We can say for sure that
our own Windows 7 upgrade experience didn't take, oh say,
a whole day, but according to Microsoft, your own just might. The boys and girls in Redmond set out with a goal of seeing the Vista to
Windows 7 upgrade accomplished around five percent faster than an upgrade to Vista, and while it seems that they succeeded, the staggeringly wide range in install times has us a wee bit concerned. A variety of testing situations were put in place, and nearly every profile was tested on low-, mid- and high-end hardware. A clean install of Windows 7 on mid-to-high-end hardware took just a half-hour, but a 32-bit upgrade on a mid-range machine with 650GB of data and 40 applications took an astounding 1,220 minutes, or just under 21 hours. The wild part here is that it's not all that uncommon for a power user / all-around nerd to have a half-terabyte of information and two score programs, and in anticipation of one install actually taking over a day, the team didn't even bother testing this path on a low-end rig. Good thing our imaginations are in check, huh?
[Via
ArsTechnica. thanks Martin]
posted Sep 12th 2009 3:38AM
This is exactly why portable hard drives were invented...
Just do a clean install, you'll thank yourself later when you don't have broken programs and various errors.
That's just a time waster, there are other certain Operating Systems which don't need a clean install.
..or just partition your hard drive instead of having one huge C:
Why is this a big deal?
How long does it even take to simply COPY 650GB of stuff on that computer?
With the upgrade version of Windows 7 isn't it the case that you have to have a copy of Vista, XP or 2K installed and activated in order for the upgrade to work? In the past the upgrade version used to just ask you to put the installation disc in the drive so it could confirm you had an older operating system, but now they want it installed and validated making a clean installation impossible.
Any form of DRM like this always makes piracy the more attractive option. The people who pirate Windows 7 will just be able to do a clean install while the people who purchase a legitimate upgrade version will have to reinstall and validate their old operating system and then install their Windows 7 upgrade every time they want to reinstall Windows 7. It's rather ridiculous that pirates get a better experience than legitimate buyers.
Install 7 more than 20 time since the beta in different PC's, 20 minute every time, clean install from USB.
20 min install + 40 min install all apps = 1 hour and i am done, and i don't need to backup or restore files since they have there own partition.
Exactly. Clean install of the RC took less than 20 minutes.
Here Here! I'm just going to refresh the backup of my important docs,images,music, and gave saves and start from scratch...
To be fair even though upgrades on Windows 7 do take a ridiculous amount of time (even upgrading from one version of Windows 7 to another has taken me 2 hours), almost every upgrade I have done has been extremely impressive. I hate upgrading, but will sometimes do it on a system that is particularly annoying to rebuild. Vista upgrades from XP were almost always doomed to issues, Vista to 7 has been pretty darn smooth. Smooth enough that after trying it out on enough systems, I decided to try it on my Wife's HP tablet (with the factory Vista image on it, HP bloat, fingerprint reading software, Wacom drivers etc.) It went beautifully and everything is working like a charm.
Clean install or upgrade is irrelevant when the purpose of the story is pure FUD.
Wrong. Portable drives were never meant for OS upgrade! It was meant for backing up
and transporting data. People don't have time to cook dinner let alone spending 21 hours.
Windows 7 upgrade is ridiculous to say the least. Imagine a company with thousands
of employees. This explains why very few companies will be moving to Windows 7.
I've done both clean installs and in-place upgrades with the Win7 RC, and I'll say that while 21 hours+ sounds excessive, I can imagine cases where it might happen. I upgraded a desktop system from Vista x64 to Win7 and it took a few hours.
I would still STRONGLY recommend the Windows Easy Transfer utility. All of your stuff winds up where it was originally (right down to wallpaper and IE favorites), but you still get the benefit of a clean install. There are 2 and a half catches:
1) It probably won't save you any time; collecting your files and preferences from your original system can take several hours (my laptop took overnight).
2) You have to reinstall all your apps (not a bad idea anyway).
"and a half") Slightly more complicated.
Doesn't everyone know that you're always supposed to install from a clean installation?
dont' need a clean install for a service pack...
@Eddy
All of which appear to have issues too.
@phenoum: Really? I recall a certain other service pack that came out recently that broke a lot of old programs and could have used a clean install. Ya. I went there.
I was too lazy this time around, did the in-place upgrade from Vista x64. Took 4 hours to migrate 90,000 settings and files over.
I cant imagine it taking over 20 hours, unless you have a POS machine and a huger partition to move across.
Bull S**t. It's just not cost effective for Microsoft to make it easy. That and the OS is evolving to be more Unix like. Security, lib and user folders. No 'documents and settings doesn't count and registry is still a joke but nec. for backwards compatibilty. You will pay for it anyways because it's good enough. And in the end, that's all that matters.
Hey Don, nice avatar!
F-F-F-F-FLAME WAR!!!!!
Especially a "power user / all-around nerd" who has "half-terabyte of information and two score programs"
My mom's computer should upgrade as fast as a fresh install... she only uses IE and Solitaire :)
great, 21 hours and a $100+ for a service pack.
