If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl My colleague Preston Gralla came up with seven reasons to move to Windows 7. And, they are pretty good, but good enough to switch away from XP, or to skip Mac OS X Snow Leopard or desktop Linux? I don't think so. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch. I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7, but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!? OK, on with the list. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. 2) Windows 7, no matter how you buy it, is expensive. Does your budget have the extra cash to buy a new and improved taskbar!? 3) Upgrading from XP to Windows 7 will require that you do a clean install. That means everything on your hard disk gets vaporized during the 'upgrade." Vista users have it easier. So long as they're moving from equivalent version to equivalent version or to Windows 7 Ultimate they can update without needing to rebuild their systems. There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill. 4) Did you notice what I didn't say above? I didn't mention transferring your old programs and device drivers from XP to Windows 7. For that, Easy Transfer and most of the first generation of migration programs are of no help at all. You'll need to reinstall your old programs and device drivers. Then, you'll need to update all those programs and drivers. Doesn't that sound like fun? Doesn't that sound like hour after hour per PC of migration work? 5) XP already works. I can tell you chapter and verse on why you'd be better off running desktop Linux or put a Mac on your desk. Most of you though are happy running XP. If that's you, I'll be darned if I can think of a single, significant change that you'll get from running Windows 7 instead of XP. 6) If you're an XP user you'll need to learn a new user interface. Parri Munsell, Microsoft's Director of Consumer Product Management for Windows, has been fond of saying, "Our goal was to make the UI (user interface) in Windows 7 much easier to navigate." OK, I'd agree. It is a bit better. But, I'm someone who switches operating system interfaces as often as most of you go out to get a pizza. I asked some friends who were XP stalwarts what they thought about the interface. They all thought it was pretty, but, they also all found it annoying to work with since they had to re-learn how to do XP basics. Vista users will have it easier, but XP users can expect to have a learning curve with the new UI. And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI. 7) Finally, if you have an older PC, forget about it. I know there are people who swear that Windows 7 will run on low-powered PCs. Yeah, right. I've used Windows 7 on netbooks. It wasn't pretty. Windows 7 Starter Edition? Microsoft won't sell it to you. Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 or Ubuntu 9.04. Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
That's just a way to say that win7 has nothing of any value over and
above XP; no new features, no new functions, etc.. It's just a stepping stone to keep money coming in. "Ablang" wrote in message Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl My colleague Preston Gralla came up with seven reasons to move to Windows 7. And, they are pretty good, but good enough to switch away from XP, or to skip Mac OS X Snow Leopard or desktop Linux? I don't think so. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch. I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7, but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!? OK, on with the list. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. 2) Windows 7, no matter how you buy it, is expensive. Does your budget have the extra cash to buy a new and improved taskbar!? 3) Upgrading from XP to Windows 7 will require that you do a clean install. That means everything on your hard disk gets vaporized during the 'upgrade." Vista users have it easier. So long as they're moving from equivalent version to equivalent version or to Windows 7 Ultimate they can update without needing to rebuild their systems. There are lots of ways, like Microsoft's own Windows Easy Transfer and I'm sure there will be many more, to migrate your data from your old system to your new one, but all of them take work. If you have a business with dozens to tens-of-thousands of Windows PCs you can count on a honking, huge upgrade bill. 4) Did you notice what I didn't say above? I didn't mention transferring your old programs and device drivers from XP to Windows 7. For that, Easy Transfer and most of the first generation of migration programs are of no help at all. You'll need to reinstall your old programs and device drivers. Then, you'll need to update all those programs and drivers. Doesn't that sound like fun? Doesn't that sound like hour after hour per PC of migration work? 5) XP already works. I can tell you chapter and verse on why you'd be better off running desktop Linux or put a Mac on your desk. Most of you though are happy running XP. If that's you, I'll be darned if I can think of a single, significant change that you'll get from running Windows 7 instead of XP. 6) If you're an XP user you'll need to learn a new user interface. Parri Munsell, Microsoft's Director of Consumer Product Management for Windows, has been fond of saying, "Our goal was to make the UI (user interface) in Windows 7 much easier to navigate." OK, I'd agree. It is a bit better. But, I'm someone who switches operating system interfaces as often as most of you go out to get a pizza. I asked some friends who were XP stalwarts what they thought about the interface. They all thought it was pretty, but, they also all found it annoying to work with since they had to re-learn how to do XP basics. Vista users will have it easier, but XP users can expect to have a learning curve with the new UI. And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI. 7) Finally, if you have an older PC, forget about it. I know there are people who swear that Windows 7 will run on low-powered PCs. Yeah, right. I've used Windows 7 on netbooks. It wasn't pretty. Windows 7 Starter Edition? Microsoft won't sell it to you. Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 or Ubuntu 9.04. Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Ablang wrote:
