Microsoft proudly explains how the internal rollout of Windows 11 was its smooth...

I suspect that upgrading from Vista to Windows 7 was actually less painful, easier, and simpler, in spite of the PR that MSFT puts out about Windows 11. Features were actually improved upon in 7 vs. Vista.

On 07/04/2022 at 06:38 PM, seeprime said:

I suspect that upgrading from Vista to Windows 7 was actually less painful, easier, and simpler, in spite of the PR that MSFT puts out about Windows 11. Features were actually improved upon in 7 vs. Vista.

Windows 7 was also a finished product.

On 07/04/2022 at 07:44 PM, dead.cell said:

Windows 7 was also a finished product.

That's why the upgrade should have been listed as the easiest ever. I suspect that MSFT is fibbing again concerning Windows 11 simply to get people to accept the unnecessary upgrade from Windows 10, when they can easily postpone it until 2025. Possibly when v.23H2 comes out, W11 will be as usable as W10 currently is. We'll see.

On 07/04/2022 at 06:38 PM, seeprime said:

I suspect that upgrading from Vista to Windows 7 was actually less painful, easier, and simpler, in spite of the PR that MSFT puts out about Windows 11. Features were actually improved upon in 7 vs. Vista.

People have short memories as this was awhile ago ... god i feel old! lol.

Compared to WIndowsXP Windows 7 was sloooow and still required more memory. Remember Netbooks with 1 gigs of ram and maybe 2 gigs of ram with ATOM Cpus were still running Windows XP back in 2009. Compared to Vista it mabye better besides the bugs in older apps and Windows Media indexing problem it maybe marginally better. But WindowsXP is what people and 98% of all businesses required and used back in 2009. It wasn't until 2011 before corporations even started dipping their toes and 4 gigs of ram became standard.

On 07/04/2022 at 07:44 PM, dead.cell said:

Windows 7 was also a finished product.

No. It required a bloated dual core CPU and HUUGE 2 gigs of ram to ram ok. Windows XP was light years ahead until about 2013 or so.

On 07/04/2022 at 11:48 PM, sinetheo said:

No. It required a bloated dual core CPU and HUUGE 2 gigs of ram to ram ok. Windows XP was light years ahead until about 2013 or so.

If you say so. I was a broke college kid back then and I made it work. 🤷‍♂️

Also, it ran way better than Vista so anyone with a Vista PC suddenly had mad performance gains. Granted, there was a number of things I liked about Windows 7 overall, such as being able to click on the breadcrumbs in the address bar of File Explorer, which meant I spent less time navigating the UI, which was nice.

On 07/04/2022 at 11:48 PM, sinetheo said:

No. It required a bloated dual core CPU and HUUGE 2 gigs of ram to ram ok. Windows XP was light years ahead until about 2013 or so.

Dude wtf. There was 8 years between both OSes and XP was largely Windows 2000 with a few new features and consumer friendly skins. You know as well as I do that is an eternity in the tech world. Want more in your OS? Expect more overhead.

On 08/04/2022 at 03:08 AM, adrynalyne said:

Dude wtf. There was 8 years between both OSes and XP was largely Windows 2000 with a few new features and consumer friendly skins. You know as well as I do that is an eternity in the tech world. Want more in your OS? Expect more overhead.

The great recession was ripe back then and the first thing business does is cut IT as a cost center when it needs to raise the share price which is their only goal. My point was people have fond memories and forget reality. Asus netbooks with 1.5 ghz single cores with 1 to 2 gigs of ram were the top sellers and pentium IVs with 512 legs of ram still ran in businesses who were laying off people. Windows XP was God back then because it ran best on those hardware as people hated on 7. With 2 gigs of ram a netbook could boot 7 ok where Vista would take 10 minutes sure. But a shiny new netbook XP could boot and still run apps on XP where they demanded where is my 10 years of support back in 2010?

People hate upgrading and hate change for the sake of change quoting actual XP die hards from back then. No os is perfect. Win 11 seems less troublesome

On 08/04/2022 at 04:22 AM, sinetheo said:

The great recession was ripe back then and the first thing business does is cut IT as a cost center when it needs to raise the share price which is their only goal. My point was people have fond memories and forget reality. Asus netbooks with 1.5 ghz single cores with 1 to 2 gigs of ram were the top sellers and pentium IVs with 512 legs of ram still ran in businesses who were laying off people. Windows XP was God back then because it ran best on those hardware as people hated on 7. With 2 gigs of ram a netbook could boot 7 ok where Vista would take 10 minutes sure. But a shiny new netbook XP could boot and still run apps on XP where they demanded where is my 10 years of support back in 2010?

People hate upgrading and hate change for the sake of change quoting actual XP die hards from back then. No os is perfect. Win 11 seems less troublesome

I fail to see the relevance since companies don’t update day one. To be clear, we were discussing XP and 7. Don’t throw Vista into the mix.

Nothing if what you said has XP beig ahead of it’s time. Instead it was good at running well on old hardware. I’m not even sure where you got that it was ahead of it’s time until 2013. My employer assigned me a 32GB of ram workstation back then. 2GB certainly wasn’t of any real concern in 2013.

As for 11 being less troublesome, you seem to have missed out on all of the hardware restrictions.

How about the external rollout? Probably best ever too, since it had to deal with a LOT less computers? ha

lol this is such a joke.....it's still version 10 as in Windows 10 with an upgraded interface. It should be the smoothest ever since it's still essentially Windows 10.

On 07/04/2022 at 09:50 PM, Phillip0web said:

lol this is such a joke.....it's still version 10 as in Windows 10 with an upgraded interface. It should be the smoothest ever since it's still essentially Windows 10.

Joke? Not even funny.

On 07/04/2022 at 09:50 PM, Phillip0web said:

lol this is such a joke.....it's still version 10 as in Windows 10 with an upgraded interface. It should be the smoothest ever since it's still essentially Windows 10.

Windows 11 has a different scheduler that is more advanced for big little cores and larger CPU core counts and has gpu access built in hyperv and wsl for machine learning AI work and running Linux gui apps. Windows 11 supports biometric sign ins thanks to tpm as well compared to 10.

But if you have an older CPU and just run Excel and Chrome you won't see a difference

I've deployed 7->10 and 10->11 on a domain of around 250 computers via WSUS 2012R2. 7->10 was more of a challenge but this was owing to most of the computers back then having HDD and requiring the users to restart before they go home. 10->11 has worked on most computers, that can take it, but we have had to roll back a few that WSUS tried to upgrade but could not due to compatibility but all in all very painless.

All in all Windows upgrades have gone smoothly except one Win 10 version, an earlyish version, that could not actually contact WSUS for upgrades ... that was 'fun' to fix.

I wonder how much $$ MS had to spend on HW to meet their own Win11 requirements.