Is it worth upgrading from vista to windows 7?

[+Warwagon MVC]

Rule of thumb "If a computer is good enough to run vista, then it will run windows 7 even better!"

[+Heartripper Subscriber¹]

thanks for the comments guys, some good info and advice

i think i may well be on my way to ordering windows 7 then, especially if it'll run better on the system i have than vista does, i am looking on amazon for the best price at the minute

32 bit or 64 bit? i've always used 32bit so wondering what's the difference and will it be as compatible with all of my current software to go 64bit or is that a whole new ball game?

I've seen you have 4gb of ram, so if you use a 32-bit 7 / vista you can use only 3GB of it. So google your CPU model so you can find out if it's 64-bit capable (the fact that it came with 32-bit vista doesn't matter, mine did too but was 64-bit capable)

[soldier1st]

If everything is working fine then stick to it or if Vista lacks something that 7 has then do a clean install.

[AJKendall]

I've seen you have 4gb of ram, so if you use a 32-bit 7 / vista you can use only 3GB of it. So google your CPU model so you can find out if it's 64-bit capable (the fact that it came with 32-bit vista doesn't matter, mine did too but was 64-bit capable)

nice! sounds good! so when you say google my cpu model as in 'Acer m5201' or the actual processor? apologies my knowledge is a tad limited :pinch:

[NEVER85]

I can't strongly enough suggest an upgrade to Windows 7, Windows Vista has been Microsoft's biggest fail since the dark days of Windows ME.

The ridiculous demands it places on the system are horrible and always cause's a good system to run badly. As I noticed someone saying earlier in the post, backup and perform a clean installation, don't go down the route of an upgrade as it always ends in avoidable problems.

Go for it, you wont regret the upgrade. :)

Vista was a marketing failure. The OS itself is fine. Too many idiots somehow still believe it's a bad OS after 4 years and 2 service packs. I find it hilarious, much like parts of your post.

"The ridiculous demands it places on the system are horrible and always causes a good system to run badly"

Uhh, you mean the same demands Windows 7 does? They have identical system requirements. Also, epic lulz @ always causes a good system to run badly. Thanks for proving you're just one of those people who hates the OS from hearsay alone.

To the OP: If Vista's running fine, save your money.

[Seizure1990]

Uhh, you mean the same demands Windows 7 does? They have identical system requirements. Also, epic lulz @ always causes a good system to run badly. Thanks for proving you're just one of those people who hates the OS from hearsay alone.

What exactly does the reported minimum hardware requirements have to do with the performance? Are you doing this on purpose?

I've seen so many occasions where running Windows 7 on a machine was considerably smoother then Vista on the same. And oh gosh, have you ever tried running a Vista install on 1GB or less? It's pretty painful. Somehow, Windows 7 manages to chug along (a bit more) gracefully.

I work at a repair shop, so if you want to disagree with me, go ahead, but I'm basing this on more then hearsay.

[NEVER85]

What exactly does the reported minimum hardware requirements have to do with the performance? Are you doing this on purpose?

I've seen so many occasions where running Windows 7 on a machine was considerably smoother then Vista on the same. And oh gosh, have you ever tried running a Vista install on 1GB or less? It's pretty painful. Somehow, Windows 7 manages to chug along (a bit more) gracefully.

I work at a repair shop, so if you want to disagree with me, go ahead, but I'm basing this on more then hearsay.

Yeah, I have, and why would you want to for either OS? Even if 7 performs somewhat better on lower end hardware (which it does), the difference is almost indistinguishable on more modern machines. I just found it hilarious when you said Vista makes a good machine run poorly, which is just an asinine statement.

[xWhiplash]

I dont know, Vista just seems bad compared to Windows 7. Maybe because I am used to the Superbar and love all the Windows 7 features like Snap and Peek. I have also found that Windows 7 boots up much faster than Vista, I do not know why.

[Seizure1990]

MS rushed Vista and did a shoddy job, ala WindowsME (though still not that bad). Windows 7 is what Vista should have been.

