okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 

for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 

microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
forward, but XP users are completely screwed!

Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!

http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html

or

http://snipurl.com/nv6gi

---

In article <apony-C0000F.08200424072009@news.qwest.net>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
> 
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
> 
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> 
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
> 
> ---

Yeah, the XP users who outnumber the Vista users at least 2-3:1 will have to wipe their drives and 
install W7, then install all their apps again and so on. 

Thus it's thought many would just opt to purchase a new computer if things get this difficult and 
that 's where the Mac comes in as an option since many have an iPod or iPhone...so a Mac just might 
make sense.
-- 
Mike

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 07:20:04 -0700, Oxford wrote
(in article <apony-C0000F.08200424072009@news.qwest.net>):

> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
> 
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
> 
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> 
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
> 
> ---

Well, first of all, do we know that this inability to "upgrade" one's 
computer from XP to Win7 is not just an artifact of the public Beta, and that 
by the time the real Win7 ships, that a complete upgrade path will be part of 
the shipping OS? If this is what the shipping Win7 will be like, I'd say that 
M$ doesn't want to sell many copies to existing customers. Mossberg says that 
M$ wants to encourage people to buy new machines with Win7 already installed 
as a boost to their hardware partners. I can't see M$ doing that as it spites 
their own sales. OTOH, perhaps Win7 is such a resource hog, that M$ has 
decided that most existing computer, the kind that would most likely be 
running XP, aren't powerful enough to run Win7, and they don't want the 
support headaches that trying to run Win7 on these older platforms would 
incur. Either way, it looks as if Win7 has been pre-ordained to be a loser. 

Maybe the prognosticators who have been predicting Microsoft's fall from 
great heights are correct and Win7 is the one of the final nails in the 
coffin. In light of these shenanigans, the fact that several of my friends 
have told me that their companies are replacing Windows with Linux running 
Open Office wherever feasible, makes more sense. After all probably 95% of 
all office workers only need an e-mail client, a web browser, a spreadsheet 
program, a word processor, a database program, and perhaps a presentation 
program. OO alone covers 60% of that requirement and decent web browsers and 
E-mail clients are certainly available for Linux which takes care of the 
other 40%. It looks like a good deal to me. Of course, I'd prefer it if 
companies replaced Windows with Macs, but due to the fact that they'd have to 
replace computers rather than just OSes, that's probably not going to happen. 

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 11:20:42 -0700, Mike wrote
(in article <mike-2CA881.13204224072009@nntp.teranews.com>):

> In article <apony-C0000F.08200424072009@news.qwest.net>, Oxford 
> <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
>> 
>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
>> 
>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>> 
>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>> 
>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>> 
>> ---
> 
> Yeah, the XP users who outnumber the Vista users at least 2-3:1 will have to 
> wipe their drives and 
> install W7, then install all their apps again and so on. 
> 
> Thus it's thought many would just opt to purchase a new computer if things 
> get this difficult and 
> that 's where the Mac comes in as an option since many have an iPod or 
> iPhone...so a Mac just might 
> make sense.
> 

I think you'll find that XP users outnumber Vista users probably more like 
20:1 or even greater. The problem is that any way you look at it, the 
enterprise is by far the largest users of Windows computers and most of them 
still run XP (In fact, I've heard people say that their companies either 
order new computers with XP installed or their IT people wipe Vista from 
newly purchased machines and replace it with XP). Essentially all companies 
use Windows because the machines are cheap (yes, it's false economy. The 
machines might be cheap, but the huge numbers of IT personnel required by 
those corporations to support them aren't cheap). I suspect that most 
companies, if they decided to abandon Windows (where possible) that they 
would opt for Linux before they would invest in Macs. 

Oxford wrote:
> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
> 
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
> 
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> 
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
> 
> ---

I watched the video, and it seems to me that the cheapest, and easiest 
solution is to buy Vista and upgrade XP to it (Vista) first.  Then 
apparently Vista to Windows 7 is possible.  Is my logic faulty in 
assuming that XP to Windows 7 would therefore be possible if Microsoft 
chose to do it?

