Deciphering Windows 7 Upgrades: The Official Chart
by Walter S. Mossberg
Posted on August 4, 2009 at 8:09 PM PT
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 (MSFT) 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 that 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, nontechie 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.
Comments
Can you address how this compares to the upgrade choices of Mac users to Snow Leopard?
Posted by Ben Rosenthal at August 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pmSnow Leopard is an * Intel-Mac only * upgrade- it is a leaner, meaner, smaller, faster operating system that is optimized for the newer, Intel Macs. All of the underlying core technologies have been enhanced and tweaked, but the actual size of the OS is smaller than Leopard.
Mac owners already with Leopard on an Intel machine can upgrade for $29; from Tiger (still on an Intel) , I assume will be $129 as usual.
Older Macs with PowerPC chips- the G3, G4, G5 Macs- cannot upgrade to Snow Leopard. They would continue to use Tiger or Leopard, which is still periodically updated.
The upgrade will be of the “In-Place Upgrade” variety described above: all of your programs, settings, etc are retained when you upgrade Mac Os’es. It’s always a good idea to at least back up your Home folder as a precaution, but is not required.
Posted by Dave Shepard at August 4th, 2009 at 10:23 pmDoesn’t this chart strike you as a definition of insanity?
Posted by Dave Barnes at August 5th, 2009 at 11:07 amThe upgrade process from XP to Win7 looks absurd—I think it is going to be a serious impediment to WIn7’s acceptance by consumers. I know I’ll upgrade my Vista Laptop. I am pretty sure it will be a cold day in hell before I upgrade my Xp desktop. If Win7 is like Vista but better, and in theory everything that works on Vista will work on Win7, what explains this more difficult upgrade process?
Posted by Mark Squires at August 6th, 2009 at 9:10 amI don’t get why Microsoft made this kind of chart, its pretty simple, if you have Vista Home Premium (which I assume 90% or higher of home users do), you can do an in place upgrade to 7 Home Premium. If you have XP, no matter what version of 7 you go to, you have to do an upgrade (which makes sense anyways).
As for businesses and corporations, 99.9% of them will create new images for all their users, so doing upgrades is besides the point.
Posted by Sam gibbs at August 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pmAnd it still won’t be that easy! Then you’ll have to hunt down all the drivers for whatever lame no-name brand of computer you bought from the wrinkle shirt at Office Depot or wherever. Sheez. Just get a Mac next time.
Posted by Rick Roberts at August 6th, 2009 at 7:02 pmAs Dave Shepard notes, upgrades from Leopard to Snow Leopard will be $29.
But the upgrade path is different for Tiger users. If they want to upgrade, Apple’s website says they’ll have to buy the Mac Box Set, which will include:
• Snow Leopard
• iLife 09 suite
(with iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iWeb, & iDVD)
• iWork 09 suite (with Pages, Numbers, & Keynote)
The current Mac Box Set (with regular Leopard) is $169, though Amazon sells it for just $134.99; I expect the Snow Leopard version to have the same price.
Most users with Intel Macs already have Leopard. Only Intel Macs shipped before October 26th, 2007, came with Tiger.
Also, I question Sam gibbs claim that “90% or higher of home users” have Vista Home Premium, as virtually all budget-priced PCs ship with Vista Home Basic. And lots of users still buy XP!
Posted by Steven Klein at August 7th, 2009 at 9:20 am@ Sam Gibbs – Why on earth would you say that 90% of users are running Vista Home Premium and therefore the chart is useless? XP users still outnumber Vista users, especially including 100% of the Netbook market not inclusive of that one $900 Sony model which is arguably not a netbook.
Furthermore, a large number of entry level laptops available on retail shelves and even through Dell come with Vista Basic and not Home Premium.
Posted by Scott Lewis at August 7th, 2009 at 2:05 pmYou’ve probably seen the Mac upgrade grid by now:
http://www.erichter.net/wp/wp-.....ur-mac.jpg
It makes me wonder if MSFT will ever make an OS that can run on both sets of rails. Linux does this by having 64-bit binaries in a separate folder. MacOS’s Mach-O format allows for multiple binaries in one file so all 4 permutations (PPC32, PPC64, Intel32, Intel64) live under the same roof. Not being able to handle 64 and 32 in a single OS box reeks of hurting the user experience in the name of market segmentation, and needlessly complicates the upgrade process.
