In-place OS upgrade - Linux vs Windows
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
I can't remember the last time I did a full, clean install of windows - it was generations ago, possibly Win XP ... And I don't really have problems: 11 installed OK on both desktop and Surface (and didn't take up much extra space on the Surface). It's certainly a whole load quicker and easier than reinstalling all my apps (once I've found the licences, and persuaded them to accept it's the same computer again) and getting things back to the way I like them (which always feels "off" for a couple of weeks for reasons I can't detect by which niggle at me anyway).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
dandy72 wrote:
Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows
I know what your mean. I used to have a embedded debugging tool for AVR devices and every time I upgraded the IDE I had a problem with the IDE recognizing the debugging tool. It finally quite recognizing it all together and I was forced to buy another device. Now every time I upgrade I cringe! My eventual solution was to move to ARM devices. :)
I don't think before I open my mouth, I like to be as surprised a everyone else. PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
-
I can't remember the last time I did a full, clean install of windows - it was generations ago, possibly Win XP ... And I don't really have problems: 11 installed OK on both desktop and Surface (and didn't take up much extra space on the Surface). It's certainly a whole load quicker and easier than reinstalling all my apps (once I've found the licences, and persuaded them to accept it's the same computer again) and getting things back to the way I like them (which always feels "off" for a couple of weeks for reasons I can't detect by which niggle at me anyway).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Maybe I should follow that advice and trust the Windows installer after all. You'd think I'd have the process down to a tee by now, and I'd be able to get back to a "normal" state fairly quickly after rebuilding something from scratch so many times, but no...no, I don't. Heck right now I'm dealing with a machine, freshly built back in June, that has NOT been able to download/install the monthly CUs from day one. Just some obscure error message, and none of the articles I've seen can clear it up. Every month I'm hoping that'll be the one to sort things out, but no, it always gets stuck despite doing all the resets, clearing caches, etc. At some point I'm just going to nuke it all over again.
-
well both are two different cases.. and there are differences
Caveat Emptor. "Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
I did it twice, once on Ubuntu and once on Debian: the whole system became completely unusable and I had to do a fresh install. Same ****, different brand.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
-
I did it twice, once on Ubuntu and once on Debian: the whole system became completely unusable and I had to do a fresh install. Same ****, different brand.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
I run Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS and I've been using Linux for about 3 years now consistently on my desktop. Updates on Linux are quite a bit less intrusive. When I did a major update to a newer version the system updated in the background while I used the system. It took one reboot and then everything was back. On Windows you just stare at the spinning cursor the entire time and they are generally very slow. Also, on Linux I check for updates every day and run them with no problem. That is always painful on Windows. Also, recently, I've noticed with Win10 updates my machine (a Ryzen R7 with 16GB RAM) will suddenly freeze because Windows deems it is time to run a very heavy process that eats 50% of all CPU so they can download some update. When it happens they do not warn you or let you know, your system just becomes total sludge. Why do they do that? Because they can. It's obvious they don't really care. If they did, they would popup a dialog and say, "we're going to be downloading the next update so please note that your machine may be slower" and then give you an [OK][Wait For Later] buttons choice. but nothing.
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
dandy72 wrote:
I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do.
It does. It's cleaner and quicker... even with a desktop environment installed.
dandy72 wrote:
Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows
Don't for major upgrades. It's like reusing bath water twice. X|
dandy72 wrote:
Is Linux truly more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
To be fair, apt does have something to do with it but it also depends on the package creators that apt installs. The difference is, on Unix/Linux they're much more strict on what goes where. Not to mention, you typically don't find too many rookie devs making packages for it... like on Windows.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I can't remember the last time I did a full, clean install of windows - it was generations ago, possibly Win XP ... And I don't really have problems: 11 installed OK on both desktop and Surface (and didn't take up much extra space on the Surface). It's certainly a whole load quicker and easier than reinstalling all my apps (once I've found the licences, and persuaded them to accept it's the same computer again) and getting things back to the way I like them (which always feels "off" for a couple of weeks for reasons I can't detect by which niggle at me anyway).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Maybe I should follow that advice and trust the Windows installer after all. You'd think I'd have the process down to a tee by now, and I'd be able to get back to a "normal" state fairly quickly after rebuilding something from scratch so many times, but no...no, I don't. Heck right now I'm dealing with a machine, freshly built back in June, that has NOT been able to download/install the monthly CUs from day one. Just some obscure error message, and none of the articles I've seen can clear it up. Every month I'm hoping that'll be the one to sort things out, but no, it always gets stuck despite doing all the resets, clearing caches, etc. At some point I'm just going to nuke it all over again.
dandy72 wrote:
Maybe I should follow that advice and trust the Windows installer after all.
Don't. Windows does leave behind crap. It also uses way more disk space so you can revert. Yes, you can delete it, but it's never quite as clean. Granted, that don't mean the OS won't "work". Back in the day, the _biggest_ issue was NTFS sucked with fragmentation issues. It's better about that these days. And while you can defrag your page file, etc. and upgrade to dance around this, you'll still have artifacts on your system. Point is, a clean install is always mo better. Yes you have to re-install software, but that's like what... once every 3-4 years? Not like that's a big deal.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I did it twice, once on Ubuntu and once on Debian: the whole system became completely unusable and I had to do a fresh install. Same ****, different brand.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
But did you do it correctly and was it using a desktop environment or not?
