PDA

View Full Version : Windows 7 is coming: Don't upgrade



SonsOfLiberty
08-24-2009, 08:57 PM
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/picture.php?albumid=25&pictureid=18499

To upgrade or not to upgrade: It's the issue of the moment for Windows users everywhere as the hype machine for the October 22 Windows 7 release gathers steam. And as we gaze at our existing machines, either running a snappy but outdated XP or a pokey but still slick looking Vista, and wonder whether we should be planning a late night trip to the big box store for our very own copy, I've got one word for you: Stop.

There are plenty of reasons why you'd want to refresh your existing machine with a cool new operating system. Pre-release versions of Windows 7 have displayed impressive performance, stability, and usability. Device compatibility -- a major bugaboo early on for the ill-starred Vista -- is much improved. It's smaller and lighter than the OS it ostensibly replaces, a nice reversal from the years-long tidal wave of ever-more-bloated products from the world's largest software vendor. Win7 scales better and can take advantage of more memory and multicore processors. That the new OS looks cool enough to not embarrass Windows fans when they run into Mac zealots at parties is an added bonus.


I don't doubt that Windows 7 seems to be Microsoft's strongest OS in years. I also don't doubt that most of us will eventually use some form of it. I just don't think we should be running it on any machines we're using now. Unless you're a weekend tinkerer with extra PCs hanging around the house and a lot of extra time on your hands, upgrading an existing machine is for suckers.

Married to the hardware

Just because you can slap in some DVDs and upgrade your current machine doesn't mean you should. Call me old fashioned, but I'm a big believer in upgrading your OS when you upgrade your hardware. Windows isn't like a Linux distro you install yourself. Hardware vendors devote significant resources tuning it to support their PCs. Tweaking the Windows image to work cleanly with a given hardware build is a critical value add that explains why more of us don't build our own systems from scratch. Installing a retail-purchased box of Windows 7 on a machine whose vendor never certified the specific build is a veritable invitation to a litany of niggling little problems -- issues arising from the fact that the hardware was never intended to work with anything but the OS that was originally installed.

And what about those Linux boxes? There's a world of difference between a tech enthusiast's latest challenge and the laptops your company just deployed to your sales force. When you're the one doing the building and the configuring (and you presumably know what you're doing) there's an expectation that things will go wrong and you'll be able to figure out how to fix them. Tweaking is part of the fun when you build it yourself. I doubt that salesperson in the field would be too pleased after a driver compatibility issue at a client site turned the laptop into a doorstopper.

People buy mainstream hardware pre-loaded with mainstream operating systems because they just want it to work, and they don't have the cycles to figure it out for themselves. Drop an upgrade on top of all that integrated goodness and you're back in the world of white boxes and intermittent glitchiness.

Of course, even that risk may not be enough to deter some users from dumping their old OS, anyway. I admit some folks may not be happy with Vista's performance on their current machine and may be, to put it charitably, highly motivated to be the first to upgrade. Microsoft's design philosophy for Windows 7 -- namely make it smaller and lighter without compromising the omnibus, full-featured architecture that has always allowed Windows to seemingly be all things to all people -- holds promise for some that they'll finally be able to put Vista-induced pokiness behind them.

Time ticks down for XP

XP users may also want to jump, though for different reasons. While the older OS doesn't bog hardware down to the same degree that Vista often does, it suffers from an aged interface only its mother could love, lagging security capabilities and rapidly diminishing vendor support. Microsoft doesn't make as much money selling it, either. And while we really shouldn't play the little violin for a multibillion dollar global corporation, profit-seeking organizations can't sustain less than optimally profitable products forever. As much as some loyalists would like to keep XP alive forever, its time is clearly running out.

But the realities of tightly coupled OS/hardware packages signal the death knell for the shrink-wrapped boxes that used to signal a new OS release. We don't buy software off a shelf anymore. The OS comes pre-loaded when we buy our hardware, and as a result most of us have gotten used to upgrading to a new version of Windows whenever we get a new machine. Businesses, too, wary of the enormous costs of certifying a new OS build in complex network and application environments, are also beginning to see the merits of streamlining their OS roadmap and tying it to hardware refreshes.