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl snip - dupe of article What, you didn't want to *pay* for a Vista service pack under a different name? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
"VanguardLH" wrote in message
Ablang wrote: Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl snip - dupe of article What, you didn't want to *pay* for a Vista service pack under a different name? lol, good one. I've heard rumors, but nothing specific, that they're working hard on overcoming the parts of Vista that are obvious and to actually make some other things work. But still ... I don't see anything but progress for the sake of progress there. Oh, and it's another learning curve of course with new and beautified gui's. Twayne` |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 11:49:48 AM , and on a
whim, Twayne pounded out on the keyboard: "VanguardLH" wrote in message Ablang wrote: Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl snip - dupe of article What, you didn't want to *pay* for a Vista service pack under a different name? lol, good one. I've heard rumors, but nothing specific, that they're working hard on overcoming the parts of Vista that are obvious and to actually make some other things work. But still ... I don't see anything but progress for the sake of progress there. Oh, and it's another learning curve of course with new and beautified gui's. Twayne` Bottom line is, if it wasn't for the software/hardware manufacturers that will stop supporting XP in time, there wouldn't be a reason to ever move on. XP does what is needed for an OS. Sure it's not perfect, but none will ever be. Businesses are proof that they're satisfied. Until there's a real reason to move to another OS, why bother. And Vista nor Win7 is it. I have a partition of Win7. It's pretty...but my scanners don't work, sound card software doesn't work, and it's a lot slower than XP. I thought if Win7 would run my video editing software as well as XP I'd consider it, but that wasn't the case. I use a computer to get work done. I get it done using XP. I could also still use W2K since I have a partition of that on this workstation, and it handles video editing very well. Didn't want to bother with Vista, it's a pig, no clients use it, except for a couple home users. I see most of my clients using XP at least until 2014. And that's most likely where I'll stay too. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
In ,
Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:12:54 -0700: Bottom line is, if it wasn't for the software/hardware manufacturers that will stop supporting XP in time, there wouldn't be a reason to ever move on. XP does what is needed for an OS. Sure it's not perfect, but none will ever be. Businesses are proof that they're satisfied. Until there's a real reason to move to another OS, why bother. And Vista nor Win7 is it. I have a partition of Win7. It's pretty...but my scanners don't work, sound card software doesn't work, and it's a lot slower than XP. I thought if Win7 would run my video editing software as well as XP I'd consider it, but that wasn't the case. I use a computer to get work done. I get it done using XP. I could also still use W2K since I have a partition of that on this workstation, and it handles video editing very well. Didn't want to bother with Vista, it's a pig, no clients use it, except for a couple home users. I see most of my clients using XP at least until 2014. And that's most likely where I'll stay too. I totally agree and more to add. As I think Microsoft screwed up creating 2000 and XP. What I mean they made it so great, few ever need to change for many years. Yes both Vista and Windows 7 are a pig. As you need beefy systems just to run them well. And what do you have? Here are my stats: Windows 2000 runs 95% of what I want Windows XP runs 100% of what I want Windows 7 runs 80% of what I want Guess which one I like the most? grin P.S. XP had problems when it first came out. Thankfully though it has been updated for the passed 7 years and it is really fine for a number of years now. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Ablang wrote:
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl dons flame-proof suit Ok, Here's why I am using Windows 7. WE do a lot of CPU / Memory intensive stuff - Programming large .NET projects, using the big Adobe Design suites. We can run Windows 7 64bit and use machines with 6GB of RAM or more properly! Vista 64bit is a POS but so far our experience with Windows 7 RTM is loads better. We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch. I agree - there is no pressing need to upgrade to Windows 7 if you are an XP home user, but... I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7, but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!? This I disagree with totally. Whatever Windows 7 is, it isn't just a prettied up version of Vista. It is obvious from using it that Microsoft have significantly changed the way it uses resources, and a lot of the back end code has been re-written. In particular, Wireless Networking is much, much better than our experiences with Vista have been, it is far less flaky, and doesn't ignore domain group policies and logon scripts when it feels like it - which vista used to do. To give an example - Take a full install of Vista Business Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate. Stir in a full Office 2007 Professional install, Add a dash of Visual Studio 2008 Enterprise. Top up with Sophos Antivirus Suite. After a clean boot, with no windows open on the desktop, Vista is running 67 processes, and using 786MB of RAM. On the same hardware, after an identical clean boot, Windows 7 is running 44 processes, and using 538MB of RAM. That is why you should consider moving to Windows 7. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. Not True. Windows 7 is more secure than XP. The UAC is far less intrusive than on Vista, so lusers are less likely to turn it off, but it is still there and does help protect the system from malicious code, in a way that XP doesn't. OK so it's not Linux. But some of us have to have Windows, to use the apps that are written for it. snip And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI. I Like Windows 7. I like the things that they have changed to make using it more logical - like being able to get to the network from the My Computer window, instead of opening a separate window, as you did on Vista. I like how all the devices attached to the machine are in one place. I like the functionality of the taskbar, so you can move the mouse over the taskbar buttons and see what's happening in each instance of the program (especially good for RDP sessions). Ok so Microsoft nicked a lot of it from various Linux distro's, but that's cos they're good features. Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 or Ubuntu 9.04. Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much. If you need to use Microsoft software, as we do, then Windows 7 is better than any previous version. As a corporate user, I would suggest that you wait 'til October, and then get Windows 7 on your machines instead of Vista. The user experience (and the administration experience) is far better. Alister. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:16:17 PM , and on a
whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. This is not the case in my tests, and I have put it on two workstations also, but I have 6 OS's on these workstations. Win7 takes 2 to 3 times as long just to boot to a Desktop. I was unable to do video editing/rendering on Win7. The test workstations were AMD 3000+ with 2 gig RAM and 7,200 RPM hard drives and 512MB video cards. The biggest downside is that Win7 doesn't recognize our scanners, nor does the sound card software work, plus other older software that works fine on XP. I doubt the XP mode will fix that. So XP wins hands down with existing hardware/software. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch. I agree - there is no pressing need to upgrade to Windows 7 if you are an XP home user, but... I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7, but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!? This I disagree with totally. Whatever Windows 7 is, it isn't just a prettied up version of Vista. It is obvious from using it that Microsoft have significantly changed the way it uses resources, and a lot of the back end code has been re-written. In particular, Wireless Networking is much, much better than our experiences with Vista have been, it is far less flaky, and doesn't ignore domain group policies and logon scripts when it feels like it - which vista used to do. Doesn't mean much to workstations though. To give an example - Take a full install of Vista Business Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate. Stir in a full Office 2007 Professional install, Add a dash of Visual Studio 2008 Enterprise. Top up with Sophos Antivirus Suite. After a clean boot, with no windows open on the desktop, Vista is running 67 processes, and using 786MB of RAM. On the same hardware, after an identical clean boot, Windows 7 is running 44 processes, and using 538MB of RAM. That's because MS disabled a lot of services that it had running by default in Vista. The same could be done on Vista too. That is why you should consider moving to Windows 7. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. Not True. Windows 7 is more secure than XP. The UAC is far less intrusive than on Vista, so lusers are less likely to turn it off, but it is still there and does help protect the system from malicious code, in a way that XP doesn't. OK so it's not Linux. But some of us have to have Windows, to use the apps that are written for it. I like that; "lusers" ;-) even though I know it wasn't intended. snip And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI. I Like Windows 7. I like the things that they have changed to make using it more logical - like being able to get to the network from the My Computer window, instead of opening a separate window, as you did on Vista. I like how all the devices attached to the machine are in one place. I like the functionality of the taskbar, so you can move the mouse over the taskbar buttons and see what's happening in each instance of the program (especially good for RDP sessions). Ok so Microsoft nicked a lot of it from various Linux distro's, but that's cos they're good features. Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 or Ubuntu 9.04. Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much. If you need to use Microsoft software, as we do, then Windows 7 is better than any previous version. As a corporate user, I would suggest that you wait 'til October, and then get Windows 7 on your machines instead of Vista. The user experience (and the administration experience) is far better. Alister. I still don't believe big business is going to run out and get Win7. XP runs all the necessary apps needed and since it's going to be supported to at least 2014, I don't see any big moves until all the old hardware and software are no longer running. I don't know any businesses using Vista, except for a couple boasters in the Vista.general group that think they're movers. But even they are little shops. Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Terry R. wrote:
The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:16:17 PM , and on a whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. This is not the case in my tests, and I have put it on two workstations also, but I have 6 OS's on these workstations. Win7 takes 2 to 3 times as long just to boot to a Desktop. I was unable to do video editing/rendering on Win7. The test workstations were AMD 3000+ with 2 gig RAM and 7,200 RPM hard drives and 512MB video cards. Ahh, AMD hardware. Hmmm.... 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. Not True. Windows 7 is more secure than XP. The UAC is far less intrusive than on Vista, so lusers are less likely to turn it off, but it is still there and does help protect the system from malicious code, in a way that XP doesn't. OK so it's not Linux. But some of us have to have Windows, to use the apps that are written for it. I like that; "lusers" ;-) even though I know it wasn't intended. Oh yes it was! ;-) Alister |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
The date and time was Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:18:31 AM , and on a
whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: Terry R. wrote: The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:16:17 PM , and on a whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. This is not the case in my tests, and I have put it on two workstations also, but I have 6 OS's on these workstations. Win7 takes 2 to 3 times as long just to boot to a Desktop. I was unable to do video editing/rendering on Win7. The test workstations were AMD 3000+ with 2 gig RAM and 7,200 RPM hard drives and 512MB video cards. Ahh, AMD hardware. Hmmm.... Our old AMD systems outperform duo core machines handily. It's not only the processors. My workstation boots to a desktop in under 30 seconds including PageDefrag. I don't see that responsiveness on other workstations. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. Not True. Windows 7 is more secure than XP. The UAC is far less intrusive than on Vista, so lusers are less likely to turn it off, but it is still there and does help protect the system from malicious code, in a way that XP doesn't. OK so it's not Linux. But some of us have to have Windows, to use the apps that are written for it. I like that; "lusers" ;-) even though I know it wasn't intended. Oh yes it was! ;-) Alister Terry R. -- Anti-spam measures are included in my email address. Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
"BillW50" wrote in message
In , Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:12:54 -0700: Bottom line is, if it wasn't for the software/hardware manufacturers that will stop supporting XP in time, there wouldn't be a reason to ever move on. XP does what is needed for an OS. Sure it's not perfect, but none will ever be. Businesses are proof that they're satisfied. Until there's a real reason to move to another OS, why bother. And Vista nor Win7 is it. I have a partition of Win7. It's pretty...but my scanners don't work, sound card software doesn't work, and it's a lot slower than XP. I thought if Win7 would run my video editing software as well as XP I'd consider it, but that wasn't the case. I use a computer to get work done. I get it done using XP. I could also still use W2K since I have a partition of that on this workstation, and it handles video editing very well. Didn't want to bother with Vista, it's a pig, no clients use it, except for a couple home users. I see most of my clients using XP at least until 2014. And that's most likely where I'll stay too. I totally agree and more to add. As I think Microsoft screwed up creating 2000 and XP. What I mean they made it so great, few ever need to change for many years. Yes both Vista and Windows 7 are a pig. As you need beefy systems just to run them well. And what do you have? Here are my stats: Windows 2000 runs 95% of what I want Windows XP runs 100% of what I want Windows 7 runs 80% of what I want Guess which one I like the most? grin P.S. XP had problems when it first came out. Thankfully though it has been updated for the passed 7 years and it is really fine for a number of years now. Yeah, I'd like to think XP is a "forever" os since it's now so stable and reliable, but then again so was win98 at the end. BUT, when I looked at 2000 it didn't excite me; passed on it. Then came XP and I saw a LOT of things I liked, so I switched. I love it every time I come across an old win98se or whatever version, still running just fine and the user quite satisfied with it. It's surprising how many there actually are yet. But those were days when the upgrades actually had something new to offer me. Eventually the driver situation will straighten itself out or I'll have to buy new hardware, which I'll make sure has Linux drivers, and then 98, XP, vista et al will all be a memory of single-sourced/forced obsoletions like VB and others! :^] Twayne` |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
No flames from this corner. Instead, thanks for what appears to be an
