RSSWindows 7 is coming: You should upgrade
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 20, 2009, 3:18 PM
I'll begin by saying that Carmi Levy is my very good friend, and I do admit that most of the time, he and I think along the very same wavelength. I met him through our mutual friend Wolfgang Gruener at TG Daily, and we've carried on a very fruitful dialogue about the IT industry ever since. That, and he has this way of making Winnie-the-Pooh berets look really cool.
We do disagree on one point today, and I think the nature of that disagreement would be beneficial to folks who are wrestling with the question Carmi brought up this morning: "To upgrade or not to upgrade." His article is worth reading, so rather than summarize it here, I'll let Carmi speak for himself.
As for me, here is my heartfelt belief after seriously using -- not just testing, but installing real apps on -- the real Windows 7 release-to-manufacturing version since its release last week: Windows 7 is "Vista service pack 3."
If you own a machine running Windows Vista right now, I cannot conjure any technical reason whatsoever why you should avoid upgrading to Windows 7. Not one. If you hated User Account Control, Windows 7 gives you an easier way to turn it off than hacking the Registry. If you'd rather that misbehaving programs don't slow down your ability to activate other running programs, you will prefer Win7. You will be surprised at the devices whose drivers were non-functional or even non-existent in Vista, that actually do exist and that do work in Windows 7. And programs that expect the 32-bit envelope of XP, where inter-application communication could take place without any regulation, and where a program could get away with anything just by elevating its own privilege level to "Administrator," can run within a protected XP virtualization envelope.
The one serious issue in customers' minds is money. Should you spend $150 for three licenses for a product whose principal value proposition boils down to, "It's not Vista?"
I've said this many times before: Vista is not the worst operating system ever made. But in just the time I've spent wrestling with Vista's "Black Screen of Death," I could have earned way more than a hundred fifty bucks. And if you consider the amount of time you've wasted languishing in Vista, waiting for things to get done, lumbering from app to app, and give that time a dollar value, and then consider that you might be able to get two thirds of that time back under Windows 7, you'll realize it's a sound investment.
The real issue that Carmi raises, though, is not about Vista at all. His comparison is between Windows 7 and Windows XP, a system which still appears to be the fastest of the three most recent versions. Should an existing system that was designed to run XP be upgraded to Windows 7, a process which requires either a clean install and reinstalling the applications or a risky double-upgrade procedure that still involves Vista?
I know who Carmi's talking about when he refers to these shadetree guys who build their own systems and know what to fix and where, when it breaks down. He's talking about me. And back when the whether-to-upgrade debate involved XP and Vista, I said no. My reasoning was that, although Vista is more secure by orders of magnitude, it introduces speed bumps and roadblocks, the net effect of which is sometimes worse than anything adware or malware may contrive. The tradeoff was not worth it. I typically run XP on systems which ran XP in the past; I've only installed Vista on some new machines that I build, and I've acquired Vista on notebooks that I've purchased.
Windows XP is a very capable operating system. But it has occurred to me that one of the reasons I've become comfortable with it is that I'm familiar with its foibles. For all of Vista's problems, I still cannot get any XP-based system I've built in the last three years to retain their knowledge of what "sleep mode" means. When I or my cat accidentally kicks the back of an XP-based machine where I've got two monitors plugged in, XP often disconnects the monitor, uninstalls the monitor driver, and on more than one occasion, has switched the resolution on the other monitor to 640x480 and uninstalled my Nvidia driver. And I run so much "custom junk," as my wife puts it, on an XP-based system that it's a fair question whether my OS was made by Microsoft or Stardock.
I also run a lot of operating systems side-by-side. And despite all the Vista headaches, I can safely say that it is not only possible but often unnoticeable for me to be able to run a single Vista session, complete with the correct sleep modes, for longer than one month. I cannot, to this day, run an XP-based session on any machine for longer than a day without some process, at some time, springing a memory leak that slows it down to such a crawl that Vista looks like a championship sprinter.
The typical customer to whom Carmi refers is a fellow with a five-year-old computer, for whom the Vista footprint was simply too big. Personally, I believe that a five-year-old computer is an old computer, and one does not become a "sucker" when considering total replacement as an option. Storage and memory are both at near-historic low prices (memory a little higher in recent days, but the trend remains down). Because of this fact, I would ask folks with "old computers" using XP to consider the benefits of purchasing a second hard drive of at least a half-terabyte (or clear all those movies off the big one they already have), and install Windows 7 as a dual-boot option on that second drive. It is a phenomenally simple process (certainly simpler than the XP-to-Vista-to-Win7 upgrade hassle), it does not require a technician, and it lets you run your XP environment unchanged. You can migrate your apps and your docs to Win7 at your own pace. And whenever you run into a situation where XP simply was better, maybe for some game, then XP is still there.