Unlike applications, new operating systems rarely deliver the kind of functionality or productivity improvements that would justify the project cost. As organizations look for ways to shave unnecessary expenses, the standalone OS upgrade project has emerged as low hanging fruit. They're justifiably content to live with an older, not-quite-leading-edge OS as long as it works and doesn't fail in some way every other day. For the most part, XP and Vista continue to deliver on that front, so it makes eminent sense to keep them chugging until IT can deploy some shiny new Windows 7-equipped machines.

Sure, those poor users won't have as much to chat about at parties, and the Mac folks will be all over them for a little while longer. But as the OS increasingly becomes a commodity product, anyway, the prospect of investing time and money on something you'll get essentially for free the next time you visit Best Buy will increasingly be seen as laughable. For now, keep your wallet in your pocket and start researching your next PC instead.

:source: Source: BetaNews (http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows-7-is-coming-Dont-upgrade/1250781155)

PanicAcid
08-25-2009, 11:05 PM
I somewhat agree with what you've said there,

However times are changing for when people buy hardware too, less and less people are buying pre assembled brand named systems and realising that if they want longevity out of a system they'll build it them selves, as more and more companies like cclonline.com for example offer build services for as little as £50 and their support services will spec up a system for your needs. Unlike a Dell system where you're forced to go back to them for an upgrade. Systems built using individual peripherals and components off the shelves are starting to prove more of an economically viable option even for the amateur home users now. Now back to the point I was getting to, when you purchase a pre branded Dell or HP system, the OS is OEM non transferable, lives and dies with that machine. However if a customer had purchased everything from a retailer and self assembled they can buy an OEM just for that machine OR buy a Retail OS to which you own the license not the machine. So when that's defunct you build a new machine and can transfer the license. Why wouldn't such a user buy a Retail version now, upgrade their old rig and then move it to the next one they built?

j6796713
10-15-2009, 04:03 PM
so far so good, IT ACTUALLY WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

iLOVENZB
10-17-2009, 06:32 AM
so far so good, IT ACTUALLY WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

No shit it's not like Microsoft would release an OS that is buggy and requires about 200+ fixes/patches in the first year. Not the mention too advanced for the average PC and a resource bitch.

VISTA bitches

megabyteme
10-17-2009, 07:35 AM
So far, it is worth every penny I've (not) payed for it.

Skiz
10-17-2009, 07:59 AM
so far so good, IT ACTUALLY WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

No shit it's not like Microsoft would release an OS that is buggy and requires about 200+ fixes/patches in the first year. Not the mention too advanced for the average PC and a resource bitch.

VISTA bitches

Win7 hasn't even been released yet, so your assumptions of "200+ fixes/patches in the first year" may end up correct but, you have no basis to your statement whatever.

As for it being "too advanced for the average PC", I don't buy that. If your PC is so lame that it can't meet the 1 GHz processor or 1 GB of RAM requirements for Win7, you need a new computer. I can look on Craigslist right now and find a machine that will double those specs for $75.

megabyteme
10-17-2009, 08:27 AM
As for it being "too advanced for the average PC", I don't buy that. If your PC is so lame that it can't meet the 1 GHz processor or 1 GB of RAM requirements for Win7, you need a new computer. I can look on Craigslist right now and find a machine that will double those specs for $75.

Agreed. I've got it on my Asus 901 netbook. I have upgraded the notoriously slow stock SSD and have 2GB of RAM in it. However, it is running the Intel Atom 1.6GHz processor and I LOVE it with a full install of Win7 Ultimate.

Granted it is not minimum specs, but it is a netbook. Go ahead and install it. Most of the drivers you need will probably be in there already. It is as intuitive as XP and was very well thought out. I haven't had any crashes. No problems whatsoever. :happy:

Skiz
10-17-2009, 08:45 AM
Go ahead and install it. Most of the drivers you need will probably be in there already. It is as intuitive as XP and was very well thought out. I haven't had any crashes. No problems whatsoever. :happy:

Agreed and plus some. I reinstalled it about a month ago and didn't have to update or install a single thing. Every single bit of hardware worked. Every single peripheral worked. I didn't even have to setup my router; it just did everything automatically.

