Windows 7, would you switch?

[SeijiSensei]

For most home users, the kinds of problems Vexx is talking about don't really arise. That doesn't mean they don't arise in business settings, though.

Vista doesn't play nicely with older Windows networking protocols, for instance. I have a friend whose office has used peer-to-peer Windows networking for years, but getting a new Vista Business machine to work in that environment has been quite frustrating. Remember MS also wants to sell businesses Sharepoint, Exchange, Active Directory, and the like, and Vista is designed to work well with them. Complaining that Vista doesn't work well in legacy networking settings usually gets the reply, "well, why don't you install an AD server, and while you're at it, why not migrate to Exchange and maybe Sharepoint, too?"

Then you have the accumulated years of in-house applications that were developed to work in the 98/XP world and may, or may not, work correctly in Vista. Hell, most larger businesses don't enable automatic updating of their workstations because they can't be sure that MS will include some patch that takes down a key legacy application. That means each update needs to be tested before distribution, sometimes for weeks, which is a recipe for exposing your staff to zero-day exploits.

Finally you have the problem of office workers who, in the words of that same friend, "will say they can't do their work if you move an icon on their desktop." Presenting those people with a new desktop metaphor is a recipe for disaster. Training might help, but there are lots of people who are pretty resistant to "training."

[Miles Teg]

And another problem for Vista in business settings is that to have the same level of performance as XP, you would need a stronger processor and more RAM (and a better video card if you want aero). In the end the one who decide will simply take the less expensive computer with XP knowing that XP works perfectly fine for what they are doing.

[KholdStare]

It's interesting how every discussion about Microsoft eventually turns into XP vs. Vita.

But yeah, if you're cautious let those who wants to test it test it. Reviews have never failed me, as long as you don't take them too seriously. I use them to get the "gist" of things. When people say Vista fail, I interpret that as cons outweight the pros but not necessarily mean Vista is unusable. When people said XP failed, Microsoft released SP2 and that pretty much shut up most people. If there's any indication that Windows 7 is "not a big improvement" but has no major flaws, then I will interpret that as, "What a great operation system."

[Vexx]

So far it looks like the new OS is going to simply be a rebranded "Vista Service Pack Win7". Not necessarily bad but not necessarily what the business sector was looking for. I suspect XP will get another extension when the large corporate players get a look...

I'd still like them to drop the whiney "call us if you change your hardware" BS... but that's just an annoyance to DIY and testlab people like me.

As far as the thread title question goes... I'll probably use Windows 7 on my game-focused machine, its running Vista at the moment. However, I've had to repair the OS at least 7 or 8 times (registry corruption, boot sector splorch, hibernate insanity) in its year of existence -- something I've never had to do with any other version of Windows (even WinME was more stable for me).

My "everything else and work" machine will depend on what suits my work, study, and communication needs. Currently, its XP. If Windows 7 proves wonderful and runs the apps I need, I may upgrade to that at some point. If I can use Ubuntu and be able to use equivalent applications and devices, I'll use that because it would save a lot of money.

I am in the need of upgrading my laptop (an old Thinkpad that is running Win2Ksp4+). Trying to decide whether to wait for Windows 7 laptops or to insist on XP Pro. My son and his girlfriend both have Vista OS laptops (1 Dell, 1 Sony VAIO) and each laptop has had periodic farts.

[-Sho-]

Originally Posted by CollectDust

Vista is being hated because people tried it once long time ago or heard rumours. I'm not sure so don't crit me but Vista is getting more support than XP. Now days, some product can be only worked on Windows Vista (Like PC games). The reason I think is because they want people to start buying Vista so that they can get profit.

I've used vista for about almost 2 years now and I love it. Its only negative side I think is those "Would you like to continue?" pop ups. Very annoying.

Vista is GOOD ENOUGH for me therefore I will never buy Window 7.

Please don't hate Vista just because you don't own it. And if you own it and used it for long period of time and still hate it, well you don't make sence. You hate the product yet continue to use it. lul.

Well , vista is now good because gladly they make SP1 ! Yeah now i don't have any problems with vista !
For the "would you like to continue?" you can disabled it .

