Upgrade to Windows 7 or not?

I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
the eyecandy?

Any thoughts, recommendations?

 

>And so can be WIndows7 tamed down to WinXp behavior, but it's better than Vista <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>certainly.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Then why not stay with XP. Windows 7 performance is far better and faster than XP .
If you are talking about the cosmetics of how it looks then say as so. You are
saying performance with the above sentence that you posted
--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"JEWboy" <Nojunkmetalblade@nojunkprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:%23fRurGr8JHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Yes upgrade.
> As of eye-candy, I don't understand? My Vist alooks almost identical to WinXP, no
> eye-candy, I disable all the sh**, pure performanc e& speed here, no eye-candies.
> WINDOWS CLASSIC Apperance + Black background, no images, no special effects, pure
> function here.
>
> And so can be WIndows7 tamed down to WinXp behavior, but it's better than Vista
> certainly. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

JEWboy,
Having had some small experience with both Vista and
Win7, I believe that Win7 is more similar to Vista that it is to XP.

Like Windows 98, I preferred this, at first, to XP finding it more
manageable. There was more that went wrong, but I knew how to fix it.
There wasn't much that COULD go wrong with Win98 in the end, that I
couldn't recover from.

However, time passed as did the evolution of programs and devices for
PCs and Windows98 got left behind and was not compatible with much that
I wanted.

So I found myself with Windows XP and now, in much the same situation I
was in before.

I have become familiar with XP now (nowhere near to the extent I was
with '98) and am reluctant to 'upgrade' to 'Vista' or 'Win7' in the same
way I was with XP from '98.

Although, with XP, I think there is still a few years of useful
operation in it yet and there is nothing (or very little) that is
incompatible with it that you need an 'upgrade' for....

With brand new hardware, you get the OS that comes with the PC, and that
is the best for it, as the 'architecture' has been developed along with
it.

However, when you talk about an 'upgrade' on an earlier PC that came
with an older operating system, I think, it is best left alone.

It is though, after all is said and done, a matter of personal opinion.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.




"JEWboy" <Nojunkmetalblade@nojunkprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:%23fRurGr8JHA.1336@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Yes upgrade.
> As of eye-candy, I don't understand? My Vist alooks almost identical
> to WinXP, no eye-candy, I disable all the sh**, pure performanc e&
> speed here, no eye-candies.
> WINDOWS CLASSIC Apperance + Black background, no images, no special
> effects, pure function here.
>
> And so can be WIndows7 tamed down to WinXp behavior, but it's better
> than Vista certainly. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Rajoo Sharma;1071485 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except
> for
> the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
> 'Microsoft technology people'
> ()
> 'Microsoft technology people'
> ()<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I'm one of the lucky people who have had almost no trouble with Vista.
It's fast, stable and is a perfect operating system for running the
programmes which I need for work or play.

Eyecandy is unimportant to me. I couldn't care less what the OS looks
like as long as my programmes load and run. So for me the answer is no.


--
beauparc

 

Yes upgrade.
As of eye-candy, I don't understand? My Vist alooks almost identical to
WinXP, no eye-candy, I disable all the sh**, pure performanc e& speed here,
no eye-candies.
WINDOWS CLASSIC Apperance + Black background, no images, no special effects,
pure function here.

And so can be WIndows7 tamed down to WinXp behavior, but it's better than
Vista certainly.

 

As with all operating systems, new hardware comes out and no built in support
is offered, microsoft offers service packs to offer support with existing os,
of course
new os comes with built in support for newest hardware and add on's, xp to
me is better than vista, except in the area of USB support, I have had
nothing but problems with XP and a new mp4 player being removed and trying to
see it again, (not apple), Xp is a real pain AFAIC. looking forward to
offically offered Windows 7


"Rajoo Sharma" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
> the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

One can skip Vista but not Win7, Win7 is mandatory. I can skip one
generation, but two generations of Windows skipped is asking for problems.
Because applications will be expecting Win7 or Vista and I will still be on
a 7 year old OS.

But on a different subject, I was surprised when downloading evaluation of
AgilentADS2009 (Advanced Design System), that first OS they listed was
Linux, then Vista, then XP.
I know it's irrelevant what's listed first, but it might be an indication of
how Science/Engineering people appreciate Linux.