Steve

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:50:29 -0700, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

>I think you'll find that XP users outnumber Vista users probably more like 
>20:1 or even greater. The problem is that any way you look at it, the 
>enterprise is by far the largest users of Windows computers and most of them 
>still run XP

I'm curious, how much larger is the enterprise than the home user
population here?   Lots of home users bought the cheapest computers
they could find, lots use the same as they have at work, and lots like
the newest games.

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

Howard Brazee stated in post 43hk651pog6053b9tlhinnao5f92ci25nl@4ax.com on
7/24/09 4:33 PM:

> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:50:29 -0700, Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
> 
>> I think you'll find that XP users outnumber Vista users probably more like
>> 20:1 or even greater. The problem is that any way you look at it, the
>> enterprise is by far the largest users of Windows computers and most of them
>> still run XP
> 
> I'm curious, how much larger is the enterprise than the home user
> population here? 

Depends on which Enterprise: Archer's, Kirk's, Picard's... maybe even Pike's
- though that should be the same as Kirk's.

Oh.

Oops.

Never mind.  :)

> Lots of home users bought the cheapest computers
> they could find, lots use the same as they have at work, and lots like
> the newest games.



-- 
[INSERT .SIG HERE]

On Jul 24, 10:20=A0am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>
> or
>
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>
> ---

This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
any nonstandard apps.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:29 -0500, Fa-groon wrote (in article 
<0001HW.C68F6CA5000FF1F1F01846D8@news.giganews.com>): 

> The machines might be cheap, but the huge numbers of IT personnel required 
> by those corporations to support them aren't cheap.

I've often surmised that the reasons corporate IT persons recommend PCs and 
Windows is sheer job protection!

-- 
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... taliesinsoft@me.com

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:21:13 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote
(in article 
<edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>> 
>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>> 
>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>> 
>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>> 
>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>> 
>> ---
> 
> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
> all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
> any nonstandard apps.
> 

You don't even move the data files. A properly set up corporate system saves 
official data on a network share. Some companies prohibit saving data on the 
local machine; others don't care, but take the position that any private data 
saved on the local system is the user's problem, and will not be backed up... 
and will be gone when next IT images the machine. And the standard way to 
'fix' software problems is to re-image the machine.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article
<edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!

The real disaster will be for the people who put one operating system
on top of another.

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:44:19 -0400, Mr. Strat wrote
(in article <250720090844199676%rag@nospam.techline.com>):

> In article
> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> 
> The real disaster will be for the people who put one operating system
> on top of another.

I've just spent most of the last few hours playing with an XP system for a 
friend of mine.

Problem 1: he had less than 4 GB free on the system.

Problem 2: he had 1.25 GB RAM.

Problem 3: the CPU was a 2.4 GHz Pentium. (Yes, it's that old.)

Problem 4: the system had a truly amazing number of malware infections. When 
I pulled the hard drive from the system and attached it, using a USB 
enclosure, to another machine, AVG detected 127 serious (that is, not minor 
stuff like cookies, which AVG thinks can be a threat) infections. There were 
11 different examples of one particular trojan.

Problem 5: the reason why he'd called me in a panic was that none of his apps 
would work any more. Once the malware was eradicated from his drive and the 
drive put back into his system, the machine would boot... very, very, VERY 
slowly. (27 minutes 18 seconds to get to the desktop. Another 4 minutes 19 
seconds until the hourglass went away and actual work could be done. I'm not 
making this up.) However, most of the icons were generic, and attempting to 
double-click either data files or applications (down to MSIE...) resulted in 
messages about such and such not being available, and other messages about 
registry problems. Something had hosed his registry... real good. Needless to 
say, no registry fixer available to me achieved anything. Further 
investigation indicates that when he started to have the 'no applications 
work' problem, he'd dug out a Windows install disc (NOT the system discs 
which shipped with his machine, he doesn't know where those are) and had 
'reinstalled' XP _Pro_ on top of XP _Home_. And, oh, yeah, he'd put SP2 onto 
his original system, but the XP Pro disc was SP1. No, I don't know how he 
made it work either. I do think I know why MSIE isn't working. The miracle of 
the century is that the thing actually boots... And no, he didn't think that 
it might have been important to let me know minor details like that before I 
started.

