Worth going to (windows) 7 from vista?

[Pablo]

What you say is true, but I maintain people have hated on Vista just because other people say it's no good. Again, look at the tests in the link you posted. I'm not starting an OS war - you have way more experience than I have. Again - Vista probably does suck for some people. Works great here.

I have never once paid money to upgrade a full OS - but honestly this computer is running Vista since new (4 years now??) So I am telling the OP, get some more RAM and see how that does. Of course I did get the desperately needed free SP's, but dang it - I'm not buying an upgrade. Two of the laptops came with future Win 7 upgrades....I think I waited too long.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
I have never once paid money to upgrade a full OS - but honestly this computer is running Vista since new (4 years now??) So I am telling the OP, get some more RAM and see how that does. Of course I did get the desperately needed free SP's, but dang it - I'm not buying an upgrade. Two of the laptops came with future Win 7 upgrades....I think I waited too long.

hehehe...Pablo...if it works and it "ain't" broke, then don't fix it! There were plenty sales of Vista and it does work in some applications--sounds like it is working for you so hang with it. =8^)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
I would say it depends on what you do on the computer and the computers role and age. I have been in IT for a long time and I can say without any doubts that Windows 7 is more stable and is faster than Vista. In many ways, Vista is to Windows 7 what Windows Me was to Windows 2000--a production R&D platform that was "sold" as an OS.

Vista was intended to be Windows 7 but spent so long in development that MS had to get something out the door and thus we were introduced to Vista in all its glory.

If you are experiencing problems with Vista I would say that you could benefit from the upgrade (but I would wipe the disks and perform a clean installation), but if things are relatively stable then there may not be any advantages to upgrading as MS will support Vista for some years to come.

There are no differences in file systems and data files (documents, spreadsheets, pictures, music, etc.)

Hope this helps!


I wouldn't go as far as saying Vista is to 7 as ME was to 2000.

Windows 2000 was a ground-up NT write. Windows ME was Windows 98 with the Windows 2000 GUI slapped on top of it, and the "hiding" of DOS (which was still there). They weren't even in the same league.

Blackcomb (7) began life while XP was still being Beta tested. I remember running Alpha builds of it.

Blackcomb's development was WAY behind schedule. So a fork of the Blackcomb project was created (Longhorn) in 2003 based on the features that were deemed viable for completion and for use in a production OS. There were some Blackcomb features that never even made it into the final product, like WinFS for example.

In many respects, Vista is like a beta build of Windows 7. It could be turned INTO 7 with a Service Pack really. Its inefficiencies and thirst for memory were all fixed in Windows 7.

Windows 7 will run, and run WELL on a system with 1GB of RAM. Try that with Vista? It is like trying to run 2000 Server on a 486 with 32MB of RAM.

Vista was a detour to buy Microsoft more time while they finished Blackcomb. Sort of like Windows 98 first edition.... A product to buy them some while they actually finished the bloody thing. Hence Windows 98SE.

I also seriously doubt Microsoft will ever "finish" Vista by way of a Service Pack. Which they really should. They just want everybody to buy 7. And not fixing Vista they hope will push people into doing just that.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: Pablo
I have never once paid money to upgrade a full OS - but honestly this computer is running Vista since new (4 years now??) So I am telling the OP, get some more RAM and see how that does. Of course I did get the desperately needed free SP's, but dang it - I'm not buying an upgrade. Two of the laptops came with future Win 7 upgrades....I think I waited too long.

hehehe...Pablo...if it works and it "ain't" broke, then don't fix it! There were plenty sales of Vista and it does work in some applications--sounds like it is working for you so hang with it. =8^)


Agreed

I had Vista on this system before 7. And while my experience with Vista on it was problem-free, Windows 7 is by leaps and bounds MUCH faster than Vista ever was.