Posted by Blain Hamon at August 7th, 2009 at 2:46 pmAnother point to note is the last footnote: Upgrading between languages requires a custom install. Handling multiple languages in one install (and the subsequent changing between languages, even having different language preferences for different accounts on the same box) is where Apple really shines.
Posted by Jon Løvstad at August 7th, 2009 at 4:13 pmHere, I’ve taken the liberty of producing a similar chart for Mac OS X users that will hopefully dispel any confusion surrounding upgrade paths:
http://automatica.com.au/blog/.....-upgrades/
Posted by Kai Howells at August 7th, 2009 at 4:30 pmThank you Walt. 3 computers on Vista, 2 port on XP. Opted for Professional at pre-release price. Weeding through other reviews full of ambiguous comments and MAC employees left me with a wait and see attitude.
Posted by Ed Redding at August 7th, 2009 at 5:46 pmYour use of chart allowed me to go back to Best Buy with full explanation of why I should be allowed to change from ‘Professional’ to ‘Premium’ at pre-sale price. They agreed.
After installation I may ‘need’ to upgrade one desktop.
This chart is great because it shows so many of the problems at Microsoft.
* the multiple versions of Windows which are completely pointless in every way … you can make one version and sell it for $199 new, $99 upgrade, and if you want Exchange that is $100 extra and you will be selling everyone Windows for pretty much the same price as now but there will be only one OS for users, I-T, developers, and Microsoft to deal with, AND in the marketing materials you can show the top price of Windows as $199, not $399, which is what people expect to pay for a whole PC now, even though your business users are still paying $299 to get Exchange also
* the arcane technical details that you have to know just to consider buying this product, e.g. “32-bit” and “64-bit”, that is bush league, you shouldn’t have to know anything about that to use or buy a computer … 32 or 64 bit is the kind of choice that software applications make for themselves, it is basic if-then-else … there are also XP Mode requirements that require you to scope out the particular model number of your Core CPU, it is incredible … for comparison, Apple never does this even though they have switched not just from 32 to 64 bits but also from 68000 to PowerPC G3 to G4 to G5 to Intel Core then Core 2 and Xeon and even ARM, and now they support 3 models of iPhone and 3 models of iPod touch in iPhone OS 3.0 and the user does not even need to know if they have GPS or not, if they have 3G or not … what century is it at Microsoft?
* 80% of current Windows users are not supported here, they have no upgrade path to Windows 7 … I think that is the biggest mistake Microsoft ever made and that is saying something … since this was made public the bloom came off the Windows 7 rose … the only upgrade from XP is another XP and that is what users are doing not just here and there but the majority of the time … if Google Chrome OS has a seamless XP Mode that imports your current XP (which Windows 7 cannot do) and runs your current XP apps over Chrome I think more people would embrace that than have embraced a Vista-based Windows so far … Apple already did this with Mac OS X replacing Mac OS 9 so it is very possible, and the faster and more CPU’s that hardware gets, the easier it is to do as well, because you can give Chrome OS its own CPU or 2 and XP its own CPU or 2 when you’re running both
* this chart should not even be a chart with the info just puked out into Excel and then published, it should be a computer program (maybe Microsoft has heard of those?) such as a small Web app that first helps you to determine what version of Windows you are currently running, and then once identified, shows you only your specific upgrade options … this is maybe a 1-day coding job that would save everyone who uses this chart (potentially hundreds of millions of people) an incredible amount of time and trouble (possibly adding up to 1000 lifetimes or more) … part of what’s sad about this is Microsoft is full of software engineers but apparently not anywhere near the top, it is all business criminals there, playing with the Office ribbon and Aero Glass and patting themselves on the back for making outrageously bad decisions
* if you’re really sure you want to publish a chart instead of widget, you could give this chart to a single designer with Adobe tools and in a couple of hours he would make it look professional at least …
a tech writer spent 1 hour with this and removed about 50% of the cells but left all the same info … you can immediately see that the top two rows should be below the Vista rows, XP should be represented by the XP logo, the heading should be separated for example by inverting it against a blue strip, and the FROM should be vertical against the left side of the chart, and “Custom Install” should read “Clean Install” so you don’t have to explain it in the fine print “Custom (clean) Install …” it is just abysmal in every way
Finally, I have to say, if Walt Mossberg, who is working day-in and day-out with tech and has many industry contacts and much insider knowledge and experience, has to “decipher” these upgrade options, that in itself tells you that this is not ready for prime time. It is not ready for the end user. Microsoft should have sent this to Mr. Mossberg in private and asked for his feedback, and then improved the chart until Mr. Mossberg could write an article about it without any “deciphering” being involved.
