To Upgrade or not To Upgrade

[D'kian]

At home I have an aging HP running Windows Vista Home Basic. As is innevitable with PCs it's gotten slower over years of intensive use (I've installed over 50 casual games in it, and the bookmark pile has grown a lot). But it's also developed problems I hadn't encountered before. For instance, I often need to try more than once to close a Firefox window (usually a pop-up). I right-click on the taskbar window icon, the menu comes up, but when I left-click on "close" it does nothing. I have to right-click again and do it over. It gets annoying after a while.

Now, Since the Great Fiasco of Win98 (explanation on request) I've made a firm decision never to upgrade an operating system, but rather to wait until I can buy a PC witht he new OS installed. The main reason for this is that a new OS requires more resources than the one it replaces, menaing it will slow down the PC. However, all the info on Windows 7 is that it needs less resources than Vista, which may then just speed up the PC a little. (BTW by resources I mean CPU seed, memory, graphics card, etc).

I don't foresee replacing my current PC until around the Summer of 2011, therefore upgrading makes sense that way. If needed I can post the specs on my PC later today. Also any input from anyone who's made such an upgrade would be appreciated.

BTW, I wish Microsoft would stop trying to reinvent its OS naming procedures every few years. When Win95 came out they were going to stick with the year of release. They stuck as far as Win2000, even tucking in a minor upgrade known as Win98ME along the way. Then they tried outright anmes like XP and Vista. Now they're back to numbered versions.

Centuries from now archeologists will debate this issue, see if they don't. Papers will be written to prove Windows 7 was an erlier release than Windows 95

[Aqualyst]

At home I have an aging HP running Windows Vista Home Basic. As is innevitable with PCs it's gotten slower over years of intensive use (I've installed over 50 casual games in it, and the bookmark pile has grown a lot). But it's also developed problems I hadn't encountered before. For instance, I often need to try more than once to close a Firefox window (usually a pop-up). I right-click on the taskbar window icon, the menu comes up, but when I left-click on "close" it does nothing. I have to right-click again and do it over. It gets annoying after a while.

Now, Since the Great Fiasco of Win98 (explanation on request) I've made a firm decision never to upgrade an operating system, but rather to wait until I can buy a PC witht he new OS installed. The main reason for this is that a new OS requires more resources than the one it replaces, menaing it will slow down the PC. However, all the info on Windows 7 is that it needs less resources than Vista, which may then just speed up the PC a little. (BTW by resources I mean CPU seed, memory, graphics card, etc).

I don't foresee replacing my current PC until around the Summer of 2011, therefore upgrading makes sense that way. If needed I can post the specs on my PC later today. Also any input from anyone who's made such an upgrade would be appreciated.

BTW, I wish Microsoft would stop trying to reinvent its OS naming procedures every few years. When Win95 came out they were going to stick with the year of release. They stuck as far as Win2000, even tucking in a minor upgrade known as Win98ME along the way. Then they tried outright anmes like XP and Vista. Now they're back to numbered versions.

Centuries from now archeologists will debate this issue, see if they don't. Papers will be written to prove Windows 7 was an erlier release than Windows 95

I can offer one man's experience. I was running Window Vista Ultimate until last week. I upgraded to Windows 7 and the upgrade solved the problem I was experiencing.

Three weeks ago, I suddenly lost every Adobe application installed on my PC. This included Acrobat Professional and Adobe CS2 Professional. No Adobe application would run. My efforts to resolve the problem included uninstalling all Adobe products and re-installing from the original disks. Nothing I did resolved the problem.

In desperation, and on a suggestion from an Adobe Techie, I downloaded Windows 7 Ultimate. This resolved all problems with Adobe products. I have no idea why it worked; I only know that it did. Now that I'm using Windows 7, I do notice a couple of improvements. One is that boot up is about twice as fast. The other is that programs seem to run faster and with fewer "hour-glasses" in evidence. Otherwise, I don't really see much difference in Windows 7 and the Windows XP I run at the office.

[Rearden_Steel]

Buy a Mac and thank me later.

[Jake_Ellison]

You can do two easy things to speed up your old PC.

1. Install Diskeeper 2009, from here, to defragment your HDD:

http://www.diskeeper.com/. That's free. It stays in your memory, keeping the read time of your hard disk at the fastest possible, by keeping individual files stored in a single area of the disk. It will reduce the time it takes for the OS and programs to load into memory.(at start)

2. Add memory. That's incredibly cheap, for older systems. (you do need info on your old memory, so you can get the same kind) Programs will run smoother.

And yes, if Vista is running well on your PC, then 7 is gonna run better. And you should install 7, if you can, because it's the future. Eventually, you'll have to get it anyway. I've heard about problems with some drivers, but nothing too bad.

But I didn't actually make an upgrade, I bought a laptop with 7 already installed, and I'm still running XP on a PC I use for some games and movies/music. (I'm much too lazy to try and change anything on it, and then have to deal with searching for drivers and stuff. But I would do it, if it was my main computer.)

As for Macs, sure. If you enjoy overpriced hardware, go ahead, buy one. You'll probably like their software better than any Windows or Linux stuff, once you get used to it.

[DavidV]

Diskeeper is not free, but this is: http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html

Windows 7 is a great OS. Definitely upgrade if you can afford it. If your computer is slow, it may be a better value to buy RAM instead.

Personally I use Macs at home and work.

[softwareNerd]

Whether to upgrade depends on how one uses the machine: i.e. what do you use that machine for? My machine at work was upgraded to the 64bit version, but for what I use it (a mix of programming and MS-Office stuff) I have not seen any significant benefits in this upgrade, nor in the last few Windows upgrades. The one benefit I will see -- once I upgrade my RAM -- is that I can use my machine to test some things that require tons of RAM, but this is very specific to my job, and not a general plus to most people.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

At the moment, I am contemplating an upgrade of this machine once the first Service Pack comes out. If I like it enough here, I'll make the jump on my main machine as well. I'll install onto a fresh hard drive in both cases, so as to be able to revert absolutely painlessly and completely secure in the knowlege that everything has been undone if needed (swap hard drives).