Problem 6: he didn't have a backup.

I ended up attaching the drive to a Mac (in a FireWire enclosure) and I'm 
currently backing up the contents. He's a representative of John Public, 
boyz'n'grrlz, so I expect that I'll be raking in the cash when Windows 7 
comes out and other members of John Public screw their systems up beyond 
recovery and start screaming for help. I think that I'll have a special 
Windows 7 pricing structure set up. $200/hour. Two hour minimum. Cash in 
advance.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:27:53 -0700, TaliesinSoft wrote
(in article <0001HW.C69002090000FE0EB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>):

> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:29 -0500, Fa-groon wrote (in article 
> <0001HW.C68F6CA5000FF1F1F01846D8@news.giganews.com>): 
> 
>> The machines might be cheap, but the huge numbers of IT personnel required 
>> by those corporations to support them aren't cheap.
> 
> I've often surmised that the reasons corporate IT persons recommend PCs and 
> Windows is sheer job protection!
> 
> 

I think that's a reasonable surmise. 

In article <h4fd0i02vpm@news6.newsguy.com>,
 J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009 11:44:19 -0400, Mr. Strat wrote
> (in article <250720090844199676%rag@nospam.techline.com>):
> 
> > In article
> > <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > 
> >>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> > 
> > The real disaster will be for the people who put one operating system
> > on top of another.
> 
> I've just spent most of the last few hours playing with an XP system for a 
> friend of mine.
> 
> Problem 1: he had less than 4 GB free on the system.
> 
> Problem 2: he had 1.25 GB RAM.
> 
> Problem 3: the CPU was a 2.4 GHz Pentium. (Yes, it's that old.)
> 
> Problem 4: the system had a truly amazing number of malware infections. When 
> I pulled the hard drive from the system and attached it, using a USB 
> enclosure, to another machine, AVG detected 127 serious (that is, not minor 
> stuff like cookies, which AVG thinks can be a threat) infections. There were 
> 11 different examples of one particular trojan.
> 
> Problem 5: the reason why he'd called me in a panic was that none of his apps 
> would work any more. Once the malware was eradicated from his drive and the 
> drive put back into his system, the machine would boot... very, very, VERY 
> slowly. (27 minutes 18 seconds to get to the desktop. Another 4 minutes 19 
> seconds until the hourglass went away and actual work could be done. I'm not 
> making this up.) However, most of the icons were generic, and attempting to 
> double-click either data files or applications (down to MSIE...) resulted in 
> messages about such and such not being available, and other messages about 
> registry problems. Something had hosed his registry... real good. Needless to 
> say, no registry fixer available to me achieved anything. Further 
> investigation indicates that when he started to have the 'no applications 
> work' problem, he'd dug out a Windows install disc (NOT the system discs 
> which shipped with his machine, he doesn't know where those are) and had 
> 'reinstalled' XP _Pro_ on top of XP _Home_. And, oh, yeah, he'd put SP2 onto 
> his original system, but the XP Pro disc was SP1. No, I don't know how he 
> made it work either. I do think I know why MSIE isn't working. The miracle of 
> the century is that the thing actually boots... And no, he didn't think that 
> it might have been important to let me know minor details like that before I 
> started.
> 
> Problem 6: he didn't have a backup.
> 
> I ended up attaching the drive to a Mac (in a FireWire enclosure) and I'm 
> currently backing up the contents. He's a representative of John Public, 
> boyz'n'grrlz, so I expect that I'll be raking in the cash when Windows 7 
> comes out and other members of John Public screw their systems up beyond 
> recovery and start screaming for help. I think that I'll have a special 
> Windows 7 pricing structure set up. $200/hour. Two hour minimum. Cash in 
> advance.

No checks, certainly.

