Windows 7 - To Buy or Not to Buy? Discussion

Windows 7 hits the streets Thursday, and with it something rather new from a recent Microsoft operating system: Positive reviews. Does this mean you should definitely update your OS -- and maybe your entire system -- just for the sake of embracing Windows 7? Or is this just another hypefest that will end in tears a la Windows Vista? We break it down in this buyer's guide.

First thing's first, Windows 7 isn't a revolutionary new operating system, it's just a remarkably solid and polished OS. While that means Windows 7 is wildly superior to the first incarnation of Windows Vista, it's not a drop-everything-and-upgrade operating system. If your current PC is running to your satisfaction, there's likely nothing in Windows 7 so jaw-dropping or productivity-enhancing that you'll be compelled to replace your current OS or, more substantially, your complete system. Windows Vista, for all its faults, has been rounded into shape with Service Pack 3 and likely won't give you any serious trouble in the near future. Windows XP will enjoy full Microsoft support until April 8, 2014, so there's no reason to worry about upgrading your XP box anytime soon.

On the flipside, Windows 7 is such a well-designed operating system that there's absolutely no reason not to choose it as your OS for any new Windows PC purchases, so long as the system you're choosing can run Windows 7. On the latter point, Microsoft has been suitably chastened. Unlike the Windows Vista labeling fiasco -- which saw several PCs rated as Vista-capable when they could only muster the strength to boot the OS, not run any applications and/or the Aero graphic interface -- Microsoft is now allowing Windows 7 labels only on PCs that are actually up to snuff.

Read the full content of this Article: Windows 7 - To Buy or Not to Buy?

Related Articles:

• Holiday Software Buyers Guide 2009
• Windows 7 - A Guide to the Editions
• Microsoft Pushing Windows 7 64-bit Compatibility
• What DirectX 11 (and Windows 7) Means for Gamers
• Atom N270/280 Netbooks May Not Get Windows 7 Upgrade
• Microsoft, Intel to Limit Windows 7 Netbooks to 10.2"
• Microsoft Windows 7 Release Candidate Review
• Windows 7 to have "XP Mode", Special Requirements

 

There seems to be a lot of support from the business community for Windows 7. At work they are already planning an update of most, if not all desktops and notebooks to Windows 7. I have heard similar stories from many of our partners. This is a company that did not update from NT to XP till the end of 2004 (after SP2 came out) and never updated or considered updating to Vista.
I think a lot of companies and consumers too feel it is time for an upgrade. Many systems are handicapped by XP which doesn't make good use of multi core CPUs or SSDs. Windows 7 is not perfect but at least better. Also I think a lot of people want to make use of 64bits with this upgrade. XP 64bit is a pain with bad driver and application support. Many computers sold now have 4GB or ram and I just saw that the new notebooks the IT department ordered will come with 6GB DDR3. So Windows 7 is coming at a good time.

 

Sure they feel like it's time to upgrade, but spare me the XP doesn't make good use of multi core CPU's and SSD's... maybe when our favorite programs are 64bit apps you can make the argument for the cpu.

Besides direct X 11, it's virtually (literally) the same as Vista with some visual enhancements, perhaps more user friendly, multitouch, and some skeptical power enhancement claims.

I prefer 32bit XP as there are less processes eating away at the CPU, and all programs run.

If you need to get business done, I'd say XP is still tried and true. 'XP mode', why doesn't one just run XP?

I saw a benchmark where 8GB of DDR3 over 4GB of DDR2 only provided 2-10% improvement in the harshest of applications or while running 10 * + instances of firefox for example...

 

Maybe my case is a bit to special since one of my main tasks is to run virtual machines. Not a scientific test but running MS office (mostly visio and project) on the host and a VM switching between programs is a lot snappier in Windows 7. The SSD stuff I just read about. Windows 7 is supposed to detect them and optimize. Don't know if it works.

 

I disagree with this. There are a lot more changes under the hood that you do not see. Just to name one thing, services were majority overhauled. So don't say it's the same as Vista.

 

Totally agree with Angelic

Its totally not the same as Vista. It has better search, better UI, better UAC, DX11, Sound... the list goes on and on.

I personally would upgrade for the SSD optimization.

 

You could ARom, but I remind you that you know how to do these things, and you know how to run XP better than a regular consumer. For the mainstream, that did not know how to enhance Vista to run, and Win7 coming out being better, is a good thing.

A regular consumer does not know how to tweak around the OS, configs, etc, so they stick to the original OS, whichever this is. Now, being Win7 arguably different than Vista, it is more user friendly, and according to the OP, it feels better and smoother and faster, so for the regular (non savvy) person, that is a major upgrade.