Jeremy Falcon
-
I run Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS and I've been using Linux for about 3 years now consistently on my desktop. Updates on Linux are quite a bit less intrusive. When I did a major update to a newer version the system updated in the background while I used the system. It took one reboot and then everything was back. On Windows you just stare at the spinning cursor the entire time and they are generally very slow. Also, on Linux I check for updates every day and run them with no problem. That is always painful on Windows. Also, recently, I've noticed with Win10 updates my machine (a Ryzen R7 with 16GB RAM) will suddenly freeze because Windows deems it is time to run a very heavy process that eats 50% of all CPU so they can download some update. When it happens they do not warn you or let you know, your system just becomes total sludge. Why do they do that? Because they can. It's obvious they don't really care. If they did, they would popup a dialog and say, "we're going to be downloading the next update so please note that your machine may be slower" and then give you an [OK][Wait For Later] buttons choice. but nothing.
Here's what I know for a fact, my machine doesn't get significantly slower when downloading updates for Linux. Does for Windows though.
Jeremy Falcon
-
OriginalGriff wrote:
it was generations ago, possibly Win XP
Time to upgrade your machine. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
Oh I have - there isn't a single part that was in it a few years ago ... I migrated my HDD to SSD (thanks AOMEI!) and that was the hardest part.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Here's what I know for a fact, my machine doesn't get significantly slower when downloading updates for Linux. Does for Windows though.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Oh I have - there isn't a single part that was in it a few years ago ... I migrated my HDD to SSD (thanks AOMEI!) and that was the hardest part.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Do you call it "ship of Theseus"?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated. I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
-
I can't remember the last time I did a full, clean install of windows - it was generations ago, possibly Win XP ... And I don't really have problems: 11 installed OK on both desktop and Surface (and didn't take up much extra space on the Surface). It's certainly a whole load quicker and easier than reinstalling all my apps (once I've found the licences, and persuaded them to accept it's the same computer again) and getting things back to the way I like them (which always feels "off" for a couple of weeks for reasons I can't detect by which niggle at me anyway).
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony "Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
Wait! So you're saying you have a desktop that came with Windows XP (or you did a fresh install of XP on it) and since then (circa 2008?) you've done numerous hardware updates (replacing nearly everything?) yet you've only ever performed Windows updates to reach a modern version (Win 10 or 11)? That's pretty wild.
-
First off, I'm not a Linux fanboi. I like to tinker with it, I've played with countless distributions, both mainstream and obscure, and have built more Linux VMs than I can remember. For the first time ever, I'm doing an in-place upgrade right now, of Debian 11 to Debian 12, on a system I'm actually using (hosting Pi-Hole - and that's it). About a total of 8 commands, waiting, a reboot, then all good to go. Actually I'm not sure a reboot will even be necessary; I'm currently still on the waiting phase as packages are being installed... I don't know, I can't quantify it--but I can't shake the feeling that an in-place Linux upgrade leaves the system in much better shape than an in-place Windows upgrade has ever been able to do. Maybe it's the placebo effect. But I always feel dirty upgrading Windows, in that there's probably gigabytes worth of crap the upgrade leaves behind, that Windows has no means of thoroughly cleaning up. Yes, it keeps a WINDOWS.OLD folder, and yes, it will eventually delete it on its own over time...but it still leaves me with a nasty feeling that Linux doesn't. It's not just the disk space, but probably some stuff left running, or badly configured, that can only be avoided by wiping/repaving. After many bad experiences over the decades, I *always* do clean installs of Windows. I just can't bring myself to fully trust it, even if the upgrade is entirely successful. Am I imagining things? Is Linux *truly* more apt (pardon the pun) to do a better job of not leaving unnecessary crap behind?
Management 5th amendment: "it all depends" I have had both go swimmingly and both fart loudly. Recent up date of Debian 11 to 12 wound up in a loop trying to configure the kernel. Had to use Timeshift to go back and remove 2 packages that had patched the kernel, then redo the upgrade. I like to keep my home folders on separate partition, and data on its own as well. Did an upgrade of a domain controller (CA 2010) and had to start over when it rolled over and died. Fortunately, that was a VM and backed up. What failed? Beats me. We do Windows servers in VM's for a reason. I think a format/install is best but it all depends on how much stuff you have added and how easy to recover. I also think lack of a registry in Linux makes it easier, but have no empirical data to prove it. Just an old fart's feelings. :)
>64 Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
-
den2k88 wrote:
Same ****, different brand.
True. I have seen completely borked Linux installs, and I'm much less qualified here to try to recover than from a failed Windows install. \\_(ツ)_/
dandy72 wrote:
and I'm much less qualified here to try to recover than from a failed Windows install.
I hope you did backup your data before upgrading :rolleyes: :-D
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
