Windows 7 upgrade experiences

I have a client where more than a few users are running Vista Business or
Ultimate and despise it because of the slow performance, freezes, long
startup times, etc. These are typically Lenovo laptops or tablets running
Intel Core Duo processors of 2GHZ or better speed and 4G of RAM. In the past
I have checked these computers for malware and tried to optimize best I
could eliminating uneeded startup programs, disabling indexing, optimizing
power settings for performance, etc. That usually helped somewhat but not
enough to make them happy.

Now they want to upgrade to Windows 7. I am wondering what experiences users
have had in upgrading such computers in that have you seen a notable
improvement in performance with the simple upgrade path or did it require a
clean install to get performance to be better. I am trying to avoid the
clean install route because of the extra time it will take to reconfigure
all the settings, FIND and reinstall ALL the software, plug ins, and
drivers, and backup/restore data.

Thanks for any advice, experinces, and other feedback. --- Steve

Old Rookie wrote:[color=blue]
> I have a client where more than a few users are running Vista Business or
> Ultimate and despise it because of the slow performance, freezes, long
> startup times, etc. These are typically Lenovo laptops or tablets running
> Intel Core Duo processors of 2GHZ or better speed and 4G of RAM. In the past
> I have checked these computers for malware and tried to optimize best I
> could eliminating uneeded startup programs, disabling indexing, optimizing
> power settings for performance, etc. That usually helped somewhat but not
> enough to make them happy.
>
> Now they want to upgrade to Windows 7. I am wondering what experiences users
> have had in upgrading such computers in that have you seen a notable
> improvement in performance with the simple upgrade path or did it require a
> clean install to get performance to be better. I am trying to avoid the
> clean install route because of the extra time it will take to reconfigure
> all the settings, FIND and reinstall ALL the software, plug ins, and
> drivers, and backup/restore data.
>
> Thanks for any advice, experinces, and other feedback. --- Steve
>
>
>[/color]


I have a "test" machine and can tell you that Win 7 does , perform
better than Vista...enough of an improvement that I'd say is worthwhile.

As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
install.

I suppose what you could do...is back up all the data and try and upgrade
and see what happens...

but do not upgrade any other machines until it's given a good test
for at least a week or so

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

[color=blue]
> As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
> a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
> install.[/color]


I disagree.

Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
versions of Windows, an upgrade to Windows versions starting with XP
replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.

My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
reinstall cleanly if problems develop.

However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much[color=blue]
> easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
> reinstall cleanly if problems develop.[/color]

Easier when things go right but when things go wrong:

(1) it raises tremendous user complaints and frustrations as we have seen
over the years(even now) which could have been easily avoided,

(2) it wastes time and effort for doing the upgrade install and this is for
a "better" scenario and for a worse one,

(3) it takes tremendous time and effort for troublshooting minor
incompatibility and conflict issues that may not have sufraced at the
install time and eventually leads to a clean install which should have been
done in the first place.

All of the above is for the "potential" and "uncertain" saving of
re-installing applications which is the eaisest part, but it cannot save any
efforts for:

(1) back up data
(2) testing application settings and configurations - which is the most
important and time-consuming task
(3) exporting and importing settings and preferences.


The number one rule of thumb for performing a major system task (such as
uprading an OS) is to minimize system downtime and productivity loss for
which a failed upgrade install will do the opposite and can only be achieved
by a clean install on a new partition/HDD.

A true preofessional advise is to give the most sure way instead of
preaching for unnecessary risks for minimum or nonexistent returns.



"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:6d0ff5lfp1kqiaenn3bg96682jm9322e04@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
>> a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
>> install.[/color]
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
> cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
> versions of Windows, an upgrade to Windows versions starting with XP
> replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
>
> My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
> easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
> reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
>
> However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
> to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
> upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
> power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
> everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
> anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup[/color]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:44:04 -0700, just as I was about to take a
herb, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> disturbed my
reverie and wrote:
[color=blue]
>Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
>cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree.[/color]

My direct experience and that of testing sites who benchmark is that a
Vista > 7 upgrade is slower than a clan install of the latter.
--

Cheers,

DrT

** Stress - the condition brought about by having to
** resist the temptation to beat the living daylights
** out of someone who richly deserves it.