And indeed some changes were made. DX11, Tessellation is supported, it has better support for multitouch, it is "simplified" without all those Vista "bumps", and to the regular person, it is better/faster/more responsive.

 

I would get W7 if I could.

 

I tried Win7 RC and found that there's isn't that much significant difference from Vista. I will stay with Vista... for now. It's ironic that most people who loves XP and hated Vista are now content to cross over to Win7 and all the while it's actually a modified Vista OS!

 

New to the forum but wanted to have my say. How many times has a new OS come out and people have jumped on the bandwagon only to complain about it a few months down the line due to the amount of flaws in it. Totally understand that a new product has to be tested by the general population before everyday flaws are exposed but I personally will hang on for a few months till all the flaws are ironed out.

 

I've played around with seven. I'd definitely say it's more polished than Vista, but at the end of the day, for me it doesn't offer me anything that XP does not. Why spend the money?

 

Does XP mode require Virtualization Technology?

 

simply put ..yes..
the windows 7 home premium version does not come with xp mode though..you'd have to buy professional, ultimate or enterprise

 

For me VISTA stays greatest even after trying 7. I have got 7 Ultimate Signature Edition, but I have downgraded back to my Vista Ultimate as it has better look (for me). The only thing I liked about 7 is the background operations. Miss it on Vista, but could not really see any speed bumps, having 7 installed. Now Vista really does everything I need, plus features, which 7 Ultimate does not have... (no sidebar; taskbar looks strange and less flexible, where is my HOLD'EM???)
I am a bit sad about 7...

 

If you dont want you W7 I would like to have it.

 

Been using Win7 for over a month now and not much to say about it. Not a bad thing, though I never had any issues with Vista either.

 

I've been using 7 since they released the beta to the public and now I have the final version installed. I too am surprised that many people who hated Vista and stuck with XP because of Vista's UI changes are now saying 7 is great. To me Vista and 7 are closer than XP and 7.

For me 7 is a lot better than Vista. Like many are saying, 7 is what Vista should have been. Or 7 is Vista refined. You can really tell that Microsoft put a lot of attention into usability. The small changes like being able to dock windows using the windows key are nice features that I use a lot. I've wanted to be able to move task bar items around since forever and now 7 can do it.

The taskbar itself is pretty easy to use. People say it's a copy of the OSX doc but I don't really see it. I never really liked the OSX doc but 7's taskbar is like old Windows task bar with more features.

On top of that 7's improvements come with very little increase in requirements and resources used. If anything 7's been faster and more responsive than Vista has been for me. One thing I notice is that 7 does not thrash my harddrive like Vista did everytime I installed a new program.

XP still works, but 7's got a lot to offer. I don't see a reason to go back to XP or Vista if you have 7.

 

You realize...you can download games, right?
Secondly, the Sidebar is AWFUL.

It resized your desktop windows and was more of a nuisance than of any practical use. I hated the damn thing.

IT ALSO ATE UP MEMORY AND RUINED START UP TIMES!

I love how they got rid of the Gadgets being tethered to the sidebar, and instead allowing them to operate independently.

 

You have said that I can download HOLD'EM for win 7? From where? You know, I do have wide screen and side bar is really a big thing for me. Why to cut it off? Why not to keep an option of having it or not?

 

^^Yeah, more choices are always a good thing.

Im interested in seeing if they will offer student discounts.

 

I like the Sidebars too specially the Margu-NotebookInfo2. To each his own I guess. I will probably switch but will wait 'till SP1 comes out.

 

Good point. Out of the box, I'd take Win7 over Vista any day. For that matter, I'd take it over Vista even with Vista tweaking any day, but for the average consumer buying a new computer, Win7 is definitely a step up over Vista.

It does. And it appears the T5550 you have does not sport Virtualization Technology. You'd still have the option of running XP in a different virtualization environment such as VirtualBox or Virtual PC 2007 (both free) if you acquire a separate license of XP, but you wouldn't have the built-in integration that XP Mode offers (though it would work with Win7 Home Basic/Home Premium/Starter). Alternatively, upgrading to a T5600 (which offers virtually no other benefit whatsoever) or a T7xxx/T9xxx with an 800 MHz FSB would give you virtualization technology.

I agree. Win7 is better than Vista, but if you really prefer XP over Vista, chances are pretty low that whatever it was you disliked about Vista is fundamentally different in Win7. Win7 is more than a service pack slapped on Vista, but it's still Vista at its base, with all its flaws and benefits. Hence why I'll be sticking with XP over Windows 7, at least for the medium term.

Or, as I tell people who are thinking of buying a new computer but are putting it off because of Vista, Win7 will be a better option than Vista, but it's still more similar to Vista than XP.