Carmi points to the impending doom of the current sales model for the operating system, where you purchase a monolithic package with promises of patches and fixes and service packs down the road. He and I have always agreed on that point. The thing is, it takes an innovative and competitive operating system concept that folks will not only want to use, but will prefer over Windows, to bring such a sales model to fruition. Since I don't see that coming anytime soon from Linux or Google or the North Pole, the only thing compelling Microsoft to make such a change may be continued poor financial performance -- something this company is not accustomed to. Nonetheless, we're talking years down the road, when your current five-year-old computer may as well be an Atari 800. The need to evolve the sales model further is not reason enough for you to postpone your upgrade.
Does Windows 7 offer the prospect of enough of an improvement over XP to justify the cost? Vista did not. But I measure the value of my time very carefully, and in my professional estimate, I believe the answer with respect to Win7 is yes. If I end up being wrong, then I expect Carmi to send me a note with the heading, "Suck-a-a!" along with a Winnie-the-Pooh beret that I'll have to wear on the masthead of my column at least once.
Now, if you'll please permit me to digress in closing: Twenty-two years ago, I ran one of the first and only computing publications with a discussion panel, ever to have a worldwide presence on the Internet. This was at the peak of the Mac vs. Intel, 68000-vs.-80386, Atari-vs.-Commodore debate period, and I signed up many contributors from varying walks of life who disagreed on everything...and that's one reason I signed them up. We fostered a community of people who appreciated each other's company with love and affection, and who couldn't agree less with what the other was saying.
Since that long-ago time, I fear we are losing our ability to disagree with one another with civility. It seems that any more, folks can't find someone they disagree with without accusing him or her, or the publication she works for, of a conspiracy to infiltrate our minds with some false doctrine. If there is any clearer signal that Betanews is truly balanced, it is in our continually being accused of bias toward every perceivable side and every conceivable angle of an issue, equally and evenly. On one recent day, within two hours of one another, I received hate mail I will not repeat here accusing us of being anti-Microsoft zealots and of being paid Microsoft mouth-organs.
Reasonable people know better. They know that we have opinions and we're vocal about them, but having heartfelt opinions as individuals does not make us biased collectively. We can be certain of what we believe because we're assured of the foundations upon which we stand. And as far as I'm concerned, the dartboard that represents my personal perspective on the IT industry is riddled with holes. You can't poke a new hole that hasn't been poked already, and it's still standing. Same goes for Carmi. We can debate and we can rebut, and maybe one of us can be wrong, and we can be friends. I would advise my readers, if they've never done so before, to try it sometime. It's amazing what making a friend will do for your life and your lifestyle.
I'n not sure why so much talk is being made from this topic. There is small amount of people who will actually buy windows 7 as a upgrade. They don't matter much, cause it's a small amount of people. Most will get the new OS with a new PC purchase, the rest will get a OEM version from newegg when they build there next machine. I'm running the 64bit RC on my laptop. My gaming machine runs Vista, why is because i want DX10. I've had few issues with vista, and thus can't complain much. The windows 7 RC does feel alot more finished as a product. So i will be making the jump to windows 7 and 64 bit also come the end of the year. Along with 8gigs of ram.
Score: 0
|There are many variables needed to be filled out before you can recommend to someone to upgrade to Windows 7 or not. First MAJOR variable is COST OF UPGRADE including EXTREMELY HEAVY COST OF TIME TO BACKUP CURRENT SYSTEM AND RE-CONFIGURE ALL SOFTWARE AND RESTORE DATA PROPERLY ETC. This major variable is the #1 deal-breaker for most people. $50 cost of software is negligible (ppl spend that much on a new pair of jeans which is purely something pleasing to their eye - no added functionality whatsoever).
They ain't willing to spend 20+ hours to do a proper Windows 7 upgrade and learning all the new tweaks. A lotta people are just gonna say "I can't find Network Connections -- this is sheeeit!" and cry like moronic babies...
The more techie you are (as in knowledgable in troubleshooting) the more inclined you are to ENJOY WINDOWS 7 EVEN ON OLD MACHINES. The less capable you are to learn new tricks (I remember Carmi's retarded defense of old Office GUI compared to the ingenius Ribbon interface) the less you'll be impressed by ANYTHING new that SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGED YOUR USER EXPERIENCE.
And again, I'll re-iterate my proof that Windows 7 is better than Vista (on probably any machine with 1GB RAM) the same as Office 2007 Ribbon is better than ribbonless Office 2003 -- you take a hypothetical group of young kids or old adults who never used the OS/suite and teach them the niftiest tricks of XP/Vista then Windows7, and another group the reverse. You'll have a concensus that Windows7 and Office 2007 is simply better by vast majority of BOTH GROUPS but specifically the group of newer-software-first learners... Bad habits, are, after all, hard to change...