Consider the iPhone OS has been upgraded about 10 times in the past 2 years, and over 75% of the user base is already running 3.0 although it is only a month old. No viruses, even though it’s always-on and always-connected. That is the benchmark now, it’s not even Mac OS you have to outdo now in the consumer space. People who have Macs don’t usually have a lot of Windows around, but iPhone users have Windows PC’s in many cases, they are directly comparing their iPhone and Windows PC on these points. The iPod touch embarrasses the Windows PC. It is sad.
Epic FAIL once again from Microsoft.
Posted by Fred Hamranhansenhansen at August 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pmJust to clarify: Does a clean install also mean that a full license of Windows 7 at full price is required?
A similar matrix with the upgrade prices filled in would be really useful. The idea of a clean install isn’t that big a deal to me personally. And from what I’ve seen in India atleast – format and reinstall is so common an answer to Windows problems that it just feels like spring cleaning.
Posted by Dipika Bothra at August 7th, 2009 at 11:15 pmIn reply to Scott Lewis, to clarify, I meant that 90% of home vista users have Home Premium. Yeah, there are a small percentage that have Basic (hence only 90%), and I’m sure there are some that have Ultimate, but the majority Vista home users have…Vista Home Premium. So, if they want to upgrade to 7, they can simply…upgrade. So, to repeat, this whole chart is somewhat of a moot point since most vista home users will simply be able to upgrade to windows 7 without having to do a complete reinstall.
Posted by Sam Gibbs at August 8th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThe old saying, “A camel is a horse designed by a committee.”
This is that, on crack.
Posted by Eric Welch at August 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm“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.”
Please tell me this is satire coming from a Microsoft hater. Hasn’t a single Windows designer at Microsoft ever used a Mac? Don’t they realize how embarrassingly bad this is compared to a Mac OS X upgrade? Even when switching from one Mac to another all your applications (along with all other files) are transfered in one simple, painless process.
And of course many of the potential upgraders here were already burned once by Vista and had to downgrade to XP. All of them are now in the maximum pain zone. Apple needs to get ready for another wave of switchers.
Posted by Ted Todorov at August 11th, 2009 at 9:27 amOnly MS can come up with a WINDOWS SALES CHART that offers guffaws. I laughed and laughed. MS shareholders might not find it so funny or that Steve Ballmer has spent $4 BILLION dollars on BING & YAHOO – but MS funny. Yes, funny looking.
BTW, WIN 7 will sell as well as Vista. Nice OS but outside of a small % of PC owners, most PC owners have been so let down by previous versions of WINDOWS, they are not willing to pay ANYTHING for it. They will take it “free” with a$399 netbook but pay hundreds for it – as the chart says – bwhahahahaha.
In a week of this as the BEST EFFORT of MS, the whole Win Mobile is now symbian and a court injunction against WORD – they are doomed. MS will be part of some Chinese or Indian company in 10 years.
Posted by joe belkin at August 13th, 2009 at 10:39 pmMacs are for GenX-ers what Porsches and toupees are for baby boomers.
A computer is a tool, not something to beat your chest about. It is not an extension of, or substitution for, your manhood.
Now, move out of your parents’ basements, cancel your internet porn subscriptions and use those superior computers for something useful!
