Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey all, here is my situation. I'm definitely what you'd consider a techie. I'm into reading/learning about all the latest gadgets and software on the market. So now that Microsoft seems to have released an OS that is worth talking about, I'm torn on whether it's worth the investment. Along with being a tech nut, I'm also extremely frugal. Kind of an oxymoron if you think about it (since technology is an expensive hobby).
I'm currently running Vista Home 32-bit on my laptop, though my processor is capable of a 64-bit OS. I'd like to upgrade my memory to 4 gigs and do a fresh install of Win7. The problem is I'm looking at a $210 investment (from Newegg). Being as frugal as I am, I like to do a cost/benefit analysis of all my purchases. I'd like that all of my purchases bring increased comfort or productivity to my life. Is Windows 7 capable of this???
As far as Vista goes, it hasn't given me any major issues that I can think of. I admit that it does run a bit slow, particularly with starting up and shutting down. Also, lately I've been having some Internet connectivity issues that I believe were initially related to a faulty router, but now seems like it might have something to do with the OS or some other software glitch. Either way, I'm looking to do a fresh install on my computer.
So can any of you Win7 users give me some solid advantages to upgrading to Win7? Why should a frugal techie like me consider upgrading to 7?
PS, Can you install Windows 7 Home Premium on multiple computers in your home or do you need to purchase a separate license for each? The reason I ask is because I'm considering building a Home Theater PC and I wanted to know if I could use it for that if need be.
Havent upgraded myself but was at my boys house this weekend and he said windows 7 is like twice as fast compared to vista. He said it kicks ass in his words. Im still using Xp so who knows :P
I'm the same way, that's why I got my copy of Windows 7 Ultimate at a MS event.
Sorry that doesn't help you out though...
I'm guessing you didn't try the beta out at all? Well I can tell you that it is the best OS aside from OSX.
I love the 'snap' features and the new task bar. On my Vista work computer it frustrates me sometimes because I can't do those things. Other than that Vista works OK.
So I guess you're in quite a pickle. I'd say, if you haven't tried Windows 7 then you don't know what you're missing. But if you do try it and use it you'll come to love it.
BTW you must purchase a licensed copy for each computer. There are 'family packs' but I don't know if they're still available or what.
The difference between Vista and Windows 7 is that Vista was created to make the dual core processor neccessary which is what Intel needed to out compete AMD at the time. Windows XP runs great with single core processor and DDR ram. Window Vista was made to be more dependent on cache space of processor, and demanded a faster quantity of ram to run vista smoothly. Lap tops that usually have a dual core processor, and 2 to 4 gb of ram when vista hit the market orginally. Lap tops make up 80% of the computer market now. Lap tops did not run Vista Well. What is needed to run vista well is a very good motherboard, quad core processor, and 8 gb of higher end ddr 2 ram. All of these make a lap top very warm inside. Window 7 was designed for the laptop market. It runs great on dual cores with 2 to 4 gb of ram. I have a quad core desk top system with vista 64 and 8 gb of ddr2 ram and it runs vista with no hick ups at all. I have of dual core desk top system with 4 gb of ddr2 ram with windows 7 and it runs it great. I had vista on this system before and it was slow because the dual core was not enough for vista. Vista was desinged to make us all give up our xp systems with single core processors, and move into the world of dual cores and beyond..............................Windows 7 makes your lap top run like greased lighting.
The difference between Vista and Windows 7 is that Vista was created to make the dual core processor neccessary which is what Intel needed to out compete AMD at the time. Windows XP runs great with single core processor and DDR ram. Window Vista was made to be more dependent on cache space of processor, and demanded a faster quantity of ram to run vista smoothly. Lap tops that usually have a dual core processor, and 2 to 4 gb of ram when vista hit the market orginally. Lap tops make up 80% of the computer market now. Lap tops did not run Vista Well. What is needed to run vista well is a very good motherboard, quad core processor, and 8 gb of higher end ddr 2 ram. All of these make a lap top very warm inside. Window 7 was designed for the laptop market. It runs great on dual cores with 2 to 4 gb of ram. I have a quad core desk top system with vista 64 and 8 gb of ddr2 ram and it runs vista with no hick ups at all. I have of dual core desk top system with 4 gb of ddr2 ram with windows 7 and it runs it great. I had vista on this system before and it was slow because the dual core was not enough for vista. Vista was desinged to make us all give up our xp systems with single core processors, and move into the world of dual cores and beyond..............................Windows 7 makes your lap top run like greased lighting.
Windows 7 will also make your quad core desktop 64-bit 8 Gb run faster.
Try the local mom / pop computer shop and ask how much an OEM version is. Or, you can just buddy up with an IT guy from work, and see if he can get you a license key if you have an Enterprise Agreement.
The difference between Vista and Windows 7 is that Vista was created to make the dual core processor neccessary which is what Intel needed to out compete AMD at the time. Windows XP runs great with single core processor and DDR ram. Window Vista was made to be more dependent on cache space of processor, and demanded a faster quantity of ram to run vista smoothly. Lap tops that usually have a dual core processor, and 2 to 4 gb of ram when vista hit the market orginally. Lap tops make up 80% of the computer market now. Lap tops did not run Vista Well. What is needed to run vista well is a very good motherboard, quad core processor, and 8 gb of higher end ddr 2 ram. All of these make a lap top very warm inside. Window 7 was designed for the laptop market. It runs great on dual cores with 2 to 4 gb of ram. I have a quad core desk top system with vista 64 and 8 gb of ddr2 ram and it runs vista with no hick ups at all. I have of dual core desk top system with 4 gb of ddr2 ram with windows 7 and it runs it great. I had vista on this system before and it was slow because the dual core was not enough for vista. Vista was desinged to make us all give up our xp systems with single core processors, and move into the world of dual cores and beyond..............................Windows 7 makes your lap top run like greased lighting.
Wow, thanks the that explanation. That's actually pretty interesting.
Well guys I caved in and got Windows 7 64-bit. I'm running it now on my laptop and I am absolutely loving it. So much faster and smoother than Vista. I also haven't been experiencing the minor problems I had with Vista. I'm about to put in an order for 4 gigs of RAM to Newegg and I should be good to go.
Thanks for all the advice. And long live Windows 7!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