However, if Vista works for somebody, and they are happy with the performance, they shouldn't change that just because somebody tells them to

So I echo your sentiment in that regard.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I also seriously doubt Microsoft will ever "finish" Vista by way of a Service Pack. Which they really should. They just want everybody to buy 7. And not fixing Vista they hope will push people into doing just that.

I agree; I should think MS hopes that Vista fades away like a bad memory.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I wouldn't go as far as saying Vista is to 7 as ME was to 2000.

What I mean by that is as soon as Windows 2000 hit, people dropped Me like a hot potato. I currently see the same thing happening with Vista versus W7 due to similar scenarios.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
I wouldn't go as far as saying Vista is to 7 as ME was to 2000.

What I mean by that is as soon as Windows 2000 hit, people dropped Me like a hot potato. I currently see the same thing happening with Vista versus W7 due to similar scenarios.


I agree with that sentiment completely. And really, this ties into my other quote you cited above. That by NOT supporting Vista, and allowing it to "stay bad", they are forcing people's hands into migrating to 7. The frustrating part is knowing how easily they could fix it. Since of course 7 and Vista are in many respects based on the same bloody code! LOL

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The frustrating part is knowing how easily they could fix it. Since of course 7 and Vista are in many respects based on the same bloody code! LOL

I could not agree with this more! I suppose they want to only have 1 "current" OS and so as you say....

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

When ME came out, I tried to refuse to support it. The flood of student's laptops with ME on them, it soon became apparent that my effort was in vein.

Novell Client 32 wasn't supported on ME. Ironically, actually worked best on ME compared to Win98/95 variants.

ME wasn't a scourge, it just wasn't needed.
ME answered a question nobody asked.
ME was a 16 bit answer to a 32 bit question.
ME was to Win98 as DOS 6.21 was to DOS 6.2
ME, well you never see Microsoft touting sales figures of this OS.
ME, it's better than hitting yourself in the head with a hammer.
ME, it can't possibly mean Microsoft Excellence

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The frustrating part is knowing how easily they could fix it. Since of course 7 and Vista are in many respects based on the same bloody code! LOL

I could not agree with this more! I suppose they want to only have 1 "current" OS and so as you say....


Yessir!

And if we delve into the history books here, this was the plan with Windows 2000! Microsoft intended to COMPLETELY eliminate the 9x-based OS's from the consumer market. But incompatibilities with many pieces of consumer software and the NT kernel are the reason that they cobbled together (quite literally) Windows ME at the last minute.... To allow for a "final" 9x-based "consumer" OS that would still run all the old 9x apps that would not run correctly on the NT Kernel. This gave the market "time to adapt". And since ME was so hideous and widely despised, that its presence on systems moved consumers away from the 9x platform by itself; many of them going as far as embracing 2K Pro with its speeds and stability.

The shift then from NT 5.0 (2K) to NT 5.1 (XP) was easy. People were already soured on ME, XP was the next greatest thing, and XP home became THE OS for home computers. 9x was dead and Microsoft had their wish.

MS doesn't want to support Vista anymore than they wanted to support ME. But while ME was a jerry-rigged version of Windows 98 with the 2K GUI slapped on top, Vista is in fact, in many ways, just an immature release of Windows 7. And so it gets to hang by its neck whilst its brother is heralded as being the greatest thing since sliced bread. The one taking the fall for their parents folly, whilst the other is allowed to be revered.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The one taking the fall for their parents folly, whilst the other is allowed to be revered.

Maybe we should all start using Linux and Macs =8^)

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The one taking the fall for their parents folly, whilst the other is allowed to be revered.

Maybe we should all start using Linux and Macs =8^)


My Mac runs Linux (Debian), and this computer USED to be a Gentoo (then Slackware) box, LOL! Of course it now has Windows 7, and I'm hopelessly addicted to numerous games.

 

[UNC151]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Of course it now has Windows 7, and I'm hopelessly addicted to numerous games.

Ditto to that...WoW is addictive, but sometimes can be a love/hate relationship.