In article <0001HW.C690C9DB0012B076F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:27:53 -0700, TaliesinSoft wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C69002090000FE0EB01AD9AF@News.Individual.NET>):
> 
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:50:29 -0500, Fa-groon wrote (in article 
> > <0001HW.C68F6CA5000FF1F1F01846D8@news.giganews.com>): 
> > 
> >> The machines might be cheap, but the huge numbers of IT personnel required 
> >> by those corporations to support them aren't cheap.
> > 
> > I've often surmised that the reasons corporate IT persons recommend PCs and 
> > Windows is sheer job protection!
> > 
> > 
> 
> I think that's a reasonable surmise. 

!. It's all many of them know. They spent a lot of money getting 
Microsoft certified, you know. All those majic incantations are hard to 
keep straight.

In article <h4fd0i02vpm@news6.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
<try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:

> which shipped with his machine, he doesn't know where those are) and had 
> 'reinstalled' XP _Pro_ on top of XP _Home_. And, oh, yeah, he'd put SP2 onto 
> his original system, but the XP Pro disc was SP1. No, I don't know how he 
> made it work either. I do think I know why MSIE isn't working. The miracle of 
> the century is that the thing actually boots... And no, he didn't think that 
> it might have been important to let me know minor details like that before I 
> started.

According to MS and common sense, you can't put one version of XP on
top of the other version and have it work.

In article <apony-C0000F.08200424072009@news.qwest.net>,
 Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:

> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
> 
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
> 
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> 
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> 
> or
> 
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi

Yes, this is certainly not a good idea for Microsoft to popularize 
Windows 7. It goes to show how clueless Microsoft really is. Don't 
forget that an upgrade to Windows 7 from XP would probably break most 
software anyway, so Microsoft probably doesn't have a choice in this 
matter.

In article 
<edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
 Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
> > waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
> >
> > for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
> >
> > microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
> > people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
> > forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> >
> > Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> >
> > http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
> > ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
> >
> > ---
> 
> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
> all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
> any nonstandard apps.

It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
by new ones.

In article 
<srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>,
 Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> In article 
> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>  Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
> > > waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
> > >
> > > for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
> > >
> > > microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
> > > people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
> > > forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
> > >
> > > Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
> > >
> > > http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
> > > ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> > > http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
> > >
> > > ---
> > 
> > This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
> > data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
> > all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
> > any nonstandard apps.
> 
> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
> by new ones.

No driver incompatibilities and programs don't all stop working at the 
same time on all the machines.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 01:29:23 -0400, Mr. Strat wrote
(in article <250720092229234381%rag@nospam.techline.com>):

> In article <h4fd0i02vpm@news6.newsguy.com>, J.J. O'Shea
> <try.not.to@but.see.sig> wrote:
> 
>> which shipped with his machine, he doesn't know where those are) and had 
>> 'reinstalled' XP _Pro_ on top of XP _Home_. And, oh, yeah, he'd put SP2 
>> onto 
>> his original system, but the XP Pro disc was SP1. No, I don't know how he 
>> made it work either. I do think I know why MSIE isn't working. The miracle 
>> of 
>> the century is that the thing actually boots... And no, he didn't think 
>> that 
>> it might have been important to let me know minor details like that before 
>> I 
>> started.
> 
> According to MS and common sense, you can't put one version of XP on
> top of the other version and have it work.

yeah. You know that. I know that. He didn't know that. And it didn't work all 
the way. That was the problem.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

In article
<srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>, Shawn
Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:

> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
> by new ones.

I work for a private university, and the past two summers we have
continued to deploy XP Pro with new computers. Probably after the first
of the year, we'll switch over and start putting out Win7. There's no
way we could do the whole campus at once, and too many computers would
be way to slow with 7. So a gradual changeover is the more wise
approach.

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:50:11 -0700, Shawn Hirn wrote
(in article <srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>):

> In article 
> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>  Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
>>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>>> 
>>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>>> 
>>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
>>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
>>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>>> 
>>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>>> 
>>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
>>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>>> 
>>> or
>>> 
>>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>>> 
>>> ---
>> 
>> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
>> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
>> all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
>> any nonstandard apps.
> 
> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
> by new ones.