You sure you ain't looking at PowerShell? I get a distinctly different
version at a command prompt comparing Vista and Windows 7.

"CrucialHoax" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:ee713862ce870d25f1b9d1cb9d18b8a1@nntp-gateway.com...[color=blue]
>
> If you open the cmd prompt on Win7 you get the same exact version as you
> did vista... Thats why I wont buy it.
>
>
> --
> CrucialHoax[/color]

Thanks for the replies.

I am going to try the upgrade install first and see how that goes and as
mentioned I can always do a clean install later if the upgrade install does
not show some noticable improvement in performance and reliability.

I usually go to this client once a week and I can let the upgrade install
run while I doing other tasks [about 30 users on site] so the dollar expense
to the client to do the upgrade install will be very minimial assuming all
goes well.

Steve


"Old Rookie" <somewhere@wonderlan.net> wrote in message
news:e40DQGMYKHA.5368@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have a client where more than a few users are running Vista Business or
>Ultimate and despise it because of the slow performance, freezes, long
>startup times, etc. These are typically Lenovo laptops or tablets running
>Intel Core Duo processors of 2GHZ or better speed and 4G of RAM. In the
>past I have checked these computers for malware and tried to optimize best
>I could eliminating uneeded startup programs, disabling indexing,
>optimizing power settings for performance, etc. That usually helped
>somewhat but not enough to make them happy.
>
> Now they want to upgrade to Windows 7. I am wondering what experiences
> users have had in upgrading such computers in that have you seen a notable
> improvement in performance with the simple upgrade path or did it require
> a clean install to get performance to be better. I am trying to avoid the
> clean install route because of the extra time it will take to reconfigure
> all the settings, FIND and reinstall ALL the software, plug ins, and
> drivers, and backup/restore data.
>
> Thanks for any advice, experinces, and other feedback. --- Steve
>
>
>[/color]

DrTeeth wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:44:04 -0700, just as I was about to take a
> herb, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> disturbed my
> reverie and wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
>> cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree.[/color]
>
> My direct experience and that of testing sites who benchmark is that a
> Vista > 7 upgrade is slower than a clan install of the latter.[/color]

Even considering the re-installation of every application?

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:29:19 -0700, Just Me <email@is.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> DrTeeth wrote:[color=green]
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:44:04 -0700, just as I was about to take a
> > herb, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> disturbed my
> > reverie and wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
> >> cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree.[/color]
> >
> > My direct experience and that of testing sites who benchmark is that a
> > Vista > 7 upgrade is slower than a clan install of the latter.[/color]
>
> Even considering the re-installation of every application?[/color]


Of course not--not unless there are *very* few applications involved.

Moreover, even if it *was* slower considering the re-installation of
every application, many of us run applications with custom
configurations, and that too can add a substantial amount of time to a
clean installation as opposed to an upgrade.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> Even considering the re-installation of every application?

So you forgot to notice the time and space allocated to make an image backup
for an upgrade install (which is not required for a clean install on a new
drive/partition) or that can be skipped too?

The point is, there is no guaranteed faster time and I wish there is. No
one including MS can guarantee the success rate of an upgrade install, or
can you?


"Just Me" <email@is.invalid> wrote in message
news:kB1Km.2954$dc2.2570@newsfe20.iad...[color=blue]
> DrTeeth wrote:[color=green]
>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:44:04 -0700, just as I was about to take a
>> herb, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> disturbed my
>> reverie and wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
>>> cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree.[/color]
>>
>> My direct experience and that of testing sites who benchmark is that a
>> Vista > 7 upgrade is slower than a clan install of the latter.[/color]
>
> Even considering the re-installation of every application?[/color]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
>> a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
>> install.[/color]
>
>
> I disagree.[/color]



Sorry there old bud
but I've never seen a fresh install fail (assuming the hardware is good).