In case you didn't know what AgilentADS is, just one fact:
A typical license costs $46-52,000 I am not kidding. It's merely 1.73GB,
5GB after decomrpessing (it uses moreefficient comrepssion than ZIP,
resulting in grater than 2x ratio), it runs on desktops and hell it costs
50K.
I am also running AWR MicrowaveOffice 2008 - a $35,000 application (for
maximum feature-set version), it's also designed first for Linux, and then
for Windows.
I am askign everyone to udnerstand what UNIX means for big business, most MS
customers are just playign and entertainign themselves, but for serious
business Vista was a sour apple.

We al wait for Windows7, in fact I am excited, i will definitely buy it...
maybe wait 2 months until they discover bugs & issue ServicePack, hehehe,
will see.
Somehow I believe it'll be a positive step towards damage control after
Vista fiasco.

 

Personally I have had no problems with Windows Vista and will likely not
upgrade most of my computers for some time to come.

"Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message
news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
> the eyecandy?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

try it out for yourself:



to avoid unexpected
hassles and accidental
corruption,

you might want to
install in vista via
virtual pc or virtual box

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

"Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to
> Win7 except for the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message
news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
>Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
>the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The operating system is the environment in which a user installs 3rd party
applications. The 3rd party applications, for the most part, are what the
user uses. Not the operating system itself. From that basis, one
determines whether or not to move to another operating system that will
consume more resources.
--
Dave

 

Rajoo Sharma;1071485 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except
> for
> the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
> 'Microsoft technology people'
> ()
> 'Microsoft technology people'
> ()<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Hi rajoo,

Much depends on your hardware.

On my machine, Vista boots faster and I notice no performance or speed
improvements from any of the builds of 7 I have tried.

I am using the sort of equipment Vista was built for.

If you are using a lower spec. machine , e.g. an average laptop - you
may find 7 more suitable.

I have heard it refferred to as Vista for netbooks.

Many people think it is faster because they are not comparing like with
like. A fresh install of 7 on another partition vs. a Vista install they
have been running for 2 or 3 years.

Even comparing both fresh installs - one needs to ensure what is
starting up is the same - and in Task scheduler and services.

You could give it a try as previously suggested and see - might be a
good idea to dual boot - in case you prefer Vista.

Hope it helps

SIW2


--
SIW2

 

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:44:52 +0200, Rajoo Sharma <shuj@sharma.com>
wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
>Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
>the eyecandy?
>
>Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
>
><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The smart money waits for the larger market to do the preliminary
testing... and usually waits for SP1 too.

 

The date and time was Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:44:52 PM, and on a whim,
Rajoo Sharma pounded out on the keyboard:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
> the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Hi Rajoo,

I installed a partition of Win7 on this workstation for testing. I do a
lot of video editing in XP and the same software doesn't perform well at
all in Win7. I suppose if everything is optimized for performance Win7
might work better, but the way it is right now won't allow CPU/RAM/disc
intensive apps to work that well on the same hardware. I've read a lot
of services have been manually set in Win7 compared to Vista to aid in
better performance, but it will require further optimization for those
types of apps, and I haven't had the chance to work on that yet.

I was also disappointed that the sound card software is incompatible
with Win7, and I need the features that software offers. The sound card
works, but not the software. Also the scanners are incompatible, which
until they die, Win7 won't become the OS of choice.

If all you do is word processing, spreadsheets, email, web browsing,
etc., it works fine.

Basically the OS is just to run our apps and operate with our hardware.
XP resolved all the issues of the Win9x years, and it works well. I
don't believe anyone NEEDS a new OS, but buying a new computer will
obviously have the most current OS, so users will have to live with it.
At least MS didn't let Vista leave a bad feeling in the industry for
too long. They've learned from Bob/Me that it's important to fix your
mistakes sooner than later.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

Terry R. had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-06-09 19:07:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I don't believe anyone NEEDS a new OS, but buying a new computer will
> obviously have the most current OS, so users will have to live with it.
>
> Terry R.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Why must we live with it, that we can only buy a computer with an OS
that we do not want? Why do we accept this loss of freedom? Buying a
computer and buying an OS ought to be two separate purchases one
independent of the other, with a choice in hardware and a choice in
software. There are other OS's than MS windows alone; there are several
variants of Linux for instance.

I believe it is monstrous that the current situation is so tamely
accepted: "users will have to live with it." The current situation is an
abuse.

Erik Jan

 

You *do* have a choice.
1) Buy a computer with no O/S and add your own.
2) Build your own comupter with the O/S of your choice.
3) Don't use a computer.

