A tale of two Windows installs
CNET News' Ina Fried installed Windows twice this weekend. On one machine, she installed the beta of Windows 7. But on the other, an old machine she was giving to a friend, she "downgraded" the machine from Vista to Windows XP.
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET News )This weekend, I loaded fresh copies of Windows onto two PCs.
Like many people, I downloaded the Windows 7 Beta and installed it. But that wasn't the only PC task I had over the weekend.
I had an old PC I used for my early Vista testing that my partner was complaining had begun to gather dust. So, I offered the machine to a friend of mine that had only a very old PC. I gave her the option of XP or Vista and she quickly proclaimed, "Oh, XP, definitely."
And, of course, therein lies Microsoft's challenge with Vista, a challenge that hasn't abated despite ads such as the Mojave campaign that Microsoft has run in an effort to convince PC users that Vista has gotten a bad rap.
Had my friend been interested, I would have happily explained the pros and cons of each operating system, at least as I see things. But, she wasn't looking for that. She'd heard enough about Vista.
I've been writing about people "downgrading" to XP for a long time now, but this is the first time I've actually gone through the process myself.
The technical maneuver was fairly simple. Vista itself didn't want to let my make the move, but it was no problem once I rebooted with a Windows XP disk. I decided to do a clean install, as opposed to using the recovery disks. It was a consumer Compaq machine I bought in late 2005 and it came loaded with a ton of "crapware."
First, though, I unplugged the PC's Ethernet cable, knowing full well that putting an unprotected Windows XP machine on to the Internet is akin to pushing a baby carriage in the street to see if there is traffic.
I connected the computer back up only after I had loaded Service Pack 2 and security software. That's a precaution I might not take were I installing Vista, or even Windows 7. Not that I wouldn't run security software, I just wouldn't worry about connecting it to the Internet for a few minutes unprotected.
Anyway, within a few hours, I was done. The Compaq machine was zippier as an XP machine than it had been as a Vista computer. It was a low-end Vista machine to be sure--512MB of memory and an integrated graphics card.
As for the Windows 7 machine, it's a loaner Lenovo X300 from Microsoft. I will be using it as my main machine for the next little while, testing it out both at work as well as playing with some of its consumer features.
The install itself, an upgrade installation from the pre-beta build I had been running, was quick and painless. I found the machine as I'd left it, but now with all of the eye candy that was missing from the version given out in October.
On Monday, I decided to give Windows Media Center a whirl. I took a Hauppauge WinTV tuner out of the box, plugged it in. Without bothering to look at a manual, I started clicking on menu options.
In just a few minutes, I had Sesame Street up and running in high definition. I clicked record and Windows 7 started burning Elmo's giggly face to my hard drive. As I tried to annoy my co-workers by playing the furry red monster back while it was still recording, though, I managed to crash my graphics driver. It got locked in a loop, eventually prompting a blue screen of death.
That said, after a reboot, Windows 7 was back and zippy as ever. Elmo has been recording the whole time I have been writing this piece without a hitch. Nonetheless, Microsoft suggested I do a clean install of Windows 7, as opposed to the upgrade from the pre-beta, so I am doing that as well.
As for Windows 7, I am a big fan so far. I really enjoy using the new taskbar to move between a whole host of open windows.
As my real-world desktop all too clearly indicates, I don't like keeping things organized. So I'm a big fan of anything that lets me navigate, rather than clean up, my mess. Particularly handy is the button in the bottom right-hand corner that lets me make all the windows disappear from the screen.
Over the coming days, I'll be installing more software, connecting the machine to various networks and otherwise putting it through it's paces. And of course, I'll be letting folks know what I find out. In the mean time, feel free to share your own experiences below, or drop me a note.
Elmo learns to ride a tricycle as CNET News' Ina Fried learns the ins and outs of Media Center in Windows 7.
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET News )
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
"The technical maneuver was fairly simple. Vista itself didn't want to let my make the move, but it was no problem once I rebooted with a Windows XP disk." -- let my make the move. Let my what?
2nd, how about you install Windows 7 on the 2005 PC and see how it runs -- that is if it will let you install on 512MB of ram. Just curious. Or at least drop 1GB in there and test their min. requirements.
jk
Next, please use the enter key to space out your ideas instead of having one huge wall of text. I can't even bother to read it because it hurts my eyes.
