Upgrading to Windows 7? Run the Upgrade Advisor First!

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

In case you are somehow unaware, Microsoft launches its Windows 7 OS tomorrow, with immediate availability. You can of course "pre-order" it on various websites now, or simply walk into a brick and mortar store tomorrow and pick up a copy. If you want to take the OEM route (limited to a single computer, but far less expensive), you'll likely have no choice but to go the online route, unless you either work at a computer shop, or know someone who does.

I'm willing to bet that the majority of you visiting our site have a computer capable of handling Windows 7, but do you either want to upgrade a family member's machine, or a spare PC somewhere in your house? Before you commit to a purchase, the best idea is to run Microsoft's own "Upgrade Advisor" tool that scans your current configuration and gives you a list of a-ok's and caveats.

Because I've already upgraded my PCs to Windows 7, I didn't have a proper PC to run this upgrade advisor on, so I just took to my Windows XP install inside of VMware to give it a shot. The process took about one minute to complete, and afterwards, it told me that I couldn't do a typical upgrade, but rather have to conduct a fresh install (that will always be the case when upgrading from XP).

Because my graphics driver lacks proper acceleration (in VMware), it noted that I wouldn't be able to run Windows Aero (I in fact can, but it's understandable why it couldn't tell the difference). It also told me that Outlook Express is no longer part of Windows, and recommended me to check out alternatives, such as Windows Live Mail. Overall, it did say I could upgrade to Windows 7, however. I don't expect this test to be too hardcore, but for actual older machines, it's likely capable of saving you both money and time.

The Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor scans your PC for potential compatibility issues and lets you know about your Windows 7 upgrade options. Within minutes, you'll get a report that tells you if your PC meets the system requirements, if any known compatibility issues with your hardware, devices, and installed programs are found, and gives guidance on what to do to before installing Windows 7 on your PC.

Source: Windows Upgrade Advisor​

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Before you commit to a purchase, the best idea is to run Microsoft's own "Upgrade Advisor" tool that scans your current configuration and gives you a list of a-ok's and caveats.

"You need 16 gigabytes of free space on your computer to install Windows 7"

16 Gigs!

Wow...

Of course it doesn't like my video cards. It doesn't like my network card. I doesn't like my sound card (old soundblaster for MIDI compatibility)...

Oh well... XP, installed in under 600megs, running rock stable, will do fine for now.

 

[Doomsday]

'If you want to take the OEM route (limited to a single computer, but far less expensive),'

any links ? pls!

 

[Kougar]

"You need 16 gigabytes of free space on your computer to install Windows 7"

16 Gigs!

Is 16GB really that much for a full OS anymore? The average hard drive purchase seems to be around 750GB to 1TB today. At 6 cents a GB you're paying $1 for the hard drive space Windows 7 would use. Also, Vista required a minimum of 5GB more... 32bit Windows 7 versions also use less drive space.

Doomsday, OEM copies are available at Newegg and other online stores.

 

[MacMan]

Is 16GB really that much for a full OS anymore? The average hard drive purchase seems to be around 750GB to 1TB today. At 6 cents a GB you're paying $1 for the hard drive space Windows 7 would use. Also, Vista required a minimum of 5GB more... 32bit Windows 7 versions also use less drive space.

Doomsday, OEM copies are available at Newegg and other online stores.

I'm planning on keeping my XP, but also i'm adding Windows 7, and a fine OS it is too, but even though 16 gigs is small in-comparison to a lot of the drives these days, there is one problem with any OS that takes up a lot of space: the bigger it is - the more likely that you will have bugs!

I remember running Mac Classic in the olden days, and when I think about it, it had hardly any issues or problems at all, but then again - it only took up 488 kilobytes of disk space - I'm not kidding! Looking back, it seems nutty that you could run both the OS and its apps on one single 800 k floppy. Boy, how things change!

Today things are different: more is less; less is more! The less code, the less space is needed to host it and the less bugs and problems it will have! The more code and space needed to host it, the greater number of bugs and problems that you can expect to face. After all, no OS is perfect, so I'm a little leery about having an OS that takes up so much space.

 

[2Tired2Tango]

Is 16GB really that much for a full OS anymore?

Anymore? No.

Realistically? Yes, it's something of a concern.

With the move to Object Oriented Programming (OOP) --particularly in Dlephi-- program sizes have bloated beyond all reason. I once downloaded an example Delphi program that let you choose an MP3 file and play it... nothing more, just a couple of WinAPI calls and a half dozen MCI commands... the thing was over 5 megabytes. I wrote exactly the same functionality in procedural Pascal and did it in less than 20k ... Can you guess which one worked better... That's right, for the operator and for sound reproduction there was no difference whatsoever.

I then improved upon it by adding transport buttons to the UI and some crude playlist support which drove the program size up to a whopping 28k.

All that bloat in the Delphi example was there simply to support the Object Model of programming.

Now that all new windows developement is in C++ and C# we are seeing the same kind of bloat occuring, even in core windows functions... .NET only makes it worse. Many of Windows core services are getting exponentially larger ... with absolutely no benefit in functionality or efficiency. Drivers are becoming ridiculously cumbersome with NVidia leading the pack at over 100 megs just to get an image on your monitor.

In fact OOP is far less efficient than plain old procedural programming. It requires huge amounts of code just to support the Object Model. Much of this code actually does little more than "wrap" procedural type functions in "interfaces" that must be addressed in convoluted ways by marshalling code. Why not get rid of all this overhead and just call these functions directly? Like we did in "old school" programming.

It's kinda like writing a 500 page instruction manual on the simplest way to drive a nail when all you really need to say is "Pick up the hammer and hit the nail with it".

I seriously doubt that growth in OS sizes, with little or no increase in basic functionality is justifiable upon the availability of larger disk drives (or SSDs). The actual justification is thin at best, rooted in concepts of modular programming that do far more to support laziness in devlopers than actual craftmanship in code.

I am a minimalist in many ways. I would not use 20 transistors in an amplifier design if I could do the same job just as well with 8. I would not put switches or knobs on one of my designs that were not beneficial to the user. I don't put code in my programs that isn't actually necessary to accomplish the end goal... and for a certainty I don't use extra code to support my unwillingness to create good code.

Smaller is better. Above the point were one is sacrificing functionality, even a few bytes of extra code is nothing more than wasted space and increased vulenerability to bugs, security risks and, sometimes, flat out failure of the product.

From knowing some about the guts of Windows --I program at the WinAPI level in both C and Pascal-- I can safely tell you they could produce exactly the same functionality, with fewer bugs and security issues, in something like half the space they are using now... and, as a nice bonus, it would probably run between 40 and 60% faster.

Why they don't do this remains a source of constant mystery.