Most companies will just stay with XP like they did when Vista shipped. If 
you walk through most US corporations you will find that their computers 
STILL have XP on them. Most IT people will tell you that there is simply not 
enough "new" in either Vista or Windows 7 to justify the expense either in 
the purchase of a corporate-wide license or the manpower to change the 
machines over to either new system. 

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:20:16 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote
(in article <260720090920162913%rag@nospam.techline.com>):

> In article
> <srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>, Shawn
> Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
>> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
>> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
>> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
>> by new ones.
> 
> I work for a private university, and the past two summers we have
> continued to deploy XP Pro with new computers. Probably after the first
> of the year, we'll switch over and start putting out Win7. There's no
> way we could do the whole campus at once, and too many computers would
> be way to slow with 7. So a gradual changeover is the more wise
> approach.

I;ll bet that university officials will choose to NOT upgrade from XP to Win7 
at all.  

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:49:51 -0400, Fa-groon wrote
(in article <0001HW.C692016F000C9D5BF01846D8@news.giganews.com>):

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:50:11 -0700, Shawn Hirn wrote
> (in article <srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>):
> 
>> In article 
>> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
>>>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>>>> 
>>>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>>>> 
>>>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
>>>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
>>>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>>>> 
>>>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>>>> 
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
>>>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>>>> 
>>>> or
>>>> 
>>>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>>>> 
>>>> ---
>>> 
>>> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
>>> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
>>> all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
>>> any nonstandard apps.
>> 
>> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
>> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
>> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
>> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
>> by new ones.
> 
> Most companies will just stay with XP like they did when Vista shipped. If 
> you walk through most US corporations you will find that their computers 
> STILL have XP on them.

Except for the ones which have Win2000 or NT4 still on them.

> Most IT people will tell you that there is simply not 
> enough "new" in either Vista or Windows 7 to justify the expense either in 
> the purchase of a corporate-wide license or the manpower to change the 
> machines over to either new system. 
> 

XP is Win2000 with a fancy face. Win2000 is NT4 for minor tweaks.


-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

on 7/24/09 1:20 PM Mike said the following:
> In article <apony-C0000F.08200424072009@news.qwest.net>, Oxford <apony@pasture.com> wrote:
> 
>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare 
>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below... 
>>
>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck... 
>>
>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure, 
>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight 
>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>>
>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-trou
>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>>
>> ---
> 
> Yeah, the XP users who outnumber the Vista users at least 2-3:1 will have to wipe their drives and 
> install W7, then install all their apps again and so on. 
> 
> Thus it's thought many would just opt to purchase a new computer if things get this difficult and 
> that 's where the Mac comes in as an option since many have an iPod or iPhone...so a Mac just might 
> make sense.

MS could easily write a "migration" transparent tool.  Instead, it is 
the Wintel play again, but just maybe it will Mactel this time!  Every 
time I upgrade my Macook Core Duo (over 3 years old) it gets faster. 
Veru different from the Windows world (good riddance).

On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 12:56:27 -0700, J.J. O'Shea wrote
(in article <h4icdb013ed@news5.newsguy.com>):

> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 15:49:51 -0400, Fa-groon wrote
> (in article <0001HW.C692016F000C9D5BF01846D8@news.giganews.com>):
> 
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:50:11 -0700, Shawn Hirn wrote
>> (in article <srhi-8FE269.06501126072009@93-136-209-74.adsl.net.t-com.hr>):
>> 
>>> In article 
>>> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c551@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Tommy Troll <tom_elam@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
>>>>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>>>>> 
>>>>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>>>>> 
>>>>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
>>>>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
>>>>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
>>>>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> or
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise.  You just move all the
>>>> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back.  Takes
>>>> all of 15 minutes per machine.  Users are responsible for installing
>>>> any nonstandard apps.
>>> 
>>> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to 
>>> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will 
>>> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to 
>>> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced 
>>> by new ones.
>> 
>> Most companies will just stay with XP like they did when Vista shipped. If 
>> you walk through most US corporations you will find that their computers 
>> STILL have XP on them.
> 
> Except for the ones which have Win2000 or NT4 still on them.