Score: -1
|"EXTREMELY HEAVY COST OF TIME TO BACKUP CURRENT SYSTEM AND RE-CONFIGURE ALL SOFTWARE AND RESTORE DATA PROPERLY ETC"
You're high. The Windows Easy Transfer in Windows 7 is far beyond the Files and Settings transfer BS of XP, and is still much better than Vista's. Migrating the data and settings is simple, the only variable is time depending on how much data you have. (An argument could be made here for storing that data on a separate partition...for another article)
"They ain't willing to spend 20+ hours to do a proper Windows 7 upgrade and learning all the new tweaks."
20+ hours? If you have to go to the absurd to make your point, perhaps it isn't worth making. :)
"Bad habits, are, after all, hard to change..."
Agreed. I think many are under the impression though, that the "learning curve" between XP/Vista and Win7 is a larger hurdel than it actually is.
Anecdote: My father is computer illiterate. I built him a system several years ago to transfer Audio/Video from CDs/DVDs/VHS/Camcorder. It had XP. I had to replace the system last weekend and put a technet RTM install of Windows 7 Pro on it. Same applications he was already familiar with. Zero learning curve. The applications are still on his desktop, still in his start-menu, and now, even better, pinned to his taskbar.
He loves it. Even more so, he loves the Win-Left/Win-Right window arrangements. :)
Score: 0
|All depends on how you've configured your system to start with. For years now I have a _System_ Partition, that has the OS. And a data partition that has... DATA. Other Harddrives that are redundancy Backup. When I wipe an OS, or install another, my data is safe and sound. Many Many programs don't even need to be installed. They will run quite happily from wherever they happen to be -- aside from some system hosing programs like Symantec - or a handful of programs that need system hooks (firewall, etc).
Score: -1
|@Balderstorm:
Exactly!
FWIW, portable apps rock.
I would *love* to see the registry be devalued and have apps start being forced to keep their settings in their own installation directories. OS/App/Data drives....problem solved. At the least, I would love to see apps that "duplicate" their registry entries in a .reg file in their install folder...that would make an easy "re-up" on a new OS load.
Score: -1
|"20+ hours? If you have to go to the absurd to make your point, perhaps it isn't worth making. :)"
I, as the techie guru of hundreds, need at least 10hrs to upgrade your average OEM-bought&configured (data NOT in separate partition..) to a new OS *PROPERLY* (cleaned HD then data placed in NEW SMARTER LOCATIONS). Doing a s***ty job (apparently like you do) that would get users wasting hours later on figuring out solutions to PREDICTABLE MIGRATIONAL PROBLEMS is definitely possible even in 5hours and can be done by users alone -- no expert needed.
However, my point AGAIN. 95% of users (OEM hardware) will NOT be able to upgrade to Windows 7 in less than 20 hours on their own, getting all their hardware and software to run optimally-fast (which means a CLEAN install -- can be on the side of current OS, but not OVERWRITING it), and then adding to that calculation the amount of time SPENT (or wasted) in the early-weeks in learning Windows 7's many new issues and benefits thoroughly.
In short: to bring a person who knows his PC inside-out from XP/Vista to a person who knows his PC inside-out on Windows 7 costs at LEAST 20 hrs. The cosmetic benefits (as many will see them, as security isn't on their mind -- and frankly shouldn't be if they have an updated AV and automatic Windows Updates) and slight performance boost ARE NOT enough to justify this WASTED TIME! Especially if all these cerebrally-limited common bas****s do on the PC is browse the net and write a few Word docs...
WE ARE NOT THE AVERAGE PC USERS.
Oh yeah, your father-in-law didn't have to spend the time to get his Win7 up and running and all the "greatest only" tricks transferred to his brain. You saved him 20+ hours by spoon-feeding him this info. Vast majority of people do NOT have a techie willing to spend his energy on them for free...and if for money - it simply ain't worth the $, sorry...
Score: 0
|Already done that. It's an amazing operating system :)
Score: 0
|I am sure that you already know this, as these are tests that have been referred to for a while now with the various builds that were leaked - but Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has performed a bevy of tests comparing all three OSs (XP, Vista and 7) and has now started a round of tests with the RTM.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=5101
(links to the previous tests he performed are on the second page)
Score: 0
|Well, at least we have an alternative view although it seems still to be based on opinion rather than facts.
Score: -2
|Facts? The first line of the article is "Viewpoint"! Obviously it is going to be an opinion!
Score: 0
|For all the controversy generated, you and Cami are amazingly close in your recommendations. If you have an old XP box, wait to buy Windows 7 with your next computer. If you're on Vista, you should consider it, perhaps strongly.
Not bad advice, thanks.
Score: 1
|Actually, you're quite right, we're not that far off in some respects. I think the extent of the difference here is this: Carmi says that if you have an old computer running XP, you're wasting your time and maybe money considering replacing XP with Win7, stick to the system that was built for your old computer and you'll be happy. I say that if you have an old computer running XP, you're wasting your blood and sweat considering replacing XP with Vista, but there's a realistic scenario where you could consider at the very least upgrading the hardware and software to a dual-boot system, and you may very well appreciate Win7.
