Is it worth it for Vista users to upgrade to 7?


...  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Will you upgrade to 7?

    • Yes
      178
    • No
      17
    • Not sure
      27
  2. 2. What's your experience with Vista?

    • Great
      132
    • Average
      66
    • Terrible
      19
    • Not sure
      5


Recommended Posts

Vista seems really sluggish to me, XP just seemed faster. I will upgrade to 7, I just hope people who upgrade from Vista get a discount or something.

That's unfair because the only people I know of who had problems with Windows Vista was those people whose hardware wasn't up to scratch or wasn't even average.

Been using Windows Vista 32-bit SP1 and testing Windows 7 RC x64. While 7 is faster and does offer several compelling new features, I did run into reliability problems. Things are great while it lasts, but sometimes start behaving wildly - sound stops working (and when this happens, trying to play any media in WMP hangs it), window thumbnails stop popping up reliably, problems with ClickOnce deployed applications, WinForms (at least some controls) are slower than in Vista and others. Add to that with some backwards steps including removal of tag editor and navigation of videos by artists in WMP12. Most of these problems I would attribute to lack of maturity in driver and application ecosystem around Windows 7.

That I don't have any issues with Windows Vista SP1, I can wait a few months longer before I move to Windows 7 as my primary OS. Hopefully, that extra time will be enough to roll out a few reliability updates across the drivers, applications and the core OS itself to smooth out the initial turbulence.

Will I upgrade to 7 from Vista? Already have.

Using the RC on three "production" machines and my experience has been nearly flawless. Two of those machines are running demonstrably better than they were on Vista RC1 (the third was recently built and never had Vista--I suspect that what few issues I've had on that machine with Win7 wouldn't have been far off from what Vista would have done).

Windows 7 presents a compelling upgrade proposition for a few reasons. Calum's post nicely describes the UI enhancement of the SuperBar, and I second his sentiments. It is a nice improvement and helps make Aero Glass a genuine functional step up from Aero Basic. I would agree, though, that the SuperBar isn't a good reason to upgrade on its own.

First, I expect Windows 7 to be the first client where 64-bit will be in the majority. I don't know how it's breaking out with the downloads, but I think it's a safe bet that Microsoft and OEMs have agreed to limit the number of new machines with the 32-bit version. As 64-bit support spreads, a majority of Vista users will feel some pressure to upgrade, if only for the additional RAM support. While they could upgrade to Vista x64, my guess is most of those users will just go to Win7. The vast majority of systems built in the past three years will support x64, and I know I deliberately built and bought 64-bit-compatible systems just to keep them (relatively) future-proof.

Gamers on Vista (and there many more now than there were even a year ago) will upgrade because of the new memory model for graphics that no longer maintains a duplicate of the drawn windows in RAM. This is the reason why Vista grinds to a halt with too many windows open, and Win7 dispenses with it. Of course, gamers are pathological upgraders anyway...

Hardcore geeks and power users will like the new XP Mode. The integration features in the latest beta for VirtualPC are fantastic, and point the way to a new way to maintain legacy compatibility.

I liked Vista. It represented a significant shift in Windows archetecture with new subsystems like Windows Presentation Foundation and Windows Communication Foundation. The only real problem with Vista was the way it conflicted with legacy hardware and software. In the past two years much more of the "ecosystem" has come to depend on WPF and WCF, and less dependent on legacy technology. Win7 is pretty much perfectly compatible with Vista on these counts.

I'm sure if I tried Windows 7, I would have gone with a solid "Yes", but I haven't tried it yet and I'm not as excited over it as some of you are, so as it stands, "Not sure" is my answer.

I got Vista last year and didn't see what all the fuss was about. I guess all the kinks were rolled out of Vista by then? It works very well for me... aside from the forgetful folders that can't remember my view settings.

I've been using both Vista 64 sp1 (Legal) and Win7 64 RC (dual boot) for graphics/video apps.

On my main rig (E6750/8gb), any performance differences are slight at best. Definitely,

DOES NOT justify paying for the upgrade (Vista to Win7).

However, clean installs of Win7 RC on my older 2gb WinXP machines resulted in noticeable performance increases.

To answer the threads question ... "Is it worth it for VISTA users to upgrade to 7" ....

the answer for me is no.

Obviously, your poll results will be skewed considerably by the non-paying warez crowd.

Maybe I'll upgrade to 7, my main issue isn't really Windows its the eco system surrounding it. NVIDIA drivers for example have never really been pro quality for me in Vista and nothing has changed with 7. I'm not ready to pay up for Windows 7 if NVIDIA can't even get their drivers sorted out.