I was in no way making myself out to be a grammar cop or typo police. Perhaps an e-mail would have worked, but many times CNET editors will reply to comments posted here. In this case, however, it seems an e-mail would have probably been better.
I also thank those who agreed with the 2nd part of my topic. All of this tout about how Windows 7 will run on netbooks and such, I feel that a test on the old hardware would have been well warranted.
I do apologize if my typo comment was out of place, but wow look how many people got worked up over it. I just wanted the story to be corrected... not being a jerk about it.
Da Worfster
That said Win7 shouldn't be a big driver transision as it's nearly the same kernel as Vista, but a "real world" test of the OS isn't going to be driver testing, it's going to be what people do every day. E-mail, media, web, Office apps. People don't install a gaming keyboard everyday, people don't install a printer every day.
If you want to play with Windows 7, just download VMWare Server (vmware.com) and run a copy virtually. It's free and easy to setup.
Also, the real sign of a successful OS again goes back to drivers being available. The sooner they are made availalbe, even in the beta phases of the OS, the better prepared and satisfied consumers are with the OS once it's shipped. This was why Vista failed when it initially released... flaky or non-existent drivers from third-party vendors.
What exactly can a person do if the drivers on his new OS don't let him use the items he needs? For example, if a person has a printer he uses to print out documentation necessary for his customers, he needs the drivers for that printer to be there in order for it to work. If someone needs a webcam for video conferencing in order to get his job done, he needs the drivers. Those real world tests are both dependent on the driver support which needs to be there. It's a good place to test to make sure it's ready. A beta is put out for that very reason, to test to see if it's ready.
cdaaawg
The whole recount of Day One with Windows 7 is here http://www.ryangroom.com/2009/01/09/windows-7-beta-and-dell-xps-laptop-gen-1/
Windows 7 is an even more refined Vista. They've tuned it to run more acceptably on lesser hardware than Vista could. And, since it uses the same driver model as Vista it will be much easier for hardware makers to get their products to work correctly with WIndows 7.
Once MS unified the business and consumer OSs with XP, the problem resolved itself. There was only one offering, vendors were forced to change. Many of them were used to 2K so the leap wasn't too great, but recall all the "XP is evil because it won't take software brand X" talk. Every new OS with dramatic change is recieved the same way. With Vista the problem was just greater do to places like this where the uninformed can rant and taint the views of the mass populace. Joe Consumer didn't use the internet in 2002 the way he does now, and was oblivious to any problems that were reported with XP. Now Steve in Idaho can't install his favorite 16 bit dungeon crawler and the world believes that Vista doesn't run apps made before 2005. Welcome to the Internet circa 2007.
On point, ME was a failure because the vendors weren't on board. Windows 7 is more akin to the 2K->XP migration. Slight differences, but nothing major... mostly a pretty-up refresh.
They were both pushed on public before a better and major release. Both had numerous errors and cost the public substantial money due to redundant upgrading. So go back to telling me how my floppy drive works with your x86 POS,
by the way like all you a&&holes I have Vista and soon will be pissed because all the ?New? hardware for 7 will include touch screen so I will never be able to take in the full benefits of 7, reminds me of ME.
I call nonsense on the mouse. As long as a computer has the proper type of port, you will have no problems on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, etc...
It's one and only purpose is to run software.
I liked Vista when it came out ... On my MSI Wind Vista ran like crap and wouldn't update ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing you hard core winblows apologists don't bother listening to yourselves, otherwise contradictions like this wouldn't *ALWAYS* pop up in your apologies for M$.
You simply CANNOT use it? Really? You're saying that the file managment is entirely nonfunctional? Of course not, that is a nonsensical statement. If you are having that much difficulty with simple file management, I woudl suggest the issue is user error, and you require some basic instruction.
"At least XP offered a thousand ways to copy and move files. Try that with Vista or 7. You can't!" XP in fact did not offer a "thousand" ways, and all those methods that were present in XP are there in Vista and Win7.
"Compressing in vista is also a joke, the copy and compression of files is slower then an IBM PC-XT."