And there it is, black vs. white, Holyfield vs. Tyson, Hatfield vs. McCoy. The extent of our differences here on this point.
-SF "Smackdown!" 3
Score: 1
|@InfoDave:
Still worth a look at the RC. I installed Win7 on a 5 year-old XP laptop and it did wonders for a PC that I was considering getting rid of. All it took was upgrading the RAM from 512MB to 1GB (Which I did while it still had XP on it to try and get it a little more responsive.)
Score: -1
|(Aside from a crap load of waffling).
Christ on a bike! Scott and I actually agree on something!! My head hurts. I don't feel well.
Score: 1
|I think this article, like many others misses a major point. The main reason our computers are slow is not b/c of poor OSs but because the *legit* software we install adds so much unintended crap on our PC. e.g. when I install a new HP printer I get 300mgb (!) worth of crud that I don't need. All of these apps might serve some corporate strategy, but they don't serve my needs. They do however hog my PC's resources. Until somebody solves this, no OS will solve the problem.
my 2 cents.
Score: 0
|Take your 2cents back. Learn about computers before posting, dude. The 'customise' button is there for a reason, and the raw driver file is also there for a reason.
And a HP printer at home? Spiders...
Windows 7 is the best OS I've seen in a loooooooooong time. I've not found a problem with it yet other than a few small crashes and errors; but I'm still on the 7100 build.
This is the first OS I will actually open my wallet to.
Score: 2
|I think you are missing his point... he is not talking about windows 7 but for instance a 300 MB driver file that includes all kinds of unwanted software, that loads into memory at startup and consumes valuable resources. Adobe reader for instanc, Java runtime for instance... all adds startup entries... and it all adds up. And 90% of the population is not going to use the customize button you know :)
Score: 3
|And all of this has to do with Windows 7, what?
Score: -1
|Hey Scott, since you seem to be following this one pretty heavily, during your next browser speed update, can you post a second chart with the Acid Test scores removed next to your regular chart. There has been some interest for the speed comparison without the Acid test score.
Score: 2
|I've been using the Beta/RC of Win7 and I can say it is a super system, for Windows. It is far superior to XP in many ways, but many may only remember Vista's poor start. I use Vista and I have no issues with it, works just fine and I got tired of XP.
Win7 isn't too much a change from Vista, but XP users will have a learning curve, but they will enjoy it if they give it a chance.
Score: 0
|Ahh, the memories of the internet 22 years ago.
Jeez time flies. Seems like it was just yesterday I was downloading ansi porn using COMiT connected to netcom at a blazing 1200 baud.
Score: 0
|_Yes, as I've mentioned before, Win7 really is SP3 in that it is what Vista was supposed to be and I'm happy they got there. Add to that a handful of descent bells and whistles - some of which copying some OSX-isms. I feel if they respected the suffering Vista put an awful lot of their customers through (including myself), the upgrade price would be $29.99 for the bells and whistles. Frankly, I feel they've abused this customer relationship and I will be sticking to XP (having removed Vista from my machines as it was a major step backward for professional audio - for starters) and its sleep issues until a freebie lands in my lap, if ever.
Like I said, I'm glad they've fixed it (nearly 6 years of development later!) but Ballmer's taken too much of my blood and needs to learn how to give some back.
Score: -4
|Yup, Windows 7 is a service pack to Vista and Vista is a service pack to XP which is a service pack to... whatever... who cares whether it is a service pack or not. You paid for Vista. You don't like, then suck it up and stop moaning. You don't get a refund in life for everytime you don't like something. You win sometimes and you lose sometimes. Microsoft has not incentive to give the product to you free. They don't care if they lose you as a customer to OS X in the end because as it stands, no matter what Apple does or Linux does, Microsoft's market. Plus if you stay with XP, then they have kept you as a customer because you didn't switch to OS X or Linux. What are you accomplishing?
Score: 0
|Something else you can rail on here besides people not being nice. Grammar and spelling and complete sentences suck on comments on these blogs. It is just so easy to type a response with the words not matching your thoughts, hit enter and read it an hour later and realize words are mispelled, parts of sentences are missing, etc... But then again, we all realize, this is just part of what makes a comment and for the most part, deal with it. Now, maybe I should take advantage of the countdown and proofread this comment before its finalized...
Score: -4
|_Perhaps a little more emphasis on the "thinker" part of your name would help your terrible grammar and alleviate the "off the cuff" thoughtless remarks. From my point of view, it looks like your the one who will be, how did you put it, 'sucking it up' as you pay twice to get the OS that you should have only had to pay once for. Besides, I didn't say free - you would know this if you bothered to actually read before making your half-baked comments. Maybe you should consider changing your name to "indiedumb". It would certainly be more representative of what to expect. ;)
Score: 3
|I think as I type and that is my peragotive. If people do not like, that is fine with me. Just like how you resort to name calling because you do not like what I said and disagree with me?