I guess there are a number of them.
> 
>> Most IT people will tell you that there is simply not 
>> enough "new" in either Vista or Windows 7 to justify the expense either in 
>> the purchase of a corporate-wide license or the manpower to change the 
>> machines over to either new system. 
>> 
> 
> XP is Win2000 with a fancy face. Win2000 is NT4 for minor tweaks.

Sure, Windows is the most primitive OS in existence. It really hasn't changed 
it's GUI (which was a kludge when it first broke ground) appreciably since 
Win95 and a lot of it dates back to Win3.1. NT4 is also about the same 
vintage as Win95 and essentially still had the Win3.1 GUI (yecch), IIRC.

Much better implementations of that "theme" are the two most popular Linux 
GUIs, KDE and Gnome (which use a lot of the Windows conventions, but manage 
to do them better), and there are several new "3D" GUIs that look even more 
promising. 

On Jul 26, 6:50=A0am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> =A0Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:20=A0am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> > > okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
> > > waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>
> > > for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>
> > > microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure=
,
> > > people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
> > > forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>
> > > Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>
> > >http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-.=
...
> > > ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>
> > > or
>
> > >http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>
> > > ---
>
> > This is not a huge problem for the enterprise. =A0You just move all the
> > data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back. =A0Takes
> > all of 15 minutes per machine. =A0Users are responsible for installing
> > any nonstandard apps.
>
> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to
> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will
> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to
> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced
> by new ones.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You contract it out.

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:28:55 -0400, Tommy Troll wrote
(in article 
<ae2d1bbf-e564-4807-9c69-7155aadee12b@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):

> On Jul 26, 6:50�am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <edab1ffe-615d-4b9e-9e13-7e959841c...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> �Tommy Troll <tom_e...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jul 24, 10:20�am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
>>>> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
>>>> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>> 
>>>> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>> 
>>>> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
>>>> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
>>>> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>> 
>>>> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>> 
>>>> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
>>>> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>> 
>>>> or
>> 
>>>> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>> 
>>>> ---
>> 
>>> This is not a huge problem for the enterprise. �You just move all the
>>> data files, re-image the machine, and move the data file back. �Takes
>>> all of 15 minutes per machine. �Users are responsible for installing
>>> any nonstandard apps.
>> 
>> It is if you have thousands of computers and only a handful of people to
>> do the re-imaging, which is why many large companies have said they will
>> not upgrade to Windows 7. Its easier for large (or small) companies to
>> go to Windows 7 by waiting for current computers to age and be replaced
>> by new ones.- Hide quoted text -
>> 
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> You contract it out.

For that kind of job, I'd want danger pay... and that's just for the initial 
survey to determine exactly what the job entails. Number of computers, 
including laptops. Fraction thereof which are capable of running Windows 7 
without updating. Fraction thereof which are capable of running Windows 7 if 
updated. Cost of updating those versus cost of replacing them. Number of 
printers and other peripherals which can be used by machines running Windows 
7. Cost of replacing those peripherals which have been obsoleted. Number of 
applications, including web-based applications, in use which are compatible 
with Windows 7. Cost of replacing or upgrading those applications which are 
not compatible. Especially all the web apps that require MSIE 6 and which 
break on impact with MSIE 8. Et bloody cetera. For any company that has more 
than a few machines this would be a _major_ project costing _major_ money and 
taking _major_ time. Tell me more, I'll let you know if I'll take the job. If 
I do, I'm gonna need some serious cash, and a lot of that serious cash is 
gonna be up front.