It is so much worth upgrading Vista to Seven, there UI is generally the same besides some noticeable tweaks and improvements. The performance is amazingly faster, you can run Seven on a net-book without a problem, not so much with Vista.

Try to dual boot the operating system and see what you like best - yet keep what you had before Windows Seven.

I would upgrate if it was FREE, i won't pay for another windows again, i'm fine with vista sp1 and sp2 will be great.

It is free for just about a year, then Windows will turn your computer off every 2 or so hours until it annoys the living hell out of you - therefore forcing you to buy the official release disk.

Download Windows 7 from the Microsoft Download Page and then burn the disk to a DVD or boot from a Flash Drive if you know how. Try it out, you'll like it and it's completely free.

I'm going to wait until they reveal the prices. I want to upgrade but actually upgrading will depend on the cost of Windows 7. I'm currently running Windows Vista Ultimate and, as you may already know, it wasn't cheap. Also, DirectX 11 support was a big reason for me to upgrade but I found out that it's going to be available for Windows Vista as well. Aside from the various performance improvements, UI tweaks, and superbar, I really don't see any other reason to upgrade.

Windows 7 is a hands down winner compared to Vista. There's no way I would think otherwise about it now.

After dealing with a Vista laptop tonight for 4 hours (just finished) - Yeah. Bring on Win7 already!

(In comparison, I also worked on an XP computer tonight, it was done 2 hours ago.)

I love having XP around, but with Win7 having XP-M in it, I get the best of both worlds now. (Y)

*facepalm* Just because you can't use Vista properly (if Vista is really the problem for that computer, taking 4 hours to fix it is downright laughable) doesn't mean it's a bad OS. It's still far and away better of an overall OS than XP ever was. I wonder if XP mode will also introduce XP's inherent failings at malware resilience to Windows 7. Hardly something many people would want, given XP can be credited (or blamed) for introducing most of the worst malware the world has ever seen to the consumer market.

That said, as soon as this resolution glitch I have with 7 is resolved, I'll upgrade to it.

It is so much worth upgrading Vista to Seven, there UI is generally the same besides some noticeable tweaks and improvements. The performance is amazingly faster, you can run Seven on a net-book without a problem, not so much with Vista.

The performance is "amazingly faster" on lower-end hardware. I have a decent machine and the pure performance difference between Vista SP2 and 7 RC on it is negligible. In fact, my hardware seems to get throttled by Windows 7. Every fan within the case goes nuts.

I've had no problems with Vista at all. There are those rare times though, when it just seems to hang before it does something but like I previously said, Vista has been primo for me. Given that, I'm a sucker for a new OS and Windows 7 is the latest and therefore better. I'll be trying to get my hands on it.

For Vista users, there is definitely NO need to upgrade. Vista performs great and the real new features of Win7 (DirectAccess, Brachcache, Bitlocker2Go) are not available to the Home Editions of Win7 and require a Windows Server 2008 R2 server to work.

If you are a XP user throw the XP disks away and move to NT6.x in the form of Win7, Vista users could stay with Vista :)

i am going to simply because its the newest OS

i tried the beta and didnt find it much faster than my vista sp2, but i didnt use it much and didnt have much stuff installed on it

I have to agree that 7 on a dual core and 2 gigs or more of RAM will see little to no performance increase. For me the upgrade is worth it simply because of all the polish and nice touches all over the place. When using Vista now, I almost feel about it the way I did XP when using it after Vista. It just seems dated and a little ugly to look at. The cleaner look, improved start menu search results, Aero Peek, the ability to size a window to half the screen with gesture instead of jumping through hoops and the improvements in Explorer are big factors in my decision to switch at RTM.

Then again, I haven't purchased the OS for my new system and am using the RC in the mean time to get me by so i don't have to purchase Windows twice.

Edited by soonerproud
Vista SP1 is pretty high on performance. Vista is patched and performs. So why would I move to Windows 7?

I wouldn?t. Windows 7 just does not offer enough new features or any compelling reason for me to spend a hefty sum on an upgrade.

is this a serious question? YES move to 7 but don't EVER upgrade, do a fresh clean install.

Any reason why? Or are you still caught up in the Windows-7-UAC-is-unsafe nonsense?

It is not like it is hard to turn the slider up if he/she is worried about the default UAC setting. That is the first thing I do after initial installation of programs, drivers and changing the Windows setting to my taste on a new install.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!