I guess I am dumb because I paid nothing for legit copies of Windows Vista Ultimate and Windows 7. So if you paid a price greater than a penny, who received the short end of the stick?
Again, its your personal view that I'm paying twice to get the OS that you should have to only pay once for. I have had no problems with Vista.
Oh and the free comment, that was hyperbole to overstate all the people wanting Windows 7 for free, for $29.99 or any other price besides what Microsoft has offered at a promotional discount or their normal price.
Score: -3
|Fanboy. No content here. Move along people....
Score: -1
|If this was a save, then nice save. If this was intended to be a counter-point article (thank you for the insightful term, PC_Tool), it would have been nice to present it as such. It would have save people the time to post flammable comments and it would have saved Carmi from losing credibility with this crowd (I usually enjoy his articles, but found this one way waaaaay off, not only in the forum he decided to present it to, but on his actual beliefs on this particular upgrade).
Score: 2
|That would have been awesome. An article that's posted as a debate between Carmi and Scott on the merits/failures of Windows 7.
Now that's a a conversation I'd love to hear.
Go for it, Scott!
Score: 5
|Heh...
Good save, Sir.
Now, the "speed" issue...
I assume you are referring to actual benchmarks, which is great and all, but here's the real catch to that: They don't matter (as much) any more.
You fail to realize this in your Browser articles, and you've carried that to the OS.
Explanation: It's not the speed of the drive/CPU/RAM anymore to the average (non-gaming/non-transactional) user. It's the responsiveness of the OS and the usability of it.
XP was good.
Vista failed horribly.
Windows 7 blows XP out of the water.
I'm not fooling myself. I know it's not doing many things faster than it did in XP. What it does do is respond faster. The UI actively responds to everything I do, faster than XP ever did; And when the difference in "speed" with benchmarks is milliseconds, it takes a backseat to responsiveness and usability. Hands down.
"We can debate and we can rebut, and maybe one of us can be wrong, and we can be friends."
...if you only knew. ;) There was a user here...way back in the day..."rijp", I believe. He and I went at it worse than me and zridling/fathead/iTard7 combined. We also shared a "Google Docs" account and personally, got along very well. Heck, the guy across the hall from me in the next office spend most of our day attempting to utterly destroy the other's Ego. Of course, we also get together with our families on weekends for grilling, letting the kids play, etc...
I'm sorry, but when so many of the folks I know can take a *verbal* beating and not suffer from a complete ego meltdown, I simply cannot understand how *anyone* could take personally anything *posted* on the intarwebz by some anonymous blowhard (Yeah, that'd be me). So I hope the call for "civility" isn't on behalf of Carmi's hurt feelings. I had him pegged as a little less fragile than all that. ;)
Score: 1
|Oh, believe me, Carmi's a big boy. (Pooh hat and all.) The call for civility is all about improving the level of rhetoric that goes on around here. Reasonable people should not have to put up with some of this crap.
About your issues now: In the browser articles, I make certain to point out that one operating system is faster at running browsers than another, and that similar speeds may be seen with regard to how well one OS runs other apps than another. That's a limited extent. People feel Vista to be slow, and it is. You poke the dipstick anywhere in Vista, and it's dog slow. It's not Windows Me slow (dead sloth rotting in the desert slow), but it's slow.
And you are absolutely right about this: Windows 7 blows XP out of the water in the responsiveness category. I actually do want to see if I can prove that experimentally in a fair setting (I know, you're dreading the Ross Perot charts), but the reason I do charts and stuff like that is because I want to provide hard facts to back up what some readers might otherwise mistake for gut feelings. My gut, my eyes, and the hairs standing up on my arms (which is more than I can say for the top of my head) tell me that Windows 7 responds faster.
-SF "Maybe Microsoft Should Consider Trademarking 'Blink'" 3
Score: 1
|*Psst* He's Canadian.
/sorry
Score: 0
|"nd you are absolutely right about this: Windows 7 blows XP out of the water in the responsiveness category. I actually do want to see if I can prove that experimentally in a fair setting (I know, you're dreading the Ross Perot charts), but the reason I do charts and stuff like that is because I want to provide hard facts to back up what some readers might otherwise mistake for gut feelings."
I love it!
If you ever figure that out, I *want* to see it. I think people focus entirely too much on things they wouldn't actually notice in *using* the software they use. Benchmarks are great for games, transcoding, and pure number-crunching. They're all but useless nowadays when faced with responsiveness and usability. When they come out with a "responsiveness" benchmark, get on that, post-haste. :)
"(I know, you're dreading the Ross Perot charts)"
Where are the pictures of the Pooh Hat??