Another simply stupid comment. SLOWER than a 4.77MHz PC-XT? You are either desperate to make negative comments or truly ignorant of the subject matter. XP/Vista/Win7 use the exact same compression methods.
"Please we are not idiots as you might think "
Your utter nonsense comments suggest otherwise.
This was one of the most stupid comments I have seen in quite some time. Your statements are utterly wrong, your comparisons completely nonsensical, yet you banter about with an air of supposed credibility while jumping on the 'Lets bash Vista' bandwagon when in fact you are quite obviously out of your depth, and really have no idea what you are talking about.
Now, as for zipping, there is a flaw with Vista's built in compression and it is essentially unusable in some cases. It commonly takes forever to zip a file. Alternatives like WinRAR or WinZip work fine, of course. But out of the box, you -really- don't want to do any zipping.
" You simply cannot use it. After all, is that not the most fundamental reason for an operating system...file management. At least XP offered a thousand ways to copy and move files. Try that with Vista or 7. "
Nothing changed between XP and Vista for the way to copy/move files. And those same options are there in Win7 as well.
It doesn't sound like 'you simply cannot use it,' as much as you simply don't want to. I can't blame the OS for an end user who doesn't want to use the product in the first place.
My install worked great - and apps load quicker now!
Benchmark before you criticize!
Please everyone, be aware that there will be issues later for everyone installing a beta version - read the warning page before downloading carefully and do not get drawn into the hype.
If you are happy with XP.... stay there for a while!
We really do need some real world testing of Windows 7 with drivers and software before judging whether the eye candy is worth the cost.
As I see it the operating system should be known about but be discrete enough to not interfere in the operations of the software used on the machine!
As a professional machine, Vista has been a nightmare. For the home it's an absolute joy. I'm hoping Windows 7 can be exceptional at both. Thanks for the article.
But the point is that your complaint about bloat and speed issues might be moot by this time next year. And that's a good thing. Leopard takes a huge amount of space on my two macs, but at least it does it quickly. My XP machines are zippy enough as well, but again with the bloat. I agree with you on the imagination and creativity; eye candy is not a good enough reason for me to upgrade the windows stations to Vista (they're just workhorses anyway) and the size issue will make me seriously consider Snow Leopard on the Macs. But if Windows 7 introduces more speed and less size, I'll be very tempted to upgrade those machines.
I think if you are looking for a Picaso from Microsoft, thats the wrong road to go down.
Microsoft is the embodiment of US industry, which has always been light on home grown break throughs. But takes very good ideas, wraps them in marketing and sping, packages them and gets them out to the mass's. Much like the old Model T.
"Having higher hardware requirements goes against this"
I disagree. It used to be that all an OS did was provide the basic environment for everything else to run in. However, what people *want* from an OS has changed considerably over the years. They don't just want something that can manage the file system and provide a run time environment. They want a window manager, they want file indexing, they want built in applications, firewalls, and they want it to be easy to use, robust, and pretty. We've moved from operating systems to operating environments. The environment takes up a lot of code and a lot of power to meet shifting consumer demands.
You argue for an operating environment. An OS should provide the ability to run on lower powered machines and make all of the tools optional. If the OS has high requirements, it takes away resources and requires more powerful machines. Pointless.
Windows 3.1 ran in 16 mb. 16 mb cost $200 then. Vista needs 4 gb 4gb costs 150 now. What is your point?
But after using all three operating system's, the snappiest out of the three on a low spec pc is xp(Pentium M740, 512mb of ram, go 6200 GPU), however when I upgraded the ram to 768mb on the same pc, then Windows 7 is definetly the snappiest, even with aero on providing the res is only at 1440x900.
However if you are going for Performance then I still prefer TinyVista because it is snappier than even xp on 512mb of ram, only downside is that a lot of extra's are cut out, but then again that's why it's so fast.
I'm not 'arguing' for anything. I'm merely pointing out that this is what consumers want. They don't want a barebones install. They want a full environment packed with loads of stuff so they don't feel like they need to buy or install anything else past the OS. What you *do* seem to be arguing for is a return to OS distributions that are essentially only the kernel and thats it. I personally think that would be a fine thing but its not going to happen because people like you and me aren't representative of the vast majority of consumers.