If you are in the UK or US, and have a .edu email, you can buy it for 30 pounds/ 30 dollars. Alternatively, if you are studying computing or engineering, it often is inexpensive for computing or engineering students to join the ACM or IEEE, which include MSDNAA membership, which used to allow downloading of the Windows 7 RTM. They recently removed it, leaving just XP and Vista (and variants thereof such as Server), but they probably will add it again once all the hoopla and people trying to scam the system who aren't really computing/engineering students dies down.

 

I didn't buy it, yet I'm using it for a month now - thanks to MSDN Academic Alliance (or whatever they call it now).

It's working pretty flawlessly so far, but TBH I see no major functional advantages over XP on my (older) systems - so I guess if I couldn't have gotten it for free I wouldn't have pensioned off XP.

Maybe support of the 'TRIM'-command is a big advantage but I'm not yet using a SSD, so...

 

The fundamental issues with Vista have not been addressed.

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Microsofts need for revenue stream bump does not mean we should close our eyes to the fundamental architectural issues with their product.

Microsoft delivers nothing of value. And users can not distinguish that.
http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/embed/22470997

So, No I wont be buying 7. I wont buy anything that does not deliver value.

 

If MS delivers nothing of value then I gather you're not using any of their products? Sorry to say but it's basically a Windows world out there.

 

I thought that Auckland article was de-bunked as FUD. Can't remember when or where, but something that nastily negative oozes bias.

They deliver nothing of value? Have you tried out Vista or W7 and compared against XP as far as user experience, security, and other features go?

If you want to stick with XP or some other OS, fine. But for many, Windows operations systems do have value. After all, it is an integral component of the computer that lets you run all sorts of useful applications.

 

First, you have to do a fresh install -period.
Secondly, windows 7 is worth a $30 upgrade from vista... paying $110 is a waste.
Should have waited till that new computer came with windows 7 (all you impusle buyers who bought pc's with an "upgrade")

 

Personally I have never had any issues with Vista and will be sticking with it until I upgrade my system. I still say that Windows 7 really should have been Vista Service Pack 3 (or 4, I forget which one we are on now but you get the point), or at the very least should be free for Vista users.

 

Huh? davidkeniber, may I ask what is your point?
Was it not worth to buy Vista, in expectation to Win7?

 

As you will note on the site there was a furious effort to try and debunk the points in the article. Pete has some of the emails linked.

But no, no one refuted the points in the article. Some just said "This is FUD" and moved on. But you could actually read the article. and the rebuttal. Or you could just say FUD and keep going.

Are you suggesting Vista and W7 are more secure and have a better "User Experience" than XP? That these brand new OS are more secure than a mature updated 7 year old OS? That these new OS have improved software compatibility on the same hardware? What the heck is a User Experience? Sounds like someone selling somebody something?

That my company cannot get everything they give for free?
The temp in my office works fine on ubuntu. The spread sheet she made this morning is just fine. And she can watch youtube, but the videos are choppy. So she does not do that as much and sticks to the tasks assigned to her. Wanna guess how old her PC is?

So ya. Delivers nothing of value. Delivers NOTHING for the dollar spent that the competition doesn't deliver for free.

The only thing I use XP for is playing games. Which IMHO it does better than the newer OS. And XP is free from all the old licences. And I only put it on certain laptops to keep productivity up.

 

If you have a 64 bit cpu and 4gb buy 64 bit win 7, otherwise just stay with xp or vista or what ever.

Remember people ms may have bloggers on these boards too, to push sales of 7. Rubbish company that they are.

 

and XP will do 3GB, so only if you need the last GB.

That would make a neat performance test. 4GB laptop with xp and win7. benchmark go!

 

To those who already use Win7, how many processes are running as OS? And on XP? On Vista?

 

Untweaked.

http://windows7news.com/2009/06/30/windows-7-and-its-running-processes/
says 50-60

 

I will probably use Win7 just because I will buy one of the new CULV notebooks which comes with Win7. I still have a couple of new copies of XP. Whether I use one of them is to be determined...

For a small/weak notebook or netbook, I am not sure in what aspect Win 7 is an improvement over XP. I don' like that those new fancy UI gadgets occupy the precious screen real estate. And I hate the explorer of Vista with humongous folder and no option to choose really small icons.

And I don't use SSD, or probably I do not need better parallel execution because I moslty run only browser, email client, music player, text editor, and terminal.

I really don't understand mainstream media only compare Win7 with Vista and not XP. It's like comparing Ford and GM and claiming with delight that Ford makes better cars without looking at Toyota or Honda... Comparison of the losers and determine which sucks less. The real rival for Win 7 must be XP, for corporate market as well as personal market.

 

Thanks prime.
30-35 vs 50-60 a nice improvement if you ask me...