Posted by Phil Johnson at September 27th, 2009 at 8:38 amI agree with Dipika. Isn’t all this talk about an in-place upgrade much ado about nothing, given Windows’ more fundamental flaw of not being able to live on a machine for more than a year or two without bogging down and bugging out? Clean installs are (or should be) a fact of life for anyone owning a Win machine for more than a year or two.
My wife has had a Vista laptop for a few years that has become sluggish, so regardless of whether or not I upgrade it is due for a clean install. I don’t trust the geniuses at MSFT to have come up with an in-place upgrade that resolves this sluggishness, so I plan to do a clean install, provided I can pay the upgrade (not the new) price for Win7.
Posted by Derek Bromley at October 17th, 2009 at 11:56 amIt’s so funny to see the Mac guys bitching and complaining! Yea your computer was easy to setup, walk into the fancy white store, wait in line to talk to a genius and pay 3x the price of a PC.
Simple!
I built a core i7 PC, 4gb ram, 1 TB (raid1 – built in backup), 4 DVI for video, 24″ widescreen, 2 x DVD burner for about $1700 on newegg.. from scratch to windows 7 was about 30 minutes.. couldn’t be easier.
But where are my cool commericals with guys’s in jeans and “im too good to be questioned” attitudes!
PCs are fine, why you gotta talk all the trash? I think macs are dumbed down computers honestly.. look at all the pretty colors.
And yea like my man said above, a computer is a tool.. saying your computer is better than anyone elses makes YOU THE TOOL!
Posted by Bob Jones at October 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pmFirst, XP users can use an upgrade version of Windows 7. They pay the discounted upgrade price. They just can’t do a direct in-place upgrade with it.
Second, as mentioned above, even for Vista users, many experts would recommend doing a clean install anyway. It gets rid of any bloatware and gives you a fresh start.
Third, which I didn’t see anyone mention above, an in-place upgrade CAN be done from XP. In some cases. You can upgrade from XP to Vista, then from Vista to Windows 7. After the first upgrade (without entering a Vista licence key), upgrade again, this time to Win7.
It takes a little longer, and more importantly, it requires XP be in the upgrade path for Vista as well as the Vista version be in the path for Win7.
Not only can’t I use my Vista Ultimate DVD to upgrade someone to Win7 Home Premium, but XP Pro (which most people have) can’t be upgraded in-place to Vista Home Premium – it’s considered a downgrade. XP Pro can only be upgraded to Win7 Pro or Ultimate to do it in-place.
But for businesses, this might not be a problem. Not if they WANT to go to Win7 Professional 32-bit (because no in-place upgrades from XP to any 64-bit version are supported). They just need a copy of Vista Business 32-bit as an intermediate.
Now, I wonder if someone can figure a way to slipstream the two together…
Posted by Michael Pollard at October 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm@Phil Johnson and Bob Jones:
Computers ARE tools, that’s why I switched to a Mac from XP when Vista came out. Now, instead of spending all my time being an IT support person at home, reinstalling everything every few months, fixing issues, dealing with malware etc. I just get on with using my computer to do the stuff I want to do. It’s been very liberating.
It’s true that the purchase price of a Mac is higher, but not only do you pretty much get everything you need as part of OS X, but unless your time is free, you’re not accounting for hours and hours spent dealing with issues. You just get on with whatever it is yo wanted a computer for in the first place. Take into account the resale value of a mac, and overall cost of ownership is lower. And life’s too short to be an unpaid Microsoft employee.
The biggest threat to Microsoft (apart from itself) is the growing number of iPod and iPhone users who enjoy the experience and then start to seriously consider moving to a Mac.
Posted by Sam McMillan at October 29th, 2009 at 2:31 amSnow Leopard is a $35CDN stand alone system that can be clean installed on any Intel base Mac. It does not need a preinstalled system to upgrade from (in case you were wondering). Hold down the option key while starting or restarting your Mac and presto… you get the option to clean install. There are also various utilities at this stage to format your drive, repair permissions etc etc. So basically Apple is selling a superior standalone system for $35CDN which incidentally is not serialized nor does it phone home or physically restrict you from installing it on as many machines as you want… if you were so inclined to do so… just say’n! Go Apple!
Posted by Don Evanson at November 18th, 2009 at 12:01 am