How many of you are ready to run out and upgrade to Windows 8?

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 07:37:59 +0200, Steve Hayes
wrote:


My wife has a laptop that came with Vista installed. She would like to upgrade
it to Windows 7, but the upgrades no longer seem to be available.



I just checked on Amazon.com. I don't know about South Africa, but the
upgrades are certainly available here in the US.

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:06:43 +0100, choro wrote:

On 05/10/2012 08:56, Bob Henson wrote:

Buy Windows 7 and overwrite Vista then - it's worth it. You can get
legal copies quite cheap if you download it and go through innumerable
updates - even quicker if you can get SP1 as a file too.

Do you mean this can be done without affecting settings or without
reformatting disc?


I don't know what Bob meant, but yes, you can do that from Vista.


If not then all user files would have to be saved to
an external drive, wouldn't they?



No, you don't "have to," but you should, for two reasons:

1. You should do that regularly even if you are mot upgrading.

2. Upgrading is a big step, and something *can* go wrong.

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:44:07 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day,


Windows 3.11 was almost identical to Windows 3.1. It just added a few
drivers and some minor updates which had been available separately.

On 05/10/2012 9:06 AM, choro wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:56, Bob Henson wrote:

Buy Windows 7 and overwrite Vista then - it's worth it. You can
get
legal copies quite cheap if you download it and go through
innumerable
updates - even quicker if you can get SP1 as a file too.

Do you mean this can be done without affecting settings or
without reformatting disc? If not then all user files would have
to be saved to an external drive, wouldn't they?

Or is this an 'update to Windows 7' leaving everything other than
the OS intact?--

Yes, you can get an upgrade version of Win 7 that will leave your
user files intact. Of course you should back up user files on a
regular basis just in case anyway. You should still be able to
download any necessary service packs from MS. I upgraded my
Vista laptop about a yr. and a half ago without any major problems.

AW

On 05/10/2012 2:06 PM, choro wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:56, Bob Henson wrote:


On 05/10/2012 6:37 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:50:08 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:34:55 -0400, PDFrank wrote:

Not me.

I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable
(RHU) versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

My wife has a laptop that came with Vista installed. She would like to upgrade
it to Windows 7, but the upgrades no longer seem to be available.


Buy Windows 7 and overwrite Vista then - it's worth it. You can get
legal copies quite cheap if you download it and go through innumerable
updates - even quicker if you can get SP1 as a file too.

Do you mean this can be done without affecting settings or without
reformatting disc? If not then all user files would have to be saved to
an external drive, wouldn't they?

Or is this an 'update to Windows 7' leaving everything other than the OS
intact?

As others have explained, you can update and keep your files - I did it
here OK on my old desktop. However, I would seriously think about
copying all needed data (.doc files, photos, etc) to another drive and
doing a complete fresh install, then adding back the data files.

Why? Well over a period of time there is a lot of clutter and rubbish
accumulates on the hard drive, many settings for programs become
corrupted and/or over complicated, and a fresh install of everything
cleans up all the junk and leaves you with a system that is as good as
new (or, having got rid of Vista - better than new) Whether it's worth
it may may depend on how much stuff you need to save and how many
programs there are to re-install - but on a laptop it usually isn't that
involved. What you will find is that it will probably run better/faster.
It will certainly be less likely to fall over. It's worth a thought,
anyway.


--
Bob
Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK


Did you hear about the cow that liked jazz? It mooed indigo.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:50:08 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:34:55 -0400, PDFrank wrote:

Not me.

I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Excellent advice :-)

It was an LOL moment here...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

In message , Michael Swift
writes:
In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day, ah the
joys of a 42 meg HDD, 2 meg of RAM and programs which would fit on one
floppy disc.
[]
Even 3.0 wasn't _bad_, given the hardware available, though it was slow
if your hardware was!

The installer for the main core of IrfanView is still, I think,
floppy-sized!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a
profound truth may well be another profound truth. -Niels Bohr, physicist
(1885-1962)

On 05/10/2012 16:18, Bob Henson wrote:


On 05/10/2012 2:06 PM, choro wrote:
On 05/10/2012 08:56, Bob Henson wrote:


On 05/10/2012 6:37 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:50:08 -0400, Stan Brown
wrote:

On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 19:34:55 -0400, PDFrank wrote:

Not me.

I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable
(RHU) versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

My wife has a laptop that came with Vista installed. She would like to upgrade
it to Windows 7, but the upgrades no longer seem to be available.


Buy Windows 7 and overwrite Vista then - it's worth it. You can get
legal copies quite cheap if you download it and go through innumerable
updates - even quicker if you can get SP1 as a file too.

Do you mean this can be done without affecting settings or without
reformatting disc? If not then all user files would have to be saved to
an external drive, wouldn't they?

Or is this an 'update to Windows 7' leaving everything other than the OS
intact?

As others have explained, you can update and keep your files - I did it
here OK on my old desktop. However, I would seriously think about
copying all needed data (.doc files, photos, etc) to another drive and
doing a complete fresh install, then adding back the data files.

Why? Well over a period of time there is a lot of clutter and rubbish
accumulates on the hard drive, many settings for programs become
corrupted and/or over complicated, and a fresh install of everything
cleans up all the junk and leaves you with a system that is as good as
new (or, having got rid of Vista - better than new) Whether it's worth
it may may depend on how much stuff you need to save and how many
programs there are to re-install - but on a laptop it usually isn't that
involved. What you will find is that it will probably run better/faster.
It will certainly be less likely to fall over. It's worth a thought,
anyway.

I must admit I'd rather go for the idea of a fresh install, after saving
my user files to an external HD of course. Though with laptops I think
it is always a good idea to see if the manufacturer can supply the
upgrade W7 OS disc as it would also contain the right drivers for the
mobo, the graphics card etc etc. Of course it all depends on the cost
whether an older laptop is worth upgrading to a newer OS.

No idea what the prices are in the UK these days, but when I built my
desktop just over a year ago I had to pay £110 (US$180.00) for W7Pro.
And that was the OEM version. Heaven knows how much the full retail
version would have been. It just doesn't make sense when one can buy a
brand new laptop with W7 preinstalled for £250.--
choro
*****
PS. I know life's not fair but this is ridiculous!

On 05/10/2012 14:56, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:44:07 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day,


Windows 3.11 was almost identical to Windows 3.1. It just added a few
drivers and some minor updates which had been available separately.

Win 3.11 was the network capable version, wasn't it?--
choro
*****

choro wrote:
On 05/10/2012 14:56, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:44:07 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day,


Windows 3.11 was almost identical to Windows 3.1. It just added a few
drivers and some minor updates which had been available separately.

Win 3.11 was the network capable version, wasn't it?--

Officially called "Windows for Workgroups" in the advertising to
distinguish it from Windows 3.1, which lacked a decent network stack.
That was the main difference between them.

I vaguely remember that 3.11 introduced NETBIOS and NETBeui, but I could
be wrong...


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 05/10/2012 22:54, John Williamson wrote:
choro wrote:
On 05/10/2012 14:56, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:44:07 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day,


Windows 3.11 was almost identical to Windows 3.1. It just added a few
drivers and some minor updates which had been available separately.

Win 3.11 was the network capable version, wasn't it?--

Officially called "Windows for Workgroups" in the advertising to
distinguish it from Windows 3.1, which lacked a decent network stack.
That was the main difference between them.

I vaguely remember that 3.11 introduced NETBIOS and NETBeui, but I could
be wrong...



The good old Netbeui. I used it with my XP network!

Fokke

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:46:23 +0100, choro wrote:

On 05/10/2012 14:56, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:44:07 +0100, Michael Swift
wrote:

In article , Stan Brown
writes
I would, but first I'd have to buy a Fisher-Price computer.

Seriously, Microsoft seems to alternate really horrible unusable (RHU)
versions of Windows with merely annoying (MA) ones.

RHU - Windows 8
MA - Windows 7
RHU - Windows Vista
MA - Windows XP
RHU - Windows ME
MA - Windows 98
RHU - Microsoft Bob
MA - Windows 95

Have I forgotten any?

3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day,


Windows 3.11 was almost identical to Windows 3.1. It just added a few
drivers and some minor updates which had been available separately.

Win 3.11 was the network capable version, wasn't it?



No. You're making the same mistake many people made back in those
days. You are thinking of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, not Windows
3.11.

On 10/4/2012 4:34 PM, PDFrank wrote:
Not me.


Hmmmm. some where between no and Hell no for me!

In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
writes
3 and 3.11 which as I remember weren't too bad for their day, ah the
joys of a 42 meg HDD, 2 meg of RAM and programs which would fit on one
floppy disc.
[]
Even 3.0 wasn't _bad_, given the hardware available, though it was slow if
your hardware was!

My 386 SX 16 ran it well, I borrowed, cough, 3.11 from work.

I think my first PC was an American Megatrands bought from an import
company on the Tottenham Court Road in London, it cost £898 in about
1992,not an inconsiderable sum back then, at least it stopped me
smoking, the hook I promised to pay for it.

Mike

--
Michael Swift We do not regard Englishmen as foreigners.
Kirkheaton We look on them only as rather mad Norwegians.
Yorkshire Halvard Lange

On 10/4/2012 7:34 PM, PDFrank wrote:
Not me.


If for a home workstation ... dunno ... is it better than XP or W7? And
if so why?

If for business ... get serious ... LOL

I am beginning to think that the home work sation is a waste of time,
mobile is where its at.

My only real question is does Microsoft have the answer?

John