Windows 7 Install saga
-
Rob Graham wrote:
the crap hardware
it was running some older Windows version, so nothing wrong there. If Win7 doesn't like some parts of it, the installer should say so, rather than silently fail. This is crappy software behavior, for which there is no excuse whatsoever. :|
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
Luc Pattyn wrote:
This is crappy software behavior, for which there is no excuse whatsoever.
I agree wholeheartedly! If it isn't dummy-proof, it isn't done.
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Actually, while Win 7 moved towards 8% of the market share, Win XP and Vista combined dropped less than 2%. You Linux folks have an interesting method for calculating half ;P Where I come from, it's usually more than 25%.
rastaVnuce wrote:
I have written Win off years ago for different reasons.
Wow, you were using Win 7 years ago? Must've been a pre-alpha release? :wtf: That's like writing off Ubuntu because you had a bad Red Hat install in 2001.
rastaVnuce wrote:
Win is crap because of a lot of other things
lol...so is every OS.
TheyCallMeMrJames wrote:
Wow, you were using Win 7 years ago? Must've been a pre-alpha release?
Ammm... I guess you have problem with reading whole sentences. If you try to read it again you'll see that I have seat that I have written Windows off years ago. Windows doesn't automatically mean Windows 7. There were other versions before it. I don't know how long you're on the IT scene, perhaps you just wasn't aware about it.
TheyCallMeMrJames wrote:
Actually, while Win 7 moved towards 8% of the market share, Win XP and Vista combined dropped less than 2%.
There was an interesting talk somewhere on the net saying: when loosing an argument make up statistics.
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
-
Actually, while Win 7 moved towards 8% of the market share, Win XP and Vista combined dropped less than 2%. You Linux folks have an interesting method for calculating half ;P Where I come from, it's usually more than 25%.
rastaVnuce wrote:
I have written Win off years ago for different reasons.
Wow, you were using Win 7 years ago? Must've been a pre-alpha release? :wtf: That's like writing off Ubuntu because you had a bad Red Hat install in 2001.
rastaVnuce wrote:
Win is crap because of a lot of other things
lol...so is every OS.
-
Software such as a modern (read: bloated) OS has long passed the point where its complexity means that full testing of the OS is no longer possible. We could probably make DOS perfect, give or take hardware issues that can corrupt the code itself, but then we have a perfect, pristine OS that, well, doesn't do a lot. Software development methologies have come a long, long way since the punch card days, and we have better tools, better languages, better runtimes, better discipline (excepting those who should not be allowed near a keyboard) and exponentially more complex systems. I think it is highly disingenuous to suggest that software developers have been sitting on their hands, lazily writing bad code for the last 20 years with no will to do any better. That's disrespectful to our profession.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I'm afraid you misunderstood. I'm not asking for perfect software, what I am requesting is that all software, when something goes wrong, makes a decent attempt at reporting what went wrong and indicating what the user could or should do about it. Modern methodologies, run-times and languages make that easier than before, and yet progress in this area is limited. Do you accept a Windows7 installation process dying over and over on a customer without notice? is that the best they can do? is that respectful to the customers? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
-
I'm afraid you misunderstood. I'm not asking for perfect software, what I am requesting is that all software, when something goes wrong, makes a decent attempt at reporting what went wrong and indicating what the user could or should do about it. Modern methodologies, run-times and languages make that easier than before, and yet progress in this area is limited. Do you accept a Windows7 installation process dying over and over on a customer without notice? is that the best they can do? is that respectful to the customers? :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
have you thought that maybe if the install software could detect the problem it could also work round it? Often when something like this fails the failure is so low level that nothing gets beck to the software hence the freeze! its like blaiming a black box for not recording what happened in an aircrash caused by the tail (including black boxes) falling off. maybe MS should be more like Apple and state that thier software cannot be installed on non-approved hardware, this would stop these posts of "oh weven failed to install on my 1977 Commodore PET computer how rubbish is that"
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
have you thought that maybe if the install software could detect the problem it could also work round it? Often when something like this fails the failure is so low level that nothing gets beck to the software hence the freeze! its like blaiming a black box for not recording what happened in an aircrash caused by the tail (including black boxes) falling off. maybe MS should be more like Apple and state that thier software cannot be installed on non-approved hardware, this would stop these posts of "oh weven failed to install on my 1977 Commodore PET computer how rubbish is that"
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
detecting a problem often is easier than working around it. so rather than try and work around 100% of the potential problems, I much prefer software to report 100% of the problems, and work around when it can. There was no tail falling off, it was a working system onto which Win7 failed to install without explaining itself or even giving a clue. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
-
detecting a problem often is easier than working around it. so rather than try and work around 100% of the potential problems, I much prefer software to report 100% of the problems, and work around when it can. There was no tail falling off, it was a working system onto which Win7 failed to install without explaining itself or even giving a clue. :)
Luc Pattyn [Forum Guidelines] [Why QA sucks] [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Please use <PRE> tags for code snippets, they preserve indentation, and improve readability.