[NEVER85]

I dont know, Vista just seems bad compared to Windows 7. Maybe because I am used to the Superbar and love all the Windows 7 features like Snap and Peek. I have also found that Windows 7 boots up much faster than Vista, I do not know why.

Hard to argue those points. I love the Superbar and the bootup is definitely faster in 7.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I agree with the others who say at this point just wait for Windows 8. It's "scheduled" for final public release (store shelves) in less than 18 months and is suppose to have the same hardware requirements/recommendations as Windows 7.

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

It definitely is worth the upgrade. You will not believe the performance boost. Win 7 is the best OS that Microsoft has ever come out with. I have no plans to go to Windows 8 as I do not like the direction that it is taking.

[notuptome2004]

It definitely is worth the upgrade. You will not believe the performance boost. Win 7 is the best OS that Microsoft has ever come out with. I have no plans to go to Windows 8 as I do not like the direction that it is taking.

well unless you have played with it the finale version witch i doubt you have since it is not even done yet why are ya judging it for all you knwo you just may love the way the new direction works .

[PGHammer]

Yes definitely, I would recommend 64 bit Windows 7 SP1 as you have 4GB RAM, 32bit can not make use of the full 4GB

To put it simply, if I was forced to remove 7 and go back to Vista, I would turn off my PC and never turn it back on, there is THAT much of a difference IMO

As opposed to the post above, I would recommend 7 x64 even if you have less than 4 GB of RAM as long as your hardware and applications are compatible. (I crossgraded to Vista Ultimate x64 with 2 GB, and have just 3 GB today and run 7 Ultimate x64 with SP1.)

7 has far fewer driver issues than Vista (primarily due to IHVs getting their heads out of the ground and writing proper drivers), and more applications play nice with x64 builds of Windows.

Then - and now - stability FTW.

[NEVER85]

As opposed to the post above, I would recommend 7 x64 even if you have less than 4 GB of RAM as long as your hardware and applications are compatible. (I crossgraded to Vista Ultimate x64 with 2 GB, and have just 3 GB today and run 7 Ultimate x64 with SP1.)

7 has far fewer driver issues than Vista (primarily due to IHVs getting their heads out of the ground and writing proper drivers), and more applications play nice with x64 builds of Windows.

Then - and now - stability FTW.

lol wut, they share the same driver model.

[muratoner]

Upgrade from Vista to 7?.. not worth it.

It's not that Win7 is bad or anything but i don't see the point in spending another 100+$ over a very similar OS.

just wait for Win8x64.And don't listen to any Vista bashers here.Most people judge it from their experiences they had with their prehistoric PC's.

With the latest service packs Win7 and Vista are so identical.Only difference is Vista won't have IE10 or WMP12 and the taskbar.(which i prefer the classic one anyway).

If i had a machine with only 1gb ram then i would choose 7 but ram is so cheap these days i see people with 12gb.

I have 6gb ram and it's great on Vista x64.It will be great on 7 too but why waste another 100$.

[Raa]

Absolutely and without a doubt, yes.

Do it and don't look back. (Y)

[Jen Smith]

lol wut, they share the same driver model.

It's not so much the difference between Vista and 7's drivers but XP and Vista. When Vista was first released there were a bunch that weren't quite up to par, and some were just a mess at first. By the time SP1 came around it was more or less straightened out on the driver end and things were vastly improved, along with the OS itself. Windows 7 pretty much didn't have to deal with that as the hardware manufacturers already went through the growing pains.

As far as the original question goes, absolutely worth upgrading. If you're happy with your machine running Vista, you'll love 7.

[scaramonga]

well unless you have played with it the finale version witch i doubt you have since it is not even done yet why are ya judging it for all you knwo you just may love the way the new direction works .

Maybe coz some are very wary now?

Vista was a great big turd, and most in here sung it's praises until 7 came along lol ;), but we will leave that at that :)

Windows 8?, who knows?

