"The upgrade process (be it Vista or 7) copies the data out of the current \Users, \Program Files, and \Windows directory to a temporary directory. It then kills those directories and lays down the new OS. After that, it copies all of the data back (well, probably a move operation -- but it still takes a long time). You can watch it if you do a Ctrl-F10 to bring up a command prompt during the upgrade process."

(Seems it's actaully shift-F10)

Kind of makes sense really, in an ugly sort of way.

As it happens Win7's looking pretty good to me. It's now what I use for my desktop OS (partly because I know I'll have to support it soon enough), and I'd now consider it as an alternative to XP. I understand that Dell will be asked to supply PCs (to my org) with either XP or Win7, (as opposed to XP or Vista) pretty soon...

Oh, yadda yadda yadda my OS is better than yours etc. Do you know how much I care about that sort of argument? Do you know how much the (real) world cares about that sort of artgument?

"There's been a lot of commotion about the mention of the upgrade from "Vista SP1 to Vista SP1." This is not a typo: while it is obviously not something that is typically done, but it can be used as a repair method: the upgrade process reinstalls the operating system by replacing any corrupt and modified system files. In this case, the method was used so as to have something to compare against in the benchmarking process. The reason "Vista SP2 to Vista SP2" was not used instead is simple: Vista SP2 wasn't out yet when Windows 7 was in development."

Live and learn...

What does that mean?

When I go on holiday it's a holiday. No email, no web, and my mobile's only used as a timepiece (although it's generally turned off as I seem to end up in places with no signal and this drains my battery...)

I don't imagine I'm so important I need to be in touch with the office.

"I think I can reveal this much: an EX IT guy didn't do something he was supposed to have done. This wasn't discovered until AFTER the disks crashed. So, there were probably other reasons for this guy being an EX, too. Anyway, the crash happened, the mistake was discovered but now too late to fix."

From: http://dorrie.de/F1/viewtopic.php?t=194&start=375&sid=a65b1d9b0fbcc3c3e8df874fc167d495

What I was trying (and failing) to say was that the survey appeared to show that "the people" do indeed seem to want some control of the internet, to make it more usable and reliable, and that the state would be the only body able to provide it. This isn't the spirit of the Chinese government's censorship, and the survey can't be used to support the its current actions.

What do the people seem to want (according to the quoted survey)? A more reliable source of information, and who should ensure the internet is "more reliable" other than the state?
"Since the only legitimate source of authority in many aspects of Chinese life is the state, when Chinese citizens are of the opinion that some aspects of the internet should be controlled, it is natural for them to assume that the state should take the lead in doing the controlling."

The censorship we're seeing is (IMO) wrong. The survey seems to be being misrepresented in this context. Or rather, the people's wishes are not being reflected in the way the censorship is being condected...