-- 
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

On Jul 24, 10:20=A0am, Oxford <ap...@pasture.com> wrote:
> okay, it looks like microsoft has another public relations nightmare
> waiting in the wings... see Walt Mossberg's video below...
>
> for people wanting to upgrade from XP to Windows 7, good luck...
>
> microsoft did a beyond horrible job in allowing it to happen. so sure,
> people on Vista or already on Windows 7 it should be fairly straight
> forward, but XP users are completely screwed!
>
> Watch the painful reasons why at this link... oh, the humanity!
>
> http://online.wsj.com/video/windows-xp-to-windows-7-upgrade-could-be-...
> ble/F72269FD-2763-49D0-942C-98CEBC293F4F.html
>
> or
>
> http://snipurl.com/nv6gi
>
> ---

Reinstalling is a yearly requirement in Windows land.
Installing and removing apps creates registry rot amongst other
things.

In article <0001HW.C692392D0019ADEDF01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:


> > XP is Win2000 with a fancy face. Win2000 is NT4 for minor tweaks.
> 
> Sure, Windows is the most primitive OS in existence. It really hasn't changed 
> it's GUI (which was a kludge when it first broke ground) appreciably since 
> Win95 and a lot of it dates back to Win3.1. NT4 is also about the same 
> vintage as Win95 and essentially still had the Win3.1 GUI (yecch), IIRC.
> 
> Much better implementations of that "theme" are the two most popular Linux 
> GUIs, KDE and Gnome (which use a lot of the Windows conventions, but manage 
> to do them better), and there are several new "3D" GUIs that look even more 
> promising. 

When Linux finally gets a fully-working version with a complete install 
on disc - without the need for hacks and with all the needed drivers, 
etc. on the disc - so that you don't have to go chasing downloads all 
over the Internet, let us know.

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:53:18 -0500, mac user <mu@mua.net> wrote:

>When Linux finally gets a fully-working version with a complete install 
>on disc - without the need for hacks and with all the needed drivers, 
>etc. on the disc - so that you don't have to go chasing downloads all 
>over the Internet, let us know.

This is a matter of degree.   Some companies supply more device
drivers than others.   But nobody has them all (especially since this
is a moving target).

-- 
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace 
to the legislature, and not to the executive department." 

- James Madison

On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:53:18 -0700, mac user wrote
(in article <mu-E48061.12531828072009@old-sunsite.dk>):

> In article <0001HW.C692392D0019ADEDF01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
>  Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> XP is Win2000 with a fancy face. Win2000 is NT4 for minor tweaks.
>> 
>> Sure, Windows is the most primitive OS in existence. It really hasn't 
>> changed 
>> it's GUI (which was a kludge when it first broke ground) appreciably since 
>> Win95 and a lot of it dates back to Win3.1. NT4 is also about the same 
>> vintage as Win95 and essentially still had the Win3.1 GUI (yecch), IIRC.
>> 
>> Much better implementations of that "theme" are the two most popular Linux 
>> GUIs, KDE and Gnome (which use a lot of the Windows conventions, but manage 
>> to do them better), and there are several new "3D" GUIs that look even more 
>> promising. 
> 
> When Linux finally gets a fully-working version with a complete install 
> on disc - without the need for hacks and with all the needed drivers, 
> etc. on the disc - so that you don't have to go chasing downloads all 
> over the Internet, let us know.

I didn't say that Linux was "THE" answer or, indeed, that it was any answer. 
I merely pointed out that KDE and GNOME are cleaner, more intuitive, and 
consistent interfaces than Windows and that they manage this using many of 
the same conventions as Windows. I neither endorsed nor inferred anything 
about Linux as a useful OS. Linux, in my estimation, has several problems:

1. It suffers from the same problem as all open-source software - glacial 
development speed.

2. Lack of professional level software.

3. Lack of drivers and other enabling software.

4. Arcane install procedure whereby all needed resources aren't in one place 
(even when one buys a distribution on a DVD - as you mentioned). 

But once installed and up and running, the GUIs are better than Windows. 

