Home Games Technology Movies Retro

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Windows 7 upgrade may take up to a day

Microsoft has done it again. It really never stops to amaze me how low quality software and insulting assumptions from the side of Microsoft quality assurance team result in crappy Microsoft products. A Microsoft engineer posted on his blog the results of internal experiments on how long it takes to upgrade Vista to Windows 7.

The experiments involved 3 different hardware configurations and 4 different system condition as far as the data and the installed programs where concerned. One of the experiments took 1220 minutes, over 20 hours to complete the upgrade and that was not even on the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario was not even reported.

Data ProfileLow End HardwareMid End HardwareHigh End Hardware
No data and 0 applications
32-bit: 40 minutes
64-bit: 50 minutes
32-bit: 30 minutes
64-bit: 35 minutes
32-bit: 30 minutes
64-bit: 35 minutes
Medium User
70Gb of data and 20 applications
32-bit: 175 minutes
64-bit: 185 minutes
32-bit: 115 minutes
64-bit: 95 minutes
32-bit: 100 minutes
64-bit: 85 minutes
Heavy User
125Gb of data and 40 applications
32-bit: 345 minutes
64-bit: 355 minutes
32-bit: 185 minutes
64-bit: 165 minutes
32-bit: 160 minutes
64-bit: 150 minutes
Super User
650Gb of data and 40 applications
N/A 32-bit: 1220 minutes
64-bit: 675 minutes
32-bit: 610 minutes
64-bit: 480 minutes

It is stated that the transition from XP to Windows 7 is more complex and it will take significantly more time. How much more? Are they kidding us?

Realistically speaking I would say that most users(at leats the ones I know) fall between the Heavy User to Super user. Even simple users have not formated their XP installation for years and have all sorts of crappy software installed on the machine(let alone the dll nightmare). How long will it take for them?

Comparing this with the upgrade process of Mac OS X or certain Linux distros such as Ubuntu makes me lough out loud. System upgrade is something that should be painless and automated but I guess in Redmond they have diffferent ideas(they still live in mid 90s wearing funny shirts).


Hotshuk said...

OK Mr. Mastorak, although I'm all for a good bit of MS bashing (I am a web developer and the abysmal browser that is IE incurs my wrath on an almost daily basis) I couldn't help but notice that you were doing a little bit of data manipulation here in order to make a situation look a lot worse that it actually is. Having a quick browse over the numbers I might say that they would be the expected waiting times based on the scenarios that are being represented. 30 minutes for a clean upgrade sounds okay to me. 125gb of data and 40 applications: 3 hrs on a mid range pc, which pretty much fits my scenario and I have never performed an installation/upgrade of an OS and FORTY applications in less time. Then there is the 1220 minutes experiment which, in comparison with the rest of data, doesn't fit and I think should be considered erroneous. And Finally, Linux? Are YOU kidding? Though once installed and working smoothly it is a work of art... getting to that point involves you shoving your mouse up your ass and passing it out of your mouth; that is of course if Linux has the drivers to support you mouse :)

mastorak said...

if 3 hours for 125 GB of data sounds fine to you then the insulting assumption of Microsoft quality assurance team is right. You are obviously used to the low standards introduced by windows. Upgrading the same amount of data for Ubuntu or OSX is like a clean install(30 minutes) and i know cause i 've done it.

And obviously you have not used Linux the last few years. From installing new software or upgrading Ubuntu is a breeze...try it!

Hotshuk said...

You have to start putting things into context. Updating Ubuntu from what to what? 1.01 to 1.13? Upgrading from Vista to 7 should involve at least some restructuring of the OS and XP with 7 are not even comparable as the same operating system. I have no doubt that Linux may be faster at updating as it is inherently better structured, however I was simply saying that it doesn't come without it's headaches. Yes, even recent editions! Just bear in mind that not everybody has the exact same build as you, as you have likely adjusted the hardware that you buy to be compatible under Linux. But okay, I'm up for a challenge; you can bring over a clean hard disk and a copy of ubuntu, I'll set the stop watch at 30 minutes and you have to set it up under my build, with each component working perfectly.

Eraserheadx said...

Challenge extended!

he he. I love geek showdowns :P

mastorak said...

The context is:you have a working piece of software and you upgrade it with another working piece of software without wasting 3 hours of your life....

If you want showdown go see zoolander:-P
For any one else we can do an installfest
in true community spirit :-)

Hotshuk said...

That's not good enough. You can not compare adding a patch to a piece of software and updating the core of your operating system. Sorry. I hate Microsoft as much as the next self respecting geek, but we should be thoughtful and incise with our judgements otherwise they hold no weight. This article was just a bit too 'Michael Moorish' for me :)

The prosecution rests. Denny Crane!

mastorak said...

You still do not get it....
Upgrading Ubuntu or Mac OSX to a new version is as simple as patching anything....that simple...
And it is that simple because they are both quality pieces of software.
So basically, updating the core of both of these operating system is a breeze
The facts are:
I 've gone from ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10 (4 different updates) and form Mac OSX 10.3 to 10.5(3 different updates, soon to be 4) without formatting once and with countless applications installed.
None of these updates took more 30-40 minutes tops!Fact...

mastorak said...

And because some digitally-challenged friends still do not understand it...
With upgrade, I mean "changing" operating system... going from one to another....dahhh
and Hotsuk you are welcomed to time the upgrade from 10.5 to 10.6 next week....
I 'll come by your house....have pizza ready...the update will be over before we are done eating...

Hotshuk said...

Having just read the change log for OSX 10.6 I would be horrified if it took longer that 30 minutes. And even after all that you are still left with just a MacinTOSH (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tosh). With the Linux system you had a point but if you are going to start arguing for the most pretentious company on the planet, I don't know what else to say :S