honest evaluation and set of opinions. If I can't do Linux and feel compelled to stay with MS because they finally find a way to force it or whatever, I'm hoping 7 (or 8) will be much better than Vista. I'm also hoping of course, to see things such as you described be a reality. Time will tell, for me at least. Twayne` "Alister" wrote in message Ablang wrote: Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Analysis: Here are seven reasons to skip upgrading to Windows 7. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computerworld Aug 17, 2009 6:00 pm http://www.pcworld.com/article/17034..._dnx_h _crawl dons flame-proof suit Ok, Here's why I am using Windows 7. WE do a lot of CPU / Memory intensive stuff - Programming large .NET projects, using the big Adobe Design suites. We can run Windows 7 64bit and use machines with 6GB of RAM or more properly! Vista 64bit is a POS but so far our experience with Windows 7 RTM is loads better. We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. Let me open up by saying though that if you're using Vista-you poor, poor person-yes, you should migrate to Windows 7. After all, Windows 7 is really just Vista without the warts. Otherwise, no, I don't see any compelling reason to switch. I agree - there is no pressing need to upgrade to Windows 7 if you are an XP home user, but... I say this as someone who's also been running Windows 7 since the late betas and I'm currently running the RTM (release to manufacturing) version. I like Windows 7, but if you were to ask me what the big feature, the 'wow' that would make you want to go to the trouble of moving to Windows 7, I'd be left without anything to say. Heck, look at Gralla list, number one on the list is the new taskbar. Microsoft wants me to spend big bucks for a new taskbar!? This I disagree with totally. Whatever Windows 7 is, it isn't just a prettied up version of Vista. It is obvious from using it that Microsoft have significantly changed the way it uses resources, and a lot of the back end code has been re-written. In particular, Wireless Networking is much, much better than our experiences with Vista have been, it is far less flaky, and doesn't ignore domain group policies and logon scripts when it feels like it - which vista used to do. To give an example - Take a full install of Vista Business Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate. Stir in a full Office 2007 Professional install, Add a dash of Visual Studio 2008 Enterprise. Top up with Sophos Antivirus Suite. After a clean boot, with no windows open on the desktop, Vista is running 67 processes, and using 786MB of RAM. On the same hardware, after an identical clean boot, Windows 7 is running 44 processes, and using 538MB of RAM. That is why you should consider moving to Windows 7. 1) Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car. From Windows for Workgroups and NT 3 until today, Windows is a security joke. It used to be that running Windows just put your head into the noose. Now, millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the Internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you're not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7. Not True. Windows 7 is more secure than XP. The UAC is far less intrusive than on Vista, so lusers are less likely to turn it off, but it is still there and does help protect the system from malicious code, in a way that XP doesn't. OK so it's not Linux. But some of us have to have Windows, to use the apps that are written for it. snip And, once more, I find myself asking, "Is there anything here that's really a solid improvement on XP?" Or, to get brass tacks, if I'm a CFO or CIO, I want to know what I'm going to get out of re-training people to the new interface and I'm left thinking there's really nothing game-changing about the Windows 7 UI. I Like Windows 7. I like the things that they have changed to make using it more logical - like being able to get to the network from the My Computer window, instead of opening a separate window, as you did on Vista. I like how all the devices attached to the machine are in one place. I like the functionality of the taskbar, so you can move the mouse over the taskbar buttons and see what's happening in each instance of the program (especially good for RDP sessions). Ok so Microsoft nicked a lot of it from various Linux distro's, but that's cos they're good features. Bottom line. If you want something that's really better than XP, and you're willing to go to the trouble and expense of moving from one platform to another, you'll get real improvements like better security and low up-front costs, from a desktop Linux like SLED (SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop) 11 or Ubuntu 9.04. Windows 7 is certainly better than Vista, but XP... not so much. If you need to use Microsoft software, as we do, then Windows 7 is better than any previous version. As a corporate user, I would suggest that you wait 'til October, and then get Windows 7 on your machines instead of Vista. The user experience (and the administration experience) is far better. Alister. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
