Windows 7: to upgrade or fresh install?

Hi,

I currently have Vista Ultimate x64 with all the latest updates.
I also have Windows 7 x64, (Ultimate).

Would you suggest a fresh install or can I upgrade my current system?
Obviously I would much rather upgrade my current system.

Thanks

Simon

"Simon" <> wrote in message
news:eGtUBG$...
> Hi,
>
> I currently have Vista Ultimate x64 with all the latest updates.
> I also have Windows 7 x64, (Ultimate).
>
> Would you suggest a fresh install or can I upgrade my current system?
> Obviously I would much rather upgrade my current system.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon

I cant hurt to try the upgrade since you will still have the option to do a
clean install if you don't like the result. The reasons for doing a clean
install of Windows prior to Vista don't apply to Vista and W7. Vista and W7
installations are always clean installations of the OS regardless of whether
you choose the upgrade option or not since the installations are from images
and no longer done by file copying.

Simon wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I currently have Vista Ultimate x64 with all the latest updates.
> I also have Windows 7 x64, (Ultimate).
>
> Would you suggest a fresh install or can I upgrade my current system?
> Obviously I would much rather upgrade my current system.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon


http://www.intowindows.com/how-to-do...ows-7-upgrade/

Hi,

I will suggest to perform a clean install simply because I like to do it
right first time.

If your upgrade install failed, you sure can try a clean install. But if
everything being equal and your clean install is failed, there is no way for
an upgrade install will succeed. And one still needs to take time to check
if everything is ok after a successful upgrade which can be a long and
complicated process.

So, I prefer to do it right the first time without taking unnecessary
chances.

My two cents for your considerations.


"Simon" <> wrote in message
news:eGtUBG$...
> Hi,
>
> I currently have Vista Ultimate x64 with all the latest updates.
> I also have Windows 7 x64, (Ultimate).
>
> Would you suggest a fresh install or can I upgrade my current system?
> Obviously I would much rather upgrade my current system.
>
> Thanks
>
> Simon

Agreed. Strongly suggest the clean install method. You're better of
taking your time and starting fresh, without all of the unnecessar
applications from your old system. Check out this tes
(http://tinyurl.com/pmoyy6) of Windows Vista Home Premium, the upgrad
of Windows 7 and the clean install of Windows 7. Hope this helps

--
TuneUp

"undisclosed" wrote in message
news:...
>
> Agreed.

What is? Please QUOTE the post you are replying to. The vast majority of
users of this group are using a news reader and are NOT subscribed to
whatever gateway you are using to post.

"Gordon" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "undisclosed" wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> Agreed.
>
> What is? Please QUOTE the post you are replying to. The vast majority of
> users of this group are using a news reader and are NOT subscribed to
> whatever gateway you are using to post.

Err - Have you spoken with the vast majority of users? Err. Don't think
so. Err. Stop being such a STUPID NET COP. Err.

Err.

undisclosed wrote:
> Agreed. Strongly suggest the clean install method. You're better off
> taking your time and starting fresh, without all of the unnecessary
> applications from your old system. Check out this test
> (http://tinyurl.com/pmoyy6) of Windows Vista Home Premium, the upgrade
> of Windows 7 and the clean install of Windows 7. Hope this helps!
>
>


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

undisclosed wrote:
> Agreed. Strongly suggest the clean install method. You're better off
> taking your time and starting fresh, without all of the unnecessary
> applications from your old system.


Why? Please provide a rational, technical justification for this
assertion. Why do you assume the OP has "Unnecessary applications?"
Wouldn't any sensible individual already have removed any such, if
they'd ever been installed in the first place?

Granted, some people will always blindly recommend that one always
perform a clean installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS.
For the most part, I feel that these people, while usually well-meaning,
are living in the past, and are either basing their recommendation on
their experiences with older operating systems, or are simply
inexperienced and uninformed.

Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is
contra-indicated:

1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully
compatible with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not
available from the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also
causes problems with clean installations.

