Can You Convince Me To Upgrade To Windows 7

[torrenova]

Windows 7. Do I need it or can I just do without it ? My recent experience is that I never upgraded to Vista until mid 2009 and that was only because I bought a new PC which had Vista on it. So my feeling now is why bother ? why not just run Vista for a few more years and then when I buy a new PC, it will have Windows 7 on it or Windows 8 !

It isn't quite as straightforward as that though. I run Vista 64 Home Premium and after SP2, every time I reboot, I have to go back through the control panel to reset the ipv4 stuff because there is some known gremlin in SP2 for 64 bit Vista which resets the IP address to 0.0.0.0 and deletes the default gateway. OK, it is a 1 minute job each in time and I tend not to reboot that often but it is a small factor.

Then there is Firefox hanging. Whether Win7 does anything about that I do not know. Not the end of the world but if it helped ???

I'm not sure there are any other benefits which I see at the moment.

Then we come to the version. I have Vista HP because that is what it came with. Various Win7 upgrades cost more money. I guess there is HP and Business and then Ultimate. I know nothing about the rationale for each for the average user.

So is it worth it ?

[thunder30101]

Only you can decide whether it is worth it, but I like having the latest version of software whatever it is. Go to microsoft.com and look/compare different versions, best info you will find on new features. I use win 7 ultimate, networking-multimedia are much improved, searching within folders is very nice etc. I have friends that still swear by xp though I dont know why.

[torrenova]

Having had 6 months of Vista, I would never bother with it over XP and were it not for a new PC, I would not have upgraded from XP Pro to Vista. I'll have a look at what you suggest later. Thanks.

[Crushdepth]

You don't *need* Windows 7. But it is *much better* than XP. You decide.

[torrenova]

You don't *need* Windows 7. But it is *much better* than XP. You decide.

Yeah but is it worth going from Vista HP 64 which I have now to Win7 64 ?

Can't see the upside really ?

[tingtongfarang]

I run two laptops which both ran xp pro and put win 7 on one of them...Takes maybe a couple of hours to get used to the differences but now i notice win7 runs faster and more stable, I had a few problems finding the drivers for both the printer and the flatbed scanner but in the end managed it...cant run the canoscan software though.

Edited January 20, 2010 by tingtongfarang

[garyh]

I have been running windows 7 ultimate 64 bit for over 6 months now, no way I would go back to vista, let alone XP, it is so basic, once you get used to 7 it makes it much easier and quicker to do everything. I am sure there are some die hard XP fans out there that will never go to another operating system that will say go back to XP.

[waza]

Its better than Vista, except windows movie maker doesnt come with it.

Edited January 20, 2010 by waza

[Digitalbanana]

Its better than Vista, except windows movie player doesnt come with it.

That's tosh. Win7 comes with movie player and also a vastly improved Windows Media Center, but check which version you get to be sure.

As for o/p depends how much time you spend on PC daily. If several hours, it's a no brainer, upgrade now. You life will become so much easier.

[waza]

Its better than Vista, except windows movie player doesnt come with it.

That's tosh. Win7 comes with movie player and also a vastly improved Windows Media Center, but check which version you get to be sure.

As for o/p depends how much time you spend on PC daily. If several hours, it's a no brainer, upgrade now. You life will become so much easier.

Sorry my mistake, I have edited my post to what I meant to say.

[garyh]

Its better than Vista, except windows movie maker doesnt come with it.

You get it with windows live when you install windows messenger.

[waza]

You get windows movie maker live, a basic version, cant save to DVD ect. However, you can load windows movie maker ver 7. But later versions arent compatable.

Edited January 20, 2010 by waza

[phetaroi]

I'm not going to try to convince you because I don't care what software you run.

I will simply say that I had just bought a new computer with Vista about 6 weeks before Win7 came out. But, I was having some problems with Vista...mostly nothing that serious, but occasionally I would simply have to pull the plug and restart.

So, since I had a free upgrade option from HP, I did upgrade and it has been smooth sailing since then. So far, perfect.

[nikster]

Vista is ridiculous. Maybe you've gotten used to it by now - do yourself a favor and upgrade to W7, you'll never look back.

Or sell your PC and get a new one with W7 pre-installed?!

I don't know why Microsoft keeps saying that W7 isn't all that different from Vista - I guess they still don't get it. No-one cares about the underlying technologies, people care about results. And here the difference between Vista and W7 is huge. Things generally work in Windows 7. Even search works, IMO the biggest improvement in W7!

Having used OS X where all this has been working for years, Windows 7 doesn't over-awe me. It's still Windows. But it's definitely the best Windows Microsoft has ever made. Whereas, Vista is worse than XP.

[garyh]

You get windows movie maker live, a basic version, cant save to DVD ect. However, you can load windows movie maker ver 7. But later versions arent compatable.

Thats funny I have done it here is a screen shot showing the menu to get to it.

[webfact]

I run two laptops which both ran xp pro and put win 7 on one of them...Takes maybe a couple of hours to get used to the differences but now i notice win7 runs faster and more stable, I had a few problems finding the drivers for both the printer and the flatbed scanner but in the end managed it...cant run the canoscan software though.

it runs Canoscan software. My 2y old Canoscan Lide 25 works like a charm

[Gary A]

I bit the bullet and bought Win 7 Pro for my desktop. My laptop had Win XP Pro. I quickly got to the point where I hated to use my laptop and bought Win 7 Pro for it too. I decided I needed the Pro version because of some old programs that I still use. The backwards compatibility is well worth the extra money.

If you never use Win 7 you can be happy with older systems but once you use Win 7 you will not be happy with Vista or XP.

[garyh]

I run two laptops which both ran xp pro and put win 7 on one of them...Takes maybe a couple of hours to get used to the differences but now i notice win7 runs faster and more stable, I had a few problems finding the drivers for both the printer and the flatbed scanner but in the end managed it...cant run the canoscan software though.

Have you downloaded the latest version?

[bendejo]

I was a captive Vista user. I had a laptop running XP that died. When I shopped for a new machine I didn't think about XP compatibility, so imagine my surprise when XP wouldn't even recognize my hard disk. I managed to klooj together device drivers and got XP running, but it was a pain in the arse to keep it going.

So I moved on to Vista (HP version). It beat the hacked XP installation, which isn't saying much.

Windows 7 appears to be what Vista was supposed to be but wasn't ready back in '06. If you're running Vista you should definitely upgrade:

1) better performance

2) less disk space; my full C: installation (with all my apps) is now around 12Gb, in Vista it was about double that

3) rarely get a system crash

4) the improved running of Firefox (and all the add-ins I use) is unquestionable

On the other hand, I'm keeping away from 64. My hardware can handle it (dual-core pentium, 3Gb RAM) but it sounds like it's not ready yet; also, I don't use any apps that are process-intensive enough to appreciate it.

My biggest criticism of 7 is device synching with my smartphone sucks, but maybe that's intentional because MS will want me to upgrade it to WinMobile7.

Edited January 21, 2010 by bendejo

[Gary A]

One of the big surprises for Win 7 Pro is that it really doesn't need a more powerful computer. My desktop is a dual core with 3 GB of ram. Of course it works great. My laptop is a single core with only one GB of ram. There is not a large noticeable difference in speed between the desk top and the laptop.

[TigertheCat]

I too have been using Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for a few months and would not go back to XP and certainly not Vista,everything just works straight out of the box,so to speak including my old Canon Lide 60 scanner.Running well on both my desktop PC and Acer notebook.The best OS from Microsoft yet.

[MJo]

One of the big surprises for Win 7 Pro is that it really doesn't need a more powerful computer. My desktop is a dual core with 3 GB of ram. Of course it works great. My laptop is a single core with only one GB of ram. There is not a large noticeable difference in speed between the desk top and the laptop.

That's my main concern. I have Asus eee pc 1101HA netbook with 1GB RAM and now running with XP that came with it.

Anyone running the same in W7 ? Does it work ?

I understand that upgrade to 2GB would be recommended in any case but read somewhere that some RAM available for Asus does not work with W7...

[t.s]

You don't *need* Windows 7. But it is *much better* than XP. You decide.

Yeah but is it worth going from Vista HP 64 which I have now to Win7 64 ?

Can't see the upside really ?

win7 64 upside over vista:

stability, reduced boot and shutdown speeds, usability, speed. i was happy with xp, detested vista, love win7

[Gary A]

I ordered an extra GB of ram for my laptop but they were out of stock and the new stock was double the price of the original stock. By that time, I had already installed Win 7 Pro and found it worked just fine with one GB.

[siamect]

I ordered an extra GB of ram for my laptop but they were out of stock and the new stock was double the price of the original stock. By that time, I had already installed Win 7 Pro and found it worked just fine with one GB.

Well it works the first weeks and even I was impressed...then it gets slooow... I already hear people typing "NO, IT'S NOT! But it is.

And no, we (me and my wife, it's her computer) did not install tons of stuff, thr computer just run what was originally installed on the Samsung N120 netbook plus Incredi-mail and AVG when the McCaffee expired. Actually it was sloow long before that.

This computer belongs to my wife and after just a month she asked for XP but I refuse to spend any more time/money on that computer... The thing is already slower than her 6-7 year old desktop that got fried by a thunderstorm.

There are no improvements in productivity, if you go from W2K or XP to W7. Even if you search MS homepage for Windows-7, you cannot find any valid reasons why you should upgrade. (You find lot's of BS though)

My old W2K, that I was forced to use at work, was way faster than the XP I have at work now. It is maintained by our IT department and is setup according to the Swatchgroup IT HQ software standards which actually is quite good compared to others I have seen. For security reason everything is turned off and yes it makes the situation a little better, but it is still a catastrophe. It is only running MS Office, Sophos Antivirus and that's it! All in slow motion!

So history repeats itself. Vista came out and the specs requirements were cranked up. Now everybody has powerful hardware and W7 is regarded as fast because it is not slower than Vista, at least not as a clean install.

Productivity is the same or worse than it was with W2K. What is the point of upgrading?

The search function that was in Win98 (Find) is way better than later versions. Already on WinXP you need to hack the registry to get normal search functions to work at all!

There will probably be people who honestly think I'm wrong. People have the right to any opinion, right or wrong.

I respect peoples opinion if it is based on facts, experiences and/or knowledge, but usually peoples opinions are based on what they heard from the local MS representative or some MS fanboys who never had any other OS on his desk for more than 5 minutes and think that everything else is "ugly" or "cannot run Photoshop or the favorite game".

I have been in this business since 1980 and I have used basically all major OSes worth using plus a few more... so I guess I have more to compare with than most people does.

W7 is just another Vista and it is getting good reviews just because it is compared to Vista. It get better sales just because no one want to go back to Vista, because it is bad, nor to XP, because it is two generations old. It's sad but it is so, so true.

Martin

[thunder30101]

Oh I knew at least one so-called expert would come out to bash ms\win 7. 98 better than 7 how ???, maybe you enjoyed all those unprotected memory crashes ??? xp that clunky ten year old op system better, oh yeah must love the blue screen of death ??? Excuse me but myself and alot of other people on here have been into computers for many years also. If you claim that win 7 is the reason that your computer is slow it just shows how little you know about computers my friend. I guess all the rest of us and the software reviewers are just uninformed fanboys, too funny.

[webfact]

I ordered an extra GB of ram for my laptop but they were out of stock and the new stock was double the price of the original stock. By that time, I had already installed Win 7 Pro and found it worked just fine with one GB.

Well it works the first weeks and even I was impressed...then it gets slooow... I already hear people typing "NO, IT'S NOT! But it is.

And no, we (me and my wife, it's her computer) did not install tons of stuff, thr computer just run what was originally installed on the Samsung N120 netbook plus Incredi-mail and AVG when the McCaffee expired. Actually it was sloow long before that.

This computer belongs to my wife and after just a month she asked for XP but I refuse to spend any more time/money on that computer... The thing is already slower than her 6-7 year old desktop that got fried by a thunderstorm.

