Why Microsoft’s XP-to-Windows-7 upgrade strategy is right

The Windows 7 beta was released and all was quiet from the Microsoft haters as positive feedback began pouring in. They waited in the background, some throwing a rock here and there (my colleague Randall Kennedy, author of the Enterprise Desktop blog, has many rocks in his bag to throw) but ever waiting until finally … wait, here it is! Microsoft provides its XP-to-Windows 7 upgrade path and — excuse the expression — all hell breaks loose!

The criticism: Microsoft isn’t providing an “in-place” upgrade from XP to Windows 7, so users must instead do a clean install and then reinstall their apps and re-create their preferences on the new OS. Kennedy argues this is a big mistake, showing lack of contrition at Microsoft for what he calls Vista’s “sins.”

[ Find out whether Windows 7 improves on Vista’s performance in the InfoWorld Test Center’s benchmarks | Check whether your PC can run Windows 7. ]

Let’s put the facts on the table, folks. Here is what Microsoft has said regarding the upgrade: “Customers can purchase upgrade media and an upgrade license to move from Windows XP to Windows 7; however, they will need to do a clean installation of Windows 7. This requires the user to back up their data, install Windows 7, re-install the programs, and restore their data. For PCs running Windows Vista, customers have the option of an in-place upgrade of Windows 7 keeping their data and programs intact or to perform a clean install of Windows 7.”

The conspiracy theories make no sense

Now, if you were crouching with your hands covering your face expecting some major bomb to fall, sorry to disappoint. But wait: Always the opportunists, the haters are screaming from the rooftops!

Some are saying, “This is punishment for not upgrading to Vista” (because if you have Vista installed, you can do an in-place upgrade).

Some are saying this lack of an in-place upgrade path “says bad things about [Microsoft’s] attitude toward IT.” Let’s be honest folks: Do you really think Microsoft would go out of its way to “punish” people who actually want to upgrade to Windows 7? What marketing technique is that called? Come on.

Look, this isn’t the first time an upgrade path isn’t supported. Just the fact that Microsoft is offering a discounted upgrade fee for the software demonstrates the company’s genuine motives here. If Microsoft said Windows 7 was going to cost the same as a full purchase from XP to Windows 7, I might be able to see the point a little. But all Microsoft is looking to do is avoid the slippery slope of dealing with a ton of outdated hardware and software and the many, many calls that will come in from folks who have issues because they try installing to Windows 7 on a five-year-old system with 256MB of RAM and a 10GB hard disk.

My colleague Kennedy says, “Microsoft needs to provide an in-place XP upgrade mechanism in Windows 7, if for no other reason than to demonstrate contrition for its myriad Vista sins.” Actually, I believe he followed that up with calling Microsoft “a seething, spiteful shadow of its former self.” Gee, is it any wonder Kennedy has been “blacklisted” by Microsoft?

I’m sorry; I don’t want to get into a verbal war with a colleague, but enough is enough. Present facts, and we’re listening. Present conspiracy theories and unhelpful hater talk, and it’s time to turn the channel.

Why Microsoft’s upgrade plan for XP is right

So what are the facts?

There are home users who may like the in-place upgrade path and will be disappointed. But don’t we typically find that we get smoother, cleaner running systems when we do a clean install?

Now, I didn’t want to assume that the only ones wanting an in-place upgrade are home users. There are still smaller enterprise environments that may not be using imaging software to rebuild systems, where users keep their files locally and their settings are unique to each system, perhaps. Are IT admins who manage those environments going to be ignored and disrespected by Microsoft, as Kennedy would accuse? I will answer that momentarily. However on the larger scales there are large environments where IT admins remain completely unaffected by this no in-place upgrade path issue because they perform imaging.

I didn’t want to be the only one firing back here, so I pulled in some of the brightest minds in the business. Greg Shields, an MVP (most valuable professional, a Microsoft designation) for Terminal Services and blogger for Concentrated Technology, said, “No one with any hint of sense ever does an upgrade installation. You always rebuild.”

A Microsoft guru (who shall remain nameless) said the following: “Most hardware purchased during the XP cycle would be due for renewal around the time Win 7 ships. In the enterprise, in-place upgrades to a major new OS version aren’t really common. If existing hardware is being reused, it gets reimaged. On the consumer side, the average user doesn’t do OS upgrades (except the tech-savvy folks who can handle such tasks); it’s generally a new computer with a new OS.”

Now, the standard home user may be better off performing a clean install of Windows 7. The fact is, if you back up your data properly, check to make sure your actual hardware will run Windows 7 without an issue, and make sure your software has no known issues, then a clean install will give you the best results. And if you are an enterprise admin looking to do rollouts of Windows 7, this “conspiracy theory” shouldn’t affect you in the least because you ghost/image/WDS etc. your systems anyway.

But again, what about the middle-IT man, so to speak? The answer lies in migration. Rhonda Layfield, a senior deployment architect and deployment MVP, says, “There are so many tools that work perfectly fine that will migrate the user’s profile information that performing an upgrade instead of a clean install is disaster waiting to happen (intermittent issues that you can never truly fix causing you to wipe and reload in the end has been my experience).”

Has anyone heard of the Windows USMT (User State Migration Tool)? Upon reading through the many comments lashing back at Kennedy, I found a reference to a little video (in WMV format) from the Microsoft Springboard Series regarding the USMT. You use the USMT tool to migrate user files and settings (typically for larger deployments) of XP and Windows Vista. The next release of the tool is due out when Windows 7 (which is still in beta, mind you) is released.

Not only that, but as part of the USMT comes the AIK (Automated Installed Kit) for Windows 7 (also in beta form currently). By using Windows AIK, you can automate Windows installations, capture Windows images with ImageX, configure and modify images using Deployment Imaging Servicing and Management, create Windows PE images, and migrate user profiles and data with the USMT.

A lack of respect for IT? To me, looks like Microsoft is showing plenty of respect, in the form of support tools, for IT.

On a personal note: If you want to bring up disrespect, Randall, why did you take a shot at some of the Windows Core Team? Mark Russinovich? Mark is a guy who gave away for free a ton of incredible tools that probably most IT admins have used (and continue to use) for years. How many jams have we been saved from thanks to Mark’s generosity? Microsoft pulled him in to better Windows, and you mock him? I’ve seen this guy enter a conference room of thousands and had people cheer and applaud. He’s an IT hero! You really overreached here, and I believe, in harmony with your article, some apologies (a mea culpa, as you say) are in order for your next column.

This story isn’t over yet. Let’s stop trying to bury Windows 7 before it gets out of the gate. Let it stand on its own merits. Stop trying to push the sins of the father (Windows Vista) on the son (Windows 7).

And perhaps a little better research would help avoid some of this unhelpful chatter on the line these days. It only serves to add complication where we need cohesion in our industry, and it confuses those who don’t have the personal experience to develop their own educated opinion.