How about checking out any of the actual new features? Running HD on your computer isn't one of them, by the way.
i have installed windows 7 on a athlon xp 2800 that is 2.1 ghz
with 1 gig of ram and an ati x800 graphics card now i know this isnt rock bottom specs but it is rather close and windows 7 runs great there is no lag in any features that i have tried so far
[CNET editors' note: Offensive content removed.]
Just curious. You'll be returning this "loaner" to Microsoft when you're done with your testing, yes?
Allowing the reviewer to keep the product would not be ethical if you wanted to present any sort of unbiased opinion.
It would be hard for someone reviewing a sports car to remain objective when they get to keep the car afterwards, for example.
You did this at work right? Let me guess.... your department got a full /24 from the ISP so that every pc is in your group can be connected directly to the internet with an internet route able address and no firewall. Stupid is as stupid does.
A bare metal install of XP with no security software and only the most recent Firefox is perfectly safe behind a NAT router for long enough to install said security software and allow Windows Update to do its thing, provided all ports are blocked, and you never launch Internet Explorer. If you disagree, pray which exploits do you think are still possible in such configuration?
All my computers XP operating systems are installed with the computers connected to the internet, and using a hardware router. The firewall in my router works great. After a complete install, the only thing I do is install antivirus software. Job done. Never had a problem.
If you think NAT is perfectly safe in all situations, maybe you shouldn't be involved in IT.
do any of you know what a router actualy does? what NAT is? You think somehow the internet can find a particular machine behind the router and force that machine to download a file? You guys use Macs, right?
There are 3 ways that I can think that the said computer could be exploited behind a NAT and all but the 3rd require user action or interaction.
For an unpatched XP installation to be exploited from the internet by a worm behind a NAT device, that machine would either have to be in the DMZ or have certain ports like 139 or 445 forwarded to it, which would be ridiculous as nobody with half a brain would do that.
The other, more likely way of being exploited, is using an unpatched version of IE on said unpatched machine. However, only a fool would use IE for any more than perhaps browsing to update.microsoft.com to get updates.
The 3rd one, is that another box on the network could be also unpatched and be infected with a network worm which propagates to our 'new' unpatched XP installation. Um...unlikely.
So said NAT exploitation realistically can not occur without gross stupidity.
How exactly is this "A Tale OF Two Windows Installs"? Why didn't you do a speed test between the two computers on similar tasks (nevermind you didn't attempt to install XP on a similar desktop or laptop..so you really couldn't have done any real comparisons), or relate more to some of the problems you have had (or your friend has had)?
This is comparable to an entry in someone's Livejournal...definitely not worth the money you made today. Perhaps you need to make this a part of a series of "journal entries" as you follow the ups and downs of using these machines...perhaps even seeing if you can dual-boot XP and 7 on that "loaner" you have?
Even better, have a three way brawl between XP, Vista, and Windows 7.
I would definitely agree that CNET has gotten sloppy with their stories and that management seems to prefer quantity of stories over quality.
- by patddymac January 13, 2009 6:10 AM PST
- You gave a friend the option of XP or Vista? Can I have a copy?
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by umdala January 13, 2009 7:38 AM PST
- I'm writing this on a PC I don't own, don't care what hardware/software it runs since I don't have to, and, best of all, no PC will ever make a bloody mary as well as me or my wife can (while we are drunk, mind you). Doesn't any of this talk bore any of you to death? These things are just overpriced tools. No one ever remembers an email, but if I send a postcard, they call me to say how much they enjoyed it. That says it all. Hanging out with people in person is still wayyyy better than on online. You guys are nuts. Try taking your PC to the beach and see how it stands up to one day in the sun. Good luck!
- Like this
-
- by Kev_Orng January 13, 2009 10:23 AM PST
- @umdala, while I agree with you on most points there, I also know that the computer is an important tool that warrants discussion and generates interest.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (255 Comments)You burned Elmo's giggly face to your hard drive? Wow, an optical hard drive?
I also know that some people like going to the beach (with or without their PC), but you don't see me walking up to people who like the beach and asking them how they can stand sitting on a boring beach for more than half an hour.
But hey, if it makes you feel good about yourself.