PS...to the OP...apologies for hijacking the thread, but hopefully the information has helped.

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

talking about games, you playing Black Ops?...on a PC or Xbox?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: 2010_FX4
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Of course it now has Windows 7, and I'm hopelessly addicted to numerous games.

Ditto to that...WoW is addictive, but sometimes can be a love/hate relationship.

PS...to the OP...apologies for hijacking the thread, but hopefully the information has helped.


I'm more in to the FPS stuff. I've beat Borderlands a few times, but they keep adding expansion packs!!!! COD, GRAW2, Crysis..etc.

Though I did get into (and beat) Mass Effect 2. Which I genuinely enjoyed.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jakegday


and x2 on wiping the hard drive and doing a completely clean install

Even if you reinstall the same operating system from scratch, you will notice it's faster... for a while.


How long is a while? Win7 is the first version of Windows that has worked more than a year on my main admin machine w/o the need to be reloaded due to WinRot. Installed in August 2009, still running fast, hasn't slowed down like all previous Windows machines have done.

I've been running W7 for close to a year. I feel my PC is slower than it used to. It definitely takes longer to boot up, even though the list of startup apps hasn't grown.

 

[Brons2]

Vista worked great for me on both my work desktop and my home desktop! Both with C2D and 4GB of RAM. I finally wiped my work machine and reimaged with 7 because we are rolling out 7 Enterprise organization-wide, and it's causing problems with troubleshooting not having a bog-standard corporate desktop. Vista never caused me any trouble though. I loved it, compared to XP that everyone not in IT had to stay on until 7 came out.

Now on my personal laptop, Vista was a dog, but I suspect that was partially because of all the bloatware that it came with. (C2D T5250, 4GB RAM...) I wiped it and installed Ubuntu, and was happy with that for quite a while. Now I've got the Win 7 Enterprise from work on here and it's a pain in the freaking arse, I have to take it work every few months and plug it into the network to keep it activated. You can't just enter the license key one and done, you have to have some sort of activation deal on the network. After a while the activation times out and you have to go through the process again! I wish I would have left it on Ubuntu. Win7 is nice on here when it's working and not nagging me about activation. But right now it's doing it again.

A pox on your house, Microsoft, for burdening us IT professionals with this [censored] authentication scheme on the enterprise version of Win7! We paid for me to have this license on my personal laptop, now leave me alone!!!

 

[Pablo]

Again - I never set out to buy a computer for specifically this or that OS. We just buy a PC for lowest darn price with the most hardware we can get for that price. My wife is great at finding door buster type deals. The flipping computer comes with an OS. I think it's not an unreasonable expectation that the OS should last the life of a PC (which isn't all that long in some cases). Buying a new OS midlife of a PC just doesn't sit well with me for some reason....it's not even a money issue. Maybe I need an attitude adjustment - half my neighbors work for MS!!!!

 

[ToyotaNSaturn]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: Jakegday


and x2 on wiping the hard drive and doing a completely clean install

Even if you reinstall the same operating system from scratch, you will notice it's faster... for a while.


How long is a while? Win7 is the first version of Windows that has worked more than a year on my main admin machine w/o the need to be reloaded due to WinRot. Installed in August 2009, still running fast, hasn't slowed down like all previous Windows machines have done.

I've been running W7 for close to a year. I feel my PC is slower than it used to. It definitely takes longer to boot up, even though the list of startup apps hasn't grown.


Do you defragment the hard disk? Is everything on the C: drive? If so, this is one of the downfalls of single-partition systems. My work system is Q6600 quad, 8gb RAM, 2x1TB disks. There is the key, two disks, C: and D: each having it's own disk. D: is where downloads, scratch VMs, etc all reside, keeping C: cleaner and less fragmented over time.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn

Do you defragment the hard disk? Is everything on the C: drive?

Yes and yes. Mine's a Core2Duo (E8200) machine with 3GB RAM and a single 250GB HDD.