"Erik Jan" <erik@nobody.here> wrote in message
news:%23ER9CO38JHA.3752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
: Terry R. had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-06-09 19:07:
:
: > I don't believe anyone NEEDS a new OS, but buying a new computer will
: > obviously have the most current OS, so users will have to live with it.
: >
: > Terry R.
:
: Why must we live with it, that we can only buy a computer with an OS
: that we do not want? Why do we accept this loss of freedom? Buying a
: computer and buying an OS ought to be two separate purchases one
: independent of the other, with a choice in hardware and a choice in
: software. There are other OS's than MS windows alone; there are several
: variants of Linux for instance.
:
: I believe it is monstrous that the current situation is so tamely
: accepted: "users will have to live with it." The current situation is an
: abuse.
:
: Erik Jan

 

The date and time was Monday, June 22, 2009 12:56:17 PM, and on a whim,
Erik Jan pounded out on the keyboard:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Terry R. had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-06-09 19:07:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I don't believe anyone NEEDS a new OS, but buying a new computer will
>> obviously have the most current OS, so users will have to live with it.
>>
>> Terry R.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Why must we live with it, that we can only buy a computer with an OS
> that we do not want? Why do we accept this loss of freedom? Buying a
> computer and buying an OS ought to be two separate purchases one
> independent of the other, with a choice in hardware and a choice in
> software. There are other OS's than MS windows alone; there are several
> variants of Linux for instance.
>
> I believe it is monstrous that the current situation is so tamely
> accepted: "users will have to live with it." The current situation is an
> abuse.
>
> Erik Jan<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I don't live with it, but the majority of those who buy a new computer
do. I have yet to see the average Joe buy a computer without an OS.
For those that have the knowledge, they can make different choices.

I now have 6 OS's on this workstation. I hardly use most of the others
any longer, but they're there (Win98 DOS/Me/W2k/XP/Linux/Win7). My choice.



Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

Tom Willett had de volgende lumineuze gedachte op 22-06-09 22:10:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> You *do* have a choice.
> 1) Buy a computer with no O/S and add your own.
> 2) Build your own comupter with the O/S of your choice.
> 3) Don't use a computer.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
Dear Tom, the fact is: I cannot buy a laptop without an OS here in
Holland. I am not ready to buy one and start trying to return the
Windows licence. From what I have read on the internet I conclude that
it will be too difficult to even try it. I did buy a desktop without an
OS; this is simple because I happen to know a hardware man who can build
one according to my wishes. All netbooks with Linux on it have
disappeared from the shelves in the stores. I consider myself lucky I
could buy one via the internet. The fact alone that one cannot enter a
shop and choose one from the many options that exist, is testimony to
the abnormal situation the computer business has to cope with.

Greetings,

Erik Jan.

 

Richard G. Harper wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Personally I have had no problems with Windows Vista and will likely not
> upgrade most of my computers for some time to come.
>
> "Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message
> news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than
>> Windows Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7
>> except for the eyecandy?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
I have had no problems with either XP on my desktop or Vista on my
laptop(once I dumped user account controls). I see no immediate need to
upgrade to Windows 7 on either platform. Windows 7 isn't even officially
released yet.

Bill

 

"Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message
news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than Windows
> Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7 except for
> the eyecandy?
>
> Any thoughts, recommendations?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

What's the rush? <H>.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

The date and time was Tue Jun 23 2009 12:54:10 GMT-0700 (Pacific
Daylight Time), and on a whim, Bill Sharpe pounded out on the keyboard:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Richard G. Harper wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Personally I have had no problems with Windows Vista and will likely not
>> upgrade most of my computers for some time to come.
>>
>> "Rajoo Sharma" <shuj@sharma.com> wrote in message
>> news:uf0HmEr8JHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> I have read that Windows 7's performance is slightly better than
>>> Windows Vista. Soo I am wondering is it any reason to upgrade to Win7
>>> except for the eyecandy?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> I have had no problems with either XP on my desktop or Vista on my
> laptop(once I dumped user account controls). I see no immediate need to
> upgrade to Windows 7 on either platform. Windows 7 isn't even officially
> released yet.
>
> Bill<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

What tasks do you perform on your laptop, and what hardware do you use?
Those questions make all the difference in the world with whether
Vista "works" or not.

I have a partition of Win7 on this workstation. It runs fine. Browser
and email work fine. Even the sound card drivers installed. But the
sound card software won't work, the scanners won't work, the video
editing software stumbles (making it ineffective). So for light duty
computing, Win7 or probably Vista may get by, unless you have the latest
and greatest hardware. Otherwise XP gets the job done and will continue
to do so for many years.

The business world did not receive Vista as expected. Those that argue
that fact are only trying to justify their actions. Vista will go the
way of Bob/Me, I'm sure of it.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.