Posted on 08/04/2009 10:20:30 PM PDT by Gomez
Over the past two weeks, in my Personal Technology columns, here and here, I’ve explained some of the challenges and limitations that will be involved in upgrading an existing Windows XP or Windows Vista PC to the forthcoming Windows 7 operating system, due out October 22. Several readers asked me to publish a chart showing which current versions of Windows could be easily upgraded to which planned versions of Windows 7, and which couldn’t. So I asked Microsoft to supply such a chart we could publish, and the company graciously did so. It is reproduced below, unaltered. You can click on it to make it larger.
Common consumer versions of XP and Vista are listed down the side, and the three (out of a total of six) planned versions of Windows 7 likeliest to be used by average consumers on existing PCs are listed across the top.
Note that ONLY those combinations which intersect in a green box saying “In-Place Upgrade” can be upgraded in a simple way that, in Microsoft’s words, “Keeps your files, settings, and programs intact from your current version of Windows.”
All of the others, denoted by blue boxes, will require what Microsoft calls a “Custom Install,” also known as a “clean install” — a procedure Microsoft doesn’t even refer to as an “upgrade.” For most average, non-techie consumers whose PCs have a single hard disk, that will require a tedious, painful process with the following steps: temporarily relocating your personal files to an external drive or other computer, wiping your hard drive clean, then installing Windows 7, then moving your personal files back, then re-installing all of your programs from their original disks or download files, then reinstalling all of their updates and patches that may have been issued since the original installation files were released.
Microsoft will provide a free “Easy Transfer” program to assist in this process, but this software won’t transfer your programs, only your personal files and settings.
.
What about upgrading from Vista to XP or 98? Now THAT would be an improvement.
| Processor type: | PowerPC | Intel |
| Upgrade Path: | Buy a new Intel-based Mac | $29.00 |
Aw, Dad, do I hafta upgrade?
What I’d like to know is if my current Windows 7 RC version (which expires on March 1, 2010) will upgrade smoothly to the RTM. I hope so.
Oh joy! A chart for more DRM.
I have 32-bit Vista Home Basic, and will be upgrading to 7 Home Premium. Any reason to switch to 64-bit? My computer is 64-bit capable (Intel Core Duo 2.0GHz and 3GB RAM), but for some reason came pre-installed with 32-bit Vista (it only came with 1GB RAM).
I’m not sure a clean install would be a bad thing, since it seems like there’s a lot of crap on there that’s accumulated over the years that probably slows it down, and I really only use it for web browsing and Microsoft Office.
Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said Tuesday that it has issued an official Release Candidate for software that allows users of the forthcoming Windows 7 operating system to run a virtual edition of Windows XP from inside Win7.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219000227
You should buy the 64-bit if for nothing else you’ll have it should you upgrade your hardware. Running just Office and web browsing on it for now certainly won’t stress either version.
Started with Windows NT 3.1 then Windows NT 4.0, next Windows 2000 was Windows 5. I think Windows XP/2003 was Windows 5.1, Vista and Windows Server 2008 is Windows 6 and Windows 7 is, well, Windows 7.
The "16-bit" codeline was Windows 2, Windows 286/386, Windows 3/3.1/3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98 and Windows ME.
What do these Windows-bashers have, a x386 running Vista?
Not much reason to with those specs. But if you up it to 4GB RAM and do x64, then it would release an extra 2GB RAM for your use and speed things up considerably.
If you wait until Snow Leopard is out you wouldn’t have to pay the $29.
No, unfortunately it won't. I don't have the reference from Microsoft in front of me, but I recall reading about a week ago, that if you've been running anything prior to the official RTM, it's a complete re-install.
I've got half a dozen machines in that state, ugh. Oh well. It's not a surprise -- beta testers should always be prepared for such inconvenience.
What a giant clusterf#@k.... Yet another reason why I have a Mac. My mac Pro will cost $29 to upgrade to Snow Leopard. One version. Works on all Intel based Macs. Simple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.