In article <0001HW.C68F693B000F2525F01846D8@news.giganews.com>,
 Fa-groon <fa-groon@mad.com> wrote:

> Well, first of all, do we know that this inability to "upgrade" one's 
> computer from XP to Win7 is not just an artifact of the public Beta, and that 
> by the time the real Win7 ships, that a complete upgrade path will be part of 
> the shipping OS? If this is what the shipping Win7 will be like, I'd say that 
> M$ doesn't want to sell many copies to existing customers. Mossberg says that 
> M$ wants to encourage people to buy new machines with Win7 already installed 
> as a boost to their hardware partners. I can't see M$ doing that as it spites 
> their own sales. OTOH, perhaps Win7 is such a resource hog, that M$ has 
> decided that most existing computer, the kind that would most likely be 
> running XP, aren't powerful enough to run Win7, and they don't want the 
> support headaches that trying to run Win7 on these older platforms would 
> incur. Either way, it looks as if Win7 has been pre-ordained to be a loser. 

MS has always operated on the business model of releasing a new version 
of the OS that requires new hardware or the OS package by itself is 
priced so high that it's appealing just to buy a new computer with the 
OEM version of the new OS installed.  That has been the basis for a long 
term agreement and partnership between MS and the hardware 
manufacturers. 

> 
> Maybe the prognosticators who have been predicting Microsoft's fall from 
> great heights are correct and Win7 is the one of the final nails in the 
> coffin. In light of these shenanigans, the fact that several of my friends 
> have told me that their companies are replacing Windows with Linux running 
> Open Office wherever feasible, makes more sense. After all probably 95% of 
> all office workers only need an e-mail client, a web browser, a spreadsheet 
> program, a word processor, a database program, and perhaps a presentation 
> program. OO alone covers 60% of that requirement and decent web browsers and 
> E-mail clients are certainly available for Linux which takes care of the 
> other 40%. It looks like a good deal to me. Of course, I'd prefer it if 
> companies replaced Windows with Macs, but due to the fact that they'd have to 
> replace computers rather than just OSes, that's probably not going to happen. 

Kinda looks like Microsoft is trying to self-destruct, doesn't it?  I 
wonder why?  Appears that MS is trying to leave XP behind but much of 
the user base doesn't want to give it up.    

Sounds like the same story with Snow Leopard - you have to buy Leopard 
first to install the upgrade unless you buy a new computer with SL 
installed.  SL is fully 64-bit Intel only - no more support for PPC. 

If Linux ever gets to the point where you can get a DVD package with all 
the necessary drivers and everything you need to run it without having 
to chase all over the Internet downloading files - and having to deal 
with the dreaded command line to get the software installed and to work 
properly with the hardware - they might have a chance at cornering a big 
share of the market with the average consumer.

The only people using Linux now are individuals, schools, scientific 
research organizations, ISPs, business or enterprise users and anyone 
else that has the tech skills available to put it all together and keep 
it running for the everyday users.  Wow, that's a lot of people!

If all you do is email, word processing and Internet "surfing" - (is 
that term still used?) then just about any Linux distro should do the 
job.  Although, I ran a version from the disc on a laptop just to see 
how it worked, I didn't try to go online. Hopefully that will be an easy 
task.  I tried to play a .wma file and the system wanted to go online to 
download a driver.  Not a big deal if I don't have to hunt down and go 
to command line to install.  I don't like working with command line much 
anymore.  In the days of DOS and early Windows, I got sick of having to 
do it just to keep my computer running.  That's why I've always liked 
Macs - you don't have to deal with Terminal or Apple script if you don't 
want to.  Just don't see having that knowledge worth the time necessary 
to learn it.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:22:23 -0400, eatnofat wrote:
> 
> Sounds like the same story with Snow Leopard - you have to buy Leopard 
> first to install the upgrade 

I think someone said in this group that's not true, unless you're speaking of 
the EULA.

In article 
<0001HW.C6C1173F0001547DF0182648@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 03:22:23 -0400, eatnofat wrote:
> > 
> > Sounds like the same story with Snow Leopard - you have to buy Leopard 
> > first to install the upgrade 
> 
> I think someone said in this group that's not true, unless you're speaking of 
> the EULA.

And just because someone in this group said it - that makes it fact?  
When most of the threads are driven OT after the first 2-6 posts and 
degenerate into name-calling and totally unrelated arguments, there's no 
way to get much accurate information here.  I still stop by on occasion 
just to see if anything has changed - but it just gets worse.