Score: -1
|You'll have to try a lot harder to offend me or get me upset. I'm amused by this whole process, and am rather enjoying seeing so many folks working themselves into a froth over something as seemingly mundane as an operating system.
I had this very little brouhaha in mind as I attended a friend's mother's funeral the other day. There are so many other things to worry about in life, and I'm glad we're all having a little fun before our own time runs out.
Beyond that, I can absolutely confirm that none of this is leading to lost sleep or raised blood pressure here. Onward...
Score: 0
|Thanks for the reminder, Scott. Soon it'll be cold enough here in the Great White North for me to start wearing it again. Happy days!
Score: 0
|I know our global reputation is that we're pacifists and eternally nice. I beg to differ.
Score: 0
|You're such a tech wizard...they're all online. Find 'em.
Score: 0
|This is a well stated and put together article. Well said.
XP is still an OS that I like but it is getting long in the teeth and I question just how long it will remain a viable OS. Support by hardware makers was lacking for XP x64 which pushed Windows x64 adopters to go with Vista which was less than stellar. Windows 7 does make up for what was lacking in Vista.
One thing I do have to say, however, is that I recently performed a Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate x64. The result was a nightmare of issues. Microsoft's Windows 7 Advisor said I was free and clear to upgrade without problems. That was a laugh. The Frankenstein result of the upgrade was simply unacceptable. I ended up performing a clean install. I have never recommended that anyone purchase an upgrade version of a Windows OS but they have been acceptable in the past. My experience with this particular upgrade was astoundingly bad and I foresee many many consumers who purchase the upgrade version of Windows 7 have issues. I expected better in the upgrade routine. A clean install is simply flawless and I am happy running Windows 7 Ultimate x64. The hardest transition is the new taskbar functionality.
Score: 1
|That is why you always do a clean install with the upgrade version.
Score: 2
|I have to admit this article made me laugh.
Congratulations on that save, Sir. Quite impressive.
You've forgotten, however, that as the Internet is in real-time but without the face-to-face contact of a proper debate (or perhaps the slow, non real-time of newspaper readers' comments pages) that people can and will say things with complete anonymity. What we say here is generally not what we'd say in real life where we'd flower our words a little. The Internet it would seem is somewhere that you must put aside your long-held beliefs of playing nice when debating and get straight to the cut and thrust of it because you have far less space and indeed time to do so. If someone (probably including me) points out that you're full of horse-s*** then yes, it's my view, but it's not something to be sad about or be afraid of getting in your comments section as long as you read some of the comments, ask for more details if someone’s called it horse-s***, and learn.
Needless to say, some writers here are more favoured than others and it’s a shame that Angela has gone in my opinion as she was one to do exactly that.
This place has gradually been feeling more and more like you’re (as a company) trying to just drag in the hits instead of thinking and writing properly first, or at least trying to disguise what you’re doing. And that is a shame.
Score: 0
|I've forgotten that people can and will say things with complete anonymity? Believe me, Paul, that's a sad little turd of a fact that I have shoved under my nose every hour. If it wasn't for this supposed "gift" of anonymity that the Internet continually presents us with, we might learn once again how to respect one another because we have differences, rather than throw asterisks at one another when we do. Maybe folks feel better about themselves by thinking this isn't, as you say, "real life where we'd flower our words a little." I live in the real world 24/7, I flower my words...well, all the time, and on behalf of real people everywhere, I think it's time that everyone get real.
Maybe the Woodstock people had it right.
-SF3
Score: 3
|But your assumption is wrong. Just turn the TV on these days and you will find plenty of examples of how people do not respect one another because of their differences. Remember those days in middle school, high school, or college? Look at politics, it is even worse. The internet is no different than day to day life except its magnified because we can do it with anonymity.
Score: 0
|If it's getting on your nerves as much as it clearly is, then perhaps BetaNews should think about acting on the warnings that appear below each comment box about personal attacks and foul language not being tolerated. I've not once seen that not be tolerated here.
I hold a different opinion of the Internet to what you do in that I really couldn't care less what people say about what I have to say. By that, I don't mean that if someone points out that I'm talking crap that I ignore it, but I ignore the "abuse" that goes with it as I presume that it is because of the necessity of brevity that people get to the sharp end of their point. If someone's being outright rude then hey, they're not in my face, they're letters on a page, if you can even consider them to be that.
The Internet isn't designed, as far as I can see at the current time, for long (book long) and wordy stories to prove a point. Comments sections are an even more exaggerated example of this. So from me at least you shouldn't care that I'm being blunt because I really don't care as much as it may seem. After all, this Internet business (the leisure side of it) is basically a frivolous waste of working time.
It's basically a massive stress-ball with the occasional added info to glean.