Most upgrades have ended up with anywhere from minor problems to major
ones. (Not strictly saying they won't work.)


The biggest danger are those that seemingly work...but leave behind
subtle instabilities that lead the user with the initial feeling that
the system is OK...but over the next few weeks can lead to major problems.

For the past few years I have been a Microsoft authorized refurbisher
and do volunteer work for an NPO. I've literally done hundreds if not
thousands of rebuilds and have tested the upgrade process many times.

About the only time an upgrade will work absolutely correctly is if the
original OS is in pristine condition. In the real world there is no such
thing. The number of hours spent properly prepping the system would
probably be more time consuming and difficult than just backing up the data
(confirming the data are good) then performing a clean install.


One alternative is to install the new OS on a second partition and dual
boot...
then migrate over to the new OS little by little.


However, if you note I did tell the OP no harm in trying...
as long as all data are backed up.
Then test the system for a week or so before upgrading other machines

[color=blue]
>
> Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
> cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
> versions of Windows, an upgrade to Windows versions starting with XP
> replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
>
> My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
> easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
> reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
>
> However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
> to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
> upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
> power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
> everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
> anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
>[/color]

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:25:35 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:[color=green]
> > On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
> >> a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
> >> install.[/color]
> >
> >
> > I disagree.[/color]
>
>
>
> Sorry there old bud
> but I've never seen a fresh install fail (assuming the hardware is good).[/color]


I didn't suggest otherwise. The reason I recommend an upgrade over a
clean installation is that it can save an enormous amount of work,
reinstalling all your apps and configuring the apps and Windows.

[color=blue]
> Most upgrades have ended up with anywhere from minor problems to major
> ones. (Not strictly saying they won't work.)[/color]


I have done *many* upgrades. I've never seen any such problems, unless
there were problems (such as malware infection) there when the upgrade
was done.

The one time I recommend against upgrades is when you are already
dealing with problems. An upgrade is likely to exacerbate the
problems, not fix them.


[color=blue]
> The biggest danger are those that seemingly work...but leave behind
> subtle instabilities that lead the user with the initial feeling that
> the system is OK...but over the next few weeks can lead to major problems.[/color]



That has never been my experience.

[color=blue]
> For the past few years I have been a Microsoft authorized refurbisher
> and do volunteer work for an NPO. I've literally done hundreds if not
> thousands of rebuilds and have tested the upgrade process many times.
>
> About the only time an upgrade will work absolutely correctly is if the
> original OS is in pristine condition. In the real world there is no such
> thing. The number of hours spent properly prepping the system would
> probably be more time consuming and difficult than just backing up the data
> (confirming the data are good) then performing a clean install.
>
>
> One alternative is to install the new OS on a second partition and dual
> boot...
> then migrate over to the new OS little by little.
>
>
> However, if you note I did tell the OP no harm in trying...
> as long as all data are backed up.
> Then test the system for a week or so before upgrading other machines[/color]


No, I don't remember your saying that, but if you did, that's very
close to my point off view, and we in are pretty close agreement


[color=blue][color=green]
> > Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
> > cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
> > versions of Windows, an upgrade to Windows versions starting with XP
> > replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
> >
> > My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
> > easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
> > reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
> >
> > However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
> > to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
> > upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
> > power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
> > everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
> > anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
> >[/color][/color]