The point was that the failure maybe in such a low level item than the install software doersnt get a notification, in which case all the programming in the world isnt going to help. did you run the compatability wizzard before staring? are all your components Windows 7 approved? as for it working with the previous system, this is a false positive, firstly 7 maybe accessing functionaity of the hardware that the old system did not, it is may be more tolerent of faults (one of xp's biggest problem was that it did not enforce its own rules and allowed bad practices to flourish) as to not having a clue, as i have said it is extreamly likely that the install software didnt recieve a clue as to the failure and in that case would be unable to tell you, it would only know if the relavent subsystem reports a problem or that it could continue and "skip" that part of the install, I have had the second occur on a window 7 install whena sound card failed, it just continued and reported the error on completion, as your did not do this i think it is more likely that the hardware is crashing the system mid install, nothing the OS/install package(as the OS may not be in control atc this point) can do about it. oh and have you tried reinstalling the "old" OS as you may find that it also bombs out now
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start
-
TheyCallMeMrJames wrote:
Wow, you were using Win 7 years ago? Must've been a pre-alpha release?
Ammm... I guess you have problem with reading whole sentences. If you try to read it again you'll see that I have seat that I have written Windows off years ago. Windows doesn't automatically mean Windows 7. There were other versions before it. I don't know how long you're on the IT scene, perhaps you just wasn't aware about it.
TheyCallMeMrJames wrote:
Actually, while Win 7 moved towards 8% of the market share, Win XP and Vista combined dropped less than 2%.
There was an interesting talk somewhere on the net saying: when loosing an argument make up statistics.
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
rastaVnuce wrote:
when loosing an argument make up statistics
Oh, gotcha. That's where you got the 'half' from then. :thumbsup: Cool.
-
rastaVnuce wrote:
when loosing an argument make up statistics
Oh, gotcha. That's where you got the 'half' from then. :thumbsup: Cool.
You see, the difference is that you were throwing around numbers as if you have accurate statistical data. Half, in the way I used doesn't imply any numbers... It only implies that there were two groups... One that was using Vista and the other that was using XP... How many of each there was... I don't have a clue. You don't either, but you like to think that you do. Sorry for breaking this so hard to you... Hope I don't crush your dreams.
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
-
You see, the difference is that you were throwing around numbers as if you have accurate statistical data. Half, in the way I used doesn't imply any numbers... It only implies that there were two groups... One that was using Vista and the other that was using XP... How many of each there was... I don't have a clue. You don't either, but you like to think that you do. Sorry for breaking this so hard to you... Hope I don't crush your dreams.
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
-
I'm feeling sorry for you right now. Honestly, I do. Maybe you should try some real life conversations, so you would get to know some phrases that are used in real life. Maybe try to read some books... you know, the stuff made of paper with bunch of letters in it... aaah, here you go[^] Anything of the sort will do. Referencing wikipedia for what a half is... damn it man, get a life!
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
-
I'm feeling sorry for you right now. Honestly, I do. Maybe you should try some real life conversations, so you would get to know some phrases that are used in real life. Maybe try to read some books... you know, the stuff made of paper with bunch of letters in it... aaah, here you go[^] Anything of the sort will do. Referencing wikipedia for what a half is... damn it man, get a life!
We are using Linux daily to UP our productivity - so UP yours!
rastaVnuce wrote:
I'm feeling sorry for you right now.
Oh, don't worry about me, friend. I'm quite good. ;) Good luck with future installs!
-
TheyCallMeMrJames wrote:
You Linux folks have an interesting method for calculating half Where I come from, it's usually more than 25%
Where I come from it's usually no more nor less than 50% ;)
Amen, brother. ;)