2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally
a wise course to establishing a stable installation.

3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
perform an upgrade.

A properly prepared and maintained PC can almost always be
successfully upgraded by a knowledgeable and competent individual. I've
lost count of the systems I've seen that have been upgraded from Win95
to Win98 to Win2K to WinXP (usually with incremental hardware upgrades
over the same time period), without the need for a clean installation,
and that are still operating without any problems attributable to upgrades.

Additionally, since Vista's and Win7's upgrade "mechanism" differ
widely from that of earlier operating systems, why would you think that
the same "old wives' tales" would apply?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

> Why? Please provide a rational, technical justification for this
> assertion.

Read my original post, if you could.

> Granted, some people will always blindly recommend that one always perform
> a clean installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS.

Speaking of "blindly", you have been blindly telling people about replacing
a M/B will "void" warranty based on your one-time experience of which you
couldn't even name the vendor.

And now, you are "blindly" telling people about to use upgrade installations
instead of considering a clean install.

Maybe you are not familiar with or aware of the concept of "do it right the
first time", and maybe you enjoy doing/fixing computer problems all the time
either for your work or hobby, but it's your incompetence and ignorance and
please keep it to yourself; on the other hand, many of us prefer to do thing
right the first time.

> Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is
> contra-indicated:
>
> 1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully compatible
> with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not available from
> the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also causes problems
> with clean installations.
>
> 2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
> infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
> Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
> become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally a
> wise course to establishing a stable installation.
>
> 3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
> perform an upgrade.

If one meets all of the above, can you guarantee that all computers will not
have any problems during and after an upgrade installation? If so, I would
like to see your "evidence" so you are not talking "blindly"?

If there were some minor problems after an upgrade installation even when
the program is said to be compatible (e.g. FrontPage will crash only when
inserting hyperlinks, Outlook 2002(?) cannot remember passwords, etc.), do
you know how much time would be needed in order for a support or user to
locate the problem because the problem may not be immediately noticed or
surfaced?

As I said, if a clean installed is failed, there is no way for an upgrade
install to succeed, so why waste time on taking an unnecessary chance?
Besides, with a clean install, one gets to test each hardware/application
when it is being installed so the problem can be immediately indentified.

> Additionally, since Vista's and Win7's upgrade "mechanism" differ widely
> from that of earlier operating systems, why would you think that the same
> "old wives' tales" would apply?

The mechanism only helps improve success rate but cannot guarantee it.


"Bruce Chambers" <3t> wrote in message
news:#...
> undisclosed wrote:
>> Agreed. Strongly suggest the clean install method. You're better off
>> taking your time and starting fresh, without all of the unnecessary
>> applications from your old system.
>
>
> Why? Please provide a rational, technical justification for this
> assertion. Why do you assume the OP has "Unnecessary applications?"
> Wouldn't any sensible individual already have removed any such, if they'd
> ever been installed in the first place?
>
> Granted, some people will always blindly recommend that one always perform
> a clean installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. For the most
> part, I feel that these people, while usually well-meaning, are living in
> the past, and are either basing their recommendation on their experiences
> with older operating systems, or are simply inexperienced and uninformed.
>
> Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is
> contra-indicated:
>
> 1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully compatible
> with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not available from
> the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also causes problems
> with clean installations.
>
> 2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
> infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
> Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
> become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally a
> wise course to establishing a stable installation.
>
> 3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
> perform an upgrade.
>
> A properly prepared and maintained PC can almost always be
> successfully upgraded by a knowledgeable and competent individual. I've
> lost count of the systems I've seen that have been upgraded from Win95 to
> Win98 to Win2K to WinXP (usually with incremental hardware upgrades over
> the same time period), without the need for a clean installation, and that
> are still operating without any problems attributable to upgrades.
>
> Additionally, since Vista's and Win7's upgrade "mechanism" differ widely
> from that of earlier operating systems, why would you think that the same
> "old wives' tales" would apply?
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot