Posted on 08/04/2009 10:20:30 PM PDT by Gomez
Over the past two weeks, in my Personal Technology columns, here and here, I’ve explained some of the challenges and limitations that will be involved in upgrading an existing Windows XP or Windows Vista PC to the forthcoming Windows 7 operating system, due out October 22. Several readers asked me to publish a chart showing which current versions of Windows could be easily upgraded to which planned versions of Windows 7, and which couldn’t. So I asked Microsoft to supply such a chart we could publish, and the company graciously did so. It is reproduced below, unaltered. You can click on it to make it larger.
Common consumer versions of XP and Vista are listed down the side, and the three (out of a total of six) planned versions of Windows 7 likeliest to be used by average consumers on existing PCs are listed across the top.
Note that ONLY those combinations which intersect in a green box saying “In-Place Upgrade” can be upgraded in a simple way that, in Microsoft’s words, “Keeps your files, settings, and programs intact from your current version of Windows.”
All of the others, denoted by blue boxes, will require what Microsoft calls a “Custom Install,” also known as a “clean install” — a procedure Microsoft doesn’t even refer to as an “upgrade.” For most average, non-techie consumers whose PCs have a single hard disk, that will require a tedious, painful process with the following steps: temporarily relocating your personal files to an external drive or other computer, wiping your hard drive clean, then installing Windows 7, then moving your personal files back, then re-installing all of your programs from their original disks or download files, then reinstalling all of their updates and patches that may have been issued since the original installation files were released.
Microsoft will provide a free “Easy Transfer” program to assist in this process, but this software won’t transfer your programs, only your personal files and settings.
Pretty cool. Thanks!
95 = 4.0
98 = 4.1
ME = 4.9
2000 = 5.0
XP = 5.1
XP 64-bit/Server 2003 = 5.2
Vista/Server 2008 = 6.0
7/2008 R2 = 6.1
If we’re going to include 2000 because XP brought in the NT kernel then we should really drop 95, 98 and ME because they’re from the non-NT chain. So it would really be NT4, 2000 (5), XP as 5.x, Vista as 6.
Really it’s MS numbering, they just make crap up.
The 95 line is in there because someone mentioned it. The MS numbering does make sense. After 3 there was 95 so it gets 4, and the rest were incremental updates worthy of a dot release. 2000 was a big change from NT, so got a whole number, while the incremental changes of XP and 2003 got dot releases. Vista was a big change from XP (good or bad), so got a new number, with 7 getting a dot.
I am among those who isn't happy that the original 7 project didn't come through. I was expecting that complete rewrite with the MinWin kernel, but just got a dot release over Vista.
MS numbering doesn’t make sense, that’s why they keep changing. First they did version numbers, then they went to years, then they went to goofy names, now apparently they’re going back to version numbers, unless 7 is just a goofy name.
Part of the problem is there were 2 lines (the 3.x code and NT code had little to do with each other), then they merged (XP uses the NT kernel), but even after the merger they still maintained a separate identity. You say 95 was 4 then 2000 get’s its own number, but 2000 is in the NT line and there was NT4, which still leave 2000 as 5 but not of the 3.x/95 line.
I’m among those who isn’t happy the original Longhorn project didn’t come through. Jettisoning downward compatibility would have done wonders for he OS.
Could ya’ let me know if it works on a legit copy?
Thanks.
Oh, you’re talking about the marketing department. They never could make up their minds.
I was just talking actual under-the-hood versions.
:’)
Cool, I'll pass that to some of my guys who were complaining this week about it!! (With credit to you, of course!)
Even under the hood I don’t think it’s that clear. With the death of the non-NT kerneled chain after ME we really should ignore 95 and 98, the count would got from NT3.51 to NT4 to 2000.
Today, I am working on a method to “upgrade” XP to Win7, installed applications and all.
Cover me...
Ah, I see what you're talking about. Microsoft started NT with the first version being NT 3.1 in order to synchronize the version numbers with the 16-bit line, which was at the time Windows 3.1.
The 16/32 bit line ended with 4, so the way I listed it does look like a continuation with 2000 as 5. I thought the separation between the lineage blocks would be enough to distinguish them, but I should have probably labeled them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.