But I'll hedge my bets, like I did with Vista back then, that this is gonna be one step too far, and is best left on the shelf next to Vista and WinME, should it be released.

Win7 is a fantastic OS, and has no need to be replaced before 2013.

So, to answer the Op's Q, no, do not upgrade, just replace ;)

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

well unless you have played with it the finale version witch i doubt you have since it is not even done yet why are ya judging it for all you knwo you just may love the way the new direction works .

I know enough about Windows 8 to know that I will never use it. I like Windows 7. I like an OS that has Chrome. If I wanted an OS that looked liker a smart phone or a Tablet , I would get one. At this point in time in Windows 7 development I saw enough of it to know that I would be using it for a very long time. I also Beta tested Vista and at this point in time during it's development I knew that it was a POC and it still is.

[NEVER85]

Absolutely and without a doubt, yes.

Do it and don't look back. (Y)

More Raa failure regarding Vista. What else is new?

[PGHammer]

lol wut, they share the same driver model.

Exactly. Yet Vista was panned (pretty much universally), while 7 has been the most successful version of Windows period.

Given that there was practically NO change to the driver model, what change there had to be from Vista to 7 was centered in two areas - software written for the operating system, and driver support.

And given that (other than games), there was little or no necessary changes as far as writing applications themselves, what's left?

[NEVER85]

Exactly. Yet Vista was panned (pretty much universally), while 7 has been the most successful version of Windows period.

Given that there was practically NO change to the driver model, what change there had to be from Vista to 7 was centered in two areas - software written for the operating system, and driver support.

And given that (other than games), there was little or no necessary changes as far as writing applications themselves, what's left?

Vista was panned for various reasons, virtually none of which apply today. Yes driver support was lacking when it was released, but that's the fault of those developing the drivers. They were too slow in releasing Vista-compatible drivers despite Microsoft telling them "this is when the OS is going to be ready". Since the driver model remained the same, those that moved to 7 from Vista experienced no problems, and those that moved from XP to 7 also had no problems because there have been Vista/7 drivers available for years. Pretty much everything that works in Vista will work in 7, and vice versa. I don't understand how so many people can't figure out that the two OS's are very similar. Vista -> 7 is akin to 2000 -> XP.

[scaramonga]

Exactly. Yet Vista was panned (pretty much universally), while 7 has been the most successful version of Windows period.

Given that there was practically NO change to the driver model, what change there had to be from Vista to 7 was centered in two areas - software written for the operating system, and driver support.

And given that (other than games), there was little or no necessary changes as far as writing applications themselves, what's left?

:laugh:

[PGHammer]

Maybe coz some are very wary now?

Vista was a great big turd, and most in here sung it's praises until 7 came along lol ;), but we will leave that at that :)

Windows 8?, who knows?

But I'll hedge my bets, like I did with Vista back then, that this is gonna be one step too far, and is best left on the shelf next to Vista and WinME, should it be released.

Win7 is a fantastic OS, and has no need to be replaced before 2013.

So, to answer the Op's Q, no, do not upgrade, just replace ;)

I sung Vista's praises (and ran it from RC1 forward as primary operating system) because it was both more stable than XP (and on hardware largely designed for XP) and more stable under load (multiple applications at once) than XP.

Windows ME, on the other hand, I absolutely loathed, refused to recommend, and avoided like the plague - instead, I crossgraded to Windows 2000 Professional (despite being more of a gamer at the time than I am now).

7 is, at best, evolutionarily improved over Vista - which makes sense, as it's still largely Vista's underpinnings. The bigger issue is that software *and* hardware developers are largely embracing 7 (where those same developers largely tried every trick in the book to avoid changes that Vista required).

However, another reason why Vista had the issues it had is the *comfortable shoe* problem among hardware and software developers. When developers get comfortable, they get sloppy. XP stayed around for *how long* between it's launch and that of Vista? Why would anyone that saw the results of that want the same amount of lag with Windows 7?