Score: -1
|Well, for most of my career, I've also been an editor, which means a great deal of my time is spent helping people rediscover brevity. (The irony of that fact is pointed out to me at every opportunity.) But if being brief means being rude and obnoxious and intolerable and unfriendly, then screw brevity.
-SF "Don't Show This to Any of My Writers, Though" 3
Score: 2
|"real life where we'd flower our words a little"
What?? What's this? Never heard of it.
N...wait. My sister does that. Can't stand the pretentious twit. ;)
Score: 0
|Exactly. I actually agree here. The Internet is actually in quite a bad state and has been shoved in to the big-time *way* before it's ready IMO. My point is not that slagging each other off is the correct way to go about things, more that because of the restraints of the web and its constant "feed me info now" culture that brevity is demanded and that this needs to change or be altered in order for civility to be regained. While this culture is still prevalent it is entirely unnecessary to get your knickers in a twist over a few faux-angry people on the interwebs.
What I think I’m actually trying to get at is not that brevity is wrong, per-se, but that brevity to the point that clarity is harmed is not the way to go and this is by the very nature of the Internet *exactly* where we’ve ended up.
The problem is achieving clarity in such a way that will still hold the reader's attention without tiring them out with too much to read on a screen.
With Carmi's article it feels like it was missing a massive back-story as to why he thought what he thought. "Call me old fashioned, but I'm a big believer in upgrading your OS when you upgrade your hardware." All his following claims were for past OSs and not with Windows 7. However, if he'd described why not to do it with Win7 specifically it probably would have gotten boring quickly.
And because he was brief and didn’t explain he got the expected brevity of reply, which was either going to be “oh god, what a long article” or “what the hell are you on about”.
If it wasn't missing a back-story then, well, it was wrong and the comments are to be expected for the aforementioned reasons.
That, and the title was pointlessly sensationalist.
This comment is a prime example of something being too long and becoming dull because of a lack of brevity which is exactly what I'm getting at. It's (hopefully) clear, but not brief.
As it happens I had an interesting idea while trying to explain my viewpoint on this to you. But more on that when I'm rich and famous.
Anyway, I'm very much starting to ramble, and it's getting pretty darn late.
Score: 0
|Interesting how alot of this article was defending Carmi..This is a betanews site that we come her to get the latest and greatest. Having an article out of the blue that says we should stay on a 8 year old OS is just stupid. Know your users....
Score: -1
|Out of the blue, no. Last year at this time, I was advising folks who were entrenched in XP to stick with XP. It wasn't stupidity for me to say, stick with a 7-year-old OS when the latest and greatest is already out there. There's an entire industry devoted to keeping XP running; you don't need "new" to be best or to even be good. Frankly, that's what our site is about and what it should always be about: testing for performance gains and making the move when it's prudent to do so. Not just blindly following the little rabbit as they slide it down the racetrack.
-SF3
Score: 1
|The irony is that most people's perception about Vista is guided by people who hate it in the industry who happened to be the loudest. Personally, I found Vista to be an improvement over XP because of UAC. My parents didn't mess up their computers as much as they did with XP. They have yet to have a problem with Vista. I've yet to have a problem with Vista installed on an old laptop and not a problem with my current desktop.
I get frequent questions about whether Vista is it really that bad? For the average user, its not. It really comes down to your own personal perception.
Score: 2
|Ok hold on. Is this like a debate thing here at Betanews and Carmi is Against and Scott is For? Because I think someone got the flamebait end of the stick.
Score: -1
|It's one of these "debate things," you used to see them all the time in, like...oh, what were they called...debates!
Score: 1
|Nah.. Debates were held together in a discussion or question and answer format.. This is more of a counter-point. ;)
Score: -1
|I saw it as one journalist cleaning up another journalists mess, to stave off the raging readers.
But "counter-point" works, I guess.
Score: 0
|And now a debate about debating! YEAY!
Score: 0
|Perhaps we could call it a "mass debate".
/again, sorry
Score: 1
|Hehe... Took me a second. Nice, Paul. :p
Score: 0
|LOL...Ok Mr. F, I was using the word 'thing' in and of itself, not as a part of debate, so I never meant a 'debate thing', I meant a debate 'thing' and the ACTUAL word I was thinking about was counterpoint! Sooooo don't you get an attitude with mr Mr!
And if this IS that sort of viewpoint, where is Carmi to discuss his views in contrast to yours and the commenters?
Score: 0
|"Folks who have used Windows for a decade and complained every moment of the time, should sit back and take their medicine."
Folks who have used nothing else but Windows for two decades should sit back and try alternative systems once in a while.
Score: 0
|"Folks who have used nothing else but Windows for two decades should sit back and try alternative systems once in a while."
I have, Ubuntu, and Mac OS X. Is this really the best the "competition" has to offer?