 

30-35 XP to 50-60 Win7. Do you mean a DISimprovement?

 

I'm running XP x64 and have win7 in a virtual machine. From what I can tell 7 is snappier than vista but I don''t really see the benefit of it over xp.

 

There's no reason not to use Windows 7 if it comes on your new computer pre installed.

On the other hand, even though I bought a pre-order for it I probably wouldn't be bothering to install it right away. I don't think there is anything in 7 that really gets my attention to switch, dealing with drivers, tweaking it, backing up and restoring etc seems too much effort now. I initially only wanted to use XP Mode on 7 but then I did wonder why I would want to use XP when I had 7...

I have never bought an OS apart from the one you get with your computer and I think part of was due to the cheap pre-order price...

 

I'm running win7 ultimate. I like it over vista premium. I get a lot of use out of the libraries, home group, jump lists, snap, etc. My system seems to use half the memory it did under windows premium.

With that said, I wouldn't pay to upgrade. I'd wait until I got a new machine that came with it.

 

Exactly. Let's see more tests comparing XP and W7. As a long-time & satisfied XP user, I see absolutely no reason to "upgrade" to W7. I suspect that even though many of Vista's quirks have supposedly been fixed, any new OS will have to go through growing pains before its truly proficient.

My main concern is that when I'm ready to buy a new machine, pre-installed versionf of XP will not be available and M$ will contrive to make it difficult to install XP over W7.

 

Personally, I've found Vista to be better in almost every way to XP. It is more stable than XP, hasn't crashed as often as XP did, haven't had any issues with compatibility with either, better looking, and even have better battery life. Windows 7, even fairly new, is at least just as good as Vista. Of course it always takes time for software and drivers to be released before full functionality can be had.

 

Lets put it this way

XP has been around far longer than any other OS. It was strange it lasted that long, but we must remember, when it came out, it was BUGGY, it had tons of errors, crashes and it was a mess, until SP1 came out. And since it has been around for so long, it is very stable and very good in performance. That is why people like it.

Now, Vista. This had the problem that when launched, the power-hungry Vista, many laptop were launched as Vista "capable", which of course, could ran Vista, but barely, and Vista got stained by that terribly. On the crashing area, it was never that different from XP beginnings...only that the "capable" machines that could not do anything more than supporting the Aero interface barely, made this still coming OS even worse. And Vista became equal to crash, error, problems for most users, and I admit, me included by that time.

Win7 came out as a refined Vista, yes. Basically that is what it is. A simplified, more friendly and stable Vista, basically Vista was a rough diamond, Win7 is after working on that brute diamond. Something that win7 has over Vista is that it runs less processes on the background, it is "lighter", and has a native XP emulator (on beta still) but came with some enhancements.

Out of the box, win7 is better, as a starting OS right now, it is equal than Vista which is on SP2 AFAIK...

Is it worth for you? Well, if XP gets the job done, you dont need the 64bit OS (higher RAM) and you are happy with it, why change?

 

This is such a fanboy article!!!! why the heck is it even listed on top????

If you don't know and/or can't find faults to a product and can only sing hallelujah about it... YOU SHOULDN'T BE WRITING REVIEWS!

1. DO you still get the nagging security warnings all the time?
2. If you disable the warnings, is your computer secure?
3. How robust is the search feature when you have 150 GB of data on your HDD? Windows Desktop Search is DRIVING ME NUTS so that I don't even use it anymore.
4. Does MS release 1001 updates every few weeks? And ones you do update, does it have that nagging "you must restart" popping up all the time?
5. In XP, VISTA etc.. you can tile multiple windows side by side horizontally or vertically by simple control selecting them and right clicking and hitting "tile vertically" or "tile horizontally". Can you do that in 7 or are you limited to only docking 2 windows with their easy dock feature?
6. etc. etc.

There are SO MUCH stuff you could have talked about 7 and painted a more complete picture instead of simply rolling over and purring for 7. This is hands down, one of the worst review of anything I have read in a while.

 

Personally I'll wait 2 or 3 months before buy win7.
Now I'll just read on the net / forum discussing win7 to check if it's really worth it to upgrade my XP Pro to Windows 7

 

why would you want to wait? honestly most issues people have are user errors or something they changed. the jump to Win7 is definitely the best way to go running newer hardware on Wind XP is just plain wrong.

 

Hi there. Perhaps you could contact Jay Garmon and suggest updates details to be added via PM?
And basically this review is what the changes are over Vista.

 

New hardware runs faster under XP

 

AMEN!
Thanks for posting! Sometimes I feel like I am going crazy with all these paid Win7 fanboys posting there feelings about win7, when what we all need are facts. And Fanboys are immune to facts.

 

I want to see a performance comparison between XP x64 and 7 x64.