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:25:35 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:37:52 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As a general statement...no matter what the OS...
>>>> a clean install is the best way to go..it generally guarantees a good
>>>> install.
>>>
>>> I disagree.[/color]
>>
>>
>> Sorry there old bud
>> but I've never seen a fresh install fail (assuming the hardware is good).[/color]
>
>
> I didn't suggest otherwise. The reason I recommend an upgrade over a
> clean installation is that it can save an enormous amount of work,
> reinstalling all your apps and configuring the apps and Windows.
>
>[color=green]
>> Most upgrades have ended up with anywhere from minor problems to major
>> ones. (Not strictly saying they won't work.)[/color]
>
>
> I have done *many* upgrades. I've never seen any such problems, unless
> there were problems (such as malware infection) there when the upgrade
> was done.
>
> The one time I recommend against upgrades is when you are already
> dealing with problems. An upgrade is likely to exacerbate the
> problems, not fix them.
>
>
>[color=green]
>> The biggest danger are those that seemingly work...but leave behind
>> subtle instabilities that lead the user with the initial feeling that
>> the system is OK...but over the next few weeks can lead to major problems.[/color]
>
>
>
> That has never been my experience.
>
>[color=green]
>> For the past few years I have been a Microsoft authorized refurbisher
>> and do volunteer work for an NPO. I've literally done hundreds if not
>> thousands of rebuilds and have tested the upgrade process many times.
>>
>> About the only time an upgrade will work absolutely correctly is if the
>> original OS is in pristine condition. In the real world there is no such
>> thing. The number of hours spent properly prepping the system would
>> probably be more time consuming and difficult than just backing up the data
>> (confirming the data are good) then performing a clean install.
>>
>>
>> One alternative is to install the new OS on a second partition and dual
>> boot...
>> then migrate over to the new OS little by little.
>>
>>
>> However, if you note I did tell the OP no harm in trying...
>> as long as all data are backed up.
>> Then test the system for a week or so before upgrading other machines[/color]
>
>
> No, I don't remember your saying that, but if you did, that's very
> close to my point off view, and we in are pretty close agreement
>
>[/color]


This was taken from my first post , in case you missed it


-----quote-----

I suppose what you could do...is back up all the data and try and upgrade
and see what happens...

but do not upgrade any other machines until it's given a good test
for at least a week or so



----end of quote----

So I think we are at least mostly in agreement ...
I personally have not had much luck with upgrades.


<snip>

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:49:58 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> However, if you note I did tell the OP no harm in trying...
> >> as long as all data are backed up.
> >> Then test the system for a week or so before upgrading other machines[/color]
> >
> >
> > No, I don't remember your saying that, but if you did, that's very
> > close to my point off view, and we in are pretty close agreement
> >
> >[/color]
>
>
> This was taken from my first post , in case you missed it[/color]




Yes, thanks--I either missed it, or simply forgot it. And lest you
should think otherwise, I wasn't accusing you of saying something that
wasn't true.

[color=blue]
> -----quote-----
>
> I suppose what you could do...is back up all the data and try and upgrade
> and see what happens...
>
> but do not upgrade any other machines until it's given a good test
> for at least a week or so
>
>
>
> ----end of quote----
>
> So I think we are at least mostly in agreement ...[/color]


Yes, and glad to see that.

[color=blue]
> I personally have not had much luck with upgrades.[/color]


We are all different of course. I've had almost all good luck with
them.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:49:58 -0600, philo <philo@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>> However, if you note I did tell the OP no harm in trying...
>>>> as long as all data are backed up.
>>>> Then test the system for a week or so before upgrading other machines
>>>
>>> No, I don't remember your saying that, but if you did, that's very
>>> close to my point off view, and we in are pretty close agreement
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>
>> This was taken from my first post , in case you missed it[/color]
>
>
>
>
> Yes, thanks--I either missed it, or simply forgot it. And lest you
> should think otherwise, I wasn't accusing you of saying something that
> wasn't true.
>
>[color=green]
>> -----quote-----
>>
>> I suppose what you could do...is back up all the data and try and upgrade
>> and see what happens...
>>
>> but do not upgrade any other machines until it's given a good test
>> for at least a week or so
>>
>>
>>
>> ----end of quote----
>>
>> So I think we are at least mostly in agreement ...[/color]
>
>
> Yes, and glad to see that.
>
>[color=green]
>> I personally have not had much luck with upgrades.[/color]
>
>
> We are all different of course. I've had almost all good luck with
> them.
>[/color]



Probably because the people who's machines you've upgraded kept them in
tip-top shape...
something I don't see too often!