Score: 0
|"If you own a machine running Windows Vista right now, I cannot conjure any technical reason whatsoever why you should avoid upgrading to Windows 7"
How about Vista is a bloated broken pig which slows monster hardware down to a crawl? But why should i pay Microsoft for a service pack to fix Vista? That is why people should not pay to upgrade as you are implying. Microsoft should give anyone who had the displeasure of using the broken OS, a free copy of the service pack, Vista 7
Score: -9
|...and then the Fatman waits for the next Microsoft article.
I'm not sure which side you are on anymore. You make Microsoft haters look like fat strange people with no life.
You are really doing some serious damage to your beloved Apple.
Score: 1
|The suggestion to install Windows 7 on a second hard drive is cute, however I don't think you can buy the Upgrade version to do that. I think you would need the full version of Windows 7. How much is that running for? $300?
Score: -5
|If the install is like Vista, you could do it utilizing the upgrade. It would just take an extra 30 minutes. Big deal.
Score: 0
|Since I buy a new computer every few years, I'll just get it on the next one. My hope for Windows 7 is that unlike Vista, I won't have to waste time upgrading to XP. I agree with Carmi that upgrading old computers is problematic, lots of weird hardware, some of which probably isn't working right anymore. Don't really need a new operating system to browse the web, run business applications and play games anyway.
Score: -5
|You "buy" a new computer every few years? whatever happened to building one... if you "buy" a computer you do not need to worry about upgrading hardware or OS... you are a best buy shopper.
Score: 3
|smist:
Both you and Carmi are dealing with a short memory issue. That's not a slam or a shot, just a sign of the times, I am afraid.
Let me explain (Sorry, Paul):
Older hardware was an issue with vista. But why? What hardware?
Why is Windows 7 so much more compatible with current hardware than Vista was? Probably the easiest reason would be to figure that "Microsoft learned their lesson and got hardware partners on board this time", but it would be incorrect. The reality is simply that it had only to account for 3 years time between releases. Vista had 6+ years of hardware to account for between the XP and Vista release. 6 years. Think about that a moment. It's a *lot* of hardware.
With Windows 7, the lapse is back to 3 years and there is far less that need be "added" to the compatibility list.
What people forgot over that 6 year lapse was that a system made for Win 3.11 probably wouldn't have worked very well with Windows 98. The only difference is that Windows 95 provided a buffer. That buffer didn't exist with Vista.
Now, this doesn't mean Vista wasn't without it's faults. It was developed using a very poor methodology and as such, was released with many features not being fully functional, not tested, or simply not there. They completely overhauled their development methodology (Check the Engineering Windows 7 blog...first several posts) for Windows 7 in order to avoid making the same mistake twice. :)
Score: 1
|I tend to agree, why the hardware upgrade to an OS that runs faster and smoother than the current one?
Score: 0
|Wow! A Scott Fulton article WITHOUT one of the browser tables! *golf clap*
Good article btw, just had to throw in that little jab ;-)
Score: 0
|Crap! I knew something was missing! Hang on...UPDATE FORTHCOMING!!!...
-SF3
Score: 2
|rofl.
The sense of humor we all know and (usually) appreciate. ;)
Score: 0
|Perhaps a table comparing OS speeds ;-) *ducks from flying objects for giving out ideas*
Score: 0
|EUR-R-R-REKA!
-SF "Do Not Disturb" 3
Score: 1
|The irony, he responds to this article but never responds to all the speed table articles.
Score: 0
|That is not true... he has very actively engaged in conversations about percentage theory with me on some of his speed table articles.
Score: 0
|That's good, I haven't seen a response in a while since I started following them.
Score: 0
|Having just come from reading the comments on Carmi's latest treasure, the headline on this article made me LOL.
Score: 1
|Got W98se xp Vista and W7 on different pcs laptops netbooks etc.But 80% of the time i am
using Ubuntu.As it just works no fuss no viruses etc no hassle, unless you have an Ati card.
If the only reason to upgrade is sleep mode works: Microsoft and the dodo have much in common.
Score: -4
|I'm missing something here. If a user has an old machine that could use a serious upgrade or replacement in terms of today's average standards, then they hardly seem the type that would a candidate for dual boot setup. In fact, I have an AMD X2, three HDDs and have been programming and using computers since the mid 1960s, and I try to avoid dual boot set ups. I use XP/SP3 and don't have an opinion about Win 7 per se (tho I put my money down), except to say I don't see why the average user should be (or will be) in a hurry to complicate their lives by adding something that is new and relatively unknown and that they might not be able to fix easily, when what they have gets them by well enough.
Score: 0
|Whereas others, don't even limit themselves to a "DualBoot" setup, My /ancient/ 2005 system has been configured to TripleBoot from the main HD, and a couple other unused partitions scattered across other drives (if needed). If you have ever had a windows problem, just think how much easier it would be to boot into a second working system to diagnose and/or replace files.
Score: 0
|