[th3ranger]

I don't upgrade unless it comes with a new computer.

The easiest, cheapest way to make your computer faster is buy a ton of RAM sticks and get as many and as high capacity as you can. 2 gb is a good amount to have and should be fine for most uses I think. It cost me about $60 to put this amount in my laptop. Laptop RAM is more expensive than ram for a desktop since it must be smaller. The difference in application running speed between the two 512 mb sticks and the two 1 gb sticks was huge!

Make sure you get the correct kind for your computer, let a best buy employee help you find the correct kind as long as you have your computer model number, but don't sweat it, you can return such computer parts, no problem.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Just going from 256MB to 1G, 256MB (by plugging a 1GB stick in the unused slot) was a huge improvement--but then this machine runs XP at the moment.

I'll probably fill the other slot with a 1GB stick and pitch the 1/4 gig stick before I try the upgrade.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

Whenever people ask me this question, especially regarding Windows OSes, I recommend that they wait to upgrade until the first "service pack" gets released. Microsoft has not released a stellar OS upon launch in years (perhaps decades), as they typically release a half-assed version and then perform major upgrades to that software down the road. Massive hardware and software compatibility issues are typically abound, and consumer-level computer hardware is not usually ready to handle new Microsoft OSes at full optimization. It takes about six months for the hardware industry to catch up, which may or may not be an intentional move by Microsoft to encourage faster development and enhancement of computer hardware. Service packs are essential to the continuing improvement of the current Microsoft OS, and Windows 7 is no different from any other Windows in this respect.

Sometimes issues can be solved by installing the new, cutting edge OS, but it is much more likely that new issues will surface, despite the fact that you may not run into certain problems you used to face. More often than not, reinstalling the OS you're currently using is enough to solve most weird Microsoft problems (like registry errors).

[DavidV]

Whenever people ask me this question, especially regarding Windows OSes, I recommend that they wait to upgrade until the first "service pack" gets released.

In this particular case, that isn't true. I've been using Windows 7 for about 10 months ago, and it's very stable, even during the beta period. That's because Windows 7 was mainly intended to fix Vista's flaws.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

In this particular case, that isn't true. I've been using Windows 7 for about 10 months ago, and it's very stable, even during the beta period. That's because Windows 7 was mainly intended to fix Vista's flaws.

You are aware that Windows 7 features an entirely new architecture and kernel as compared to Windows Vista, right? It's not just a more contemporary version of Vista, by any stretch of the imagination.

Before I tackle your claim that Windows 7 couldn't possibly have any bugs or flaws in it, let's examine issues with new OS installs. Windows 7 is not compatible yet with several applications that I need for my work. If I were to upgrade without ever considering this possibility, I'd be left with a new OS install but with no usable applications. Luckily for me, all those applications also work for OSX, and therefore I don't bother with Windows. I know a couple of film studio owners who use touch-tablets for much more precise editing. Their tablets are a bit "vintage" by today's standards, and they just recently learned that Windows 7 does not yet (and likely never will) support these older models. In both situations, you're faced with two people who need certain applications or devices to function properly with Windows 7. I just provided two examples of people who cannot use Windows 7 yet, and obviously, there are many more real-world examples that could be provided, as far more than just the above mentioned are faced with potential errors and failures as a result of switching to Windows 7. Service packs in the past have done far more to increase compatibility and reliability among third-party hardware and software than any other single upgrade method in Microsoft's history, and sadly we cannot rely on hardware and software manufacturers to fix these problems themselves until the OS is more mature. History demonstrates this fact quite handily.

But to give Windows 7 such praise so early would be incorrect. Since release, many bugs in the GUI, as well as several serious security flaws, have already been announced. The typically absurd system requirements are present once again in Windows 7, as well. My brief experience with Windows 7 personally shows that, like usual, Microsoft operating systems still cannot reliably perform Hibernation and Sleep functions. Unsigned drivers cannot be installed on Windows 7 without pretty serious registry hacks. I mean - the entire freakin' GUI is plagiarized from KDE3.5+! Not sure what really makes you think that Windows 7 is all that different from any other Microsoft OS.

[freestyle]

I think the point is that there has been a long running, widespread public beta trial of Windows 7, so the release is a bit more equivalent to timing of a first service pack anyway.

I use Macs at home and work, but I have been running the Windows 7 Beta on my Macbook Pro on the Boot Camp partition. It runs very well and seems to work fine. I don't use it all that much though. I think I'm running the 64bit version and noticed that some of my older Windows programs could not be installed. However, I think the release version included backwards compatibility that the beta did not have.

I say search the Knowledge Base and Windows 7 supporter forums and see how widespread any issues you think would be relevant to you are. If you have issues and problems with your current Windows setup that you wish were improved, it is probably worth taking the risk (knowing that you'll likely find a hiccup or two somewhere). If your setup is great and you have no issues now, I'd just keep an eye on the user feedback for a few more months so you can transfer over with confidence.

[D'kian]

Thank you all for replying.

I have considered adding more RAM, but I'd do that with or without an upgrade to Win7.

As far as upgrading goes, the O/S costs a lot more than I thought it would. In fact more than I recall Vista went for two years ago (of course the peso has devalued nearly 35% since then, so...) Therefore I have two choices: save the money and try to get a newer PC sooner, or split the cost of the upgrade with someone else (I've done that before with other software, naturally buying the appropriate number of licenses). Either way more RAM.