[terrydy]

I am still currently on Ubuntu (Mac), Mac OS X 10.5.6 (Mac), Windows XP dual-booted Windows Vista Home Premium (Laptop PC)

[terrydy]

My preference is still WinXP, Ubuntu, Mac OS X, and WinVista goes last.

[Deadly Delusion]

I will switch to Windows 7 maybe a year or so after release. Every version of Windows has had a large amount of problems at launch which have eventually been rooted out.

[Epyon9283]

I've been using the beta and it's definitely an improvement over Vista. The new task bar is pretty nice. Windows Media Player's interface is much improved. I doubt I'll switch over to it at home. It's still Windows and windows still annoys the hell out of me. I'll probably stick with OS X unless Snow Leopard blows. Then I'll probably go back to Linux or something.

[sa547]

Judging from the consensus, maybe use it later once it's final. It'll take months to find (with exacting detail) and correct the deficiencies in Win7, not to mention multiple builds to go through. This is the domain of the hardcore beta tester, who knows what to find, including security flaws.

Still, some things will never go away, like, uhm, exploits.

[Hamsta]

Originally Posted by Deadly Delusion

I will switch to Windows 7 maybe a year or so after release. Every version of Windows has had a large amount of problems at launch which have eventually been rooted out.

i'll do the same ^^
vista would be great if there weren't those problems (network unfriendly, slowly) ... but microsoft saw their mistakes and '7' becomes something like a vista update
today, in some months or at least in some years you'll need a 64-bit OS (eyeryone use his computer in a different way)
i would say vista failed as much as millennium

[Solafighter]

I´ll do the same to wait till some time.

I hope(not sure because i didnt read the whole theard) windows 7 will be like vista but with less compatibily problems and less performance sucking.

From my point of view, the performance is very important, since you want to use the fullest of your hardware for the software you want to work with instead of putting a lot performance into windows itself, to keep it running.

[frankystar]

windows 7 boast about the booting speed I guest much more faster then the booting time of windows xp and vista. At the same time much more specs friendly then vista. I plan to ran it in my old pc with just 1 gig of ram 80 gig hard disk and ati radeon video card.

[Vexx]

um, yeah, good luck with that o.O

[Claies]

Originally Posted by frankystar

windows 7 boast about the booting speed I guest much more faster then the booting time of windows xp and vista. At the same time much more specs friendly then vista. I plan to ran it in my old pc with just 1 gig of ram 80 gig hard disk and ati radeon video card.

Right now I'm wondering if you're joking. I'll reply as if you're not.

Vista and Windows 7 are ridiculously unfriendly towards anything produced before, say, 2006. Just because 7 is advertised as specs friendly doesn't mean you should tempt it.

I still find myself facepalming when I see high schools investing in XP upgrades to machines I estimate to be from 1999.

[grey_moon]

Problem with switching apps and basing it on memory is that as soon as you use a little memory in Windows (TM) it likes to swap. On my lappy which is faster (cpu and mem) then my old desktop it is actually slower coz it has a slower hard drive and vista keeps the little bugger spun up doing gad knows what.

I'll test 7 when it is on general release via the msndaa and when asus have released all the drivers for it. Not going to spend any time at all troubleshooting it as all I do is play guild wars with it.

[aeriolewinters]

I'm currently using Beta Build 7000 and as of now: I'm impressed. It boots faster than my XP SP3, It loads things faster than XP can.... and I'm using 512 DDR(133MHz) RAM , Though Claies is right about the hardware compatibility.... But most mid-range Systems can afford to install it. Also, I only have this problem because my Graphics chipset is REALLY OLD. Anyone who bought a System today can run 7 Flawlessly faster compared to both XP and Vista:

Here's a screenie:

Spoiler for Screenie:

[KholdStare]

I've never updated Windows so I don't know, but if I have Vista, do I have to get new drivers or something? Simply put, what else would I need to do except put in a Windows 7 DVD?

[sa547]

Originally Posted by KholdStare

I've never updated Windows so I don't know, but if I have Vista, do I have to get new drivers or something? Simply put, what else would I need to do except put in a Windows 7 DVD?

Yep, getting new drivers is one way to ensure that all hardware works the first time.

[-Sho-]

With vista i boot 10-20 sec . So for the boot in W7 i don't care if it will be less ...
My friend said the windows systems are good and the band transparent is cool .