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.

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.

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?

"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`

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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`

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.

"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.

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.

"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.