Windows 7 Performance Guide
by Ryan Smith and Gary Key on October 26, 2009 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Upgrade or Clean Install?
There’s probably a special place in Hell for even pondering this (Ed: Level 7 of Robot Hell, in fact), but after experimenting with Windows 7’s upgrade install feature, we’re going to seriously discuss it for a moment.
There’s no prior version of Windows we would ever seriously recommend an upgrade install for. Upgrade installs have historically offered very spotty results, in cases leaving systems or applications in malfunctioning states. The best path always has and always will continue to be a complete reinstall, so that old programs and old Windows components don’t interfere with the newest version of Windows.
But with Windows 7, we’re willing to reconsider. When it comes to the transition from Vista to Windows 7, there have been very few significant changes to the underpinnings of Windows. Certainly compared to moving from XP to Vista, there are no major changes in any aspect of the driver stack or the audio stack, nor has security, the bootloader, or any number of other subsystems been overhauled. Jokes about Windows 7 being Vista SP3 aside, the lack of significant architectural changes between the operating systems means that it’s a favorable environment for an upgrade install, one more favorable than for any other consumer version of Windows.
Good idea? Bad Idea?
In our own testing, we have taken two boxes from Vista to 7 using the upgrade install feature; one of these systems even did the Vista->7 RC1->7 RTM shuffle thanks to some INI hacking. Both of these systems have turned out fine, suffering no ill effects compared to any of the systems we have done clean installs on. And while the plural of “anecdote” is not “data”, we’ve seen similar reports elsewhere in places such as our forums that corroborate this.
To be clear, a clean install is always going to be the safer option. It forgoes any risk of old Windows components contaminating the new install, and hence for anyone that absolutely needs it to go right the first time, it’s still the way to go. But an upgrade install, when it works, is certainly more convenient than restoring a bunch of data and reinstalling every single program. Based on our experience, on a properly functioning machine this is something we would recommend trying so long as you have a good backup and the guts to give it a shot.
There are two things that need to be kept in mind when it comes to doing an upgrade install however. The first is that the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor contains a list of programs that it will want uninstalled before performing an upgrade. Programs that install system components such as VMWare or iTunes are chief among these, as those components won’t properly survive the upgrade; so some program reinstallation may still be required depending on what software you have. The second thing is that the upgrade process involves scanning, categorizing, and saving a lot of data, which means it can take a while. On one computer this took a hefty 5 hours, and on another lightly-used computer this was barely an hour. The key factor here is how much user data and how many programs are installed – the more stuff you have, the longer it will take. On a heavily used computer, this is something you may want to let run overnight or at some other point where you wouldn’t normally be using your computer.
Finally, there is no XP to 7 upgrade option, which given the issues in performing this action with Vista, doesn’t surprise us in the slightest. For XP users, there only option is a clean install, which in this case involves the Windows 7 installer backing up the old installation and laying down a fresh Windows 7 install.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
207 Comments
View All Comments
DominionSeraph - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Is it really that difficult to download WinZip to open .zip files? And WinAmp to play MP3s? MusicMatch Jukebox for ripping and converting? ACDSee to view jpegs? CloneCD to burn?More functionality is better.
Now they just need to get ISO mounting.
Genx87 - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Hey i was impressed they put .ISO burning as a native function of the OS. God that is nice to not have to install Roxio or Nero to perform that one function.Dug - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Really need to show how much better 7 is in a domain environment. Vista is a nightmare in the workplace, especially with networks. Vista has really slow file transfers, slow authentication, really bad switching from wired to wireless. Constant time outs from explorer or Outlook. Errors trying to update the OS. List goes on and on.Genx87 - Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - link
Sounds to me like you may have other issues if you are having timeouts in Outlook and Windows explorer and cant update the clients. We have about 30% of our user base using Vista 32. They have for the most part been pretty solid. The biggest issue was the person before me on the initial batch bought machines with 1GB of ram. /shake headAfter doubling and quadrupling that the machines run solid.
The slow transfers were fixed in SP1 over a year ago.
Peroxyde - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
At home I only need Windows to work on some MS Office 2007 documents. I can live without the Windows 7 new features. So here is the fastest Windows and the safest you can have: Use Linux + Virtual Machine (Ubuntu 9.04 x64 and Virtualbox 3.08 in my case). The VM have WinXP + SP3, auto updates. After that, I configure XP so that it can no longer access the Internet. Results: a fast and low resource Windows (only XP and the few programs I need, zero anti virus). Unlike its numerous XP fellows this one is unattackable.tomaccogoats - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Anandtech really needs a dedicated person on its team with better knowledge of linux. It's a computer site, and I'd compare the level of linux no-how to that of a high-school student who's been playing around with it a bit. Ubuntu 9.10 has in essence been around for a while now, and I'm surprised no one's even bothered to look at it. Also you can set ubuntu to get A LOT better battery life numbers. Just my $.02Chlorus - Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - link
Maybe because its garbage? Maybe because the application base of Linux is almost nonexistent? Maybe because it barely supports any of the latest hardware? Maybe because the ABI situation is a clusterfuck? Maybe because those battery-life improving tweaks involve removing some functionality?LoneWolf15 - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
I found some 25% off coupons still lurking around the web back in August and got myself a Technet Plus subscription. For $261, I got one license of Win7 Ultimate one of Premium, one of Professional, and more importantly, a MAK (multiple-activation key) for using Enterprise.That's not including the licenses for Office 2007 and a ton of other MS products. Well worth the price and at the end of the year's membership, your licenses are still valid --just keep copies of your .ISOs and keys. Subscription renewal prices are also lower than first-time.
MrPete123 - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
With respect to hibernating... don't the Vista/Win7 64-bit laptops have 4 gigs of RAM they have to store, while XP 32-bit only has ~3 gigs accessible? Seems like that would artificially affect the performance.Also, why didn't you run Win7 FF + FlashBlock?
Ryan Smith - Monday, October 26, 2009 - link
Check the Mobility article that data was pulled from. If the answer isn't there, you'll have to ask Jarred.