There are no improvements in productivity, if you go from W2K or XP to W7. Even if you search MS homepage for Windows-7, you cannot find any valid reasons why you should upgrade. (You find lot's of BS though)

My old W2K, that I was forced to use at work, was way faster than the XP I have at work now. It is maintained by our IT department and is setup according to the Swatchgroup IT HQ software standards which actually is quite good compared to others I have seen. For security reason everything is turned off and yes it makes the situation a little better, but it is still a catastrophe. It is only running MS Office, Sophos Antivirus and that's it! All in slow motion!

So history repeats itself. Vista came out and the specs requirements were cranked up. Now everybody has powerful hardware and W7 is regarded as fast because it is not slower than Vista, at least not as a clean install.

Productivity is the same or worse than it was with W2K. What is the point of upgrading?

The search function that was in Win98 (Find) is way better than later versions. Already on WinXP you need to hack the registry to get normal search functions to work at all!

There will probably be people who honestly think I'm wrong. People have the right to any opinion, right or wrong.

I respect peoples opinion if it is based on facts, experiences and/or knowledge, but usually peoples opinions are based on what they heard from the local MS representative or some MS fanboys who never had any other OS on his desk for more than 5 minutes and think that everything else is "ugly" or "cannot run Photoshop or the favorite game".

I have been in this business since 1980 and I have used basically all major OSes worth using plus a few more... so I guess I have more to compare with than most people does.

W7 is just another Vista and it is getting good reviews just because it is compared to Vista. It get better sales just because no one want to go back to Vista, because it is bad, nor to XP, because it is two generations old. It's sad but it is so, so true.

Martin

I am surprised you didn't praise Win 95....

W7 is far the best OS M$ has ever produced. Period.

[bino]

One of the big surprises for Win 7 Pro is that it really doesn't need a more powerful computer. My desktop is a dual core with 3 GB of ram. Of course it works great. My laptop is a single core with only one GB of ram. There is not a large noticeable difference in speed between the desk top and the laptop.

That's my main concern. I have Asus eee pc 1101HA netbook with 1GB RAM and now running with XP that came with it.

Anyone running the same in W7 ? Does it work ?

I understand that upgrade to 2GB would be recommended in any case but read somewhere that some RAM available for Asus does not work with W7...

My EEE is older than yours - a 904, and I upgraded to 2 GB RAM. Windows 7 is running sweetly.

[nikster]

W7 is far the best OS M$ has ever produced. Period.

People keep saying that... and it's true

As for "no usability enhancements" - search works now, and it's a big deal. It makes using the OS 10 times better. Instead of sifting through your start menu with the mouse, you just hit the windows key and start typing the app name - app start this way is much faster. The search, don't sort metaphor has finally arrived on Windows...

[siamect]

Oh I knew at least one so-called expert would come out to bash ms\win 7. 98 better than 7 how ???, maybe you enjoyed all those unprotected memory crashes ??? xp that clunky ten year old op system better, oh yeah must love the blue screen of death ??? Excuse me but myself and alot of other people on here have been into computers for many years also. If you claim that win 7 is the reason that your computer is slow it just shows how little you know about computers my friend. I guess all the rest of us and the software reviewers are just uninformed fanboys, too funny.

I fully agree that the win95/98/ME was terrible systems because of unprotected memory and other issues. WinCE has the same problem. Those operating systems should never had been released in the first place, mainly because of the unprotected memory. The MS system registry was also introduced during this time...

WinNT was protected but had other issues.

VAX/VMS had protected virtual memory management 1978 and on lighter systems it was possible to run protected mode as early as on the intel 286. Intels realtime OS iRMX was using it during the 80ies and it was an excellent system for its time. Concurrent CP/M-86 used it too as well as PS/2 (awful system), Unix and most of the clones.

Also the Motorola 68000 series had it as an add on chip set very early. And there were a few OSes successfully built on those systems.

So there was no reason for MS to release OSes without protected memory... still they did!

Someone said:

"W7 is far the best OS M$ has ever produced. Period."

and yes I think that is true... That what is so sad about it...

"...you just hit the windows key and start typing the app name - app start this way is much faster."

That's great and I appreciate it a lot (on my Linux boxes since 10 years).

The rest of the worlds OSes have had this feature already at the time when everything was done from the command line... Later on this was taken into the GUIs as well.

Martin