I mean seriously - what more could you ask for out of the box?

iLOVENZB
10-18-2009, 01:10 AM
No shit it's not like Microsoft would release an OS that is buggy and requires about 200+ fixes/patches in the first year. Not the mention too advanced for the average PC and a resource bitch.

VISTA bitches

Win7 hasn't even been released yet, so your assumptions of "200+ fixes/patches in the first year" may end up correct but, you have no basis to your statement whatever.

As for it being "too advanced for the average PC", I don't buy that. If your PC is so lame that it can't meet the 1 GHz processor or 1 GB of RAM requirements for Win7, you need a new computer. I can look on Craigslist right now and find a machine that will double those specs for $75.

I was talking about Vista. I'm very happy with Win7.

I've got it dual booted with ever changing Linux distros.

tesco
10-18-2009, 03:25 PM
Win7 hasn't even been released yet, so your assumptions of "200+ fixes/patches in the first year" may end up correct but, you have no basis to your statement whatever.

As for it being "too advanced for the average PC", I don't buy that. If your PC is so lame that it can't meet the 1 GHz processor or 1 GB of RAM requirements for Win7, you need a new computer. I can look on Craigslist right now and find a machine that will double those specs for $75.

I was talking about Vista. I'm very happy with Win7.
I got your joke. :P

kooltilldend
10-18-2009, 08:17 PM
well i'll need to grab a new laptop/desktop before i hit this upgrade for sure

Appzalien
10-19-2009, 07:38 PM
I thought the main post was about Upgrading as compaired to a Fresh Install, if so many of your comments to this point are irrelevant. Upgrading can really slow an old machine down even if the new OS is faster. In my opinion, a fresh install is preferable over an upgrade any time. But since the upgrade versions of Win7 are $100 cheaper than their retail counterparts, many people will go that route anyway. At least with Vista you could install an upgrade version clean, without entering your serial, and then install it again over itself to accomplish a clean install with an upgrade disk.
Unfortunately Win7 will not allow that since you must activate the first install prior to installing the second. that means I can install it over previous OS's but not itself.

kooltilldend
10-19-2009, 08:56 PM
well i won't even try a fresh install on my laptop...i mean my laptop's not that old but the ram (1gb) is a sticking thorn

cola
10-20-2009, 04:44 AM
well i won't even try a fresh install on my laptop...i mean my laptop's not that old but the ram (1gb) is a sticking thorn

Eh, I installed Win7 on a desktop with an Athlon XP with 1 gb of ram, it ran fine. Hell, people have had a lot of success installing win7 on netbooks.

iLOVENZB
10-20-2009, 09:02 AM
well i'll need to grab a new laptop/desktop before i hit this upgrade for sure

No need, it runs on (almost) minimal hardware.

I saw a thread on SevenForums about a guy who ran Win7 on AMD Athlon XP 1500 and 512MB of RAM (32bit OS)

http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/5456-you-wouldnt-believe-me-if-i-told-you.html

http://www.sevenforums.com/attachments/performance-maintenance/5969d1237289765-you-wouldnt-believe-me-if-i-told-you-windows7.png

kooltilldend
10-20-2009, 11:14 AM
hmm well mine's probably a spec or two above those (Pentium M 1.73ghz, Nvidia 6200, 1gb ram laptop)...but I dunno, I just have a gut feeling that if I install it, I'll end up facing a lot of slow-downs

hmmm its tempting though

goopka
10-23-2009, 04:59 PM
So, the biggest point in the OP's argument is that you'll buy the software now and then buy it again bundled with your new computer one day, wasting money.

I have to say, though, that manufacturers are increasingly making it an option to *not* bundle a Windows OEM with your purchase. Lenovo, for instance, allows you to remove the OEM and just have DOS shipped on your machine and you can subract I think it was $130 U.S. So, in that case you may as well buy it now since you could potentially upgrade hardware without rebuying the OS.

And, at any rate, I use Windows 7 Ultimate x64 and it's most definitely their best OS to date, and runs quite well on modest hardware.