

There was always a 32 bit version of Vista planned. Where do you get this stuff?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Requires the latest hardware yet still does 32 bit ...

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

... or indeed has 32 bit layers that the FUD Factory still can't get to work in 64 bit?

Let's blame the driver writers and third party developers .....

Hell, let's even release an applet that PROVES it is their fault wink

0 Votes

+ -

You're worse than a broken clock

rtk 4th Nov 2008

at least it's right twice a day.

0 Votes

+ -

LOL, nice one.

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

You could of course try to make salient points instead ...?

0 Votes

+ -

Not if it's on ZULU time...

fairportfan 5th Nov 2008

...then it's only right *once* a day.

0 Votes

+ -

ZULU? I think you mean 24-hour time.

*Gman* 27th Oct 2009

0 Votes

+ -

The more logical explanation would be

GuidingLight 4th Nov 2008

That you still have not aquired the capacity for higher reasoning, as your post once again indicates that you still understand little, if anything.

Ah, par for the course. Par for the course.

0 Votes

+ -

Said the amoeba to the monkey

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

You have no capacity for learning at all, that's why you need the rascal's to tell you what to think and how to behave.

Oh look, Microsoft are releasing some new code. I bet that's great ....

0 Votes

+ -

so whats the point here?

mrjoctave@... 7th Nov 2008

amatuers trying to be computer geeks??????

0 Votes

+ -

...the rascal's to ...

jinxsm@... 24th Oct 2009

Hypenating "rascal's"...? Seriously? Why are you trying to show possession here? Maybe it's because you've been owned by the commoners?

Remove the hyphen and you're talking about the crowd of those who are in the dark........

0 Votes

+ -

Where did you learn your grammar?

pfyearwood 26th Oct 2009

Where did you learn your grammar? A Hyphen is a dash type mark that connects two word for a single meaning. I.E: Ethnic group-American.

You are talking about an apostrophe. That is used in contractions and showing possession. I.E.: Most people DON'T (DO NOT) notice a WRITER'S errors when the topic is posted online. Or They DON'T care.

I trust your knowledge of IT is better than your knowledge of GT. (Grammar Technology.)

Paul

0 Votes

+ -

I'll give you two guesses but you're only going to need one nt

ye 4th Nov 2008

0 Votes

+ -

I'll give you two guesses but

Me_too 20th Nov 2008

The first one doesn't count. wink

0 Votes

+ -

Thunking layers

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

If Vista really was a redesigned OS, then all of the old kludge would be gone.

Instead, the truth is it's just a fudge up - as noted by having the same vulnerabilities affecting other Windows systems - is what keeps them tied.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Not everything was rewritten genious. (NT)

logicearth@... 4th Nov 2008

0 Votes

+ -

Correct, and yet it was supposed to be "all new", dimwit.

fr0thy2 4th Nov 2008

0 Votes

+ -

And where did you hear everything was suppose to be rewritten? (NT)

logicearth@... 5th Nov 2008

0 Votes

+ -

It's all the little voices he hears...nt

ItsTheBottomLine 26th Oct 2009

0 Votes

+ -

64bit

Software Architect 1982 4th Nov 2008

My first thought when reading this story was "Is *THIS* the time when they finally go pure 64bit?" Man, I sure hope so! I was disappointed when Vista came out with a 32bit version. By default, most (if not all) HW vendors install the 32bit version, even still. We *really* need to get away from 32bit. It's been a long time coming.