@pavel.
it saddens me to realize that all the apple fanboy's are now going to go around telling their non technical friends that windows 7 always takes 21 hours to install on your pc regardless, and is just a feature or two more for that.
Yeah, anything else is stupid. What I like to do is shrink my Vista partition (using GParted), create a Windows 7 partition, and install onto that. Then, run the Windows Easy Transfer Wizard from 7 (copy it onto a USB stick or something). It transfers most of the stuff in your Windows home directory (/users/you) although it doesn't get Thunderbird profile information, for example, and then the nice thing is that it makes a list of the programs you had installed before, and then you can install them as you need them easily from the list. In a lot of cases, you'll realize that you don't need everything you had installed before, and you'll end up saving disk space.
I just think it is funny that this article was even written - after all, Engadget has proven that a chart with more than 2 columns and 2 rows is too confusing and hard to read (http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/06/official-windows-7-upgrade-chart-is-ridiculous/). But throw out a chart that shows one item that is negative for Microsoft, and suddenly they have excellent reading comprehension.
Anyone stupid enough to have 650gbs of data on their Windows partition deserves a 21 hour upgrade.
Multiple partitions people. OS and Data should always be separated regardless of how big your HDD is.
I don't usually call Engadget for yellow journalism, but this is ridiculous. What kind of power user with half a terabyte is going to be doing an upgrade installation and has no backup available? How is this news? Yes, Engadget, okay, we'll BE PREPARED for 21 hours JUST IN CASE this happens to us.
When you choose to report on something, what heuristic do you follow to ensure something is worthwhile?
Not everyone is a computer wizard. So no not everyone knows to do a clean install instead of an upgrade.
Clean install. Reload data from back up. Reinstall apps.
Simples.
I wouldn't call "reinstall apps" (+ reconfigure them) simple, but maybe it's just me.
Yes, it's just you.
But, in fairness, I understand the point. However this is an extreme example which is bound to be represented as the norm by Mactards in forums across the intarwebs.
I gotta agree with Joonas.
Reinstalling apps and reconfiguring them is a real pain.
I'm curious, what would be the case if you were upgrading from XP? Is it even possible to "upgrade" from XP, or are you required to do a clean install?
We're almost to 2010. How many years will it take until we have a version of Windows that we don't have to do a clean reinstall, or we get a version where the OS doesn't become bloated with unnecessary files that slow down the computer after a few years.
Just waiting for the says when computers will be as easy to use as in the movies.
@crazy
We had that with Vista. It is 2009 you know.
Usually when I do a reinstall, I don't feel the need to reinstall ALL my apps right away.....just as I need them
@Crazy J With XP you have to do a clean install, you can't do an inplace upgrade to WIndows 7 from XP
Am I the only person that finds reinstalling apps fun?
srsly, to me installing a new OS is almost like christmas.
i must be wierd like that.
Actually, going from XP to Windows 7 RTM (and reinstalling all apps) at work took me 2 days. But this included finding application cd's, mapping drives, admin stuff, etc. But it all went smooth!!!!!! Thanks again boss for letting us do that!
It's called quality control. And it's just something you don't get on windows with weakly thought out APIs and third parties that can ruin a system. I agree, your best bet is reinstall.
@OneLove
It may have taken 2 days to complete your transition but I'm sure you had some other work to do at the same time. I would find it really hard to believe that the transition took 16 of *your time*. That's the problem when you try to do these things while you work, you can't just do it and get it done with because you have plenty of other interuptions to deal with.
@joonas,
I agree it is not an easy task.. but then this article seems to be for "power users" who have 640 gb on their system drive, right? Would power users find it difficult to re-install apps?
What Power User would do an upgrade anyway, instead of a clean install? This is why I have four drives in two raid arrays... I back up my important data to my secondary array, then do a clean install to the primary array. Easy peasy... takes a half hour tops, then an hour or two reinstalling programs and putting my data back the way I want it.
I ask the same thing.. Power User ... UPGRADING??? They do a clean install.
Oh ya I keep forgetting the reason I bought a machine with a 1TB hdd was so I wouldn't have to buy an external hdd. Like 95% of America it isn't ergonomical to waste 1-2 USB ports on a second hdd for faster upgrading once every 5-7 years.
One word:
Partition
@murmermer
Using your internal 1 TB drive for data is a good idea .... as long as you have a primary, smaller drive for the OS and apps. That's what make the updates, upgrades, fresh installs a lot easier.
@murmermer,
Not only is "ergonomical" not a word, if it was (assuming it would deal with ergonomics) you would still make no sense. I know a good number of you bought ergonomic chairs, and even some of you were duped into buying "ergonomic keyboards", but owning those two products does not make you an expert in the field.
Not to mention when your one internal HD fails...and all your data is gone. When that happens, I will call you smart.
That is why you should not upgrade! Also if you are really a "Power User" 80% of your programs should be portablized for your own convenience! And finally a "Power User" always prefers the "new installation and is never scared of it either!
Me? If I'm going to go through all that It's going to be for a worthwhile OS. Mac, for instance. My NC10 makes a lovely Hackintosh.