Windows 7 Problems

[maven]

Microsoft Investigating Windows 7 Upgrade Troubles
By Kurt Mackie10/29/2009

Microsoft is working on upgrade snags that some users have described when moving from Vista to Windows 7.

The complaints started late last week in the Microsoft Answers forum for Windows 7. Users appear to be experiencing two distinct problems, as described in this thread. In one case, Windows 7's installation process cuts short at 62 percent complete. The other problem involves an endless reboot, where the Windows 7 upgrade never completes.

The company is currently working on the reboot issue.

"Microsoft is continuing to investigate this issue, and we will post information on the existing threads in the Answers forum as it becomes available," the spokesperson explained in an e-mail. "Customers who had requested an alert when the answer is posted will be notified."

Disgruntled forum posters weren't the only ones experiencing the problem. A Microsoft employee encountered the reboot when upgrading to Windows 7 on a home PC, the spokesperson explained.

"Endless reboot" is a phrase that may jog some memories. Last year, some Vista users faced a similar reboot cycle when upgrading to Vista Service Pack 1. Microsoft has fixed that problem.

With regard to the incomplete upgrade problem with Windows 7, Microsoft does offer a workaround. The solution is described in a knowledgebase article, "KB 975253." Apparently a service, possibly the "Iphlpsvc" service, interferes with the upgrade to Windows 7. The workaround involves executing a detailed set of steps that may take the joy out of the upgrade process, especially for home users. Possibly, Microsoft may release an easier-to-apply solution.

"We are investigating using the Fix it technology to automate the steps outlined in KB 975253," the spokesperson explained. "Fix it" is Microsoft's online one-click patching service.

Finally, users could face another problem that may occur after a successful Windows 7 upgrade on machines that use solid-state drives (SSDs). The upgrade results in a storage system failure on certain machines using Intel SSD firmware, according to a report by Betanews.

The storage failure seems to be associated with "Trim command" technology, which helps SSDs keep track of file additions and deletions. Trim technology is specifically supported in Windows 7, according to the Engineering Windows 7 blog.

The Microsoft spokesperson indicated that the company is currently investigating the SSD storage failure problem and will post to the Microsoft Answers forum should more information become available.

http://redmondmag.com/articles/2009/...-troubles.aspx

[I am David 2]

The windows upgrade process is the one part of the software surely designed and coded by incompetents. If you ever try and install a new version of windows upgrade version on a brand new hard drive, you'll find you won't be able to without installing the old version first. It's too difficult for them to program a license key check for your old windows during a fresh install of windows 7. So stories like this, and the student edition install problem aren't surprising at all.

The other explanation is that the upgrade process is the last refuge Microsoft still has that it can gleefully piss off it's customers and still get away with it.

[maven]

Still you have to hand it to Microsoft once again continuing it's great and honoured tradition of releasing unfinished, buggy software.

I likes XP

[Mediocrates]

W7 is not meant to be an upgrade. It's meant to be a scratch install. Vista wasn't an upgrade. XP wasn't an upgrade. W2K worked ok as an upgrade from NT4. NT4 worked ok as an upgrade from 3.51. 3.51 was not an upgrade from any prior NT. Me/98 sort of worked as an upgrade from 95. 95 wasn't an upgrade. Windows Server editions more or less work as upgrades, horizontally from like edition to like edition but the post install tweaks are a pain anyway. Better to export most the critical server settings and do a scratch install/import. Except AS editions which I've never seen successfully installed.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Mediocrates

W7 is not meant to be an upgrade. It's meant to be a scratch install. Vista wasn't an upgrade. XP wasn't an upgrade. W2K worked ok as an upgrade from NT4. NT4 worked ok as an upgrade from 3.51. 3.51 was not an upgrade from any prior NT. Me/98 sort of worked as an upgrade from 95. 95 wasn't an upgrade. Windows Server editions more or less work as upgrades, horizontally from like edition to like edition but the post install tweaks are a pain anyway. Better to export most the critical server settings and do a scratch install/import. Except AS editions which I've never seen successfully installed.

Well I take back what I said about your computer ability Mediocrates, that all goes well above my head!
I have yet to hear a good reason from anyone to change to Win 7, XP has been really stable, I found Vista a nightmare.

[Mediocrates]

Vista I think was junk. W7 you should wait at least for SP1. Let other people shake loose the bugs first. Everything gets released with mistakes. It's simply a matter of how quickly you find them. One thing I wish MS would do is decide what they want to be when they grow up. Windows Server has about a dozen versions now and Vista has, what? 6 versions? But what they do is start with a base product and chuck in little things some of which actually cripple it in odd ways - like the number of cores you can run it on. It would be better for us if they just rolled out one version and created different licence locks on it so you can pay for all the features that are already there instead of having to bolt on all sorts of crud. That's pretty much how our z/OS systems run and it works fine. You install all the the patches you 'need' whether you need them or not and if you don't license the feature codes, then so what?

But again, wait for W7SP1 at a minimum. XP will drop support soon, but unless you have application hacks that break, so what? It's as stable as it's going to get. And new versions of systems are always attacked more than older versions. Until last month I ran a honeypot on W2K that was practically bulletproof. Why? No one cares about breaking W2K anymore.

[maven]

Very interesting. I'll make a note of 'W7SP1' and alert my PC technician to inform me when it comes out.