"Twayne" wrote in message ... "BillW50" wrote in message In , Terry R. typed on Sat, 22 Aug 2009 14:12:54 -0700: Bottom line is, if it wasn't for the software/hardware manufacturers that will stop supporting XP in time, there wouldn't be a reason to ever move on. XP does what is needed for an OS. Sure it's not perfect, but none will ever be. Businesses are proof that they're satisfied. Until there's a real reason to move to another OS, why bother. And Vista nor Win7 is it. I have a partition of Win7. It's pretty...but my scanners don't work, sound card software doesn't work, and it's a lot slower than XP. I thought if Win7 would run my video editing software as well as XP I'd consider it, but that wasn't the case. I use a computer to get work done. I get it done using XP. I could also still use W2K since I have a partition of that on this workstation, and it handles video editing very well. Didn't want to bother with Vista, it's a pig, no clients use it, except for a couple home users. I see most of my clients using XP at least until 2014. And that's most likely where I'll stay too. I totally agree and more to add. As I think Microsoft screwed up creating 2000 and XP. What I mean they made it so great, few ever need to change for many years. Yes both Vista and Windows 7 are a pig. As you need beefy systems just to run them well. And what do you have? Here are my stats: Windows 2000 runs 95% of what I want Windows XP runs 100% of what I want Windows 7 runs 80% of what I want Guess which one I like the most? grin P.S. XP had problems when it first came out. Thankfully though it has been updated for the passed 7 years and it is really fine for a number of years now. Yeah, I'd like to think XP is a "forever" os since it's now so stable and reliable, but then again so was win98 at the end. BUT, when I looked at 2000 it didn't excite me; passed on it. Then came XP and I saw a LOT of things I liked, so I switched. I love it every time I come across an old win98se or whatever version, still running just fine and the user quite satisfied with it. It's surprising how many there actually are yet. But those were days when the upgrades actually had something new to offer me. Eventually the driver situation will straighten itself out or I'll have to buy new hardware, which I'll make sure has Linux drivers, and then 98, XP, vista et al will all be a memory of single-sourced/forced obsoletions like VB and others! :^] Twayne` I have to agree 100%. I have had Windows 7 (RC and RTM) running here over 6 weeks now on 2 Dell desktops (mine and wifey's) we have had no issues that were show stoppers. However some of my most trusted apps do not have Win 7 compatibility yet and I have been missing them. So..just yesterday I went back to XP Pro and 'got back' all the apps I had tried to live without the past 6 weeks while flirting with Windows 7 Ultimate. I like Aero..it's pretty. Frankly however there is * nothing * in Windows 7 I am longing to return to. I am pleased I can run my Directory Opus again with all features enabled as well as a few others that are not yet Win 7 compatible. Also apps like AZZ Cardfile open much faster on XP than on Win 7 on the same machine ..it is a true "oh Wow!" experience. I failed to realize how much speed and app compatibility I had forsaken to get eye candy. I expect I can run this XP Pro a long , long time. My wife's PC still has Win 7 RC as she loves the improved Mahjong and Solitaire games!! LOL!!! -ps One thing we both liked a lot on 7 was the networking Homegroup feature...We rely on networking for document backups and XP and 7 network fine so we can sure live without 7 on both boxes. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
Terry R. wrote:
The date and time was Sunday, August 23, 2009 8:18:31 AM , and on a whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: Terry R. wrote: The date and time was Saturday, August 22, 2009 5:16:17 PM , and on a whim, Alister pounded out on the keyboard: We hate Vista with a passion, but we have little choice - if we buy new Desktops, that's what we get. As an experiment, I set up two machines - identical hardware - Pentium 4 (not Dual core) 1GB RAM and put XP on one and Windows 7 RTM on the other. I swear to you that the boot times, and general usability are comparable for both machines. I have tried a Vista install on the same spec machine - Bad Idea!! runs like a dog. This is not the case in my tests, and I have put it on two workstations also, but I have 6 OS's on these workstations. Win7 takes 2 to 3 times as long just to boot to a Desktop. I was unable to do video editing/rendering on Win7. The test workstations were AMD 3000+ with 2 gig RAM and 7,200 RPM hard drives and 512MB video cards. Ahh, AMD hardware. Hmmm.... Our old AMD systems outperform duo core machines handily. It's not only the processors. My workstation boots to a desktop in under 30 seconds including PageDefrag. I don't see that responsiveness on other workstations. Yes, when AMD stuff works, it does well, but my personal experience is that certain combinations of AMD processor and Motherboard chipsets don't work well at all - in XP or anything else. We have had real problems using a batch of machines which were forever falling over in one way or another. They have no weird hardware attached, just plain vanilla desktop machines from a well known supplier with the usual SATA drives, on-board NIC and mid range ATI graphics cards. We are lucky if any of them will stay up all day without crashing. And that's using XP Pro. Tried a Vista install on a couple of them and it was, if anything, worse - One refused to boot properly - even after wiping and re-installing. It would get as far as the desktop and then expire. I have not been brave enough to try a Windows 7 on one of these yet. Alister. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother?
"Ablang" wrote in message ... Upgrading to Windows 7 -- Why Bother? Just to keep Microsoft in business. All loyal Micro****s should do their duty and buy a copy even if they don't need it. Micro$ is in dire straits because their flagship application product WORD has to be withdrawn from public sale because it infringed patent rights of a canadian company. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=3769 Hope this should reassure you in the meantime. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|